No, world-building doesn't count as a story - I'm talking an actual narrative, where we follow the characters through beginning, middle and end. It's highly unlikely considering the capacity in which Ubisoft are discussing The Division, that it'll be something you can ever consider you've 'finished'. Yes, the initial framework for the narrative is the age-old 'humanity rebuilds' trope from most post-apocalyptic/dystopian fiction, but in the newest trailers that are attempting to get people hyped for the beta, there's an immediate focus on resource management that only sporadically changes to being character-based. As such, it'd benefit Ubi far more if they came out and said they were making a game that walked a fine line between being single player-minded in terms of immersion and atmosphere, versus the potential landmine of stating it's 'multiplayer only'. The latter proved to be the death knell for both Evolve and Titanfall, alongside slowly draining all the appeal out of Star Wars Battlefront, so there's definitely precedent to steer well clear of such messaging. That said, how important is a story to a game built on loot-drops and item-grinds? Not very, but we need a strong enough purpose to explore the world, otherwise a lack of it can really take you out of an 'intense, atmospheric' game that's actually harbouring intent as a multiplayer experience. What do you make of Ubisoft's latest venture? Can it work, and is there anything you're asking we've missed off? Let us know in the comments!
