who would win in a fight?
who would win in a fight?
hmmm tank is a zombie.
Brute splicer is a splicer.
I think the brute cause he can jump pretty high.
I can't really cite the message, but I think a Moderator some time back ago complained that this type of thread (the random thing versus BioShock thing) wasn't good content wise and should be avoided. I suppose at some point there was a whole rush of them and they were pretty pointless. I think most of these get locked.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just telling you what I've read.
tank hands down, brutes arent even that hard
Not to mention that you're a mere mortal when fighting Tanks. You can't compare the ease of killing a Brute to a Tank if the player character has completely different strengths.
You might as well start comparing plasmids to the force or Subject Delta to Master Chief. All games have similarities but its all still apples and oranges.
Last edited by Boredmad; 03-10-2010 at 06:24 AM.
Hence why I said Nazi Zombies because while the mechanics are simple and it still is just a party game the AI is smarter and the zombie hordes aren't as scripted with orchestrated sequences. It keeps the simple in and takes the needless out...like story.
How many zombie movies have story?
The story of how the zombies came to be (which is almost entirely absent in any Romero film) isn't what the story is about, the story is about the survivors and their lives after the outbreak.
I know this is completely off-topic from the thread, but I agree in that Left 4 Dead HAD no story whatsoever, while at least some other zombie games (Dead Rising did a terrific job of this) try for a decent story. I also agree that it's a terrible game in that it really is JUST a party game, on par with Guitar Hero and Mario Party, but CERTAINLY not BioShock. There's nothing spectacular about the gameplay and nothing genuinely interesting about the story, it's just a fun game to bash in zombie heads with friends.
EDIT: I never played L4D2, but the first one was HELLA short for a game in general, especially one with such little content.
Last edited by Beaten with a Rock; 03-10-2010 at 11:58 AM.
With regard to story, I see where you are going but to call even what the survivors have "a story" isn't much at all. I mean, it's a story in the bare sense of the word like "See Jane run" is a story. But it's not a story you can actually hang anything on. There are no plot twists, no evil villians, no masterminds, etc... None of the usual literary devices used to create a unique and completey fictious yet slightly believable alternate reality. There's just scared survivors, brave survivors, stupid survivors, reckless survivors, hunter survivors, and hordes and hordes of zombies.
I think the zombie genre is lucky because it is one of the few genres in movies and games that's allowed to have no major plot points or any real coherency. People don't really expect it and they don't really care and it gets better if you add black humor or maybe tie it to a theme park. The only other genre that can be that dim and still make a profit is porn. In fact any movie that has tried to dramatize the zombie outbreak or give it some real credence in reality has usually come off boring or just plain stupid (see "I am Legend").
I agree on that zombie movies don't follow a lot of typical story plots, but you're thinking so plainly in terms of fairy-tale style good guys and bad guys, villains and heroes. There's definitely TONS more genre that break this sequence, and I'd still argue that there's a story to be told no matter what. The basic plotline of any story is a situation (in the scope of most zombie movies it's current humanity), a problem (the outbreak), the actual events in the story, the resolution and the falling action.
One of my favorite zombie movies and favorite films in general, 28 Days Later, did a great job of this and even included a more complex set of characters, including a father who fought for his daughter, a soldier that fought for all of the men under him to live out what he thought was the end of the world, and then of course the protagonist who (after discovering the death of his parents) was really just searching for a cause to live. This film actually does feature a "twist", in that the majority of people believe the entire world is infected. At one point, a character proposes that it's only England and that they've been quarantined. It's later revealed (when the protagonist, who is on the bridge of death, sees a jetplane in the sky) that this was true.
It definitely had a solid and effective story. Day of the Dead was also fantastic in that it was completely centered around character development and their conflicts, and it even featured characters delving into zombie psychology (with a scientist's ultimate realization that they can restore some simple, humane tasks in the zombie's habits). While it's considerably more akin to the stereotype (tons of gore, needless violence, etc.), it's also an interesting study in terms of human psychology and claustrophobia.
To claim that zombie films have no story would be to claim that Dystopic/Post-apocalyptic stories aren't valid ones, or that films which focus almost entirely on psychology and inner-conflict aren't valid either.
And with post-apocalyptic novels and films being some of the most popular in terms of genre, you certainly can't say that the stories are any less valuable because they lack the typically villain.
Last edited by Beaten with a Rock; 03-11-2010 at 08:54 AM.
Left 4 dead is crappy compared to Bioshock. Thats my comparison
a burut would probably die farly easy now if a boncer fighters it the tank would die in 20 seconds flat
This is pretty much, like, a language arts piece-for-piece definition, but it should clear up the statement that zombie movies haveActually, in most stories, there are several different types of conflict (again, this is pretty much transcribed language arts stuff, so bear with me.)no evil villians, no masterminds, etc... None of the usual literary devices used to create a unique and completey fictious yet slightly believable alternate reality.
Man vs. Man (this is the typical 'evil villain' conflict you referred to)
Man vs. Nature (the biology of evil viruses in nature, somewhat common in zombie films)
Man vs. Self (typically the regarding the survivors)
Man vs. Society (when society has collapsed, zombies BECOME the society, and thus they fill this role)
There may be more then that... but regardless. The reason most people can't stand zombie movies and claim they have no really literary devices is because they live in a relatively new genre. It's no surprise that there aren't any literary devices present in them, since (save for humor) there's hardly any zombie literature! Because the selection is so small in terms of good quality zombie movies, very few are willing to partake in the willing suspension of disbelief with them, and so few are willing to recognize that, like any genre, zombie movies have the good and the bad. I completely understand the argument that there are movies without substance, but I am not willing consider that it has anything to do with them being zombie movies.
Last edited by Beaten with a Rock; 03-11-2010 at 09:05 AM.