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

WHY ARE THERE SO MANY ZOMBIE-MASSACREING GAMES

edited 2012-02-18 02:14:02 in Media
Creature - Florida Dragon Turtle Human

Left 4 Dead


Zombie Shooter, Zombie Shooter 2


Killing Floor


Nation Red


Plants vs. Zombies


Bunch of Heroes


Dead Horde


Dead Island


and others

«1

Comments

  • ...Because Killing zombies is found fun by many people?

  • edited 2012-02-18 02:19:53
    One foot in front of the other, every day.

    ^^ 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.

  • One foot in front of the other, every day.

    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. 

  • LaiLai
    edited 2012-02-18 02:24:44

    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.

  • One foot in front of the other, every day.

    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. 

  • LaiLai
    edited 2012-02-18 02:37:06

    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? ><

  • One foot in front of the other, every day.

    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. 

  • LaiLai
    edited 2012-02-18 02:45:42

    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.

  • If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.

    Damn it, why am I trying to argue with Alex? ><



    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.

  • One foot in front of the other, every day.

    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. 

  • If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.

    I'm just glad it isn't more vampires, honestly.

  • Creature - Florida Dragon Turtle Human

    Vampires require more plot and/or design details art-wise.

  • One foot in front of the other, every day.

    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)

  • If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.

    I know they are.


    But they're everywhere.

  • You can change. You can.

    Vampires can be zombies, yannow. Feral hunters of doom.

  • If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.

    No, zombies lack autonomy and vampires require blood.

  • You can change. You can.

    meh, variables that can be replaced as needed

  • If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.

    The whole "Needs blood to drink" thing is kind of intrinsic to being a vampire

  • One foot in front of the other, every day.

    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. 

  • If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.

    vampires = tuberculosis is one interpretation i have heard

  • edited 2012-02-18 06:16:08
    One foot in front of the other, every day.

    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. 

  • If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.

    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.



    “The Secret History of Elizabeth Tudor, Vampire Slayer”


  • One foot in front of the other, every day.

    why would you be disappointed


    that sounds awesome

  • If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.

    Because I have to pay to buy them.

  • If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.

    Sovereign Power. Eternal Pleasure.


    Revealed at last in this new vampire saga for the ages: the true, untold story of the “Virgin Queen” and her secret war against the Vampire King of England. . . .


     


    On the eve of her coronation, Elizabeth Tudor is summoned to the tomb of her mother, Anne Boleyn, to learn the truth about her bloodline—and her destiny as a Slayer. Born to battle the bloodsucking fiends who ravage the night, and sworn to defend her beloved realm against all enemies, Elizabeth soon finds herself stalked by the most dangerous and seductive vampire of all.


    He is Mordred, bastard son of King Arthur, who sold his soul to destroy his father. After centuries in hiding, he has arisen determined to claim the young Elizabeth as his Queen. Luring her into his world of eternal night, Mordred tempts Elizabeth with the promise of everlasting youth and beauty, and vows to protect her from all enemies. Together, they will rule over a golden age for vampires in which humans will exist only to be fed upon. Horrified by his intentions, Elizabeth embraces her powers as a Slayer even as she realizes that the greatest danger comes from her own secret desire to yield to Mordred . . . to bare her throat in ecstasy and allow the vampire king to drink deeply of her royal blood.


  • One foot in front of the other, every day.

    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. 

  • If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.

    Somehow, I knew you would either explode with rage or melt into a little puddle of what-the-fuck awe.

  • One foot in front of the other, every day.

    There is a point at which audacity becomes a force more powerful than even the most extreme fanisms. 


    That book has reached this point. 

  • If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.

    It is 1559 and Elizabeth Tudor is about to be crowned Queen when she is told unbelievable news. She not only learns of the existence of vampires but that she is to be a Slayer. Not long after she is told the startling news Elizabeth is visited by Mordred, son of King Arthur and King of the vampires. He has come to give Elizabeth the chance to rule at his side forever as Queen or suffer the same as her mother Anne Boleyn. 

    Elizabeth Tudor is the the virgin Queen who against all odds managed to not only grow to become a woman, despite the best efforts of those who wished to see her dead, but become supreme ruler of England. Women simply did not have such power at this time in history so there was a lot working against Elizabeth. To make things even more challenging she learns that she is a vampire slayer and must protect her country from a whole new threat. No pressure right? 

    We get to see different sides of Elizabeth. There is the Queen who wishes to do right by her people but demands to be seen and respected as a King would. There is the Slayer who is learning about her powers and bloodline including more about her mother Anne Boleyn and her distant relation to Morgaine Le Fey. Then there is the woman who wants to be have her lover Robin without the expectation of marriage. The Queen, Slayer and woman all blend together to create this intelligent, determined, strong yet feminine character that you admire and respect. 

    While Elizabeth deeply cares for Robin, she can't help be drawn towards the vampire King Mordred. Mordred is the bastard son of King Arthur who killed him after he became a vampire. He and Morgaine were lovers but Morgaine being a Slayer, well there was only one way for the relationship to end. A thousand years later Mordred knows that Elizabeth is to become the next Slayer but instead of killing her, he wishes to make her a vampire and rule over all as King and Queen. Mordred is a cunning and powerful vampire but underestimates Elizabeth. What he thought would be a simple conquest turns out to be trouble for him and his kind. I love the interaction between the two characters. Elizabeth keeps Mordred on guard and surprises him with her quickly growing powers and Mordred tempts Elizabeth like none have before. Each scene together was a great to read because you didn't know if they were going to try and kill each other or come closer to giving in to their carnal desires. 

    The Secret History of Elizabeth Tudor, Vampire Slayer as told by Lucy Weston (from Dracula) is told from the dairy pages of Elizabeth herself but the story switches off from being told by Mordred and Elizabeth. This was an enjoyable and well written book. It was fantasy and historical fiction mixed with romance that wasn't overpowering but just right. Elizabeth coming into her powers as both Queen and Slayer is the main focus of this book. The detail put into this book actually makes you think that this could have really happened. I will continue this series if another is released. 


Sign In or Register to comment.