The Division 2?s story: Does it need to send a message?

[Hawki]

]

Well, good guys vs. bad guys for one; what makes the good guy good and the bad guys bad. That's a default message most genre movies have.

"Good guys good, bad guys bad" is such a simple, universal message that it doesn't bear discussion. Not unless you're discussing it with a three year old (or even younger).

And isn't there a whole thing about distrust being sown between Batman and Robin due to Poison Ivy and them overcoming it? Then you have Mr. Freeze doing bad because he wants to cure his wife, but eventually somewhat seeing the error of his ways. The movie might handle its message badly but the message is still there.

Again, that's hardly a message, or if it is, it's a message that's so simplistic that it doesn't warrant analysis. It's reductio ad absurdum.

Can you tell a Batman story with themes worthy of analysis? Yes - Dark Knight and Dark Knight Rises are two examples. But there's a reason why stuff like Batman and Robin isn't analyzed. Going back to Sterling's video, there's a reason why Sonic isn't analyzed either. Yes, it's had the motif of "nature good, industry bad," something that's been present from day 1 (start off in Green Hill, end in Scrap Brain), but it's never gone beyond motif level. It's never a theme that's explored in any meaningful capacity.

 

[BrawlMan]

And if so, how and what exactly would that message be in order to keep sales up and political shitstorms down?

I was reading Gamesradar?s review [https://www.gamesradar.com/the-division-2-review/] and the following paragraph stood out:

But for all the glorious settings, and genuinely stunning open world (if you can call a post-pandemic wasteland of a city pretty), it's a bit of a shame that the plot is such a disappointment. Aside from taking back control of the city and various interactions with some side characters, there isn't really much of a story to speak of at all. For a game whose marketing paints its political commentary as its main draw, and a city that's been ravaged both by disease as well as rioting and combat, none of its backstory is ever explored properly. It manages to weave a line where it says absolutely nothing of politics, despite a mission where you fight through a museum exhibit on the Vietnam War, or have to go and rescue the Declaration of Independence. There are some interesting statements in the comms you can find and in some of the things you'll find littered about the world, but The Division 2?s story is obviously trying to play it safe. And in the end it fails to resonate. It basically ends up being a game about who's got the best guns and gear.

It kinda sounds like they?re fishing for something that is bound to be controversial. The implication there is, how far would they need to take a narrative in order for it to resonate, and what kind of narrative would that need to be to do so?

Games are not books or movies, or even TV. They are products first, and very expensive ones to make. Another key aspect of games is they are primarily meant to be played first, which would leave story aspects of a peripheral or supporting nature at best. The other thing is do people really even care about stories in games yet? Most of the time the general consensus is they don?t hold a candle to even average movies, let alone modern TV. Will that ever be an objective possibility, even with the most optimistic mindset?

Even if they did, would it really be unequivocally a good thing? I think with a game like this for example it could greatly interfere with the fun to be had from playing it if the story was too heavy-handed with controversial content or agendas. In a way it could be considered the nature of the beast medium.

I hate to break it to you, but your argument is wrong and full of it.

Here is a strong rebuttal:

 

[Casual Shinji]

]

Well, good guys vs. bad guys for one; what makes the good guy good and the bad guys bad. That's a default message most genre movies have.

"Good guys good, bad guys bad" is such a simple, universal message that it doesn't bear discussion. Not unless you're discussing it with a three year old (or even younger).

And isn't there a whole thing about distrust being sown between Batman and Robin due to Poison Ivy and them overcoming it? Then you have Mr. Freeze doing bad because he wants to cure his wife, but eventually somewhat seeing the error of his ways. The movie might handle its message badly but the message is still there.

Again, that's hardly a message, or if it is, it's a message that's so simplistic that it doesn't warrant analysis. It's reductio ad absurdum.

Can you tell a Batman story with themes worthy of analysis? Yes - Dark Knight and Dark Knight Rises are two examples. But there's a reason why stuff like Batman and Robin isn't analyzed. Going back to Sterling's video, there's a reason why Sonic isn't analyzed either. Yes, it's had the motif of "nature good, industry bad," something that's been present from day 1 (start off in Green Hill, end in Scrap Brain), but it's never gone beyond motif level. It's never a theme that's explored in any meaningful capacity.

Guess what? It's still a message, no matter how simple or unnecessary for discussion. A message isn't defined by whether it's deep or poignant.

 

[mad825]

The Division 2 bears the Tom Clancy namesake, a man who wrote political thrillers.

/thread

With solace, I'm glad that Tom Clancy died long before the style(at the very least) of the work that he produced faded into obscurity.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

There's no point to talk about 'need', every piece of fiction is going to send a message regardless whether intentional or not, I don't care if it's Commando or Batman and Robin.

This is why I said people don?t really care about story in games, because the vast majority of times the game will indirectly do its damndest to discourage them from doing so.

Just because you don't care how certain games tell their stories doesn't mean everybody else doesn't. It shouldn't be impossible to wrap your head around people liking a game's story and characters BECAUSE you get to run around the world and drive their actions.

The point still remains that any narrative impact and flow is lost while the game?s design has the player dilly-dallying about. I enjoyed and remember the incidental character interactions in God of War far moreso than the overall story arc, which is supposed to be what keeps the player invested in a story-driven game.

 

[Hawki]

With solace, I'm glad that Tom Clancy died long before the style(at the very least) of the work that he produced faded into obscurity.

Tom Clancy's works are still going, least in the sense of people writing in the "Clancyverse" (another example would be the Bourne series, even after the death of Ludlum). Also, there's authors that more or less fill his niche, such as Matthew Riley and Dale Brown.

Which is fine, just not my thing.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The point still remains that any narrative impact and flow is lost while the game?s design has the player dilly-dallying about. I enjoyed and remember the incidental character interactions in God of War far moreso than the overall story arc, which is supposed to be what keeps the player invested in a story-driven game.

Well, for one it's your choice to dilly-dally, and secondly those character interactions are there so that even while you're dilly-dallying the story doesn't suddenly take a break. That's a sign of good storytelling in a game. And the story arc of GoW is Kratos and Atreus working through the boundries that are keeping them apart as father and son. That is what's supposed to keep the player invested, and this arc is present from start to finish.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I haven't played Division 2, nor the first one for that matter, but from what I've been able to read about it and watch, the game series is basically "what if Rainbow failed to stop Horizon?".

The whole game series being a meditation on the fragility of contemporary civilization and what separates modern man from a Hobbesian state of nature, the capacity of American society and government to handle a real civilization-threatening crisis and the extent to which those who wield coercive power will go to maintain order, the mere existence and capability of terror groups that aren't "murderous religious zealot" to wreak genuine havoc, and the dangers of a wholly privatized military-industrial complex.

That's pretty much all exactly within Clancy's wheelhouse, especially if you've actually taken the time to read his goddamn books. Especially Rainbow Six which basically lays down the entire pretext of The Division.

Really, this isn't a case of "this game is apolitical and I don't like it". Like Far Cry 5 and the (good) installments of the Modern Warfare series, it's a case of "this game didn't spoon feed me the political narrative I want to hear". Just because you're not smart, culturally-aware, or politically open-minded enough to see or understand the message doesn't mean the game lacks one. It just means you're a putz.

 

[Marik2]

moviebob says it does

 

[Avnger]

I haven't played Division 2, nor the first one for that matter, but from what I've been able to read about it and watch, the game series is basically "what if Rainbow failed to stop Horizon?".

The whole game series being a meditation on the fragility of contemporary civilization and what separates modern man from a Hobbesian state of nature, the capacity of American society and government to handle a real civilization-threatening crisis and the extent to which those who wield coercive power will go to maintain order, the mere existence and capability of terror groups that aren't "murderous religious zealot" to wreak genuine havoc, and the dangers of a wholly privatized military-industrial complex.

That's pretty much all exactly within Clancy's wheelhouse, especially if you've actually taken the time to read his goddamn books. Especially Rainbow Six which basically lays down the entire pretext of The Division.

Really, this isn't a case of "this game is apolitical and I don't like it". Like Far Cry 5 and the (good) installments of the Modern Warfare series, it's a case of "this game didn't spoon feed me the political narrative I want to hear". Just because you're not smart, culturally-aware, or politically open-minded enough to see or understand the message doesn't mean the game lacks one. It just means you're a putz.

Did you watch the Jim Sterling video linked above?

The game's Creative Director disagrees with you. He is the one claiming the game makes no political statements.

And so should it be clear, we?re definitely not making any political statements. Right? This is still a work of fiction, right?

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Did you watch the Jim Sterling video linked above?

Nope. Not going to, either.

The game's Creative Director disagrees with you. He is the one claiming the game makes no political statements.

No, the game's creative director was dodging leading questions asked by an interviewer with an agenda to corner him into making normative statements about contemporary American politics. And, interpreting the context about the question where the interviewer pointed out the director was grinning, the director knew damn well what the interviewer was after, and was not going to indulge it. Instead, he did his best to keep the interview on track, as opposed to doing what the interviewer wanted which was getting in the weeds.

That?s an amazing assumption that you?re making, one that I?m not going to confirm or deny. [...] ]I can absolutely understand the question, the assumption, and the nature of it, but I?m here to tell you that DC, the reason that we chose it was for the ones that I said.

You see, I'm one of those people who actually follow links and read them. Don't cherry-pick.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I'd be kind of shocked if a setting as deliberately chosen as the Division's did not have some overriding themes or ideas it may ask you to consider. I mean, the setting is rather wasted otherwise.

 

[sXeth]

Did you watch the Jim Sterling video linked above?

The game's Creative Director disagrees with you. He is the one claiming the game makes no political statements.

Yeah, I'ma have to counter that one with how often any given artist just says the song/movie means whatever. Or Jake the Snake Roberts (pro wrestler) says DDT stands for nothing. Its almost a guarantee that any political stance that may or may not be in the Divisions writing, came from somewhere, even if it wasn't the main directive.

Ubisoft is not going to wade into directly commenting on politics, especially current politics, on a publicized interview for fairly obvious reasons.


AS to whether the game needs to make any kind of message. I'd say no. Its a game thats marketed on you running around looting shit. The dead serious political narrative of the Division is not whats on the tin as far any sort of mis-delivering on an expectation. The guy arguing that it is maybe a disservice to the Clancy brands is probably the closest to the money. That is certainly something I've written on myself reviewing music, when a band (which is a brand in any professional sense) just ups and drops an album of some completely different tone or genre. But thats ultimately the fault of whoevers let their brand slip under someone elses control (or in the band example, signing some ridiculous multi-album exclusivity contract that forces them to only put out music under that name for a label)

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I can't think of a great narrative without any themes/messages, even something like Guardians of the Galaxy is pretty heavy in theme.

Didn't say it had to be great. But I'd have to contest GotG being heavy on theme.

If we want to look at another MCU, let's take, I dunno, Spider-Man: Homecoming. Solid characters, solid story, solid pacing, solid plot. But it's hardly got any deeper theme behind it.

GotG is super heavy on its theme as Movies with Mikey [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjwzCrtK5G0] points out, it gets me teary-eyed every time I watch Mikey's video. So is the 2nd one, the whole movie is about father-son relationships. Spiderman Homecoming has major themes/messages with just Michael Keaton's character alone. Like Shinji said, messages don't have to be deep, though the quality of said work is usually tied to how well integrated its themes are.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

And if so, how and what exactly would that message be in order to keep sales up and political shitstorms down?

I was reading Gamesradar?s review [https://www.gamesradar.com/the-division-2-review/] and the following paragraph stood out:

But for all the glorious settings, and genuinely stunning open world (if you can call a post-pandemic wasteland of a city pretty), it's a bit of a shame that the plot is such a disappointment. Aside from taking back control of the city and various interactions with some side characters, there isn't really much of a story to speak of at all. For a game whose marketing paints its political commentary as its main draw, and a city that's been ravaged both by disease as well as rioting and combat, none of its backstory is ever explored properly. It manages to weave a line where it says absolutely nothing of politics, despite a mission where you fight through a museum exhibit on the Vietnam War, or have to go and rescue the Declaration of Independence. There are some interesting statements in the comms you can find and in some of the things you'll find littered about the world, but The Division 2?s story is obviously trying to play it safe. And in the end it fails to resonate. It basically ends up being a game about who's got the best guns and gear.

It kinda sounds like they?re fishing for something that is bound to be controversial. The implication there is, how far would they need to take a narrative in order for it to resonate, and what kind of narrative would that need to be to do so?

Games are not books or movies, or even TV. They are products first, and very expensive ones to make. Another key aspect of games is they are primarily meant to be played first, which would leave story aspects of a peripheral or supporting nature at best. The other thing is do people really even care about stories in games yet? Most of the time the general consensus is they don?t hold a candle to even average movies, let alone modern TV. Will that ever be an objective possibility, even with the most optimistic mindset?

Even if they did, would it really be unequivocally a good thing? I think with a game like this for example it could greatly interfere with the fun to be had from playing it if the story was too heavy-handed with controversial content or agendas. In a way it could be considered the nature of the beast medium.

I hate to break it to you, but your argument is wrong and full of it.

Here is a strong rebuttal:

Well that was a fairly painful slog to watch and listen to (not the biggest fan of Jim?s style). It kinda reminded me of how inefficient most games are at conveying messages, like whatever mess The Division 2 is attempting to (but not really) dance around.

Imagine watching a movie or reading a novel that deals with the struggles of contemporary living, but instead of simply absorbing the content on the screen or pages (pure story), you might have to go walk the dog, mow the lawn, cut your fingernails, maybe go get groceries, etc. before you can get back to it. That?s akin to what most games have you doing in between the actual pieces of whatever story they?re trying to tell. One could say, ?Well, all those tasks are part of the experience.?, which by a stretch may technically be true, but I could easily say the same for the above distractions; sometimes even moreso. Experiencing most games in pure story form would likely involve just watching a YouTube Let?s Play consisting of only cutscenes.

The issue is that gameplay too often serves as a distraction from (or worse, is a disservice to) story and vice versa, which presents the challenge that storytelling in games needs to surmount in order to rise above what other mediums are capable of. The idea of segueing gameplay and narrative in a way that one doesn?t wind up being detrimental to the other, but instead each aspect supports the other to make it stronger.

 

[sXeth]

The issue is that gameplay too often serves as a distraction from (or worse, is a disservice to) story and vice versa, which presents the challenge that storytelling in games needs to surmount in order to rise above what other mediums are capable of. The idea of segueing gameplay and narrative in a way that one doesn?t wind up being detrimental to the other, but instead each aspect supports the other to make it stronger.

The expression of some fans aside, and the occasional pretentious writer (*Cough*Far Cry 3*cough*) aside. I think most games are designed pretty comfortably around the concept of being games and not some deep effort to be high level storytelling.

About the only one I can recall in semi-recent memory that tried to keep things going consistently was Last of Us, and even that needs a qualifier, because the stealth segments with Clickers were definitely pure gameplay breaks. (While stealth sections vs humans tended to include narrative detail, and the idiotic pallette/ladder puzzles at least filled the downtime with unique dialogue).

 

[EvilRoy]

Well that was a fairly painful slog to watch and listen to (not the biggest fan of Jim?s style). It kinda reminded me of how inefficient most games are at conveying messages, like whatever mess The Division 2 is attempting to (but not really) dance around.

Imagine watching a movie or reading a novel that deals with the struggles of contemporary living, but instead of simply absorbing the content on the screen or pages (pure story), you might have to go walk the dog, mow the lawn, cut your fingernails, maybe go get groceries, etc. before you can get back to it. That?s akin to what most games have you doing in between the actual pieces of whatever story they?re trying to tell. One could say, ?Well, all those tasks are part of the experience.?, which by a stretch may technically be true, but I could easily say the same for the above distractions; sometimes even moreso. Experiencing most games in pure story form would likely involve just watching a YouTube Let?s Play consisting of only cutscenes.

The issue is that gameplay too often serves as a distraction from (or worse, is a disservice to) story and vice versa, which presents the challenge that storytelling in games needs to surmount in order to rise above what other mediums are capable of. The idea of segueing gameplay and narrative in a way that one doesn?t wind up being detrimental to the other, but instead each aspect supports the other to make it stronger.

I think the major issue is that people keep looking for declarative statements when it comes to this kind of stuff - like, the music stops, the lights dim to a spotlight over the main character who steps forward and says "hey everyone, we've talked about a lot of stuff on the show today..." and then we all nod our heads and look at eachother and resolve to feel a certain way or not feel a certain way and then the show ends and a commercial about a kid shitting his pants over some plastic piece of garbage he picked out of a box stuffed with grease pops up and we collectively wonder if one more burger in exchange for 10 minutes less total lifetime is worth it.

I got lost in a memory for a second there, but what I'm getting at is that the game already has commentary in it, its just that it isn't presented well, or how we want it, or whatever. Above Hawkii gave us this :

It has a setting where a secret group has carte blanche to defend the US from looters/terrorists, in a situation that stems from a virus that spread on Black Friday (consumerism), that apparently sent the country to a pre-industrial state, where, among other things, those that owned firearms did better than those who didn't (gun rights).

But that's not the setting, its the story. Or at least all the story you need - everything from there out, what you do in that game (book? I don't know what they're specifically referencing) and how the characters and events react to what you do (or read) is the commentary. I dunno what the Division does with the base story it was set up with, but no matter what it is, that's commentary. If you play the game and at no point does anyone give a shit about all the stuff/civilians/terrorists that explode in the process, that's still commentary.

Because the players make up part of the story by interacting with it, the commentary you get is going to vary wildly in all but the most constrained playthroughs. The Line had actual choices in it - like you could phosphorus a herd of orphans or you could bust your ass to avoid doing it, but most players tried to not murder a heap of children, got rocked back to the stone age, and then took the option they thought they were being told was the only thing you can do, and the decision (not only the gameplay action, the process that lead to the meatspace people choosing to do what they did, whatever it was) is commentary too.

Part of we as a society missing this I blame on the average game player for being blind to their contribution to the story, part of this I blame on the reporters who want real declarative statements to point at with mouths agape and eyes like dinner saucers and the remainder I attribute to the nature of most other media. The Wizard of Oz is about all sorts of shit, but since the story is locked in by the ink on the page only the internal mental processes of the person experiencing it will vary the commentary provided by the story - and because of the way our society works, most common interpretations will be declared 'correct' and the others discarded as incomplete, naive, so on and so forth. Not a lot of video games work like that and therefore its difficult to nail down a 'correct' interpretation of the story, even if the writer comes right out and says what they meant (Far Cry threeeeeee), but traditional media up to this point has always worked that way and we have been trained to look for it.

 

[Kwak]

To which the alt-right moroni-verse inevitably interprets as "Leftist essjaydubbleyous say all games must make a political statement!!!!!".
God these people are fucking stupid.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Yeah, I'ma have to counter that one with how often any given artist just says the song/movie means whatever. Or Jake the Snake Roberts (pro wrestler) says DDT stands for nothing. Its almost a guarantee that any political stance that may or may not be in the Divisions writing, came from somewhere, even if it wasn't the main directive.

People used to pull that shit constantly with Kubrick, too -- try to push him into making definitive statements about the politics of his work, when the reality is for what they're really looking is to be told what they want to hear. He didn't take the bait, either. Their work is their work, and the statements they have to make are built into the work, thus they've already said what they have to say. Asking the creative about it after the fact is, best-case, an insult to their intelligence and skills as a creator, and a tacit admission the person doing the asking, isn't doing the thinking.

Ray Bradbury, and Fahrenheit 451, is another fantastic example.

And on the flip side, if a creative constantly talks about the themes and theses of their work, chances are they probably didn't do a good job at communicating or portraying them, or lack confidence in either the final product or the messages therein. The work, and statements made thereby, ideally should speak for itself.

It's up to the audience to think about the material, themes, and theses made, and come to their own conclusions. Kubrick, for as brilliant and multi-layered a creative he is, wasn't that subtle when he actually set out to say something. Look at FMJ, for example, the entire movie is a commentary on how American culture glorifies war and dehumanizes soldiers by way of sexualizing violence. You just have to put that thing between your ears to work, for once in your miserable life, to get it.

 

[BrawlMan]

To which the alt-right moroni-verse inevitably interprets as "Leftist essjaydubbleyous say all games must make a political statement!!!!!".
God these people are fucking stupid.

Sucks to be them. I know of the Quartering, but a lot of his videos are uninteresting. How this guy's got over 400K subs is beyond me. People like that will interpret anything just to justify or fit their warped view of morality or "standards". I do agree with him on Jim about the Epic games store, but you don't need someone like him to figure that out.