Talk:Zombies Ate My Neighbors
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Low | This article is on a subject of low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. | |
|
CVG To-do:
|
||
Contents |
[edit] Enemy Misnomers
I know this is a minor quibble, but the instruction manual calls the "creature from the black lagoon" knockoffs gillmen, not squidmen. There is one level called "Squidmen of the Deep" which perhaps accounts for this misunderstanding. Also adding "Stanley Decker" to the Chainsaw maniacs name.
[edit] Genre?
I was browsing through the Survival Horror Games category when I saw this game there. Tell me, has any of you ever thought of this game as being "survival horror"? I know how difficult it is to deal with classifications and stereotypes, but comparing with other games well known as being survival horror, I can hardly think of this one as being one of them. Sure, it has zombies, and you have to "survive the horror"... but do you really think this is enough of a reason? I say the overall feeling of this game points to comedy/humor, and not survival horror. It doesn't remind me of Resident Evil or Silent Hill, and I'm dead sure it won't remind anyone else. In fact, most people agree on the fact that the "survival horror game" expression first rose (or came to set in, depending) with the arrival of Resident Evil. Check this link for instance, referenced at articles like the Survival horror game one itself. I don't see any "happy go lucky" kind of game like ZAMN listed there. For those reasons, I've removed this game from the Survival Horror Games list. If anyone has a better argument, I'll be happy to discuss it here. – Mackeriv 03:49, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable to me. Andrevan 07:25, 05 July 2004 (UTC)
- I do think "survival horror" is inapropriate, and so is the current "third-person shooter". These two terms are more suitable for 3D games. What about just "action" or "horror-parody action" if you really want to be descriptive ? sanjuro 19:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- That reasoning that all survival horror games must be contained in a 3D environment isn't exactly accurate. One must take into consideration that while Resident Evil was the first instance the term came to be recognised and popularised, it isn't by any means the first game to hold such elements that make up the genre. That distinction, in my opinion at least, goes to the likes of such games as Clock Tower (on the SNES), entries in the Splatterhouse series and numerous others. Zombies Ate My Neighbors is a shooter, you go from the start of a level to the end of one. Classifying it as survival horror would be incorrect, I agree, but the idea that all survival horror games have to be of a 3D nature is absolutely ludicrous. 71.156.82.244 20:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought Alone in the Dark was considered the first survival horror game? I'm pretty sure it came out before RE.
[edit] Minor changes
Have made some minor changes: moved references to own section, added Day of the Tentacle reference, corrected couple of minor errors. Hammerite
[edit] Just a note
This: "In some English-speaking countries the name was considered unsuitable" is inexact, the changes reported were made in some non English-speaking countries too, such as France.
Also, perhaps it would be interesting to try listing all the in-game references, there are quite many, if you want to work on it in groups and in a more flexible place, feel free to come doing it in my forum. sanjuro 20:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The huge baby is missing!
Why isn't the huge baby mentioned in the enemy/semi-boss list? Jraregris 17:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
You know, I'm starting to think there's some sort of collective urging at work here in wikipedia, as often times I will get a particular inclination to go see some article, one semi-obscure in that it is not something currently on the pop radar in whatever category, and I will observe something that was also noted by someone only a few days prior on the talk page.
Case in point: yes, the giant baby must be mentioned; the only rationale I can imagine for not is that it is usually a neighbor to be saved when one's done pounding it. russ. 20:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
yeah i added the baby and a couple other things that were absent. im not an amazing writer though so feel free to touch it up. Sahuagin 20:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The page is a mess..
it even says so on the top of the page. The enemy descriptions should really be toned down. I will probably do so later. This is an encylopedia site, not a game strategy site so we don't really need to hear about every single move an enemy has. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iamstillhiro1112 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC).
I changed that enemy description section. It probably needs more touching up but it's looking better than before. It's like whoever was writing it was trying to sound smart and used big words that weren't nessesary. Actually, it was sounding like a old video game instruction booklet, maybe that is where it was from. Iamstillhiro1112 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC).
