303: How Games Get Zombies Wrong

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

How Games Get Zombies Wrong

Oh, dear, game industry ... you seem to have failed your Zombie Aptitude Test. Let's review where you went wrong.

Read Full Article

Ok, one or two decent points, but buried in far too much annoying filler to pad it out to 3 pages.

I strongly disagree that a zombie game "has" to be about this or that. There are elements common to zombie fiction, yes, but the genre is drowning in by the numbers regurgitations of them. Zombies are only interesting, IMHO, if you have an interesting twist, and I think that's the main problem.

I like the idea of zombies not being a problem as such, they are just there to make the other problems worse. Scrabbling round for resources while having to avoid zombies, for example. Also, way back when in the 1st doctor era story "Dalek invasion of Earth", the zombie-like robomen were moderately threatening, but if you killed one, the daleks would know and send reinforcements, possibly in the form of daleks themselves, and you'd be screwed.[1]

[1] Also, the robomen were made like that by alien technology...perpetual motion machine creatures that come back to life due to a virus and fucntion until you shoot them in the head are too ludicruous to be threatening

Does Dead Rising count as a game that shows other humans as the real threat?

Good Article.

And regarding L4D, that game did had a great atmosphere partially because everything was in the dark and the survivors really sounded like they were frighten and disgusted by the creatures that were hunting them. That's mainly the reason why I prefer the original. I mean, 4 people having fun shooting zombies in broad day light? It's the fucking apocalypse not some day off work.

Orloran:
Good Article.

And regarding L4D, that game did had a great atmosphere partially because everything was in the dark and the survivors really sounded like they were frighten and disgusted by the creatures that were hunting them. That's mainly the reason why I prefer the original. I mean, 4 people having fun shooting zombies in broad day light? It's the fucking apocalypse not some day off work.

Haven't you ever had a zombie day where you work? What a shame.

OT: there are some valid points in this article, but it's not true that death is the only way out. In Resident Evil Raccoon City was infected to due some accidents at the lab. The t-virus gt out and it spread from there infecting the whole city with time. They survived by escaping the city, and the city was then bombed. All those infected with the t-virus and g-virus were killed,
In Resident Evil 4 there was a completely different view way of infecting that required someone to actually infect it with a syringe each time.
There should be some games where you were to seek shelter and supplies and see how long you can survive though, it would make for an interesting game. Have features like looting from other humans for weapons, ammo and food. The only bad thing is that if it was meant to be realistic it should take days where you need to get rest and things like that. So I think it would be a bit hard to pull off, both because it would be hard, and a lot would get bored when they would die with time anyway.

Not seen the new trend in Zombies that started around the newer dead flicks have you? These days Zombies are anything but slow.

A note on "negative reinforcement":

You don't want to reinforce them. And you're certainly not doing it negatively. "Reinforce" means you are attempting to get them to continue that behavior. And what you're doing isn't "negative", it is "positive": you are applying something (instead of taking something away), in this case electricity to the brain.

What you're really doing is positive punishment. Punishment because you are trying to decrease the unwanted behavior. Positive because you are adding something to their experience (electricity to the brain). Let's whip out the grid so you get a full understanding of the ideas:

.decreases likelihood of behaviorincreases likelihood of behavior
presentedpositive punishmentpositive reinforcement
taken awaynegative punishmentnegative reinforcement

Any time you are attempting to decrease the likelihood of a behavior (such as make bad zombie games), what you're doing is punishment. Punishment takes two forms: positive (the addition of something undesirable; electroshock) and negative (removal of something desirable; money, i.e., a fine).

If you are trying to increase the likelihood of behavior, what you're doing is reinforcing a behavior. Reinforcement also takes two forms: positive (the addition of something desirable; have a candy bar) and negative (the removal of something undesirable; let's turn off that high-pitched whine).

/psychologist rant

I think the problem here is that you (the article writer) are missing some rather important points.

A lot of Zombie movies are designed as art pieces with zombies being a metaphor for something like consumerism. A point admitted by the people creating the movies. As such, common sense and a realistic reaction to the threat does not apply.

What's more being MOVIES the director has the option of things like scene transitions as a storytelling device. He doesn't have to worry about creating a constant play enviroment, and actually exploring the threat. He can find ways of moving from one relevent scene to another as well, or gloss over events like how certain people can remain totally oblivious to what should be the painfully obvious.

Then of course there is the issue of the player, you'll notice that among genere fans and nerds nobody's hypothetical "zombie survival plan" involves "hey, I think I'll go find the most obnoxious people possible, and then isolate myself with them".

The point being that in the terms of a video game, you both have differant tools and expectations, differant storytelling requirements, and of course an audience of nerds who are engaged in a sort of warped wish fulfillment fantasy.

The thing to understand is that "shoot zombies with guns" is a perfectly rational solution, and it's what real people would actually do. Most people not being the morons used to make an artistic point in a film. What's more, even those films tend to show that the characters being focused on *ARE* a group of idiots. You see scenes on the news or whatever of people engaged in more rational responses wiping zombies out, the Sheriff on TV talking about "twitchers" in day of the dead, or the posse that is involved at the end of "Night Of The Living Dead".

What's more it's also important to note that reasonable people are also going to note that zombies are by their nature finite. They are not going to be an inexorable tide of nature. in the overall scheme of things. Humans reproduce sexually, zombies rely on infectiong people. Assuming people can avoid getting infected once they know the threat, every zombie they take down is one that is permanantly gone. What's more there are finite numbers of people in any given area. In say a town of 2,000 people that seems like quite the horde, but four dudes with guns could actually clear that out pretty quickly given the capabilities of zombies, assuming they had enough ammo.

The bottom line here is that your pretty much argueing for a complete lack of common sense, and also not considering the differances between movie storytelling, and game storytelling, as well as the audience. Not to mention actually playing the game. Watching a bunch of morons get what's coming to them in a movie can be darkly entertaining, a lot of horror movies, especially Zombie movies, being morality plays of a sort. The thing is though that in a video game people need to interact with the enviroment, and simply walking around talking to obnoxious people isn't really going to be more than a bad interactive movie to begin with, and really that's what 99% of a game trying to recapture the feel of a zombie movie would actually do, and it would kin dof suck because people would figure "why am I playing this game, I could be watching a zombie movie for a lot less money, and have it done better!".

Now, to be honest there is one bit that works for video games to some extent, and that is if you isolate the protaganist. A scenario with a character stuck out in a cabin in the woods that limits resources and such works better for this kind of genere, because at least as far as that character is concerned resources are very limited, and what solutions might apply to people elsewhere do not nessicarly apply to him or her. Removing the factors one can use to make a movie interesting, things with people being in urban areas, shopping malls, and similar things where common sense dictates there are TONS of resources that can be used to radically alter the situation with a minimum of ingenuity, can create a degree of tension, but then again it can also be argued this doesn't fulfill the zombie survival vision of the person who is likely to buy a game like this.

Overall the upcoming "Dead Island" game seems to be a good compromise on the idea, because it is an action game by all accounts, but it used the isolation idea by putting the character(s) on a resort island. Resort islands by their nature not having actual weapons lying around, and of course if sa 99% of the people get turned by surprise, that remaining 1% is in trouble no matter what they do. The option of "well, I'll load up on guns and start thinning them out" doesn't apply even if the numbers of zombies are fairly limited. It's not like you can go salvage the local hunting shop, or a department store gun counter. Even if you personally collect guns or have a sidearm, chances are you weren't allowed to bring that on your vacation, the guys on the cruise ship/plane won't let you carry it, nor would the people on the island.

Might I add that in the Left 4 Dead universe, there are no zombies - only infected.

I liked the article, but I think you should have pushed the survival part a bit. One thing I have not seen (granted I am a little under experienced with the genre) is a game that allows you to experience the zombie apocalypse. I don't mean in an artistic or metaphorical sense I mean watch the fabric of society unwind around you. Come home and listen to the news about outbreaks in I don't know New York and watch wild speculation erupt as to whether this is the apocalypse. I would love to go into the streets of a game and see a crazy man with a sign saying he warned me, not scribbled on the wall somewhere. I would love a game that you can't win, but the goal is to survive by gathering supplies and allies and moving to a safe place. Sort of like an Oregon trail where dysentery is a zombie pulling out your guts.

EDIT: Sorry, double post.

I'll still take my "shoot-zombies-with-guns" over cowering in fear and pondering about the human condition, thank you very much.

Zombie Plan.

1. Watch News.
2. Go to Middle of Australia (On the Nullabor) (Can see an oncoming Hoard from one hundred kilometers a way).
3. Watch Zombies blow up from excessive heat.
4. Stay for a year with some chickens/cows/water from the underground springs.
5. Gleefully return victorious, as the zombies have either.

1. Starved.
2. Been torn to parts by insects.
3. Froze.
4. Exploded from excessive heat.
5. Stumbled off Cliffs.

Just go read the article of Cracked.com

http://www.cracked.com/article_18683_7-scientific-reasons-zombie-outbreak-would-fail-quickly.html

THANK GOD someone wrote this. While shooting zombies with guns is fun - why else do we do it, I can't wait for the game that is based on surviving and staying away from the zombies and most importantly - other humans.

Zombies are fictional creatures used as a plot device. From the original night of the living dead, to shawn of the dead, zombies only exist as an unusual circumstance for character interaction. In games that interaction is usually combat. Solving the world's problems by shooting zombies is a fun excuse to shoot something. If you want a psudo-realistic zombi game, go play rebuild on Kongregate.

http://www.kongregate.com/games/sarahnorthway/rebuild?acomplete=rebuild

I guess Prototype is sort of ahead of the curve here, huh?

This is why i liked Red Dead Redemptions take on the zombie apocalypse. It was a game that already had characterisation, so when the zombies start knockin' on your door and munch on your wife, THAT's your motivation for playing, you're trying to find a cure.
Plus:

I believe that the in-development game Project Zomboid (http://www.projectzomboid.com/) will be more to the author's tastes.

So...Shoot humans with guns, take their stuff, then run from zombies?

It certainly would be nice to play a zombie game that focused on the human dimension. But that stuff takes a lot of effort to compose and sell to a publisher. We can dream about the ideal zombie game, but the chance of that coming to life is about the same as the zombies themselves.

Let me think...

Resident Evil? Zombies weren't the true threat, Umbrella was, whether it was Barry and Wesker, A scientist gone mad, or a Bio-weapon sent to eliminate you, zombies were there not as a true threat, but a way to force you to engage intelligently with ammunition, because you knew there were things much deadlier than them you'd need it for. Also, the 2nd game, and RE 4 both had you dealing with the threat of infection, as your character or someone close to them required you at some point to search out a cure.
And as much as I hate to remember the horrible pile of turd that was Outbreak, I also believe it allowed human characters (you) to become infected and turn into a zombie, to hunt out the others.

Dead Rising? Brought up already but again, Zombies were there to fill out space, with the true threats being the "Psychopaths" and various aggressive human characters. My friend never hated the zombies, but he did hate the convicts driving about in a jeep with a gun-mount.

Games haven't gotten zombies wrong, just like movies have. It's all about perspective. Pinball was never meant to be won, which is why it originated and still mainly is a physical, not digital game. It's also meant to eat up money by forcing you to just last, instead of win. That isn't a video game.

edit:
Minecraft also has zombies. Sure its not quite the mindless horde, but the most you can do in that game is survive, there is no "beating' it.

Interesting article. Zombies in films, for me, have been a way to keep the drama confined to a certain area. Trapping the people and thus let the antagonism increase because no one can leave. Exchange the zombies to lions and you would get the same story. It is about the characters and not the zombies....all the gore is fun as well. Games? They are a whole different matter. You cant base complex stories within a zombie game, the player has to be in control and thus should be kicking zombie butt. Your more hands on in a game. Me, i always wanted a game where your main goal was to survive. You fight them off but there is a lot of stuff in it like nailing windows and barricading door ways and exploring shops or house for ways to protect yourself. You are not an invincible killing machine, but a normal man or woman trapped in a nightmare situation. They need to make zombies scary instead of just another kill on your counter. But this wont work as a game unless you make one bite a death sentence, then it would be realistic but alot would find it unplayable.

Chuck Wendig:
You cannot win against the zombie menace. In the end, the horde always triumphs. This is true of most zombie-related fiction. In fact, the zombie sub-genre is probably one of the most nihilistic on record; most zombie books, comics, films, and shows end up with most or all survivors turned into zombie chow.

You might be saying, "Yes, but that would make for a terrible game, a game in which nobody can ever win." (At least, you might be saying that if we didn't just shock you into a state of permanent aphasia.)

We'd say you have a good point except for one word:

Pinball.

That's right. Pinball. Pinball is a game you can never win. Like life, it has no end beyond the one where you finally lose your last ball and the game tells you how many points you've acquired. Pinball is the ultimate game representation of the zombie survival horror genre. It's about seeing how far you can get before the grim inevitability is realized.

To your point about Zombie games being too winnable, I offer COD Nazi Zombies in Kino Der Toten

While it is a bit different than other Zombie games, in that the zombies get stronger and stronger as the levels progress until all but the very strongest guns do little more than tickle them, and then there is the issue of ammo.

Kino der toten (and most nazi zombie maps) is NOT about going out and shooting zombies, it is about strategically finding a way to survive as long as you can (key words being as long as) because you cant survive for ever. People who merely run out and start killing zombies are quickly cut off and killed, and usually as a result kill their entire team as the horde that just over run them cuts off other team members.

The game quickly becomes about rationing your ammo, being able to navigate the zombie horde and know when to shoot/run/throw a trap/revive a downed team mate and most importantly, how to co-operate with your team members so the horde does not cut you off.

Nazi zombies is basically about how long you can go without slipping up and making one tiny error, because that tiny error costs you the game.

I don't know how many games I've seen going smoothly and then a fire sale spawns and the whole team is dead within minutes because the strategy fell apart when the selfish temptation of $10 weapons arose.

For me Nazi zombies is the perfect non Zombie Apocalypse Zombie game.

Great article! really spot on... i specifically enjoyed the caveat at the end though, L4D I&II really caught me on exactly the points in the article. I guess playing with the AI makes for a more Zombie-horror-esque experience, since its so friggin hard to actually survive O.o

edit: reading over some other comments, @Yopaz - i think you miss the point here... as far as i can tell the author was talking about the treatment of the Zombie apocalypse as a theme, or lack there of, in video games as opposed to other art forms. The technical details of whether survivors "make it", or the nature of the Zombie plague is irrelevant to conveying of the real central fear-inducing agent (i.e. "subverted nature")

Confirmed22:
Zombies are fictional creatures used as a plot device. From the original night of the living dead, to shawn of the dead, zombies only exist as an unusual circumstance for character interaction. In games that interaction is usually combat. Solving the world's problems by shooting zombies is a fun excuse to shoot something. If you want a psudo-realistic zombi game, go play rebuild on Kongregate.

http://www.kongregate.com/games/sarahnorthway/rebuild?acomplete=rebuild

This, i totally was thinking on this game while i read the note, pretty good too. It does have a supernatural reason for the zombies and also a cure for it, but it's a great game.

I prefer playing as zombie. Resolves a lot of issues mentioned here. Also, speaking of last issue of always losing - you always win in the end.

I still don't understand where the idea came from that zombie is like a spreading disease.

Zombies used to be a dead (or sometimes even living) creature (most often human) being controled by a bokor. (read vodun/voodoo priest(ess))
That is their mythological origin, but somewhere along the line, somebody took the trademark quality of the vampire or werewolf to transform it's victims into a creature like itself and applied it to the zombie, and now we have 8 gajillion games/movies/comics/manga/anime/novels/tvshows about this whole viral zombie thing, and I've gotten sick of it.

I am now inclined to automatically enjoy any media more if it presents zombies in a non-viral manner, no matter how bad it might be, it will compare favourable to ANOTHER BLOODY ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE SCENARIO!

It's a good zombi game. I have only won on harder mode once.

I wasn't too keen on the test-taking jokes in between the point the article was making, but the rest of the article did give me something to think about.

I definitely agree that zombie games should do more to emphasize the human threat alongside the zombie one. In just observing everyday automobile traffic, I can tell human beings would be their own worst obstacle to zombocalypse survival. So many split second moments of selfishness in just a day to day commute from Point A to Point B, I dare say if a Zombie lumbered onto the road there'd be a minimum twelve car pileup soon after.

I don't agree that you can't survive the zombie apocalypse, though. To me, it really depends on A) the individual trying to survive, B) what type of zombies they're facing, and C) the environment available to them. If we're talking the popular Super Zombies that run, leap, learn to use tools and potentially grow to massive hulks of destructive meat, then yeah. Everyone would lose eventually against those odds. But I believe normal, rotting zombies can eventually be dealt with, especially as Mother Nature's seasons roll over and over. Zombies in general don't think much of protecting themselves from everyday obstacles and injuries, so it would just be a matter of time before they're all rolling heads that you just have to punt to keep out of your way.

I dunno if I should suggest another zombie game. There's so many already. But, I would be interested in seeing one that takes place in a house that's already boarded up/fortified against zombies with you acting as a leader of a small group of survivors. Everyday you'd have to make sure the house was still standing up to the occasional zombie hordes, make sure everyone in the group was doing their jobs, and potentially go out to fetch supplies/help random people if you so choose. And along with the random zombie attacks, every once in a while you might be alerted to a stranger nearby trying to escape zombies, and be given an opportunity to get them into the house to add to your numbers. Different people would have different personalities/abilities, and that would add to that threat that Drinky McDrinkerton would leave a door or window open to zombie entry. And if someone gets bitten, trying to deal with them would be another aspect of gameplay. This would be one of those games that could be like Pinball, where things just get harder and harder until they're impossible, but I would try to sneak a winner's ending into it and I have several thoughtful options for that.

Hmm. Zombie infection could be implemented in games in a number of interesting fashions.

To do it simply, take a standard FPS with zombies in it, and have the player character not be alone. They have a group of friends/family or a military squad with them, and will run into other people along the game. The catch? If these people die, they come back. Your friends and allies are now trying to eat you. Have them make an effort to hide scratches and bites. Have some of them commit suicide to avoid turning, allow friendly fire so the player can kill off those whom they believe to be infected. Make sure the party react to this, and will slowly start to abandon the player and/or distrust them if they kill more than one healthy human. Make enough tasks so the player will really struggle if they try to go it alone.

Take the above, and make it co-op. If a player dies, they watch in horror as their body reanimates and attacks the group they were once part of, with no control over their actions (then become another party member, I guess). If they get bitten? A steady decrease in movement, accuracy, and reaction time. Something to get across the idea that they're turning; becoming one of the undead. They can tell their partners. Or they can keep it secret. Up to them.

Option 3: Get... 16 players or so together. Survival mode, with the above rules. If you die, you're out. Leave the lobby. But not until you've seen what once was your body blown to itty-bitty chunks by the remaining survivors. A reasonable size sandbox will be needed, too. Players can band together as a team, go it alone, even deliberately get bitten and wait with the group until they turn if they wish.

Have every player create an avatar for their human character. After a few games, start incorporating these avatars into the zombie horde. Nothing will freak people out more than having a familiar face bite chunks out of them.

Of course, some of this probably goes too far for any company to actually risk making, but it'd be an interesting experiment

And that's without even touching upon the aspect of human danger in the face of zombie-ism. Well, much.

boring, zombies are boring, your thoughts on zombies are boring, everything that can be said about zombies has been repeat a million times over the past 3 years. I mean you basically took the zombie survival guide, condensed it down to 3 pages, and sprinkled in the word video-game. Boring. Oh and you gave some random game industry straw-man electro-shock. Amazingly pointless.

Seriously what are you expecting out of Call of Duty hidden zombie levels? You shoot them with guns, duh, but still they get a lot of zombie right. It is wave after wave of zombies and you will never win, only survive to the next wave.

Then you have Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare, they get zombie right. They are everywhere, yeah you can shoot them in the head, but I find it even more satisfying to club them in the head with the torch.

You know...now I am starting to wonder which games you are having the problem with. Plants v. Zombies? That is just a fun flash game, you shouldn't be expecting too much from it. Minecraft? That is barely a game, and the cows hop, so the zombies are doing the best they can.

Great article, and, despite not being a fan of the somewhat gimmicky presentation (IMO while the idea of a "failed test" was quite nice, the faux real-time narration of punishments was unnecessary and just served to distract more than entice), the content is spot on.

If you excise the contextual elements then zombies, as isolated elements, are rather boring... Might as hell have generic thugs for all it matters. This is something some movie and TV directors started to realized, my personal favorite right now being The Walking Dead, but something that seems to elude most game designers. Closest I feel we've gotten to it is the Left4Dead series, that manages to evoke the feeling of extreme isolation and wasteland world. Even then there's still work to be done.

I have some hopes for Dead Island given it's absolute masterpiece of a trailer emphasizing, for once, the human drama and desperation of a zombie outbreak more so than the actual zombies. That said, the developers have made some statements since that left me wondering whether the trailer was more of a fluke, or at the very least Jarhead-syndrome, than an actual representation of good things to come.

Then again, to be completely honest, this is a problem with the horror genre in the games industry in general isn't it? The game (and movie) industry seems to continuously confuse terror and fear with gore and shock. Startling someone, or making them feel sick, is easy. Truly terrifying them requires something else entirely.

Azuaron:
snip

I'll admit I haven't kept up with the most recent behaviorist developments, but I think he might be referencing to the most commonly known, and probably older, behavior modification theories. Those that I remember only distinguish positive and negative reinforcement, and no reinforcement.

Positive reinforcement would be the administration of any stimulus seen as positive by the target. This could be accomplished by giving them something (e.g.: a back rub, a chocolate bar...etc) or taking something away (e.g.: a very annoying alarm sound, a literal or metaphorical thorn on one's side, etc). The bottom line would be that the individual in question would see it as a positive stimulus.

Negative reinforcement would be the administration of any stimulus seen as negative by the subject. Again, could also be accomplished by giving something (e.g.: an electrical shock, a slap, etc) or taking something (e.g.: a toy, food, etc.). So long as this was seen as negative by the subject, it could be accomplished in any fashion.

While I maintain that I'm not exactly up to par on this specific subject, it does seem that differentiating between how you accomplish the positive and negative stimulus is more of a linguistic concern and, to be completely honest, almost pedantic in nature. I mean, is it honestly relevant if you accomplish a negative stimulus by giving or taking something? Isn't the pragmatic result the exact same? That the subject sees the result as either positive or negative?

Absolutely not relevant to the topic, but this is also my area so I do enjoy discussing it.

/further psychological rambling.

No game I can recall has ever allowed you to thwart a zombie invasion by shooting them all.
Not one.

Chuck Wendig:
How Games Get Zombies Wrong

Oh, dear, game industry ... you seem to have failed your Zombie Aptitude Test. Let's review where you went wrong.

Read Full Article

In short, most games are about zombie hunting, as opposed to zombie survival.

In a good zombie story/game/etc, the zombies themselves eventually become background noise that occasionally rises up to cause problems, in the same way that the ocean is always there... but only once in awhile does it throw a storm or tsunami our way to remind us who's boss.

The survival aspect comes in navigating this undead "ocean" to find supplies to fill your basic needs. Survival also demands that, whenever possible, we avoid or flee combat, rather than actively pursuing it. Scavenging and sneaking are two things that most games don't do well, and they're usually just a small break from near-constant combat.

The clear reason they're not done well is that action = distraction. You don't have to spend time dealing with deep characters are complex interpersonal drama, because 'splosions! But that's what makes the zombie apocalypse so much more powerful.

Not only are you having to deal with avoiding the zombies, you're having to work harder to meet basic needs. Perhaps harder than you've ever worked. You're having to wrestle with yourself--despair, confusion, maybe a bit of inadequacy. Depending on what "reanimating the dead" says about your religious beliefs, you may be without your god, too. You're also having to wrestle with others--work with them, steal from them, be stolen from, fight, get along, go back and forth...

There are enemies on all sides, including the inside. That intra- and interpersonal drama is what makes the scenario so powerful and unique. And not many developers have what it takes to get into that. I'll agree that without compelling interpersonal drama, the non-combat survival aspects make for pretty boring gameplay... but that's like saying pools are boring without the water.

Amarok:
Does Dead Rising count as a game that shows other humans as the real threat?

I am going to have to agree. The first not the second DR. Once you get a few levels the zombies can be largely ignored. I rush passed them at top speed or crowd surf them. But once your health gets low oh man its like blood in the water and all the sharks get exited. When you are dieing you have to try so much harder to get passed one zombie let alone a horde.

In the first the military replaces zombies at the end of the story and in the second its bigger zombies at the end. So the first fits more of your twilight zone/scary door thesis, "it turns out its man." Anyway every boss fight is with crazy people. Ok DR2 did that pretty well too, that one furry gave me nightmares and the redneck snipers were tough. But how about your criteria you cant live and you need to be infected? Well if you get to the end and escape on a chopper a new mode unlocks. You play endless mode and they tell you you must have had a hallucination from all the zombies plague you caught. Cause there is no chopper now and your starting to turn. Play the rest of the game stealing dwindling resources from the non-crazy people you were saving earlier.

The biggest challenge was prioritizing your time to decides who lives and who is not worth trying to save. Save one old guy who you need to carry or a couple of Japanese gents with a language barrier problem.

I think I read an article somewhere on cracked.com about how the Zombie apocolypse would fail miserably...

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here