Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Brute Splicer Vs. Tank Infected

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Mad Max uses a Shotgun why not you?
    Posts
    581

    Brute Splicer Vs. Tank Infected

    who would win in a fight?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Kodiak, Alaska
    Posts
    6,797
    hmmm tank is a zombie.

    Brute splicer is a splicer.

    I think the brute cause he can jump pretty high.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,361
    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    I am the GINSENG Pawn
    Posts
    317
    tank hands down, brutes arent even that hard

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    the moon that never sets
    Posts
    795

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Walter lebowski View Post
    tank hands down, brutes arent even that hard
    Thats cuz you have plasmids thou that can distract brutes. Tanks you only have guns.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,061
    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    I am the GINSENG Pawn
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by lod7 View Post
    Thats cuz you have plasmids thou that can distract brutes. Tanks you only have guns.
    yes but you have 4 people with guns and they have about the same health as delta wich i always thought was kinda unrealalistic.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,061
    Quote Originally Posted by Walter lebowski View Post
    yes but you have 4 people with guns and they have about the same health as delta wich i always thought was kinda unrealalistic.
    If Delta can fend off 20-30 splicers without breathing hard, I don't think it's realistic to compare his health to that of 4 mortal humans.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    I am the GINSENG Pawn
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by Vonderbach View Post
    If Delta can fend off 20-30 splicers without breathing hard, I don't think it's realistic to compare his health to that of 4 mortal humans.
    the survivors have ridiculesly high health, and the tank is a little biger than the brute.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by Walter lebowski View Post
    the survivors have ridiculesly high health, and the tank is a little biger than the brute.
    You really can't compare the two games and their protagonists. The survivors don't benefit from the majority of things Delta does including the large selection of weapons much less plasmids and gene tonics. Rapture isn't a zombie game and shouldn't be compared to one especially one so terrible.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    129
    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.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Siren Alley
    Posts
    1,386
    Quote Originally Posted by Boredmad View Post
    and shouldn't be compared to one especially one so terrible.
    Name a good zombie game. If you say Resident Evil # you fail immediately.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by Crezth View Post
    Name a good zombie game. If you say Resident Evil # you fail immediately.
    Uh...COD WAW: Nazi Zombies of course!! Duh!!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by Crezth View Post
    Name a good zombie game. If you say Resident Evil # you fail immediately.
    Resident Evil is fun, but the story of the game has more holes than can be counted. Left 4 dead is merely a party game nothing more nothing really exists in it as far as story goes. Silent Hill though would be my personal favorite in the survivor horror genre though it really isn't a zombie game. Dead Rising though would be the best zombie game I've played in a while.
    Last edited by Boredmad; 03-10-2010 at 05:24 AM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by Boredmad View Post
    nothing really exists in it as far as story goes
    Having a story in a zombie game is like having a "how to eat" menu at a restaurant. It's a zombie game, if you're not eating brains your killing the ones who do. I think the concept of zombie game is just about massive fps mayhem and body parts a job L4D does well until you finish the map rotation and realize doing it 1000 more times would just get boring.

    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?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,361
    Quote Originally Posted by r0hrshach View Post
    How many zombie movies have story?
    Night of the Living Dead, 28 Days Later, Dawn of the Dead (original), Day of the Dead, The Crazies...

    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 10:58 AM.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by Beaten with a Rock View Post
    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.
    I agree with you wholeheartedly about L4D. I did try the demo out on L4D2 but the changes were so few and uninteresting that I didn't care to spend any amount of money on buying it. I bought L4D on sale when it first came out (on Steam) and it was fun for about the first 50 playthroughs. Then after I completed the achievements it just sat there and I returned to it once when my brother came down but we both were unimpressed with L4D compared to Nazi Zombies.

    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").

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,361
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by r0hrshach View Post
    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.
    EDIT: (Major plot points: Protagonist wakes up in hospital, searches for others, finds survivors, searches for parents, finds dead parents. Begins to travel with survivors, finds father and daughter survivors living off rations. Hears radio broadcast by military claiming to have salvation and travels to the location they promise. No one is there. Father dies, military arrive, take survivors to a base where they find out said salvation was a lie. Soldiers attempt to rape the women, nearly beat protagonist to death. Protagonist escapes, releases zombies into base, rescues women, barely escape. Live out quarantine in countryside, until a search for survivors finds them.)

    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 07:54 AM.

  19. #19
    Left 4 dead is crappy compared to Bioshock. Thats my comparison

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Ga
    Posts
    939
    a burut would probably die farly easy now if a boncer fighters it the tank would die in 20 seconds flat

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,361
    This is pretty much, like, a language arts piece-for-piece definition, but it should clear up the statement that zombie movies have
    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.
    Actually, in most stories, there are several different types of conflict (again, this is pretty much transcribed language arts stuff, so bear with me.)

    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 08:05 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •