Aliens are better than zombies when it comes to gaming
Debate Rounds (4)
Aliens vs Zombies? For a gaming construct, the choice is clear, Zombies all the way.
Its interesting that you should mention Halo, a game which essentially borrowed the Zombie trope through the use of "The Flood" well into its 3rd installement.
A Zombie as a "villan" is a straight foward ordeal. There is no shortcut for beating them, there is no inherent jynx that makes them impotent by flipping a switch. A zombie will shuffle forward, eat brains and flesh, and cease animation when its brain is blown apart or such trauma has been inflicted on it that its no longer worth the gamer's time to spend resources on beating it into a further pulp.
Zombies are relentless, Zombies are not subject to fear, terror, bad morale, thirst or hunger. Aliens, in short, are.
Take for instance in the video game "Justice League Heroes". Martian Manhunter is afraid of fire, and he is for game purposes ground down to being an NPC while a partner must perform the a task as J'onn Jo'nzz is prevented from being immediately effective. Aliens, very nearly with out fail have some variety of immediately exploitable weakness designed to aid the gamer. In many alien based games, the whole point of entire levels are created just to put the player in a position to find some McGuffin that makes the exploitable weakenss even MORE exploitable. As much as I hate to to admit it, even my favorite aliens, the Xenomorphs from the "Alien" franchise are formulaic to the point of disgust: kill it with fire. As to why the Colonial Marines haven't utilizied this on a wide scale when encountering them is beyond me. If you set a zombie on fire, what happens? You now have a flaming creature, enabling fires to spread while it attempts to engage in its one purpose: eating you.
Zombies don't require nearly as much exposition to be effective. The game "Left for Dead" demonstrates literally makes use of this. What exactly caused the zombies? Don't know. Is there a cure? Don't know. All of that is irrelevant to the immediate game mechanic: survive. As time in such games wear on, a better story line develops. Games like "Dead Rising" pit the player against other surviors, the military, and zombie hordes to bring in as many facets as possible to immerse the gamer in a new but familiar world. In addition to survival, an important element gets added into many FPS style games: humor. There is nothing more satisfying than hacking up the undead with a Katana, or using a power drill on the undead. Tables turn in the game "Stubz the Zombie" in which you get to CREATE the zombie horde, and make use of many amusing undead powers to ruin a future-retro colony.
Taking things out of the vide game world and going to the table top realm of D20 and miniature combat style games: the undead always make for better bad guys. Zombies are more fleshed out, if you pardon the pun, but retain their unique style of "badie-ness". Aliens, on the other hand, suffer from being over powered. When Games Worskshop introduced the Necrons, there were serious game balance problems. A little bit of Necron army could sweep forces that grossly outnumbered them with no skill or strategy involved in the game. Undead, on the other hand, in general never had that problem save for one or two characters (that were not specifically zombies or undead). They were a simple army in which people understood how horde based aggression worked.
It shouldn't surprise anyone that Aliens being introduce into a story just sort of screws things up. Far to much explanation needs to be given as to why an alien invasion force, like that of Halo, doesn't just consist of orbital strikes until humanity surrenders, and usually such explanation hinges on yet another McGuffin. In the opening levels of Halo 2, the convenant forces, masters of technology, for some reason require planting a time bomb on a Mac-cannon that is preventing the fleet from getting close to Earth. Let me state that again: an interstellar race making use of technology grossly outstripping humanity needed to make use of a timed detonation device that had to physically get put into a space station. This delivery of this time bomb was done physically through assault craft, and the bomb was deposited on the interior... why, exactly? This is a game in which "active camo" (invisibility) is a real and practical thing. Why was the bomb not given such technology and discreetly attached to the exterior on a fly by? Because... um... um...
Simply, its not in the script. A zombie doesn't need a script to explain itself. It just is. It harkens back to the primal fears of humans, the dead, rising to consume them in the same fashion that humans consume other animals. Humans are no longer the top of the food chain, but can reasonably reclaim the throne. Such is not possible with aliens as the antagonist, loop holes need to be created for illogical circumstance or simple incompetene.
But, that is one mans opinion. Pro, whatcha go?
"People find it more interesting than Zombies"....
Halo I have already negated as a game that ripped Zombie concepts off completely, however if Pro would like to keep mentioning it, and that it is not as interesting as zombies, it becomes puzzling that many Halo achievements are based of winning infection games, a Zombie trope at heart. I remember with pride working up the ladder of zombie slaying awards, and having a blast while doing it.
The Call of Duty franchise has featured numerous Zombie DLC adaptations. If such is so uninspired, why do major franchises churn out these DLCs if there is no market? Even Red Dead Redemption had an entire game type based around a zombie flavor. Rumours swirl with every Halloween as to whether or not Rock Star or Take Two will release undead mods for the season.
I would like to point out that for 2 of my points, the opposition agrees with me:
"For example aliens have these awesome futuristic weapons that you can pick up and use for yourself " and yet through silly script requirements, these awesome weapons fall into your hands, and the reason why this awesome techonology was not used to decimate the play scape so much smaller weapons are used is rarely explaned.
Also: "For example if they are trying to take over the world your mission is to find the leader and kill him/her." Why, exactly? What vareity of exposition is needed for this convienient loophole of a plot device going ot make sense? This superior race of alieans has never heard of a "second in command"? It boggles the mind that such an assertion has traction regarding which is more challenging: aliens seem to always have a flaw built in.
Resident Evil is one of the most well known franchises of all time. In addition to its game platform, it has spawned a series of successful movies to boot, in which their creative understanding of mutant Zombies have given rise to a variety of new an interesting creature. Umbrella Corporation will go down in history as one of the most famous evil companies, right along side Weyland Yutani. House of the Dead, another popular arcade shooter also spawned a movie, though its success as a movie is really dependent it its cost vs box office take. In what way does either of those examples signify something that is unpopular? The amount of creative license and innovation that came from those properties has set zombies up as hallmark in gaming, standing just as proud next to their silver screen interpretations.
I am confident those following along will need more than lasers and illogical command structure to sway them.
The majority of weapons used in aliens games are not always small there are plenty of times where these weapons are actually pretty big. Yes I'm going back to the Halo franchise. For example in halo 4 sure you have your weapons that are small such as the Needler but you also have other items such as the Suppressor or LightRifle. Even if it is not in the halo franchise
Why does it matter whether or not there is a second in command? And what about zombies your main goal is to survive and kill these zombies what's the point?
lastly there are other franchise that have aliens. For example take aliens vs. predator that is a movie as well or even MIB (Men In Black) which is a huge hit to the movie world.
To answer the question proposed:
"Why does it matter whether or not there is a second in command? And what about zombies your main goal is to survive and kill these zombies what's the point?"
If I am to believe the conquering force of extra terrestrials are indeed superior, killing ONE member of the race, even a handful of them, seems... well, beneath their intelligence. The next question is rather moot: the point of an alien antagonist is to survive as well, usually "humanity" is what you are fighting for. The resolution is not about the end result, but the method of villain.
In the course of this discussion we have seen exactly why aliens don't stack up: for all of their infinite complexity and superior technology, they become formulaic. The Aliens franchise, as previously mentioned by pro had serious issues with this. Colonial Marines had you fighting human company mercenaries. Alien Isolation had you fighting the "Joe" androids. Fighting the Alien alone simply wasn't enough.
We have also seen a lead title franchise (Halo) get used as the gold standard for alien fighters, only to find they have the same set of exploitations over and over again, and to add insult to injury, the "Grave Mind", the predominant villain for the first three installments was one great big zombie trope.
We have explored that it seems many mass shooters that makes use of multiplayer server space adds some variety of zombie DLC to their title, which would seem counter intuitive if such a market was shrinking, or didn't exist.
In conclusion, there is only one thing aliens bring to the table: tech. Technology that seems to enable these aliens to bridge vast reaches of space, only to be ground to a halt by some slug throwing hardware arguably out dated to even those that are using it. What do Zombies bring to the table? Well.... if you are at the table... with zombies... they usually bring salt and ketchup. In zombie games, humanity has to realize they are not the apex predator. There is no leader that can be shot to stop the invasion. There is no McGuffin that can be turned on to make the zombies teeth stop chomping. There is only you, your pals, and a pile of ammunition that seems to shrink every second.
To some, good luck. To the rest: bon appetit.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by CookieMonster9 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets argument points because his points prevail. Pro just brings up Halo (which Con rebut well) and the fact that fighting humans are popular (which isn't what he is debating about). This has nothing about my decision but Pro quotes games that aren't the newest, how about Advanced Warfare and Halo 5?
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.