We reviewed The Division 2

cryoakira
Monday, March 18, 2019 | 9:40 PM
15 comments

GSY Review PC PS4 Xbox One

Washington D.C and its White House, its Capitol, its Lincoln Memorial, its obelisk and its millions of casualties killed by a deadly virus... After having saved New York, it's time to help the remaining survivors of the US capital with a method that has proved itself efficient: the killing of even more bad guys in Tom Clancy's The Division 2.
Note: We've gathered all our previous videos of the game here but we've also taken the time to prepare a 4K video focused on the game's environments on PC (with max settings obviously).

Verdict

The Division 2 is a successful sequel in that it has allowed Massive to reach the initial vision they had for their game. It is undeniably immersive, it plays great, it runs well and all its different parts come together perfectly. The gunfights are precise and balanced, exploration is interesting and rewarding in this new vast and varied city and the game's different systems make sure you always have something to do, a new objective to reach, new rewards to get, etc. Even the inevitable micro transactions are elegant enough to stay discrete. That being said, The Division 2 suffers from the limits of its very concept. Its realistic setting is obviously pretty conventional and the gunfights cannot offer that much variety as a result. That's probably why some players will get tired of the game before they have a chance to see all the content it has to offer. Even so, you won't regret your time playing The Division 2, especially if you have a chance to share your experience with friends.

On the plus side
Visiting Washington DC and rebuilding the city
Gunfights are efficient and well-balanced
The overall ergonomic design
the way activities, rewards and progression all interlock
The game is well polished
The amount of content and activities
Nice effort to characterize the most important missions
Optimizing statistics and crafting

On the downside
A bit too serious and conventional when it comes to its universe
The gunfights all feel pretty similar in the end
Underwhelming skills to unlock

Commented on 2019-03-18 23:17:34

how do the visuals compare to those of the first game? I've heard there's been a slight downgrade. also, is the game still as complicated and confusing as the original one?

In reply to

alitig

Commented on 2019-03-19 00:23:45

Again your delicious screenshots thanks guys

Sdarts

Commented on 2019-03-19 07:35:42

Thanks for the review, videos and images.

Only played the Open Beta, but on the whole, I agree with the review. Exploration was really rewarding, because even when you found gear of the same level/quality, you could still find better gear from enemies.

I went to that first side mission in the underground and fought the enemies 3 times, by the end I was wearing gear of 2-3 levels above what I had before. The shooting is really precise, so when you miss, you know it was your fault.

I had many technical issues with the Open Beta, but the game design and gameplay were really good. The Division 1 is still in my back catalog, so I will finish that first and then jump to The Division 2 if I'm still hungry for more.

spacemanjupiter

Commented on 2019-03-19 09:13:49

Is it just me or does this game actually look worse visually than the first one? This is just not a very pretty game at all. A severe lack of depth or something. My brother keeps trying to get me to buy the game but I'm just not convinced, and I still feel burned from the bullshottery of the first game's visual hype before its release.

cryoakira

Commented on 2019-03-19 14:34:37 In reply to HR2

Well, it's a bit more complicated than just "downgraded".

Washington is more open than NY. You have areas without buildings and the streets seems wider (I say "seems" cause i've never been into these cities) with less skycrappers to "cut" the vistas.

So yeah, in the "open", I think they had to make a few sacrifices on details in order to maintain framerate and the depth of field. Maybe also to include more NPC on the streets and more diversity in the environnement.

But as soon as you're inside a building, it's just as detailed and beautifull as the previous game, with more variety.

@spacemanjupiter : I think people (mostly youtube channels that like to get some clics with this type of subjects) are a bit harsh regarding downgrade.

I mean, when a game is showed almost a year or more prior to its release, of course, it's not the final version. Of course things will change a LOT.

Unlike linear games where devs can really polish a vertical slice of a game and keep it for release, open worlds are another beast. You may start with an impressive engine and then, the more NPC, FX, physics, inventory menus & co you add, the more visual sacrifices you have to make.
It's not about lying to the player, it's about showing what you have at instant T.
For me, as long as they show the actual game by the release, so people know what they get, it's fine. Just part of the process.
What i can't stand is bullshit launch trailer, with fake gameplay around the release, because then, you know they're trying to sell a lie.

Well, it's a bit more complicated than just "downgraded".

Washington is more open than NY. You have areas without buildings and the streets seems wider (I say "seems" cause i've never been into these cities) with less skycrappers to "cut" the vistas.

So yeah, in the "open", I think they had to make a few sacrifices on details in order to maintain framerate and the depth of field. Maybe also to include more NPC on the streets and more diversity in the environnement.

But as soon as you're inside a building, it's just as detailed and beautifull as the previous game, with more variety.

@spacemanjupiter : I think people (mostly youtube channels that like to get some clics with this type of subjects) are a bit harsh regarding downgrade.

I mean, when a game is showed almost a year or more prior to its release, of course, it's not the final version. Of course things will change a LOT.

Unlike linear games where devs can really polish a vertical slice of a game and keep it for release, open worlds are another beast. You may start with an impressive engine and then, the more NPC, FX, physics, inventory menus & co you add, the more visual sacrifices you have to make.
It's not about lying to the player, it's about showing what you have at instant T.
For me, as long as they show the actual game by the release, so people know what they get, it's fine. Just part of the process.
What i can't stand is bullshit launch trailer, with fake gameplay around the release, because then, you know they're trying to sell a lie.

Commented on 2019-03-19 15:42:57

Without comparing both games side to side, I imagine downgrade is just a placebo effect left from the first game's downgrade-gate that happened so much during the years. Yes, it was downgraded, but the reaction to it was extremely unproportionate, as if that's all that mattered or was one of the most important things. The Division 1 had so many serious issues at launch and for many months that graphics were the very least important of them.

However, to take a more professional approach, Digital Foundry did an article on the game's technical aspects that's well worth reading for those that care enough about graphics.

Digutal Foundry - The Division 2 delivers impressive tech and good performance on all systems
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-...

For those that prefer a TL;DR:

"The Division 2's more of an iteration than an evolutionary leap over the first game - something I expected going in, but I did find myself wanting a more radical overhaul, even on PC. For now, the improved vegetation, water and quality reflections are nice touches at least. And, combined with the volumetric lighting that made the first game a marvel to look at, it's good-looking package overall. The only real downside right now is the unusual AI, and pop-in on textures on console. If you look past that, there's some highlights in visual direction, and the hook of its four-man squad shooting and looting is as strong as ever."

Doesn't seem like a downgrade of any kind, however The Division 1 launched over 3 years ago, which means not only games have improved graphically as a whole, but also the sequel should have improved more upon the first one.

Though Digital Foundry's article also mentions that when effects are too much, the framerate takes a hit. So maybe that's all they could achieve while maintaining the framerate and improving on vegetation, water and quality reflections, as well as making far more open and wide areas like cryoakira said.

It's all a balancing act in the end, and performance should win over graphics every single time. Just enjoy the game - or don't - for what it is. If that's hard to do, there's tens of thousands of other games to play. And frankly a few thousand of those are better than this, irregardless of graphics.

However, to take a more professional approach, Digital Foundry did an article on the game's technical aspects that's well worth reading for those that care enough about graphics.

Digutal Foundry - The Division 2 delivers impressive tech and good performance on all systems
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2019-the-division-2-tested-on-all-systems

For those that prefer a TL;DR:

"The Division 2's more of an iteration than an evolutionary leap over the first game - something I expected going in, but I did find myself wanting a more radical overhaul, even on PC. For now, the improved vegetation, water and quality reflections are nice touches at least. And, combined with the volumetric lighting that made the first game a marvel to look at, it's good-looking package overall. The only real downside right now is the unusual AI, and pop-in on textures on console. If you look past that, there's some highlights in visual direction, and the hook of its four-man squad shooting and looting is as strong as ever."

Doesn't seem like a downgrade of any kind, however The Division 1 launched over 3 years ago, which means not only games have improved graphically as a whole, but also the sequel should have improved more upon the first one.

Though Digital Foundry's article also mentions that when effects are too much, the framerate takes a hit. So maybe that's all they could achieve while maintaining the framerate and improving on vegetation, water and quality reflections, as well as making far more open and wide areas like cryoakira said.

It's all a balancing act in the end, and performance should win over graphics every single time. Just enjoy the game - or don't - for what it is. If that's hard to do, there's tens of thousands of other games to play. And frankly a few thousand of those are better than this, irregardless of graphics.

agni_rzm

Commented on 2019-03-19 17:23:10 In reply to spacemanjupiter

Posted by spacemanjupiter

der_ton

Commented on 2019-03-19 19:18:46 In reply to agni_rzm

Posted by agni_rzm

As lovely as that sounds, it's just not true for everyone. I am another example. I absolutely enjoy great graphics, and a game with excellent graphics can be mediocre in gameplay, I'll still play through it just for the eyecandy. The SP campaigns of Battlefront II or Battlefield 1 are two examples that I recently played, where I found myself even going back to some levels that I already finished, just to enjoy the scenery and in-engine cutscenes.
For really long-term satisfaction, you're right though, and I have my examples with that, too. But I have bought and will continue to buy some particular games just for the visual experience, and if they don't deliver (and don't otherwise have gameplay that hooks me), they will not get my money. I would have totally ignored Battlefront II or Battlefield I if they had only "good" graphics.

[quote=agni_rzm]

You are on the fence about getting an otherwise good game just because it seems to have been downgraded from its predecessor? people don't stay for a game's graphics, they stay for gameplay and content.[/quote]
As lovely as that sounds, it's just not true for everyone. I am another example. I absolutely enjoy great graphics, and a game with excellent graphics can be mediocre in gameplay, I'll still play through it just for the eyecandy. The SP campaigns of Battlefront II or Battlefield 1 are two examples that I recently played, where I found myself even going back to some levels that I already finished, just to enjoy the scenery and in-engine cutscenes. 
For really long-term satisfaction, you're right though, and I have my examples with that, too. But I have bought and will continue to buy some particular games just for the visual experience, and if they don't deliver (and don't otherwise have gameplay that hooks me), they will not get my money. I would have totally ignored Battlefront II or Battlefield I if they had only "good" graphics.

King_Grunt

Commented on 2019-03-19 22:44:48

Division 2 is one of the best looking games this generation.
Division 2 is the best looter shooter this generation.

Conclusion go buy the game and enjoy.

GriftGFX

Commented on 2019-03-20 12:38:45 In reply to King_Grunt

Posted by King_Grunt

I want to want it... but I just don't like cover shooters enough

It looks great, but it's just not everyone's cup of tea.

OldSchoolGamer

Commented on 2019-03-20 13:12:09

U guys should problably start giving ratings in your reviews. That would give you more visibility and could put you on Metacritic as well.

Commented on 2019-03-20 19:14:53 In reply to GriftGFX

Posted by GriftGFX

I want to want it... but I just don't like cover shooters enough.

Did you play the Gears of War games? If so, what do you think of them?

Inflatable

Commented on 2019-03-22 03:08:30

Great game, already got over 60 hours in it.. Don't really agree with your downsides.. I'm glad there's still this kind of more serious conventional Tom Clancy like game to play with my friends.. I also think the skills are pretty cool, like the seeker mines and drones etc.. There's plenty of fantasy shooters out there already for everybody that thinks this game is too serious.. Only real downside to it is some bugs present, it's a Ubisoft game after all, it will get better over time with some patches.. It a big improvement over the 1st Division game, which I also enjoyed especially later on when they added a lot more content to it.. This part 2 has a lot of content at launch already, and a lot more to come with free DLC, which is great..

Archer5

Commented on 2019-03-22 15:52:12

I bought first game onlу for 8usd, and it was great value for the money. Art direction, graphics, design were fantastic.

This one looks boring even for 8usd.

Commented on 2019-03-23 17:44:42 In reply to Inflatable

Driftwood translation is a bit different from what I originaly said. My problem was more about the fact that the game takes itselft a bit too seriously while being sometimes rather cheesy or clumsy.

The guy in the white house that is supposed to be "in charge" but is completly focused on his toys. The replacement-president who is of course a badass and gives snappy orders. The other badass agent who is pissed off by the castle bombing and ask you to taker care of children while she's going after bad guys, except it's excactly the other way around...

Pretty much every single cinematic try very hard to be "cool" with badass characters and, IMO, fail.
And it's strange, considering Echos or other recordings a rather well written.

While i was into TD1's story at the beginning, wondering who was behind all that, I ended losing track because... well, it doesn't really matter, and that's pretty much the same with the sequel. It's more a pretexe than a plot you want to explore.

To get a great story while remaining "serious", i think they could have taped more into the human side, about people surviving a kind of apocalypse, forming groups, community, and facing extreme situation that question morality (Kind of like The Walking Dead).

Driftwood translation is a bit different from what I originaly said. My problem was more about the fact that the game takes itselft a bit too seriously while being sometimes rather cheesy or clumsy.

The guy in the white house that is supposed to be "in charge" but is completly focused on his toys. The replacement-president who is of course a badass and gives snappy orders. The other badass agent who is pissed off by the castle bombing and ask you to taker care of children while she's going after bad guys, except it's excactly the other way around...

Pretty much every single cinematic try very hard to be "cool" with badass characters and, IMO, fail.
And it's strange, considering Echos or other recordings a rather well written.

While i was into TD1's story at the beginning, wondering who was behind all that, I ended losing track because... well, it doesn't really matter, and that's pretty much the same with the sequel. It's more a pretexe than a plot you want to explore.

To get a great story while remaining "serious", i think they could have taped more into the human side, about people surviving a kind of apocalypse, forming groups, community, and facing extreme situation that question morality (Kind of like The Walking Dead).