Depends on how repetitive and competitive each game is. I think if The Division is more akin to Destiny, many players will be disappointed at the grinding aspects and how similar everything feels. They need to be able to balance the core gameplay with exciting objectives or unique side missions to keep players engaged rather than the classic MMORPG trope of 'kill 10 soldiers for a weapon'. Escorting hostages or another NPC could be a way to keep things feeling fresh as 1 example.
Has anyone played Siege yet? I've read a few reviews and they seemed overall fairly positive, between 7-8 on the "major" review sites. I haven't played it yet, but I'm curious to know if anyone has.
Siege is terrible, but these two games have nothing in common. Siege is repetitive, dull and bland. A hand full of classes, with major limitations on what equipment you can bring in to the field. Minimal customization of characters (what happened to Vegas and Vegas 2?) limited to only skins on guns and attachments. The core mechanics of a team based FPS with very small room for error, doesn't really have a place in the current gaming generation. The Division on the other hand, feels exactly like what the current gamers are looking for. It's been a long time coming since we have actually had a well executed MMOTPS that's truly an MMO, so I hope it will be a big step for current games.
It's too bad that FPS designed for well-organized teams are on the declined as you mentioned, but honestly I'm not surprised. It's tough to find a good group of people to play with online, so it can be a turn off for people to try to get through the game with people who aren't interested in cooperating.
That is actually one of my biggest concerns for The Division. Team based gameplay is basically dead and has been for a long time and that's not surprising, it's just hard to coordinate between several people you don't know through voice communication which can be really dodgy in an online game. Some people can do it, if they know their teammates personally and I thought I'd be able to play The Division with friends as well. We'll actually have to wait and see on that, but I'll be really disappointed if I had to play with random people online.
This is what will make or break the game for me... If my friends all end up getting it, I may be more inclined to also get it since I know they're (usually) serious about gaming and working together. I'm curious to see what the LFG options will be like, and how the whole guild or clan (whatever they end up being called in this game) search and grouping function will work. We know there won't be voice chat in the PC version of the game (which is odd, but still not a deal breaker), I can't imagine trying to play this without communicating.
What? Counter Strike Global Offensive is still the most played competitive team based FPS in the market, and it's also one of the most popular online games on the planet. And there's Overwatch made from Blizzard Entertainment that everyone who's played the closed alpha is hyped about. I think that competitive shooters are still very present. The very fact that Ubisoft tried to be like them with this game is the proof that they want in on that market. The problem here is not that the genre is in decline, it's instead that their game has problems. I've played Siege, only the alpha though, and it was fine but didn't grab my attention as much as I wanted to. And I'm hearing that the released product lacks in content so people are not very happy about it. And since it's a multiplayer only game with very few singleplayer options, you'd think they would do more content since they only have the online portion to worry about. I'd understand if Siege was like the older games where the singleplayer part was as important as the rest, but it's a multiplayer only game, for god's sake. Maybe they needed more dev time, I don't know. Fortunately The Division has much more to go on thanks to the fact that it's more than just a shooter. You're exploring, you're cooperating, you're looking for equipment, you're leveling up and so on. The competitive part is just one part of the game (the dark zones are confined areas, after all), so the comparison here is a bit exaggerated and doesn't really do justice to the full potential The Division has.
@Ishmael I stand corrected, I had completely forgotten about CS:GO. It's gotten great reviews and is still very much alive and popular, as you mentioned. Hadn't heard about Overwatch either (or didn't pay enough attention). Maybe comparing The Division to CS:GO makes more sense, or do you think The Division is unique in what it is trying to accomplish? The Division has a huge component that's multiplayer and PvP though, and it really sounds that you'll need to access these zones to get the full experience of the game. Since Siege is mp only, you can see why they'd get compared. The Tom Clancy link doesn't help either.
What's my main concern is that this game will end up like DayZ. Now of course, DayZ was developed in a little more different manner, but the chaotic constant betrayal really pulled me out of the game.
True, but DayZ has spawned some pretty hilarious YouTube videos of people trolling, so it's not all bad... Unless you're trying to play the game seriously and you keep getting griefed.
Exactly what I'm talking about. I love dicking around when playing games, especially online, with friends, but I also love to really get into the game and try to play it as seriously as possible. Kinda hard to have both sorts of players playing with each other and everyone leaving satisfied.
This is why I really hope there's a good guild system in place. I hope the team finding system lets you weed out people who have bad ratings or grief and you can team up with people like-minded.
Honestly, I'm not sure you can really compare two games of two different natures. Yes, they are both Tom Clancy games. But you can't really compare an MMO to a Competitive shooter. Not only is it two different markets and gameplay, but the fanbase has the possibility of being different. Different people can think different things, and may like one over the other. I think they both have enough notoriety to get themselves through.
Oh I so hope there is a guild system in place. I feel like it's a pretty necessary thing in an MMO, not every one has friends who will play the same games, and a guild is a really good way of finding people to play with and just in general have fun with.
I completely agree with you that it's apples and oranges, and obviously the best answer is to get both... lol... It's the best of both world, really.
Exactly! I would rather have both experiences, and compare them each to games in their respective categories, if I were going to be doing any sort of comparisons of games. It makes no sense to do otherwise. I mean, I don't compare World of Warcraft to Harvest Moon. It just wouldn't make sense to.
True, although a better comparison would be Warcraft 2 with World of Warcraft - both set in the same universe, yet both very very different games.
