No. I said I find the gameplay too repetitive. Worldbuilding/story is often a saving grace for me, but I don't find evidence of it here. If, at a later date, I see there's focus on these, I will gladly revisit my decision.
The first Division barely had a story. Someone releases a virus, chaos reigns, you're sent to mop up. This sums up most of it. The eco-terrorist malthusian thread is interesting, but is not explored, both plot-wise and moral-wise. There's really no feeling of the plot moving forward too, the story is too slavishly bound to the game progression. It, and all the characters, don't elicit any emotions.
Re: environmental storytelling, it is there, but it is mostly one-note and it runs into the problem Fallout 76 has been criticized for (rightly so). All those stories already happened, those people are dead and their stories don't inform the main storyline. In other words, there's no reason to care.
The combat does what it can within the limits the game set upon itself with the setting. You can see them trying to expand on it with the drones and robot dogs, you can feel it with the unrealistic berserker goons and grenade-happy lobbers, but, for me, it's still too little to support a living service loot game.
Anyway, the thread asks how our experience translates to our interest in the game and this is what I got from the Beta (and Division 1).
EDIT: IMO, Ubisoft missed a trick here, not making the Division a G.I.Joe game. That would open up the game in the gameplay and storytelling departments.
