Tom Clancy's The Division Review | Starburst Magazine

Whether you’re looking at his literature or the video games he helped inspire, having the late Tom Clancy’s name on a product is supposed to be a seal of quality. There’s supposed to be a sense of prestige to it, the idea that it has met some high set of standards to be deemed worthy of bearing the name of the man who helped bring about Rainbow Six. Yet after twenty hours of playing The Division, you’d be forgiven for wondering just what it did right, in order to earn that stamp of approval.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Kerppamaister1583d ago

"but even if you were to stomach those flaws, you’re left with a bargain bin title any half competent developer could have squirted out in six months"... Riiiight. Seems legit. Don't bother reading.

Pongwater1583d ago

Yeah all I needed was the score to make me not the read the actual review. I agree that the Clancy name shouldn't have been used but I'm loving the game itself. My score after 15 hours or so is more like a 9, or maybe even a bit higher. I only have one real problem with the game and it has nothing to do with gameplay.

G20WLY1583d ago

I respect your opinion, but to me this game is nowhere near the heights of a 9/10. It's not a 3 either of course, but this is not the next MP I am looking for.

Aeery1583d ago

Terrible, poor and ugly review like this is one of the many reasons why reviews in these days are completely *pointless*.

If you have even half brain to reason is really easy to understand this kind of review is just pure trash.

Lonnie181583d ago

Yeah I give it a score of 9, loving how I can craft my own gear and weapons by breaking down other equipment. I also like how the single-player level up is separate from the Dark Zone, and DZ level cap is 125 nice.

JackBNimble1583d ago

Even the beta was better then a 3/10. This review is only a trolling attempt.

Cdn_Seahawks_Fan1583d ago

The Clancy name was used because the game is based on an actual government scenario where this could actually happen, and we know how Tom Clancy stories in the past play to some of the scenarios that could happen. It deserved the name.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1583d ago
MRMagoo1231583d ago

The game isn't very good most people know this it will last less time than's about as shallow as a poem by Peter Griffin.

Lonnie181583d ago

Doubt it, not with the DZ having a level cap of 125 lol. Destiny had like a cap at 30 plus some stupid light level lol.

Shiken1583d ago

Well I guess we know why you only have 3 bubs lol.

U even play the game?

hiredhelp1583d ago

Wait wait....starburstmagazine is this a actual magazine or made up site.. Eaither way that low score taking into account everything not even reading just thought come in ask the question.

Volkama1583d ago

Trying to diversify their content. There is only so much they can report on the sweets every month.

Relientk771583d ago (Edited 1583d ago )

Yeah I wanna see REAL reviews for this game, not Starburst Magazine...

solar1583d ago

Ubi is holding as many of them back as they design.

Artemidorus1583d ago

Finally a reviewer that speaks the truth I gave this game 5/10.

1583d ago
Next_gen_20151583d ago

you dont even have the game. Ubisoft haters please get a life...

SegaGamer1583d ago

You're not allowed to give shooters low scores without people accusing you of trying to get clicks. If it was a platformer getting a low score though, nobody would bat an eyelid.

GoGoGadge71583d ago

I'm reporting the domain name out of principal to The Wrigley Company and Mars Inc.

Artemidorus1583d ago

Bet you're exciting at parties.

magiciandude1583d ago (Edited 1583d ago )

3/10?? This can't be real. The Division would be a 7 at its very worse. This is a dishonest review.

showtimefolks1583d ago

is this game a 3? no
is this game a 9? no

this game is 7.5

over promised=ubi
under delivered=ubi

trying to be mini ea=present ubi

sadly the division could have been so so much more. but instead we got an average 3rd person shooter.

should have been a story driven RPG with survival/city rebuilding elements

instead we got a destiny wanna be but atleast destiny had amazing gameplay

Bigpappy1583d ago

Not agreeing or disagreeing with the review. Not Everyone Is going To Like Every game. I don't buy game based on reviews, so I see that this guy hates the game and I move on. I am waiting for ghost. I am not feeling the need to get into anymore shooters at the moment. But this looks interesting enough that I could consider it.

joab7771583d ago

I'm a bit worried about its lasting power b/c of the type of game it even insanely rich mmo's run out of content. Ask Bungie how it feels to dream so big you can't come close to creating enough gameplay to satiate rabid fans.

That said, this reviewer is reviewing this game as a single player Clancy game. It is not! We need an mmo/Destiny player to review this game and let us know how it stacks up

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 1583d ago
Pongwater1583d ago

I actually agree that the Tom Clancy name shouldn't have been used for this game. There are too many unrealistic elements and I think his name is there for marketing purposes more than anything else, but I strongly disagree that the game deserves that low of a score. Oh well it's not the first review that made me shake my head and it won't be the last.

1583d ago Replies(5)
jb2271583d ago

Did he have anything to do with this story or scenario? If not I just don't understand why his name was even included. He was a writer only concerned w/ storytelling...from what I can gather The Division is a loose scenario where you create your own story through journal entries & gameplay. Is there any kind of core narrative with a beginning middle & end here? I'm genuinely curious.

Either way, if Clancy wasn't directly involved w/ the creation of source material, how in the hell could it warrant his name? If Stephen King kicked the bucket tomorrow, I wouldn't want to play some survival horror game w/ his name on it but no actual work from him out of principle. Licensing is one thing, but applying a deceased artist's name to a story he may have had nothing to do with is something entirely reason to run the risk in tarnishing his legacy, fairly certain the amount of gamers who would be buying The Division solely off of the Tom Clancy name would be negligible either way.

bixxel1583d ago ShowReplies(1)
Kyosuke_Sanada1583d ago (Edited 1583d ago )

I have my doubts about The Division but 3 out of 10 puts it in to unplayable territory due to broken game mechanics. After viewing multiple game footage, this score seems bogus.

Fez1583d ago (Edited 1583d ago )

The vast majority of games don't get released unplayable nowadays (barring online issues). By reserving a score less than 5 out of 10 for games which are close to unplayable... you are basically removing these scores from use for reviewers thereby raising the average score to 7.5 out of 10. What would you give a game which releases intermittently unplayable due to server problems? A 3?

The whole score range should be used to actually differentiate between titles. If a reviewer doesn't like a game but it's playable and pretty it must get a 6, but a game that the same reviewer does like only gets an 8 the difference between these scores is not enough to express the difference in perceived quality of the reviewer.

Reviews are mainly subjective so giving 3 out of 10 is fine if you're scoring system places unplayable at 0 and unplayable territory at 1.

Video game reviews are strange in that they are so incredibly lenient compared to other mediums.

Fez1583d ago

My comment isn't a defense of this review btw which is far too short and lacking in details to even be published...

Just a defense of giving a game a 3 out of 10 with an explanation and argument to back it up.

jb2271583d ago (Edited 1583d ago )

Totally agree Fez

I'm personally getting tired of seeing every game released this gen scored on a scale from's just made it to where I can't trust any reviews whatsoever. There is no accounting for personal tastes or game breaking glitches, just a nice & easy 2 point margin that seemingly puts every game released on this gen on the exact same playing field. I mean looking at review scores, everything released is bad stuff, no good stuff, no exceptional stuff...just a single vanilla idea of everything being "fun enough to play for a bit".

It's just robbed any impact from the art of games critique...I personally love when I see guys like Jim Sterling or Angry Joe score a game at a 6 even when I don't agree with it because they typically spend the entirety of their review totally justifying their own personal opinions on the game....but all of these 8 & 9's dropping left and right only ever outline the basic mechanics of the game in a form that you could've read before the game even released, there is no personal connection from the reviewers, no in depth analysis of their experience, just an easy going score that won't ruffle any feathers or rock any boats. This gen has been rife w/ saccharine pointless fluff in terms of reviews & I have picked up countless games on the basis of "Excellent!" Review scores only to pop a mediocre disc into my console.

Fez1582d ago


I think you said it a lot better than me.
'everything released is bad stuff, no good stuff, no exceptional stuff...just a single vanilla idea of everything being "fun enough to play for a bit"' Agree completely.

PhucSeeker1583d ago

Ha ha, i was about to comment some shit about the score reflecting the reviewer's feel and not so much the technical stuffs. Then the page loaded and oh boy! What a shit review! I'm convinced that the guy didn't actually play the game and was just taking a piss.

_LarZen_1583d ago

Don't give this fool a click.