What if WA was set in a place with pre-established groups fueled by ideologies?

**Osiris** · Apr 23rd, 2012, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by yarri

You and I are in agreement in this. As soon as you can get out get out of the city.

Rotting bodies (and there are going to be dead things alot of dead things) = all sorts of funky diseases. Yes finding supplies would be easier but then again those supplies have a shelf life. My idea use the city as a supermarket, get gear together, a host of starter seeds for a nice garden and head to the country. Clean air, a nice bit of ground and go rural. Also wouldn't you say that a rural location would have fewer of the infected to deal with?

Rural is one thing. I'm talking about someplace must more inhospitable and hostile than 'the country'. You wouldn't consider the Sahara as being 'rural'. There's a big difference between surviving outside of an American city on what is essentially farm land (unless you live in Arizona maybe) and surviving in a place where resources are far more scarce than you would like them to be. You wouldn't flee the comfort and safety of The Tower for unprotected, harsh nights on the Siberian tundra. Not unless you were insane. That's what I'm talking about, W.A. in a region where the elements play a much larger factor.

Originally Posted by reaper239

it also depends on seasons, russia can be quite hospitible in the warmer months. of course if you were in the middle of the wastes you would likely be saying, "what zombie apocalypse?" in the middle of the frozen wastes of russia, there wouldn't be enough people for the ZA to take hold and have an impact, conversely if you were in the jungles of south america, there is an abundunce of natural resources and enough people in towns that the ZA would drive you to the wild. from there survival is just a matter of know how, but if you live in the jungle you already proly have that know how.

If we're going that route, then why would we be talking about a zombie apocoalypse anyway? It would never happen, so staying in L.A. would be fine I guess. You'd thrive just as well in the jungle as you would the city. No need to carry the thread on. It's been solved.

**reaper239** · Apr 23rd, 2012, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Osiris

Rural is one thing. I'm talking about someplace must more inhospitable and hostile than 'the country'. You wouldn't consider the Sahara as being 'rural'. There's a big difference between surviving outside of an American city on what is essentially farm land (unless you live in Arizona maybe) and surviving in a place where resources are far more scarce than you would like them to be. You wouldn't flee the comfort and safety of The Tower for unprotected, harsh nights on the Siberian tundra. Not unless you were insane. That's what I'm talking about, W.A. in a region where the elements play a much larger factor.

If we're going that route, then why would we be talking about a zombie apocoalypse anyway? It would never happen, so staying in L.A. would be fine I guess. You'd thrive just as well in the jungle as you would the city. No need to carry the thread on. It's been solved.

that's a cop out and you know it. all i'm asking you is: in the middle of the sahara, how many people are there to be affected by the ZA? not many right? so are you just going to create a bunch of random people to turn into zombies who have no other purpose than to turn into zombies? what makes the city interesting is that if a zombie virus broke out (and there are nerve agents and virus's that make people act like hyper aggressive and... bitey) there are people there and survival is difficult. what you're describing is someone going out into the middle of nowhere, where no people would regularly be, finding a bunch of people standing around waiting to turn into zombies, and surviving. it just doesn't seem plausible, even with the zombie aspect. now survival in a harsh environment is one thing, but people don't congregate places where your odds of survival drop dramatically because there is nothing there. there needs to be some kind of livelyhood. now people do live in some crazy places and i would love to see outbreaks in those places too (spreading the love). like the alaskan wilderness: cold, harsh, unforgiving but livable.

**Osiris** · Apr 23rd, 2012, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by reaper239

that's a cop out and you know it. all i'm asking you is: in the middle of the sahara, how many people are there to be affected by the ZA? not many right? so are you just going to create a bunch of random people to turn into zombies who have no other purpose than to turn into zombies? what makes the city interesting is that if a zombie virus broke out (and there are nerve agents and virus's that make people act like hyper aggressive and... bitey) there are people there and survival is difficult. what you're describing is someone going out into the middle of nowhere, where no people would regularly be, finding a bunch of people standing around waiting to turn into zombies, and surviving. it just doesn't seem plausible, even with the zombie aspect. now survival in a harsh environment is one thing, but people don't congregate places where your odds of survival drop dramatically because there is nothing there. there needs to be some kind of livelyhood. now people do live in some crazy places and i would love to see outbreaks in those places too (spreading the love). like the alaskan wilderness: cold, harsh, unforgiving but livable.

That's ridiculous. And to think that you got that out of what I wrote. Let me break it down. You have a small group of survivors in a city somewhere on the edge of civilization after an outbreak that at are being forced to leave the city because it's overrun. I have no idea where you got 'people hanging around in the middle of nowhere waiting to be turned into zombies' unless of course you were simply trying to force words into my mouth for argument's sake.

Now, you've got a group of survivors on the run into a truly inhospitable terrain, Zeds at their heels, no comfort, no safety, just a whole lot of empty wilderness ahead of them as they try to escape. Are you following easier, or will I need to draw some pictures for you? Not once did I describe someone walking into the wilderness and finding a group of people waiting to be turned into zombies.

**Cabbage Patch** · Apr 23rd, 2012, 01:05 PM

World War Z did a great job reflecting the impact of a zombie apocalypse on different areas around the world. Geography and climate, the nature of the government and society, and plain dumb luck all play enormous roles, creating unique circumstances everywhere the zombies show up. I'd love to see some of those stories, once KC gives us the bigger picture of what's happening around the world.

**Osiris** · Apr 23rd, 2012, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Cabbage Patch

World War Z did a great job reflecting the impact of a zombie apocalypse on different areas around the world. Geography and climate, the nature of the government and society, and plain dumb luck all play enormous roles, creating unique circumstances everywhere the zombies show up. I'd love to see some of those stories, once KC gives us the bigger picture of what's happening around the world.

World War Z was really good. Brooks did a great job on it... now that you mention it... I should re-read that.

**reaper239** · Apr 23rd, 2012, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Osiris

That's ridiculous. And to think that you got that out of what I wrote. Let me break it down. You have a small group of survivors in a city somewhere on the edge of civilization after an outbreak that at are being forced to leave the city because it's overrun. I have no idea where you got 'people hanging around in the middle of nowhere waiting to be turned into zombies' unless of course you were simply trying to force words into my mouth for argument's sake.

Now, you've got a group of survivors on the run into a truly inhospitable terrain, Zeds at their heels, no comfort, no safety, just a whole lot of empty wilderness ahead of them as they try to escape. Are you following easier, or will I need to draw some pictures for you? Not once did I describe someone walking into the wilderness and finding a group of people waiting to be turned into zombies.

ok, i see where you were going. i totally didn't grab that from what you were posting.

**reaper239** · Apr 23rd, 2012, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Osiris

World War Z was really good. Brooks did a great job on it... now that you mention it... I should re-read that.

world war z was a one time read for me. i mean it was great for the zombie nut in me, but it just moved a little too slow for a re-read.

**Osiris** · Apr 23rd, 2012, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by reaper239

ok, i see where you were going. i totally didn't grab that from what you were posting.

I'm also super medicated lately, so my posts are probably confusing. No harm, no foul.

**yarri** · Apr 23rd, 2012, 01:27 PM

[QUOTE=Osiris;38598]Rural is one thing. I'm talking about someplace must more inhospitable and hostile than 'the country'. You wouldn't consider the Sahara as being 'rural'. There's a big difference between surviving outside of an American city on what is essentially farm land (unless you live in Arizona maybe) and surviving in a place where resources are far more scarce than you would like them to be. You wouldn't flee the comfort and safety of The Tower for unprotected, harsh nights on the Siberian tundra. Not unless you were insane. That's what I'm talking about, W.A. in a region where the elements play a much larger factor.

Ok now that make sense