The Division 2 Beta |OT| Feb 7-11

Jul 5, 2014
3,149
175
325
#53
Are there proper classes/skill trees this time around? Can we form groups with select roles?
Skill tree is a bit more involved this time around, but it's still RPG-lite at best.

As for roles, it seems like it'll be similar to the last game.

I do like how you can send your healer drone between teammates.

Which platform are you on (I'm guessing xbox based on your name)? I thought audio mix was by far one of the weakest things shown in the PC demo. Just completely off when it comes to 3d positioning and volume balance of individual effects.
The positional audio in the first game was pretty bad. It was one of my biggest gripes.

This sounds better as far as I can tell. I do think the guns sound good, but overall not great and it can be unclear at times.
 
Likes: JareBear
Jun 13, 2014
3,947
862
345
USA
#55
The gunplay is definitely a full iteration above what they had in Division 1. Haven't tried Conflict yet but I'm wondering if this solved what made PvP sometimes awkward before.

My only misgiving is that, if you've played a lot of TD1, the early content is not particularly compelling, in part because so much is gatelocked behind progression and finishing the first couple activities. I want to see how the gameplay loop comes together once you have a real build and you're free to bounce between activities at whim and you're really on the lookout for gear and upgrades. Perhaps the "endgame first" design mentality undercut making a better opening narrative to pull players in.

I disagree with the art design not being engaging. I think Massive successfully recaptured the feeling of being in a metropolis built to scale, with the addition of vegetation and hills making for a more interesting space. The night time ambience is really cool, and everything starts getting really dark and rugged as you get closer to the Dark Zone checkpoint. It felt like the gradual descent of TD1's Survival mode.

I think the game looks great on PC once you mess with some of the settings. It looks like I'm usually in the 70-80 fps range at 1440p so I'm really happy with performance, but would like to go deeper once some tweak guides come out.
 
Sep 17, 2005
2,431
267
1,175
#61
I'm very confused with the comments about the game being the same as Division 1. What are we expecting out of sequels these days? Did you expect them to totally change the basics of the game? Anyone that says this should have been DLC does not understand how games work.
Yeah I don't get the comments I've seen like that myself. I mean look at what happened to Destiny 2 going a big walk away from what made it good...how did that turn out? I loved the Division, and two looks like the Division with more stuff to do plus whatever comes later, it's what Destiny 2 should have been.
 
Likes: Phobia
Jul 21, 2018
72
67
170
#63
It also seems like its the ones who played at launch, beat everything and then never played again after a month or two, before all of the updates to the game. Can't blame them though, not everyone likes to run the same content over and over like us and Destiny fans, haha.
 
Likes: SkinnerSw33t

Woo-Fu

incest on the subway
Jan 2, 2007
13,357
382
1,120
#64
I'm very confused with the comments about the game being the same as Division 1. What are we expecting out of sequels these days? Did you expect them to totally change the basics of the game? Anyone that says this should have been DLC does not understand how games work.
People expect some evolution if you're going to put out the next game instead of just an expansion pack.
 
Last edited:
Jul 21, 2018
72
67
170
#65
It did evolve. Its a brand new huge map with 3 different Darkzones that each give a different experience. No more spongy enemies. And probably more that I haven't even got to yet. It's absolutely ridiculous to say this could have just been an expansion pack.
 
Jan 16, 2014
43
2
240
#66
It did evolve. Its a brand new huge map with 3 different Darkzones that each give a different experience. No more spongy enemies. And probably more that I haven't even got to yet. It's absolutely ridiculous to say this could have just been an expansion pack.
Oh, there are definitely spongy enemies. Progress a little further. They adapt to your player level.
 

120v

Member
Mar 14, 2013
9,357
197
395
#67
I'm very confused with the comments about the game being the same as Division 1. What are we expecting out of sequels these days? Did you expect them to totally change the basics of the game? Anyone that says this should have been DLC does not understand how games work.
i think there's general confusion about what Division is, still after so many years out... it's tom clancy, there's guns, and it's set in modern day. yet it's an arpg and i don't think some will ever be able to reconcile that

like yeah enemies are bullet sponges and crit sniper shots to the head will only take away a quarter damage. and maybe it's all the worse for that, i dunno. but it's more Diablo than Ghost Recon and you have to know that going in
 
Likes: Phobia
Jun 13, 2014
3,947
862
345
USA
#73
Aesthetically, the game just is not pulling me in like the Division 1 did. I really hate the sounds of the guns and, while they might be more realistic, it's not as satisfying as the flashy hollywood sounds from TD1. The warm color palette just doesn't do it for me like the cold one did. And the movement, while tighter, feels worse even though I can't exactly explain why. I'm also disappointed that the Dark Zone doesn't have the stark, foreboding contrast it did in TD1. Night time, the light and dark zones are both pretty atmospheric, but during the daytime they're both a little dull and mostly look the same.

It's a shame because the gameplay definitely is a step up. The gunplay is even better than what was already fantastic in the first one, and the fact that enemies randomly spawn makes careful, strategic play a lot more important. The settlements and their assignments makes the world feel a bit more dynamic but in TD1, I'm just organically roaming from encounter to activity to encounter, while this new system just feels like Ubisoft grinding.

Some other problems, I hope, are probably endemic to it being a beta. The Dark Zone was almost completely empty on my first playthrough. I did the rogue activity sequence, going from terminal to terminal to unlock the thieves den, and there was maybe 1 or 2 groups of enemies across this entire sequence.

The three missions (two story, one endgame) simply aren't as compelling as the ones in first game or its beta. The random spawns might be better strategically, but the scripted moments in the first game made them so much more memorable. These games live and die by their gameplay loops but the main missions were always the best content in the game and I can't say that's the case here.
 
Jul 5, 2014
3,149
175
325
#76
I do have concerns about the size of the new Dark Zone.

I think what made the DZ work is that players like me (more a PvE than a PvP player) wanted to go in there.

I'm not a ganker. Never will be. And I could use my knowledge of the map to avoid conflict when I wanted.

If I made a mistake and got in a bad situation, well that was the thrill of the DZ.

Hard to judge DZ in beta. Remember Division 1 beta? lmao. But the DZ is small.
 
Likes: JareBear
#78
Ugh... I hadnt played this yet but sat down to play just now.

A 97meg patch update. Ok, no worries... hmmm... not downloading...... eh?

So I reset the Xbox and start up again. There we go... now it’s do... wait what?

Now it’s downloading all 50ish gig all over again...

*sigh*

Guess I’ll wait for retail... bloody hell...
 
Oct 5, 2015
4,271
405
290
#81
i think there's general confusion about what Division is, still after so many years out... it's tom clancy, there's guns, and it's set in modern day. yet it's an arpg and i don't think some will ever be able to reconcile that

like yeah enemies are bullet sponges and crit sniper shots to the head will only take away a quarter damage. and maybe it's all the worse for that, i dunno. but it's more Diablo than Ghost Recon and you have to know that going in
Can we talk about how great ghost recon is? Because it is
 
Sep 16, 2010
1,938
21
585
#82
I really like the mission with the end game characters unlocked because the loot was so much more interesting and the difficutly spike, I was getting a little bored with the basic missions. I would like to see a different PVP map as well, I think it could be fun but that map sucks man, the first team to capture the roof then just farms up the other one.

Overall I'll end up buying it but I enjoyed Anthem more, however I could see myself flipping between the two with between content drops haha.
 

scalman

Neo Member
Feb 6, 2019
66
13
95
#83
Enjoying it second day. Yesterday was lots slowing and sych ar times but today all 4-5 hrs it run ok, so its noy my specs, i run all maxed just lighting and shadows lower. All looks amazing and runs ok. Doing all main misssions and side , and just running around finding new stuff to do or to help somoeone. Will buy this game for sure, and will be doing only solo gameplay.
 

scalman

Neo Member
Feb 6, 2019
66
13
95
#85
Lots deers dogys and foxes in city. When fox sees you they get scared and runs under car with cool animation.
More interesting detailed interiors with lots of lights sources .
Cool enemies trying to ambush you more from other sides.
Nice weapons to choose and mods as in first part.
 
Jun 13, 2013
1,910
290
380
Australia
#86
Finally cleared the beta's content, after a healthy bit of messing about and exploration. My PC is a high end i5, 16 GB RAM, EVGA 1080TI at Ultra Wide 1440p with GSYNC.

For the beta itself, it's more of an actual beta than I think perhaps many are expecting, since "Alpha" and "Beta" builds have replaced demos. I experienced a good number of crashes, connection issues, glitches and bugs, all of which I would expect to be cleared up by launch. I maxed out every conceivable setting and pulled an average of about 50-55FPS, with most of the combat stuff around the 60 mark, and some of the outdoors stuff dropping into the 40s. I don't expect massive gains here at launch, but the Division was more even in its performance, so hopefully they get there. Loading times were tolerable.

Reading through this thread, and Reddit and other places where impressions are being shared, I think the elephant in the room is the setting: summertime Washington DC. Frankly, my biggest fear was that this setting was going to feel generic, and ultimately, it does. But, it's not because it's "bad". It's actually quite brilliant, and feels like the best parts of I Am Legend come to life. The feeling of "absence" is omnipresent; the world feels like its real, and that people are, well, missing. There's a layer of atmosphere here that even the first Division couldn't quite achieve; the world feels empty, but in such a way that reminds you that it shouldn't be. It's quite an achievement! So, why do I say it's generic? It's because it doesn't have the same personality that a snow-covered New York lit by Christmas lights has. It feels like every post apocalyptic city setting you've grown tired of, whereas the first game felt different. Sure, I grew tired of the same repeated snowy environments in the first game, but I could never deny the character that it had. So, while Div2 feels more realistic, and achieves a sense of deliberate emptiness that the first game didn't capture, it also lacks the personality that the first game had in spades, despite Div1 never really feeling "real". I'm not sure how this will play out across the game, there could be a good amount of environmental variety between the regions, but it's enough here to make we worry of how quickly we'll tire of Washington DC.

Visually, the game is mostly great, with some questionable moments here or there, usually down to lighting. The texture and material work is fantastic, though some environmental props and fixtures get more attention than others. The real star is the environmental details. Light that break apart, TV screens that damage realistically; the environmental feedback ensures that firefights have a sense of destructiveness to them that is missing from a lot of action games. The game has an impressive attention to detail, closer to what the Division's E3 trailer promised. It's not quite at that level, but we're getting closer. Model work is a mixed bag. In the first game, I found the models to be, largely, terrific. Excellent use of lighting always ensured they were presented in the best way, such as Central Station. Here, however, NPCs, particularly in settlements, can look downright early gen. It's clear that the level of attention paid to its environments wasn't paid to Div2's NPCs. Player characters too, thanks to the random characters for the demo, are also not as good as I'd hoped. They range from completely brilliant, to utter trash. At times, such as during cutscenes, it's hard not to feel the character stuff is almost a step back from the first game. The animation is largely good - especially for the player characters. The other sore point is the lighting. At times, it can bring Washington to life in spectacular views, letting everything pop and come into its own. The volume lighting indoors can be particularly amazing. Other times, though, such as during the opening tutorial, the game feels incredibly flat, and lacks depth at every turn. There's that infamous Watch Dogs image of flat, lifeless lighting of a city street. The Division 2 has more than its fare share of that. Some streets, caught in the shade of tall buildings as the sun descends towards the horizon, felt positively Xbox 360 worthy in the lack of depth in the scene. Vegetation in particular just doesn't look right as often as it should. The spectrum from "Is this it?" to "Damn, that looks amazing" is really something. It's a world realised with the detail of a master set builder, but at times, it's lit with the lighting of an amateur photographer.

Audio is leaning towards "mediocre". The music is, basically, the Division's same beeps and pulse strings. It disappears into the background easy enough, but I'd hoped that some of this would be revisited to inject some much needed personality, but alas, it's basically identical. Not memorable, but not actively offensive either. Combat sounds range from great, to questionable. In the heat of battle, the soundscape is good, meaty stuff. Reverb and environment audio effects are particularly well done. But individually, the guns feel a touch weaker than the first game. My weapon of a choice - a 5 shot pump action shotgun - just lacks the raw gutteral power needed to make it satisfying. The weakest points for me were the open firefights at random street corners. Everything was fine, but it lacked the urgency and danger that terrific sound design can inject. They're just street scuffles, minor diversions, rather than a brutal raw slug to the death between two desperate groups. Missed opportunity to step it up from the first game.

Gameplay, though, is everything it needed to be. It's a hair faster than the original, while losing none of the deliberate and weighted feel of movement and combat. It feels damn polished, too. Moving from rear cover to forward cover, my teammates laying down suppressive cover, while I reload in sprint, before sliding into position, ready to cover my partners as they move up, is lightning in a bottle. It's not perfect - the gadgets are still more painful than they should be, with aiming them in particular feeling inaccurate at best - but when it clicks, it's really something. Underneath all the polish beats the heart of a tactical shooter, and the AI has been stepped up in a few key places. They're better at flanking, picking correct cover, their call outs give insight into their game plan, and they generally feel a little more aggressive, in a good way. Not "invincible yellow bar shotgun guy clearing out your team solo" aggressive, but they will put you on the back foot if you let them, which was great to see. While the audio of the weapons is a letdown, they still feel great, even if they don't sound great. My shotgun, in particular, was like hitting with a sledgehammer up close, and it felt brilliant to swap between it and my rifle at the correct times, creating a wonderful choreography of death. Man, I just wish the sound was where it should have been. Due to the limited nature of the beta, it's hard to comment on the gear and progression systems, but given what we've seen, it looks like they're continuing on the path they started in Div1, with sets and builds being the name of the game. Given how game changing sets and builds became in the end, I'm very hopeful that the gear system is up to the challenge.

The last part I want to touch on is the UI. I've noticed a trend in modern games to dress up the UI as much as possible, with transitions, effects, and other flourishes to make it stand out as unique and interesting. Sometimes, you get Destiny, a very well designed user interface that looks great, is easy to use, and has a distinct style. Unfortunately, the other end of the spectrum is the Division 2's mess of distortion effects and transitions. The menu's are actually snappy, but because of all the jittering, chromatic abberation, and other pixel and sub-pixel effects washed over the top, they feel slow, unresponsive, and egregiously hard to read. Despite many hours in the Division, I always - always - found its brand of UI design to be hard to read and understand. The Division 2 doubles down on this in the wrong way. Stripping out all the garbage visual noise slathered on top before launch and just letting the menus stand as a functional front end is really their best option, given they don't have time to actually over-haul this element. The fact they - literally - just used the first game's UI, but dumped distortion effects on top and cranked up their values, is pretty damn lazy. This really needs addressing.

Overall, I had more fun with the Division 2 beta than I did with the Anthem demo, and I'm pretty tempted to jump in at launch. It's a loot-based tactical third person shooter, where either half of that equation is rock solid; the thinking man's Diablo, basically. Of course, it's improvements are more akin to an annualised franchise; this is iteration, rather than revolution. If you didn't enjoy the first one, don't waste your money - this is basically more of the same. and that's not going to change before launch. It's not the best looking game, nor the best sounding, and it won't win awards in story telling. But it doesn't focus on any of that. It focuses on its combat, on besting the AI with tactics and gun play. And because it executes on that so damn well, it's hard not to enjoy the game, despite its faults, and generic location. It's a one trick pony, but it knows it, and it does it well. Pretty optimistic about this one.
 
Apr 27, 2015
4,366
76
310
Essex, UK
#87
I'm very confused with the comments about the game being the same as Division 1. What are we expecting out of sequels these days? Did you expect them to totally change the basics of the game? Anyone that says this should have been DLC does not understand how games work.
No, you dont understand how games work. This would have been much better as a Year 2 expansion or whatever, rather than a full sequel. Its a similar case to Borderlands Pre Sequel, which was slated for being no more than an extra content extension of BL2 (which, like Division, was a great, great game). This feels practically identical to the first game in a less atmospheric setting. It will still be great, but if you put hundreds of hours into the first game this will get boring quick. Thats why it will sell less, its not doing so great on streaming channels with viewers etc.

Your post makes you look like a fool, it has no logical application its almost a fanboy defending his darling by putting down people who dont think as much of it as you. Even though I will enjoy this game and am looking forward to it, Im not blind to the facts.
 
Last edited:
Aug 3, 2014
8,794
417
340
#89
i wasn't sure about this at first but the beta has convinced me to buy it. what am i gonna do for the next month? :(

what are the chances they do an open/extended beta? i can't get enough of the game.
 
Likes: Insane Metal
Mar 11, 2006
19,978
541
1,240
Br
#90
Finally cleared the beta's content, after a healthy bit of messing about and exploration. My PC is a high end i5, 16 GB RAM, EVGA 1080TI at Ultra Wide 1440p with GSYNC.

For the beta itself, it's more of an actual beta than I think perhaps many are expecting, since "Alpha" and "Beta" builds have replaced demos. I experienced a good number of crashes, connection issues, glitches and bugs, all of which I would expect to be cleared up by launch. I maxed out every conceivable setting and pulled an average of about 50-55FPS, with most of the combat stuff around the 60 mark, and some of the outdoors stuff dropping into the 40s. I don't expect massive gains here at launch, but the Division was more even in its performance, so hopefully they get there. Loading times were tolerable.

Reading through this thread, and Reddit and other places where impressions are being shared, I think the elephant in the room is the setting: summertime Washington DC. Frankly, my biggest fear was that this setting was going to feel generic, and ultimately, it does. But, it's not because it's "bad". It's actually quite brilliant, and feels like the best parts of I Am Legend come to life. The feeling of "absence" is omnipresent; the world feels like its real, and that people are, well, missing. There's a layer of atmosphere here that even the first Division couldn't quite achieve; the world feels empty, but in such a way that reminds you that it shouldn't be. It's quite an achievement! So, why do I say it's generic? It's because it doesn't have the same personality that a snow-covered New York lit by Christmas lights has. It feels like every post apocalyptic city setting you've grown tired of, whereas the first game felt different. Sure, I grew tired of the same repeated snowy environments in the first game, but I could never deny the character that it had. So, while Div2 feels more realistic, and achieves a sense of deliberate emptiness that the first game didn't capture, it also lacks the personality that the first game had in spades, despite Div1 never really feeling "real". I'm not sure how this will play out across the game, there could be a good amount of environmental variety between the regions, but it's enough here to make we worry of how quickly we'll tire of Washington DC.

Visually, the game is mostly great, with some questionable moments here or there, usually down to lighting. The texture and material work is fantastic, though some environmental props and fixtures get more attention than others. The real star is the environmental details. Light that break apart, TV screens that damage realistically; the environmental feedback ensures that firefights have a sense of destructiveness to them that is missing from a lot of action games. The game has an impressive attention to detail, closer to what the Division's E3 trailer promised. It's not quite at that level, but we're getting closer. Model work is a mixed bag. In the first game, I found the models to be, largely, terrific. Excellent use of lighting always ensured they were presented in the best way, such as Central Station. Here, however, NPCs, particularly in settlements, can look downright early gen. It's clear that the level of attention paid to its environments wasn't paid to Div2's NPCs. Player characters too, thanks to the random characters for the demo, are also not as good as I'd hoped. They range from completely brilliant, to utter trash. At times, such as during cutscenes, it's hard not to feel the character stuff is almost a step back from the first game. The animation is largely good - especially for the player characters. The other sore point is the lighting. At times, it can bring Washington to life in spectacular views, letting everything pop and come into its own. The volume lighting indoors can be particularly amazing. Other times, though, such as during the opening tutorial, the game feels incredibly flat, and lacks depth at every turn. There's that infamous Watch Dogs image of flat, lifeless lighting of a city street. The Division 2 has more than its fare share of that. Some streets, caught in the shade of tall buildings as the sun descends towards the horizon, felt positively Xbox 360 worthy in the lack of depth in the scene. Vegetation in particular just doesn't look right as often as it should. The spectrum from "Is this it?" to "Damn, that looks amazing" is really something. It's a world realised with the detail of a master set builder, but at times, it's lit with the lighting of an amateur photographer.

Audio is leaning towards "mediocre". The music is, basically, the Division's same beeps and pulse strings. It disappears into the background easy enough, but I'd hoped that some of this would be revisited to inject some much needed personality, but alas, it's basically identical. Not memorable, but not actively offensive either. Combat sounds range from great, to questionable. In the heat of battle, the soundscape is good, meaty stuff. Reverb and environment audio effects are particularly well done. But individually, the guns feel a touch weaker than the first game. My weapon of a choice - a 5 shot pump action shotgun - just lacks the raw gutteral power needed to make it satisfying. The weakest points for me were the open firefights at random street corners. Everything was fine, but it lacked the urgency and danger that terrific sound design can inject. They're just street scuffles, minor diversions, rather than a brutal raw slug to the death between two desperate groups. Missed opportunity to step it up from the first game.

Gameplay, though, is everything it needed to be. It's a hair faster than the original, while losing none of the deliberate and weighted feel of movement and combat. It feels damn polished, too. Moving from rear cover to forward cover, my teammates laying down suppressive cover, while I reload in sprint, before sliding into position, ready to cover my partners as they move up, is lightning in a bottle. It's not perfect - the gadgets are still more painful than they should be, with aiming them in particular feeling inaccurate at best - but when it clicks, it's really something. Underneath all the polish beats the heart of a tactical shooter, and the AI has been stepped up in a few key places. They're better at flanking, picking correct cover, their call outs give insight into their game plan, and they generally feel a little more aggressive, in a good way. Not "invincible yellow bar shotgun guy clearing out your team solo" aggressive, but they will put you on the back foot if you let them, which was great to see. While the audio of the weapons is a letdown, they still feel great, even if they don't sound great. My shotgun, in particular, was like hitting with a sledgehammer up close, and it felt brilliant to swap between it and my rifle at the correct times, creating a wonderful choreography of death. Man, I just wish the sound was where it should have been. Due to the limited nature of the beta, it's hard to comment on the gear and progression systems, but given what we've seen, it looks like they're continuing on the path they started in Div1, with sets and builds being the name of the game. Given how game changing sets and builds became in the end, I'm very hopeful that the gear system is up to the challenge.

The last part I want to touch on is the UI. I've noticed a trend in modern games to dress up the UI as much as possible, with transitions, effects, and other flourishes to make it stand out as unique and interesting. Sometimes, you get Destiny, a very well designed user interface that looks great, is easy to use, and has a distinct style. Unfortunately, the other end of the spectrum is the Division 2's mess of distortion effects and transitions. The menu's are actually snappy, but because of all the jittering, chromatic abberation, and other pixel and sub-pixel effects washed over the top, they feel slow, unresponsive, and egregiously hard to read. Despite many hours in the Division, I always - always - found its brand of UI design to be hard to read and understand. The Division 2 doubles down on this in the wrong way. Stripping out all the garbage visual noise slathered on top before launch and just letting the menus stand as a functional front end is really their best option, given they don't have time to actually over-haul this element. The fact they - literally - just used the first game's UI, but dumped distortion effects on top and cranked up their values, is pretty damn lazy. This really needs addressing.

Overall, I had more fun with the Division 2 beta than I did with the Anthem demo, and I'm pretty tempted to jump in at launch. It's a loot-based tactical third person shooter, where either half of that equation is rock solid; the thinking man's Diablo, basically. Of course, it's improvements are more akin to an annualised franchise; this is iteration, rather than revolution. If you didn't enjoy the first one, don't waste your money - this is basically more of the same. and that's not going to change before launch. It's not the best looking game, nor the best sounding, and it won't win awards in story telling. But it doesn't focus on any of that. It focuses on its combat, on besting the AI with tactics and gun play. And because it executes on that so damn well, it's hard not to enjoy the game, despite its faults, and generic location. It's a one trick pony, but it knows it, and it does it well. Pretty optimistic about this one.
That's a very thorough review, thank you.
 

Woo-Fu

incest on the subway
Jan 2, 2007
13,357
382
1,120
#91
No more spongy enemies.
You are 100% wrong here. Play with a full squad, report back on the spongy enemies.

Personally I think spongy enemies are unavoidable in a game like this, so I'm not complaining that they exist. You either put in some spongy elites surrounded by trash or you simply try to overwhelm with trash. I'll take the elites.

The magic alternative people seem to want is AI that can play at a human level without obviously cheating. It doesn't exist for games like this. They'd spend more time on the AI than the rest of the game.
 
Last edited:
Jul 5, 2014
3,149
175
325
#92
@ZehDon

Just a few thoughts while reading your post...

Massive has promised a lot of zone diversity. I think that will be the key to whether we look back on the summertime Washington choice favorably.

I think my biggest issue w/ the lighting is that it's too dark in some areas. Noticed this complaint crop up a bunch on Twitch too.

I thought the music in missions was pretty good. It immediately stood out to me because it's so often forgettable/nonexistent in the first game.

@Freeman76

I think there's too much here for an expansion. It seems like an unrealistic expectation and complaint.

I doubt Massive was making enough from those dumb loot boxes to support a year two. This is my concern with free DLC.
 
Jun 13, 2013
1,910
290
380
Australia
#93
@ZehDon

Just a few thoughts while reading your post...

Massive has promised a lot of zone diversity. I think that will be the key to whether we look back on the summertime Washington choice favorably.

I think my biggest issue w/ the lighting is that it's too dark in some areas. Noticed this complaint crop up a bunch on Twitch too.

I thought the music in missions was pretty good. It immediately stood out to me because it's so often forgettable/nonexistent in the first game...
Thanks for reading! Just out of curiosity, was there a particular mission where the music stood out? I’d be interested in replaying it with an ear on the music, perhaps I didn’t pay enough attention.
 
Jul 5, 2014
3,149
175
325
#94
Thanks for reading! Just out of curiosity, was there a particular mission where the music stood out? I’d be interested in replaying it with an ear on the music, perhaps I didn’t pay enough attention.
It was a heavy metal-ish instrumental. Can't remember if it was the first or second story mission (not the invaded) or may have been both.
 

Guileless

Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Jun 7, 2004
8,919
234
1,585
Memphis
#95
I would love to play this on a high-end PC like ZehDon's. The original never clicked with me on console. Didn't like the inventory management or controls.
 
Jul 5, 2014
3,149
175
325
#97
@Guileless

I actually played Division first on the Xbox One and then switched to PC in part due to this reason.

But UI isn't amazing on PC. Feels like a port, and the long presses introduced in 2 are maddening. Hope that gets patched.

@II_JumPeR_I

If you liked Division that much, why would you want it to feel significantly different? And what would you want changed or introduced?
 
Mar 14, 2013
9,357
197
395
#98
well i've about had my fill of the beta. think i'll just call it a day even though there's more endgame stuff to do, i'll just wait until launch

so yeah, it's pretty good. if Division wasn't your bag this won't change your mind. otherwise it's pretty good and all changes are for the better. i can kind of see where people are coming from with the Division 1.5 complaints but Division 1 was fairly ahead of its time so not really reasonable to expect a quantum leap here. especially since it's still required to run on the baseline of vanilla ps4/xbone hardware

everything feels snappier, the world is fairly more "explorable" and while i'm not completely sold on some of the finer mechanical points like specialization and the new mod system it seems forward thinking. i especially like that DZ puts everybody on a level playing field, having a dedicated crew or luxury of playing in your mom's basement all day doesn't give you a 100 to 1 advantage, though i imagine there'll still be tons of balancing to be worked out in this regard
 
Last edited:
Likes: Insane Metal
Aug 3, 2016
602
87
210
Malaysia
#99
I played the beta for maybe 1-2 hours, because I do not like investing my time in a character when it doesn't carry over into the final game. From the brief playtime, I'd say its a definite improvement over Division 1. The movement feels smoother, although I think the gunplay feels similar to D1, for better or for worse.

Before, I thought being out of the snow would make me less immersed in the gameworld, but after playing the beta, the wider range of color palette is a welcome addition. Kudos to the art team for being able to maintain the feeling of desolation via environmental stroytelling whilst providing a wider range of settings.

I just read today that by the endgame (or level 30?), you unlock specializations, and that adds another layer of progression. Also, introducing an elite enemy faction for the endgame was such a brilliant move I thought. it makes the endgame more enticing, apart from the min-maxing and loot chase. Massive really put some thought for the endgame this time around, and that may just have pushed me towards purchasing this day 1.
 
Last edited:

scalman

Neo Member
Feb 6, 2019
66
13
95
Gunplay very much same old but sounds better for my taste. Allmost same ui . its no need to learn how to play game if you know 1st game.
Devs said they tweeked enemies factions AI so ones more hiding and others more agresive on you.