Forums

I am not speaking for The Indie Stone, nor advertising for other platforms. They are referenced only for topic clarity, and this is 100% my view on why kids are hardly ever used in full releases. Games like Project Zomboid avoid kid zombies for a pretty simple reason: the second you let players harm something that looks like a child, the entire tone of the game changes and you walk straight into a controversy that most studios don’t want to deal with. It doesn’t matter that it’s a zombie, or that it’s fictional, or that the game is already violent. People react very differently when the violence involves anything resembling a child. Ratings boards like ESRB and PEGI treat violence against minors as a huge red flag. Including child enemies can push a game into a rating that hurts sales or makes it harder to get on certain platforms. Steam, Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo all have their own internal rules, and anything involving harm to kids gets extra scrutiny. For a small studio like The Indie Stone, that’s a headache they don’t need. Whenever a game does include child zombies, it usually becomes a talking point whether the developers wanted it or not. Dead Space 2 had those child‑sized necromorphs and caught a lot of criticism for it. Dying Light originally had child zombies in development but removed them before release because they didn’t want the backlash. Even The Last of Us, which is already a dark game, avoids letting the player directly fight infected children. Fallout technically has child ghouls, but they’re non‑hostile and can’t be harmed for the same reason. So for a grounded survival game like Project Zomboid, adding kid zombies wouldn’t just be a visual change. It would shift the entire tone of the game and open the door to a level of controversy that most developers would rather avoid. It’s not about realism. It’s about the line between “violent game” and “game that lets you kill children,” and that’s a line most studios don’t want to cross.

When you look at zombies from a lore standpoint, most of the human “damage zones” don’t really matter. A zombie isn’t alive in any biological sense. It doesn’t have circulation, it doesn’t rely on organs, it doesn’t need oxygen, and it doesn’t go into shock. All the stuff that kills a living person simply doesn’t apply. You can stab a zombie in the stomach a hundred times and it won’t make any difference because nothing in there is doing anything anymore. A living person dies from blood loss, organ failure, infection, or pain shock. A zombie doesn’t bleed out, doesn’t get infections, and doesn’t feel pain. The stomach, intestines, liver, kidneys, all of that is basically dead weight. Destroying those parts doesn’t shorten the zombie’s “life” because it doesn’t have one. It’s just a body being driven by whatever part of the brain is still firing. The only areas that actually matter are the ones that affect movement or the brain itself. If you destroy the brain, the zombie stops. If you break the spine, it collapses. Break the legs and it crawls. Break the arms and it can’t grab. Smash the jaw and it can’t bite. Those are the only zones that realistically change anything. That’s why a damage‑zone system based on human anatomy doesn’t really fit zombies. Most of the body simply wouldn’t matter. The torso is basically a meat container at that point. The only meaningful “zones” would be the head, the spine, and the major bones and joints that let the zombie move around. Everything else is just cosmetic damage.

The last thing I want for a comfy run is to take my shoes off and play a game that puts a heartbeat sound every other minute for the simple reason I got inside a room or outside it, specially in a zombie apocalypse game where everything is so dynamic.   Sure, if I don't like the trait, I could simply not pick it. But in its current state I doubt anyone can use it without the mod to remove the panic sound.

Simple yet effective; I fully support this.

I'm not sure i understand you perspective @dgh, could you explain how you imagine everything and the firearm selection without describing it as "going hog wild" with adding guns? I partly understood your perspective with the lever actions adding all calibers, as well as the overall "better" gun thing. "If they just have a single lever-action rifle chambered in 30-30, this does create a problem when using a realistic rate of firearms loot.  But what if you can find a less common rifle chambered in 45-70?  More powerful but less plentiful."   That is what i struggle to understand a bit. Because there could be so many "better" guns whether range, damage or both etc. So i want help to understand your perspective if you imagine a smaller selection but wide caliber availability, or wide selection (and how wide) for guns and calibers etc.   Personally, i see the game like it could go with the "1 gun 1 caliber" concept only because that seems to be mostly what we have right now. That's not entirely true but i have that feeling like that is the case. And although the US is the easiest country to get a firearm in, i never looked into the counties and how easy/difficult it is to get one there, what are the regulations like California has for example.   With that said, i don't think that adding a great vast firearm arsenal would be good either. It could prove too difficult for a casual player to understand what all and any of what they are, what's the difference between stats etc. My vision for the firearms isn't for players to loot a gun, see it has better stats and replace it. No, my intention here is to describe a "the right tool for the right job" concept. Where the guns aren't determined by their stats but what their use case scenario is best fitted for your gameplay and intentions with it.   This in my opinion would strike that middle ground of adding more than enough guns to suit all and any needs, while not being overwhelmingly cluttery with just sheer amount of all the various guns and you cant even tell the difference between them, especially not if you don't check their stats.   This concept could allow guns to also gain reputations by players like I've stated "The m16 or m4, the all rounder. Mp5, the compact. Glock, the light weight. P226, the reliable. M249, the herd thinner." Instead of having a lever action and just better lever action with no clear distinction as to what makes it better. (note: i misunderstood your quote that i mentioned but i wrote too much to redo it all, i thought you meant that a lever gun would be in the same caliber but just "better"  don't ask how i did that...)   As for "Since the developers have signaled their intent to use fictional brands/models, it would probably be easier to just provide a couple of rare, fictional bullpups without directly referencing an AUG, FAMAS, etc." While that is cool, it does kind of diminish the whole US vibe for me personally. At that point add a lightsaber. (UNLESS they do that to cars and whatnot also to balance it out. would be kind of weird to have all cars based on something real and guns are all fictional) Im worried the devs could exaggerate thing's like that and instead of adding a gun that makes sense they come up with stuff like the Trapper (no idea if that's a real gun or one of their own fictional ones, but its nice to see them work on a PCC concept even if its not what i expected.)   But okay, okay. Enough talking and let me provide some context. While i don't outright disagree with you, since you seem more informed and educated in the matter to provide better historical details, suggestions for guns that would suit the game etc.   I say that for now, for the time being adding more "crucial" guns are what need to happen. So like i said with the "The m16 or m4, the all rounder. Mp5, the compact. Glock, the light weight. P226, the reliable. M249, the herd thinner." Not being the full limitation for the rest of the game but to sort of be the baseline for what else could be worked on. Like if we use the M249 example, you could have a another gun with a stronger kick being the M60 but that's not the priority to add variety at the moment to the category of LMG's but category overall. Imagine it like on a detectives drawing board with pins and lines, you have "one gun for each caliber - one gun for each category of firearms - finally expansion on both ends." But the topic of the matter is only time, and when that expansion would come not to outright dismiss it. But the first two points are the priority to just have something already as the base to further work on. Because i sure wouldn't mind running with either the m249 or the m60 now in game because we have at least one thing of something, rather than wait months just to get 2 guns that do the same job at different paces where it more becomes personal preference.   I'm sorry if i am cryptic in my explanations sometimes or going in circles. When i do that or haven't provided good information please call me out on it so i can correct myself and help you understand!