Support NeoGAF

[pj]

Yet what are you analyzing if you draw analysis from your own personal experience, ideologies, and slyly ignoring the realities of the game.

It's exactly like college analysis papers. Yeah you have to subvert critical points against you, but you still write out that analysis and make that triangle fit through the square peg.


To me, analysis worth my time is perspectives that conform to all the facts and draw out a recurring pattern, the missteps present etc. That's the type of analysis you get on lots of postmortems. Stuff that you actually gain knowledge from and learn.

I'm not gaining some magic insight because I see some author hide behind his political ideology and slants. Even in the article, which I unfortunately skimmed over to make sure, he never makes his point clear that he's forcing an analysis from a slant etc. It's actually a review.

Taking into actual consideration that the game pushes the "right-wing perverse" ideology is actually nonsense, and the entirety of the game disproves this.

In fact, I think student analysis, including this article/review, are the epitome of surface inspection. If you experience a moment where you turn on the lights of Time Square to help citizens, I don't want to hear that we're doing it to spread the conspiracy of corporate greed.

That shit isn't in the game, so mentioning it doesn't make you clever. Deeply analyzing a surface observation is juvenile.

Wonder why none of the people praising the article have responded to this..

It seems like any criticism of the criticism is met with "oh, so i guess we shouldn't talk about games in depth at all then huh?" Kind of ironic

 

[Deleted member 126221]

Wonder why none of the people praising the article have responded to this..

It seems like any criticism of the criticism is met with "oh, so i guess we shouldn't talk about games in depth at all then huh?" Kind of ironic

What are we supposed to respond? The guy's post can be summarized by "analyzing themes in a work of fiction is stupid because there's a part of subjectivity". Okay?

 

[Narpas Sword0]

Great article. Really taps into some of the cringing I've been experiencing in my brief time with the game.

 

[Narpas Sword0]

Agreed. But it should be analysed for it's quality as a piece of entertainment, not stretching to try and assign some fairly arbitrary political or social or moral point to a piece of work that did not have that intention.

If someone seriously thinks the division was made in order to subtly subvert people's political views then fine. But that is just absolutely ridiculous.

It is akin to arguing that sonic the hedgehog was an advertisement for driving beyond the legal speed limit and not worrying about the consequences.....

Art/entertainment is a product of society, it is created by people with a worldview. They can insert that worldview without realizing it or understanding what their work is saying.

Sonic was made to be cooler and edgier than Mario. You can absolutely look at Sonic and get an idea for what some part of society was like in the 90s.

 

[ryseing]

It's worth noting that Jason Concepcion, who I quite respect, addressed this topic in The Ringer newsletter this morning (can't link because it's an email, and I'm quoting only the relevant parts).

In The Division, a well-meaning man with a gun — and the more guns the better — is the most trustworthy form of authority. It’s the game for a post-Trump America.

...Forget rebuilding society or getting the electricity back on — The Division is about the thrill of taking other people’s stuff at gunpoint, and the fear that they want to do the same to you.

The game is fun if you don’t think too deeply about what it means.

I can respect this opinion because it acknowledges a problem with the dissonance of the game but doesn't read an entire narrative into it.

I did not know about the "The Order is 2deep4u" thing, but after your mention, it doesnt even surprise me.

I guess Kill Screen is "2deep4me", so I will avoid their pretentious "analysis" for good...

Prepare to be amazed at one of the dumbest things I have ever read on the Internet.

 

[Lo_Fi]

you're free to do that. but why do you want people to stop talking about games?

This. Dragonfart, do you burst into book clubs as well, screaming "Animal Farm is purely about animals, stop analyzing it!"

You're free to enjoy things on a surface level while others can dive deep into analysis if they want. Why are critical analyses threatening to you?

 

[firehawk12]

It's worth noting that Jason Concepcion, who I quite respect, addressed this topic in The Ringer newsletter this morning (can't link because it's an email, and I'm quoting only the relevant parts).

I can respect this opinion because it acknowledges a problem with the dissonance of the game but doesn't read an entire narrative into it.

Prepare to be amazed at one of the dumbest things I have ever read on the Internet.

Literally the first mission is finding a doctor and the second mission is getting the power back on, so...

 

[Chronospherics]

This article made me really curious about the game, and the political slant that it may (or may not be pushing), so I bought it yesterday in response to reading this.

Thus far I've been disappointed. Nothing featured in the article actually seems to happen, for instance, the article says you kill people who are rummaging through bins, but neglects to note that the people you kill are hostile. They will shoot before being shot if you go anywhere near them. That appears with all of the PMCs, the article depicts the division as the hand of authoritarian rule that's sprung up during moments of crisis, but nothing I've done in The Division thus far demonstrates any abuse of power. I guess the fact that the game doesn't let you shoot anyone that isn't hostile, could be construed as an idealised representation of the material used for inspiration on the game, but a more plausible answer is that you can't shoot random civilians because it doesn't make sense within the games narrative, and it would be much more effort to make the game respondent to those kind of negative behaviours.

Either way, I'm not enjoying the game. While I'm finding the experience palatable, it's little more than that. Little of the game is poorly designed, but none of it is innovative, or even interesting.

 

[Breakage]

Good read.

 

[SimpleCRIPPLE]

It's a Tom Clancy joint after all, right wing nuttery is his speciality.

Great article btw, thanks for pointing it out.

Clancy sold his name to Ubisoft in 2008 and died in 2013.

Any right wing nuttery as you put it by this point would not be his.

 

[Orochinagis]

You dont really have an option to convince them to stop being hostileor give them resources to calm them or a surrender option to spare their live, you just simply kill them and continue fighting even if you kill the boss the mission itselft tells you to secure the area by killing the remaining enemies.

If you look closely there are no cells in your Main base, neither the militia are arresting them.

I find the Rioters tactics to go stupid charging towards you without any strat pretty hilarating because of their ethnic

 

[Kalentan]

If you look closely there are no cells in your Main base, neither the militia are arresting them.

I find the Rioters tactics to go stupid charging towards you without any strat pretty hilarating because of their ethnic

First, your base is a Post Office and not a jail, secondaly, you never see the basement of the Post Office.

Also the Rioters aren't all black.

I feel like 90% of the people who agree with the article haven't played the game.

 

[FreezerGeezer]

While I do not entirely disagree with the article, I cannot say I noticed it or gave it a second thought while playing. Too busy hunting loot and getting shotgunned in the back of the head.

Still, an interesting read. I think people try to find drama and problems with everything though, can look comical.

 

[Chronospherics]

You dont really have an option to convince them to stop being hostileor give them resources to calm them or a surrender option to spare their live, you just simply kill them and continue fighting even if you kill the boss the mission itselft tells you to secure the area by killing the remaining enemies.

If you look closely there are no cells in your Main base, neither the militia are arresting them.

I find the Rioters tactics to go stupid charging towards you without any strat pretty hilarating because of their ethnic

Well no, of course they don't, because this is a video game which has been clearly built around its core gameplay (as a third person shooter), only second to its looting and RPG systems. Even in games like TLOU, you cannot negotiate with the hostiles.

In video games, it's also a matter of what the game objectives are, what it's trying to advertise itself as and how it wants to affect the player. If Joel (from TLOU) would talk and negotiate with miscellaneous hostile, TLOU probably wouldn't have the same pacing and tone as it does now.

It's also interesting that you find the Rioter hilarious because their tactics are 'stupid' and they are 'ethnic'. They also happen to be citizens of new york, which as far as I'm aware, is a very multicultural city. It would be odd if they weren't 'ethnic'.

Either way, The Division's AI is atrocious all round. Each and every one of them are simple state machines which only appear toggle between 2-4 states, so what do you expect? The cleaners wear explosive canisters on their back, none of these factions demonstrate a great deal of intelligence.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

Personally I feel that this has been a problem for a larger amount of time already in many games, and also why I thought this particular game looked very boring too.