so after some time with Dayz and Warz I have come to the conclusion that their will never be a zombie survival game that will ever be more then a spawn camp people with no weapons death match pvp fest where the zombies are nothing more then distraction or minor roadblock to finding weapons before other people kill you. I just dont get it i mean i think one of the first errors is making guns extremely easy to find you shouldn't be able to find a gun in every other house/farm and at the very least make ammo incredibly scarce... For instance having a pistol with 3 bullets should really mean something and incredibly valuable or even having a gun with no bullets at all can be used if a group with melee weapons tries to threaten you and you try to call a bluff with the threat of shooting them.. Making your life actually matter somewhat would also be cool (im sorta stumped how they could implement this important element) i was thinking possibly making it so you get one life per a server and if you die you would be unable to go to that server anymore and be able to choose a new one which you would stay in until you died. making life mean much more and the friends you make on that server that much more valuable. (that plus having a group of people wouldnt mean hey just protect my body till i walk back plz).. anyone else have any opinions on how this wonderfully new genre ripe with potential could be improved in some way?
Isn't the whole point of DayZ the player interaction during zombie apocalypse anyway? and it's still not a full game yet, if it has room to improve, it also has time to improve.
Isn't the whole point of DayZ the player interaction during zombie apocalypse anyway? and it's still not a full game yet, if it has room to improve, it also has time to improve.funsohng
Yeah and thats why i love the walking dead sometimes the dead arent the most dangerous thing out there.. but most people wouldnt go blazing looking for people to kill because well you only get one life to live... also alot of people would form groups not only for protections from the zombies but from wandering bandits and such. its just the amount of people playing the game like its cod is ridicules theirs really no teamwork of any sort and zombies in these games aren't dangerous enough to make teamwork even worthwhile
Isn't the whole point of DayZ the player interaction during zombie apocalypse anyway? and it's still not a full game yet, if it has room to improve, it also has time to improve.funsohng
For that matter, isn't the whole point of a zombie apocalypse story (or any story involving the breakdown of societal rules) about the way in which the survivors interact and turn on each other? Surely the biggest threats in these scenarios are not so much the shambling horde, but rather the humans themselves, free from the constraints of rules and morality?
If that's what happens in these games, then it sounds like they have created a 'proper' zombie game.
Also, why do guns have to be sparse? Surely if an outbreak took place in the USA, for example, every second household would be storing a few thousand rounds of ammunition...
[QUOTE="fl4tlined"] its just the amount of people playing the game like its cod is ridicules theirs really no teamwork of any sort There you go. It really depends more on the players. There will always be that huge part of the game audience that will play this way, breaking the immersive experience of survival shooter tension. The survival horror thing works if you play it like a sim + MMORPG. Like ArmA mixed with WOW or something. But there are a lot who will play it like an arcade game, and that's where the survival horror vibe gets broken. All you can do is hope that they and their buddies will get bored and move on to the newest/next flashy violent game sooner.
I doubt they will ever make a zombie survival game to fit your specific wants and needs. Dayz and the other mod are the closest I've seen it come and I haven't played them mind you. I don't think it's that bad to have guns play a part and have you find them every once and a while because a lot of Americans own guns you know but to have them be such a huge part like in Left 4 Dead would be a mistake. I really doubt they will make a good survival game along the lines of say the Walking Dead how it gets more about melee than guns and the whole scavenging and survival stuff because if for example Activision would look at that idea drawn up they would probably scrap it in favor of something like zombies in the COD games because that is more popular and profitable and lets face it, easier. Now if they could actually sit down and make a game kind of like how Fallout 3 handles it's scavenging and exploration and build a zombie game up from that about trying to avoid zombies all together and survive they could really have a great game on their hands. Also think about the coop they could do. I myself would opt out of a voice chat just to add to the feel of the game but thats just me. In closing I do agree that they will probably not release a truly authentic zombie survival game for quite some time if at all, since we see how games like RE6 have gone.
It seems most people inevitable argument that, "In a real post-apocalyptic scenario (zombie or otherwise) people would naturally turn on each other, or you'd have to deal with murderers and looters, people doing whatever it takes to survive." Which isn't necessarily untrue. And in a real survival situation, I'd probably be one of them. I mean, I don't know that I'd outright rob and/or murder people to take what they have (unless true desperation drove me to it and, even then, it would be a hard choice and one that should come with some dire consequences), but I'd trust no one and kill without question anyone who threatened me or my loved ones. Problem is, these are just games. On top of which, it's the internet. And if years online, whether in chat rooms or message boards or any variety of game, have proved anything, it's that people don't need an excuse to be a**holes to other people. People are just going to act like dicks simply because they can, not because the situation demands it or because a hard struggle in a cruel world, lessons hard-learned and attempts at maintaining civility only to be victimized by others has shaped them into a harder, less trusting, less compassionate person who's been forced to sacrifice their better human nature to adapt to the brutal, survival-of-the-fittest environment they're now in. People are going to murder and rob because it amuses them, because griefing other players and being an annoying little assgoblin is their idea of fun. Which instantly shatters the illusion. Looking someone in the eye and pulling the trigger, knowing there's no 'respawn' for what you're about to do, that death is truly permanent, should be a brutal, agonizing thought. Or robbing someone, stealing their stuff and knowing they're likely going to die a horrible death - either slow and lingering from starvation or exposure to the elements or violent and bloody at the hands of the zombie horde - should weigh heavy on your conscience, give you pause, and haunt you should you go through with it. But, nope. It's a game. A click of the mouse or the press of a button and the deed is done, then you merrily bop along your way to the next such encounter. Now, in reality, you're never going to fix that. You can't make people empathize with others. No game, no matter how well written or scripted, can ever make someone fully invest in the emotional state of the world and the people in it, despite it being just a game. Some people will simply never drop that mentality of, "It's just a game." So, unless you're going to enlist some sort of Imagination Police, mods who can perma-ban players who don't seem to embrace the 'spirit' of the game, we'll always be stuck with a-holes who live to ruin games for everyone else. But for the zombie/post-apocalypse survival game to work better, there are things they could try to implement. If they're going for realism, then really push for realism: 1. Severely restrict the number of players on a given server, in a given game world. It's a post-apocalypse world. The vast majority of people should be dead, and the rest should be infected. The infected should greatly outnumber the living (i.e. the players). Even on a map as huge as Chernarus, I'd suggest limiting the number of players to no more than 24. Meaning, you might go an entire play session without running into any other players. As it should be. And, again, if there are hordes of infected wandering around, then it's once more about surviving the environment - the elements, the threat of dehydration and starvation and disease, and the infected - rather than the greatest threat being other players. Plus, it serves to bring back that sense of true isolation, which is something I want from that sort of game. 2. No respawning supplies. Ever. In each server, in each game world, once randomly distribution supplies have been claimed, that's it. (And it's non-transferable. You can't loot one game world and then hop that character to another server with all his gear. Your character is tied directly to that server/world.) Suddenly bullets become more precious. Hell, everything becomes more precious. There should be some sort of Minecraft model, where players can create primitive weapons. Use tree limbs as clubs or use a knife or hatchet to sharpen them into spears, or materials can be harvested to make bows and arrows. And, obviously, there's always a supply of fresh water somewhere. But when canned/preserved food supplies are gone, players are forced to hunt/fish/grow crops to survive. Okay, maybe you have random events, like a downed helicopter or a military convoy on a highway that gets swarmed, where you might find a small cache of new supplies, but they'd be truly random and you might play for months - assuming you live that long - and never come across something like that. 3. RPG elements are essential. Community is formed from mutual need. If the games offer a list of essential skills but restrict players to selecting only a few of them, then you all but force players to work together. Like, you might make a character who's a superb hunter, so he has a steadier hand with a bow and arrow, better accuracy with throwing a spear, etc. and his kills result in more meat (because he's more efficient at cleaning an animal and not wasting anything) but he's incapable of treating wounds. So, if he breaks a leg it'll either never heal or won't mend properly and for the rest of that character's life he'll be hobbled, moving with a limp and reduced speed, unable to jump, etc. Or if he gets sick, there's a greater chance of dying from the illness because he lacks the necessary skills to identify, harvest, and prepare the appropriate barks and leaves and whatnot that could cure him. Or only players who took a Farming skill can effectively plant and harvest crops. Or only someone with Mechanic skills can salvage parts, get vehicles running, repair generators, etc. Or Engineer who can salvage and build an assortment of items from scratch. And I'd even go so far as including something like Firearms Training. If you select it, you can aim and shoot normally, but if you aren't trained in firearms, your aim is shaky and your accuracy grows increasingly poor at greater distances. A great skill to have in the beginning - if you're lucky enough to find a gun - but pretty worthless once you run out of bullets. Unless you buddy up with someone who has the skill that allows them to make bullets - who, in turn, is useless unless they've found someone who can build them a workshop with the appropriate tools. So, basically, some skills are only useful if you group together with others who have complementary skills. If the game mechanics all but force players to cooperate, you might reduce some of the PvP crap. Or, at the very least, it'd help promote some sense of unity: players joining together to combat the d-bags, or the d-bags forming a posse to crap all over everyone else (like The Walking Dead's Governor and his lackeys). Those are just a few of my thoughts on what would help make these zombie apocalypse survival games better. But I doubt we'll ever see that game. Unless, after Day Z and The War Z and State of Decay and Project Zomboid and all the rest come out, if even half of them are huge successes, a developer and publisher get behind the idea of pooling all the best elements from all those games and fitting them together into an Ultimate Zombie Survival Experience.
[QUOTE="thedarklinglord"]It seems most people inevitable argument that, "In a real post-apocalyptic scenario (zombie or otherwise) people would naturally turn on each other, or you'd have to deal with murderers and looters, people doing whatever it takes to survive." Which isn't necessarily untrue. And in a real survival situation, I'd probably be one of them. I mean, I don't know that I'd outright rob and/or murder people to take what they have (unless true desperation drove me to it and, even then, it would be a hard choice and one that should come with some dire consequences), but I'd trust no one and kill without question anyone who threatened me or my loved ones. Problem is, these are just games. On top of which, it's the internet. And if years online, whether in chat rooms or message boards or any variety of game, have proved anything, it's that people don't need an excuse to be a**holes to other people. People are just going to act like dicks simply because they can, not because the situation demands it or because a hard struggle in a cruel world, lessons hard-learned and attempts at maintaining civility only to be victimized by others has shaped them into a harder, less trusting, less compassionate person who's been forced to sacrifice their better human nature to adapt to the brutal, survival-of-the-fittest environment they're now in. People are going to murder and rob because it amuses them, because griefing other players and being an annoying little assgoblin is their idea of fun. Which instantly shatters the illusion. Looking someone in the eye and pulling the trigger, knowing there's no 'respawn' for what you're about to do, that death is truly permanent, should be a brutal, agonizing thought. Or robbing someone, stealing their stuff and knowing they're likely going to die a horrible death - either slow and lingering from starvation or exposure to the elements or violent and bloody at the hands of the zombie horde - should weigh heavy on your conscience, give you pause, and haunt you should you go through with it. But, nope. It's a game. A click of the mouse or the press of a button and the deed is done, then you merrily bop along your way to the next such encounter. Now, in reality, you're never going to fix that. You can't make people empathize with others. No game, no matter how well written or scripted, can ever make someone fully invest in the emotional state of the world and the people in it, despite it being just a game. Some people will simply never drop that mentality of, "It's just a game." So, unless you're going to enlist some sort of Imagination Police, mods who can perma-ban players who don't seem to embrace the 'spirit' of the game, we'll always be stuck with a-holes who live to ruin games for everyone else. But for the zombie/post-apocalypse survival game to work better, there are things they could try to implement. If they're going for realism, then really push for realism: 1. Severely restrict the number of players on a given server, in a given game world. It's a post-apocalypse world. The vast majority of people should be dead, and the rest should be infected. The infected should greatly outnumber the living (i.e. the players). Even on a map as huge as Chernarus, I'd suggest limiting the number of players to no more than 24. Meaning, you might go an entire play session without running into any other players. As it should be. And, again, if there are hordes of infected wandering around, then it's once more about surviving the environment - the elements, the threat of dehydration and starvation and disease, and the infected - rather than the greatest threat being other players. Plus, it serves to bring back that sense of true isolation, which is something I want from that sort of game. 2. No respawning supplies. Ever. In each server, in each game world, once randomly distribution supplies have been claimed, that's it. (And it's non-transferable. You can't loot one game world and then hop that character to another server with all his gear. Your character is tied directly to that server/world.) Suddenly bullets become more precious. Hell, everything becomes more precious. There should be some sort of Minecraft model, where players can create primitive weapons. Use tree limbs as clubs or use a knife or hatchet to sharpen them into spears, or materials can be harvested to make bows and arrows. And, obviously, there's always a supply of fresh water somewhere. But when canned/preserved food supplies are gone, players are forced to hunt/fish/grow crops to survive. Okay, maybe you have random events, like a downed helicopter or a military convoy on a highway that gets swarmed, where you might find a small cache of new supplies, but they'd be truly random and you might play for months - assuming you live that long - and never come across something like that. 3. RPG elements are essential. Community is formed from mutual need. If the games offer a list of essential skills but restrict players to selecting only a few of them, then you all but force players to work together. Like, you might make a character who's a superb hunter, so he has a steadier hand with a bow and arrow, better accuracy with throwing a spear, etc. and his kills result in more meat (because he's more efficient at cleaning an animal and not wasting anything) but he's incapable of treating wounds. So, if he breaks a leg it'll either never heal or won't mend properly and for the rest of that character's life he'll be hobbled, moving with a limp and reduced speed, unable to jump, etc. Or if he gets sick, there's a greater chance of dying from the illness because he lacks the necessary skills to identify, harvest, and prepare the appropriate barks and leaves and whatnot that could cure him. Or only players who took a Farming skill can effectively plant and harvest crops. Or only someone with Mechanic skills can salvage parts, get vehicles running, repair generators, etc. Or Engineer who can salvage and build an assortment of items from scratch. And I'd even go so far as including something like Firearms Training. If you select it, you can aim and shoot normally, but if you aren't trained in firearms, your aim is shaky and your accuracy grows increasingly poor at greater distances. A great skill to have in the beginning - if you're lucky enough to find a gun - but pretty worthless once you run out of bullets. Unless you buddy up with someone who has the skill that allows them to make bullets - who, in turn, is useless unless they've found someone who can build them a workshop with the appropriate tools. So, basically, some skills are only useful if you group together with others who have complementary skills. If the game mechanics all but force players to cooperate, you might reduce some of the PvP crap. Or, at the very least, it'd help promote some sense of unity: players joining together to combat the d-bags, or the d-bags forming a posse to crap all over everyone else (like The Walking Dead's Governor and his lackeys). Those are just a few of my thoughts on what would help make these zombie apocalypse survival games better. But I doubt we'll ever see that game. Unless, after Day Z and The War Z and State of Decay and Project Zomboid and all the rest come out, if even half of them are huge successes, a developer and publisher get behind the idea of pooling all the best elements from all those games and fitting them together into an Ultimate Zombie Survival Experience.
decentis is defined by the person. For example I think that DayZ from what I seen is not good zombie zurvival game. It seem more of a pvp with some zombies around.
Log in to comment