Also, why are all the humans so hellbent on warring with each other? Resource scarcity and tribal rivalry are things but it's like everyone is just a grumpy asshole ready to shoot anyone they don't recognize. In a world like that, it doesn't make sense for things to stay shitty forever and ever.That's literally reality.
Did you know thatBut then why don't we see them monst?
wait for it
humans are the real monsters?
But then why don't we see them monst?
Pop culture tells us that in extreme situations like apocalyptic dystopia people become more monstrous and violent. Because of this, a lot of people assume this is our "true nature" as human beings. Recently social politics and media have exacerbated feelings of hostility towards each other, so people think that more than ever.
If you look at the way people actually act in real life situations like war zones and natural disasters, the opposite is true. People band together, they help each other, they become more altruistic, more inclined to help children and the weak, more accepting and hospitable to strangers. This is pretty much universal throughout history unless there is some outside force intervening to make them act differently. Societies can influence people to be more evil and violent. Bigger societies have more power to do this when the people in charge are motivated to do so for money / power. But small communities are much more likely to be positive, caring, compassionate, and welcoming when not influenced by outside forces.
What I'm saying is, in spite of what Last of Us, Mad Max, and Walking Dead will tell you, people in post-apocalyptic societies would probably keep their humanity, and in fact band together and be kinder to each other than we are now. That's what people are really like.
did you miss 2020Fucking seriously. I was always a naysayer who put more faith in humanity as a whole until the pandemic. Never again. Never ever again. You can't write humanity to be too selfish, too stupid or too self destructive anymore.
I will say Last of Us does a better job of this than most stories because the cordyceps is so extremely dangerous. Like in The Walking Dead, the zombies are really slow and rotting, so it's weird that they're such a danger even years later.
But clickers and the like live for a long time, animated by the fungus, and they only get more dangerous. Stalkers are smart enough to hunt prey, bloaters are virtually tanks, and shamblers spray acid.
Even when they do fall over and die on their own, their body blooms into infectious spores that render entire areas uninhabitable.
There's also the complication of FEDRA. That alone primes the setting to be a little more fucked because the only safe spaces for a lot of people are military-run autocracies. Two major areas in the series are the result of the citizens rising up and fighting off FEDRA.
And then especially in the second game, it showcases that different sides aren't good and evil, it's just which side you're on. I think the ones that are more outright evil are also believably so: cults with the Scars, slavers with the Rattlers, and bandits with the Pittsburgh crew.
as far as the runners thing goes, I don't think all infected necessarily transform into more deadly types (like, runners to clickers, or clickers to shamblers).
at least, I don't think it was stated.
Pop culture tells us that in extreme situations like apocalyptic dystopia people become more monstrous and violent. Because of this, a lot of people assume this is our "true nature" as human beings. Recently social politics and media have exacerbated feelings of hostility towards each other, so people think that more than ever.
If you look at the way people actually act in real life situations like war zones and natural disasters, the opposite is true. People band together, they help each other, they become more altruistic, more inclined to help children and the weak, more accepting and hospitable to strangers. This is pretty much universal throughout history unless there is some outside force intervening to make them act differently. Societies can influence people to be more evil and violent. Bigger societies have more power to do this when the people in charge are motivated to do so for money / power. But small communities are much more likely to be positive, caring, compassionate, and welcoming when not influenced by outside forces.
What I'm saying is, in spite of what Last of Us, Mad Max, and Walking Dead will tell you, people in post-apocalyptic societies would probably keep their humanity, and in fact band together and be kinder to each other than we are now. That's what people are really like.
Maybe it's just America. Perhaps other countries are relatively stable even with the cordyceps.That was my first instinct when I became aware of TLoU. Only America is like this and the rest of the world was able to deal with the cordyceps virus.
Fucking seriously. I was always a naysayer who put more faith in humanity as a whole until the pandemic. Never again. Never ever again. You can't write humanity to be too selfish, too stupid or too self destructive anymore.Problem is people will say you are writing characters too "whatever" to be fiction. Thing is reality doesn't have to make sense.
That was my first instinct when I became aware of TLoU. Only America is like this and the rest of the world was able to deal with the cordyceps virus.Neil Druckmann has said he has left room for spinoffs or expansions that could explore how other countries have responded. Would be an interesting take.
Resource scarcity and tribal rivalry are things but it's like everyone is just a grumpy asshole ready to shoot anyone they don't recognize.
There is no coming back from a society that's become that fragmented and Purge-like for that long. No rules. No Constitution. No laws ( unless you're in an occupied zone or found a group that sets boundaries.)How the hell do you think we made society in the first place?
There is no coming back from a society that's become that fragmented and Purge-like for that long. No rules. No Constitution. No laws ( unless you're in an occupied zone or found a group that sets boundaries.)
Or more simply put: if there is only enough food for one of us, we'll fight over it. But if there's enough food for both of us, why would we fight?
Or more simply put: if there is only enough food for one of us, we'll fight over it. But if there's enough food for both of us, why would we fight?tbf, we see people hoard resources, when they already have plenty, all the time.
tbf, we see people hoard resources, when they already have plenty, all the time.
I am oversimplifying it, but this isn't taking into consideration the nature of logistical overabundance. I'm not venturing past economics 100.I just meant that, even at the basest level, there are some people who might look at available resources/access to them, and instead of thinking of how it might be best for everyone to split things up, it might be better to keep more of it for themselves, whether it's to control/manipulate others, or just have something for a rainy day.