Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAverageFan
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AMIS
With all due apologies to TheAverageFan , the monsters in this were almost an add-on. The building of relationships between some of the characters, most notably the soldiers and Thomas and Brooke, made me curious as to how they would (or would not) survive. The other relationship I was hoping to see more of was Reed and his father. But that would been real tough to include.
|
Hmm, so it seems that my own concerns of having too much in addition to the zombies is actually a boon to readers like yourself. The undead only represent 1/3rd of the external threats of the story, after all. But to you that's a good thing. Interesting 
As for Reed and his father, and any other unresolved or underdeveloped things, perhaps more will come of this project one day
~TAF
|
I'd agree with AMIS on this one. Billing any story as a zombie story automatically means people go into it expecting zombies. For those who like zombie action, you've got to deliver on that expectation.
But beyond that, it's really the normal conflicts of any story which make the tale stick. Zombies only go so far as a primary conflict. They supply urgency and can be a great plot device for moving your heroes places/into unfortunate situations, but it's going to be the internal group dynamics which really keep interest up.
As long as those group dynamics don't lead to stupid decisions just to get more zombie action, they generally out-perform the zombies every time. At least in my experience. Zombies have immediate tension, but group dynamics tend to have depth, which zombie tension never will.
~TGRF, also agreeing that the balance of zombies to group dynamics was very well handled.