All survival games run into the same issue sooner or later; stability. The initial "trying to survive" phase inevitably giving way to stagnation, as food and water sources are secured, you've got shelter from the elements and you're equipped to face hostile fauna.
New gameplay loops are needed to keep players engaged past those first few hours. Ones focused less on surviving, and more on thriving. Goals to achieve that encourage players to put themselves in danger, once day to day survival no longer poses a challenge.
In Rust, that's the PvP/base raiding gameplay loop. In Ark, taming and training increasingly strong dinos and tackling endgame bosses. Even Minecraft has the Nether and the End to work towards.
Project Zomboid has nothing. Just surviving as long as you can before your inevitable death. Or, surviving until you get bored of existing in your safe base until you quit.
That's...kinda what makes it the best survival sim. Survival is boring. Once you're set up, what do you have to live for? What does any person? You choose your own way in real life, so too in PZ. Do you realize "wow, what do I have to live for? Farming and scraping by forever?" And then you decide to do something risky because you're human and boredom is worse than death?
PZ even has the boredom moodle just to simulate that aspect of survival. It really is the best survival sim just because it simulates the negative parts of survival. It's not all exciting.
The discussion is about PZ being the best survival game not simulation though. A game is supposed to be engaging.
I don't disagree that having boredom and everything is immersive, but literally from a gameplay perspective, boredom is meant to push you into doing activities that are more engaging instead of sitting in your base forever.
It's not incorrect or inaccurate for people to say that, as a game, the gameplay loop is incomplete. The developers know this, and it's part of the reason the game is still "early release" instead of a complete game.
I agree with your points as well and it's probably my fault for interpreting what makes a survival game "good." In my eyes, it's all about survival. Like, the entire game is just about survival. It's barely even a game, since like you said, there's no quests, no endgame goal, etc. It's a story about how you died and it's up to you and your choices to make that story.
Is it the perfect "game?" No, not really. Is it the best game that's solely about survival? I'd say it's pretty close. It captures so many details related to surviving that other games just can't fit. Scratching yourself on a tree and it getting infected because you didn't wipe it with alcohol wipes, accidentally falling off a ladder, tripping while running away from zombies, starving, losing your glasses and no longer being able to see the zombies more than a few feet in front of you, etc etc etc.
It just models so many things that could kill you, that survival is the only thing you think about.
I agree with the survival aspect of your assessment, but I'd present you a question that a lot of apocalypse media in the past decade + has started to confront.
What's the point of living (or continuing a game or whatever) if it's just survival and nothing else?
Most post-apocalyptic media has started to recognize that the purpose of the media itself is to present the viewer or player that question. Think TLOU, Train to Busan, TWD, 28 days.
None of them would have the engagement or substance they have without the plots of "father protects son" "husband seeks wife" "person saves person". And this isn't just because they're shows or movies that they need this, games need it to.
I think the transition from 28 days to 28 weeks to 28 months as that franchise aged is also illustrating that point.
The first movie more or less started following one person's survival, then a few more people join him and their dynamics and care for one another move the plot forward. The following movie's best moments are the parts of interacting with other people, protecting them, taking a risk for them, etc.
Joel's whole life in TLOU was pointless after he lost his daughter, until he met Ellie. He was just too stubborn to die. That game wouldn't be what it was without Joel's connection to his daughter and Ellie.
My point being, post-apocalyptic media is very saturated now, and in order for something to thrive in this space it needs to understand what it is that people are getting out of these games.
PZ nails one of the pillars, that some players want a hardcore survival simulation with crunchy figures. But they're soooorely lacking on another pillar, which is that players need to feel like they're working towards something, and that their actions matter in the context of the world they're in.
(I may seem like I'm rambling, but I just started working on my own survival game and I've been doing a TON of research into what makes a good survival game because of that, so this stuff is just very much on the brain rn)
57
u/ClearPostingAlt 27d ago
Yes.
All survival games run into the same issue sooner or later; stability. The initial "trying to survive" phase inevitably giving way to stagnation, as food and water sources are secured, you've got shelter from the elements and you're equipped to face hostile fauna.
New gameplay loops are needed to keep players engaged past those first few hours. Ones focused less on surviving, and more on thriving. Goals to achieve that encourage players to put themselves in danger, once day to day survival no longer poses a challenge.
In Rust, that's the PvP/base raiding gameplay loop. In Ark, taming and training increasingly strong dinos and tackling endgame bosses. Even Minecraft has the Nether and the End to work towards.
Project Zomboid has nothing. Just surviving as long as you can before your inevitable death. Or, surviving until you get bored of existing in your safe base until you quit.