You miss the point. No one should ever pre-order games. It's the practice that allows shoddy unfinished game to be released after shoddy unfinished game.

Yeah, this is what I was getting at. And the argument about 'well I was going to buy it day one anyway' doesn't hold any water with me because the big publishers release so many broken and and bad games these days that committing to buying anything before the reviews come in is a poor decision.

Or the inevitable day 1 server crashes if it's a multiplayer game.

Yeah, this is what I was getting at. And the argument about 'well I was going to buy it day one anyway' doesn't hold any water with me because the big publishers release so many broken and and bad games these days that committing to buying anything before the reviews come in is a poor decision.

You can cancel them when the review come in, you know.

Yeah but reviews for wonky games are almost invariably embargoed until the night before it comes out.

Ubisoft says "We're being totally open with you about this. Everyone in the gaming press has non-disclosure orders that don't lapse until sometime after the game has released to the public."

So there you go, no reviews until the game has been released because they're scared of negative press and negative press is probably what they're going to get because it looks shit.

I request that the jury recalls Batman:Arkham Asylum, which had some hideous conditions for review, using screenshots, mag covers, etc.

And, of course, was one of the best games of that generation.

I'm confused, that's not what that article says and the bit you quoted isn't even in there any where? What it does say is, "reviewers will start playing the game along with everyone else when it’s released on March 8" which, to me, says simply that no one will be given a final copy of the game for review purposes before the public get their hands on it as is the norm. It's not an embargo, they can presumably post their reviews whenever they want, it's just that they'll need to spend some time actually playing the game before any worthwhile conclusions can be drawn. I mean obviously it's not great if you wanted to buy the game day one but wanted to know what it's like before plonking down the cash but I can kind of sort of understand it from Ubisoft's point of view if you assume the gameplay does genuinely rely on having a fully populated world to work with.

Unless you've got some other source of info about their reasons aside from that link?

I'm confused, that's not what that article says and the bit you quoted isn't even in there any where? What it does say is, "reviewers will start playing the game along with everyone else when it’s released on March 8" which, to me, says simply that no one will be given a final copy of the game for review purposes before the public get their hands on it as is the norm.

That definitely means Ubisoft think it's shit, though. Otherwise why do this?

Nah. Speculation, init. But, come on, the amount of pages it's been getting in magazines, the gaming press going off to events to play it and so on? What is so different to this and, say, Destiny, which managed to get reviewed on release without some developer saying "You can't review our game because you just won't get the experience, man." And how has it been playable at these events and during the beta? They couldn't provide a single server for press to play it online or something (Bear in mind I know nothing about servers and stuff)? There's no single player mode? You can't ever, ever, EVER play it offline? I mean, really? EVER? Is that what's so great about it?

I can't remember anyone anywhere saying the campaign was online only? Is it? Genuine question.

It does sound dodgy but on the other hand if they thought it really was utter dogshit that everyone was going to hate I can't imagine that they would have run an open beta for a weekend. To me it just seemed a bit dull but it's not really my sort of thing anyway so I had no strong feelings one way or the other.

It’s a great single-player game, period.

While The Division may be more of a multiplayer centric title, it seems that Ubisoft Massive are taking into account players who want to play the game alone, or may not have the option to play the game online.

“there won’t be any offline support” seems pretty unambiguous to me but whatever. And if the multiplayer is integrated then how is the single player even really a single player at all? And wasn't I the one that said it's like Destiny so aren't you agreeing with me by also making the comparison yourself? And doesn't that mean having a fully populated world could genuinely be considered a necessity for a fair appraisal of the game? And do you actually know what we're arguing about any more? And why do I have a massive feeling of deva vu as I tap these sentences out?

Why did Tom Clancy graduate with honours from business school? Because his Division was good.

Which is both a terrible maths joke and a topical maths joke, because Tom Clancy’s The Division has sold more in its first 24 hours than any other Ubisoft game in history, according to the Ubisoft Blog.

The post also reports that “Total digital full game sales of The Division also set new, single-day company records across PC, Xbox One, PS4.”

Just from watching videos the combat in general reminds me of Uncharted, especially the first game where the combat didn't really have a lot of 'weight' to it.

*perks up* ooh, does this get better in later Uncharteds then? Because I must say I got around halfway through the first one in the HD re-release and couldn't be bothered continuing for that exact reason (given there's so much emphasis on gun play)

Yeah, it definitely gets better in the second game. I mean there are still issues with that aspect of the game to my mind, but with the improvements to the shooting and the generally higher production values for the sequels I enjoyed them both much more than the first game. It's certainly worth trying the second one to see what you think.

Good job he won't notice that I spelt his name wrong either.

As for The Division, one of my PC spod chums who's bought the game is currently online and playing WoW (according to the sinister spying battle.net client), which doesn't exactly strike me as a ringing endorsement for the brand new MMO/RPG/SHOOTER thing he's just bought, considering he's had his WoW account for over ten years and it's at the arse end of its current expansion, and that's the game he's choosing to play, instead of The Division.

I'm just working with what I've got, which isn't much.

We know mate, we know.