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?

Again your delicious screenshots thanks guys

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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..

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.