In Unturned 3.X there was just one international coalition that was entirely ambivalent that had no selfish interests or political aims. They were didn’t have any concern that rescuing survivors or international travel could spread the infection further. There were also national militaries, which have almost all entirely collapsed, and collapsed (mostly generic) militia organizations. Most of these organizations played little to no part in lore or NPC questlines. The biggest exception there was in Greece, a curated map, which had a national military that had only mostly collapsed and a not entirely generic militia group (that still could have fit just as well anywhere on the globe) and these groups did play extremely important roles in NPC quest lines. This worked fine for Unturned II, with it’s NPCs and lore tacked on as afterthoughts, however Unturned II will have (atleast it’s currently planned to have) a more planned out and structured lore, more NPC interaction, and more serious elements (I believe all of these points were covered to some extent in SomebodyOnEarth’s Interview of Nelson.) With these changes between Unturned and Unturned II, I believe there’s room for more factions, but these factions must strike a balance between being too bland and generic and being so believable as to become political and controversial (the closer the game gets to portraying real world militaries and governments in a believable way, the more it will be judged based on how those countries are portrayed, especially when it comes to controversial factions such as Israel, Palestine, and China, which many people already have biases about.)
Where do you think factions should fall on the line between being safely generic and portraying controversial issues?
Personally, I wouldn’t mind a second coalition of less “Western” countries and maybe smuggling network that runs counter to the coalitions’ quarantines and I would definitely like to see some more regional flair to the militias of various maps, even if the militia forces don’t directly say what they’re standing for. (For example, it would be really cool to have militia type NPCs in Ireland styled after Ulster loyalists or Irish nationalists, even if those ideals or even the combat between them, was considered too controversial to include.)
I know Nelson has avoided portraying potentially offensive or controversial groups and topics before, but I think he has the good sense and good grace to touch on these subjects in a polite manner, but do you think it’s worth risking that someone might get offended?