The Division - Problematic Meaning in Mechanics - Extra Credits 

Bruh

So you guys ended up back here too huh

Well this is ironic.

wondering if this is the only reason this video popped up rn

Glad I'm not the only one who wondered here now

yes

Fridgeworks If by "One comment" you mean "Approximately one hundred comments", then yes. I *replied to one comment, but if you think I'm really going to waste my time giving out snippy replies to every single wasted cumload in this comments section who types up a tirade about how evil SJWs and feminazis are trying to ruin games by talking about them like adults instead of slurping on the console manufacturer's dicks like an obedient concubine in the hopes you'll finally get some validation for your efforts beyond scoffing to myself and rolling my eyes in a cartoony fashion then you sir are very much mistaken.

+HellbirdIV >defending weasel words

but the people who cry on tumblr are usually manchildrens...

+Toxic Potato preach it

Fors Clavigera actually, I would say it's done well. Rather than using the system to punish uncommitted future crimes that you cannot prove will happen, you absolutely use it as a warning sign and only that. You are punished if you try to do what the police are doing, and assault people who haven't even done anything wrong. You can only punish actual crimes that actually happen. I do wish that it would sometimes be wrong though. That would deliver the game's message better.

Yeah, but unfortunately I don't think there'd be a way for them to implement a "sometimes it's wrong" feature without it being infuriating for the player who's just tracked down the criminal and wants the XP. Maybe if it was some kind of version where you have to loiter in the area, causing the "criminal" to think again beacuse there's a witness nearby, or perhaps scare them off? I remember one of Watch Dogs' big problems was that the solution to almost every situation was "shoot someone", so that could have also added a bit of mission variety? At least I'll be playing the sequel soon, which I hear has a bit more of that variety to it.

@@Blacknight8850 You want game abou vioelence and abusing power play Undrtale

You can stop the crime before it is committed (in fact, you receive a better reputation if the victim survives unharmed), but you cannot attack unless the criminal is already about to commit the crime (for example, they are already pointing at someone with a gun and yelling threats at them). Moreover, you are encouraged (by receiving more XP and a better reputation) to spare the criminal's life (knocking them unconscious) rather than killing them.

r/agedlikemilk -.-

Yikes.

Especially right now. My God.

"During none of the 20th century, did a country collapse into anarchy or riots"... Well one certainly has in the *21st* century. And sadly the ideas this game promoted is in the head of it's president. Glad I'm not american.

Even more so in June 2020

+AkaRystik then it wouldnt be hard to convict them in court. habeus corpus isnt there for fun

+john li Firstly: Habeas Corpus is suspended in times of Martial Law.Just look at the constitution where it actually says that. And secondl: What court? Courts require things like a stable, secure area to hold both the arrested, relevant witnesses, and legal officials. As well as time and resources to while away before appeals. This is clearly not easy to arrange in post-event New York. I COULD appreciate moves to institute it again, but pure old pragmatism means that you are going to have to kill the worst actors and either temporarily (maybe indefinitely) detain or let go the less ones. Oh yeah, and there's the fact that *convicting them in court* means Taking Them Into Custody And Getting Them Into Court. Something that s KIND OF BLOODY HARD when they are resisting with lethal force.

Eric Van De Hey then sell it what it is. you are not some hero fighting for justice you are just being ordered to kill random people you think are bad people but might not be the case at all

john li "Random people"? Are you Kidding Me? Since when is targeting the chain of command of terrorist groups (Which is EXACLTY what the Cleaners and Last Man Battalion are- with the added bonus that the LMB are basically doing what the video accuses the JTF of for realsies) "being ordered to kill random people?" And people who open fire on you with intent to murder are not "random." They are explicitly making themselves a very non-=random, serious threat to you. In real life that is more than enough justification to kill them in self defense. So yes, the Division actually is fighting for justice, or at least as much of it as can be said to exist in the world. That does not mean it is not open to abuse or could not go wrong (the existance of Aaron Keener in game disproves that). But rent a sens eof perspective and do some basic research. "you think are bad people but might not be the case at all" Firstly: i refuse to debase my moral compass to seriously regard people who try and commit murder on the drop of a hat as "might not be bad." Especially when they tend to be rampaging gangs, or an actual totalitarian regime. secondly: whether or not they are bad people is *completely bloody secondary* to self preservation if they try and murder you without due cause. if someone is firing at you with a Kalashkinov it is the wrong time to be worrying about if they were a halfway house manager in a previous life.

Eric Van De Hey im talking about the people who are just trying to survive. and probably everybody knows that agents like you are out to murder them so they fire at you on sight

+Ethan Ceroja The problem with Battlefield Hardline is that it rewards your non-lethal play with... more lethal weapons.

True, that does seem counter-productive. Maybe, for nonlethal means taken, you should be rewarded with non-lethal weapons, perhaps in the form of advanced tasers or tranquilizer dart guns.

+Ethan Ceroja Man, that could be engaging. I've never thought of the kill/save mechanic existing in so many games being fully applied to the post-apoc theme before. I'm surprised that it hasn't happened already (sometimes in TWD, but we're talking about more... 'gamey' games, I guess. Nothing against Telltale, and they still make games, but they're fairly mechanic-light).

Except that will be practically impossible to pull off since the enemies pretty much shoot first and ask questions later. Not to mention said enemies range from rapist and serial killers, Pyromanicas who burning people alive even those who aren't sick, thugs who prey on the week and a rogue PMC that forces civilians to obey them or be shoot. Also martial law has been declared which allows the suspension of due process and the city has pretty much deteriorated into a warzone way before then.

223Drone Depends on the world you're building, mate.

Agreed, they could have made the plot into something really interesting and introspective, but I guess that's too risky.

Buh-dum >crash

+Friedel Majoor 10/10

+Friedel Majoor This does deserve one-up.

+Friedel Majoor pun to strong for serious response.

+Friedel Majoor Yeah. These guys take some deep looks at games, but sometimes miss the points of them because they look too deeply or sip at the SJW Kookaid. : / Some points in this video were fine, pretty much some I commented on myself, though they didn't seem to notice all the civilians wearing hoodies... *coughs*

Extra Credits, there was a story about a playstation employee who made a custom controller for a person with cerebal palsey. Please do a video about disabled gamers in the community. Thanks

+Extra Credits I never played The Division, but even I got a glimpse of what's wrong with it's premise. Maybe it's beacause I'm a post-apocalipse fan, but in a scenario of societal breakdown, I would consider only natural for people to act like the rioters do. Afterall, they don't see any hint that their state is still there to care for them, so how could they take the risk of trusting "the police" to maintain order? The Division Agents don't offer any sense of safety: they don't organize secure areas for people to move into or any other form of help: they just go around and kill.

+Extra Credits Would you have had the same qualms with the game had it been set in say, Paris or Stockholm? Are these only big problems because the game is set in the US?

+Shrewd _GC I would imagine some points, such as the president having a private army, would hold up no matter what, as a totalitarian state is simply a form of government/governing, but I think things like the hoody, while they would still be a problem, would not be as much of a problem due to their being no past, high stress situation in those countries associated with hoodies.

+Extra Credits The Division is as Tom Clancy as a soup sandwich.

Not even remotely close lol

Wafflepudding

Wafflepudding the enemies in this game are people killing other civilians for their own gain, are the LMB PMC innocent bystanders, the cleaners who burn people alive, the Rikers who are escaped RAPISTS and MURDERERS from Rikers prison, the Looters who attack the player on sight? No no they are not, they are RAPISTS and MURDERERS. There something call environmental context and the actions of the those "INNOCENT BYSTANDERS".

Waffle

The first mission were they stole food and held a cop at gun.

+Michael Scally Yatzee mentioned that in his review kinda as well "Now we can deliver these supplies to the people!" "What people? Certainly not the hundred or so I gunned down trying to retrieve these supplies!"

I just want the free stuff even though I never use it :P

Thats up to player choice and interpretation to that choice. When i first went to a shop that was being looted, i went to get some of those crafting items, but the looters noticed me and started shooting, so do you just let them be? Or do you fight back? Players have more choice than they realize don’t they?

@@kayleefenix huh, how about talking? Where's that choice?

Umm. Yeah. About that

+Schon Fazio I would be surprised if the affiliates were concerned about the lack of an old, old wooden ship, but nice try.

+Schon Fazio Straight from Ashville, North Carolina, meet Ms. Veronica Corningstone.

+Schon Fazio If so, every game needs diversity.

Cheese Sandwich Ben franklin said that

@The Martial Lord of Loyalty I think at that point, there's enough freedom that there's an anarchic kind of protection.

that is the reason you sacrifice some freedom to get some protection, if you have only one of them, you lose both, freedom without protection, you lose freedom protection without freedom, you lose protection

"anarchiskm is chaos" Anarchism is not chaos, and most people wouldn't do things like the holocaust because humans are naturally cooperative/

​@@ibnbattuta7031 Not an enemy of the concept on anarchism, but humans are cooperative or competitive depending of if there are enough resources for all them. When resources become scarce, the predator-prey nature written upon our genes kicks in and we do whatever atrocity is needed for us to survive above others.

*not

+Vivian James Later, gator

+Adnan Ilyas Actually this is one of the poorer of their videos. One has to wonder whether their tame historian participated in this one at all because, usually, they are a lot more balanced.

+Vivian James um i dont get it? you unsubscribed because they made a video addressing social issues that they felt should be address because they are apart of the community that talks and makes games? You dont see them making videos about why people should take vaccines because they arent in the medical field they are apart of the gaming community with a large number of subscribers who they feel should be away of a current social issue so as to be aware and avoid the desensitization to racial profiling and political agenda.

+John D. Yeah and if you are so quick with coming up with such comments, we'll probably neither miss you...

+coltsfan354 the LMB is literally a uniformed occupying enemy army and you stopped the cleaners from burning thousands of people alive. Worst bad guy ever?

+raptokvortex You're giving Ubisoft way too much credit.

+raptokvortex If that's the case, then the message is poorly delivered.

+coltsfan354 You could just not shoot anyone, but all the enemies will kill you on sight. The closest you can come to killing a non-hostile is shooting a dog

+John D. Haven't played other games in the series, nor read the books, but isn't that one of the big themes of the Tom Clancy works? To look into the various aspects of social conflict and war? That doesn't sound too out of place with what the division is doing here.

George wasnt an innocent man, and had many terrible crimes

FuSiOn Born 1. He reformed and reentered society peacefully and 2. Even if he didn’t, he wasn’t murdered for armed robbery, the only reason the police were even called was because of an allegedly fake 20 bill. And since I can’t even confirm he did use/have a fake $20, he was innocent until proven guilty.

FuSiOn Born the police didn’t know that he had a criminal record at the time. None of the crimes he had done meant he should have been killed. He had already served his time for those crimes. The crimes of his past had no bearing on the event. The police murdered a man in broad daylight.

@@austinvedder3536 so you're saying he should have been murdered via slow suffocation over 10minutes while bystanders filmed his death?

Ok? He did his time, and he was killed for no reason. This is trying to justify police brutality through backwards logic.

The more the reason we need to critics more, just because it is the norm doesn't make it alright

I only played Vegas 1&2 which were basically "Neo Pancho Villa terrorists try to take over Mexico then run off to attack the US when we try to help the Mexican govt." They weren't even like Cartel stereotypes just generic revolutionary terrorist types.

You couldn't base a shoot 'em up game on a John La Carre novel.

+Suku919 I'm glad you made this comment, because I will take it as my clue that this is one of those videos where I need to stop following my curiosity and stop scrolling down right now, or I'll be here all afternoon.

+BologneyT Yes.

Yep

+Suku919 Thanks for the warning!

+Suku919 I'm glad this has turned into an epic quest XD

If they‘re armed and start shooting on sight, are they still civilians? According to the geneva convention a medic using a gun is no longer a medic. Doesn‘t this apply for civilians too?

@@johnhenryeden8728 Short answer: No

@@johnhenryeden8728 they're video game npc's that are labeled as citizens

John Henry Eden I heard that some of the medics in Vietnam were given guns for protection.

@@johnhenryeden8728 you've completely misunderstood this. the developer *made the decision* to have everyone be armed and shooting on sight. there was no rule saying "every NPC that's not part of the clique has to be armed and violent," the developers chose to make that the case.

Lol

Lol

but the usa had a meltdown

Man, I totally feel you. For me, it's usually: "Huh, this is an interesting video. Maybe some of the commenters will have some interesting discussions about this." Followed by a distinct disappointment, morbid curiosity, and then a wearing down of my mood until my better judgment finally stops me from reading any more.

I can relate

Whether the comments surprise me or give me exactly what I'm expecting, I'm usually amused, if darkly so.

Ikr, I'm thinking of doing proper conversation about the video and the game but these people ruin my mood

Manny Akintunde aren't you talking about yourself? It's quite clear that we (especially the people who liked this comment thread) want to have a proper conversation and discussion about this interesting video but a lot of comment (including yours) judge one sidedly without allowing any constructive conversation, let alone opinion, and thus a waste of time because we will get nowhere Get it? Or do I have to explain it further? Is it that hard to understand something so basic?

+Samrux I was pleasently suprised when that joke came up and I was like "Oh! I get it!"

SuperQuagsire64 That describes my reaction perfectly.

The problem is that the game doesn't give you another option except killing.

+TheAltairAhad good point

That also masively affects my understanding of the hoodie thing as they may simply not have known what was up in that regard.(heck I live in the US and I was totally unaware of the hoodie clusterfuck) People online often get angry about things looking like things that are or used to be racist in America (like pretending to be black"Black Face") when sometimes those things were done somewere else without that context.(ie Eusovision has very few black people but proportionaly _so does Europe_)

This explains a lot. At best, It seems like this video amounts to Dan's knee-jerk reaction to playing the game.

Artsy_Judoka In high school I remember walking down the street and some old guy asked if my best friend and I were part of a black-hooded gang lol

Yeah I figured it's hard to tell whether the game glorifies these things or if it's really a criticism by showing a world that glorifies them

I am. Also this is supprisingly topical now, oof.

Don't worry, COVID-19 is nothing to worry about now. At least according to the media.

And Ebola is also back. And the Swine flu. Hooooray.

In America at least

A sot of people and now the division is free on xbox

Exactly what I felt

But the game isn't supposed to be taken seriously

​@@deadalkabobThinking about things is fun

Lol, nice

+Mikaele Baker , quite a fair amount, i'd say. But , as always, they used problematic to signify the same thing as "water can be a choking hazard, in some instances... maybe... if you can't swim". Which, frankly, makes the issue presented seem as important and influential as thinking about airplane deaths when embarking an airplane. Or like the general issue of heart-attack deaths when eating a good steak. It's a first world problem rooted and crated from and by a third world ideology/moral system.

SGresponse By that logic, should we not criticize the messages put forth by ANY culture? Criticism is an important aspect of taking any art seriously. No one rational is claiming we should ban the Division, we are only criticizing the points it makes, inadvertently or otherwise, regarding a number of important social issues. People are still free to play it, in fact I still very much would like to play it, even though from what I hear it's not very good as a game (all messages aside). I would hope we would afford the same courtesy to any medium.

Mikaele Baker , Why are you conflating culture and art? They're not interchangeable terms, so use them in their own right. "Criticism is an important aspect of taking any art seriously." What has that got to do with going out o0f your way to mind the meaning of things... IN ART WHOSE CREATORS ARE STILL ALIVE and can be asked about it? This is not criticism, this is guessing, supposing what the creators intended. " we are only criticizing the points it makes " , you say, but i fail to see any of you citing the dev's saying those are the point it makes. Not instead, you are criticizing the points it seems to make, to you, through your ideological/moral lens. "People are still free to play it" Still... ha. Freudian slip there? "I would hope we would afford the same courtesy to any medium." Joke's on you, bob, because we have been doing so for centuries, for other mediums. Oddly enough, not much of the criticism survived, unlike the art which was the subject of it. Maybe it was not universal enough to be deemed valuable (criticism). So your passive aggressive tactics won't work, because nobody's debating whether you should. Rather, they're debating whether looking at a work of art through ideological lenses makes for valid criticism for the rest of us, or not.

I conflated the two terms so as to use parallel language with SGresponse who said: " let culture be vile and let the recipient choose to dismiss it by himself instead of policing him to do so" By using the term "culture" in the same way as SGresponse, it is made clear that I am responding to his point. I think you and I fundamentally disagree about the nature of art. Art has messages independent of the artist's intent. In literature, this is usually called Death of the Author. In the context of a book, it involves kind of disregarding the author and analyzing just the book itself. Most modern schools of criticism accept this in some form, even though the term itself is specific to an essay written by Barthes. From Wikipedia: "Ideas presented in 'The Death of the Author' were anticipated to some extent by the New Criticism, a school of literary criticism important in the United States from the 1940s to the 1960s. New Criticism differs from Barthes' theory of critical reading because it attempts to arrive at more authoritative interpretations of texts. Nevertheless, the crucial New Critical precept of the 'intentional fallacy' declares that a poem does not belong to its author; rather, 'it is detached from the author at birth and goes about the world beyond his power to intend about it or control it. The poem belongs to the public.'" I do not to go so far as to say the author's intent doesn't matter, there is a class of criticism called historical criticism, in which a work is examined in the context of its author and the time and place it was written. I do not think historical criticism is invalid. But this is far from the only way to analyze a work of art. Extra Credits makes it very clear that mechanics have meaning, this is a presupposition they are fairly candid about. This meaning may well conflict with a developers intent. To me, this presupposition is fairly intuitive, I was brought up thoroughly within a New Critical framework, but I suppose a lot of people disagree. In fact I would venture to say most people disagree, with New Criticism being mostly confined to academics and their students. That's why English teachers are stereotyped as "overthinking" literature independently of the author's intent (see:the curtains were fucking blue). They likely went to college for literature and were presented with New Criticism. Art in general serves human beings, and is a creation of human beings. Thus, I think that any work has multiple ways of interpreting it that are equally correct and valid. I won't go so far as to say there are no wrong answers, you certainly will not be able to convince me that the Diary of Anne Frank is pro-Nazi, or that Atlas Shrugged is pro-Communist. You still have to support your criticism with the text. I'm simply saying that provided you support your analysis using the text, you will be hard pressed to come up with a totally incorrect interpretation of the message. So I've lapsed into using literary language, but literature is just one form of Art, and anything I say about works of Literature applies to visual art, Television, movies and Video Games. I'm also a first-year college student, and make no claims at being an authority. I encourage you to google the things I've mentioned and read about them for yourself. You will find arguments for and against what I'm saying. In 2010 literary theorist Sean Burke wrote a book professing to refute Barthes and by extension the notion of Death of the Author. I've not read this book, but you may want to look into it.

+Bruce Wayne These guys are such morons And this vid... I mean bloody hell they are dumb

+Bruce Wayne What is your alternative then?

+Bruce Wayne Yeah I would love to hear an alternative word for the term "constituting or presenting a problem or difficulty."

+Derikoopa Not trying to explain everything in a tublr feminist's dictionary. You find something "Problematic" You could say "This thing is something i have a problem with." or "This thing goes against my views" IT may not be one word, but it explains your ideals better

+Bruce Wayne Your concern for this word is problematic. Maybe we can start the conversation that will address these problematic concerns.

+Julian Durst Do you mean the Social Injustice Warriors? XD

+LittleNemo Not really, no. In fact, it categorically lied (or at least was MONSTROUSLY lazy) about a lot of things. "And perhaps more importantly, during none of the major epidemics of the 20th century did a major country collapse into anarchy, or face widespread lawlessness and rioting" This is categorically, objectively, provably false. All I have to point out is that the Spanish Flu EXISTED, and that during its' runtime Russia collapsed into Civil War and then a totalitarian nightmare, and China broke into warlordoms (to say nothing of the demise of the Central Powers). And that's just the most technical and probably easiest to prove of that. They just got so much wrong it isn't funny.

Eric Van De Hey Except for the fact that none of those countries fell because of an epidemic. They fell because of inept leadership and war.

anyone that discusses social issues on the internet these days is immediately perceived as "SJW SJW FEMINAZI LIBERAL SCUM"

I mean, the main problem with saying that the game supports totalitarianism is that extrajudicial killings are nothing new in video games. For example: in Mass Effect, you are outright a secret police officer who can legally do nearly whatever the hell they want to. Or Fallout, you're a vigilante who summarily executes raiders on an hourly basis.

Matthew Campbell I don't think you're focusing on the right thing. It's not a problem that the game is about killing civilians extrajudiciously, it's that it doesn't question or say anything about it. You just do it because you're told to, and it's portrayed as perfectly natural and reasonable. That gives me a skeevy vibe, personally. I haven't played Mass Effect so I don't know the details, but I imagine that if there are any comparable scenarios they aren't always portrayed positively. Mass Effect is known for their nuanced storytelling, they'd really be screwing the pooch if they had a plot line about secret police killing people without a trial and they didn't have at least one character go "this is wrong". As for Fallout, I don't think they're similar situations. You're just a wanderer in a post-apocalyptic world. You aren't employed by a government, there is no rule of law. In at least the more roleplay-oriented Fallouts you can choose to kill the roving gangs as an act of self-defense, hunt them for caps, befriend and join them, or avoid them entirely. It's up to you. It's not quite the same as your day job being to kill civilians who the government has extrajudiciously deemed criminals

Your not just dealing with a common criminal your dealing with a legendary spector that has gone rouge and the only way he can be brought to justice is for another specter to bring him in dead or alive.

Rc3651 Actually, your actions are questioned, although they are not questioned directly. The guy on the radio show continually brings up theories about the Division from a civilian point of view, and, from the how he talks about it, he recognizes the problems with the mere existence of such a group. One thing I noticed while playing was that, if you get too close to an NPC, they react as though you were aiming your weapon at them. Until recently, I thought this was just a bug. Now, however, I think that it is actually a way to show that people are afraid of you. They don't know whether or not you will kill them like any of the other gangs roaming the streets. To them, you are practically no different.

Yes

+Unplugged What seems to be the matter?

+ScrooLewse ??

+Unplugged Sadly, yes.

IT'S JUST A PRANK BRO!!!

+Michael Joyce Exactly, we're suffering the same issue in new york as we speak.

+Darryvon __ I am not sure that what is at stake is the morality of looting looters, but more about the overhall goal we have. The characters are mainly just good looters compare to evil looters. But, this looting seem pointless in the setting except for greed. There are a zone with military that can supply you with gun, ammunition and so on, so why loot?

Darryvon __ When I played the beta it does not appear to be that way. I partially accept your point for quest but not for the dark zone. What the point of going in a dark zone to get better gear? Your better Gear should come from the rest of the united states (governement research center/weapon manufactories...). As for taking what was stolen, I disagree because you take their weapon and generally not there supply and you basically use them for yourself as if it was the only source of weapon for you. On a gameplay point of view, the game reward you for looting not for saving the citizen. This is at least what I felt when I played the game.

well put sir. but it sound like the opening line to the division

not to mention they hide your face well so you can't be identified at a glance.

Not warm enough. Also, setting is a choice by the developers.

An bulletproof considering how many 9mm rounds they seem to take.

the man who dedicated every single one of his self written books to ronald reagan

+Abraham Drimmer This comment defines everything wrong with Tom Clancy. 9/10 not enough Watergate scandal.

+Cody Cullum (LazerSpammer) to be fair id be lying if i said i didnt enjoy the clancy penned originals at least on a perverse level

But Tom Clancy didn't write a book this game is based on. Don't drag Mr. Clancy in this! ;)

+David Umstattd I don't know. I can't speak for the man himself but his books seldom if ever take nuanced political positions that entertain non-western POVs...what I mean to say is it is it is always clear who is the good guy and who is the bad guy regardless of situation.

For people who have the maturity and necessary perspective to see it. Where Dan is undoubtedly right is when he says 'culture matters'.

keffypoo What strikes me is that the issue is well-known enough that it would be hard for someone to not think about it while playing the game. In fact, the game itself lacking anything to stop the player from slipping into the "correct" mindset from time to time would make it all the more potent, just like how you Undertale deliberately allows you to slip into the gamer "kill all the things, gain all the XP" mindset and not realize you are doing anything wrong until too late to change anything. It makes people much more on guard against the real world if they see that a game can alter their perspective in such terrifying ways. Its almost a training fight in a way, except that instead of the enemy it trains you to fight being hoodie-wearing strangers, its the kind of propagandists who might tell you to shoot them. I generally think that any work of art is beneficial if it adds to the breadth of experiences and people really do think about it is making them think.

+AlphaLeader013 indeed in the game the enemies we fight are all "bad guys" but i think the focus is on the problematic system where we agents are literally the prosecutor, judge and law-enforcement combined who needs no supervising or control, doesn't need to file any action reports or anything... BUT! also, it's just a BAD story setting for a MEH game which will never happen in the real world so, yeah

+lamb4902 "where we agents are literally the prosecutor, judge and law-enforcement combined" Ont his much I agree, that is a system with all kinds of possibility for abuse (which even the game acknowledges, see later). Though in a setting of martial law- which is the closest to what the JTF does as we can compare- it isn't entirely unprecedented or even unusual. "who needs no supervising or control, doesn't need to file any action reports or anything..." Except for the fact that that is not true at all. Heck, the game even provides its' own Judas in the form of Aaron Keener- someone who Actually did the things that the video tries to claim the entire JTF did- and whose supervisors marked him down (justifiably) as a mad, rabid dog and a rogue. "also, it's just a BAD story setting for a MEH game which will never happen in the real world" Ehh, I make no judgement on how bad or good the story or game is,, but saying it will Never happen in the real world strikes me of overconfidence at best. As I have ruthlessly flogged the people for making this video over, they claimed: ""And perhaps more importantly, during none of the major epidemics of the 20th century did a major country collapse into anarchy, or face widespread lawlessness and rioting"" Except this is exactly what we saw with the Spanish Flu in 1918-1920, and which helped cause *exactly these things* in Russia and China in particular, with honorable mentions going to the Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary, and the German Empire. The idea that this cannot happen is easily debunkable by looking at things like the Black Plague or the Colombian epidemics. The idea that this cannot happen *now* is murky at best given what the Great Flu did to what was still a modern world, even factoring in how bioweapons tend to differ from normal epidemics.

I'm not saying bad things won't happen, or drastic actions won't be taken on an epidemic situation. The way I mean it won't happen is in the sense that before things really gone that bad, this kind of "precaution system" (agents in the game) won't have a chance to establish. To have armed civilians working as the trinity of law system as the society's a last line of defense? Nah, I don't think so. That's why I just see it as a bad story setting, and a very LAZY one as well. guess i should have written my last comment more precisely :\ also, sending 2nd wave agents against keener is not control, it's the proof of no control ;)

+AlphaLeader013 you said "The Rikers, Cleaners and Rioters also patrol the streets and attack civilians" Well, the Rikers, Cleaners and Rioters are also civilians. Sick and violent civilians, but civilians none the less. So yes, the LMB does do this, they just don't attack peaceful civilians who aren't sick and ruthless. I too think this video is overstating the message a little, but i can't deny there is some meat to it.

Rene Knight "Well, the Rikers, Cleaners and Rioters are also civilians. Sick and violent civilians, but civilians none the less." Point, but I think this is a bit besides the point. A civilian behaving like the Rs, Cs, and Rioters behave loses the legal protections being a civilian grants them. For the same reason that laws against the murder of civilians by soldiers do not apply to civilians that decide to grab arms and shoot at soldiers without Damn Good Reason. "So yes, the LMB does do this, they just don't attack peaceful civilians who aren't sick and ruthless." At most, this isn't portrayed in game. The lore we have on them and some of the artwork indicates that they are absolutely willing to attack peaceful, healthy civilians if they are guilty of even nonviolent dissent. To quote a radio message and the game site.. "If you are in their territory and don’t play by their rules, you are screwed!" - Pirate Radio Podcast (in-game) "I too think this video is overstating the message a little, but i can't deny there is some meat to it." Fair enough. In terms of the messages of this game, I would be willing to admit it more, and say that there are areas where it could have been done better (for instance, armed friendly survivor NPCs and more diversity in enemy clothing). But my big issue with the video isn't even that it's overstating it, but in how it misstates plenty of things. I don't see how doing things like ignoring the Spanish Flu or the definition of totalitarian dictatorship helped any, and I think they're manifestly a different kind of problem than a mere overstatement.

+Hiane Rawr So, this was your first Extra Credits video obviously?

+Hiane Rawr Same here, I get the topic is serious enough and maybe I don't get the context as I live in europe and we've got different issues at the moment, but I expected to still be in the "scope" of games here. Yet this is pretty much pure politics and ethic/morality...

+Meppho maby they forgot to put in the tie in? i was kinda getting that as a community we should be bolder about these topics, but that could be just me

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I dislike the video or the topic. It just surprised me because I expected something more practical, considering the division is such a mess design-wise.

Meppho Pretty much how i felt

The moment I heard "non-lethal", I imagined a modern military using danmaku fights.

Or atleast a way not to kill evryone

Or maybe they did, and its trying to be a commentary on how America is turning into an imperialistic police state. But I think they arent that clever.

Personally, I want to play it just because of this episode so I can come to my own conclusions. Still, I agree that this is an amazing video.

Play the full game before you start judging it!!!

Kaiser68 it a crapy cod

Tom Rivers It's not a cod it's acover base shooter.

+Anon Ymous The Division clearly depicts New York as blanketed in snow. In fact it doesn't look to dissimilar too Canadian winters.

+BeagleBagel In the climate shown in the game, you'd want a coat much warmer than hoodies

+BeagleBagel And that is why they must all DIE

"In fact it doesn't look to dissimilar too Canadian winters." Now you're just trying to annoy Grammar Nazis like me.

Mattoropael *Your jk its good

+Drew Brigner (Hyldin) But have you heard the message he leaves after that one? The one where he is almost gleeful about how he and his buddies now go where they want, take what they want and eat whenever they want?

+RPGtalkout So... you're triggered by a generic word... and you want to censor people for it? Sounds very New Speakish...

+Eluem Firstly: criticism is not censorship. On the word being triggering, i just hate the word in general. It's a un-aggressive, politically correct and "clean" way to say something is bad and needs to stop. Except that it feelslike it doesn't need to stop just because problematic sounds more like a suggestion. Saying something is terrible, or saying something is "problematic" technically means the same thing, only one of them actually gets people to listen. Problematic sounds more like: Hey, this is not really great and you could make it better, but you don't need to if it would bother you to do so. I hate that attitude towards not just politics, but everything in life.

RPGtalkout Telling people to stop using words because they bother you is censorship. Reducing the number of words that can be used with similar but slightly different meanings is the beginning of New Speak.

+Eluem No, its not censorship if nobody has been censored. To be censored is to have your platform or your voice removed. I told them to stop using the word, a suggestion. A suggestion can be ignored. You can't ignore being censored. That's the difference between censorship and criticism. And even if I got my way and they stopped using that annoying word, their message wouldn't change. The idea would remain intact, but the from would change. This is not censorship. On new speech, I'm not familiar with that term. But using multiple words that mean the exact same is completely pointless when trying to inform people about your ideology and/or cause.

You are requesting self censorship. "self-cen·sor·ship noun noun: self-censorship the exercising of control over what one says and does, especially to avoid castigation." You don't know what New Speak is? You've never read 1984?

Yea Extra Credit has been known to go on SJW rants. Which is always annoying when people twist things around them to support their world view.

They have had a PC leaning POV for a long time now.

+Flatlander Guy ya they do. it's a real turn off. Disguising this as "mechanics" is deceptive. This was pure social justice shaming. Good job extra credits. Telling people what others will take away from a game. They know our minds and how everyone will interpret things.

+HYPERSHADNIC I honestly enjoy the idea of what they're doing but yea, having a hard time stomaching their message.

+Bustaperizm I agree with his arguments about how the game parallels what has been happening with police brutality and that kind of thing, but that assumes that people are influenced that easily by video games.

In the division we are figthing to eliminate the virus and in real life we are figthing for toiletpaper

That's great, and you're right that Dan and James should have taken it into account, but it doesn't change the fact that the developers implemented the themes really poorly and for any of us who are not familiar with Tom Clancy's work, this game sends some really fucked up messages.

+Winter I would argue that someone who isn't familiar with Tom Clancy's work should be made aware of it rather than told how horrible the message is about real world issues. Dan, James, and the rest of the crew at EC do not strike me as being unaware of the Tom Clancy universe but rather simply leaving it out of this commentary as it doesn't fit the narrative of a French developer making a game about US problems set in a US city. Ubisoft is notorious for picking hot button topics and then building a game around over stylized artistic visions, the same as Tom Clancy. If anything they are the perfect choice to continue content creation within the Tom Clancy universe the same way they have the disclaimer at the start of every new Assassin's Creed about it being a multi-national, multi-cultural, multi-religion based team that is creating a game that basically says organized religion is a shadow government fighting "Americanized Freedom Fighters" since the dawn of time. Assassin's creed demonizes it's own protagonist as a serial killer fighting for the "American Dream" version of freedom. To then jump on a band wagon and decry The Division for being a piece of fiction set in the same type of over stylized world, denoted by the Tom Clancy name on the cover seems sophomoric from EC. I think in the end the problem isn't this video, or the games, but instead my expectation for more from the EC team. This is click bait journalism from a team that is also doing history content because they love history. A team that does deep insightful looks at things truly problematic in gaming. This is a cop out that doesn't' even do the due diligence of exploring the full title of the game.

+David Scott That's actually part of the issue: a story made interactive may no longer be the same story and its the responsibility of game makers to be aware of this. Specifically, books can provide context for violence while games need simple signifiers like "he's wearing a hoodie, kill him." This works fine in XCOM ("it's got bug eyes! Kill it!"), but the same design has a totally different message in the real world.

Marcus Mattern, your example makes perfect sense if this were simply "The Division". The fact that it is "Tom Clancy's The Division" means it is not set in the "real world" and as such just as in X-Com you kill collaborators in The Division you kill rioters, rikers, etc. The game actually goes to great lengths to show that these are people killing police, national guard, other division agents, and civilians very early on and again through the entirety of the game to re-enforce the message it's not the "real world" where there is no black and white, only shades of grey and a more measured response is appropriate, but instead is Tom Clancy's world where a bullet is the appropriate response.

+ThePyrobrid When civilians do it it's looting, when the government does it it's confiscation.

+cheezemonkeyeater Media affects my everyday life. Every time I've been told something ableist relating to my psychiatric diagnoses I can always trace it back to the way people like me are depicted in media. Conversely, it's not uncommon for me to, on reflection (in the moment is more difficult), realize that I am making assumptions about a person based on a very vague image assembled from works of fiction and off-hand comments on social media. How about this? Take note of the people you see on your way to work, or school, or whatever. Compare them to the cast of your favorite TV show. Which roles would the people you saw have on that show based on how similar they are to the current cast members? Do you think these roles make sense? Do you think they describe that person fairly? Do you think that, if you knew these people, you would have held the same opinion?

+spacedoubt15 Actually, given the amount of glitches and poor choices in gameplay..it's entirely possible.

Yep

+Van van Mojo But not all games. Some games really do make us think. Some games exist just for fun. Just like some movies make us think, and some movies exist just for fun. Ikiru is a superb movie about finding meaning in life, about combatting the stubborn beauracracy to make a difference in the world, even if it's something as simple as building a park for children to play in. Commando is a movie where Arnold shoots a lot of people and spouts one-liners. I like them both. Commando doesn't deserve or need thought. Ikiru is a movie you cannot enjoy without thinking. When people are saying "Don't think about it too much" they're saying that The Division is much closer to Commando than Ikiru.

Try going back 10 seconds further in the video and forward real time to the end of May 2020...

+Mikosch2 Yeah I am not sure. Swedish developers so they might not have the same sensibility to certain things. Being a Swede my self I know that... you tend not to always get the finer points of some issues in America. While I wont say there are not racial issues in Sweden those issues are a different sort of character. And so we Swedes might have a hard time reflecting on it from a American perspective. That being said that just a hypotheses from my side and I do not know the actual background of the writers on this project. But like you said this might also be intended. To actually make you shock to think about you actions. But then again there is a issue there that what you can do is very limited. Which means it hard to question your actions in the game when you only have one action. Is it a good way to go about it? To have false agency? Or is it better to actually give the player true agency? I am not sure to be honest. I know that I always feel hesitant about gunning down the rioters. After all there just look like people that tries to survive and wears hoodies. I know that I did not actually start to shoot back at them at the early part of the game until they started to shoot me first. And in fact I am still very heistiant about shooting them. Though I think the game does it darndest in trying to just view them as combatants to gun down. Personally I would have felt better if I had more options then just use brute force to accomplice my objectives. I am not interested in harming people. I am there to try to stop the virus outbreak and to help people. So it makes me a bit sad when most things are solved though a gunfight. Even thing that could avoid having gunfights have them because well... it is a game. And games have gunfights. The Division has a interesting backdrop with potentially very interesting topics to explore. But the game is sadly in many ways a bit shallow to. I think a fairly shallow gameplay might actually be what hurts the exploration of it topics. But the game will continue to develop and we will see. I think the game has done something at least if it warrens a video like this that actually beings up the discussion. And that is something at least.