I find it hard to visually distinguish the rioters from ordinary citizens. Accordingly, I'm always responding to being shot at. I've not once shot a bloke for rummaging in bins or looting, so that aspect of the article doesn't resonate with me.
Something that often gets lost in a lot of these discussions is that it's a videogame. And by that I don't mean it shouldn't be analysed or critiqued, but that in a videogame the player needs things to do. Gameplay and narrative aren't always in full alignment. In a film or book the concept of a US government operative performing summary executions on hundreds of US citizens would certainly be more extreme from a narrative/political standpoint, but in a videogame the player needs something to do for dozens of hours of gameplay, and in this particular game that 'something' is shooting NPCs.
It's the same problem I have with the 'Nathan Drake is a mass murderer' argument that gets wheeled out every few months. In those games I personally see that aspect of the gameplay as separate and distinct from the main narrative.
Overall though was an interesting read and a good way to start my Friday, cheers for bringing it to my attention OP.
I don't really think that the "it's a videogame" argument is a satisfactory excuse, or at the very least it's a lazy one (not lazy by you personally, but as a line of argument in general). The Division puts great emphasis on the realism of it's setting, and then expects people to massively suspend disbelief about all of the patently illogical things it does. In Uncharted it's very clear that it's essentially an Indiana Jones movie, and makes no real pretensions to being grounded in reality. The issues that the a title raises are a product of The Divisions assertions of realism in its narrative and presentation, and the dissonance between those elements and it's gameplay.
The key problem with The Division's setting/mechanics relationship is that despite its pretensions to being a serious, grounded RPG, it limits player interaction with the world to shooting and scanning people; seriously, why can't you talk to anyone outside of cutscenes? Why doesn't the player character even have a voice? If Massive had implemented some form of interaction mechanics other than shooting everyone, they could have avoided this whole ultimate macho power fantasy vibe (and the unsavoury implications that stem from it) and made a much more interesting game about negotiating ones way through an anarchic environment while still having the option to act like a sanctioned, law abiding federal agent or to give in to the chaos and go renegade; you know, player choice, that most basic of RPG elements?
In the Dark Zone, you can be a white hat or a black hat, so why not extend that to the rest of the game? Adding an element of morality to the players behaviour would make the campaign more interesting. Do you as the player choose to work to restore law and order in a manner that protects the constitutional rights of citizens (as much as possible, at least), or do you go fully "ends justify the means" vigilante style.
In terms of encounter mechanics, years ago the game Narc had arrest mechanics that were actually more rewarding than killing, so there is no reason that The Division could not have had some form of gameplay mechanic to deal with situations other than just shooting everything. Of course, this would have required Massive to make an actual RPG with choices that extend beyond shoot/don't shoot.
The Division just seems like a core concept with so much potential, and reducing it to shoot&loot seems such a waste. An actual RPG in The Division setting, with Witcher 3 style of storytelling woven though it could be an incredible game (possibly what we will get with Cyberpunk 2077). But I guess a lot of people just want to kill stuff...
