You can solo run The Division 2 from start to finish

Screen Shot 2018-07-08 at 8.25.17 AM

Tom Clancy’s The Division 2 is not a political game. We’ve heard this from Ubisoft, who insists that their title about an uprising set in Washington D.C. will avoid being political. No politics… in Washington D.C. and that’s final. Sorry, I guess all of my coverage of the game needs to start with me shaking this scaldingly mild take off, like a wet dog covered in bad takes. Like Tom Clancy’s The Division Origins Part The First, there is a big giant city out there to conquer and the emphasis is on group play and cooperation. For those of you who have two or more friends. For the rest of us, there’s good news in the form of a recent announcement that the game is absolutely beatable as a single player experience, including Division endgame missions with notorious difficulty spikes.

Game Director, Mathias Karlson, speaking with AusGamers had this to say:

“You can play through the entire story campaign into endgame and [then the] endgame [content], alone… [But] you can also do the same content [in] two, three, or four player co-op. Or eight-player co-op, two full groups in the raid if you opt into the challenge that we’re adding. So it’s very important for us that you get to pick.”

Presumably, this goes a little farther than the Destiny Model of allowing single player up to a point, but the phrasing here doesn’t get into whether the raids (which support up to 8 players; Jesus.) will be conquerable all by your lonesome.

Read Dominic’s early impressions here. Hopefully we have more clarity on this before the early 2019 release.


  1. malkav11 says:

    I don’t have high hopes. Division 1 is theoretically soloable but it makes zero concessions to solo players and the experience is more than a little punishing, at least early on.

    • A Gentleman and a Taffer says:

      Really? When did you play it? I only got round to it a couple of months ago and actually found it easier to solo (until you reach the endgame Incursions). The mission enemies get way too spongey when you’re in a group (the game’s way of raising difficulty), I actually faired much better solo. The only thing you miss is the lack of revives, but once people start passing out in co-op you get very screwed very quickly.

      I know it’s been tweaked a lot over the years since release so may be different to your experience. The Division was fun, but not sure I particularly need another one anytime soon, though. Sunnier location or no.

      • fish99 says:

        I played it a few months after launch and also had no problem soloing the whole story.

      • malkav11 says:

        I don’t remember exactly, but it was last year sometime, I think. Well after they’d supposedly patched solo play to be easier (I suspect this was mainly at the high end). Also, I’ve never grouped in the game. My assumption was that being able to be revived and flank enemies would be very important to the combat flow they seem to have envisioned (as is quite typical in other coop shooters, like Borderlands). Regardless of whether that’s the case, I found the early missions a huge and unenjoyable struggle as a solo player with barely any health, armor or medkits, no revives, hordes of flanking enemies and a life expectancy when being shot at of as many as 2 seconds. It does seem to level out a bit if you can get an edge in levels and once you have some blue equipment and base upgrades. But, you know, you have to do some pretty rough missions to get there.

  2. Krondon57 says:

    Did that with Division 1 so no surprise i guess?

  3. Pharaoh Nanjulian says:

    Every action is political. Politics is not limited to the party political, Ubisoft. From the country that gave us the Paris commune, this is delicious.

  4. Bull0 says:

    I played the first one mostly solo, and joined up with randos to do the dungeon things. It all worked great. I assume it’s carrying on in that vein

  5. Jason Moyer says:

    Man, and here I was expecting an Ubisoft game to be about something.

    • EthZee says:

      I mean, It’s a sequel to the Division. From my experience of the first game, I assume it’ll be about shooting a bunch of dudes in order to score gradually more powerful loot in a Diablo-esque style; while NPCs try their hardest to emote at you at how bad this all is and isn’t death and war bad while you ignore or make fun of the NPCs with your friends and compare your sweet new guns.

      EDIT: you were being sarcastic weren’t you

    • Nauallis says:

      Shooting survivors is good because viral megadeath is bad, and all those cute little bullets are just so angry about being crowded into so few magazines.

  6. mitrovarr says:

    I think the better solution would be to have decent matchmaking. I don’t mind being in a team, but I don’t want to have to make it a big social event, send out invites, etc.

  7. racccoon says:

    Diversity is what we want as gamers.:)

  8. hostilecrab says:

    It’s really Totally Fine for developers to make games about whatever kind of subject they want to make their game about, without having to make a statement about contemporary issues related to that subject. Not everything has to have a meaningful statement. Sometimes a mediocre modern looter-shooter can just be a mediocre modern looter-shooter.

  9. Maxheadroom says:

    This may or may not be good but the reveal at E3 did nothing to sell it to me. I do wish Ubisoft would stop with the ridiculous fake team chatter.
    After about 5 minutes i just started skipping through the presentation but the bits i did see seemed fairly generic (and the enemies still bullet sponges)

Comment on this story

HTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>