Codex Interview RPG Codex Interview: DoubleBear on Dead State

[Mozgoëbstvo]

Yeah. The name you were given when they gave you a Holy Water Moneyshot is not known to me... so it's just hiver...

 

[hiver]

No holy water for me!
and i deleted that comment because im not really sure who is whose alt....in this case... hmm..

enough with the offtopic spamming!

More DongS!

 

[Mozgoëbstvo]

No holy water for me!
and i deleted that comment because im not really sure who is whose alt....in this case... hmm..

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatttttttttttt


NO HOLY CATHOLIC BAPTISM FOR HIVER?


I might... just drink a bucket of bleach right now. This is...

 

[hiver]

my gramps and my da were commies and i was a nice little Tito partisan when i was a wee little croc (because that was "more cake" option)

wasnt i cute? ahh the memories...
btw, thats my friend Slavko... he emigrated to australia later...


(in fact... in those times it went pretty much like dialogue choices and consequences in AoD, only it was in ultra iron man mode)


Enjoy the Extra Emotionally Engaging Reviews and lets get back on topic here ...shall we?
-slightly edited-

 

[Mozgoëbstvo]

my gramps and my da were commies and i was a nice little Tito partisan when i was a wee little croc (because that was "more cake" option)
(in fact... in those times it went pretty much like dialogue choices and consequences in AoD, only it was iron man mode)


Enjoy the Extra Emotionally Engaging Reviews and lets get back on topic here ...shall we?

I'm enjoying them... druže hajvere!

EDIT/ SLAVVVVKOOOOOO MALI LJEPI PREDIVNI SMJESTA K MENI! /EDIT

MY CROWN ISN'T SMALL ENOUGH! IT'S YOUR FAULT!

/topic breaking forever over.

 

[Gakkone]

This is all very interesting.

 

[Oriebam]

hiver is a scaly, what a twist

 

[GarfunkeL]

What the fuck?

As to the interview, it's a good, solid one. Not much new information, every Codexer should have known this stuff already from 2009 and 2010 when Brian started explaining about the game. CAN'T WAIT and all that.

 

[UnknownBro]

I wish the best for the developers of this game, I really do but next time guys please choose an original setting and a better UI ...

 

[Azrael the cat]

The odd thing about the zombie genre is that it has been so thoroughly overdone and yet underdone at the same time. Zombies as mooks, as generic monsters, as things that overwhelm and swarm, as daylight-brainless-vampires: that's been done to death.

But zombies in the Romero mode? As the creeping inevitability of death, as a genre about survivalism where basicallly cities and population centres are death-traps but rural communities can exist fine...until the loss of centralised power, communication and above all law and government really kicks in? There's pretty much Romero, and...well...Romero....and one comic strip/tv series that's a Romero clone (the comic strip was always explicitly stated and intended to be set in Romero-land, the tv series is more just a thematic homage - e.g. in the series it's treated as a mini-twist when Rick has a mini-breakdown at the end of season 2 and let's slip to the others the secret he's been keeping since the CDC guy whispered it to him at the end of season 1, i.e. that whilst the outbreak is viral everybody is ALREADY infected, whereas in the comics (like the Romero films) that's just a theory that the survivors guess at - some think it's literally hell invading earth, some think it's a curse from god, some think it's a virus - but if it's a virus then everyone is already infected as it isn't just the bitten folk that rise. Personally, I like the 'keep it unanswered' style better - throw out almost as many theories as there are characters (the virus theory is actually an optimistic viewpoint, as Hershall points out in the TV version of The Walking Dead - humanity has kicked the ass of far worse infections: a shotgun isn't going to do jackshit against the black death, and if humanity could survive that prior to modern medicine, then ulitimately an illness that you can see coming and kill with a bullet isn't going to be what takes humanity out).

As for the original idea of zombies? Haitian voodoo magic, summoning the recently deceased to serve as soul-trapped slaves? The closest I've seen to that in video games is D&D, and I can't think of a single film that's touched that idea in the past 50 years.

But the attraction of the Romero zombie setting, for me, is the survivalist idea. It's why I always liked the first 2 films over the latter ones, despite Land of the Dead being quite decent on its own terms. Night of the Dead doesn't suggest any worldwide apocalypse: just a small group of people giving an example of how territoriality, racism, and tribalism screw up a particular group's shot at survival. Similarly, in Dawn of the Dead, it's made clear that whilst the characters choose to go AWOL and evacuate the city just in time, the rural areas are holding up just fine...except that as the 'character-who-starts-off-looking-like-he's-dangerous-but-turns-out-to-be-the-guy-who-knows-his-shit' recognises, they're going to be more dangerous than the zombies pretty quickly. After all, when they get to the mall, the zombies aren't much of a threat against a team of 4 with assault rifles, 2 with SWAT training and a copter - they build the hidden 'retreat path' in order to hide their presence from other humans, not the zombies. And at the end it ends on an ambiguous, but still hopeful note - the zombies were just a little nudge that pushed over human society because that society was already corrupt and on the verge of collapse (it's no coincidence that the film displays the inevitable fall of the urban zones by showing how screwed the SWAT teams were trying to clear out slums full of illiterate, impoverished folk living in crazy-confined spaces). The end of the film shows again how greed and arrogance has screwed some of the films' characters, but ultimately the remaining survivors - momentarily contemplating suicide before making a break for the chopper - haven't fallen prey to greed nor the zombies, and it holds out the idea that this might be a change, a reborn world, rather than a dead one. I'd have loved to see more films in THAT setting.

It seems that Dead State will be smack in the middle of the 'Dawn of the Dead' setting, rather than its aftermath, which is a pity (though it leaves potential for sequels - a New Vegas'y modern western in a world of decentralised hubs, combining the vast empty spaces and survivalism of the western with modern tech minus anything that requires centralised trade - so no easily available oil, communications, etc). Nonetheless, as much as there's been lots of zombies in games, there's been very very few true survivalist zombie genre games. If they can pull that off, I'm very keen.

 

[Azrael the cat]

I wish the best for the developers of this game, I really do but next time guys please choose an original setting and a better UI ...

I get where you're coming from, but what other games have done the survivalist early-Romero zombie setting? I can think of tons where zombies have just been generic mooks, but none that make any attempt to emulate the resource-scavenging, gang-forming, tribalism of the Romero setting. It's all: 'zombies are coming - blam! blam! - zombies are dead'. Which games have treated zombies as the ocean tide that sweeps in the cracks that human civilisation has already left. If you want an idea of what I'm talking about, think of the original Dawn of the Dead, where there are only 2 times when the zombies are presented as an actual threat - at the very start where 2 of the main characters decide to go AWOL from their SWAT teams due to the hopelessness of trying to clear out areas that were ALREADY warzones and ghettos full of gang-fights, impoverished and illiterate migrants, crammed into high-rise buildings where the police couldn't even go BEFORE the zombies turned up. And then at the end, where one of the survivors unnecessarily starts a war with a bikie gang to stop them 'stealing THEIR stuff', when they were just looters themselves and there's plenty of supplies for everyone if they just stay out of each others' way, leading to the 'good guys' having to do the equivalent of dropping the nuke - i.e. deliberately bringing down the barricades keeping the zombies out, letting the tide flood in and making the place uninhabitable for everyone.

That's the kind of game I'm looking for - something that, true to the movies, is about survivalism, where the zombies are just the initial impetus, the little push that exposed the cracks in an already-decadent society. Where good survivors and teams can not only live, but thrive, alongside examples of the same human nature screwups that let the cities go to shit in the first place.

The closest I can think of is the old Realms of Arkania trilogy - they aren't zombie-based, and obviously it's a different setting, but they have the right kind of survavlist mechanics for a true Romero zombie game. And even Skyway would have to concede that that series could do with a UI and graphical upgrade. Stalker has touches of it at times - it's a flawed gem, but probably the closest we've got to a true zombie game at the moment (again, despite zombies not being the actual focus, in its better moments it has the same feel of human settlements trading, fighting and living in a world of monsters).

Seriously, I'm not just saying this to troll - I'd love to know if I've missed any Romero-esque gems (obviously I mean the film-maker, not Romero the game developer). I don't think I have, but if there are a bunch that capture that survivalist feel, rather than being just action games (and the Romero films are anything BUT action movies), I'd love to know about them.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Don't bother with the troll, Azrael. Excellent analysis, as always and I completely agree.

 

[hiver]

by the way... i dont dislike the zombie setting because it is overused or underused at all.

I said i personally find the setting as a whole and angle that DB are going for a bit depressing.
I have enough depressing things in my life so im not in any hurry to get more depressed when playing a game.
No that doesnt mean i want happy flowers and rainbows... ffs...

It all depends on whether i will have the possibility to do anything about the situation of my character and my NPC allies in the game.
However difficult it is.
If the game is just one long series of events hitting me over the head and it all ends in tears whatever i do - then i dont have a reason to even try.
Im sick of tragedies and failures. And i dont play games because im a masochist.

Im not saying this is how it will play out. Brian only said there wont be a happy end where you SAVE THE WORLD!!!
Im fine with that. But i expect i will be able to do freaking something! - about my character and NPCs i command.

 

[Phelot]

This sounds a lot like Fort Zombie. Again, have they played that? I haven't considering it's suppose to be incredibly buggy and frustrating, but watching MHC's LP of it made it seem very interesting. Its basic premise seemed pretty cool even though I don't care much for zombies.

Don't know if it mentioned it, but will maps be randomly generated? I see that NPC's may suggest missions, so I wonder how that would be handled. Just a random task like "Find 3 tires!" or something?

 

[hiver]

Thats because youre reading dumbfuck retards posts about me instead of what i write and thinking for yourself.

 

[Oriebam]

That's right, hiver is a quality poster. Please stop with the off-topic posts.

 

[sgc_meltdown]

Nonetheless, as much as there's been lots of zombies in games, there's been very very few true survivalist zombie genre games. If they can pull that off, I'm very keen.

The thing about a good survivalist game is that it needs options. Options on where to go and hole up, and who to do it with and how, and if you're going to stay long or just keep moving. If this is going to be about the schoolhouse, with maybe progression into other buildings along or prior, I'm worried that it'll be little more than situation setpieces, like 'rpg survival levels'. Of course I realise the level of resources doublebear have to work with for the game, but I don't know how much freedom of choice they'll be putting into it. That's the important part, freedom. I'd prefer that the zombies aren't a railroading invisible wall that punt you from one safehouse to another at preset narrative points.

If there are good answers to these questions nobody will be making the zombie combat=boring complaints.

 

[EG]

I dislike the zombie setting because evidently someone gets this thought:

"Zombies are boring. Let's try imbuing humanity into them through emotional looks and faded memories of their previous lives. That's the ticket!"

That's also the majority of Romero films -- even day of the dead, with the whole social commentary on consumerism bullshit because zombies strut aboot the mall, eh.

 

[SerratedBiz]

The only zombie flick I've ever seen which plays with the idea of zombies being anything more than hungry is the craptastic Land of the Dead. I don't see how this translates to this being something of a problem with the setting in itself. It's not like DB has hinted at there being diplomatic solutions to encounters with zombees.

Inb4 "there's also this other one movie"; no, that's not enough to consider it a concern.

Also, if you can't watch a zombie flick that takes place in a mall without thinking "oh the social commentary is so strong", maybe you have an acute case of the Asperger's.

 

[EG]

Damn you, Edit Function. Where are you when I need you?

If zombies are more than just hungry walking bags of convient plot, then they're just retarded humans.

There's a reason I said "bullshit", SeraratedBiz. It's not because I subscribe to that interpretation of zombies bumbling about a mall, knockin' shit over.

 

[SerratedBiz]

That's what I understood. Reread what I said.

It's not like someone in Dawn of the Dead looks at the zombies in the mall and goes 'my god, they're just LIKE US' or something. The social commentary crap got really popular at one point and people started talking about it like they had found some significant deeper meaning to the movie, but the truth is they are enjoyable without this particular insight and most of them were most likely oblivious to this when they first watched it.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Thats because youre reading dumbfuck retards posts about me instead of what i write and thinking for yourself.

Yeah, I actually agree with Hiver's post about not wanting something too unrelentingly depressing. Again, that's why I prefer the 1st 2 Romero films to the latter 2 (I'm not counting the most recent two in his 'rebooted', i.e. 'crap', Romero-verse). Ok, the 1st film had the most depressing ending you can imagine - the one sensible, reasonably group-minded, non-panicky guy survives until dawn when all the 'clean+clear' rescue squads turn up, see a black guy with a gun and a bunch of dead bodies, and shoot him on the spot....FFUUUUUUUUCCCCKKKKKKK!!!!!!!

But still, as a setting it's in keeping with Dawn of the Dead - it's a change to the world order, not the end of the world. Things MIGHT even be better - after all, in the Romeroverse, the pre-zombie society is already pretty damn fucked, so a good clear out might be just what the place needs.

More the point, Dawn makes it clear that this is a setting that isn't really much worse than your standard rpg setting - civilisation has gone to shit due to the cities falling, but humanity as a whole isn't dying out (arguably you could take the last scene, where the 2 characters who have resisted both external threats ad moral corruption/greed, escape to the chopter, as symbolic that the best of humanity can still rise and create a better world, while the corrupt euther kill each other or get devoured).

Post-apoc FILMS need a bitter-sweet ending, at best.
SPOILERS AHOY FOR MAD MAX, SEVERAL ZOMBIE FILMS, A BOY AND HIS DOG, ETC..


- take the Mad Max films - the first one ends with Max getting vengeance, but only after his wife is killed, and perhaps more importantly after it's confirmed that the growing audience suspicion that the world is decaying, when halfway through the final chase/fight scene, Max pauses to stare at a very old sign, that he clearly doesn't understand - a nuclear radiation symbol.

In the 2nd film, Max and his allies win the battle between (on their side) the fortified oil tanker with gun-pits, flamethrower-pits, etc, Max in his car, the town's leader in his quad bike and the gyrocopter guy dropping firebombs vs (on the other side) the bikie gang from hell (with a suspicious number of old cop cars amongst them)...with just Max and the gyrocopter guy surviving (the copter guy getting taken out halfway through, but survivng)....only to find out that the whole thing was just a decoy, while the town escaped with the actual oil already funnelled out into barrels, hidden in the passenger vehicles that left out the back.

3rd film: again, he 'wins', only to be left wandering without food or water in the desert, as you see the copter guy from the 2nd film searching the desert for him, realising that he's going to have to turn back or he'll run out of fuel, and reluctantly turning around just after accidentally flying over Max, unnoticed, as Max collapses and (presumably) dies.

Similarly a Boy and His Dog (more the book than the film) ends with the confirmation that (a) the boy is human, with the full range of emotions (in the book he is repeatedly troubled by the girl's comment 'you don't even know what love is, do you?') together with confirmation that he'll never actually achieve them (his ending comment: 'of course I know what love is. A boy loves his dog').

Most good zombie films are bittersweet for similar reasons - with Romero it's always the irony of humans letting a survivable situation turn to shit for reasons groudned in human nature, with 28 days later, it's the idea that the virus was really just magnifying something humans already have in them (both in the soldiers' behaviour, and in the lead's 'rescue' where he saves his friends from getting raped by literally tearing the soldiers apart with his bare hands, biting their faces off, etc (shot in the same way as the 'infected' earlier in the film).

With Pontypool (I can't recommend this film strongly enough - criminally underwatched - but only if the idea of a zombie film where you almost never see the zombies, just hear different reports of the outbreak from inside sealed environment the local rural radio station, as the characters initially think it's a joke, then start freaking as the reports increase, people start calling up, what's that banging on the window - is it a survivor, or a...) there's a similar 'bittersweet, find the cure as the bombs are on their way...' ending - especially as by then, the rather unusual way that the disease is spread (sounds bizarre when you first hear it, but the idea of infections being carried by language has been in horror writing for centuries) makes the bombs a bit obsolete.
But that is because a film needs to combine the need for an ending that is both emotionally satisfyin


The SETTING however, doesn't need to be depressing. There's no reason why a zombie GAME couldn't be based around what happens to the groups that AREN'T dysfunctional - the ones that do survive and build their towns back up. In that sense, it doesn't have to be any more depressing than any other survivalist setting - certainly no more depressing than the first Fallout.

FILMS have to be depressing or bitter-sweet because they need to balance having an ending that is emotionally believable (i.e. depressing) with one that is emotionally satisfying (i.e. where the good guys at least win in part). Games don't have that need. But even when they do - was the Fallout bittersweet ending SO bad? Because that's a zombie film ending if I've ever seen one.

 

[hiver]

The SETTING however, doesn't need to be depressing. There's no reason why a zombie GAME couldn't be based around what happens to the groups that AREN'T dysfunctional - the ones that do survive and build their towns back up. In that sense, it doesn't have to be any more depressing than any other survivalist setting - certainly no more depressing than the first Fallout.

FILMS have to be depressing or bitter-sweet because they need to balance having an ending that is emotionally believable (i.e. depressing) with one that is emotionally satisfying (i.e. where the good guys at least win in part). Games don't have that need. But even when they do - was the Fallout bittersweet ending SO bad? Because that's a zombie film ending if I've ever seen one.

I could go for bitter-sweet.

(overworked, slept two hours in two days and getting ready to go to a party answer)

 

[Roguey]

(arguably you could take the last scene, where the 2 characters who have resisted both external threats ad moral corruption/greed, escape to the chopter, as symbolic that the best of humanity can still rise and create a better world, while the corrupt euther kill each other or get devoured).

Did'ja know in the original ending the last guy just lets the zombies take him and the woman decapitates herself with the helicopter blades? Then the credits roll and the 'copter sputters out just as they finish (assuring that they would have had no hope regardless). Bleak, bleak, bleak yet still so funny.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Yeah, I wish the studio hadn't pressured Romero to change it.