Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
WHY ARE THERE SO MANY ZOMBIE-MASSACREING GAMES
Left 4 Dead
Zombie Shooter, Zombie Shooter 2
Killing Floor
Nation Red
Plants vs. Zombies
Bunch of Heroes
Dead Horde
Dead Island
and others
Comments
...Because Killing zombies is found fun by many people?
^^ I know, right? Zombies have become boring for me, and have been taken so far outside their original horror (zombies) or foklore (revanants) contexts that they no longer express anything but our capacity to blind ourselves to a theme or point.
^ Zombies have become the primary psuedo-threat in modern fiction. They generally move slow, act stupidly and don't carry weapons nor wear armour. They're sponges for violence for which no-one has to think twice. No moral ambiguity, no challenge, nada. In fact, zombies have pretty much turned in on themselves, and the gaming industry's blind adherence to them as a theme beyond all discardings of context is really just what Romero was getting at in the first place.
In short, zombies have successfully become a parody of themselves. By accident, and it seems without the larger portion of the gaming community realising this.
>Implying that people who buy these zombie games care about their meaning and expressions.
This is less on the consumer end (although that's a part of it) and more on the developer end. Developers just aren't making games that are thematically appropriate for the risen dead. These are the creative leaders of the industry and they do not, apparently, know shit.
Feel free to replace the buy part with make and my point stands.
And to be honest, I'm not really one to look into really deeper themes like yourself. I just want to enjoy a fun game (Vague want is vague). If it does have those themes, then great. It's just not what I deliberately look for.
I think developers not caring about meaning and expressions is an absolutely massive issue and should not be handwaved. Like all forms of art, games are just a means towards an experience. The correct elements have to be in place to make that experience as strong as possible. If game developers don't care about meaning and expressions, then they hamstring their ability to produce a memorable, lasting experience for the player.
I will agree that developers should try harder to make more memorable experiences with games in any way they can.
I just feel like those goals are different than what I personally look for. I think of myself as a simple man. Lately I've been using games as a way to connect with people, which is why I'm trying to hang out more often at my local arcade. Some of my more memorable experiences came from playing against other people.
EDIT: Damn it, why am I trying to argue with Alex? ><
Simplicity and depth aren't mutually exclusive. Look at games like Monster Hunter, which provide an experience with emergent complexity -- that is, a system that is simple and diverse enough to produce a natural evolution in gameplay. Furthermore, it ties all of its mechanics to the theme of hunting, down to having a bestiary, having food supplies, night and day and so on and so forth. It locks itself into that theme and is stronger for it.
Most modern zombie games, on the other hand, have zombies. They don't really provide a theme around which further mechanics or events can present themselves.
I know I'm going to lose an argument with you, so I concede. I only did this because I was bored or being stupid. Or both. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
It is possible to win an argument against him, you know.
One thing he's missing, though, is that zombies are, essentially, a guilt-and-conscience-free way for the player to kill people.
There's actually quite a lot, story-wise, one can do with the concept of zombies, and this could tie into the narrative. Take a look at the plot of the book I Am Legend; wherein it's revealed that the zombies aren't mindless killing machines. There is potential for moral conflict within this, which can bleed into tension for the player if handled correctly.
Unfortunately, this is never followed up on.
I ain't saying that zombies are devoid of thematic value, mind. What I'm bothered with is game designers robbing them of value so they can have a morally unambiguous shootan' gaem.
I'm just glad it isn't more vampires, honestly.
Vampires require more plot and/or design details art-wise.
Vampires are a bit of a different thing because of the variance you can apply to them.
inb4 Milos
(But seriously, some traditional, pre-Dracula vampires would be an awesome basis for a horror game)
I know they are.
But they're everywhere.
Vampires can be zombies, yannow. Feral hunters of doom.
No, zombies lack autonomy and vampires require blood.
meh, variables that can be replaced as needed
The whole "Needs blood to drink" thing is kind of intrinsic to being a vampire
Vampires require blood via modern interpretation, but the genesis of the vampire as a mythological beast stretches back for thousands of years. An interesting in-between is the medieval revenant, which is the general term for "undead". Revenants took numerous forms, but the common factor is that they haunted those closely associated with them, like family, friends, lovers and colleagues. Essentially, vampires (around the time they took that name, or names close to it) were subtypes of revenant.
Zombies as we know them are essentially a result of African voodoo passed through an Eurocentric perception of the undead. They could've only ever have really been spawned in the USA for that reason, as you have the meeting of black and white cultures while dominant policy and thought expressed a deep-seated fear of the black. The lack of autonomy is a result of this voodoo influence, as European revenants were in control of themselves and tended to have a purpose in mind.
vampires = tuberculosis is one interpretation i have heard
I doubt it, at least outside of a certain time period and cultural context. Vampire myths stretch back a long time under different names and descriptions, and what we have today as the popular vampire (and by this I mean the well-known image of a Draculian vampire) is a combination of many of them. Eastern Europe, obviously, provides the wealth of these examples, but many themes are drawn from other sources. The Hindu "vetala" is a corpse that hangs upside-down from a tree like a bat, for instance, and the way vampires are sometimes said to decay the environment around them appears to be drawn from Western European revenants.
Essentially, vampires before the 19th century popularisation period didn't necessarily have anything to do with blood, and in fact no two myths were the same. There isn't a single aspect that connects all of them together, perhaps apart from theme. The vampire, in its purest form, is a powerful undead spirit that inhabits a corporeal shell. Its this subconscious understanding that allows the diversity of traits to exist, and why we equally accept Alucard, Lestat and even Edward as vampires. For all the mistakes Meyer made, her vampires are still cold and lifeless to the touch, and its that sort of flirtation with death, combined with power and sapience, that makes vampires what they are.
See, I tried to look this up in reference to Elizabethan times, in the hopes that this would provide me with information I could use to research this further.
Unfortunately, all I found was mentions of this.
why would you be disappointed
that sounds awesome
Because I have to pay to buy them.
That gets skeevy as hell but holy shit awesome.
Mordred as the secret Vampire King of England!? That is so fucking incredible. It sounds like the perfect recipe for a horrible book but I don't even care, holy shit. That's just ridiculous and fun.
Somehow, I knew you would either explode with rage or melt into a little puddle of what-the-fuck awe.
There is a point at which audacity becomes a force more powerful than even the most extreme fanisms.
That book has reached this point.