you might not agree with his views that is fine but its FAR from 'obfuscation' unless he is hiding something completely unrelated that makes it unusually hard.
look there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the views on that video but to imply that because you dont agree that it is nearly liying is a bit extreeme dont you think?
I havent played The Division but I have played another game that he has played called 7 days to die in which he qualifies that game as actuallly hard.
try that game on hard....you will s you pants
1) They are different types of games.
2) Ark is substantially tougher than 7 days
3) If you let this guy make all your decisions for you than I think you have bigger issues. You're basing your decision off of HIS take on a beta, where he was already predisposed to disliking the game.
28) Come back after you've got some first hand experience and then let us know what you think. You're basically parroting someone elses opinion and labeling it as your own. Just be honest -- you don't like The Division because you don't like it. It's not your "cup of tea" and therefore you're just looking for reassurance, but the "review" you're listening to isn't an accurate one.
1. that is super silly even more so with all these posts talking about how game labels dont matter. now what? because it has zombies its different and as a result not hard? really?
2. if your point number 1 is true why are you bringing up Ark?
3. I dont but I have played games that operate EXACTLY as he had described The Division and I already had about 200 hours in 7dtd before I even saw his video on the subject.
I think it's more that you come across as having a hard-on for proving this game bad, or not an MMO or whatever it might be. The day after the game is released, you're asking how 'massive' the game is. I think that if you seemed more objective then what you say might be taken more seriously.
I tried the beta for the Division and I found it to be sort of lacking from what I was expecting. One of the major issues I have with the game is that I cannot stand shooting an NPC or PC in the head with a gun and not having the damage act as a critical strike. I ran the medical instance on HM and not all of my headshots were critical (NPCs that were not wearing helmets). It would show damage and every once in a while be a critical hit. I find this baffling in a game where we are shooting other humans etc. I understand them being more durable in Destiny but in the Division I was underwhelmed with the combat mechanics. I was running into this issue with normal NPCs and PC's outside of instances too. I also find the abilities you get to be underwhelming as well in variety. This may just be me, but I think considering the issues when Destiny first launched I was expecting much much more from the Division. Maybe I will revisit it at a future date.
1. that is super silly even more so with all these posts talking about how game labels dont matter. now what? because it has zombies its different and as a result not hard? really?
2. if your point number 1 is true why are you bringing up Ark?
3. I dont but I have played games that operate EXACTLY as he had described The Division and I already had about 200 hours in 7dtd before I even saw his video on the subject.
1) 7 Days is basically meant to be a survival game, its not really an RPG, it really doesn't revolve around gear, stats, and its a first person game which that "reviewer" you linked likes a lot more than 3rd person games. Survival games are meant to be excruciatingly tough from the beginning, games like Ark, 7 Days and all the "survival horror/build your own junk" as well another well known one that I personally love as much as Ark -- Don't Starve. That doesn't make one harder than the other, in fact, for most survival games, at the top level, they're actually much, much easier, whereas in games like The Division, it gets increasingly harder at the top level.
2) I'm just stating an erroneous fact, because bringing up 7 DTD doesn't really have a place here.
3) What games have you played that operate exactly as he described? And how is what he described from the beta anything like the live game now? Can you answer that?
I tried the beta for the Division and I found it to be sort of lacking from what I was expecting. One of the major issues I have with the game is that I cannot stand shooting an NPC or PC in the head with a gun and not having the damage act as a critical strike. I ran the medical instance on HM and not all of my headshots were critical (NPCs that were not wearing helmets). It would show damage and every once in a while be a critical hit. I find this baffling in a game where we are shooting other humans etc. I understand them being more durable in Destiny but in the Division I was underwhelmed with the combat mechanics. I was running into this issue with normal NPCs and PC's outside of instances too. I also find the abilities you get to be underwhelming as well in variety. This may just be me, but I think considering the issues when Destiny first launched I was expecting much much more from the Division. Maybe I will revisit it at a future date.
Hi Rictis! I understand the concern about headshots, but this is kind of where my article picks up. this is another point where a lot of players don't understand the mechanics here.
So, for example.. a marksman rifle (sniper rifles) are geared specifically for headshots. While you won't get "critical hits" necessarily... with a marksman rifle, every headshot does 110% of your weapon damage. These can be compounded by actual criticals (think critical chance in other games, you can increase it depending on your gear -- again -- many players didn't understand gearing).
So, here is an example. You may have a weapon that would generally do anywhere from 500 to 1800 damage per shot depending on your rifle. With a headshot you would do nearly 5000 damage per headshot at the high end. With a critical hit head shot you could do upwards of 7000 per shot. You can increase critical hit ratios by using certain skills and items.
Secondly, for a strict build based around critical hits, the SMG's are designed for this as all SMGs have increased critical hit ratings. While they generally do slightly less DPS overall, when geared specifically for criticals you can do extreme damage in a shorter amount of time. This is compounded by headshots -- where burst fire SMGs really excel and have increased range. (you can mod all guns to have scopes, etc, to turn them into sniper rifles.)
As far as abilities, in the beta you only had access to 4 abilities, and only 1 set of mods for them. Each ability has 5 mods you can place on them which changes what they do. (one being the base model)
1. that is super silly even more so with all these posts talking about how game labels dont matter. now what? because it has zombies its different and as a result not hard? really?
2. if your point number 1 is true why are you bringing up Ark?
3. I dont but I have played games that operate EXACTLY as he had described The Division and I already had about 200 hours in 7dtd before I even saw his video on the subject.
1) 7 Days is basically meant to be a survival game, its not really an RPG, it really doesn't revolve around gear, stats, and its a first person game which that "reviewer" you linked likes a lot more than 3rd person games. Survival games are meant to be excruciatingly tough from the beginning, games like Ark, 7 Days and all the "survival horror/build your own junk" as well another well known one that I personally love as much as Ark -- Don't Starve. That doesn't make one harder than the other, in fact, for most survival games, at the top level, they're actually much, much easier, whereas in games like The Division, it gets increasingly harder at the top level.
2) I'm just stating an erroneous fact, because bringing up 7 DTD doesn't really have a place here.
3) What games have you played that operate exactly as he described? And how is what he described from the beta anything like the live game now? Can you answer that?
1. so because its different its not hard? not following you. 7dtd is a heart thumbing adrenaline seeking, twitchbased crafting game. its not like I am comparing The Division to chess, I am comparing action and tactical to action and tactical.
2. if you want to hold on to number 1 you should refrain.
3.He has described in specific terms on a tangible measurable way why he thinks The Division is easy. You have provided no reason, no example, so suggestion at all to why you think The Division is hard. Oh and doesnt GTA5 have autocover? yeah I played the trailer while making coffee....seriously
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I understand what you are saying, I think for me it has to do with the design of the combat system. If I shoot someone in the head I expect a critical hit every time. I shouldn't have to build my weapon for critical strikes like a stat from an MMORPG. I had a big problem with Fallout for doing this too. I feel that this type of combat system removes a lot of skill from the "shooter" portion of the game to the point where it cheapens the skill required to play.
I do understand your explanation though, I just don't like how the game is designed in that regard.
There are other reasons that this game doesn't match my playstyle. As far as abilities goes, I was still able to read the skills that were available for unlock later and they seemed a little sub par for me. I unfortunately was unable to craft so I don't know how that works.
I honestly think I was looking forward to the game requiring more skill rather then having it rely so much on stat increases for everything. This is more my fault then the games though, I think it does a lot of things right but its not enough to get me to throw the cash down. I hope that helps clarify my original statement.
1. so because its different its not hard? not following you. 7dtd is a heart thumbing adrenaline seeking, twitchbased crafting game. its not like I am comparing The Division to chess, I am comparing action and tactical to action and tactical.
2. if you want to hold on to number 1 you should refrain.
3.He has described in specific terms on a tangible measurable way why he thinks The Division is easy. You have provided no reason, no example, so suggestion at all to why you think The Division is hard. to answer your question it was some james bond game I THINK from a few years ago. but seriously? do I need to play a game that has no jump, 3rd person to look over cover and auto cover to get a the idea?
1) No it's a different game.. as I said SPECIFICALLY, survival games are meant to be tough UP FRONT, and at the top level they are extremely easy. Ark, 7DTD and Don't Starve, all challenging games that are exceptionally easy once you're established. The Division is the opposite. You start with low level, barely alive mobs as it is, and you graduate to tougher, higher level, harder hitting, MUCH more populated areas and missions.
2) Disregarding nonsense.
3) I posted a video, just like you did.. of players in the LIVE game. I've explained the AI thoroughly, and you decided not to answer my questions yet again so I'll ask them, requesting specific answers here:
What games have you played that operate EXACTLY as he described? "Some james bond game" isn't an accurate depiction of 1) what he described and 2) a cover shooter as no james bond games are cover shooters.
How is what he described in the beta like the current live game? If you have insight into how the live game plays right now, by all means, provide it. If you're looking for another negative review I heard Angry Joe didn't like The Division either, maybe you can find more solace there. But don't come back with more nonsense. ANSWER MY QUESTIONS for once.
I understand what you are saying, I think for me it has to do with the design of the combat system. If I shoot someone in the head I expect a critical hit every time. I shouldn't have to build my weapon for critical strikes like a stat from an MMORPG. I had a big problem with Fallout for doing this too. I feel that this type of combat system removes a lot of skill from the "shooter" portion of the game to the point where it cheapens the skill required to play.
I do understand your explanation though, I just don't like how the game is designed in that regard.
There are other reasons that this game doesn't match my playstyle. As far as abilities goes, I was still able to read the skills that were available for unlock later and they seemed a little sub par for me. I unfortunately was unable to craft so I don't know how that works.
I honestly think I was looking forward to the game requiring more skill rather then having it rely so much on stat increases for everything. This is more my fault then the games though, I think it does a lot of things right but its not enough to get me to throw the cash down. I hope that helps clarify my original statement.
I think thats fair, as it is subject to your playstyle. Knowing this was primarily an RPG going into it, it's one of the things I love the most, but that is kind of what started this thread. A lot of people like the game, they just don't understand it because they expect the "same old" shooter formula where everything generally does the same damage. If you get an MP5 you expect it to have the same general stats as other MP5s, and here it's not the case.
It doesn't negate skill, however, in fact I think it increases the necessity for it. If you spec into support like I do, survival at times can be challenging as you lack the damage a pure DPS character has as well as the health pool a tank character has. A Balanced spec isn't the answer either, as you will have trouble finding a great mix between gear. You can eventually and successfully "dual spec" with certain types of gear that increase multiple stats, but that kind of gear is rare.
anyways thats off the point. I completely understand your position. I was just hoping I could help clarify a few things in the live game as the purpose of this post was to help those that may have missed this information.
1. so because its different its not hard? not following you. 7dtd is a heart thumbing adrenaline seeking, twitchbased crafting game. its not like I am comparing The Division to chess, I am comparing action and tactical to action and tactical.
2. if you want to hold on to number 1 you should refrain.
3.He has described in specific terms on a tangible measurable way why he thinks The Division is easy. You have provided no reason, no example, so suggestion at all to why you think The Division is hard. to answer your question it was some james bond game I THINK from a few years ago. but seriously? do I need to play a game that has no jump, 3rd person to look over cover and auto cover to get a the idea?
1) No it's a different game.. as I said SPECIFICALLY, survival games are meant to be tough UP FRONT, and at the top level they are extremely easy. Ark, 7DTD and Don't Starve, all challenging games that are exceptionally easy once you're established. The Division is the opposite. You start with low level, barely alive mobs as it is, and you graduate to tougher, higher level, harder hitting, MUCH more populated areas and missions.
2) Disregarding nonsense.
3) I posted a video, just like you did.. of players in the LIVE game. I've explained the AI thoroughly, and you decided not to answer my questions yet again so I'll ask them, requesting specific answers here:
What games have you played that operate EXACTLY as he described? "Some james bond game" isn't an accurate depiction of 1) what he described and 2) a cover shooter as no james bond games are cover shooters.
How is what he described in the beta like the current live game? If you have insight into how the live game plays right now, by all means, provide it. If you're looking for another negative review I heard Angry Joe didn't like The Division either, maybe you can find more solace there. But don't come back with more nonsense. ANSWER MY QUESTIONS for once.
1. so you are saying its just reversed. well I guess we just have to take your word for it. That doesnt make 7dtd easy though which you seem to want to be the case BECASUSE its a different gamein your mind. very odd, dont want to talk about it anymore. I call this pencil dicking
2. no its not given how much of a hard on you have for number 1 in all its specific details.
3. I honestly just missed it but to be fair I am growing bored with this conversation so I doubt I will anyway at this point.
What games have you played that operate EXACTLY as he described? answered. sorry if you dont accept the answer. I dont recall the exact game, i have experienced auto cover reciecently in GTA5 and YES its simple enough to get a general idea without having to try it...lets not be silly about this
How is what he described in the beta like the current live game? That question suggests that it is different in a large measure and I think you had better at this point step up and suggest that it is and how it is before putting it on me becaues I think you are just trolling with this question to be completely frank
and if you keep up with this crap I am just going to put you on ignore, its fairly obvious what you are doing. I wish you would stop it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Sean, look, you obviously have some sort of agenda when it comes to the Division, you have from the start. Is the division difficult? it could be for some people, others not, there are multiple difficulties in missions to help with that. Its a gear game, you get better numbers to hit the enemy's numbers with (along with not playing stupidly) till they fall down and drop even bigger numbers, some people, like myself like that.
7 days to die is a hard game im sure, survival games are designed to be hard or punishing starting out, but they can get easier once you get your stuff built ive been told. I dont know personally, those games hold no appeal to me, not a fan of open world sandboxy games.
They are two very different games with different mechanics and different focuses. They are played for different reasons.
1. so you are saying its just reversed. well I guess we just have to take your word for it. That doesnt make 7dtd easy though which you seem to want to be the case BECASUSE its a different gamein your mind. very odd, dont want to talk about it anymore. I call this pencil dicking
2. no its not given how much of a hard on you have for number 1 in all its specific details.
3. I honestly just missed it but to be fair I am growing bored with this conversation so I doubt I will anyway at this point.
What games have you played that operate EXACTLY as he described? answered. sorry if you dont accept the answer. I dont recall the exact game, i have experienced auto cover reciecently in GTA5 and YES its simple enough to get a general idea without having to try it...lets not be silly about this
How is what he described in the beta like the current live game? That question suggests that it is different in a large measure and I think you had better at this point step up and suggest that it is and how it is before putting it on me becaues I think you are just trolling with this question to be completely frank
and if you keep up with this crap I am just going to put you on ignore, its fairly obvious what you are doing. I wish you would stop it.
1) I didn't say 7DTD was easy, I only commented that Ark was harder, and that the roles are reversed. The issue is, you know it to be true, late stage survival games are all this way. It could take you 30 hours to get to a late stage game or 200 hours to get there, but once you're there, staying alive is not longer an issue. Even in Ark once you take enough dinosaurs and build a real base and get your skills up, the rest is cake. The Division is the opposite. You start out in easy mode like many MMOs -- a tutorial world. But by End Game you're getting whole team wipes and rage quitters.
3) GTA5 isn't a cover shooter either. it has a full auto aim and targeting. Its a step in the right direction for a shooter but it's nowhere on par with The Division. At least you somewhat came close to naming something generally similar this time instead of "A James Bond Game" which, no, they've never created a james bond cover shooter. Most of them if not all of them are First Person.
The game is quite a bit tougher in the live game. The AI is much better, they flank more often, they rush you substantially more, and on hard mode, they take less damage and deal substantially more damage. You have to be aware of your surroundings and have at least one person with a radar pulse so you can keep track of enemies. At the end of it all, you're arguing with ME and now you're asking me why it's different. The truth is, you don't want to know. You should be taking the word of people that have played it and are currently playing the LIVE game. You are doing neither.
4) Feel free to "ignore" me so you don't see my posts, I will not be crying myself to sleep about it. "You see what I'm doing" you mean asking you questions that you refuse to answer? I'm trying to help you understand based on what you HAVE played because you clearly don't understand the mechanics of The Division. If I can't tell what third person shooters you've played, and if I send you a video of what the live game looks like and you choose not to watch it, how are you ever going to understand?
1. so you are saying its just reversed. well I guess we just have to take your word for it. That doesnt make 7dtd easy though which you seem to want to be the case BECASUSE its a different gamein your mind. very odd, dont want to talk about it anymore. I call this pencil dicking
2. no its not given how much of a hard on you have for number 1 in all its specific details.
3. I honestly just missed it but to be fair I am growing bored with this conversation so I doubt I will anyway at this point.
What games have you played that operate EXACTLY as he described? answered. sorry if you dont accept the answer. I dont recall the exact game, i have experienced auto cover reciecently in GTA5 and YES its simple enough to get a general idea without having to try it...lets not be silly about this
How is what he described in the beta like the current live game? That question suggests that it is different in a large measure and I think you had better at this point step up and suggest that it is and how it is before putting it on me becaues I think you are just trolling with this question to be completely frank
and if you keep up with this crap I am just going to put you on ignore, its fairly obvious what you are doing. I wish you would stop it.
1) I didn't say 7DTD was easy, I only commented that Ark was harder,...
I am done with your today this is getting asine and I dont want any part of it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I frankly have a bigger problem with the $60 price tag and TWO release day DLCs, on top of several bugged and exploitable mechanics that were not identified during QC or beta.
If they had time to do two DLCs, they had time to fix what was obviously broken.
ok, ok, ok. First of all, this is a fallacy and it's one that is propagated much too often these days. There is no DLC. There is planned DLC, but it's not out yet. If you can find a AAA game that doesn't have plans for DLC, buy it!
Oh?
So I can't go to the Steam page, this very second, and see 2 different uniform packs for sale, in the DLC section?
And were they not offered on release day, and were they also not included in the price of a $60 game?
(It took developer time to do those item packs, and it is time that could have been spent fixing up some exploits and bugs, but no.... squeezing a few extra bucks on top of a full priced title is more important.)
Yeah..........
*sigh* so sad. Yes, they released some skins. Keep on keepin' on with the ignorance. I won't even bother you with the whole video game pricing argument since I'm sure it would be lost on you.
Lol.
Which is even more ironic coming from a Canadian, who had to buy this thing at $79.99 CAN instead of $60 US.
(Oh please, bend me over further!)
Meh.
I guess "skins" don't count as DLC in some peoples world. Your point was well made though.
this video implies that its more likely those who dont like the game dont like it because its too easy and not very immersive. From watching the video I have experienced the things he is talking about exactly as he is talking about them in other games so I can associate with what he is saying even though I havent played the game
The game is extremely difficult. Extremely. If you play a hard mode mission, even in the tutorial -- chances are you won't make it through alive the first time around. Maybe not even the second time.
In the Dark Zone its extremely tough too, you can't just run by mobs as they will chase you and can fire at you from very long range. Running into other players isn't great either. I would also say the immersion level is quite high in comparison to other games out there.
That being said... players aren't disliking the gearing system.. they just aren't understanding how to use it effectively.
The video explicitly and in detail disagrees with your 'difficult' assessment. I encourage you to watch it and address those points
A few things here. Watching the video, the character is level 7, the mobs he's fighting are level 5. In this game, level difference is HUGE. Also, they state "If you play a hard mode mission" and those in fact are extremely hard. I've played the game a little over 20 hours and I can relate to most of the points made. I'd encourage you to read his statement again and maybe even watch the video again as well . Don't be that guy....
I frankly have a bigger problem with the $60 price tag and TWO release day DLCs, on top of several bugged and exploitable mechanics that were not identified during QC or beta.
If they had time to do two DLCs, they had time to fix what was obviously broken.
ok, ok, ok. First of all, this is a fallacy and it's one that is propagated much too often these days. There is no DLC. There is planned DLC, but it's not out yet. If you can find a AAA game that doesn't have plans for DLC, buy it!
Oh?
So I can't go to the Steam page, this very second, and see 2 different uniform packs for sale, in the DLC section?
And were they not offered on release day, and were they also not included in the price of a $60 game?
(It took developer time to do those item packs, and it is time that could have been spent fixing up some exploits and bugs, but no.... squeezing a few extra bucks on top of a full priced title is more important.)
Yeah..........
*sigh* so sad. Yes, they released some skins. Keep on keepin' on with the ignorance. I won't even bother you with the whole video game pricing argument since I'm sure it would be lost on you.
Lol.
Which is even more ironic coming from a Canadian, who had to buy this thing at $79.99 CAN instead of $60 US.
(Oh please, bend me over further!)
Meh.
I guess "skins" don't count as DLC in some peoples world. Your point was well made though.
You're totally right. I don't view that as content. In addition to that, we already had a $10 price hike on games this generation, first one in eons, so if they want to sell something to people that doesn't impact the game, great! Otherwise, I fear we're arguing ourselves into $80 US retail copies of games.
I think the biggest problem with The Division is that it doesn't know what it is supposed to be, so, like the OP said, neither do most players.
From the presentation (i.e. graphics, general cover and shoot gameplay, feel of the guns, etc.) The Division seems like is should be a realistic tactical shooter; having Tom Clancy in the title probably doesn't help either. However. the actually experience of the game is much more akin to an action RPG (e.g. Diablo 3) with stats, gear, character builds, and bosses / elites with large HP pools.
Similarly for being online, which, except for being able to (mostly) seamlessly form a group or move into the dark zone, doesn't really add anything, and even subtracts in a number of ways (server disconnects, other players crowding NPCs). Even the Dark Souls series, with it's barely online mode where most interaction was just leaving and reading short messages, felt more 'connected' than The Division does most of the time.
Taken as an online ARPG it's not bad (though personally I still think it is a bit light on content / variety), but taken as a tactical shooter (as it appears at first glance) it's about the worst example this side of a cheaply built F2P.
I think the biggest problem with The Division is that it doesn't know what it is supposed to be, so, like the OP said, neither do most players.
From the presentation (i.e. graphics, general cover and shoot gameplay, feel of the guns, etc.) The Division seems like is should be a realistic tactical shooter; having Tom Clancy in the title probably doesn't help either. However. the actually experience of the game is much more akin to an action RPG (e.g. Diablo 3) with stats, gear, character builds, and bosses / elites with large HP pools.
Similarly for being online, which, except for being able to (mostly) seamlessly form a group or move into the dark zone, doesn't really add anything, and even subtracts in a number of ways (server disconnects, other players crowding NPCs). Even the Dark Souls series, with it's barely online mode where most interaction was just leaving and reading short messages, felt more 'connected' than The Division does most of the time.
Taken as an online ARPG it's not bad (though personally I still think it is a bit light on content / variety), but taken as a tactical shooter (as it appears at first glance) it's about the worst example this side of a cheaply built F2P.
They put a patch out last night to fix the server disconnects and NPC crowding issues... no issues since.
That being said, it is a squad based shooter, and an RPG. It confuses people that only take the game at face value. Most people tend to really like the game, but gear like destiny, where the newest gear is generally what they equip regardless of stats.
Now we have Gear that can be modded (weapons and armor), Additional Talents, Unlockable Perks, its by far the more customizable than the majority of other games out there -- and thus far I think that factors greatly into its popularity -- that and how challenging it is.
I also disagree with the game not feeling very connected... I've made longer lasting relationships in the past 2 days in The Division than I had in traditional MMOs. It's quite simple, you can queue for a group at any time using the hotjoin feature and people that want to team can join you and leave at their leisure. I've had a few great people join me and we just talk about random things and bond over the difficulty of the missions.
I think it's important to look at this game for what it brings to the table. I personally have never seen a game hybridized to this extent. Everyone jumped all over Destiny because it had this new "open world rpg" feel but was still a shooter. Basically, I feel The Division does it better, with much less repetitiveness -- and a TON of content.
On Bills review (from mmorpg.com) he mentioned he believe the game was "content light" as well after he played for a number of hours just through the story missions, and felt he was about 25% through them.
I spent about 5 hours today going back through safe house missions I haven't gotten to yet, and I received a ton of blueprints that allowed me to craft a few blue guns I hadn't even had the chance to buy or get on a drop yet. There is a TON of content, and it isn't hard to find. That doesn't account for The Dark Zone which is some of the most tense and exciting gameplay I've had in a while.
I frankly have a bigger problem with the $60 price tag and TWO release day DLCs, on top of several bugged and exploitable mechanics that were not identified during QC or beta.
If they had time to do two DLCs, they had time to fix what was obviously broken.
ok, ok, ok. First of all, this is a fallacy and it's one that is propagated much too often these days. There is no DLC. There is planned DLC, but it's not out yet. If you can find a AAA game that doesn't have plans for DLC, buy it!
Oh?
So I can't go to the Steam page, this very second, and see 2 different uniform packs for sale, in the DLC section?
And were they not offered on release day, and were they also not included in the price of a $60 game?
(It took developer time to do those item packs, and it is time that could have been spent fixing up some exploits and bugs, but no.... squeezing a few extra bucks on top of a full priced title is more important.)
Yeah..........
Just refund the game and go play something else.
I myself will continue to enjoy this awesome game.
"I don't give a sh*t what other people say. I play what I like and I'll pay to do it too!" - SerialMMOist
Or people in general, especially kids today, are just dumb as rocks. It took me not longer than a first glance at the skill screen to realize that increasing skill rating will increase effectiveness. Or maybe I'm just a genius? Nah.. I'm not that smart.. lol
@DAS1337 I think its really just dependent on how much interest you have in the skill system. Nobody wants to knowingly gimp their character, but most are probably used to just buying that new weapon that increases damage then specifically looking at their gear for stats. Some people are just more prone to pick up on this than others. I'm sure the issue exists twice as much on console as it does on PC.
... I shouldn't have to build my weapon for critical strikes like a stat from an MMORPG.....
That's where most critics of TD come unstuck.
The game is designed as a 100% RPG, without a shadow of a doubt.
There are 3 major character attributes:
Weapon damage (weapon DPS)
Health
Skill Power ("spell damage")
You can specialise your build along "holy trinity" lines for group play, just as you do in any MMORPG. Go all DPS, become a healer, be a tank or build a hybrid for solo play.
Don't be confused by the modern setting or the apparent "shooter mechanics". Play it like a MMORPG or else you're doing it wrong...
"However, in a firefight, one well-placed marksman round will do far more damage than a several-round burst from the LMG. Make sure to keep this in mind when preparing your loadout, and experiment with the various weapon types to figure out which ones best suit your play style."
This is another good example where people need to understand not just character roles, but weapon roles as well. It's very easy to pick up an LMG thinking you are going to rock, shoot a few mobs that don't go down any faster than with an assault rifle, and then conclude they suck. So what we see is 6.023x10^23 players with only assault rifle/sniper combos. Well, if your team gets into a firefight with multiple snipers covering each other, these assault/sniper teams get pwned. That's where the LMG's suppressing ability shines. Keep two sniper's heads down as your team takes out the third.
@Scottgun absolutely, as the LMG and other high bullet count magazines are perfect for suppressive fire which is not only helpful for support, but you can also get talents to earn bonuses when you suppress enemies.
IMO, the real problem with the game is its setting. Its neither good for "bullet sponginess" machanics, nor very interesting. Poor choice.
IMO the setting is the draw. To put it this way, there are 6.023x10^23 first-person shooters set in a semi-realistic, semi-plausible setting. There are 6.023x10^23 role-playing games set in a high-fantasy or science-fiction setting. An rpg set in a semi-realistic setting is simply an untapped market and judging by sales, a hungry market. I'm thrilled that this is not a 360 fast-scoping dolphin-diving twitch-fest fps. I rejoice that it is not an mmorpg where you just press 1, 2, 3....and then watch cooldown timers and your screen is all HUD like a spreadsheet and you hardly even have to look at the action in the environment.
And NYC? Having visited the city a number of times since the '80s, I'm astonished by how close it is and often find myself just tooling around exploring. As an aside, I recall going down a street with garbage bags piled high and thought to myself it just looks like a typical day in New York under the Koch administration.
That brings me to the classic types of MUD players: Achievers, Explorers, Socializers, and Killers. There was a recent article suggesting that the jaded state of video games in general and rpgs or mmorpgs specifically is that they are developed almost exclusively for achievers. For me The Division recovers the other three. As maskeweasal said, I've formed more meaningful relationships with other players in this game than in traditional MMO's in a long time.
Comments
I think it's more that you come across as having a hard-on for proving this game bad, or not an MMO or whatever it might be. The day after the game is released, you're asking how 'massive' the game is. I think that if you seemed more objective then what you say might be taken more seriously.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
2) I'm just stating an erroneous fact, because bringing up 7 DTD doesn't really have a place here.
3) What games have you played that operate exactly as he described? And how is what he described from the beta anything like the live game now? Can you answer that?
So, for example.. a marksman rifle (sniper rifles) are geared specifically for headshots. While you won't get "critical hits" necessarily... with a marksman rifle, every headshot does 110% of your weapon damage. These can be compounded by actual criticals (think critical chance in other games, you can increase it depending on your gear -- again -- many players didn't understand gearing).
So, here is an example. You may have a weapon that would generally do anywhere from 500 to 1800 damage per shot depending on your rifle. With a headshot you would do nearly 5000 damage per headshot at the high end. With a critical hit head shot you could do upwards of 7000 per shot. You can increase critical hit ratios by using certain skills and items.
Secondly, for a strict build based around critical hits, the SMG's are designed for this as all SMGs have increased critical hit ratings. While they generally do slightly less DPS overall, when geared specifically for criticals you can do extreme damage in a shorter amount of time. This is compounded by headshots -- where burst fire SMGs really excel and have increased range. (you can mod all guns to have scopes, etc, to turn them into sniper rifles.)
As far as abilities, in the beta you only had access to 4 abilities, and only 1 set of mods for them. Each ability has 5 mods you can place on them which changes what they do. (one being the base model)
Hope that helps a little.
2. if you want to hold on to number 1 you should refrain.
3.He has described in specific terms on a tangible measurable way why he thinks The Division is easy. You have provided no reason, no example, so suggestion at all to why you think The Division is hard. Oh and doesnt GTA5 have autocover? yeah I played the trailer while making coffee....seriously
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I do understand your explanation though, I just don't like how the game is designed in that regard.
There are other reasons that this game doesn't match my playstyle. As far as abilities goes, I was still able to read the skills that were available for unlock later and they seemed a little sub par for me. I unfortunately was unable to craft so I don't know how that works.
I honestly think I was looking forward to the game requiring more skill rather then having it rely so much on stat increases for everything. This is more my fault then the games though, I think it does a lot of things right but its not enough to get me to throw the cash down. I hope that helps clarify my original statement.
2) Disregarding nonsense.
3) I posted a video, just like you did.. of players in the LIVE game. I've explained the AI thoroughly, and you decided not to answer my questions yet again so I'll ask them, requesting specific answers here:
What games have you played that operate EXACTLY as he described? "Some james bond game" isn't an accurate depiction of 1) what he described and 2) a cover shooter as no james bond games are cover shooters.
How is what he described in the beta like the current live game? If you have insight into how the live game plays right now, by all means, provide it. If you're looking for another negative review I heard Angry Joe didn't like The Division either, maybe you can find more solace there. But don't come back with more nonsense. ANSWER MY QUESTIONS for once.
It doesn't negate skill, however, in fact I think it increases the necessity for it. If you spec into support like I do, survival at times can be challenging as you lack the damage a pure DPS character has as well as the health pool a tank character has. A Balanced spec isn't the answer either, as you will have trouble finding a great mix between gear. You can eventually and successfully "dual spec" with certain types of gear that increase multiple stats, but that kind of gear is rare.
anyways thats off the point. I completely understand your position. I was just hoping I could help clarify a few things in the live game as the purpose of this post was to help those that may have missed this information.
2. no its not given how much of a hard on you have for number 1 in all its specific details.
3. I honestly just missed it but to be fair I am growing bored with this conversation so I doubt I will anyway at this point.
What games have you played that operate EXACTLY as he described? answered. sorry if you dont accept the answer. I dont recall the exact game, i have experienced auto cover reciecently in GTA5 and YES its simple enough to get a general idea without having to try it...lets not be silly about this
How is what he described in the beta like the current live game? That question suggests that it is different in a large measure and I think you had better at this point step up and suggest that it is and how it is before putting it on me becaues I think you are just trolling with this question to be completely frank
and if you keep up with this crap I am just going to put you on ignore, its fairly obvious what you are doing. I wish you would stop it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
7 days to die is a hard game im sure, survival games are designed to be hard or punishing starting out, but they can get easier once you get your stuff built ive been told. I dont know personally, those games hold no appeal to me, not a fan of open world sandboxy games.
They are two very different games with different mechanics and different focuses. They are played for different reasons.
3) GTA5 isn't a cover shooter either. it has a full auto aim and targeting. Its a step in the right direction for a shooter but it's nowhere on par with The Division. At least you somewhat came close to naming something generally similar this time instead of "A James Bond Game" which, no, they've never created a james bond cover shooter. Most of them if not all of them are First Person.
The game is quite a bit tougher in the live game. The AI is much better, they flank more often, they rush you substantially more, and on hard mode, they take less damage and deal substantially more damage. You have to be aware of your surroundings and have at least one person with a radar pulse so you can keep track of enemies. At the end of it all, you're arguing with ME and now you're asking me why it's different. The truth is, you don't want to know. You should be taking the word of people that have played it and are currently playing the LIVE game. You are doing neither.
4) Feel free to "ignore" me so you don't see my posts, I will not be crying myself to sleep about it. "You see what I'm doing" you mean asking you questions that you refuse to answer? I'm trying to help you understand based on what you HAVE played because you clearly don't understand the mechanics of The Division. If I can't tell what third person shooters you've played, and if I send you a video of what the live game looks like and you choose not to watch it, how are you ever going to understand?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I guess "skins" don't count as DLC in some peoples world. Your point was well made though.
You're totally right. I don't view that as content. In addition to that, we already had a $10 price hike on games this generation, first one in eons, so if they want to sell something to people that doesn't impact the game, great! Otherwise, I fear we're arguing ourselves into $80 US retail copies of games.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
From the presentation (i.e. graphics, general cover and shoot gameplay, feel of the guns, etc.) The Division seems like is should be a realistic tactical shooter; having Tom Clancy in the title probably doesn't help either. However. the actually experience of the game is much more akin to an action RPG (e.g. Diablo 3) with stats, gear, character builds, and bosses / elites with large HP pools.
Similarly for being online, which, except for being able to (mostly) seamlessly form a group or move into the dark zone, doesn't really add anything, and even subtracts in a number of ways (server disconnects, other players crowding NPCs). Even the Dark Souls series, with it's barely online mode where most interaction was just leaving and reading short messages, felt more 'connected' than The Division does most of the time.
Taken as an online ARPG it's not bad (though personally I still think it is a bit light on content / variety), but taken as a tactical shooter (as it appears at first glance) it's about the worst example this side of a cheaply built F2P.
They put a patch out last night to fix the server disconnects and NPC crowding issues... no issues since.
That being said, it is a squad based shooter, and an RPG. It confuses people that only take the game at face value. Most people tend to really like the game, but gear like destiny, where the newest gear is generally what they equip regardless of stats.
Now we have Gear that can be modded (weapons and armor), Additional Talents, Unlockable Perks, its by far the more customizable than the majority of other games out there -- and thus far I think that factors greatly into its popularity -- that and how challenging it is.
I also disagree with the game not feeling very connected... I've made longer lasting relationships in the past 2 days in The Division than I had in traditional MMOs. It's quite simple, you can queue for a group at any time using the hotjoin feature and people that want to team can join you and leave at their leisure. I've had a few great people join me and we just talk about random things and bond over the difficulty of the missions.
I think it's important to look at this game for what it brings to the table. I personally have never seen a game hybridized to this extent. Everyone jumped all over Destiny because it had this new "open world rpg" feel but was still a shooter. Basically, I feel The Division does it better, with much less repetitiveness -- and a TON of content.
On Bills review (from mmorpg.com) he mentioned he believe the game was "content light" as well after he played for a number of hours just through the story missions, and felt he was about 25% through them.
I spent about 5 hours today going back through safe house missions I haven't gotten to yet, and I received a ton of blueprints that allowed me to craft a few blue guns I hadn't even had the chance to buy or get on a drop yet. There is a TON of content, and it isn't hard to find. That doesn't account for The Dark Zone which is some of the most tense and exciting gameplay I've had in a while.
I myself will continue to enjoy this awesome game.
"I don't give a sh*t what other people say. I play what I like and I'll pay to do it too!" - SerialMMOist
The game is designed as a 100% RPG, without a shadow of a doubt.
There are 3 major character attributes:
You can specialise your build along "holy trinity" lines for group play, just as you do in any MMORPG. Go all DPS, become a healer, be a tank or build a hybrid for solo play.
Don't be confused by the modern setting or the apparent "shooter mechanics". Play it like a MMORPG or else you're doing it wrong...
"However, in a firefight, one well-placed marksman round will do far more damage than a several-round burst from the LMG. Make sure to keep this in mind when preparing your loadout, and experiment with the various weapon types to figure out which ones best suit your play style."
This is another good example where people need to understand not just character roles, but weapon roles as well. It's very easy to pick up an LMG thinking you are going to rock, shoot a few mobs that don't go down any faster than with an assault rifle, and then conclude they suck. So what we see is 6.023x10^23 players with only assault rifle/sniper combos. Well, if your team gets into a firefight with multiple snipers covering each other, these assault/sniper teams get pwned. That's where the LMG's suppressing ability shines. Keep two sniper's heads down as your team takes out the third.
It is a very complex game.
Average in every aspect.
And NYC? Having visited the city a number of times since the '80s, I'm astonished by how close it is and often find myself just tooling around exploring. As an aside, I recall going down a street with garbage bags piled high and thought to myself it just looks like a typical day in New York under the Koch administration.
That brings me to the classic types of MUD players: Achievers, Explorers, Socializers, and Killers. There was a recent article suggesting that the jaded state of video games in general and rpgs or mmorpgs specifically is that they are developed almost exclusively for achievers. For me The Division recovers the other three. As maskeweasal said, I've formed more meaningful relationships with other players in this game than in traditional MMO's in a long time.