Games you hate, yet everyone else cherishes.

The thing is, the Zombie genre has ALWAYS been about human drama.


Zombies are actually boring enemies. You barricade up, they might plow through, they might not, you shoot a few. They don't think, they don't reason, they are less of a villain and more of a force of nature.


Zombie movies are basically natural disaster movies. They will never be about the zombies directly, because the zombies are in and of themselves not interesting. Its about how the people REACT to the zombies.


And that is the funny thing, even the book you hold up as the shining example is the same thing. The zombies wouldn't have even been an issue in World War Z, if it wasn't for humans bungling it all up. The story wasn't about zombies, it was about the human reaction to them, it was a political and social commentary. It WASN'T about the zombies.

yeah, I saw the movie, read the book a bit, and yeah, it's still human drama in the end...


plus zombies are just basically the same as most undead creations anyways, they aren't really more interesting than those other undeads. I think the only reason why zombies are widely "wowed" is because zombification is contagious, and why does being contagious be a difference? Human Drama.

Tai is saying that the zombies are interchangeable, because they aren't the focus.

In The Walking Dead you could replace zombies with ice age and it could still function as a "do what it takes to survive against the humans" that The Walking Dead focuses on.

I myself love human drama with zombies mixed in, so long as the undead aren't an afterthought half the time, so I'm an in the middle type of person. I myself enjoy it when humans are revealed to be major antagonists, but like the classics, I don't want that to be the center of the story. (Zombies need that constant center stage too or else why use them?) In the original Night of the Living Dead it doesn't happen until the very end that it's spelled out to us that humans may be the real monsters. It's sprinkled in there thanks to Cooper, but it's not the main focal point, and I'd like if that synergy could be kept in balance instead of zombies being nothing but background noise.

It's "Political and Social Commentary" for sure, yes.  But, at the same time, the Zombies are very much a threat.  Even when the book leaves off at the end, the zombies are "being managed", but they're still a threat and a huge horror.  There really weren't all these stories about "Well, we shacked up with 12 other people and immediately set to start thinking about how best to slit their throats because they annoyed us".  No, it was, "We holed up together, learned how to deal with each other, learned how to survive, and did our best to try not to kill the crap out of each other or alienate each other".

There is a good chunk in that book about merely dealing with zombies and how they learned to do it as well as how they learned to survive for the extended periods of time they needed to.  There's a good chunk in there about also escaping the hordes.

Sure, it's about "The Human Reaction", but it's also about the Zombies.  Even the more "personal" stories in the book are about the zombies and how they were dealt with.  The zombies are a clear and present danger.  They cannot easily be overcome by yourself (as the book handily proves in a few places).  It doesn't ignore the premise of the book, it uses the premise to reinforce everything else.

Things like "The Walking Dead" take the opposite approach.  They downplay zombies entirely and focus mostly on how human beings treat each other like crap and how they can't just put down their personal crap for two minutes in order to get along (which they would be able to do if there was a zombie threat... as one of the stories in WWZ proves).

I'd rather they leave the Zombies the main focus and include the other stuff as what you deal with when the zombies aren't the threat at the moment.  More Zombie Survival Stuff, less Daytime Soap Opera stuff.  That's all I'm asking. 

why are we focusing on TWD anyways? that show is a drama show. most shows are still drama anyways. on shows and films, drama and comedy still seem to be the best genre if you want to get huge money. Remove the zombies, that show will still be watched by many; remove the drama, that show will lose A LOT of viewers. we can hate it all we want, but the reality is that most companies will put money at the forefront.


and this thread is basically for games anyway

Because TWD video games are basically the same thing as the show, just in book form.  They are games (not very good games, I might add, but they are games that lots of players enjoy) that have "Zombies as an afterthought".  They are actually one of the largest offenders of the "ignoring the premise of your game" that I've ever seen.  Even that Jurassic Park game that was a point and click adventure like TWD didn't ignore its Dinosaurs.  TWD is also one of the largest offenders of "The zombies can be interchangeable with just about any threat".

Other games do this as well (Dead Rising is a good instance of "these zombies could really be anything, but zombies seems cooler"), but not quite to the degree TWD does.  L4D doesn't really make "standard zombies" much of a threat, but the "special infected" are the huge threat...  Most of them could honestly be aliens and the game would play the same (The fact that we're getting Evolved in nearly the same playstyle as L4D is testament to that).

There are just a lot of games where zombies are just "tacked on" as an afterthought.  Nobody has once said "I want to make a zombie game as realistic and interesting as possible".  Everyone usually says "I bet this game would be more interesting with zombies in it".

You can't really make a realistic zombie game unless zombies become reality.

IMHO, they indeed are. The only thing that separates them from most undead is the human drama associated with the fact that zombification is perceived as contagious. other than that, they are just like about any other undead threat.

I wish I could explain how much sense that does not make -_-"

"If Zombies were real with these parameters, this is how it would realistically play out".  Get it?  All games have ever been is "simulations with set parameters".  They are always "If this was real and how it worked, this is how it would play out and work".

Also, if zombies were interchangeable with other threats, then why not just use those threats instead?  Let me give you a good example:

Would "Alien" work if it was zombies instead of the Alien?  No.  The Alien is not interchangeable.  It ceases to work if it's anything but the Alien and its sexual imagery.  If Zombies are interchangeable with anything, then you might as well use that.  Ever see "Falling Skies"?  Yeah, it's "The walking dead" except with aliens instead of zombies.  If zombies are interchangeable, they need not exist to have the human drama.  Instead, they exist as a marketing ploy.

It's still not "realistic", it's just a "what if it is"...

Why? because zombies are popular right now. they take what is popular and use that.


If aliens are the most popular villain right now, I'd bet they use that. If skeletons are the popular villains right now, they'd use that. and so on.


It is a marketing ploy, as I wrote down quite a couple of times already, most of these companies put money at the forefront. As long as something sells nicely for them without much cost, they'll use that

Which is one of the reasons I don't like them using Zombies...  I'd rather they be used properly and not as some sort of "cash grab" in marketing to make sure their subpar game sells.  Just saying.

then you probably hate a lot of things in this world because a lot of things are used mostly just to grab cash

"Grabbing Cash" and "Cash Grab" are two different things.  If you're trying to make money because you've got bills to pay and a family to support, I have no problem with paying you for your quality work.  If you're creating something ultimately subpar and tacking on something as a "cash grab" as in... minimal work for maximum payout...  I have a problem with that.

It's about value for a product or a concept.

I get fairly upset about such things when they're really blatant or take subject matter I care deeply about and reduce it to little more than "a quick buck".

and that's how a lot of companies do business, they try to find a product where they will use less cash and earn more cash in return... especially for non-necessity goods

The better companies care about the quality of their product though because it's a smarter business plan to be known for quality goods for the price you charge.  This creates brand loyalty, word of mouth advertising (which is the best kind of advertising), and repeat customers.

Cranking out a "quick buck" is not only a poor business practice, but some people (like myself) find it very offensive.  It's akin to snake-oil salesman.  They promise you miracles and deliver crap in a jar not worth the pricetag they slapped on it.

I have nothing against "cutting costs" so long as "product quality" does not slip as a result.  It's when product quality slips or suffers that it's known as a "cash grab" in which they simply want a crapload of money for doing almost nothing.  It's the equivalent of the developer counting on stupid customers.  I don't endorse a company thinking I'm stupid and I don't endorse a company with policies that assume I am stupid.

If you want to make a quick buck on a game, fine.  Price it accordingly.  But, if you're charging $60 for what is essentially an XBLA experience, you can bet I'm not going to be happy.  Likewise, if your game wouldn't sell unless you had included something tacked onto it, I find that as offensive as overcharging because you are basically lying to your customers about what you're selling.

yeah, it's bad, though it seems to still be working for them though. I do believe TWD won't reach Season 4 and won't have game versions if people think the usage of zombies on that one was not that good

sadly, a lot of consumers are.

Don't I know it.  There are a lot of franchises still around that honestly shouldn't be at this point...  Sad to say, even one of my favorite franchises should not be around with its lack of innovation and penchant for "quick buck" games that have cut costs in all the wrong places.  Yes, Halo, I'm looking at you.  I know I liked the story of Halo 4, but it wasn't enough to make me come back to it, or enough to make me excited to complete the Spartan Ops stuff (which is more story after the end of the game).  The multiplayer of Halo 4 is sadly rather lackluster as well...  Yes, I liked the story.  Yes, it made me cry manly tears.  Yes, it kept me engaged for most of the ride.  Is it a good game though?  No, not really.  It's little better than some of the titles that came before it.

As much as I'd love to go clear to Halo 9000...  If the franchise doesn't pick up soon, my feelings that it should just die are going to grow to the point that I'm just going to stop purchasing the titles.  I'm not asking for a masterpiece or anything.  Just, you know, good solid storyline, great level design, and fun combat.

Still though, I can't endorse companies that treat their consumers as if they were morons.  It's just not right.

No one said to endorse them... XD


With the current way the world goes, I expect a lot more posts from you in the future. Lolz :)

Hmm.. Assuming you're a newborn and will die at the age of 100, then this means 90 Halo titles every year


The only series I keep playing is FF and KH (though haven't played FF since X-2), mostly since most of each iteration offers something new.

Ha ha, I only have 100 more Profile views than I have posts.  I post a LOT on these forums when I get going.  It's rare that I sit down and have a discussion like this though.  Most of the time, I just pop into topics, read 'em, then be on my way.  Sometimes though, I like to get passionate and rail against whatever I happen to find horrible at that point in time.  Then there's the rare posts where I try to offer advice in game design (which is somewhat weird considering I have zero training in such a thing and only first-hand experience with it as well as rudimentary education in Psychology and Sociology).

I just honestly really hate when you have a game and put something in it just so it sells.  If you're going to include Zombies in your game, they need to at least be an equal threat as your human enemies.  They need equal screen time and equal footing in the storyline.  Otherwise, just pick something else to be your "world ender" and "reasons the humans act the way they do".  Might as well have the protagonists running away from Wind if the zombies are interchangeable (or anything else in your game is that interchangeable).

As for Halo...  Well...  We've already got a crapload of titles.  Halo CE, Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo ODST, Halo Reach, Halo Wars, Halo Anniversary, Halo 4, Halo Spartan Assault...  Now we've got news that we've got at least 3 more games in the franchise and rumors of a Halo 2 Anniversary in the making.  That Halo 9000 might not be too far off, you know!

still, 90 Halo titles a year just for someone to play Halo 9000 in a 100 year lifetime is an overkill...

That'd be a hell of an accomplishment though!  It'd put Call of Duty to shame with it's 1 title a year!