Z-Day, a Zombie Survival MMOFPS

[Viper]

Well, I wouldn't describe it strictly as a team then, as sometimes your compeating against people on your 'team' for your own survival. I think people will feel betrayed personally if they get shot, unless they are told to begin with that someones the guys you fight zombies with are sometimes the guys you fight as well.

And even then you can easily play chess against someone, trying to beat them, yet it can be part of friendship.

I really don't think any game, ever, should encourage or try to organise people to get together who don't actually like each other to any degree. Particularly not for the sake of adhering the some sort of genre.

Ive yet to play any online game that has grouping strictly to make friends. In any MMO players will team up to get past the next level, go to the new zone, or survive the next boss. Ive been in many parties, where hardly any socialization has occurred. The members and I simply played and worked together to beat the objective. Sure you try to keep all members alive. But this is a survival game, and if killing a team mate who is infected to save yourself is necessary. Then it would and will happen, in game, and in real life if such a situation occurred. Thats at least how i view things.

Im not advocating playing with people you dont like. I'm saying that you dont have to group just with, or to make friends.

As far as feeling betrayed, its a open PVP game where players can decide to work together (because thats logical, idiots, infected people, and ass hats will be killed, just like how they would in the real world). Watch any zombie movie, if a person gets bit, they will be killed, or will die and try to bite their friends. A player dosnt have to kill his infected buddy. But it would be wise.

Well in terms of the law determining ownership, your not the one to say if they own the trademark or not. If it is not within the laws of your country for them to buyout a term from under those already using it, then no, they by those laws they don't own that trademark, whether you say they own the trademark or not.

It may be allowing an essentially unfair or perhaps even illegal act on their part to say they own the trademark. Just noting it, as I don't like to leave any affirmation towards such a likelyhood.

Well, in my country, I am bound by law determining ownership. Also, it really dosnt matter much to me or most of the developers as we have stated officially on our site. Gearbox as not threatened us in anyway, and hell, it has upped our SEO a bit


Lets note however, that my opinions dont supersede those of any member of the Z-Day team, nor are they the official ones of our team head. Simply my design views on Z-Day and how I expect it to play out.

[Callan S.]

Ive yet to play any online game that has grouping strictly to make friends. In any MMO players will team up to get past the next level, go to the new zone, or survive the next boss. Ive been in many parties, where hardly any socialization has occurred. The members and I simply played and worked together to beat the objective.

Just because alot of other games do it, doesn't make it right. And by right I mean match up to how humans operate (like folding your elbow backwards is not right for your body, humans 'teaming' with people they don't like is folding their humanity backwards).

Really I consider the vast tide of mmo's where people team up with strangers as a kind of sickness. Probably originated as one of the five nerd fallacies, that if someone else likes stuff we do/is playing the same game we are, that automatically makes us friends. Even as broken as that idea is, it then further mutated/devolved into 'use other people to get ahead, treating them the same as the henchmen bots you can hire in guild wars'.

Sure you try to keep all members alive. But this is a survival game, and if killing a team mate who is infected to save yourself is necessary. Then it would and will happen, in game, and in real life if such a situation occurred. Thats at least how i view things.

Just because it might happen in real life, doesn't mean its morally right or correct to perpetuate in media. Do you really want to make games and perpetuate wrong things from real life? Like lets make a game where part of it is beating your wife and telling her she's only good for the kitchen - weve had thousands of years of that in real life in the past (and even now, in various places). Does that make it a valid thing to actually put effort to make sure it's in a game? And let me just say, simply acting out a wife beating is not the same as making a social comment on wife beating - it's just playing out the actions.

The classic game paradigm of competing against each other, and even diplomacy board game style turning on your previous allies, that's a viable playstyle that works out - because it's an understanding between people. But just having stuff because it would happen in real life even if there's no understanding between people about the matter - that's putting fiction ahead of people.

Shared understandings between people, understandings on what is, between them, okay for them to do, is vital. It's always been vital.

[Jackolantern]

I actually like grouping with strangers in MMOs provided the game arranges the mechanics to provide me with a large enough pool of players to let me play when I want. If anything, I think WoW's levels 1 - 79 is the sickness. Paying a monthly fee to play a single-player game side-by-side with thousands of other people

[Callan S.]

If I care about the other people I'm teaming with as much as I care about the henchmen bots from guild wars, there is no point teaming with these other people. I may as well team with bots. And I pretty much think that applies to everyone else as well.

I'll note that I've played alot of battle ground PVP in wow and tier 1 in warhammer (and warhammer public quests). But in these cases it's more like being in the same area as other people with similar objectives. But in terms of a supposed 'party' who do a dungeon 'together', if you don't care about them, your not together. May as well work with bots, for as much as you care. Being together and not giving a crap about each are two opposite concepts.

[Viper]

Just because alot of other games do it, doesn't make it right. And by right I mean match up to how humans operate (like folding your elbow backwards is not right for your body, humans 'teaming' with people they don't like is folding their humanity backwards).

Really I consider the vast tide of mmo's where people team up with strangers as a kind of sickness. Probably originated as one of the five nerd fallacies, that if someone else likes stuff we do/is playing the same game we are, that automatically makes us friends. Even as broken as that idea is, it then further mutated/devolved into 'use other people to get ahead, treating them the same as the henchmen bots you can hire in guild wars'.

The fact is though, gamers are often lazy and simply dont want to know all the details and info about everyone they meet online. People group to advance in the game, not just to make friends.

Just because it might happen in real life, doesn't mean its morally right or correct to perpetuate in media. Do you really want to make games and perpetuate wrong things from real life? Like lets make a game where part of it is beating your wife and telling her she's only good for the kitchen - weve had thousands of years of that in real life in the past (and even now, in various places). Does that make it a valid thing to actually put effort to make sure it's in a game? And let me just say, simply acting out a wife beating is not the same as making a social comment on wife beating - it's just playing out the actions.

As far as perpetuating unmoral things, thats really just a viewpoint and opinion. If i'm with people i know, and one gets bit by a zombie, i will either ditch them, kill them, or stand 50 feet back with a rifle aimed at them until they turn. I really dont see the deep immoral things going on here... but then again, I really dont get bothered by "immoral" games. A game is just a game, if i want to run over kitty cats, or shoot terrorists, I'm up for whatever, as long as its fun and not disgusting. I'm confused about how sexism is playing any role in z-day....

The classic game paradigm of competing against each other, and even diplomacy board game style turning on your previous allies, that's a viable playstyle that works out - because it's an understanding between people. But just having stuff because it would happen in real life even if there's no understanding between people about the matter - that's putting fiction ahead of people.
Shared understandings between people, understandings on what is, between them, okay for them to do, is vital. It's always been vital.

I feel like you think that I believe the shooting of infected team mates to be some dirty trick that wont occur for everyone...the fact is though, it would be an obvious tactic and something i plan to be very vocal about. Z-Day is a Zombie SURVIVAL MMOFPS. This means that the player does what he or she needs to survive. If i were to play, I would have the understanding with my team mates that if they show signs of infection, I will shoot them. I would expect the same from them. That does not mean however, I wouldn't try to hide being infected in order to survive. That would be the logical situation in both real life and online.

If I care about the other people I'm teaming with as much as I care about the henchmen bots from guild wars, there is no point teaming with these other people. I may as well team with bots. And I pretty much think that applies to everyone else as well.

Well no, there is actually a point. Despite there being a lack of real communication other then in basic game play and tactical terms, you play a mission with a real player because they are simply smarter, better, and more adaptable players. Which makes them much more effective then bots. Guild Wars should give you plenty of examples in exactly what I'm talking about.

I'll note that I've played alot of battle ground PVP in wow and tier 1 in warhammer (and warhammer public quests). But in these cases it's more like being in the same area as other people with similar objectives. But in terms of a supposed 'party' who do a dungeon 'together', if you don't care about them, your not together. May as well work with bots, for as much as you care. Being together and not giving a crap about each are two opposite concepts.

I disagree.

[Callan S.]

If i were to play, I would have the understanding with my team mates that if they show signs of infection

No, you wouldn't have the understanding somehow magically understood by them. You have to tell them - that's all I've said - describe the game, on it's pages, to people that they might have to shoot a team mate. Done, now they and everyone else have a shared understanding about the game and what happens to whom in play.

if i want to run over kitty cats

Were not talking NPC's, were talking players. Do you want to BE the kitty cat being run over, so to speak? Does that sound fun, particularly if you didn't expect it? Imagine being in the other guys shoes for a moment.

If the game tells you on it's front pages that you could end up being the kitty cat (so to speak, I know your game doesn't have them, please don't say you don't know how cats come into the zday stuff), then people who are okay with that potentially happening will play. Which works out and is fine.

You've got to remember you know the game inside and out - don't confuse your knowledge with the idea that everyone will just get it that sometimes people in their party turn and shoot them.

Well no, there is actually a point. Despite there being a lack of real communication other then in basic game play and tactical terms, you play a mission with a real player because they are simply smarter, better, and more adaptable players. Which makes them much more effective then bots. Guild Wars should give you plenty of examples in exactly what I'm talking about.

I suppose it takes something like ninja looting for you to feel used - like someone uses you get to the phat loot, because your useful to them for that, but he doesn't really give a crap about you in the end and just takes it and leaves.

Maybe you'd wonder why he'd play with other people when he doesn't give a crap about them. Which is exactly the point I'm raising.

[Viper]

Were not talking NPC's, were talking players. Do you want to BE the kitty cat being run over, so to speak? Does that sound fun, particularly if you didn't expect it? Imagine being in the other guys shoes for a moment.

After the first time it happened, I would know how the game plays and i woud adapt. Ive been in numerous games, when what i expected to happen didnt and I thus adapted to these changes.

If the game tells you on it's front pages that you could end up being the kitty cat (so to speak, I know your game doesn't have them, please don't say you don't know how cats come into the zday stuff), then people who are okay with that potentially happening will play. Which works out and is fine.

Where did I ever state that this is some secret dynamic though? Your acting like i'm playing a dirty trick on the potential players of this game. Which I am not, nor is any of the other devs. Its been a clear tactic from the get go, that killing an infected team mate is part of the survival tactics one could employ.

I suppose it takes something like ninja looting for you to feel used - like someone uses you get to the phat loot, because your useful to them for that, but he doesn't really give a crap about you in the end and just takes it and leaves.

Maybe you'd wonder why he'd play with other people when he doesn't give a crap about them. Which is exactly the point I'm raising.

Well no, in Guild Wars loot is allocated when it drops to certain players. If i dont get the nice stuff, then i was unlucky, but ive still beat the mission and have advanced to the next area. It takes alot for me to be cheated. If i'm teaming with a bunch of randoms, then its clear to everyone that we are using each other to advance. Sure i may make a friend while playing, but all in all, the goal is to get to the next level.

[Jackolantern]

I just want to say that I have always wanted a zombie game like this, where your teammates can get infected (or you), and they can try to hide it to survive.

I guess I can kind of see what Callen is saying, but I would be a prime candidate to play a game like this: ruthless, self-centered in the end, and coldly unflinching. Because that is exactly what the world would be like if a zombie epidemic actually happened. And while I would not want it to happen in real life, a video game is the safest avenue to explore the human reaction to it.