Can The Division Be Trusted With The Absence Of Pre-Release Reviews?

ThisGenGaming says "One of the most highly anticipated games of this year is finally due to release this coming Tuesday and expectations are high. The Division was originally revealed back in 2013 and fans have had a long wait to get their hands on with the full, finished product. Having said that, Ubisoft have held 3 play tests now with a Closed Alpha test, a Closed Beta test and an Open Beta test. It’s fairly uncommon for a game to undergo this many beta tests before the full product and it’s unclear whether the purpose was to stress test the servers or to drive up hype for the game."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
MRBIGCAT840d ago

of course, I like how they are forcing all the sites to wait.

pumpactionpimp839d ago (Edited 839d ago )

Why would you like that idea? They've only mentioned the dark zone as end game content. We got to play 2 missions, and in the darkzone for the beta. We know what the darkzone is like, and you either like it or you dont.

But ubi could have limited, or full servers up for reviewers. Then people would know, how many missions there are. How coherent/great/bad the story is. What other end game activities there are.

Ubi deserves no trust. No company does. I would like to know for sure this isn't another destiny at launch. I don't believe that's asking a lot. Especially since I want to buy it, but won't with the lack of info.

Silver_ShadoWolf839d ago

The mentioned The Dark Zone as part of endgame content. There is also PVE endgame content.

If you didn't play the beta then you should wait to get the game. You weren't trying to get it day one anyway if you never preordered the game. If you preordered then you could be in the beta and judge for yourself.

People don't need reviewers to give their one-sided opinion on a game. You play the game yourself. Rent it. There is so many options for you.

Ubisoft isn't making the game. Massive has created this masterpiece. If you don't like it then you can wait a few days for reviews to come up.

pumpactionpimp839d ago


I played the beta, and like I said "I want to buy it." But I don't know how much pve there is. I don't know what kind of endgame there is. Most importantly, I don't know much outside of the price of the game, season pass, and what I learned playing the beta. Which was the DZ is fun, but the game will need more to sustain it's self.

I also didn't say I was looking for a reviewers opinion of the game. I was looking to see how much content there was, and if it was engaging enough. Since ubi won't talk about anything... excuse me "massive", then where do I look outside of reviewers?

Reviews are a win, win for the dev/publisher if they've infact made a good game. It puts their game in a positive light out the gate. And gets them even more promotional publicity.

thekhurg839d ago

Because games like this require servers to be online and for people to interact with others in the game. This is something that can't be done with just a handful of reviewers playing alone.

Seraphim839d ago (Edited 839d ago )

I'm with ya Pump.

I just don't see there being content, end game content to keep The Division interesting. Ubi said something about the DLC last week. One of them takes you into the tunnels of NYC. I think the game will be solid I just don't see it having legs to maintain players interest.

With or w/o reviews Ubi knows that reviews can only hurt sales. Those who on the fence can wait. Having bad reviews before release could result in a lot of cancelled orders or gamers deciding to pass Day 1. I don't care about the reviews because the campaign should be solid solo or with a friend. DZ will be fun for some period of time. My concern is the seemingly lack of content this game is going to have to keep myself, friends and other gamers interested in playing.

PeaSFor839d ago


reviewers will test the game against/with real players and in crowded servers, it would be unfair to test the game in a really controlled and impractical environement(without real players MAKING THE GAME WHAT IT IS), and you cant expect reviewers to rush the game without the important part that other players play in the game, its a tps mmorpg so its just a no brainer to give the reviewers the product Ubisoft want to sell AS A WHOLE and not a limited impractical experience.

i would say that's pretty fair for Ubi to do that. Hard to critique something when you are in a hella controlled environment.

anyway, i played both betas and i had fun with with it, i can see myself playing it many hours solo or in group, at this point im buying it.

Army_of_Darkness839d ago

It's not the end of the world if say ummm.. You wait a few days or even a week after the game releases too get the full details and reviews about the game. Just a reminder ;-)

coryNcali839d ago

They just released a video showing year one content. I thought they did a great job of letting us know what is going to happen for the end game without spoiling the surprises they have for us. Rest assured though that there is absolutely pve end game content; incursings, challenge mode, survival dlc, last stand dlc, underground dlc, and probably raids. Mmo's often arent reviewed until servers go live, so this isnt a new thing. Also keep in mind just the small amount of the dark zone we played in the beta was a great change from the typical pvp modes, and they have changes in the dark zone we just dont know the details yet.

Pongwater839d ago

If there had only been a closed beta and reaction to it was bad I'd see your point, but there was an open beta and people largely seem to have loved their time with it.

They've talked about what end game activities there will be at release, and they've talked about releasing more later.

There was also talk about the number of missions, though it was nothing specific.

I'm not a person to trust reviews anyway, so idc when reviews for The Division show up. I've been burned too many times by other people's opinions.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 839d ago
admiralvic839d ago

Maybe I'm stupid, but I constantly see people talk about how interactions are super important and completely required to do the review, yet I simply don't see how.

I understand that is how the game is meant to be played and accept that it will be better (if its done right anyway) with more people, but how much is really going to change with additional people? Especially when it doesn't even make sense to review a subjective aspect of subjective things.

Its not like every situation will be exactly the same, nor can you review a dynamic element. Sometimes you'll play games where the people in the Dark Zone are terrible, where as other times the people there simply outclass you. Good people doing quests will help you progress further faster, where as bad people will hinder your progress.

Maybe its me, but the only thing that makes sense to review is the static content and how these elements are theoretically incorporated with other people (like how Destiny's raids require multiple people doing things, so you can comment on how the human factor will come into play), which is not something that requires thousands/millions of players.

With that being said, I do understand people commenting on how well the online works, the roll out and things of the like, which I sort of get. I can understand how this stuff would be important, though news/forum posts will prevent it from ever really being an issue. If the servers crash/constantly be a problem, then you can bet it won't be swept under the rug.

I mean, please don't just disagree with me because I don't "get it." I just want to understand why some people think you need thousands of players to accurately review something (after we had an alpha and two betas to get an understanding of how it works with multiple people) where such dynamic elements shouldn't be part of the equation (you review things based off how they're incorporated, not how people interact with your world because some will be good and others will be bad, but no one will have the exact same experience).

Sevir839d ago

This is exactly as Destiny is in that to accurately review the game, it must be shared and experienced on ground level in the same way the general public does. So with millions of players fully populating the world exposing the highs and lows, faults and perfections of the game in every aspect of its shared online world as both a tactical team based game, single player or multiplayer.

They had the right idea. Those who want to write a review for deadline sake can and will and will do it with their agenda. Others will take their time and soak it in understand the game and review it the correct way.

YinYangGaming840d ago

I did have a few network issues during beta but as long as it's stable then I'm fine with it

TheGreatGamer840d ago

Didn't they do this with Unity?

_LarZen_839d ago

It's the same with almost every online game these days.

rashada07839d ago

Since it is, primarily an online game- it does no good to get "early" reviews when the servers aren't up and/or populated.

jb227839d ago

See but that's a pertinent point to make...Ubisoft have sworn up & down that The Division can be played as a single player experience, if that was the case, then why would population matter whatsoever? I get that it is an online focused game but even then I only get that because I know to read between the lines & not trust the devs when they say things like "you can definitely play single player, multiplayer just enhances the experience"...stuff like this just seems like proof that mp is the experience & sp is kinda pointless, just wish the devs would've said that from the beginning, or even eliminated an sp entirely, because there are going to be at least thousands of sp gamers looking for an experience that won't be there, and that's just shameful IMO. Just saw some trailers for the game during TWD, and they show absolutely nothing that would even allude to the game being online only or thin on story content, they actually show the opposite, it looked like the kind of narrative driven game commercial that we would see for something like Quantum Break or Uncharted.

I'm sure the game will be a great mp experience, but they should've at least allowed reviewers to post impressions on whatever sp content is available to give those gamers a heads up before they buy a game that may be severely lacking in that arena.

Goldby839d ago

becuase JB, playing solo vs an empty instance are two very different things.

If you play solo. you are still in an instance with 25 other players, which will enhance moments of firefights and Dark Zone. thats what they mean by SP. you are a lone agent but you are still online.

If reviewers were given the game and played in closed instances, they cant exactly review the DZ or how lone agents may help for sections if they see you need help.

How do you think the reviewer would handle the emptyness of the streets if there isn't one other person in their instance. the reviewers are goign to be reviewing the game based on what MAssive intended, and that is with full instances and other players.

jb227839d ago


I definitely see that reviewers should hold off on reviewing the mp portion of the game & refrain from posting a score in regards to the full game, but I still think it'd have been worthwhile to let them review what a solo experience would be like just to let those gamers know what would be in store. If the game is unplayable or uncompletable as an entirely solo experience, then Massive have pretty much sold a false premise, because they have been saying that you can play the entire game solo. Have been hearing rumors recently that the endgame lies behind the DZ though so that doesn't necessarily seem to be the case.

I'm all for whatever they are going for in their online integration, my only issue w/ the entire situation & marketing is that they've been very vague as to the potential for a solo playthrough in some instances & in others have outright confirmed that there is a worthwhile campaign for those who want to go it completely alone. If that doesn't turn out to be the case then it just seems like sheer trickery.

Show all comments (64)
The story is too old to be commented.