Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
22 Posts

Pandemic Legacy: Season 2» Forums » Rules

Subject: [Spoiler] Question for people who have completed playing season 2 rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Natasha R
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Question for people who have played through season 2 - are there any zombies/fallen in season 2?

One member of my gaming group really dislikes zombies. This had a huge impact to our season 1 experience. My group didn't enjoy it once the fallen showed up. Would like to avoid that if possible this time around.

Please don't spoil any more than necessary. Thanks!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Levine
United States
Clinton
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
From the rule book wrote:

Without our soldiers, the Hollow Men – roving bands of savages bent
on our elimination – will expand their attacks, tearing down what we build and stealing what we offer.


I would have the member of your gaming group read that / the background page it's from in the rule book pdf, and decide if they are zombie-like enough to bother them.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
al Cann
United States
Warwick
New York
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
meinyara wrote:
Question for people who have played through season 2 - are there any zombies/fallen in season 2?

One member of my gaming group really dislikes zombies. This had a huge impact to our season 1 experience. My group didn't enjoy it once the fallen showed up. Would like to avoid that if possible this time around.

Please don't spoil any more than necessary. Thanks!


Spoiler (click to reveal)
Rather than speak in riddles ... there are no zombies in PL season 2.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hayley Margules Arden
United States
California
flag msg tools
mb
meinyara wrote:
Question for people who have played through season 2 - are there any zombies/fallen in season 2?

One member of my gaming group really dislikes zombies. This had a huge impact to our season 1 experience. My group didn't enjoy it once the fallen showed up. Would like to avoid that if possible this time around.

Please don't spoil any more than necessary. Thanks!


I mean, there weren't zombies in S1 either. That was the whole point, those were sick people you were killing. The entire twist was supposed to subvert your trust in the bullshit the in-game military was feeding you. So does your player not like sick people? Because if so, that would definitely be a problem.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hayley Margules Arden
United States
California
flag msg tools
mb
S2 is not disconnected from S1. I know they said it was. I know they said you could play 2 without playing 1. And you can. But for people who did play 1, there are very clear story threads tying 1 and 2 together, and 2 is a continuation of the same story. Without spoilers, there's not much more I can say. S1 was the military using you to murder sick people until you caught on. It was a subversion of the zombies genre, and they pulled a fast-one, but there were no zombies. I don't think they could have made that any clearer in the game either (I write for the games industry myself, and I can't think of anything I would have done differently). So it's difficult for me to rule on whether or not your friend will be comfortable with S2.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lorry Moller
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Here is the thing that other poster's are dancing around - it is a spoiler that doesn't affect gameplay but is a major plot point of season 2, so don't open the spoiler unless absolutely necessary (ie if uncertainty over 'zombies/fallen' is going to prevent you from playing the game, etc).

Spoiler (click to reveal)
it is revealed near the end of the game that
Spoiler (click to reveal)
you have been playing the descendants of the 'fallen' people that were quarantined in season 1. So the Fallen are the protagonists of season 2
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hayley Margules Arden
United States
California
flag msg tools
mb
LorryMoller wrote:
Here is the thing that other poster's are dancing around - it is a spoiler that doesn't affect gameplay but is a major plot point of season 2, so don't open the spoiler unless absolutely necessary (ie if uncertainty over 'zombies/fallen' is going to prevent you from playing the game, etc).

Spoiler (click to reveal)
it is revealed near the end of the game that
Spoiler (click to reveal)
you have been playing the descendants of the 'fallen' people that were quarantined in season 1. So the Fallen are the protagonists of season 2


This. But again, I really don't know how one can get through S1 and miss that there aren't any zombies. S1 isn't about zombies, it's about a military dictatorship manipulating you into killing sick people, and--because apparently some people actually did this--nuking cities, to the end of facilitating the dictatorship's rise and absolute power. Season 2 tells you where that ended up going.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Wheeler
United Kingdom
Folkestone
Kent
flag msg tools
mbmb
Some people really didn’t take much manipulating. Did you watch Sam in the Dice Tower plays? 😳

Despite the story clearly saying the Faded had at no point died (and thus were very much alive) and that after periods of rage returned to lucidity he was immediately saying “I’ve got the cure right here” and cocking an imaginary machine gun. 😁

The word Zombie was thrown around by everyone and everyone was desperate to gain a way to kill them, not cure them. I suspect many Grenade Belt cards were gleefully used. 😄

I see the fact that S2 introduces the Hollow Men (and particularly the reason for that name) as a judgement on such Season 1 Players. 😁
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hayley Margules Arden
United States
California
flag msg tools
mb
Cthulhwho wrote:
Some people really didn’t take much manipulating. Did you watch Sam in the Dice Tower plays? 😳

Despite the story clearly saying the Faded had at no point died (and thus were very much alive) and that after periods of rage returned to lucidity he was immediately saying “I’ve got the cure right here” and cocking an imaginary machine gun. 😁

The word Zombie was thrown around by everyone and everyone was desperate to gain a way to kill them, not cure them. I suspect many Grenade Belt cards were gleefully used. 😄

I see the fact that S2 introduces the Hollow Men (and particularly the reason for that name) as a judgement on such Season 1 Players. 😁


Spot on, man. Meanwhile, the second they gave us that nuke in S1 is when we turned on the military in our game. Honestly, they pissed me off in February or whatever when we found out a character had been military and they hadn't told us, I was like "I don't like that". Obviously, it was foreshadowing. But I was just pissed off at them when that happened. Then they give us a literal nuke, and my partner and I are like "we're not using that wtf" aaaaand then the twist kind of just affirmed what we already knew. I thought there should have been a point deduction for using the nuke, though S2 addressed that by changing the type of thing that gets and loses you points.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Natasha R
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Thanks for the feedback. Sounds like I'll have to do a solo play of this.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Teel McClanahan
United States
Phoenix
Arizona
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
MastigosAtLarge wrote:
... there were no zombies.


This statement relies on a very narrow & limited definition of the word “zombie” and is contradicted by huge swaths of zombie representation throughout a wide variety of media & cultures. Zombies aren’t always the literally-reanimated-dead, and zombies can sometimes be cured or otherwise regain (or even retain) part or all of their humanity, depending on what serves the stories they appear in. Zombies aren’t even always dangerous, or contagious. Usually they’re mostly a metaphor or foil for presenting a large, abstract idea like racism or consumerism or the corrupting nature of power, and the details of what constitutes “zombie” are quite often trivial rather than essential.

Having spent an inordinate amount of my life studying zombies in fiction (carefully reading/viewing/playing many hundreds of works, primarily in film, print, and games) and having written multiple “zombie novels” of my own, I saw nothing in Pandemic Legacy: Season 1 which contradicted that the “Faded” are de facto “zombies”. They look like zombies, they act like and are treated like zombies (across several criteria; both in-character and in mechanics, certainly, but also in terms of how they were used by the storytellers to convey concepts and impose emotions and stand in for complex ideas about the real world), and if you did a find/replace to swap instances of “Faded” with “zombies” would not change anything substantive about the game or create any contradictions or problems with the story.

Now, by the time I got to P:L I was already to the point of burnt-out-on-zombies in my life, and when I reached the point of opening box 3 and discovering I’d been tricked into playing another [EXPLETIVE] zombie game I was pissed, and remained frustrated, angry, and disappointed for the remainder of that poorly-written, predictable, trope-filled excuse for a game/campaign.

Spoiler (click to reveal)
Worse to me is this premise from S2 about there being descendants of cured Faded, where at best that’s due to disappointingly-loose misuse and mixing of medical terms; we never treated or cured any Faded, or even developed a treatment or a cure—we developed & distributed a vaccine for the disease. In the language of the game itself, and I just grabbed my loathed copy from the shelf to check, there is no mention of treating or curing the Faded, only vaccinating against it—only keeping people who haven’t already caught the disease from experiencing the worst of its symptoms. I suppose it’s possible that, before there was a chance for herd immunity effects, there were vaccinated people who caught & successfully fought off COdA but still retained (and passed on?) the visible/exterior effects of the disease—but I wouldn’t characterize them as “cured”, let alone “Faded” (at least at first) which was understood to refer to people suffering from COdA and not merely as a way of creating a new ‘unclean’ race to be looked down upon and attacked. More sloppy, trope-ridden writing.


To suggest there were no zombies in Pandemic: Legacy is to misunderstand the broader meaning of the word “zombie”, the role of zombies in the game, and also the role of zombies in the culture as a whole.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
al Cann
United States
Warwick
New York
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
tmcclanahan wrote:
MastigosAtLarge wrote:
... there were no zombies.


This statement relies on a very narrow & limited definition of the word “zombie” and is contradicted by huge swaths of zombie representation throughout a wide variety of media & cultures. Zombies aren’t always the literally-reanimated-dead, and zombies can sometimes be cured or otherwise regain (or even retain) part or all of their humanity, depending on what serves the stories they appear in. Zombies aren’t even always dangerous, or contagious. Usually they’re mostly a metaphor or foil for presenting a large, abstract idea like racism or consumerism or the corrupting nature of power, and the details of what constitutes “zombie” are quite often trivial rather than essential.

Having spent an inordinate amount of my life studying zombies in fiction (carefully reading/viewing/playing many hundreds of works, primarily in film, print, and games) and having written multiple “zombie novels” of my own, I saw nothing in Pandemic Legacy: Season 1 which contradicted that the “Faded” are de facto “zombies”. They look like zombies, they act like and are treated like zombies (across several criteria; both in-character and in mechanics, certainly, but also in terms of how they were used by the storytellers to convey concepts and impose emotions and stand in for complex ideas about the real world), and if you did a find/replace to swap instances of “Faded” with “zombies” would not change anything substantive about the game or create any contradictions or problems with the story.

Now, by the time I got to P:L I was already to the point of burnt-out-on-zombies in my life, and when I reached the point of opening box 3 and discovering I’d been tricked into playing another [EXPLETIVE] zombie game I was pissed, and remained frustrated, angry, and disappointed for the remainder of that poorly-written, predictable, trope-filled excuse for a game/campaign.

Spoiler (click to reveal)
Worse to me is this premise from S2 about there being descendants of cured Faded, where at best that’s due to disappointingly-loose misuse and mixing of medical terms; we never treated or cured any Faded, or even developed a treatment or a cure—we developed & distributed a vaccine for the disease. In the language of the game itself, and I just grabbed my loathed copy from the shelf to check, there is no mention of treating or curing the Faded, only vaccinating against it—only keeping people who haven’t already caught the disease from experiencing the worst of its symptoms. I suppose it’s possible that, before there was a chance for herd immunity effects, there were vaccinated people who caught & successfully fought off COdA but still retained (and passed on?) the visible/exterior effects of the disease—but I wouldn’t characterize them as “cured”, let alone “Faded” (at least at first) which was understood to refer to people suffering from COdA and not merely as a way of creating a new ‘unclean’ race to be looked down upon and attacked. More sloppy, trope-ridden writing.


To suggest there were no zombies in Pandemic: Legacy is to misunderstand the broader meaning of the word “zombie”, the role of zombies in the game, and also the role of zombies in the culture as a whole.


I can't tell if this is a serious post or not. Isn't PL a game?

Nonetheless, back to the OP's question about whether or not there are zombies in PL season 2 ....

Once again my answer is ...

Spoiler (click to reveal)
... no


Hope this helps.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hayley Margules Arden
United States
California
flag msg tools
mb
albcann wrote:
tmcclanahan wrote:
MastigosAtLarge wrote:
... there were no zombies.


This statement relies on a very narrow & limited definition of the word “zombie” and is contradicted by huge swaths of zombie representation throughout a wide variety of media & cultures. Zombies aren’t always the literally-reanimated-dead, and zombies can sometimes be cured or otherwise regain (or even retain) part or all of their humanity, depending on what serves the stories they appear in. Zombies aren’t even always dangerous, or contagious. Usually they’re mostly a metaphor or foil for presenting a large, abstract idea like racism or consumerism or the corrupting nature of power, and the details of what constitutes “zombie” are quite often trivial rather than essential.

Having spent an inordinate amount of my life studying zombies in fiction (carefully reading/viewing/playing many hundreds of works, primarily in film, print, and games) and having written multiple “zombie novels” of my own, I saw nothing in Pandemic Legacy: Season 1 which contradicted that the “Faded” are de facto “zombies”. They look like zombies, they act like and are treated like zombies (across several criteria; both in-character and in mechanics, certainly, but also in terms of how they were used by the storytellers to convey concepts and impose emotions and stand in for complex ideas about the real world), and if you did a find/replace to swap instances of “Faded” with “zombies” would not change anything substantive about the game or create any contradictions or problems with the story.

Now, by the time I got to P:L I was already to the point of burnt-out-on-zombies in my life, and when I reached the point of opening box 3 and discovering I’d been tricked into playing another [EXPLETIVE] zombie game I was pissed, and remained frustrated, angry, and disappointed for the remainder of that poorly-written, predictable, trope-filled excuse for a game/campaign.

Spoiler (click to reveal)
Worse to me is this premise from S2 about there being descendants of cured Faded, where at best that’s due to disappointingly-loose misuse and mixing of medical terms; we never treated or cured any Faded, or even developed a treatment or a cure—we developed & distributed a vaccine for the disease. In the language of the game itself, and I just grabbed my loathed copy from the shelf to check, there is no mention of treating or curing the Faded, only vaccinating against it—only keeping people who haven’t already caught the disease from experiencing the worst of its symptoms. I suppose it’s possible that, before there was a chance for herd immunity effects, there were vaccinated people who caught & successfully fought off COdA but still retained (and passed on?) the visible/exterior effects of the disease—but I wouldn’t characterize them as “cured”, let alone “Faded” (at least at first) which was understood to refer to people suffering from COdA and not merely as a way of creating a new ‘unclean’ race to be looked down upon and attacked. More sloppy, trope-ridden writing.


To suggest there were no zombies in Pandemic: Legacy is to misunderstand the broader meaning of the word “zombie”, the role of zombies in the game, and also the role of zombies in the culture as a whole.


I can't tell if this is a serious post or not. Isn't PL a game?

Nonetheless, back to the OP's question about whether or not there are zombies in PL season 2 ....

Once again my answer is ...

Spoiler (click to reveal)
... no


Hope this helps.


There are not zombies. And PL is a game, but games are texts in the same way that books and film are texts. Often, horror, and especially vampire and zombie texts, manifest some coded version of a contemporary societal fear. For example, The Vampire Chronicles by Anne Rice wouldn't have been written when they were written and the way they were written if not for contemporary fears around pedophilia and homophobia (we all can recognize the coded language in other contemporary 1970's and 1980s texts re: "the bad boys are bad (read: coded gay) because they don't have a father figure, which allows ~horrible predatory gay man to manipulate them~).

Fear of HIV/AIDS and illness in general is where vampire and zombie texts often cross, so tmcclanahan is correct on that note. However, I, as an academic, find it hard to believe that someone who studies any kind of text at the level asserted wouldn't recognize the deconstruction going on in PL 1. There are no zombies. Did the game want you to think there were zombies? Yes. The game also wanted you to trust the military in the beginning. It wanted to then rip the rug from under and you and examine WHY you thought they were zombies, and WHY you were so willing to trust the military. For most people, "because zombies are currently a big part of our pop culture ("The Walking Dead", "Resident Evil", yadda yadda, but mostly "The Walking Dead"), and then, for the military, "because post-9/11, we're back in a "you can't question the military" place where many of us live".

Did this work for everyone? No. I'm an historian. My partner and I were weary of the military from the beginning, pissed in February, and then had completely turned on them by the time we were given a nuke. We also noticed that the game only ever described the Faded as sick people. It's never going to work for everyone, just like how "Spec Ops: The Line" didn't work for everyone. But the game did want you to think they were zombies, and then feel really, really bad for killing so many people once it revealed Zodiac.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
al Cann
United States
Warwick
New York
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
MastigosAtLarge wrote:
albcann wrote:
tmcclanahan wrote:
MastigosAtLarge wrote:
... there were no zombies.


This statement relies on a very narrow & limited definition of the word “zombie” and is contradicted by huge swaths of zombie representation throughout a wide variety of media & cultures. Zombies aren’t always the literally-reanimated-dead, and zombies can sometimes be cured or otherwise regain (or even retain) part or all of their humanity, depending on what serves the stories they appear in. Zombies aren’t even always dangerous, or contagious. Usually they’re mostly a metaphor or foil for presenting a large, abstract idea like racism or consumerism or the corrupting nature of power, and the details of what constitutes “zombie” are quite often trivial rather than essential.

Having spent an inordinate amount of my life studying zombies in fiction (carefully reading/viewing/playing many hundreds of works, primarily in film, print, and games) and having written multiple “zombie novels” of my own, I saw nothing in Pandemic Legacy: Season 1 which contradicted that the “Faded” are de facto “zombies”. They look like zombies, they act like and are treated like zombies (across several criteria; both in-character and in mechanics, certainly, but also in terms of how they were used by the storytellers to convey concepts and impose emotions and stand in for complex ideas about the real world), and if you did a find/replace to swap instances of “Faded” with “zombies” would not change anything substantive about the game or create any contradictions or problems with the story.

Now, by the time I got to P:L I was already to the point of burnt-out-on-zombies in my life, and when I reached the point of opening box 3 and discovering I’d been tricked into playing another [EXPLETIVE] zombie game I was pissed, and remained frustrated, angry, and disappointed for the remainder of that poorly-written, predictable, trope-filled excuse for a game/campaign.

Spoiler (click to reveal)
Worse to me is this premise from S2 about there being descendants of cured Faded, where at best that’s due to disappointingly-loose misuse and mixing of medical terms; we never treated or cured any Faded, or even developed a treatment or a cure—we developed & distributed a vaccine for the disease. In the language of the game itself, and I just grabbed my loathed copy from the shelf to check, there is no mention of treating or curing the Faded, only vaccinating against it—only keeping people who haven’t already caught the disease from experiencing the worst of its symptoms. I suppose it’s possible that, before there was a chance for herd immunity effects, there were vaccinated people who caught & successfully fought off COdA but still retained (and passed on?) the visible/exterior effects of the disease—but I wouldn’t characterize them as “cured”, let alone “Faded” (at least at first) which was understood to refer to people suffering from COdA and not merely as a way of creating a new ‘unclean’ race to be looked down upon and attacked. More sloppy, trope-ridden writing.


To suggest there were no zombies in Pandemic: Legacy is to misunderstand the broader meaning of the word “zombie”, the role of zombies in the game, and also the role of zombies in the culture as a whole.


I can't tell if this is a serious post or not. Isn't PL a game?

Nonetheless, back to the OP's question about whether or not there are zombies in PL season 2 ....

Once again my answer is ...

Spoiler (click to reveal)
... no


Hope this helps.


There are not zombies. And PL is a game, but games are texts in the same way that books and film are texts. Often, horror, and especially vampire and zombie texts, manifest some coded version of a contemporary societal fear. For example, The Vampire Chronicles by Anne Rice wouldn't have been written when they were written and the way they were written if not for contemporary fears around pedophilia and homophobia (we all can recognize the coded language in other contemporary 1970's and 1980s texts re: "the bad boys are bad (read: coded gay) because they don't have a father figure, which allows ~horrible predatory gay man to manipulate them~).

Fear of HIV/AIDS and illness in general is where vampire and zombie texts often cross, so tmcclanahan is correct on that note. However, I, as an academic, find it hard to believe that someone who studies any kind of text at the level asserted wouldn't recognize the deconstruction going on in PL 1. There are no zombies. Did the game want you to think there were zombies? Yes. The game also wanted you to trust the military in the beginning. It wanted to then rip the rug from under and you and examine WHY you thought they were zombies, and WHY you were so willing to trust the military. For most people, "because zombies are currently a big part of our pop culture ("The Walking Dead", "Resident Evil", yadda yadda, but mostly "The Walking Dead"), and then, for the military, "because post-9/11, we're back in a "you can't question the military" place where many of us live".

Did this work for everyone? No. I'm an historian. My partner and I were weary of the military from the beginning, pissed in February, and then had completely turned on them by the time we were given a nuke. We also noticed that the game only ever described the Faded as sick people. It's never going to work for everyone, just like how "Spec Ops: The Line" didn't work for everyone. But the game did want you to think they were zombies, and then feel really, really bad for killing so many people once it revealed Zodiac.


Thanks for the reply. I am an academic as well, but a scientist. Part of the reason I was turned off by English class and "text" as you call it was that teachers/professors told me that my interpretation of a particular work was wrong and their interpretation was right. Scientific thinking is proof, backed by experimental data. I don't see the deep, convoluted and manipulative meaning that you and tmcclanahan do. I do not say you are wrong, but I don't choose to read into it as you do and I prefer to view it as a simple and entertaining game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hayley Margules Arden
United States
California
flag msg tools
mb
albcann wrote:
MastigosAtLarge wrote:
albcann wrote:
tmcclanahan wrote:
MastigosAtLarge wrote:
... there were no zombies.


This statement relies on a very narrow & limited definition of the word “zombie” and is contradicted by huge swaths of zombie representation throughout a wide variety of media & cultures. Zombies aren’t always the literally-reanimated-dead, and zombies can sometimes be cured or otherwise regain (or even retain) part or all of their humanity, depending on what serves the stories they appear in. Zombies aren’t even always dangerous, or contagious. Usually they’re mostly a metaphor or foil for presenting a large, abstract idea like racism or consumerism or the corrupting nature of power, and the details of what constitutes “zombie” are quite often trivial rather than essential.

Having spent an inordinate amount of my life studying zombies in fiction (carefully reading/viewing/playing many hundreds of works, primarily in film, print, and games) and having written multiple “zombie novels” of my own, I saw nothing in Pandemic Legacy: Season 1 which contradicted that the “Faded” are de facto “zombies”. They look like zombies, they act like and are treated like zombies (across several criteria; both in-character and in mechanics, certainly, but also in terms of how they were used by the storytellers to convey concepts and impose emotions and stand in for complex ideas about the real world), and if you did a find/replace to swap instances of “Faded” with “zombies” would not change anything substantive about the game or create any contradictions or problems with the story.

Now, by the time I got to P:L I was already to the point of burnt-out-on-zombies in my life, and when I reached the point of opening box 3 and discovering I’d been tricked into playing another [EXPLETIVE] zombie game I was pissed, and remained frustrated, angry, and disappointed for the remainder of that poorly-written, predictable, trope-filled excuse for a game/campaign.

Spoiler (click to reveal)
Worse to me is this premise from S2 about there being descendants of cured Faded, where at best that’s due to disappointingly-loose misuse and mixing of medical terms; we never treated or cured any Faded, or even developed a treatment or a cure—we developed & distributed a vaccine for the disease. In the language of the game itself, and I just grabbed my loathed copy from the shelf to check, there is no mention of treating or curing the Faded, only vaccinating against it—only keeping people who haven’t already caught the disease from experiencing the worst of its symptoms. I suppose it’s possible that, before there was a chance for herd immunity effects, there were vaccinated people who caught & successfully fought off COdA but still retained (and passed on?) the visible/exterior effects of the disease—but I wouldn’t characterize them as “cured”, let alone “Faded” (at least at first) which was understood to refer to people suffering from COdA and not merely as a way of creating a new ‘unclean’ race to be looked down upon and attacked. More sloppy, trope-ridden writing.


To suggest there were no zombies in Pandemic: Legacy is to misunderstand the broader meaning of the word “zombie”, the role of zombies in the game, and also the role of zombies in the culture as a whole.


I can't tell if this is a serious post or not. Isn't PL a game?

Nonetheless, back to the OP's question about whether or not there are zombies in PL season 2 ....

Once again my answer is ...

Spoiler (click to reveal)
... no


Hope this helps.


There are not zombies. And PL is a game, but games are texts in the same way that books and film are texts. Often, horror, and especially vampire and zombie texts, manifest some coded version of a contemporary societal fear. For example, The Vampire Chronicles by Anne Rice wouldn't have been written when they were written and the way they were written if not for contemporary fears around pedophilia and homophobia (we all can recognize the coded language in other contemporary 1970's and 1980s texts re: "the bad boys are bad (read: coded gay) because they don't have a father figure, which allows ~horrible predatory gay man to manipulate them~).

Fear of HIV/AIDS and illness in general is where vampire and zombie texts often cross, so tmcclanahan is correct on that note. However, I, as an academic, find it hard to believe that someone who studies any kind of text at the level asserted wouldn't recognize the deconstruction going on in PL 1. There are no zombies. Did the game want you to think there were zombies? Yes. The game also wanted you to trust the military in the beginning. It wanted to then rip the rug from under and you and examine WHY you thought they were zombies, and WHY you were so willing to trust the military. For most people, "because zombies are currently a big part of our pop culture ("The Walking Dead", "Resident Evil", yadda yadda, but mostly "The Walking Dead"), and then, for the military, "because post-9/11, we're back in a "you can't question the military" place where many of us live".

Did this work for everyone? No. I'm an historian. My partner and I were weary of the military from the beginning, pissed in February, and then had completely turned on them by the time we were given a nuke. We also noticed that the game only ever described the Faded as sick people. It's never going to work for everyone, just like how "Spec Ops: The Line" didn't work for everyone. But the game did want you to think they were zombies, and then feel really, really bad for killing so many people once it revealed Zodiac.


Thanks for the reply. I am an academic as well, but a scientist. Part of the reason I was turned off by English class and "text" as you call it was that teachers/professors told me that my interpretation of a particular work was wrong and their interpretation was right. Scientific thinking is proof, backed by experimental data. I don't see the deep, convoluted and manipulative meaning that you and tmcclanahan do. I do not say you are wrong, but I don't choose to read into it as you do and I prefer to view it as a simple and entertaining game.


Hi! I'm sorry, I was responding to both of you in my comment, and I realize now that it did get unclear what I was saying to you and what I was saying to tmcclanahan.

As I said, historian (and published games writer), not lit professor, and I always struggled in lit and English classes too, mostly with grammar, but also with a lot of the symbolism. With the, "pick apart every single line of this, because EVERY WORD IS HERE FOR A REASON". That was always a problem for me.

But a lot of the learners in my courses (in general and who are STEM majors) struggle for a while because of how high school handles history, which is very Great Man Theory centered, despite the field of history having moved from that more than one hundred years ago. So they come into class and they think that history is about memorizing George Washington's birthday, or when whatever war happened. But that's journalism. (And "when the war happened" is not factual in the first place. If you ask someone from Serbia when WWI started, you might get a very different perspective than if you ask someone from Austria. A professor blew my mind with this point in undergrad). So history isn't about saying, "this happened, then this happened, then this happened." That's journalism. History is about saying, "this happened, then this happened, and from that we can interpret this". History is about making sense of the past, not reciting the events in order.

And my learners who are STEM majors struggle with that for longer than other majors do, but I honestly don't understand why. Scientists deal in facts (of course, and like you said), but you still interpret those facts. You don't just lay them out and leave the report. You make predictions, and then you test those predictions, and then you interpret where you might have gone wrong and what your results mean, and you make recommendations for further study. My partner was physics in undergrad, and I don't understand any of it, but I DO understand his process. And when I draw parallels for my STEM learners, they're able to make major gains in my class.

None of this is about the analysis from English class, like, "the character has black hair to reflect the DARK INNARDS OF HER SOUL," that a lot of English teachers spewed in the 1990s and 2000s, that close reading stuff that I didn't really have the patience for in high school. (That being said, the fact that I die my hair red IS political, and does come from my trying to pass a certain message about myself to the world, just like the clothes I like to wear, and the fact that I have a Star Wars themed phone case. It's all consumption, but to the end of portraying myself in a particular way).

But in a game, or book, or film, or newspaper article, or letter, there ARE things to interpret. The thing didn't come from a vacuum. There are things to interpret if only because Rob Daviau is a person alive in the US in 2017, and his experiences and what he sees as normal dictate what he put in the game. I don't think this game (where the US military was making people sick and trying to establish a dictatorship) could have been made whenever. Probably this century, or like in the 1970s. And there's a reason that The Vampire Chronicles were written in the 1970s (or started being written in the 1960s and are still being published, but their content has changed fromInterview with The Vampire to The Vampire Lestat to Prince Lestat). And that "Lost Boys" and "Heathers" were both in the late 1980s. There's a reason "Mean Girls" in 2004 didn't involve killing the head of the clique, and that "Heathers" in 1989 or whatever DID. Those were different cultural moments. Now, can we know for sure what the reasoning was? No, of course not. But there are all sorts of clues that we can use to hypothesize.

ANYWAY, this is a total tangent, but yeah.

Historians look to a primary source and see--I'll give you an example from my work--in the 17th century, England said you couldn't execute a pregnant woman. Then, we want to know what really happened in practice. So you look for more primary sources. First, you look for (this is what I did, anyway), records of who was pregnant and convicted of witchcraft in 1692 during the Salem Witch Trials. Three women in a period of about a year. Two of them were pardoned and paid reparations, and one of them wasn't given the resources to care for her baby, so the baby died, and then she was put to death. What do we know, factually, was different about these three women? The first two were wealthy, and extremely well-off. The third had been a thorn in the community for a long, like time--she was indigent (all of this verifiable from the primary sources, the facts on the page). So, I concluded, pregnancy was a trump card for execution sentences in this particular community (and this year) in cases when and only when the woman was financially stable enough to support her baby without significant financial contribution from the community. This isn't a world-changing "since the dawn of time" conclusion. It's about this particular community in 1692. Do I think it'll be confirmed in other communities that year too? Yes. Do I think it's true in years that weren't 1692? Yes. But to say that would require much more work.

(Edits are minor things that don't change meaning.)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
al Cann
United States
Warwick
New York
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
MastigosAtLarge wrote:
albcann wrote:
MastigosAtLarge wrote:
albcann wrote:
tmcclanahan wrote:
MastigosAtLarge wrote:
... there were no zombies.


This statement relies on a very narrow & limited definition of the word “zombie” and is contradicted by huge swaths of zombie representation throughout a wide variety of media & cultures. Zombies aren’t always the literally-reanimated-dead, and zombies can sometimes be cured or otherwise regain (or even retain) part or all of their humanity, depending on what serves the stories they appear in. Zombies aren’t even always dangerous, or contagious. Usually they’re mostly a metaphor or foil for presenting a large, abstract idea like racism or consumerism or the corrupting nature of power, and the details of what constitutes “zombie” are quite often trivial rather than essential.

Having spent an inordinate amount of my life studying zombies in fiction (carefully reading/viewing/playing many hundreds of works, primarily in film, print, and games) and having written multiple “zombie novels” of my own, I saw nothing in Pandemic Legacy: Season 1 which contradicted that the “Faded” are de facto “zombies”. They look like zombies, they act like and are treated like zombies (across several criteria; both in-character and in mechanics, certainly, but also in terms of how they were used by the storytellers to convey concepts and impose emotions and stand in for complex ideas about the real world), and if you did a find/replace to swap instances of “Faded” with “zombies” would not change anything substantive about the game or create any contradictions or problems with the story.

Now, by the time I got to P:L I was already to the point of burnt-out-on-zombies in my life, and when I reached the point of opening box 3 and discovering I’d been tricked into playing another [EXPLETIVE] zombie game I was pissed, and remained frustrated, angry, and disappointed for the remainder of that poorly-written, predictable, trope-filled excuse for a game/campaign.

Spoiler (click to reveal)
Worse to me is this premise from S2 about there being descendants of cured Faded, where at best that’s due to disappointingly-loose misuse and mixing of medical terms; we never treated or cured any Faded, or even developed a treatment or a cure—we developed & distributed a vaccine for the disease. In the language of the game itself, and I just grabbed my loathed copy from the shelf to check, there is no mention of treating or curing the Faded, only vaccinating against it—only keeping people who haven’t already caught the disease from experiencing the worst of its symptoms. I suppose it’s possible that, before there was a chance for herd immunity effects, there were vaccinated people who caught & successfully fought off COdA but still retained (and passed on?) the visible/exterior effects of the disease—but I wouldn’t characterize them as “cured”, let alone “Faded” (at least at first) which was understood to refer to people suffering from COdA and not merely as a way of creating a new ‘unclean’ race to be looked down upon and attacked. More sloppy, trope-ridden writing.


To suggest there were no zombies in Pandemic: Legacy is to misunderstand the broader meaning of the word “zombie”, the role of zombies in the game, and also the role of zombies in the culture as a whole.


I can't tell if this is a serious post or not. Isn't PL a game?

Nonetheless, back to the OP's question about whether or not there are zombies in PL season 2 ....

Once again my answer is ...

Spoiler (click to reveal)
... no


Hope this helps.


There are not zombies. And PL is a game, but games are texts in the same way that books and film are texts. Often, horror, and especially vampire and zombie texts, manifest some coded version of a contemporary societal fear. For example, The Vampire Chronicles by Anne Rice wouldn't have been written when they were written and the way they were written if not for contemporary fears around pedophilia and homophobia (we all can recognize the coded language in other contemporary 1970's and 1980s texts re: "the bad boys are bad (read: coded gay) because they don't have a father figure, which allows ~horrible predatory gay man to manipulate them~).

Fear of HIV/AIDS and illness in general is where vampire and zombie texts often cross, so tmcclanahan is correct on that note. However, I, as an academic, find it hard to believe that someone who studies any kind of text at the level asserted wouldn't recognize the deconstruction going on in PL 1. There are no zombies. Did the game want you to think there were zombies? Yes. The game also wanted you to trust the military in the beginning. It wanted to then rip the rug from under and you and examine WHY you thought they were zombies, and WHY you were so willing to trust the military. For most people, "because zombies are currently a big part of our pop culture ("The Walking Dead", "Resident Evil", yadda yadda, but mostly "The Walking Dead"), and then, for the military, "because post-9/11, we're back in a "you can't question the military" place where many of us live".

Did this work for everyone? No. I'm an historian. My partner and I were weary of the military from the beginning, pissed in February, and then had completely turned on them by the time we were given a nuke. We also noticed that the game only ever described the Faded as sick people. It's never going to work for everyone, just like how "Spec Ops: The Line" didn't work for everyone. But the game did want you to think they were zombies, and then feel really, really bad for killing so many people once it revealed Zodiac.


Thanks for the reply. I am an academic as well, but a scientist. Part of the reason I was turned off by English class and "text" as you call it was that teachers/professors told me that my interpretation of a particular work was wrong and their interpretation was right. Scientific thinking is proof, backed by experimental data. I don't see the deep, convoluted and manipulative meaning that you and tmcclanahan do. I do not say you are wrong, but I don't choose to read into it as you do and I prefer to view it as a simple and entertaining game.


Hi! I'm sorry, I was responding to both of you in my comment, and I realize now that it did get unclear what I was saying to you and what I was saying to tmcclanahan.

As I said, historian (and published games writer), not lit professor, and I always struggled in lit and English classes too, mostly with grammar, but also with a lot of the symbolism. With the, "pick apart every single line of this, because EVERY WORD IS HERE FOR A REASON". That was always a problem for me.

But a lot of the learners in my courses (in general and who are STEM majors) struggle for a while because of how high school handles history, which is very Great Man Theory centered, despite the field of history having moved from that more than one hundred years ago. So they come into class and they think that history is about memorizing George Washington's birthday, or when whatever war happened. But that's journalism. (And "when the war happened" is not factual in the first place. If you ask someone from Serbia when WWI started, you might get a very different perspective than if you ask someone from Austria. A professor blew my mind with this point in undergrad). So history isn't about saying, "this happened, then this happened, then this happened." That's journalism. History is about saying, "this happened, then this happened, and from that we can interpret this". History is about making sense of the past, not reciting the events in order.

And my learners who are STEM majors struggle with that for longer than other majors do, but I honestly don't understand why. Scientists deal in facts (of course, and like you said), but you still interpret those facts. You don't just lay them out and leave the report. You make predictions, and then you test those predictions, and then you interpret where you might have gone wrong and what your results mean, and you make recommendations for further study. My partner was physics in undergrad, and I don't understand any of it, but I DO understand his process. And when I draw parallels for my STEM learners, they're able to make major gains in my class.

None of this is about the analysis from English class, like, "the character has black hair to reflect the DARK INNARDS OF HER SOUL," that a lot of English teachers spewed in the 1990s and 2000s, that close reading stuff that I didn't really have the patience for in high school. (That being said, the fact that I die my hair red IS political, and does come from my trying to pass a certain message about myself to the world, just like the clothes I like to wear, and the fact that I have a Star Wars themed phone case. It's all consumption, but to the end of portraying myself in a particular way).

But in a game, or book, or film, or newspaper article, or letter, there ARE things to interpret. The thing didn't come from a vacuum. There are things to interpret if only because Rob Daviau is a person alive in the US in 2017, and his experiences and what he sees as normal dictate what he put in the game. I don't think this game (where the US military was making people sick and trying to establish a dictatorship) could have been made whenever. Probably this century, or like in the 1970s. And there's a reason that The Vampire Chronicles were written in the 1970s (or started being written in the 1960s and are still being published, but their content has changed fromInterview with The Vampire to The Vampire Lestat to Prince Lestat). And that "Lost Boys" and "Heathers" were both in the late 1980s. There's a reason "Mean Girls" in 2004 didn't involve killing the head of the clique, and that "Heathers" in 1989 or whatever DID. Those were different cultural moments. Now, can we know for sure what the reasoning was? No, of course not. But there are all sorts of clues that we can use to hypothesize.

ANYWAY, this is a total tangent, but yeah.

Historians look to a primary source and see--I'll give you an example from my work--in the 17th century, England said you couldn't execute a pregnant woman. Then, we want to know what really happened in practice. So you look for more primary sources. First, you look for (this is what I did, anyway), records of who was pregnant and convicted of witchcraft in 1692 during the Salem Witch Trials. Three women in a period of about a year. Two of them were pardoned and paid reparations, and one of them wasn't given the resources to care for her baby, so the baby died, and then she was put to death. What do we know, factually, was different about these three women? The first two were wealthy, and extremely well-off. The third had been a thorn in the community for a long, like time--she was indigent (all of this verifiable from the primary sources, the facts on the page). So, I concluded, pregnancy was a trump card for execution sentences in this particular community (and this year) in cases when and only when the woman was financially stable enough to support her baby without significant financial contribution from the community. This isn't a world-changing "since the dawn of time" conclusion. It's about this particular community in 1692. Do I think it'll be confirmed in other communities that year too? Yes. Do I think it's true in years that weren't 1692? Yes. But to say that would require much more work.

(Edits are minor things that don't change meaning.)


You have a very interesting take on this ... and it does make sense and you may be, and probably are, correct in your interpretations. The issue with the scientific approach is that is isn't just about facts that require interpretation. While your statement is true, the scientist then needs to experiment. If I were to interpret Daviau's "text" to reflect concerns about the government or zombies representing contemporary societal fears, how could I conduct an experiment to substantiate my claims? I suppose I could ask Daviau, but that defeats the purpose of interpretation.

So, I choose not to interpret and view the game on the surface only.

This said, I have enjoyed reading your perspective and the lessons behind it and I appreciate the time you must have taken to write it. I also am aware of the indirect compliment you have given me because if you thought I was some uneducated hack, you wouldn't have wasted your time.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hayley Margules Arden
United States
California
flag msg tools
mb
albcann wrote:
MastigosAtLarge wrote:
albcann wrote:
MastigosAtLarge wrote:
albcann wrote:
tmcclanahan wrote:
MastigosAtLarge wrote:
... there were no zombies.


This statement relies on a very narrow & limited definition of the word “zombie” and is contradicted by huge swaths of zombie representation throughout a wide variety of media & cultures. Zombies aren’t always the literally-reanimated-dead, and zombies can sometimes be cured or otherwise regain (or even retain) part or all of their humanity, depending on what serves the stories they appear in. Zombies aren’t even always dangerous, or contagious. Usually they’re mostly a metaphor or foil for presenting a large, abstract idea like racism or consumerism or the corrupting nature of power, and the details of what constitutes “zombie” are quite often trivial rather than essential.

Having spent an inordinate amount of my life studying zombies in fiction (carefully reading/viewing/playing many hundreds of works, primarily in film, print, and games) and having written multiple “zombie novels” of my own, I saw nothing in Pandemic Legacy: Season 1 which contradicted that the “Faded” are de facto “zombies”. They look like zombies, they act like and are treated like zombies (across several criteria; both in-character and in mechanics, certainly, but also in terms of how they were used by the storytellers to convey concepts and impose emotions and stand in for complex ideas about the real world), and if you did a find/replace to swap instances of “Faded” with “zombies” would not change anything substantive about the game or create any contradictions or problems with the story.

Now, by the time I got to P:L I was already to the point of burnt-out-on-zombies in my life, and when I reached the point of opening box 3 and discovering I’d been tricked into playing another [EXPLETIVE] zombie game I was pissed, and remained frustrated, angry, and disappointed for the remainder of that poorly-written, predictable, trope-filled excuse for a game/campaign.

Spoiler (click to reveal)
Worse to me is this premise from S2 about there being descendants of cured Faded, where at best that’s due to disappointingly-loose misuse and mixing of medical terms; we never treated or cured any Faded, or even developed a treatment or a cure—we developed & distributed a vaccine for the disease. In the language of the game itself, and I just grabbed my loathed copy from the shelf to check, there is no mention of treating or curing the Faded, only vaccinating against it—only keeping people who haven’t already caught the disease from experiencing the worst of its symptoms. I suppose it’s possible that, before there was a chance for herd immunity effects, there were vaccinated people who caught & successfully fought off COdA but still retained (and passed on?) the visible/exterior effects of the disease—but I wouldn’t characterize them as “cured”, let alone “Faded” (at least at first) which was understood to refer to people suffering from COdA and not merely as a way of creating a new ‘unclean’ race to be looked down upon and attacked. More sloppy, trope-ridden writing.


To suggest there were no zombies in Pandemic: Legacy is to misunderstand the broader meaning of the word “zombie”, the role of zombies in the game, and also the role of zombies in the culture as a whole.


I can't tell if this is a serious post or not. Isn't PL a game?

Nonetheless, back to the OP's question about whether or not there are zombies in PL season 2 ....

Once again my answer is ...

Spoiler (click to reveal)
... no


Hope this helps.


There are not zombies. And PL is a game, but games are texts in the same way that books and film are texts. Often, horror, and especially vampire and zombie texts, manifest some coded version of a contemporary societal fear. For example, The Vampire Chronicles by Anne Rice wouldn't have been written when they were written and the way they were written if not for contemporary fears around pedophilia and homophobia (we all can recognize the coded language in other contemporary 1970's and 1980s texts re: "the bad boys are bad (read: coded gay) because they don't have a father figure, which allows ~horrible predatory gay man to manipulate them~).

Fear of HIV/AIDS and illness in general is where vampire and zombie texts often cross, so tmcclanahan is correct on that note. However, I, as an academic, find it hard to believe that someone who studies any kind of text at the level asserted wouldn't recognize the deconstruction going on in PL 1. There are no zombies. Did the game want you to think there were zombies? Yes. The game also wanted you to trust the military in the beginning. It wanted to then rip the rug from under and you and examine WHY you thought they were zombies, and WHY you were so willing to trust the military. For most people, "because zombies are currently a big part of our pop culture ("The Walking Dead", "Resident Evil", yadda yadda, but mostly "The Walking Dead"), and then, for the military, "because post-9/11, we're back in a "you can't question the military" place where many of us live".

Did this work for everyone? No. I'm an historian. My partner and I were weary of the military from the beginning, pissed in February, and then had completely turned on them by the time we were given a nuke. We also noticed that the game only ever described the Faded as sick people. It's never going to work for everyone, just like how "Spec Ops: The Line" didn't work for everyone. But the game did want you to think they were zombies, and then feel really, really bad for killing so many people once it revealed Zodiac.


Thanks for the reply. I am an academic as well, but a scientist. Part of the reason I was turned off by English class and "text" as you call it was that teachers/professors told me that my interpretation of a particular work was wrong and their interpretation was right. Scientific thinking is proof, backed by experimental data. I don't see the deep, convoluted and manipulative meaning that you and tmcclanahan do. I do not say you are wrong, but I don't choose to read into it as you do and I prefer to view it as a simple and entertaining game.


Hi! I'm sorry, I was responding to both of you in my comment, and I realize now that it did get unclear what I was saying to you and what I was saying to tmcclanahan.

As I said, historian (and published games writer), not lit professor, and I always struggled in lit and English classes too, mostly with grammar, but also with a lot of the symbolism. With the, "pick apart every single line of this, because EVERY WORD IS HERE FOR A REASON". That was always a problem for me.

But a lot of the learners in my courses (in general and who are STEM majors) struggle for a while because of how high school handles history, which is very Great Man Theory centered, despite the field of history having moved from that more than one hundred years ago. So they come into class and they think that history is about memorizing George Washington's birthday, or when whatever war happened. But that's journalism. (And "when the war happened" is not factual in the first place. If you ask someone from Serbia when WWI started, you might get a very different perspective than if you ask someone from Austria. A professor blew my mind with this point in undergrad). So history isn't about saying, "this happened, then this happened, then this happened." That's journalism. History is about saying, "this happened, then this happened, and from that we can interpret this". History is about making sense of the past, not reciting the events in order.

And my learners who are STEM majors struggle with that for longer than other majors do, but I honestly don't understand why. Scientists deal in facts (of course, and like you said), but you still interpret those facts. You don't just lay them out and leave the report. You make predictions, and then you test those predictions, and then you interpret where you might have gone wrong and what your results mean, and you make recommendations for further study. My partner was physics in undergrad, and I don't understand any of it, but I DO understand his process. And when I draw parallels for my STEM learners, they're able to make major gains in my class.

None of this is about the analysis from English class, like, "the character has black hair to reflect the DARK INNARDS OF HER SOUL," that a lot of English teachers spewed in the 1990s and 2000s, that close reading stuff that I didn't really have the patience for in high school. (That being said, the fact that I die my hair red IS political, and does come from my trying to pass a certain message about myself to the world, just like the clothes I like to wear, and the fact that I have a Star Wars themed phone case. It's all consumption, but to the end of portraying myself in a particular way).

But in a game, or book, or film, or newspaper article, or letter, there ARE things to interpret. The thing didn't come from a vacuum. There are things to interpret if only because Rob Daviau is a person alive in the US in 2017, and his experiences and what he sees as normal dictate what he put in the game. I don't think this game (where the US military was making people sick and trying to establish a dictatorship) could have been made whenever. Probably this century, or like in the 1970s. And there's a reason that The Vampire Chronicles were written in the 1970s (or started being written in the 1960s and are still being published, but their content has changed fromInterview with The Vampire to The Vampire Lestat to Prince Lestat). And that "Lost Boys" and "Heathers" were both in the late 1980s. There's a reason "Mean Girls" in 2004 didn't involve killing the head of the clique, and that "Heathers" in 1989 or whatever DID. Those were different cultural moments. Now, can we know for sure what the reasoning was? No, of course not. But there are all sorts of clues that we can use to hypothesize.

ANYWAY, this is a total tangent, but yeah.

Historians look to a primary source and see--I'll give you an example from my work--in the 17th century, England said you couldn't execute a pregnant woman. Then, we want to know what really happened in practice. So you look for more primary sources. First, you look for (this is what I did, anyway), records of who was pregnant and convicted of witchcraft in 1692 during the Salem Witch Trials. Three women in a period of about a year. Two of them were pardoned and paid reparations, and one of them wasn't given the resources to care for her baby, so the baby died, and then she was put to death. What do we know, factually, was different about these three women? The first two were wealthy, and extremely well-off. The third had been a thorn in the community for a long, like time--she was indigent (all of this verifiable from the primary sources, the facts on the page). So, I concluded, pregnancy was a trump card for execution sentences in this particular community (and this year) in cases when and only when the woman was financially stable enough to support her baby without significant financial contribution from the community. This isn't a world-changing "since the dawn of time" conclusion. It's about this particular community in 1692. Do I think it'll be confirmed in other communities that year too? Yes. Do I think it's true in years that weren't 1692? Yes. But to say that would require much more work.

(Edits are minor things that don't change meaning.)


You have a very interesting take on this ... and it does make sense and you may be, and probably are, correct in your interpretations. The issue with the scientific approach is that is isn't just about facts that require interpretation. While your statement is true, the scientist then needs to experiment. If I were to interpret Daviau's "text" to reflect concerns about the government or zombies representing contemporary societal fears, how could I conduct an experiment to substantiate my claims? I suppose I could ask Daviau, but that defeats the purpose of interpretation.

So, I choose not to interpret and view the game on the surface only.

This said, I have enjoyed reading your perspective and the lessons behind it and I appreciate the time you must have taken to write it. I also am aware of the indirect compliment you have given me because if you thought I was some uneducated hack, you wouldn't have wasted your time.


Thank you too! We're both in the same boat, I think--you wouldn't giving me the time of day either if you didn't value my opinion, so thanks.

I think the way I see it is that we're all interpreting. And, like you're saying, there's a clear esoteric experiment you can undertake to test whatever hypothesis you're testing in science, but if that were the be-all end-all, we wouldn't have needed to go through Galileo to get to Copernicus, and no one would have ever believed in humoristic medicine. There's more to learn and more to test, and there are interpretations to disprove, right?

So even the results of an experiment are not absolute. We can't know what Rob Daviau thinks, and we can't know if it was intentional that this game is anti-military. I think it pretty clearly IS intentional, but fuck me, what the hell do I know about what Rob Daviau intended? More to the point, I think, what he intended is irrelevant. The game is anti-military, whether he sat there planning it and decided to include these beats to these ends. Whether he was aware of it or not, and intended it or not, that's what the game is saying. And similarly to "fuck me, what the hell do I know," if Rob Daviau comes out tomorrow and says, "this is what I meant," then (and I say this respectfully, I swear to god) fuck him. What the hell does he know? The game is out there now. Now, the experience of interpreting it is wholly collaborative.

I'm attaching a video I think you might enjoy that talks about a lot of these concepts more in detail, and about a video that I really think you'd enjoy if you haven't played it already. I also needed to edit because I left the important word "not" out of one of my points here.

"The Artist is Absent: Davey Wreden and The Beginner's Guide"

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
al Cann
United States
Warwick
New York
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
I couldn't access the video here, but I looked it up on You Tube and watched it. Very interesting and true.

Wish I could have shown that video to some of my HS English teachers who told me my interpretations were wrong!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Byron S
United States
Ventura
California
flag msg tools
I don't remember what I ate last night
badge
but I can spout off obscure rules to all sorts of games like nobody's business!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MastigosAtLarge wrote:

Link fixed. Only paste the video key, not the entire YouTube URL.

Interesting tangent.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hayley Margules Arden
United States
California
flag msg tools
mb
runtsta wrote:
MastigosAtLarge wrote:

Link fixed. Only paste the video key, not the entire YouTube URL.

Interesting tangent.


Thanks for your help!!!

(And thanks =). I think so too.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Natasha R
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
LorryMoller wrote:
Here is the thing that other poster's are dancing around - it is a spoiler that doesn't affect gameplay but is a major plot point of season 2, so don't open the spoiler unless absolutely necessary (ie if uncertainty over 'zombies/fallen' is going to prevent you from playing the game, etc).

Spoiler (click to reveal)
it is revealed near the end of the game that
Spoiler (click to reveal)
you have been playing the descendants of the 'fallen' people that were quarantined in season 1. So the Fallen are the protagonists of season 2


This was the comment that helped me make my decision. I know my friend would hate this twist.

Hope that provides closure for the interpretation of the word zombie discussion. Unless people are enjoying the theoretical discussion. In which case, keep going!

I got the answer I was looking for.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wei-Hwa Huang
United States
San Jose
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm surprised that in all this discussion nobody's brought up Richard Matheson's 1954 novel "I Am Legend", which not only inspired the whole zombie genre, but also (book and game spoilers)

Spoiler (click to reveal)
has a twist ending where the protagonist realizes that the role of human vs. the role of vampire has reversed by the end of the novel, much like how the roles of human and Faded swap by the end of this game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.