There's something very wrong with the Division. And the worst thing is that I keep finding myself unable to put in words what it is. It took me 2 hours to fall asleep last night only because this bugged me so much. Because, you see, when one tries to deconstruct the Division almost all of the individual elements seem to be fairly good. The gameplay loop engages you with neat shooting mechanics. The quests take you to these wonderfully atmospheric location that rally evoke all the right feelings in the player. All the systems available at launch seem to have a good level of depth and will certainly take a good long while to master. Finally, the game is hyperaware that it is a MMO Lite experience and, unlike Destiny in 2014, it actively encourages player interaction. Yet, I finished my first day with the Division feeling indifferent, uninspired and ,above all, unfulfilled.
Despite all of these elements being really fine-tuned, in the first 5 hours of gameplay none of it really come together in a cohesive way. There are two ways of looking at why that is. The first school of critique will focuses their efforts around pointing out the lack of depth in particular systems. I've already seen vocal critique of the shooting, the loot system or the ridiculously unrealistic enemy health bars. And all of the above are legitimate concerns that take away from people's enjoyment of the game. However, none of these perceived problem are cardinal offences that disqualify the game from being a good experience. After all, Borderlands 2 struggled with everything on that list and still managed to be a memorable experience for most players. In my opinion, what will ultimately deem the Division to be completely unremarkable game that will soon be forgotten is the underlying corporate fear of failure.
Let's go back to 2014 for a second. Ubisoft came into the year with high expectations for the new generation of consoles. The company worked tirelessly to generate as much hype as possible for Watch Dogs and Assassin Creed Unity. Both games were presented as revolutionary products poised to take full advantage of the wonderful new hardware. We all know how this story ends. Despite respectable sales numbers the disappointment of the 2 games having a wide rang of issues resulted in a PR disaster that prompted Ubisoft to be viewed on par with the great gaming evildoers of the day, EA and Activision. The Ubisoft boardroom was clearly shaken up by the community backlash. Measures were undoubtedly taken to do everything in their power to avoid scandals of this magnitude in the future. As much as it is good that Ubisoft put an emphasis on quality control, the fear of failure seems to permeate from every major game development decision made by the French giant.
The most compelling games in my book are the titles that early in development are able to clearly identify what makes their product unique and geared every element of the game to be informed by that dominant attribute. My favourite AAA game of all time, the Witcher 3, is a great example of that. CD Projekt RED knew that, while the game was full of great ideas, it was the narrative that made it truly stand out. In the world of the Witcher you are constantly reminded that, while you can certainly engage in a myriad of your typical open-worldy activities, getting to know the game universe and the characters is what you're there for. Now think about your favourite game, book or a movie. If I told you to give me one defining characteristic of your favourite work of art you wouldn't hesitate for a second. Greatness, especially in video games, is not something you simply stumble upon. It is often the result of applying great execution to a ground-breaking idea.
The Division fails because it is obsessively making sure it is not a failure, and that's a shame. I hope there are people at Ubisoft realizing this now. Because, as much as it is bland and average, it can still be salvaged. I can easily imagine re-imagining in the form of a big expansion. It would really be a shame for this incredible vision of New York City to go to waste. On the other hand, the realization that there is something wrong with the game may never come. The game is what it is because the data proves that people will pay good money for games with these particular elements. Gamers punish developers for releasing bad, broken games. However, I actually think it might be time to demand more than a solid product. So whenever you a flashy trailer entices you to buy a mediocre game, remind yourself that there are probably 100 better ways to spend your gaming budget. That way, we might actually end up helping Ubisoft and others excel in the long run.
The most compelling games in my book are the titles that early in development are able to clearly identify what makes their product unique and geared every element of the game to be informed by that dominant attribute. My favourite AAA game of all time, the Witcher 3, is a great example of that. CD Projekt RED knew that, while the game was full of great ideas, it was the narrative that made it truly stand out. In the world of the Witcher you are constantly reminded that, while you can certainly engage in a myriad of your typical open-worldy activities, getting to know the game universe and the characters is what you're there for. Now think about your favourite game, book or a movie. If I told you to give me one defining characteristic of your favourite work of art you wouldn't hesitate for a second. Greatness, especially in video games, is not something you simply stumble upon. It is often the result of applying great execution to a ground-breaking idea.
The dominant direction for all of the recent Ubisoft games seems to be making sure that the end product is solid above all else. Where great games try to innovate, Ubisoft games try to avoid blunders at all cost. And while this means better technical quality, unfortunately it also breeds mediocrity. And while I got a similar impression from playing AC Syndicate and Far Cry Primal, the Division is where this aiming for mediocrity is at its worst. There's not a single element of the game that could be considered bold or contentious. Everything seems to be designed around a check list of what makes a solid game. The Division is a game that knows full well it is a 6. It is unapologetically proud of its mediocrity. It wants you to like it, but it knows you won't be in love with it. I seriously cannot find a single system in it that is not borrowed from something else. And that fact alone may not be outrage-inducing, but it is disappointing in this subtle yet painful way.
The more cynical among you will say that this is nothing new in AAA gaming and if I want innovation I should only play indie titles. There are many reasons why I'm vehemently against this notion. Ubisoft is the company with a rather good record in game innovation. Assassin's Creed 2 is still the pinnacle of open-world action games. Far Cry 3 introduced a ton of systems that define today's implementation of RPG elements in FPS games. Even the controversial Watch Dogs had some great puzzle mechanics within the city hacking system. Ubisoft is more than capable of delivering innovation and I genuinely hope that the move towards risk-mitigation is just temporary and that projects like the next Assassin Creed game will do something to help me rediscover my love for their titles.
Even if we assume that all strategic decisions at Ubisoft are dictated by greed, being a bit more daring might actually be the safer choice. Let me remind you that we live in a post-Deadpool world where the weird underdog superhero movie completely crushed the by-the-numbers Gods of Egypt. The Merc with a Mouth showed us that not all successful entertainment products have to appeal to everyone. Fervent support of a smaller group of people is often a lot more meaningful than the basic for of approval from a much larger community. I am more than certain that Rainbow Six Siege, a truly innovative gem in many respects, ends up making more money than the Division ever will. Why? Because in the consumer market, 1 passionate evangelist of your product is worth much more than 5 marketing experts.
The Division fails because it is obsessively making sure it is not a failure, and that's a shame. I hope there are people at Ubisoft realizing this now. Because, as much as it is bland and average, it can still be salvaged. I can easily imagine re-imagining in the form of a big expansion. It would really be a shame for this incredible vision of New York City to go to waste. On the other hand, the realization that there is something wrong with the game may never come. The game is what it is because the data proves that people will pay good money for games with these particular elements. Gamers punish developers for releasing bad, broken games. However, I actually think it might be time to demand more than a solid product. So whenever you a flashy trailer entices you to buy a mediocre game, remind yourself that there are probably 100 better ways to spend your gaming budget. That way, we might actually end up helping Ubisoft and others excel in the long run. 
No comments:
Post a Comment