Are Gamers Fed up of the Post-Apocalypse?

[vrbtny]

I'm a general lover of the post-apocalypse, and I must admit I've noticed a dwindling in the love for the Post-Apocalypse. Since the prevalence of "Realistic Shooters" and general "Brown-Grey Grittiness" the gaming community in general seem to be falling out of love with the post-apocalypse, more of a side-effect of said brown-grey, than a direct cause.

This probably has something to with the last game being released in that genre was the rather mediocre in terms of setting, Rage.

But then this leads to another point. Are gamers fed up with post-apocalypse, or The Utterly Generic post-apocalyptic world which seems to prevailing, the such of which was found in Rage.

Like dwarves and Elves, Tolkien-esque fantasy which dominates the fantasy genre. Gamers seem to be getting pretty tired of that too.

The tl;dr version :

Are Gamers fed up of the cliche'd post-apocalyptic scenario, and want something different?


Say a Post-Apocalypse that involves resurrected dinosaurs, Chuck Norris riding a Velociraptor, and exist in a world dominated by futuristic forests made out of gold-bearing trees?.... and possibly 8-foot tall rampaging honey-badgers."

Or maybe they just want the next epic Fallout game.... or Metro 2034

Captchca = Stinking rich.

Well, thanks for telling me what I aint.

 

[matrix3509]

The next Fallout game, if its done by Bethesda, won't be an actual Fallout game. It'll be "lets ruin an American city and put super mutants and the brotherhood of steel in it. Those were in Fallout right? Also, skills that have no use or purpose."

Though it is kind of sad that that a couple of shit games (Fallout 3, Rage) can ruin the genre.

It really separates who uses the setting for what purpose:
A) cool shit
or
B) telling a unique story

The setting's purpose has always been to explore themes and such not possible in other settings. Then idiots co-opted the setting for their awesome buttons.

 

[Iwata]

I like post-apocalyptic settings. So no, I'm quite alright with it.

 

[DustyDrB]

There just needs to be more than just "the world ended, look at the destruction". That's the least interesting part of it, oddly enough. The rebuilding of groups, towns, cities, and civilizations is where the meat is.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Well, after playing Fallout: New Vegas I feel like I'm moving more towards the "post-post-apocalyptic" setting.

I guess I just prefer watching the rise of nations and groups compared to people crawling around in mud.

 

[42]

Well i'd like to see a post-apocalypse where humanity isn't completely fucked over.

 

[Lucem712]

It's probably one of my favourite genres, I do enjoy the kind of stages where everyone is starting to rebuild and you get the help with that.

I'd assume the next major one will be Fallout 4 from Bethesda since Obsidian is all tied up with other projects. (I'm practically foaming)

It could of been Interplay if they had the monies and resources to get Fallout Online off the ground (Though, I think they would have disappointing their old school fans as the screens for FO: Online looks very similar to Bethesda's)

 

[MammothBlade]

I think people are just fed up with generic Zombie Apocalypse games, and want something more exciting and less predictable. There's many potential zombie apocalypse scenarios which haven't been applied to games. How about say, an open world survival game, with day and night cycles determining undead activity... I know something like that is in the works, but probably not in the way I'd imagine it.

 

[DoPo]

Are there that many games set in a post-apocalyptic setting? I can only think of Fallout and...erm, Nier, was it? It think it was Nier. While I know about Rage and Metro [whatever-the-digits-were], I hadn't been interested enough to learn more than that they were shooters. And Metro was set in Russia, I believe, and it had...Nazis or something. That's really all the information I have on them.

So, other than those, are there a lot of other post-apocalyptic games? I'm not a huge fan of the setting - I find it a bit boring, frankly, so maybe I've seen games set in it they weren't interesting enough to remember.

 

[Dansen]

There just needs to be more than just "the world ended, look at the destruction". That's the least interesting part of it, oddly enough. The rebuilding of groups, towns, cities, and civilizations is where the meat is.

I agree with this man. My favorite part of the fallout games was getting acquainted with the various factions.

 

[skywolfblue]

I wish there were more post-apocalyptic games focused on regrowth instead of devastation.

AKA, the vibrant world of Enslaved vs. the bleak wasteland of Fallout.

 

[LilithSlave]

I am.

In fact. I'm sick of dreary settings in general.

 

[Zeema]

i like the post doomsday. i would like to see one that isn't all grey thou

 

[FalloutJack]

You can't really make the dirt-colored complaint. I mean, seriously. Will the apocalypse leave the world in every color in the rainbow? Perhaps only in H.G. Well' The Time Machine. Most cases, a war-torn post-apocalyptic world will look like a disaster area...because it's a disaster area! Even without realism...fire burns, water is wet, and explosions crumble everything and kick up dirt.

So no, I am not fed up with this line of plottening.

 

[Zoidfreak]

I think people are just fed up with generic Zombie Apocalypse games, and want something more exciting and less predictable. There's many potential zombie apocalypse scenarios which haven't been applied to games. How about say, an open world survival game, with day and night cycles determining undead activity... I know something like that is in the works, but probably not in the way I'd imagine it.

What a terrible night to have a curse

 

[CCountZero]

I've always liked the post-apoc setting, but I also feel like all the newer ones like Fallout 3, Vegas, Metro and Fallen Earth lacked one thing or another.

The Fallout games look the part, but they don't feel the part, whereas Metro had the atmosphere by the balls, but lacked a bit in scope.

To me, the STALKER series is so far the one that has had the best grip around the genre, but it could still be greatly improved.

I've always liked it when said games introduced RPG-esque mechanics such as carrying limits and the need for food, but I greatly dislike it when they introduce them to the combat system.

If Fallout wants me to empty three 20-round mags of 7.62 into the face and neck of a Super Mutant, I'm fine with that. But the same should never be true of a raider armed with daddy's old shotgun and a piece of loincloth.

And for the love of khorneflakes, make it brutal. Not neccesarily bloodspatteringly so, but I'd prefer if it the game forced you to really consider whether going up against four or more guys would be a smart idea.

Pretty much all of the post-apoc games I've played so far lets me easily take down twenty enemies without breaking a sweat, and that's right out of the beginners gate.
I honestly don't want to be able to do that. It completely breaks the sense of frailty that I feel would help to build a lot of tension in such a game.

Sure, later on you might be able to decimate a campfull of people on your own, but that's after you've gotten hold of the .338 Lapua suppressed sniper rifle, and found yourself a vantage point.