Disclaimer: This post is an analysis, both moral and material, of the playstyle debate. As of such, it’s long. 
Edit: Added collapsibles; do read the whole thing though, it doesn’t make much sense otherwise.
Introduction
Whenever you play a game; any game, really; you are, inevitably, playing the game in some distinct, and somewhat unique way; a playstyle, for short. This is an almost near-universal concept across all games; even in games such as Papers Please, where the extent of player control is, at most, a stamp, you still have the agency to choose how you play the game; you can either strictly adhere to the rules, or bend them and make exceptions.
However, the choice of playstyle is not universally represented in games in the form of player decisions within gameplay. With some games, it might seem as if you cannot choose a playstyle at all; in Blizzard’s Overwatch, for example, your playstyle is defined by the character you choose; within the bounds of your chosen character, deviation from the standard playstyle, (the “meta”, if you will) if possible in the first place, will usually result in a lessened effectiveness for your character. This is not the elimination of playstyles, however; it is simply the developers of the game choosing to take a more game-controlled approach to playstyles of players. This is not a unique approach; you can see it in multiple other games, such as Respawn’s Apex Legends, or Valve’s TF2, where, nearly all of the time, your choice of character determines your playstyle.
This is not the industry standard, and for a variety of reasons; it can be a lot more fun for players and a lot less work for developers to have the players develop their playstyles on their own; you can see this quite often in MMO’s or RPG’s, where the basic framework of playstyles is left around, but not much else. This is also quite prevalent in survival-focused games such as Minecraft, or, in the subgenre of zombie survival, games like Dayz and Unturned. Playstyle restrictions here are very lax, if they even exist at all. These games typically only give you a few boundaries as to how you play; one of the most prominent of these is the food/water bar. Beyond the purpose of realism, the food/water bar also serves a valuable game design purpose; it forces the player to focus on something beyond combat, and also hampers the effective sustainability of large player-created groups. Beyond this, there are two limits to the game that are, for the most part, hard-coded aspects of the software; the map limitations, and the limitations on the overall amount of content in the game. For example, in Unturned, there are certain restrictions on how far you can push the physical boundaries of your character; while the player can upgrade their speed and stamina, they cannot successfully create a character with large advantages in mobility over others without using fuelled vehicles.
Valve’s TF2, as talked about beforehand, has character-based playstyle selection that allows individual customization via unlockable items. Anyone who has spent more than half an hour in the game, or has significantly looked into the community, will notice an anomaly among the players of an otherwise combat-driven first-person shooter; some players, instead of fighting, simply choose to be “friendly” and spend the match handing out consumable healing items or dancing. Compare this to Blizzard’s Overwatch; no such subcategory of players exist, and any kind of inter-team interaction beyond combat is unheard of.
At first, this is rather puzzling. The games share the same basic core design tenets; they are both character-based first person shooters, and they both involve two teams fighting around a certain objective. However, TF2 has one core difference; while it has fewer overall characters, it allows players to create their own playstyles with the unlockable item system. Allowing players slightly more freedom from the game-established playstyles allows for more variety among competing players; but it also allows for more deviation and changes to the core gameplay mechanics. This can sometimes create weapons and classes that are over or under-powered compared to other weapons; but it also allows for the creation of friendly players that choose to entirely subvert the original intent, and design, of the game.
Unturned is a zombie survival game that is, in every way, simplistic. The characters are blocky cube-men, the items are basic polygons that only expend the necessary amount of detail to convey what they are, and nothing else; and the game mechanics are no different. This is not to say the game is bad, or even lacking; simplicity is not necessarily a bad thing, as this allows the game to reach a wider audience of low-powered computers than the higher-priced and more intensive games in the genre. In addition to this, the game mechanics are not, because of their simplicity, lacking; simple games can be very fun, as anyone who has played, for example, checkers or tic-tac-toe can attest.
Unturned’s game mechanics are very easy to understand. At the basic level, the main goal of players is to sustain themselves. To do so, they require resources; however, to obtain said resources, you must expend resources such as weapons or fuel to get to locations where you can get such resources. This results in a cycle; players are constantly trying to get new forms of resources so that they can more easily sustain themselves. This is, at the very basic level, the concept that underlies all interaction between players and anything in the game world, be it zombies, terrain, or other players.
Unturned’s mechanics, while simple, allow for a great deal of playstyle variation. As said before, the boundaries the game offers are, at most, very light on the restriction of possible playstyles. Players are given one main goal; sustain themselves; and the very simplicity of the goal makes it something that is universally followed by all players to some degree. However, due to the hardcoded limits of the game, the playstyles, in terms of equipment, do not often have any major differences; perhaps someone prefers an assault rifle over a shotgun, or a fast racing car to a long-distance hauler; if placed at an equal level of equipment, nearly all players would not have any major differences to each other on a raw statistical basis. Instead, the major differences between player’s playstyles are how they interact with other players; either with violence, or friendliness.
The Sides
To those who have spent some time in the community, this is not a new subject, nor is it one that has had any significant conclusion. There are parties on both sides of the playstyle divide who have very strong opinions on the matter, and voice them regularly on whatever forums you choose to browse; this issue is not untested ground in terms of debate and discussion. In layman’s terms, I’m talking about “kos” and “friendlies”. As was said before, there are two rather clear-cut sides to the issue; while the issue itself is not as clearly defined I shall attempt to cover the arguments of both sides from as neutral a perspective as possible.
Firstly, we shall be covering the more aggressive side of the debate.
First-person shooters, on the whole, are almost universally designed around violence of some sort. Doom, the very first of the genre, was simple in the execution of this concept; here’s a gun, go shoot some demons. This basic concept, one based on lead and gunpowder impacting at high velocity into some hostile body, has not really changed. At the base, any game with first-person shooting or combat mechanics is designed around some form of assault and violence, and Unturned displays this: significant amounts of time were invested into the ballistics of the game, as well as ensuring the reliability of the netcode and the durability of the system in a high-ping environment.
Consider, if you will, the above statements on the food and water bar, and how they impact the game’s mechanics. Imagine if it was removed; the primary objective of unturned would not longer be to sustain yourself, as you do not need to be sustained; instead, you are simply thrown into a sandbox with guns and things to use them on. Player to player interaction, in this case, would be akin to Valve’s TF2. Friendliness towards other players would be seen as a deviation from the way the game was designed; or, at the very least, be far less common.
Is the addition of this small, survivalistic addition really enough to justify a shift in attitude? At the base, this is a game based around assault and fighting. Rocket launchers and high-powered light-machine-guns are not in the game so that players have more effective weapons to use against computer-controlled enemies; rather, they are designed to be used against players. Combat, assault, and violence against other players are built into the game itself in its mechanics; attempting to protest against hostility this will not remove this. Attacking other players on sight is not some awful side effect that the developer should do their very best to remove; rather, it is an integral part of how the game is meant to be played.
Resources are scarce. If you and another player both attempt to loot a city at the same time, the simple fact of the matter is that both players are getting half of the potential resources they could be getting. This may not be that large of an issue on servers with higher spawn rates, but on a normal difficulty server with minimal to no modifications to the configuration, things begin to get difficult. Imagine this; you’re running low on food, and you walk into a city. At the other end, you see a player walk in; they could potentially take the food you need, and allow you to starve; or, even worse, kill you. Is it a good idea to let them take the food you seriously need; and wouldn’t it be more advantageous to strike first before they can do any harm to you? The simple fact of the matter is that, in a survival situation, it’s loot or be looted; take or be taken from; kill or be killed.
Now, let us consider the other side of the argument.
Survival is not easy. With the overbearing threat of zombies, starvation, sickness, would it not be beneficial to all of us if we were to cooperate? More hands to help loot, fight, and defend against more hostile players would create the most optimal setting for players to enjoy the game; after all, removed from the most major threat of hostile players, players could kick back, relax, and finally enjoy the game without constantly worrying about KoS.
Resources in Unturned are infinite; everything will keep spawning and will continue to spawn until the end of time. Resources are not limited; if everyone cooperated, we could ensure that everyone got fed and that everyone got ammunition. In addition to this, should we not simply be kind to our fellow man? We should not shoot anyone, even if we do not want to collaborate in large groups; it is simply more beneficial to everyone to live and let live.
I find that, as I am writing this essay, that I am unable to elaborate further for the cause of friendliness and cooperation. While it does add an element of inequality to the following passages, I am unsure of what I could do to rectify this issue; all the major reasons for cooperation and collaboration have been stated above, and I do not feel that I could extend the above paragraphs further without adding unnecessary length to something that does not need it. However, from this point on I will now delve into what I think is the true, and honest appraisal of Unturned’s environment for player-on-player interaction, and the different interactions of playstyles within.
The Analysis
The prisoner’s dilemma is one that many of you already most likely know. I will not spend significant time going into it here; shortened to the point of extreme brevity, it is a problem in which two prisoners can choose to abandon their partner in crime for a shorter sentence, and stay quiet for a longer one; however, if they both choose to abandon their partner, they both get a longer sentence than they would have gotten if they had stayed quiet. Please, if you have not heard of it already, look it up; I do not feel that my shortened explanation does it justice, and will probably hamper your understanding of the following passages if you adhere strictly by it.
The parallels to the game are obvious; staying quiet is synonymous with being friendly, and being aggressive is equal to selling out your partner. If the game remained purely an analogy of the prisoner’s dilemma, we could reasonably make the case that being friendly is better for everyone; while the rewards may be worse on an individual basis, everyone does get resources in the end and does not have to run the risk of being killed by another player, and as such is better off than they would be if they had been aggressive. However, there are several crucial differences to the dilemma that upset this conclusion:
Firstly, in most cases, true equality in terms of resources received is impossible. Even if two players are friendly towards each other, if they are at an untouched loot location; as most players often are when they meet other players; the normally slow process of looting turns into a race to see who gets to the hotspots first. Someone will always end up on top, unless you want to trust fair and equal resource distribution to a complete and total stranger who has everything to gain from being unfair; and, as such, someone will always get the bigger share of the pie. Thus, being friendly, in most situations, will usually still lead to someone losing out; and that someone could potentially be you.
Secondly, there is a crucial difference to the aggressive option. While in the original dilemma, being aggressive only succeeds if the other is friendly, in-game both players deciding to be aggressive to one-another will still have one player end up on top. You will always have the chance of winning if you are constantly aggressive.
Lastly, the dilemma is not a one-time situation. Players will always have the chance for a do-over; and if you could always have a chance at winning the situation and getting the most resources, with the only real consequence to losing being having to wait a bit before doing it again, wouldn’t you?
In short, what makes the everyone-should-be-friendly conclusion unworkable is the simple fact that no matter what you or the other player chooses to do, someone will always win at the expense of the other; if you are both friendly, one of the players will almost always get the lion’s share of the resources, while if you are both aggressive, one of the players will win the inevitable PvP fight. Someone will always win, and someone will always lose. Resource scarcity and the basic mechanics of the game means that any player interaction will always, in all cases, be a zero-sum game. No matter the scenario, no matter the equipment, no matter the personalities involved; someone will always lose something, and someone will always gain something. And in a situation like this, why would one be friendly if one wanted to achieve the most optimal resource situation? If you are friendly, you will most likely fall victim to any aggressive players; and if you encounter another friendly player, it becomes a race to the nearest loot hotspot so that the other player does not take anything you need. Everything is encouraging the player to be aggressive; if you simply shot first, you would not be as open a victim to other aggressive players, and you would most likely be the beneficiary of any interactions with friendly
players. And even if you died due to zombies or another player interaction, you could simply respawn and go back to where you died with little consequence. In the scenario that the game affords, friendliness is not an optimal option for those needing or seeking resources; in short, the entire population of the game. Devoid of material gain, friendliness can only really be used by players of two categories; those that are rather risk-averse, and choose to avoid players altogether rather than risk conflict, or those that are simply kind to others.
Let us step back, for a moment, from these pessimistic observations on human behavior, and consider the lighter side of things. Kindness is not without merit, and we would not be much of a species without it, but it is not advantageous in such an environment. However, the more careful reader would notice something; an error, perhaps; so far, I have solely covered individual engagements and encounters. I have not taken this theorizing beyond a one-on-one interactions, and I have not considered the merits of group activity when considering friendliness.
Larger-scale player interactions are harder to quantify than smaller, individual interactions between players, simply because of the fact that more people involved in a situation equates to more independent variables that must be factored into a prediction. It could be an entire post in itself; as of such, I will not elongate this already extended post; the player-on-player samples are enough for a broad enough analysis. The general theories still apply, however; if there is demand for a more extended explanation on the subject of large-scale player interactions, I will post one.
Before we continue, I must clarify one thing; when discussing the mindset, choices, and mentality of other players with player-on-player interaction, the choice of players to be friendly or aggressive and the reasoning behind it is not entirely black and white. Players could choose to only be aggressive when provoked, or only attack armed players; vice versa, some players could choose, to with no real reason or material gain, simply be aggressive and kill for fun, not for loot. There is no split dichotomy between those that are friendly and those that are aggressive; we must consider that the reasoning behind the decisions of player are not always material.
Materially, for the most part, being aggressive is usually the most beneficial; you will, most of the time, end up getting more than if you had simply left the other person alone; and being friendly will, most of the time, result in the person with lower stamina losing out on the good loot. However, we have yet to consider the other major aspect of playstyle choice, primarily for those who choose to be friendly; the morality.
On the surface, the morality of the playstyle debate seems to be, quite obviously, on the side of the friendly argument. Killing others is immoral; sharing is good; therefore, friendliness is the most moral way to play the game. There is, however, a case to be made for the opposite side; one which has already been stated so far in this essay.
First-person shooters, on the whole, are almost universally designed around violence of some sort. Doom, the very first of the genre, was simple in the execution of this concept; here’s a gun, go shoot some demons. This basic concept, one based on lead and gunpowder impacting at high velocity into some hostile body, has not really changed. At the base, any game with first-person shooting or combat mechanics is designed around some form of assault and violence, and Unturned displays this: significant amounts of time were invested into the ballistics of the game, as well as ensuring the reliability of the netcode and the durability of the system in a high-ping environment.
Consider, if you will, the above statements on the food and water bar, and how they impact the game’s mechanics. Imagine if it was removed; the primary objective of unturned would not longer be to sustain yourself, as you do not need to be sustained; instead, you are simply thrown into a sandbox with guns and things to use them on. Player to player interaction, in this case, would be akin to Valve’s TF2. Friendliness towards other players would be seen as a deviation from the way the game was designed; or, at the very least, be far less common.
Is the addition of this small, survivalistic addition really enough to justify a shift in attitude? At the base, this is a game based around assault and fighting. Rocket launchers and high-powered light-machine-guns are not in the game so that players have more effective weapons to use against computer-controlled enemies; rather, they are designed to be used against players. Combat, assault, and violence against other players are built into the game itself in its mechanics; attempting to protest against hostility this will not remove this. Attacking other players on sight is not some awful side effect that the developer should do their very best to remove; rather, it is an integral part of how the game is meant to be played.
In the end, is there really all that much wrong with being aggressive? The game is designed around player versus player combat; there’s no two ways about it. While you can argue that taking things and killing players is immoral, is it really all that bad when the players will respawn instantly, and the items they got can, just as easily, be regained within a few hours? While constant aggression, by no means, is something that is morally 100% correct, it is more morally grey than some might expect. This does not mean that being kind and friendly is morally wrong; it simply means that being constantly aggressive is not worthy of demonization.
If the game is designed so that every time somebody gains resources, somebody else must lose them, is it really all that evil to make sure that you’re not that somebody else?
Every time you meet another player, it’s a gamble to see if they’ll be friendly; and the dices are loaded.
If not being aggressive makes you easy prey for those that are, is it really all that bad for you to be aggressive as well, simply so you do not have to risk losing hours of progress?
In the end, is it really all that wrong for people to kill on sight?
Disclaimer the Second
The playstyle debate is an incredibly contentious subject. The above paragraphs are, and will continue to be a point of contention throughout the lifespan of this game. I do not intend to cause a debate over this; those have already happened, and will continue to happen for what may as well be eternity. Once people have developed a mindset, or an opinion, around a subject, internet debates prove to be, quite often, the absolute least effective method to getting them to change their opinion, oftentimes only reinforcing their convictions. I would, however, be entirely open to criticism of my methods, writing, and the logic I used to reinforce my conclusions in the first place. Please keep it respectful, however; as I have already said, I do not want to cause a massive debate.
