What if you fast-forward the typical zombie scenario 10-20 years? There isn't going to be anybody manufacturing new weapons/ammo and so forth.dsilvoul01 said:
Poll: Zombie SURVIVAL, or Zombie HUNTING?
- Thread starter Dastardly
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I find a quote from Wrex in ME1 to answer my opinion best,
"When you're young, you go looking for fights, when you're old, you know the best fights come to you."
I see survival as a much more interesting and intense. I think that if they were to combine the RE4&5 over-the-shoulder control set up, with the original Resident Evil mythose of zombies die from head shots and ammo and weapons are scarce, RE6 would be awesome.
"When you're young, you go looking for fights, when you're old, you know the best fights come to you."
I see survival as a much more interesting and intense. I think that if they were to combine the RE4&5 over-the-shoulder control set up, with the original Resident Evil mythose of zombies die from head shots and ammo and weapons are scarce, RE6 would be awesome.
You'd be amazed how hard people would find it to keep the world going. The fundamental flaw of most zombie stories is the speed of the initial outbreak--it would have to be widespread and sudden, or we'd squash it down easily. But after that?dsilvoul01 said:
Watch your town during the next blackout. What are people doing? Sitting around waiting for the power to come on. Sure, some of them grill, but what about when the refrigerated meat runs out? Or the matches? How many folks in your town know how to run a power plant? Or at what point water becomes "undrinkable?"
Panic means people run. Running people get dead (and then undead). Somewhere in there, the infrastructure is going to collapse. Many cops and soldiers are going to get the hell out of there, so there's a chance even the military won't hold up. People riot if the wrong team wins a playoff game--how much worse will it be when the dead come back to life to eat the living, invalidating many of the most widely-held religious beliefs and scientific laws?
As long as the uprising was fast enough to catch us by surprise, it'd actually be pretty bad. There are plenty of people who think they could survive now, but it's because they've never really been without modern conveniences. Not even when camping or playing "survivorman." There's always a part of you that knows, "Well, if it goes bad, we've got search teams and hospitals and stuff."
An apocalypse doesn't mean "end of all things." It comes from the same Greek word we use to mean "revelation." It's the unveiling of... something. In this case, revealing that the dead can return to life and eat us, there is likely no God, science was wrong (or at fault), and the world just got a lot more dangerous. It may not be the end of all things, but it's certainly going to push a lot of people to a panic that will end quite a few things.
Who ever said people have to manufacture NEW weapons why re-invent the wheel? An Arrow through the head will kill a Zombie just as well as a bullet.GiantRaven said:
You mean this?dsilvoul01 said:
<img src=http://s3.amazonaws.com/giles/zombies_112808/in_case_of_zombies.jpg>
But seriously, the main reason why zombie apocalypse would be really catastrophical to humanity even if the zombies arent stronger than humans, is the panic. Some religious believers might view the event as God's way of saying "The end of the road" and thus could be willing to die.
It is also very likely that instead of the logical approach "they are no match to us, let us waste them!" most of us would flee, assuring ourselves that the government will make things alright again.
The problem in this is that even the military personnel are humans. Would you not want to secure your own family before others? Also, in such a panic it would take some time to organize a operation of any kind, and every wasted second brings more and more zombies.
In all this panic, I don't think that anyone could think rationally and analyze the situation. Hell, I know a person who starts crying when parking because she can't do it well, which leads into a friggin' panic state ("im not married, I can't cook").
After the first couple of hours when people actually start to grasp what is going on= Shell-shocks start.
Also, think of your reaction when something happens to one of your loved ones. You won't think that "If movies have taught me something, it's that bitten people and zombies are beyond help!". You would probably tell yourself that there must be a way to cure the zombie-virus.
And after this apocalyptic state would go on for a couple of days, do you really believe so much in the good nature of humanity that you don't think people would take advantage of the situation? Nobody is there to enforce the laws, and we know what happens in those situations.
The reaction to this situation would probably be quite slow. How would you react if someone told you "zombies are loose!"?
And all this time, more zombies, more zombies and more more zombies.
ThisMetropocalypse said:
Granted, it'd be awesome to maybe have a handful of parts where you're lucky enough to find a stockpile of ammo (like the house of someone who prepared but somehow didn't make it) and can or have to go all out and kill a lot of zombies, but I'd like a zombie game where there just isn't enough ammo to kill everything.
Note* I was not referring to the 'actual' ramifications of a Zombie Apocalypse I am only stating what the general formula for every Zombie-Genre is. In reference to gaming, I would prefer Hunting Zombies over constant survival, even in real life I would prefer hunting them over pure survival. Of course I care about my loved ones etc but I can't very well defend them and make sure they are surviving if we can't even fight. You have to admit that a theoretical Zombie Apocalypse would cause drastic measures to ensue, and of course humanity would take advantage of all they could, hence the reference to our stupidity reflected in the movies, I just wanted to point out that the Zombie-Genre has been over-done and the formula for it is rather difficult to have any ingenuity with.OniaPL said:
But ask yourself this... Would you take a Shotgun with shells, or a GPS/Map? Essentially in either form of Hunting or Survival you are doing both, it is only the degree that takes precedence. I prefer taking the fight to them rather than running constantly just to survive. (not saying to stay and fight to the death and thus become a Zombie yourself) Panic will occur but eventually you'll have to rationalize, even during the panic their will be rational people. Its a matter of choice, do you kill what is trying to eat you or run from it? You can only "live to fight another day" till the food runs out. By the way humans have an uncanny nack to survive, so even if we lose all modern foundations of society we will persist, even if we lose most of the population... remember survival of the human race does not dictate that there has to be a lot left just enough to continue procreation of the species.
It's entirely possible that someone could find a spot, hide out, and let the zombies chase down and eat the loudmouths until the undead wither and die. People would realize this, and stay hidden. And a lot of the "go get'em" types would discover, once they got out there, they're pulling a disproportionate amount of attention (and risk) toward themselves...dsilvoul01 said:
People have an inflated sense of their ability to "strike back." There's a reason that most armed robberies don't end with the intended victim beating up or driving off the attacker. Most folks just hand over the wallet. Even real, trained fighters do it. Why? Because it's not worth it. We learn so much from action movies and "glory stories" of normal citizens "fighting back," and we forget to realize how improbable that result is.
Shooting is not easy. Most bullets fired in a battle with trained soldiers hit nothing. I don't mean "more than half." I mean "the overwhelming majority." Those that do it? Not all headshots. Because they aren't aiming for the head. Because it's hard to hit a target that size.
Hand-to-hand fighting, or with hand weapons? If you're taking a self-defense course, and the first lesson they teach you is not "In a fight, you will get hit a lot," get your money back. They're teaching complete and total bullshit, and you'd be better off taking aerobics. If the attacker has a knife, you will get cut, even if you win. If they're willing to bite? You're getting bit somewhere before you down him.
So there's a zombie or two down the block. So what? Shoot it, and you'll attract two hundred. No reason to go pick a fight. If your house is being swarmed by dozens of zombies, safe to say you've already done something pretty wrong. Either way, the house ain't worth it. Go find another.
Map. I'm pretty sure I would be functionally useless with any kind of weapon. The best way for me to survive a zombie apocalypse would be to go where there are no zombies.dsilvoul01 said:
I feel you need a 'perfect medium' option. You can never have too much surviving AND it is necessary to DO something about the zombie threat, if only for your own psychological needs. Eventually, your mind will break down from there being too many undeads walking around. So, grab your gun and assert yourself!
My favorite is a good hunting game with strong enough elements of survival to make it tense. I've yet to play a game that does it especially well, but some games like RE4 do the opposite (mainly survival with some hunting).