Jump to content

Debate About Infection...


ZAMNPlayerD

Recommended Posts

I remember having a conversation with another forum user, who insisted that disabling zombification defeats the purpose of Project Zomboid and ruins all tension..... But does it really?

 

Bleedout has been much more threatening and Build 41 has made fighting hordes a lot of the time a veritable death sentence. Before, disabling zombification would honestly make the game way easier, and it still does, but to me, I've been more concerned about bleeding out thanks to Build 41.

 

To me, getting bit with zombification on is just like: "guess I'll die, lol" but having a chance to be able to recover with bandages makes it feel all the more intense. Sure, you won't die from The Virus, but wound infection is still a thing. I feel like bites not being instantly fatal actually builds tension because there's now way more of a reason to worry about the first-aid system.

 

But what are your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, even with infection disabled you need to be really careful because of how vulnerable you are from the back now, and you can even get insta killed if you screw up thanks to the "pull to the ground" mechanic. 
I don't have a problem with small infection chances but I'd argue that these new mechanics are a better way to create tension and difficulty.

(And I also agree that 100% infection from bites takes away from it, but I said that probably a hundred times before so I'm not going to rant about it now :P)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you're referring to me, because it's kind of similar something I wrote and I like talking about game design and zombies. Basically the core of my argument was "as long as any encounter with a zombie is potentially fatal if I make a mistake, the game will stay interesting at all times". If any mechanic allows you to kill zombies with no risk (assuming you don't do anything really stupid of course) the game becomes very dull IMO. But let's not go into that discussion again, and we just assume that with the mechanics you mentioned, fighting a single zombie is appropriately dangerous even without zombification.

 

I agree with you that zombification is a boring mechanic right now in PZ. I think infection rate is 97% from bites, but still, once you see the anxious moodlet you know that you're dead and there is no point in continuing playing. However, someone getting bit, slowly getting worse despite all first aid attempts and finally turning into a zombie to attack their friends is a *very* important theme in most modern zombie stories. One important difference between zombie movies and PZ is that in the movie nobody know that their friend is doomed, so it always comes as a surprise when the person turns. Another things is that in PZ you can just start a new character, while in a movie/real life you have all the motivation to never give up hope (and you might even try to conceal the bite if you're afraid the group might abandon you).

 

I want zombification to stay, not only for the difficulty but also for the zombie theme of the game. But with that said, I think it could be made more fun in one of two different ways:

 

First alternative is to make it so that you never know for sure that you'e going to die. One option here is to add a "miraculous recovery", by introducing for example 20% chance to survive despite getting to the anxious stage, and something like 10% chance after you reach the queasy state. The numbers would have to be large enough for the player to think it's worth continuing but small enough to keep bites/zombification feeling like a real threat. Another option could be to reduce the risk of initial infection and add more sources of anxiety and queasiness, so that the player doesn't know if the moodlet means that they're going to die or if it's caused by something else. The recent change that you get queasy from hanging around corpses is good in this regard, but we also need something to obfuscate the anxious moodlet. I think it would be fairly realistic if all wounds inflicted by zombies generate some level of anxiety for example. I mean wouldn't you feel a bit uneasy if a walking corpse bit you, regardless of infection stage? :)

 

The second alternative is to give players a reason to continue playing even though they know they're not going to survive. I think this would be easier if it was some sort of objective based game, so you would give your friends a better chance of success by staying around, but might be difficult to get into PZ. Even in multiplayer there's no real advantage to keep playing instead of instantly rolling a new character at the moment, but maybe something could be worked into the game when we get NPCs.

 

The first alternative would be much easier to implement, but I think it chooses gameplay over zombie lore which some might not like

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes I play without infection on because the games plays a bit differently then, and medical skills actually count for something. I oddly enjoy using the medical system, so it sucks it plays such a small role in the vanilla experience.

 

I imagine it'll be more important with NPCs, at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, sprkng said:

Maybe you're referring to me, because it's kind of similar something I wrote and I like talking about game design and zombies. Basically the core of my argument was "as long as any encounter with a zombie is potentially fatal if I make a mistake, the game will stay interesting at all times". If any mechanic allows you to kill zombies with no risk (assuming you don't do anything really stupid of course) the game becomes very dull IMO. But let's not go into that discussion again, and we just assume that with the mechanics you mentioned, fighting a single zombie is appropriately dangerous even without zombification.

 

I agree with you that zombification is a boring mechanic right now in PZ. I think infection rate is 97% from bites, but still, once you see the anxious moodlet you know that you're dead and there is no point in continuing playing. However, someone getting bit, slowly getting worse despite all first aid attempts and finally turning into a zombie to attack their friends is a *very* important theme in most modern zombie stories. One important difference between zombie movies and PZ is that in the movie nobody know that their friend is doomed, so it always comes as a surprise when the person turns. Another things is that in PZ you can just start a new character, while in a movie/real life you have all the motivation to never give up hope (and you might even try to conceal the bite if you're afraid the group might abandon you).

 

I want zombification to stay, not only for the difficulty but also for the zombie theme of the game. But with that said, I think it could be made more fun in one of two different ways:

 

First alternative is to make it so that you never know for sure that you'e going to die. One option here is to add a "miraculous recovery", by introducing for example 20% chance to survive despite getting to the anxious stage, and something like 10% chance after you reach the queasy state. The numbers would have to be large enough for the player to think it's worth continuing but small enough to keep bites/zombification feeling like a real threat. Another option could be to reduce the risk of initial infection and add more sources of anxiety and queasiness, so that the player doesn't know if the moodlet means that they're going to die or if it's caused by something else. The recent change that you get queasy from hanging around corpses is good in this regard, but we also need something to obfuscate the anxious moodlet. I think it would be fairly realistic if all wounds inflicted by zombies generate some level of anxiety for example. I mean wouldn't you feel a bit uneasy if a walking corpse bit you, regardless of infection stage? :)

 

The second alternative is to give players a reason to continue playing even though they know they're not going to survive. I think this would be easier if it was some sort of objective based game, so you would give your friends a better chance of success by staying around, but might be difficult to get into PZ. Even in multiplayer there's no real advantage to keep playing instead of instantly rolling a new character at the moment, but maybe something could be worked into the game when we get NPCs.

 

The first alternative would be much easier to implement, but I think it chooses gameplay over zombie lore which some might not like

I feel like it would be cool for players to be able to recover from zombieism/make it function more like a permanent debuff. Sure, infection won't kill you, but it can throw you off track and make you more prone to wake up with nightmares. Imagine a sanity mechanic making it into the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ZAMNPlayerD said:

I feel like it would be cool for players to be able to recover from zombieism/make it function more like a permanent debuff. Sure, infection won't kill you, but it can throw you off track and make you more prone to wake up with nightmares. Imagine a sanity mechanic making it into the game.

Given that the bug enabling the temporary survival of a bite was removed, it’s unlikely to happen. Likewise the founders have a specific list of symptoms in mind for the virus, so having it be mysterious is out.

 

But really, the only people that know this either burned through a ton of characters or read it on the forum. I’d rather the possibility to survive temporarily, to not always be infected, and randomize symptoms, but lore is lore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, EnigmaGrey said:

Given that the big enabling the temporary survival of a bite was removed, it’s unlikely to happen. Likewise the founders have a specific list of symptoms in mind for the virus, so having it be mysterious is out.

 

But really, the only people that know this either burned through a ton of characters or read it on the forum. I’d rather the possibility to survive temporarily, to not always be infected, and randomize symptoms, but lore is lore.

That's fair. The Zombie Survival Guide can make you wonder how anyone would survive with the fact that the virus is 100% infectious, and 100% fatal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, EnigmaGrey said:

Given that the big enabling the temporary survival of a bite was removed, it’s unlikely to happen. Likewise the founders have a specific list of symptoms in mind for the virus, so having it be mysterious is out.

 

But really, the only people that know this either burned through a ton of characters or read it on the forum. I’d rather the possibility to survive temporarily, to not always be infected, and randomize symptoms, but lore is lore.

Do we know for sure that a zombie virus even exists in the PZ world? I get that the virus thing is very popular in modern zombie stories, probably because it offers a more realistic explanation than the existence of magic, but I don't think it is something we should take for granted.

 

There's a pinned post claiming that the devs have stated they have Romero and Brooks as lore inspiration, and AFAIK there is no zombie virus in any of Romero's works. Or to clarify, I think the cause for zombification is unspecified in Romero movies, and a virus is one of many equally probable (within the movie universe) possible explanations.

 

The zombie wiki has the following to say about Romero zombies:

Quote

 Being bitten by a zombie is not a prerequisite for returning to life, as any deceased human, regardless of exposure to a zombie, will return

(though this was changed in the remakes)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd definitely like for the "queasy = quit" meta to go away.

 

I think every scratch, laceration, and bite should have a certain % to make you sick (so queasy and the other moodles), but even though you were unlucky and got sick, it doesn't mean that it's the virus, as there would be another roll for the virus. This way you wouldn't automatically quit when queasy.

 

So, to put it in a real scenario:

 

1. You get scratched/lacerated/bitten.

2. Roll for normal sickness.

3. If you don't get sick, you're okay.

3a. If you get sick, roll for zombie virus.

4. You get sick, but not the virus, so you treat your sickness, and after a few days you're okay.

4a. You get sick, you get the virus, and you turn into a zombie.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sprkng said:

Do we know for sure that a zombie virus even exists in the PZ world? I get that the virus thing is very popular in modern zombie stories, probably because it offers a more realistic explanation than the existence of magic, but I don't think it is something we should take for granted.

 

There's a pinned post claiming that the devs have stated they have Romero and Brooks as lore inspiration, and AFAIK there is no zombie virus in any of Romero's works. Or to clarify, I think the cause for zombification is unspecified in Romero movies, and a virus is one of many equally probable (within the movie universe) possible explanations.

 

The zombie wiki has the following to say about Romero zombies:

(though this was changed in the remakes)

it’s a virus for Project Zomboid, as I said.
 

Source: I’ve worked here for 7 of the 9 years I’ve been here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always really enjoyed the fact that a bite is death; it was one of the concepts that originally drew me to Project Zomboid.  Most games use zombies as a prop or, at best, a meatwall for you to grind through on your way to the next Mutant Infected or Psycho boss fight.  Not Zomboid!  See that lonely looking Z banging her head against the glass in a desperate attempt to take a chunk out of you? Yeah, she can mess up your whooooole setup in one chomp.  I like that tension.

 

That being said, I think it's pretty awesome that the devs respect their playerbase so much they let us turn their OWN LORE OFF for the sake of our personal vision of the Z-pocalypse.  Way to go, Indiestone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Mumbler said:

I have always really enjoyed the fact that a bite is death; it was one of the concepts that originally drew me to Project Zomboid.  Most games use zombies as a prop or, at best, a meatwall for you to grind through on your way to the next Mutant Infected or Psycho boss fight.  Not Zomboid!  See that lonely looking Z banging her head against the glass in a desperate attempt to take a chunk out of you? Yeah, she can mess up your whooooole setup in one chomp.  I like that tension.

 

That being said, I think it's pretty awesome that the devs respect their playerbase so much they let us turn their OWN LORE OFF for the sake of our personal vision of the Z-pocalypse.  Way to go, Indiestone!

Good point.  It's one of the great things about PZ.  So much of the game is adjustable through settings and mods.  I agree that PZ is strangely unique in that the bite is considered near-instant death.  I personally have no issue with it as this aspect has always seemed to be a central part of the lore.  

In DayZ the rationale is that the survivors are immune to the virus and I think that works fine in the context of the setting and experience.  To people who are really into zombies and the idea of simulating a zombie outbreak, this approach may be seen as a cop-out or shortcoming.  PZ really allows the user to experience that tension that you speak of.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Mumbler said:

I have always really enjoyed the fact that a bite is death; it was one of the concepts that originally drew me to Project Zomboid.  Most games use zombies as a prop or, at best, a meatwall for you to grind through on your way to the next Mutant Infected or Psycho boss fight.  Not Zomboid!  See that lonely looking Z banging her head against the glass in a desperate attempt to take a chunk out of you? Yeah, she can mess up your whooooole setup in one chomp.  I like that tension.

 

That being said, I think it's pretty awesome that the devs respect their playerbase so much they let us turn their OWN LORE OFF for the sake of our personal vision of the Z-pocalypse.  Way to go, Indiestone!

Yeah, a lot games with zombies seem to feel obliged to throw in their own flavors of special infected (Killing Floor 2, Plants VS Zombies, Fortnite Save The World) or other monsters (Zombies Ate My Neighbors, Resident Evil) because the "baseline" zombies are just too easy.

 

I do like how bleedout and having to worry about first aid will make the game feel more tense with or without infection. But like you said, Sandbox is the biggest selling point for this game, because there are so many variables to customize your own hardcore survival experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, ZAMNPlayerD said:

Yeah, a lot games with zombies seem to feel obliged to throw in their own flavors of special infected (Killing Floor 2, Plants VS Zombies, Fortnite Save The World) or other monsters (Zombies Ate My Neighbors, Resident Evil) because the "baseline" zombies are just too easy.

In addition, the zombies don't fill any particular purpose in those games, they're just generic enemies that need to be defeated. And I think a game about defeating enemies would easily get very repetitive with only one type of enemy, especially if they're always mindlessly charging towards the player. You could replace the zombies in most other games with aliens or demons and they would fundamentally be the same, except the slightly different visual style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...