mrrandomlulz
Monsuuuta moonssuta mo mo mo mo monsuuta
NOTE: I pressed 'enter' when still editing, this thread isn't finished, full thread title is "Mrrandomlists 1: Reasons Dead Rising got it right
eh, I'll finish it later
Dead Rising: The zombie game that got it right.
Ah, Dead Rising. Most of the members of this forum are well aware of my fondness for the series. And most of them had one of 2 reactions.
"It's alright, not the best out there, but pretty good." and "Wait. WHY!?"
Aside from the original being one of the first X-box games I've played. Dead Rising has a special place in my heart for a rather huge reason.
It gets it.
Many games nowadays have tried the 'Zombie-Apocalypse formula', but Dead Rising did it successfully.
Because of this, how well DR3 runs on my computer will still be the determining factor on whether or not I want an Xbox One In this review thread. I'm just gonna look back on the game series that is probably one of the few reasons I still even play my X-box and listing the things that really stood out.
1. It doesn't try to be a survival simulator.
Culprits: Dead Island, State of Decay
From the very beginning, one of the main reasons the Dead Rising series remains as one of my favorites, not only in zombie games, but in games in general, is because it doesn't give a **** about realism in terms of gameplay
I'm all for realistic setting, and story, heck, the first Dead Rising HAD those.
But in terms of gameplay, I want the game to be something I can't do in real life, and this is where most mainstream zombie games fall flat on the market. Games like Dead Island, State of Decay, and a whole bunch of others, make the games more about doing all the aspects of surviving an apocalypse.
Honestly, this is boring for 2 or more reasons.
Reason number 2 on this list.
AND
The part where when I buy a game where I'm facing an entire army of zombies in area's I can explore, I want to go straight into battle and kick zombie ass. With things like stamina and more realistic weapons, I can't do that. I have to strategize and plan out my priorities. Leading to a bunch of boring, non-testosterone-filled, survival scenarios for something that isn't even a real threat.
Which leads me to number 2
2. It realizes that limping brainless corpses aren't really threatening.
Culprits: Every survival simulator that tries classic zombies.
This is probably the thing that made zombies so popular in the first place. When you think about it, a properly equipped person should be able to take care of entire hordes easily if it's done right. Despite this,
Resident Evil, Walking Dead, State Of Decay, and almost every other modern day zombie game, has to blatantly ignore this aspect of them.
They can only be such a widespread outbreak because people are in too much of a panic to stop them. Once the actual hype of the apocalypse dies down, they're threatening IN HORDES. The Dead Rising series brought this up, not only in the first game, but BEFORE they got in the mall.
"Zombies are slow and stupid."
This line right here sums up the entire franchise, as well as the fun of zombie apocalypse media in general.
The idea of zombies is that they're are so many of them that even though they pose a threat, they're the only known entity in fiction that you can take on an entire army of. If just 5 of them are threatening, then it isn't really that fun.
3. It has a story that isn't an overdramatic sobfest
You know what I also enjoyed about Dead Rising.
In an actual zombie apocalypse, emotion wouldn't only be an obstacle, it would be the ultimate cripple.
Everytime a zombie movie/game/whatever has to stop and yell "THESE USED TO BE PEOPLE!", I cringe. Not only is it because every other movie/game/whatever that has a protagonist with a weapon kills. But also because the whole idea of zombies are that they are brainless corpses, and that in order to become a zombie, YOU NEED TO DIE! It's already a corpse, you aren't killing a loved one who went insane, or anything sympathetic like that. If that's not enough. Basically, the scenes in zombie movies where a character gets bitten, are emotional and sad because that person is soon to die and their body to become the home to a virus.
Taking that into account, depending on how well you knew the person or not, killing the zombie should be just as emotional as killing a pig that was raised as a food supply.
Not only does the Dead Rising series ACKNOWLEDGE the difference by having Chuck kill the zombie of his wife, but in grief because he couldn't stop her from being bitten. But it flat out makes fun of the 'They used to be people.' by creating a PETA satire known as CURE. Who are basically obsessed with 'Zombie Equality', despite the zombies taking almost all of them out the second they escape.
Also in terms of story
4. It realizes that tragic and relatable aren't the same thing.
Culprit: Every other 'relatable' protagonist in existence
Again, a lot of people on this forum are both aware, and sick, of my obsession with Frank West. But honestly, Frank is one of my favorite video game characters for the same reason a lot of people on this forum feel is lack luster in his character. He isn't that cool when the game starts.
Most relatable characters fail once the creators realize their lives aren't that interesting, even when the character is just living a regular civilian life, the underdog is always young to the point where the first game/movie is just the beginning, and when they try too hard to be an underdog, they tend to end up being just a flat out loser.
Frank on the other hand, isn't relatable to certain demographics or personalities. Frank is relatable because he's the common man.
He doesn't have some unique backstory to go with him, nor is he in any specific social class.
When the game starts, Frank is a middle-class 30 something year old man, not in the best of shape, but not the worst. Another thing is that he COMES to Willamette with the intentions of fame and fortune, rather than the call to adventure being by chance.
All in all, Frank is relatable because he doesn't have a specific character. His personality is identifiable through his dialogue and actions, but at the same time, they never try to make him lean more towards a certain demographic, and it works, because at the same time, they don't trying to appeal to everyone. Basically, all they do is look at what drives humans and look at what an average person acts like in Franks circumstances.
eh, I'll finish it later
Dead Rising: The zombie game that got it right.
Ah, Dead Rising. Most of the members of this forum are well aware of my fondness for the series. And most of them had one of 2 reactions.
"It's alright, not the best out there, but pretty good." and "Wait. WHY!?"
Aside from the original being one of the first X-box games I've played. Dead Rising has a special place in my heart for a rather huge reason.
It gets it.
Many games nowadays have tried the 'Zombie-Apocalypse formula', but Dead Rising did it successfully.
Because of this, how well DR3 runs on my computer will still be the determining factor on whether or not I want an Xbox One In this review thread. I'm just gonna look back on the game series that is probably one of the few reasons I still even play my X-box and listing the things that really stood out.
1. It doesn't try to be a survival simulator.
Culprits: Dead Island, State of Decay
From the very beginning, one of the main reasons the Dead Rising series remains as one of my favorites, not only in zombie games, but in games in general, is because it doesn't give a **** about realism in terms of gameplay
I'm all for realistic setting, and story, heck, the first Dead Rising HAD those.
But in terms of gameplay, I want the game to be something I can't do in real life, and this is where most mainstream zombie games fall flat on the market. Games like Dead Island, State of Decay, and a whole bunch of others, make the games more about doing all the aspects of surviving an apocalypse.
Honestly, this is boring for 2 or more reasons.
Reason number 2 on this list.
AND
The part where when I buy a game where I'm facing an entire army of zombies in area's I can explore, I want to go straight into battle and kick zombie ass. With things like stamina and more realistic weapons, I can't do that. I have to strategize and plan out my priorities. Leading to a bunch of boring, non-testosterone-filled, survival scenarios for something that isn't even a real threat.
Which leads me to number 2
2. It realizes that limping brainless corpses aren't really threatening.
Culprits: Every survival simulator that tries classic zombies.
This is probably the thing that made zombies so popular in the first place. When you think about it, a properly equipped person should be able to take care of entire hordes easily if it's done right. Despite this,
Resident Evil, Walking Dead, State Of Decay, and almost every other modern day zombie game, has to blatantly ignore this aspect of them.
They can only be such a widespread outbreak because people are in too much of a panic to stop them. Once the actual hype of the apocalypse dies down, they're threatening IN HORDES. The Dead Rising series brought this up, not only in the first game, but BEFORE they got in the mall.
"Zombies are slow and stupid."
This line right here sums up the entire franchise, as well as the fun of zombie apocalypse media in general.
The idea of zombies is that they're are so many of them that even though they pose a threat, they're the only known entity in fiction that you can take on an entire army of. If just 5 of them are threatening, then it isn't really that fun.
3. It has a story that isn't an overdramatic sobfest
You know what I also enjoyed about Dead Rising.
In an actual zombie apocalypse, emotion wouldn't only be an obstacle, it would be the ultimate cripple.
Everytime a zombie movie/game/whatever has to stop and yell "THESE USED TO BE PEOPLE!", I cringe. Not only is it because every other movie/game/whatever that has a protagonist with a weapon kills. But also because the whole idea of zombies are that they are brainless corpses, and that in order to become a zombie, YOU NEED TO DIE! It's already a corpse, you aren't killing a loved one who went insane, or anything sympathetic like that. If that's not enough. Basically, the scenes in zombie movies where a character gets bitten, are emotional and sad because that person is soon to die and their body to become the home to a virus.
Taking that into account, depending on how well you knew the person or not, killing the zombie should be just as emotional as killing a pig that was raised as a food supply.
Not only does the Dead Rising series ACKNOWLEDGE the difference by having Chuck kill the zombie of his wife, but in grief because he couldn't stop her from being bitten. But it flat out makes fun of the 'They used to be people.' by creating a PETA satire known as CURE. Who are basically obsessed with 'Zombie Equality', despite the zombies taking almost all of them out the second they escape.
Also in terms of story
4. It realizes that tragic and relatable aren't the same thing.
Culprit: Every other 'relatable' protagonist in existence
Again, a lot of people on this forum are both aware, and sick, of my obsession with Frank West. But honestly, Frank is one of my favorite video game characters for the same reason a lot of people on this forum feel is lack luster in his character. He isn't that cool when the game starts.
Most relatable characters fail once the creators realize their lives aren't that interesting, even when the character is just living a regular civilian life, the underdog is always young to the point where the first game/movie is just the beginning, and when they try too hard to be an underdog, they tend to end up being just a flat out loser.
Frank on the other hand, isn't relatable to certain demographics or personalities. Frank is relatable because he's the common man.
He doesn't have some unique backstory to go with him, nor is he in any specific social class.
When the game starts, Frank is a middle-class 30 something year old man, not in the best of shape, but not the worst. Another thing is that he COMES to Willamette with the intentions of fame and fortune, rather than the call to adventure being by chance.
All in all, Frank is relatable because he doesn't have a specific character. His personality is identifiable through his dialogue and actions, but at the same time, they never try to make him lean more towards a certain demographic, and it works, because at the same time, they don't trying to appeal to everyone. Basically, all they do is look at what drives humans and look at what an average person acts like in Franks circumstances.
Last edited:
