Is DayZ realistic?

[DemonGroover 8836]

In so many ways Day Z is the most realistic thing to happen on PC's in quite some time. Hunger, thirst, sickness, being stealthy, having only one life all add to the realism of the game.

As a Social Experiment however, the game, through no fault of Rocket, has failed. 95% of people shoot on sight. Why? Because it is a game and people know it is a game? There arent any repercussions to a persons actions and so shooting people has become blase. And in a game like this i dont think you can apply penalties to someone who shoots on sight.

Think for a minute that if the scenario in Day Z actually happened. Would you, as a human being shoot people on sight? Or would you band together with your fellow survivors and try and survive? I think 95% of people would be so scared that they would cling onto any human contact they could. However this isnt being translated into the game - why not?

Is it too hard to band together with strangers? Are beans too addictive? Is it easier to shoot than talk? Is it more fun to kill others?

Just interested in knowing peoples thoughts that's all.

Cheers

[NCreepy 0]

There are sertain elements that can under strain be called realistic. There are far more things that is not.

[Kageru 18]

Under current game mechanics shooting first is the right answer even if you weren't that way inclined to start with. It's safer because attempting to communicate makes you much more vulnerable, there's no model of reputation that helps identify dedicated PK's, there's no negative consequences (other than -ammo) and you might well get nice loot that would be effort to find.

You are about to get slammed by a lot of people who like shooting people and are going to explain you are weak, need to learn to play, aren't playing it properly, couldn't get that intensity without them, need them to represent the fact we're all psychotic as soon as the cops are gone.

It's not worth discussing till there's a meaningful humanity mechanism in game. That defines how much of an issue Rocket things it is. Current vers: not much.

[katulobotomia 26]

I have been in a lot of situations where I've been tracking someone for quite some time and not taken the shot because I didn't need anything to survive and they weren't a threat. I use extreme stealth measures and I've not been seen in 4 days even though I've been around in a few towns and in between a firefight among two other people.

I am proof that there is some form of consideration and empathy in the game, but I agree that the threshold for it to make anyone spare a life is extremely high. There should be more incentive not to pull the trigger, because you aren't actually ending anyone.

[sunnz 24]

Most people who shoot in game would not have the guts to pull the trigger, including me ( i dont kill in game unless defending my self), the emotional impact this has on you will be too much to handle, i mean even soldiers have effects such as not being able to go a sleep as they see themselves killing other people.

Killing other humans is without a doubt the worst thing you can do, if your defending your own life or your friends, its probably easier to kill but still can be difficult for some. Life is not like the movies, and only those with serious mental problems can kill over 5 people and live on.

This is why i believe that this game needs some kind of repercussion TO COMPENSATE KILLING OTHERS, when we had the bandit skin, i literally did not kil lat all, i would flee 9/10 so i don't get the bandit skin.

Now, i will kill in game if i feel even slightly threatened. Even having things like having players who kill others have some kind effect like having a larger aggro range can be done well IMO ( TBH, most PKs are campers in the forest sniping into elektro or cherno so yea)

[chazbeau 0]

if you were in a real zombie apocalypse and some one tried to kill you and they didnt succeed, from that point on, you would be the person trying to kill first.

or not just a thought

[DemonGroover 8836]

Under current game mechanics shooting first is the right answer even if you weren't that way inclined to start with. It's safer because attempting to communicate makes you much more vulnerable' date=' there's no model of reputation that helps identify dedicated PK's, there's no negative consequences (other than -ammo) and you might well get nice loot that would be effort to find.

You are about to get slammed by a lot of people who like shooting people and are going to explain you are weak, need to learn to play, aren't playing it properly, couldn't get that intensity without them, need them to represent the fact we're all psychotic as soon as the cops are gone.

It's not worth discussing till there's a meaningful humanity mechanism in game. That defines how much of an issue Rocket things it is. Current vers: not much.

[/quote']

Yeah there are probably a lot of people out there who think i am weak as piss for even suggesting being a bandit isnt too realistic an option. But then again i am sure that 90% of the bandits in game would sit in a corner, pee their pants and cry for mummy if they were in a real wartime situation.

Its too easy to be a bad ass in a game.

[racecar 0]

The answer to your question is no because there is no such thing as zombies.

[DemonGroover 8836]

The answer to your question is no because there is no such thing as zombies.

Yeah, granted. But the same thing would be happening if there werent zombies. Substitute Zombies for Drunken East European Football Hooligans, for instance.

[relentless@clear.net.nz 12]

I have been in a lot of situations where I've been tracking someone for quite some time and not taken the shot because I didn't need anything to survive and they weren't a threat. I use extreme stealth measures and I've not been seen in 4 days even though I've been around in a few towns and in between a firefight among two other people.

I am proof that there is some form of consideration and empathy in the game' date=' but I agree that the threshold for it to make anyone spare a life is extremely high. There should be more incentive not to pull the trigger, because you aren't actually ending anyone.

[/quote']

Thinking you haven't been seen and not being seen are very different, chances are you've been seen.

But I salute you, I'm sure your play style is more intense to play than the deathmatch one.

[Disgraced 1123]

Yes. People that say "this is how it would be" like to take very small percentage examples from real disasters. But for the most part, people work together, even sacrificing themselves for those weak than themselves.

Anyway, as to the game question, I don't think there is a reasonable way to "simulate" the burden of murder.

For myself... I'm a role player from way back. I just pretend that other players are the early stage infected, their humanity having slipped away to a degree before they succumb to the madness of infection.

[dogsbd 12]

95% of people shoot on sight. Why? Because it is a game and people know it is a game? There arent any repercussions to a persons actions and so shooting people has become blase. And in a game like this i dont think you can apply penalties to someone who shoots on sight.

Well suppose for a second that you are in a real life survival situation (sans zombies) and you have on you all the food and water you own and have no idea when you'll find more food and water. You also have a gun and ammo. Now anyone else you meet is also in the same life and death situation you are. Maybe they want/need food, water or more ammo. So are they going to shoot you when they get a chance? Maybe not, but are you going to bet you life on that? Or are you going to shoot first?

In the real world if someone thinks there is a 50/50 chance that another person is going to take away your last life giving supplies you will do whatever is necessary to prevent them from doing so. And that includes killing the other person before they have a chance to kill you.

Yes DayZ is a game, which makes the stakes infinitely lower than real life. Which means the PvP in the game is probably much lower that it would be in real life.

[aLmAnZo (DayZ) 21]

ARMA it self is more realistic, especially with ACE and ACRE ;)

Other then that, I agree with you.

[DemonGroover 8836]

Yes. People that say "this is how it would be" like to take very small percentage examples from real disasters. But for the most part' date=' people work together, even sacrificing themselves for those weak than themselves.

Anyway, as to the game question, I don't think there is a reasonable way to "simulate" the burden of murder.

For myself... I'm a role player from way back. I just pretend that other players are the early stage infected, their humanity having slipped away to a degree before they succumb to the madness of infection.

[/quote']

I suppose you are right - it depends on your gaming background. FPS players will inevitably be drawn to the shooting aspect of the game whilst RPG players will probably see the game more as a survival simulation.

Probably why they get shot more often!

[Disgraced 1123]

Yes. People that say "this is how it would be" like to take very small percentage examples from real disasters. But for the most part' date=' people work together, even sacrificing themselves for those weak than themselves.

Anyway, as to the game question, I don't think there is a reasonable way to "simulate" the burden of murder.

For myself... I'm a role player from way back. I just pretend that other players are the early stage infected, their humanity having slipped away to a degree before they succumb to the madness of infection.

[/quote']

I suppose you are right - it depends on your gaming background. FPS players will inevitably be drawn to the shooting aspect of the game whilst RPG players will probably see the game more as a survival simulation.

Probably why they get shot more often!

Oh, I shoot on site. But I just keep out of sight....

I keep clear of ALL of the infected....

[disastr 7]

The game has failed? I bet you still have it installed and play it religiously day in and day out like the other 250, 000 players currently playing as we speak and growing.

Stop crying about bandits, its part of the game, I am already so sick of seeing a small select few of players that cry and can't hack surviving and trying to kill of the most epic game play ever to be implemented in to such a great game.

PVP and Bandits are here to stay, accept the fact that you need to watch over your shoulders at all time, that's called "surviving".

[bad_mojo (DayZ) 1204]

The game in its current state is far too easy. If I can run around by myself and thrive, why would I risk it all and be friendly? Boredom in my case, but a lot of people resort to player killing. Protecting their sense of security, they're not afraid of zombies, just players.

If we had a game that was impossible, or at the very least extremely frustrating for one person, we would get better results. PVP has a place in the game, but it shouldn't be the safe call for lone survivors.

There are tons of ways to ramp up the difficulty, I'd like to see more zombies, less loot, smaller backpacks(or increased item sizes), morphine made like transfusions, zombies run indoors, no nvg/thermals, less ammo. To name a few.

[DemonGroover 8836]

The game has failed? I bet you still have it installed and play it religiously day in and day out like the other 250' date=' 000 players currently playing as we speak and growing.

Stop crying about bandits, its part of the game, I am already so sick of seeing a small select few of players that cry and can't hack surviving and trying to kill of the most epic game play ever to be implemented in to such a great game.

PVP and Bandits are here to stay, accept the fact that you need to watch over your shoulders at all time, that's called "surviving".

[/quote']

No, the game hasnt failed - the game is awesome. The idea of it being a social experiment where it simulates how people would react in a "real" zombie apocalypse - i think that idea has failed. People are not acting how they would - and it is because it IS a game, i get that.

I am not crying about bandits, just stating that most people wouldnt become bandits. People do tend to band together in times of crisis. As of yet the game doesnt allow this to happen too readily.

Remember, bandits need Survivors too. Where else would you get your beans from? Heaven forbid you would actually go looking for some!

[Kageru 18]

The game has failed? I bet you still have it installed and play it religiously day in and day out like the other 250' date=' 000 players currently playing as we speak and growing.

[/quote']

It will fade. Zombies can sell just about everything but once the media-hype and social buzz fades the number of people who enjoy hard-core PvP and getting ambushed at long range and keep playing will be a small fraction of its peak.

[Molten 0]

For myself... I'm a role player from way back. I just pretend that other players are the early stage infected' date=' their humanity having slipped away to a degree before they succumb to the madness of infection.

[/quote']

Nice one.

I have my own RP mechanics I play by, but I will be using this myself to explain the behaviour of others ;)

To answer the original question. Dayz is one of the most realistic games / Mods I have played. Part of that comes from Arma being a hardcore realistic sim. But Dayz takes it beyond that and works on other levels too. For example the fear / tension is more realistic than anything I have played before.

Realistic to life ? Well, no game ever is, but when stood along other games it holds up to the question of realism well.

[vanden1989 15]

Not even a little bit. Zombies running marathon? Zombies climbing stairs? Zombies opening doors? Getting a broken leg on a zombie's first attack? Finding guns in a supermarket or school?

lol

[__redruM 7]

Killing on sight is not realistic. Logically it would be the safest way for an individual to survive, but if humans as a group were predisposed to this we would have never crawled down from the trees and started walking upright. We would have killed each other off 50,000 years ago.

Evolution gave us a social instict that would help us group up after the zombie appocolypse, so that we could prey on the weaker groups as bandit packs.

So to make dayz more realistic we will need a team deathmatch mode. (those without a sense of humor note that sarcasm was used here)

[radius 0]

100% not realistic. It's a video game and zombies aren't real. There is no comparison to this and real life. As for player actions, 100% realistic. Just look at any major corporation or anyone in a tight spot. They'll kill you without question.

[woofed 8]

There are sertain elements that can under strain be called realistic. There are far more things that is not.

Stop reading after "sertain"

[johan (DayZ) 21]

As mentioned before it's a game. And that, I believe, answers why you percieve this "social experiment" has failed. People do act differently in games than they do in person.

If there is any interest in changing anything then the issue is twofold: A penalty to player killing that isn't indirectly influenced (i.e. less ammo) would shatter the realism (bolts of lightning striking PK:ers as an extreme example). The second issue being that the authentic feel to the game that has so many people caught up in the game is, I believe, the freedom the mod offers to the players. It is not necessarily "realistic" as a simulator to how people would react in a zombie breakout but in the case of a plague it is quite realistic to have people stay away from sick people or outright kill them from coming close to their families.

So yes... Socially this mod might not simulate an exact authentic zombie breakout (who knows), but on the other hand it's immensely popular and so it would make for a good ground on which to build farther upon (read low ammo idea earlier in the thread) via indirect, realistic tweaks.