Support NeoGAF

[THEaaron]

In the beta werent many spongey enemies. Only the named lvl 9 dudes lasted a bit long. But for me, this is really needed for a rpg shooter. You can only make all your tricks, skills and gadgets worthwile when you have enough time using them.

I really enjoyed longer firefights in the division against a lvl9 group with a named mob because of that.

 

[Cabbagehead]

Because none of the footage until recently has shown just how spongey the enemies can be.

THATS why you're seeing these reactions. If gameplay footage like we've seen lately was shown in the reveal expectations would be different now.

Look back to that initial reveal video. Enemies only take a few bullets to get dropped. They don't drop instantly because most of the shots that hit them are glancing ones, or through cover, so it takes a few of those glancing bursts to do the damage. The elite at the end of the reveal also gets taken out in a flat second. Those enemies could have come from any non-RPG Clancy game and would not have been out of place, even with the damage numbers flying off of them.

Now compare that to gameplay videos pre-beta and from the beta, and you'll notice that even your average hoodie enemy shrugs of more damage than that elite.

In short: Stating the game was going to be an RPG alone doesn't describe the sponginess of enemies. Actual gameplay footage does.

That's bs lol. This game was pretty obvious with the direction it was going, once i saw the life bar and i assumed some type of sponges and then levels. More or less from the early footage. Why else do you think numbers were coming off of them, when they were being shot at. Plus do you think that, the demo's would have them be playing with low level characters? no they cheated and so when combat happened the "thugs" dead fairly easily. Yet we still get a taste of that in the 2014 Manhattan game play, when they face off against a yellow enemy or a mini boss at the end and he takes far more then a few shoots to take down plus a seeker mine. But again controlled environment and all.

 

[wowlace]

Man, it really pissed me off when Barret had to pump a million rounds into the Shinra soldiers. And with a minigun no doubt.

 

[Tratorn]

For a game with "Tom Clancy's" title, set in a "reallistic near future", the fact that a guy with a headscarf takes a full clip in the head and survives is utter nonsense.

It breaks immersion and it's simply not fun.
The game's a 3rd person cover shooter RPG.
You should die pretty fast if you break cover and take a SHOT IN YOUR UNPROTECTED HEAD. >(

I really hope they sort out this for launch.
:/

They won't, because it's a RPG, not a cover-shooter with RPG elements. You can't do a RPG with enemies that die with one hit. It would make leveling, skills and stats from both the player and weapons almost useless. Hell, it would make the main part of the game, the loot, useless. The game is a RPG, a good one even.

If you want to kill enemies with 1 headshot, then lvl up your character and then just kill low level enemies. Here we go, now you have what you want.

 

[THEaaron]

Because none of the footage until recently has shown just how spongey the enemies can be.

THATS why you're seeing these reactions. If gameplay footage like we've seen lately was shown in the reveal expectations would be different now.

Look back to that initial reveal video. Enemies only take a few bullets to get dropped. They don't drop instantly because most of the shots that hit them are glancing ones, or through cover, so it takes a few of those glancing bursts to do the damage. The elite at the end of the reveal also gets taken out in a flat second. Those enemies could have come from any non-RPG Clancy game and would not have been out of place, even with the damage numbers flying off of them.

Now compare that to gameplay videos pre-beta and from the beta, and you'll notice that even your average hoodie enemy shrugs of more damage than that elite.

In short: Stating the game was going to be an RPG alone doesn't describe the sponginess of enemies. Actual gameplay footage does.

Eeeehm.. The regular mobs how they were shown in the footage drop as quickly as the regular mobs in the beta.

 

[Emedan]

Why is this ever only an issue with shooters? Nobody ever complains it takes more than 2 swings to kill a bandit with a sword.

Came here to argue this. No sword-sponge or spell-sponge. Only bullet prejudice.

This is easy. There's two reasons Why:

In fantasy games (which they mostly are) we as the player have already accepted things about the world that does not fit reality (creatures and magic etc)

Secondly, people are well aware of how deadly modern firearms are, few people know how effective a sword actually is in combat (also full plate armour negate all damage from stabbings and slashes)

Also for the interested, slashing weapons are not very deadly compare to piercing kinds, damage of organs is what's deadly not compromising the skin.

 

[Cabbagehead]

Eeeehm.. The regular mobs how they were shown in the footage drop as quickly as the regular mobs in the beta.

Exactly lol plus like i mentioned said footage from back then are, controlled and controlled means the characters in the demo. Have all the skills and most likely the best guns...etc. won't actually die.

Its not a clear representation of how it would actually be, its the concept. Though as leveling squares away you will most likely have better gear and such and those encounters will be cake walk.

For a game with "Tom Clancy's" title, set in a "reallistic near future", the fact that a guy with a headscarf takes a full clip in the head and survives is utter nonsense.

It breaks immersion and it's simply not fun.
The game's a 3rd person cover shooter RPG.
You should die pretty fast if you break cover and take a SHOT IN YOUR UNPROTECTED HEAD. >(

I really hope they sort out this for launch.
:/

Yes to YOU it isn't.

Plus you will die pretty fast, if you don't take cover. Especially if you face higher level mobs or get attacked by more then 5 enemies at a time, plus there are roaming enemies that are a mix of chargers, long distances fire and heavy machine gun men, grenades...etc. So being wrecked will happen fast, if you don't prepare.

 

[Prismo]

This whole thing seems like a non-issue.

 

[Cabbagehead]

This whole thing seems like a non-issue.

Yeah it should be but its not unfortunately.

 

[BigTnaples]

This whole thing seems like a non-issue.

It's ridiculous to be honest.


It can't an RPG with damage/level/etc unless they are "monsters". Stupid concept.

 

[NullPointer]

Eeeehm.. The regular mobs how they were shown in the footage drop as quickly as the regular mobs in the beta.

I don't have an exhaustive list of footage from the beta, but the footage from the press demos pre-beta was filled with sponges, like here, and here. And those are both videos with level 20 players fighting level 20 enemies.

I've also watched various streams from the beta, and the sponginess is of course mitigated by over-leveling the enemies, but "hard" missions and whatever raid-esque content MMO players seem to want is just going to push those enemy levels and resistances higher and higher, so sponginess is the fate for this game.

Some people love it, and want their stats to do the shooting and they see no disconnect with the setting. For others its the opposite, and probably more pronounced if you're a long time fan of Clancy games.

It can't an RPG with damage/level/etc unless they are "monsters". Stupid concept.

It seems just as stupid to say that any Clancy RPG must scale damage to level. You could still have classes and skills and loot variety, and direct stat affecting systems like accuracy, reload speed, zoom speed, draw speed, stamina, heartbeat control to reduce sway, flinch resistance, recoil compensation, etc etc etc etc. without bringing sponges into the picture. Its possible, and I think it would fit the license and setting better.

 

[Calabi]

I dont like it, but then I prefer games with one hit kill weapons like shotguns, snipers, etc.

This is an RPG your going to be fighting these enemies hundreds(thousands?) of times. The sponginess of the enemies that I have seen in this, would break my tedium limit.

 

[Asmodai48]

Lol perfect

 

[Cabbagehead]

I don't have an exhaustive list of footage from the beta, but the footage from the press demos pre-beta was filled with sponges, like here, and here. And those are both videos with level 20 players fighting level 20 enemies.

I've also watched various streams from the beta, and the sponginess is of course mitigated by over-leveling the enemies, but "hard" missions and whatever raid-esque content MMO players seem to want is just going to push those enemy levels and resistances higher and higher, so sponginess is the fate for this game.

Some people love it, and want their stats to do the shooting and they see no disconnect with the setting. For others its the opposite, and probably more pronounced if you're a long time fan of Clancy games.


It seems just as stupid to say that any Clancy RPG must scale damage to level. You could still have classes and skills and loot variety, and direct stat affecting systems like accuracy, reload speed, zoom speed, draw speed, stamina, heartbeat control to reduce sway, flinch resistance, recoil compensation, etc etc etc etc. without bringing sponges into the picture. Its possible.

How? when that's the fundamental constant with RPG's. HS one shooting enemies that are higher level then you, when they should be hard to kill. Defeats the purposes of groups and the like and that's the issue. Though that's not me saying that HS shouldn't do more damage and as is you do heavy critical hits and it takes down "shield". So Its really either or and you balance and tweak from there. Can't have both because there is a conflict with mechanics.

 

[nOoblet16]

You guys complaining about the sponginess do realise that just like Destiny, once you are far into the game you'll have weapons powerful enough to take down most if not all tier 1 and tier 2 enemies with one headshot. And it's only the shielded/armoured/special enemies that take more bullets to kill. Some guy mentioned Borderlands, well you have tons of enemies in that game that don't die with even sniper headshots.

You absolutely cannot do an RPG game without this, the guy in this thread who said a good RPG can do this and stats both is wrong.

The ONLY way you can have an RPG where you can kill enemies with one hit from the get go is if you have a system in place like the ones seen in Deus Ex or Alpha Protocol where you have to wait for the aiming reticule to narrow down, and we all know how annoying that is given the fact that the gunplay in these games are considered to be piss poor. And not to mention that this does not addresses the issue of facing enemies higher level than you at all !!!

 

[hobblygobbly]

The main issue is the juxtaposition of its aesthetic, anything modern time or near future where you unload clips on somebody's head who is wearing a hat affects visual feedback really badly. This is a much lesser issue on visual feedback when it's far future sci-fi, where you can have cool things that can aid gameplay like an ability such as this if you have it:

1. Surround yourself with a deflective shield for 2s which ricochets an enemy's bullet back to them. Ammunition/bullet types apply certain damage, you ricochet this back to the enemy, applying that damage of their own bullet to their exoskeleton.
2. Say that skill can have a bonus from a certain rare chest piece, the chest piece allows you to deflect an EM-charged bullet with the deflective shield. Without it, the deflective shield can deflect all ammunition types exception EM-charged ones. The benefit of the EM-charged bullet traditionally would pass through the shield, deactivate it and prevent similar abilities from being activated.
3. However, since you are now able to deflect it, you can deflect that same EM-charged bullet back to the enemy, if they do not have the rare chest piece you do, then it penetrates, their shield ability if they have it is prevented from being activated and similar skills an EM-charged bullet affects or deactivates it if already activated and does damage to the enemy. When you deflect, your shield is "consumed" but it doesn't affect your other abilities for some sort of balance.
4. An EM-charged bullet can be more balanced by drawing a lot of energy from the gun, so you can't fire many.

That's just a quick example, it's not perfect, but sponges can make more sense as feedback with far future sci-fi than what The Division is.

 

[NullPointer]

How? when that's the fundamental constant with RPG's. HS one shooting enemies that are higher level then you, whey they should be hard to kill. Defeats the purposes of groups and the like and that's the issue. Though that's not me saying that HS shouldn't do more damage and it is a critical hit and takes down "shield".

If you want enemies that can shrug off some bullets, give them armor. Give the ones wearing nothing more than hoodies some self preservation instincts and have them use more of that cover in this cover based shooter. Higher level enemies can have access to better training and equipment (ie. more accuracy, better morale, higher quality weaponry and armor like players can get, but also better enemy combinations and better team AI). Loot variety can be offered up in terms of weapon capabilities, attachments and special customizations, just as operators utilize in the real world. A real world setting provides plenty of rationale for all of the above, while still basing most (but not all) of the gameplay systems upon player stats.

You can still emphasize positional play, bringing the right equipment for the job, playing to the strengths of that equipment, and using your skills at the most opportune times -- all stuff you still expect of the player, even in an RPG.

 

[jet1911]

Ennemies in Final Fantasy should die in one hit too.

 

[Replicant]

Headshots in mosr games are not one hit kill unless you have super weapon like the gauss rifle in Fallout 4.

I have no problem with this. I don't want NRA simulator.

 

[Digital Savior]

This is easy. There's two reasons Why:

In fantasy games (which they mostly are) we as the player have already accepted things about the world that does not fit reality (creatures and magic etc)

Secondly, people are well aware of how deadly modern firearms are, few people know how effective a sword actually is in combat (also full plate armour negate all damage from stabbings and slashes)

Also for the interested, slashing weapons are not very deadly compare to piercing kinds, damage of organs is what's deadly not compromising the skin.

You could argue the Division is a fantasy game. Why does a modern day setting equate to ultra realism? Why does equipping a backpack make my bullet hit harder?

 

[TheYanger]

It's an RPG, it's hard to make stats matter when you can just headshot anything and kill it.
This is the right way for it to be, headshots are still better, but the thing that really wins/loses for you are your stats/abilities/tactics, as it should be.

 

[Pantaghana]

You could argue the Division is a fantasy game. Why does a modern day setting equate to ultra realism? Why does equipping a backpack make my bullet hit harder?

Real life is realistic, if the games aesthetic and setting are attempting to emulate that, why would someone assume that it's a fantasy setting?

 

[wowlace]

Real life is realistic, if the games aesthetic and setting are attempting to emulate that, why would someone assume that it's a fantasy setting?

Because it's apocalyptic, because the tech is too advanced?

 

[Digital Savior]

Real life is realistic, if the games aesthetic and setting are attempting to emulate that, why would someone assume that it's a fantasy setting?

You said it, real life is realistic. The Division is a video game, not real life. Why does an aesthetic or setting lock something into being a specific way? There is a certain saying about assumptions...

We can go on arguing this in circles forever. The developers made a game, not something to emulate real life. There's plenty of games I don't like for [reason]. Other people can not like this for [reason]. Go play something else you do enjoy, I do.

 

[Replicant]

Real life is realistic, if the games aesthetic and setting are attempting to emulate that, why would someone assume that it's a fantasy setting?

Because that someone is capable of thinking beyond the box and use his/her imagination?

Real life setting does not prevent Godzilla or Cloverfield or other giant monster from coming out of nowhere in many films
Real life setting does not prevent cities around the world to be taken over by zombies
Real life setting never stops those action hero stars like Willis or Statham act like they can avoid situations that normally kills RL people
Real life setting does not prevent cars in racing games from flipping like a barrel and still survive to continue the race

It's a stylistic approach called "hyper-realistic", a work of art that based most of its elements on the real world but modified some of the elements to make things interesting. This is an approach that most fictional works like movies and video games tend to use.

 

[Signor Rossi]

And most importantly, it's not a RPG, it's a cover shooter.

 

[Cabbagehead]

And most importantly, it's not a RPG, it's a cover shooter.

But it is a RPG and you use cover to shoot or you die.

 

[TheYanger]

And most importantly, it's not a RPG, it's a cover shooter.

what.

 

[Pantaghana]

Because it's apocalyptic, because the tech is too advanced?

Those must be some real high tech scarves and hoodies to stop bullets.

You said it, real life is realistic. The Division is a video game, not real life. Why does an aesthetic or setting lock something into being a specific way? There is a certain saying about assumptions...

We can go on arguing this in circles forever. The developers made a game, not something to emulate real life. There's plenty of games I don't like for [reason]. Other people can not like this for [reason]. Go play something else you do enjoy, I do.

It doesn't. But people look at a game and depending on the superficial elements they will have certain expectations, going against those expectations can then unpleasantly surprise people, hence this thread.

Because that someone is capable of thinking beyond the box and use his/her imagination?

Real life setting does not prevent Godzilla or Cloverfield or other giant monster from coming out of nowhere in many films
Real life setting does not prevent cities around the world to be taken over by zombies
Real life setting never stops those action hero stars like Willis or Statham act like they can avoid situations that normally kills RL people
Real life setting does not prevent cars in racing games from flipping like a barrel and still survive to continue the race

It's a stylistic approach called "hyper-realistic", a work of art that based most of its elements on the real world but modified some of the elements to make things interesting. This is an approach that most fictional works like movies and video games tend to use.

Again, the problem is expectation.
From trailers and posters we know Godzilla and Cloverfield are coming, so that's why people don't complain, actually the monsters in a monster movie is the main reason people go to watch them.
We know a zombie film is going to have zombies, and the zombies are the main reason people go to watch a zombie movie.
We know we are watching an action film where real life human biology is irrelevant and the main hero eats bullets and shits napalm.
We know from previous racing games that certain real life logic doesn't apply.

The Division on the other hand opens up with you riding in a military helicopter, the cover is generic a dude with a gun, the gameplay videos are people with guns shooting at other people with guns.
All of those things also appear in CoD, Battlefield and other generic military shooters. People expected a specific type of military shooter.

I'm perfectly capable of looking beyond the dissonance and having fun with the game as it is. I just think a less serious setting would have been a better choice for this specific type of gameplay.

 

[SentryDown]

Honnestly I disliked it a lot in videos but it didn't bother me at all while playing. It's just like these sword games where you need 20 slice to kill someone.

 

[Tecnniqe]

And most importantly, it's a RPG and it's a cover shooter.

Fixed that for you.

 

[TheYanger]

The 'realism' discussion is pointless, the genre of game it's in is why the enemies are bullet spongey, the rest is just the setting.

I mean if you're fighting humans in any rpg they would still realistically be dead in a single head wound, but nobody questions it because it's a sword and not a gun, who gives a shit, the fact that it's an RPG with an emphasis on stats and abilities and positioning is why ttk is so long in general, not because of realism or fantasy in the setting.

 

[BigTnaples]

And most importantly, it's not a RPG, it's a cover shooter.

What the hell are you talking about?

The 'realism' discussion is pointless, the genre of game it's in is why the enemies are bullet spongey, the rest is just the setting.

I mean if you're fighting humans in any rpg they would still realistically be dead in a single head wound, but nobody questions it because it's a sword and not a gun, who gives a shit, the fact that it's an RPG with an emphasis on stats and abilities and positioning is why ttk is so long in general, not because of realism or fantasy in the setting.

This man gets it.

 

[Ceadeus]

I like the game as it is now. If you guys want it to be 2-3 bullet to kill, there is many other choice.

But not The Division and I hope it stays like it is!

Who complained when Destiny came out? It's totally the same idea minus the cover.

 

[Chaos2Frozen]

This is easy. There's two reasons Why:

In fantasy games (which they mostly are) we as the player have already accepted things about the world that does not fit reality (creatures and magic etc)

That's why I said 'bandit', as in normal human enemies. Those exist in fantasy games too.

Secondly, people are well aware of how deadly modern firearms are, few people know how effective a sword actually is in combat (also full plate armour negate all damage from stabbings and slashes)

It does not take much imagination to realize getting smacked in the head with a sword would do serious damage. Also not everyone wears full plated armor, and even if they do you can still switch to blunt attacks.

 

[Tecnniqe]

I like the game as it is now. If you guys want it to be 2-3 bullet to kill, there is many other choice.

But not The Division and I hope it stays like it is!

Who complained when Destiny came out? It's totally the same idea minus the cover.

Its the same as every RPG being its Knights and dragons or space aliens.
The part people seem to have a problem with is the setting.
God knows why. Its almost like they stepped into a forbidden zone of game.

How dare they have near-future guns and not OHK's!?


I never understood why getting hit in the head with a sword 30 times is fine but if you take more than 1 bullet its unrealistic.
It's an RPG set in the Clancy setting.

 

[DeadPhoenix]

I don't care that they enemies may take longer to kill then normal. I'm more worried about how much I enjoy what I'm doing to kill them. From what I've seen and heard so far... It looks like its mostly just point and shoot, with the abilities you get having noticeable cool downs and worse, you can only equip 2 skills at once. I was actually pretty excited when I first saw the game and they were showing off all the abilities, it looked like fun. Really, the fact that is an rpg, is pretty much the only reason I'm interested. But if I can only use 2 skills once every 30 seconds and playing another cover shooter(now with more numbers!) the rest of the time, I'll be kind of disappointed(my fear of this is why I haven't bothered to pre-order to get into the beta).

Anyone in the know able to tell me how right or wrong my fears are? Or if it still looks like things may change before release.

 

[jem0208]

It wasn't even that bullet spongey unless you were fighting guys above you level or bosses.

Most enemies you met just wandering around went down in only a few shots.

 

[NullPointer]

Its the same as every RPG being its Knights and dragons or space aliens.
The part people seem to have a problem with is the setting.
God knows why. Its almost like they stepped into a forbidden zone of game.

There have been more than forty Tom Clancy games set in pretty grounded contemporary settings. The settings matter, the weapons matter and they all kill very quickly throughout. The challenge is found in how you properly apply and avoid that level of danger.

There is a disconnect with that history here, where there isn't with the fantasy and sci-fi hypotheticals people have brought up.

 

[Ceadeus]

Its the same as every RPG being its Knights and dragons or space aliens.
The part people seem to have a problem with is the setting.
God knows why. Its almost like they stepped into a forbidden zone of game.

How dare they have near-future guns and not OHK's!?


I never understood why getting hit in the head with a sword 30 times is fine but if you take more than 1 bullet its unrealistic.
It's an RPG set in the Clancy setting.

There you go!

 

[TheAssist]

I dont think their message was as clear as they wanted it to be.

I mean they gotta have some PR guy amongst them who tells them that most people will watch the trailers and not the interviews accompanying it.
And the first trailers totally looked like a team based TPS and not a RPG. Doesnt matter what you say the day after. over 90% of the people who saw the trailer wont watch the interview.

I had a quick look at youtube. The most viewed E3 2013 trailer has over 5 million views. The most watched interview of 2013 just over 70 k.
And you still wonder why people were misinformed?

 

[Mik2121]

And most importantly, it's not a RPG, it's a cover shooter.

It's like you didn't read a single word from the OP. Amazing.

 

[rpg_fan]

Heh, I saw the title and figured it was a Seinfeld reference.

 

[Koutsoubas]

I have to ask again! Where are the big Heavy weapons and ''special'' or ''strong'' attack since this is an RPG?

Im geniusly wondering, I realy can think that there isnt anything like that!

 

[TheYanger]

I have to ask again! Where are the big Heavy weapons and ''special'' or ''strong'' attack since this is an RPG?

Im geniusly wondering, I realy can think that there isnt anything like that!

Load up your Electronics skill and use things like the sticky bomb, that's the equivilent of a wizard type. Shotguns and sniper rifles are big 'heavy' attacks as well.

 

[nel e nel]

CoD, I'd say. People have grown up with that as opposed to old arena style shooters. There hasn't been an equivalent game to take other genres by storm to such an effect.

Yep, people forget that the first Modern Warfare was pretty unique in the regard that people died in 1 or 2 shots. Before that you would only get 1 hit kills with very powerful or special weapons (i.e. shotgun at point blank or BFG 9000)

 

[BigTnaples]

 

[Koutsoubas]

Load up your Electronics skill and use things like the sticky bomb, that's the equivilent of a wizard type. Shotguns and sniper rifles are big 'heavy' attacks as well.

For Big attacks I was thinking BIG!! Rocket Launchers, Heavy Machine-Guns, Dual-Weilding for 10 seconds, Napalm Strikes etc

A shotgun is not a big-special attack in my opinion!

 

[TheYanger]

For Big attacks I was thinking BIG!! Rocket Launchers, Heavy Machine-Guns, Dual-Weilding for 10 seconds, Napalm Strikes etc

A shotgun is not a big-special attack in my opinion!

Ok, but that's your issue not the game's.

 

[Replicant]

Again, the problem is expectation.
From trailers and posters we know Godzilla and Cloverfield are coming, so that's why people don't complain, actually the monsters in a monster movie is the main reason people go to watch them.
We know a zombie film is going to have zombies, and the zombies are the main reason people go to watch a zombie movie.
We know we are watching an action film where real life human biology is irrelevant and the main hero eats bullets and shits napalm.
We know from previous racing games that certain real life logic doesn't apply.

The Division on the other hand opens up with you riding in a military helicopter, the cover is generic a dude with a gun, the gameplay videos are people with guns shooting at other people with guns.
All of those things also appear in CoD, Battlefield and other generic military shooters. People expected a specific type of military shooter.

I'm perfectly capable of looking beyond the dissonance and having fun with the game as it is. I just think a less serious setting would have been a better choice for this specific type of gameplay.

More like it's your expectation that needs adjustment. You are going into the game expecting certain things based on the setting. Then become disappointed when it's not. Understandable but also you have no one else to blame but yourself.

I also don't think in real life you will find the kind of robotic technology that you'll see in The Division. Or some of the weapons and armor.

In fact, when the trailer was first released, I actually thought there's some kind of supernatural element to the story, maybe mutated people/zombies. The story seems to revolve around disease too, which lends itself to that kind of situation.

As you can see, my reading of the game is completely different from yours even though we both got the same promotional material.