Support NeoGAF

[Onemic]

Giant Bomb pretty much alluded to this, however nowhere near as detailed.

Most people who play the game wont really notice anything, but once you actually focus on the world and what youre actually doing, then it becomes apparent that it's pretty fucked up. It's a MP game though, so 99% of people really wont take the time to analyze shit.(including me)

 

[Vice]

Was known for, he's been dead for 2 years.

My bad, I I assumed he was alive since I still see his name on new books every few months.

 

[Lord of Ostia]

Right, so... that all seems to validate exactly what the article is saying. The issue here isn't that people are looting, but that the groups portrayed as "the bad guys" are so ridiculously stereotyped. ESPECIALLY damning is your second paragraph, which seems to suggest your agent sees a group looting and either thinks "It's okay, they're friendly looking people looting to get by. I should let them live." Or alternatively "Woah, those are black dudes in hoodies looting this store! Definitely going to have to kill them!" In other words there's no variance in lifestyle and morals among class types. Your character is literally told by the game who the bad guys are depending on their societal class and dress code, and those societal classes and dress codes are exaggerated to the extreme. Presumably for the benefit of snap-decision gameplay, but that's not much of an excuse.

Here's the thing though. I haven't played The Division outside of the beta. I HAVE played another game that used ludicrous levels of snap-decision "no thinking allowed! Shoot the bad guys! Even if it doesn't make sense just murder them all without thinking!" And that game ended up handling the whole situation incredibly well. Any indication that the Division is taking the same route and deliberately trying to get players to question their actions and the moral code and motivations of their characters?

What are you on about? None of the groups in the game are racially characterized, the game is not about 'shooting black guys'. The game is not a complex social commentary, nor do I think it is making a political statement. I was simply talking about how the article is misrepresenting the missions in the game and the context for them. The fact that you haven't played the game is evidence enough that you don't know what you are talking about. You cannot make a judgement of something you have no knowledge of.

 

[Gutek]

All you "ITS TOM CLANCY WEHAT DO YOU EXPECT?" people realize this game was not written by Tom Clancy as he is dead?

 

[Zyae]

Wasn't familiar with Killscreen's articles, but the one in the OP made me add the site to my feed. I dig it when pieces try to go in-depth with games this way and I wish people wouldn't be so dismissive about it, regardless if they agree with the premise or not.

"I wish people would stop disagreeing with the article and myself

 

[AuthenticM]

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.

The game doesn't need to "have been made" for the article's points to be valid. Intent doesn't matter.

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.....

No, it's not, because there is nothing in the Sonic games that supports such an interpretation.

"I wish people would stop disagreeing with the article and myself

That's not at all what he said.

 

[staticneuron]

How does the existence of the LMB faction make the game immune to the criticism that it criminalizes the poor as part of a lazy design choice?

Because it has been repeated by many people including myself that these factions aren't defined by their social economic status but by their actions. The rioters, rikers and cleaners are murderers. They are killing innocent people. You don't even have to do anything you can actually watch their behavior from afar. Some people you might get to save, some.... well.. they die before you can save them. If killing poor people or looters were true then you would be shooting all the people breaking into cars or grabbing stuff from buildings. You do not.

 

[Shane]

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.

Everything has a social or moral point whether it is trying to enforce it on someone. Everything comes from a decision, and the decision will have been subconsciously influenced from that person/group's social/moral standing. That's what we all do all day. And opening up a discussion on it is fine. For The Division, it used a very close to the bone real world situation and setting and then applied some lazy design choices which could be conceived to use negative stereotypes.

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.

I don't think anyone believes that. The article - and the following discussion - is about whether it reinforces negative tropes/stereotypes and whether that should be acceptable.

I've found videogames morally repugnant in the past. The Division isn't one of them. But I do fully believe if it had handled elements raised in the article better it would have only been a good thing.

When I first started the game I was really blown away by the world building. That then had the effect of making me uneasy when shooting hoodied people in the street to then loot what they were looting.

The Cleaners are pure exploitation fodder and they're fun, on the other hand.

 

[Zyae]

Right, so... that all seems to validate exactly what the article is saying. The issue here isn't that people are looting, but that the groups portrayed as "the bad guys" are so ridiculously stereotyped. ESPECIALLY damning is your second paragraph, which seems to suggest your agent sees a group looting and either thinks "It's okay, they're friendly looking people looting to get by. I should let them live." Or alternatively "Woah, those are black dudes in hoodies looting this store! Definitely going to have to kill them!" In other words there's no variance in lifestyle and morals among class types. Your character is literally told by the game who the bad guys are depending on their societal class and dress code, and those societal classes and dress codes are exaggerated to the extreme. Presumably for the benefit of snap-decision gameplay, but that's not much of an excuse.

Here's the thing though. I haven't played The Division outside of the beta. I HAVE played another game that used ludicrous levels of snap-decision "no thinking allowed! Shoot the bad guys! Even if it doesn't make sense just murder them all without thinking!" And that game ended up handling the whole situation incredibly well. Any indication that the Division is taking the same route and deliberately trying to get players to question their actions and the moral code and motivations of their characters?

The division is a co op loot game with a lackluster forgettable story that takes a waay wayy waaaaaaaaay backseat to the gameplay. This is such an overreaction. Its a loot game.

 

[staticneuron]

Am I wrong that majority of the game's content and missions are centered around the 4 groups? Did you feel that agents going bad had way more potent impact on the typical gameplay than what I described? The majority of gameplay in my eyes involves roaming NYC, DZ and missions that involve encounters with the 4 groups. The rogue npc agents portion of the gameplay (regardless of story impact) is so minor in comparison. Do you agree?

Yes, I just described why in spoiler.

Spoiler

The actions of the LMB are basically guided by the First wave. Even in some of the missions you have fighting the LMB you come into battle with First Wave agents.

How can you beat the game and not know this? Did you plug your ears and hum during the dialog for the most part of the last faction?

 

[Fuu]

"I wish people would stop disagreeing with the article and myself

I thought my post was clear in that I'm not talking about those who disagree with the premise of the piece and are making points about it – the discussion is part of what's interesting about this kind of article.

I'm talking about people who imply that these articles shouldn't even be written at all, because "videogames lol" or because it's just "a shooty game". A lot are being banned in this thread for being outright dismissive too, so I'm not the only one who feels this way.

 

[valkyre]

The division is a co op loot game with a lackluster forgettable story that takes a waay wayy waaaaaaaaay backseat to the gameplay. This is such an overreaction. Its a loot game.

Flashy words and philosophical/political/cultural ranting always screams quality man, you should know that.

Nevermind the fact the author never finished the game, but who cares, lets throw some subversion discussion material in there and we are golden...

 

[Shane]

Because it has been repeated by many people including myself that these factions aren't defined by their social economic status but by their actions. The rioters, rikers and cleaners are murderers. They are killing innocent people. You don't even have to do anything you can actually watch their behavior from afar. Some people you might get to save, some.... well.. they die before you can save them. If killing poor people or looters were true then you would be shooting all the people breaking into cars or grabbing stuff from buildings. You do not.

It's not their actions, but how they are visually represented. And this does suggest an economic status - to me - for that initial group. The others I don't. I find no connect to The Cleaners and a social strata. But I found it an interesting point of view.

I've also seen people outside cars that aren't looters but never actually seen any break in. Same with looting. I've seen "innocent" people in stores and shops but don't actually see them physically loot.
I don't recall seeing an "innocent" commit breaking in/looting. Only a suggestion that they might be considering it. Also, "innocents" are dressed smarter. Which suggests an social element. The design was clearly made to separate the two and allow the player to identify who to shoot quicker. It's just I wish they'd thought about it more.

 

[Lord of Ostia]

Because it has been repeated by many people including myself that these factions aren't defined by their social economic status but by their actions. The rioters, rikers and cleaners are murderers. They are killing innocent people. You don't even have to do anything you can actually watch their behavior from afar. Some people you might get to save, some.... well.. they die before you can save them. If killing poor people or looters were true then you would be shooting all the people breaking into cars or grabbing stuff from buildings. You do not.

This is completely correct. The rioters are not stated to be poor. In fact, listening to the audiologs, they come from a variety of backgrounds. They are united by a desire to take advantage of others and rule over the remaining civilians through fear. The other groups are the same way (Cleaners, LMB) except for the Rikers. The Rikers, however, are made up of only the most violent criminals who are motivated purely by bloodlust. Their interests are to rape, torture, and murder exclusively. The game points out through radio broadcasts that the Rikers are dangerous because they are all violent criminals; the drug offenders, petty thieves, etc aren't part of their group. All of the groups in the game are characterized purely by their actions. The only difference between the normal civilians and the rioters is that the rioters decided to kill and rob others rather than work with other civilians or the authorities. It's honestly very simple.

 

[cartographer]

All you "ITS TOM CLANCY WEHAT DO YOU EXPECT?" people realize this game was not written by Tom Clancy as he is dead?

The brand is based on the work of the man, and the brand is consistent.

 

[Darkstorne]

What are you on about? None of the groups in the game are racially characterized, the game is not about 'shooting black guys'. The game is not a complex social commentary, nor do I think it is making a political statement. I was simply talking about how the article is misrepresenting the missions in the game and the context for them. The fact that you haven't played the game is evidence enough that you don't know what you are talking about. You cannot make a judgement of something you have no knowledge of.

The fact I haven't played the game beyond the beta is why I'm asking these questions regarding the game and the article. I'm not making any judgement. The comment you made trying to defend the game definitely only helped the article's point though:

If, like you say, both the "good guys" and the "bad guys" (as determined by the game) both regularly loot in the city, and if the "bad guys" are dressed to fit social and class stereotyping as the article suggests (presumably as a poorly thought-through method of allowing the player to distinguish between friend and foe at a glance), then the article levies some very valid criticism at the game design.

Is the article wrong about the stereotyping by class and clothing? Or are you saying you were wrong about looting being a city-wide occurrence and how your character only punishes the hoodie and janitor types for looting, while letting the friendly-looking people get away with it?

 

[Gutek]

The brand is based on the work of the man, and the brand is consistent.

The brand is only consistent in one thing: Ubisoft will throw it on everything they remotely can.

 

[mocolostrocolos]

Except, the game addresses the issue by having one of characters call out the Division for the mockery it makes of Democracy in the best dialogue of the game ... then it shows what happens when agents with no control go bad.

So, I think it's political, but I don't feel it'd pushing an agenda.

Yup.

The game itself provides another point of view of the situation. It's very critical with the "empowerment" of The Division.

 

[Lord of Ostia]

The fact I haven't played the game beyond the beta is why I'm asking these questions regarding the game and the article. I'm not making any judgement. The comment you made trying to defend the game definitely only helped the article's point though:

If, like you say, both the "good guys" and the "bad guys" (as determined by the game) both regularly loot in the city, and if the "bad guys" are dressed to fit social and class stereotyping as the article suggests (presumably as an poorly thought-through method of allowing the player to distinguish between friend and foe at a glance), then the article levies some very valid criticism at the game design.

Is the article wrong about the stereotyping by class and clothing? Or are you saying you were wrong about looting being a city-wide occurrence and how your character only punishes the hoodie and janitor types for looting, while letting the friendly-looking people get away with it?

The rioters are dressed like everyone else. They look the same as any civilian you come across, and any division agent without their more advanced gear. The difference between a rioter and a civilian is that a rioter is openly carrying weapons, will shoot you on sight, and is almost always engaged in the mugging or murder of innocent civilians. The rioters are a wide variety of ethnicities, though I would say they are predominantly white, like most of the enemy groups in the game (this was probably done to avoid controversy; your allies are much more diverse than your enemies). So to answer your question, no they are not portrayed as obviously poor or obviously lower class, they are portrayed as predatory and violent.

 

[TylerDurden4321]

Yup.

The game itself provides another point of view of the situation. It's very critical with the "empowerment" of The Division.

.

It's like a guy writing how fascist "Starship Troopers" is. Man... *head shaking in despair*

 

[staticneuron]

It's not their actions, but how they are visually represented. And this does suggest an economic status - to me - for that initial group. The others I don't. I find no connect to The Cleaners and a social strata. But I found it an interesting point of view.

I've also seen people outside cars that aren't looters but never actually seen any break in. Same with looting. I've seen "innocent" people in stores and shops but don't actually see them physically loot.
I don't recall seeing an "innocent" commit breaking in/looting. Only a suggestion that they might be considering it. Also, "innocents" are dressed smarter. Which suggests an social element. The design was clearly made to separate the two and allow the player to identify who to shoot quicker. It's just I wish they'd thought about it more.

Technically you don't see the bad guys do this either. They are either sticking people up or shooting at you and mercy drops. And I am not sure how you can say "smarter". The only thing that makes em unique is the face masks which are normally red and the fact their hoodies are up to obscure most of their features. Other than that other people on the street wear the same type of clothing, pants, jeans, shirts, jackets. And before you say hoodies are a sign of criminal element I would like to point out that you as a division agent start off the game wearing a hoodie.

 

[Shane]

The rioters are dressed like everyone else. They look the same as any civilian you come across, and any division agent without their more advanced gear.

I disagree with that first part. The "rioters" and "innocents" are definitely dressed differently. Intentionally so as to enable the player to visually distinguish them.

Technically you don't see the bad guys do this either. They are either sticking people up or shooting at you and mercy drops. And I am not sure how you can say "smarter". The only thing that makes em unique is the face masks which are normally red and the fact their hoodies are up to obscure most of their features. Other than that other people on the street wear the same type of clothing, pants, jeans, shirts, jackets. And before you say hoodies are a sign of criminal element I would like to point out that you as a division agent start off the game wearing a hoodie.

As above. I see them as being very different aesthetically. I never mix the two. If I turn the corner I can immediately separate the two groups. I mean, from a game design point of view they have to be. And that's the point - I don't believe it is intentionally malicious at all. It was a design choice that wasn't considered enough.

 

[AuthenticM]

AuthenticM, Robert Rath also wrote this which is a nice compliment to the Killscreen article:







http://www.zam.com/article/237/the-division-is-a-terrible-tom-clancy-game

I missed this before. Thanks!

 

[pineapplepizza]

Yes, I just described why in spoiler.

Spoiler

The actions of the LMB are basically guided by the First wave. Even in some of the missions you have fighting the LMB you come into battle with First Wave agents.

How can you beat the game and not know this? Did you plug your ears and hum during the dialog for the most part of the last faction?

Huh, yes you encounter a few agents but majority of the game involves roaming NYC, DZ and missions encountering baddies from the 4 groups - not rogue agents. So to make sure we're discussing the same point. You are saying that you encounter rogue agent enemies as often as other enemies from the other 4 groups throughout typical gameplay? Another way of putting, I'm saying if rogue agent npcs weren't a part of the game it wouldn't make a difference to me at all, it's so minor. If you took out one of the other 4 groups the game would lose a lot of content.

 

[xRaizen]

The brand is only consistent in one thing: Ubisoft will throw it on everything they remotely can.

They throw it onto games that fit the brand. Which is: Tactical/Stealth/Action/Strategy games with a very heavy focus on realism (to an extent) and militaristic characters. Other than a few gadgets here and there in some games, they're very grounded in reality.

So no, they haven't thrown it on everything they can.

Oh and Tom Clancy also approved of this game when he saw the reveal not too long before he died.

 

[Darkstorne]

The rioters are dressed like everyone else. They look the same as any civilian you come across, and any division agent without their more advanced gear.

Interesting. So that seems to be the sticking point here - whether you think they look different or not. A lot of people (including the article author) seem to think they do. It would make sense for them to look different from a game design standpoint, but then raises the issues the article has. I didn't play enough of the beta to really get a feel for it, but I do remember being surprised when random people in the street started shooting at me when I first started the game, and I was suspicious of absolutely everyone I saw outside from that point on. I literally only played for a couple of hours though.

 

[SoapNickTavish]

The game points out through radio broadcasts that the Rikers are dangerous because they are all violent criminals; the drug offenders, petty thieves, etc aren't part of their group. All of the groups in the game are characterized purely by their actions. The only difference between the normal civilians and the rioters is that the rioters decided to kill and rob others rather than work with other civilians or the authorities. It's honestly very simple.

Totally forgot to mention that. The Rikers are the convicted killers, rapists, and sociopaths. I forgot what character mentions it, might be the head security guy or a recording you pick up, but basically all the petty thieves and minor offenders were just happy to be released. They tried to find a quiet place somewhere in the chaos and get away from the Rikers.

So no, sorry, you're not killing drug offenders and the underprivileged that committed minor crimes due to their socioeconomic positions.

 

[fabricated backlash]

.

It's like a guy writing how fascist "Starship Troopers" is. Man... *head shaking in despair*

Lol, none of the Tom Clancy games are even remotely close to being critical of the subject matter they're portraying, if anything it always comes down to, "well shit sucks but freedom demands us becoming torturers, killers and war criminals" Also, do you mean Starship Troopers the movie or the book it's based on?

The closest the brand got to be actually self aware was with Chaos Theory, but has gotten full time back to military wank material by Blacklist.

 

[staticneuron]

I disagree with that first part. The "rioters" and "innocents" are definitely dressed differently. Intentionally so as to enable the player to visually distinguish them.



As above. I see them as being very different aesthetically. I never mix the two. If I turn the corner I can immediately separate the two groups. I mean, from a game design point of view they have to be. And that's the point - I don't believe it is intentionally malicious at all. It was a design choice that wasn't considered enough.

Again the clothes are similar the only difference is that rioters have hoodies up and wear distinctive red face masks

Example image:

Even in the game, people are wearing jean shirts regular clothes and so are the rioters. To be honest most of the factions have their face obscured and the rikers are wearing jumpsuits so it doesn't matter. All this aside you don't shoot people in the game based off of how they look but how they behave. If you are content with trying to judge someone based off of how they dress then this isn't an issue with the game. This your own personal perception issue.

Huh, yes you encounter a few agents but majority of the game involves roaming NYC, DZ and missions encountering baddies from the 4 groups - not rogue agents. So to make sure we're discussing the same point. You are saying that you encounter rogue agent enemies as often as other enemies from the other 4 groups throughout typical gameplay? Another way of putting, I'm saying if rogue agent npcs weren't a part of the game it wouldn't make a difference to me at all, it's so minor. If you took out one of the other 4 groups the game would lose a lot of content.

We were talking about story, and since this something you seemingly ignored it seems as if you aren't getting it. You are trying to say that they aren't there or important from a story point of view. I am pointing out to you the actions that happen from the start of the game and the MISSIONS for the LMB (basically all of them) are because of things the first wave sets in motion. So again they are important story wize but since you were not paying attention to story you seemingly would not know that.

 

[Lord of Ostia]

Interesting. So that seems to be the sticking point here - whether you think they look different or not. A lot of people (including the article author) seem to think they do. It would make sense for them to look different from a game design standpoint, but then raises the issues the article has. I didn't play enough of the beta to really get a feel for it, but I do remember being surprised when random people in the street started shooting at me when I first started the game, and I was suspicious of absolutely everyone I saw outside from that point on. I literally only played for a couple of hours though.

There are a few key visual differences, for example they have their hoods up or wear masks, but otherwise they look the same as a normal civilian, so much so that at the beginning of the game it is hard to distinguish between the two until they start shooting at you. My point is simply that the rioters are considered 'bad' because you constantly find them murdering and robbing people at gunpoint, not because they are looting from the environment. Literally everyone loots from the environment, the enemies, the innocent civilians, and the player. The player is never out to 'stop people from looting', they are out to 'stop people from killing one another and maintain order'. It's pretty cut and dry.

 

[TylerDurden4321]

Lol, none of the Tom Clancy games are even remotely close to being critical of the subject matter they're portraying, if anything it always comes down to, "well shit sucks but freedom demands us becoming torturers, killers and war criminals".

Well, if it were comedy over-the-top a lot less people would buy it. It adresses the issue a little and shows that it's not buying into its own (edit " The Divisions' ") BS but stays neutral. I exaggerated a little... admittedly.
But good on calling me out on the difference in self-awereness between movie and book.

 

[kayos90]

That's a fantastic article and stuff like this is honestly what makes me really like KS. Trying to interpret something unique from a piece of work and review/critique it with a certain rhetorical perspective in mind. Thanks for sharing.

 

[maquiladora]

The brand is based on the work of the man, and the brand is consistent.

The Division is based on nothing Clancy ever wrote. Ubisoft owns the rights to "Tom Clancy's..." and they can slap it in front of a basketball title if they like. There is no obligation on Ubisoft's behalf to create content that would have been sympathetic to a dead author's political views. It's just a brand name, nothing more.

 

[Shane]

If you are content with trying to judge someone based off of how they dress then this isn't an issue with the game. This your own personal perception issue.

Great, that old chestnut.

Was enjoying the discussion but I'm done now.

 

[staticneuron]

Great, that old chestnut.

Was enjoying the discussion but I'm done now.

I am sorry if I offend. That was not my intent.

 

[Rymuth]

Article resonates with me because of a mission where you have to gun down 'rioters' who were trying to flee the city. I definitely would've attempted something similar were I in their shoes.

 

[PtM]

Since minority representation is being mentioned, I saw this great article by professor Kishonna Gray on "The Black Woman as Villain in The Division: Examining the Investment in the White Savior Industrial Complex"

AuthenticM, Robert Rath also wrote this which is a nice compliment to the Killscreen article

Thanks for these and also the OP!

 

[pineapplepizza]

We were talking about story, and since this something you seemingly ignored it seems as if you aren't getting it. You are trying to say that they aren't there or important from a story point of view. I am pointing out to you the actions that happen from the start of the game and the MISSIONS for the LMB (basically all of them) are because of things the first wave sets in motion. So again they are important story wize but since you were not paying attention to story you seemingly would not know that.

I'm giving my opinion that the rogue agent npcs story is so minimal in contrast to what typical gameplay involves. Again I'll repeat, majority of the game involves killing baddies in DZ for loot, roaming NYC, looting and shooting in missions that involve the 4 groups in the game. Again my point is that lore wise it is 100% irrelevant to the typical gameplay you face. Shit the actual story and hidden echo/recording lore could be that bugs bunny and tweety bird are the masterminds behind the virus. It wouldn't even matter! When you fight NPCs you are 99% fighting people from the 4 groups. The rogue agents make up so little of the game (not counting other players). You are more interested in trying to point out my lack of knowledge of the story instead of specifically speaking to my point that the rogue agents story is weak and inconsequential to majority of gameplay.

The original post I responded to mentioned that the article didn't talk about the story with agents going rogue (which was a critique on the political views and corruption of the division). This is as though some small story blurbs clear up what makes up 99% of gameplay! It does not. "We were talking about story" means you're not following my arguments as I understand.

 

[Inuhanyou]

While it is concerning, if you think about it, ubisoft are only following what America uncomfortably slides toward really. Neoliberalism and Unilateral black and white morality is evident in most pro war military games without much real thought towards it besides maybe at best games like Spec Ops.

Not to mention, in the real political world, most politicians elected on both sides of the isle in the US are largely pro war, pro corperate, pro authoritarian neoliberals who proclaim that is the 'captialist dream' America embodies, that goes for both of the candidates winning the US elections of both parties at this point in time as well.

From where i'm standing, Ubisoft is just trumpeting the same garbage fed to the US public at large anyway on the basis that its what they want. Yeah it needs to stop, but it won't anytime soon.

 

[Lo_Fi]

This is what happens when you have an entire medium in denial about how it tells stories. 99% of games insist to the player that the story and gameplay are separate things ("Here's a cutscene! This is story. Now here's gameplay, not story!") And that story only happens when you see or hear words. So frustrating seeing responses dismissing gameplay aspects as "just gameplay". Mechanics, systems, art, every single aspect of a game communicates something, whether the author intended it or not.

 

[AlimNassor]

I'm poorly saying that if anyone wants to analyze morality or apply any sense of realism to this game the only winning move is to not play it all. Otherwise I'm facetiously saying turn your brain off and pull the trigger! Consume, fuck, kill and pick up purplez and yellow drops! The Division needs Trump to make New York great again!

Basically don't play anything at all. The game isn't a story heavy game, it's just a generic tom clancy MMO. Again, you're claiming it wrong to just play a game that is solely just a game.

 

[Andrew J.]

...it's kinda weird how so many people are taking what this dude's words like it's gospel

The author didnt play the game for long man... he "forgot" to mention the LMB faction, that pretty much throws all of his pretentious philosophical bullshit about "criminalizing the poor" as well as the racial stuff, to the drain.

Hey, bish endorsed it, and that's good enough for me.

 

[Orayn]

I like the game, but the article is dead on. The Division is uncomfortably close to a lot of creepy right wing fantasies where "those" people get what's coming to them and all-American heroes with guns set things right again.

 

[pineapplepizza]

Basically don't play anything at all. The game isn't a story heavy game, it's just a generic tom clancy MMO. Again, you're claiming it wrong to just play a game that is solely just a game.

No I'm not saying it's wrong to play a game

 

[LordRaptor]

This is what happens when you have an entire medium in denial about how it tells stories. 99% of games insist to the player that the story and gameplay are separate things ("Here's a cutscene! This is story. Now here's gameplay, not story!") And that story only happens when you see or hear words. So frustrating seeing responses dismissing gameplay aspects as "just gameplay". Mechanics, systems, art, every single aspect of a game communicates something, whether the author intended it or not.

I agree with this viewpoint and wish people would be less defensive about opening games up to actual critical examination.

 

[Velkyn]

I think this discussion is super important, and I'm glad Kill Screen has provoked discussion on the issue, but I find some things problematic about some of the claims in the review.

I'm not at level cap, but so far, I feel like Directive 51 is treated with the opposite of "reverence". People in the street treat you with disgust. The Cleaners yell about federal government interference. The pirate radio host is LIVID that this sort of thing is happening on American soil. The Dark Zone is a huge whitewash and cover up. If anything the game treats Division agents as a necessary evil. The military and reservists are all dead. The JTF is made up of cops and first responders and are in way over their heads. And that's why they pushed the button. As for the assertion that the game is referring to "property" as what the player is protecting - that simply isn't the case. What stands out to me on one of my many trips walking around the gameworld: coming across two rioter enemies beating a man using a baseball bat. Rioters are also demonstrated engaging in things like human trafficking; they aren't just trying to score food or a new TV, they're criminal scumbags hurting people. The "civilians" are the ones that are surviving, and they're treated as friendlies. "Rioters" are going out of their way to kill and maim.

Watch some echoes. There's one early on where a "rioter" shoots an unarmed JTF member unloading a food truck to give people rations. They aren't interested in distributing the food fairly, they're interested in lording it over people's heads, in using it as leverage. There's a phone conversation where someone working a CERA clinic is brutally murdered for doing her job.

I think reading it as a right-wing power fantasy speaks more about the author than it does about Ubi Massive. The factions, to me, represent the fears of Canadian and American society: the rioters and rikers are our fear of the collapse of order, the cleaners are our fear of the hard right and their obsession with "taking matters into their own hands", and LMB and Division our fear of organized military groups abusing their power.

The Times Square mission is absolutely not about turning on the ads in Times Square; they state pretty plainly that you're rebooting the power in that area because of the risk of a power surge that can make the entire grid unusable.

I've absolutely no problem with this sort of article, but I feel the need to point out revisions and inaccuracies that seem tailor made to fit the author's argument, which I find problematic if shared with people who have no knowledge of the game. It's very easy to read this and get sucked into the argument if you take everything at face value.

 

[Clockwork5]

Yeah I would take issue with killing looters who mostly seem to be minding their own business but they will kill me if they see me so they need to die.

 

[T.O.P]

I've absolutely no problem with this sort of article, but I feel the need to point out revisions and inaccuracies that seem tailor made to fit the author's argument, which I find problematic if shared with people who have no knowledge of the game. It's very easy to read this and get sucked into the argument if you take everything at face value.

Exactly

 

[mcrommert]

Even in the game, people are wearing jean shirts regular clothes and so are the rioters. To be honest most of the factions have their face obscured and the rikers are wearing jumpsuits so it doesn't matter. All this aside you don't shoot people in the game based off of how they look but how they behave. If you are content with trying to judge someone based off of how they dress then this isn't an issue with the game. This your own personal perception issue.

I honestly shoot people based off if my reticle turns red when i point my gun at them

 

[JaggedSac]

I don't recall seeing an "innocent" commit breaking in/looting. Only a suggestion that they might be considering it. Also, "innocents" are dressed smarter. Which suggests an social element. The design was clearly made to separate the two and allow the player to identify who to shoot quicker. It's just I wish they'd thought about it more.

Dressed "smarter"? What are you trying to say?