Zombies In Games - Games - Facepunch Forum

I was thinking lately that zombies arent nearly as threatening as they once were in games. Games like Left 4 dead and Dead Rising, although great games, have totally decreased the fear associated with them with the removal of one simple factor: Infection. Almost every game in which you fight zombies renders you "immune" and reducing the fear of fighting them at all. Its just run in, lose health, done. But with the addition of infection, it makes you think about what you would do in these occasions if this was a real life situation. Do I raid the small towns for supplies and reduce risks of infection or do I hit a city and almost guarantee infection? Now im not saying this should be a "YOUR BITTEN, YOUR FUCKED." Situation, as games must have lenience and being punished for doing something you were ignorant of is a sure way to discourage people playing your game. But it should at least make you think about the possibilities of infection and or turning and make you decide upon those factors. I like the idea of; Being bitten, your infected, your with a group and its only a matter of time. Do you tell them and get killed? Or do you turn and risk taking them all with you? My friends and I have discussed this on several occasions and each time a better concept has come out of it. And now I ask you facepunch, Infection in Zombie games, Should it be reintroduced? TL;DR: No risk of infection has made zombies less scary, and games less effective because of it. Should we reintroduce the idea?

No. [editline]16th April 2011[/editline] I say this because it gets frustrating too easily. Remember Resident Evil? "Fuck, theres the antidote right there FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK I FUCKING DIED"

Thats because resident evil didnt bring a correct approach to it, they treated the zombies like obstacles and not real threats. If you cant deal with a situation involving zombies by avoiding it, its not really a "zombie" game since you cant avoid the risk of infection.

You realize they're different games with different ideas, different concepts, and different gameplay goals and design. I'm very glad they all play differently and uniquely.

It depends on how easy it would be to become infected. If it was reasonable, it would make a horror game rather good.

[QUOTE=doommarine23;29224403]You realize they're different games with different ideas, different concepts, and different gameplay goals and design. I'm very glad they all play differently and uniquely.[/QUOTE] But not one of them includes a risk of infection, Death is there, but not turning. And thats what makes a horror game with zombies in a fantastic experience, Will you add to the horde thats been hunting you for weeks or keep running and survive?

[QUOTE=LukeyxD;29224374]Thats because resident evil didnt bring a correct approach to it, they treated the zombies like obstacles and not real threats. If you cant deal with a situation involving zombies by avoiding it, its not really a "zombie" game since you cant avoid the risk of infection.[/QUOTE] There are a lot of situations in the RE series where you are forced to fight. [editline]16th April 2011[/editline] I remember in this one room in Resident Evil 2, you walk in, theres a zombie at one end of the hall, and one on the other side. No way out except going back the way you came.

Has anybody played Resident Evil Outbreak? It's a regular Resident Evil game with bad camera angles and classic shooting etc, but it had 4 player co-op online with infection rates and shit. If I remember correctly, you could turn into a zombie and go around to find the other buddies. The best part was that you could very [i]very[/i] easily get lost and lose track of your buddies and not know whether they were alive or not.

[QUOTE=LukeyxD;29224452]But not one of them includes a risk of infection, Death is there, but not turning. And thats what makes a horror game with zombies in a fantastic experience, Will you add to the horde thats been hunting you for weeks or keep running and survive?[/QUOTE] Some of these games aren't about horror or fear, or they do it in a different manner, and besides. Do you realize how unfun Resident evil would be if you got bit once and than it's like "whoopsies game over"

[QUOTE=A big fat ass;29224493]Has anybody played Resident Evil Outbreak? It's a regular Resident Evil game with bad camera angles and classic shooting etc, but it had 4 player co-op online with infection rates and shit. If I remember correctly, you could turn into a zombie and go around to find the other buddies. The best part was that you could very [i]very[/i] easily get lost and lose track of your buddies and not know whether they were alive or not.[/QUOTE] Thats the kind of game im talking about. But in singleplayer and with more emphasis on the turning. [editline]16th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=doommarine23;29224504]Some of these games aren't about horror or fear, or they do it in a different manner, and besides. Do you realize how unfun Resident evil would be if you got bit once and than it's like "whoopsies game over"[/QUOTE] I dont mean it to be like that, Like I said In the first post, No "ONCE BITTEN, YOUR FUCKED." A gradual transformation which you can combat, but if you cant combat it, what do you do with your last few minutes?

Well, maybe it would be fun or interesting in a game that was designed with it in mind. But games like L4D or RE? Don't have that in mind.

[QUOTE=doommarine23;29224614]Well, maybe it would be fun or interesting in a game that was designed with it in mind. But games like L4D or RE? Don't have that in mind.[/QUOTE] Yeah thats what I mean, We need a game thats based around this. I was just using those games as an example of how the concept could be introduced.

Infection with turning, Only in multiplayer and only if you have small chance of getting infected. Infection with turning in singleplayer - How the fuck would that even work? You turn and then what? Wander around doing nothing except try to find and kill the AI that is usually more braindead than the zombies? If it's a cutscene of you turning then gameover, That would get annoying. I really have no clue how turning would even work in singleplayer.

Well, the grand concept I had in mind was a Zombie-Based MMO. Heres the concept; Massive City, Phased content for those who start. You see the infection from its start, monday being normal sunday being fucking chaos. But have no indication of other players whatsoever. Unable to differenciate between NPC's and players or whether the food sources your getting are uninfected or so. Think of TONS of people online, ignorant of eachothers presence, The perfect singleplayer, yet multiplayer game. Think, Did I just kill a person who was going for that food or was it just a script? I know its optimistic and would be complicated as hell to do, but think, How good would that idea be?

I like the ol' good classic Zombies. Slow, though, only way to kill them is a heavy blow to the head, blind, react on noises, strong. And loads of them. Loads. And when they bite you... well, you have a problem then.

A thought of mine is that, in single-player games, being infected could yield benefits like with Vampirism in [i]Oblivion[/i], but also defects. I remember someone suggested a while ago that in any morality based game, the selfish option should always be the easiest. In [i]Bioshock[/i] for example you're eventually rewarded more ADAM and a higher reward for being 'good'. Applying this to a zombie based game would perhaps be, for example, you can live forever and eat people for a living. As a human you would need to tend to your water needs, starvation, sleep deprivation etc. - whereas as a zombie you don't necessarily need to eat. Perhaps in a single-player campaign it would be interesting to have something akin to a non-linear world full of interactive elements, not linear missions (fuck you Rockstar Games) and the only goal being the survive a la [i]Minecraft[/i]. There's also the undead involved in your hunt for supplies and safehouses, maybe some co-op with friends to keep it a larf and generally an interesting experience that (inevitably if you kept playing) would turn you into a zomble. Would be rather cool having to shoot one of your mates as he gradually turns into a zombie, quickly turning doesn't savour all of the special bits a la [i]Dead Space 2[/i]. I don't think it could work in the context of [i]Left 4 Dead[/i] but given a new free-roam context or perhaps a game revolving around survival and not a set, designed goal (which isn't worst, by the way, some people like being driven and others like finding their own way - I like both). Just throwing some words out there. Also, first post.

Every month we get a thread about the perfect game and it usually always ends up being a realistic zombie type game.

[QUOTE=A big fat ass;29224923]Every month we get a thread about the perfect game and it usually always ends up being a realistic zombie type game.[/QUOTE] Probably given the pinnacle of interactivity = survival within another virtual context. Zombies are the perfect example really.

And the Solution to making people indifferent the way an NPC performs? Training. Anything below/different behaviour of how you would expect someone to act is strange and strange could mean infected = More likely to get you killed by other people. And If infection is easy make being infected rewarding, unattractive, but rewarding in itself; means to hide infection but not destroy it. More points for being a carrier. If you embed these things into a tutorial this becomes second nature to players.

Fort Zombie is an good Idea for a game, the game itself sucks though. If only a better company would dig it up...

Red dead redemption Undead nightmare is pretty good. One of my friends has it, and I played it a couple times. Was fun, pretty hard too, the zombies are challenging. Though it would be better if you could get infected.

Just try and think this through, you've been playing your character, you've been having fun, you've got a nice 9 hours into the character in just a day, over 60 all told. All of a sudden, you fuck up once, losing 60 hours of gameplay completely refusing to play again because of one fuck up. Bad idea. [editline]16th April 2011[/editline] Make zombies scarier, infections fine, but you can't just leave it off at that kind of fear, that's not going to work for a video game.

I've always found that never explaining what caused the outbreak or zombies to be far better, that and high decay level

The infection just needs to be clever made.

[QUOTE=joost1120;29225389]Red dead redemption Undead nightmare is pretty good. One of my friends has it, and I played it a couple times. Was fun, pretty hard too, the zombies are challenging. Though it would be better if you could get infected.[/QUOTE] IMO the only thing that made it difficult was the fact that RDR's gunplay wasn't suited for fastpaced, close quarter combat and felt rather awkward when facing zombies

Damn I want to play Undead Nightmare but the Playstation store won't work and the retail here costs about four times as much.

Yeah I do admit that zombies are less threatening. But I am mostly satisfied with the games still.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29228227]Just try and think this through, you've been playing your character, you've been having fun, you've got a nice 9 hours into the character in just a day, over 60 all told. All of a sudden, you fuck up once, losing 60 hours of gameplay completely refusing to play again because of one fuck up. Bad idea. [editline]16th April 2011[/editline] Make zombies scarier, infections fine, but you can't just leave it off at that kind of fear, that's not going to work for a video game.[/QUOTE] Have an autosave feature, but make it uncommon. Say, at the beginning of every week, you autosave. That way, you have an incentive to avoid infection, but it's not an instant game over.

If someone developed a little FPS where if a zombie bit you, you'd get infected, and all that shazam, I'd help out. Its a idea waiting to happen.

Would be awesome to have a game like Resident Evil, but with a less shitty camera and save system.