WIP "Zombie" Game

I've been thinking about how to make a zombie type game work recently, and this is the result:

What I think is a “zombie” is this: http://www.cracked.com/article_15643_p3.html so they aren’t really zombies at all, just very mad people. And this is more likely then dead people coming back to life.

Background WIP


The Rules:

The people who aren’t zombies, can only have springer pistols, the zombies are not armed.

The ratio should be about 4 or 5 zombies to 1 person. Is this too many zombies? Would 3 or 4 be better?


How The “Zombies” Act:

If you’re a zombie, you have to run (or walk fast). If you see a non-infected, you have to run towards him.


Starting The Game:

The non-infected have a 30 second head start, then the zombies have to go and find them.


Becoming Infected:

If a zombie comes within 2 to 3 metres (or bang kill range) of a non-infected person, he (the non-infected) slowly becomes a zombie (this take 30 seconds).


Killing Zombies:

Remember these “zombies” are just very mad people so they can be killed.
If a zombie is hit twice it is dead. Is too easy for a mad person to killed? Or is it to hard?


Game Ends:

The game ends when either all the zombies are killed or the non-infected all become zombies.


Any comments or suggestions welcome.

Josh.

I'll be slowly changing and add things for while.

no the pistols should just drive them back not kill them and you should have to touch them in order to infect them otherwise pretty good i rekon thats all good ......play the game properly

man that is really good. and it sounds more like a zombie game to. good job, also i think it should be that the mad people have to be hit 3 times to die.(reasons for this is its more like the adrige video game and it gives zombies more of a chance. and put the zombie to human ratio down to 4:1 or 3:1

pota wrote:no the pistols should just drive them back not kill them and you should have to touch them in order to infect them otherwise pretty good i rekon thats all good ......play the game properly

I thought of that, but you'd be pretty close with to a 200+ FPS pistol so I thought the bang kill range was fair.

If you've seen 28 days/28 weeks later you'll see what I mean, these aren't the undead, these normal people, just a little mad.

bobmarley44 wrote:man that is really good. and it sounds more like a zombie game to. good job, also i think it should be that the mad people have to be hit 3 times to die.(reasons for this is its more like the adrige video game and it gives zombies more of a chance. and put the zombie to human ratio down to 4:1 or 3:1

Yeah, I think so to.

Also, I'll add a background soon.

The pistol / spring pistol only rule would be excellant for that type of game

To keep the pace you could have a 10 minute limit = a win for the surviving non-zombies.

its not a zombie game if they die its piont less

pota: Did you read the link?

The only way to kill real zombies is to shoot them in the head (everybody knows that). But since they aren't undead, you can kill them!

What I'm simulating, is a real breakout of Super Mad Cow Disease.

Svt40: Thats a good idea.

Well, I was going to argue but you did put zombies in quotation marks.

I think this will probably take a bit a fine tuning, howver, I definatley think that if you can't make it even then you should make it really hard for the non-infected. That way the zombies have fun and the non-infected get freaked out.

A good rule of thumb would be, if the non-infected are gonna die in the first minute then its too easy for the infected, and if the non-infected are nigh untouchable then the infected don't have enpugh durability.

Also, where on the field will this take place? A game on the trail is very differet to a game around the forts.

From what I've read so far its going to be a game where the infected are chasing the non-infectees? Or is it going to be a VCtrail type thing? A defend the fort type thing would be too easy for the non-infected but a defend the fort with the infected defending would be ok. They'd have to rely on surprise attacks and the ratio of infected to non-infected would be higher.

Howabout the infected start off around the fort and the non-infected start off in the loading area. The non-infected only have one life and they need to steal an ammocrate from the fort then make it along the VC trail to the end.

Still, a fort game would be pretty hard to balance.

Josh You are a clever one. But I think (just myself youre probably right) that Hunmans should get any gun, Zombies/maddo's cant die, and that once iin bangkill range humans just have to run or position themselves so as to safley drive them back .

My idea for zombie game

Set rules
4 zombies to 1 non infected
Zombie kill by touching non-infected
Non-infected can only have pistols EBB or springier
Zombies can run
Zombies don’t have guns
Non-infected can run
Randomly generated zombies
Non-infected join zombies when killed

Game 1: Zombie domination

Non-infected can work together but don’t start together
Non-infected walk to opposite parts of the area
Zombies start in centre
Game ends when all non-infected become zombies


Game 2: zombie ambush

zombies Just in fort area for start
zombies hide in area
non infected have to retrieve a flag in zombie base
and get to non-infected spawn point some where in vc trail area
game ends when everyone is zombie or non-infected get flag and return it to spawn point.

Game 3: quick fire

Everybody starts with a pistol.
Everybody starts in circle.
Everybody gets a bit of paper saying if they are zombie or non-infected.
Everybody can lie or just not say what they are.
the killing begins zombie can’t use there guns.
Non-infected shooting non infected by mistake or on purpose turns them into zombies
Basically most people turn into zombies with a few people escaping into the bush.
Game ends when everyone is zombie

you cant offichily call them zombies then

Well, actually you can. Because the meaning of the word zombie has changed over the times.

Origonally it was just an obscure word used to describe a type of voodoo curse in which someone woud be poisoned to death by a withcdoctor and then brought to life by them to be a servant. They didn't eat anything and they didn;t really rot.

This changed when horror movies started being made and I think it was george romero who pioneered the definition of a zombie that eats flesh. There was also this other guy who brought in the idea of a virus.

These dudes kicked off a zombie craze thats gone on until it reached nowadays. In this present time we see magic as a stupid reason for undead (except in fantasy, which most zombie works claim not to be), we also know more about viruses and stuff, the idea that a virus xcould bring someone back to life is stupid.

So now we have zombies that arn't dead and are just normal people who happen to have a need for human flesh and are covered in a lot of blood.

In fact, in my zombie comic I'm making at gthe moment I'm delibratley leaving out the cause for the zombification cos they're all stupid.

So anyway, you can't really complain about the use of the word zombies. Heck, you have far more to complain about vampires *shudder* than zombies, which have reamained true to their origonal purpose which is to creep people out.

so true but if you call them zombies then calling them undead whold not apply but umm ya i like black knights idea lol

Oh yeah, you definatley can't call the new version of zombie 'undead' cos that means that they were dead and ar now not or something. Like those Twilight vampires, they're not actaully dead so they're not undead, then again they don't have eny characteristics that make them vampires either (lack of canines, immune to sunlight, different method of killing them, made of diamonds and petrol, etc).

Whereas the zombies still conform to most of the requirements (covered in blood, blank stares, eating of flesh, smash their heads, etc).

him well now they phisicly they are not dead but metaly there are there not thinking for them selves cant re strain there bodies but they where never dead so there not un dead