james.soriano

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 29 April 2009 Issue (Page E-2)

My fascination with Pride and Prejudice and Zombies—and, more broadly, the concept of zombies in general—would never have existed were it not for a game entitled Left4Dead, a zombie-themed multiplayer shooter game developed by Valve, the gaming firm also responsible for that other wildly successful first-person shooter entitled Counter-Strike.

I have yet to meet anyone who played this game and did not enjoy it—which might best explain why girls are turning out in gaming shops at record numbers. It is arguably the new Counter-Strike, except with better graphics, better features, and best of all, zombies.

Comparing both games at face-value, there seems to be no difference between the two, except for the fact that you kill zombies instead of terrorists and counter-terrorists. But while Counter-Strike is a game that pits one human team against another by default, Left4Dead is a game best played on Campaign Mode, where your team goes up against an army of zombies controlled by an innovative AI system, whose most impressive feature is the ability to vary the game’s difficulty, pacing, and even dramatic effects to make the game more challenging for the players.

In a campaign, you and your teammates, called the Survivors, are pitted against a horde of zombies, called the Infested, in an alarmingly frightful post-apocalyptic world. And unlike Counter-Strike, where skill imbalances can allow one or two players to go Rambo and dominate the opposing team completely, cooperation and coordination are the most important elements to finishing a Left4Dead campaign. Solo flight always means instant death.

This is why it’s so enjoyable to play this game with friends. There is a sense of camarederie that shows each time you kill the Hunter who has pounced on your companion, or whenever a team frantically prepares itself for the zombie horde alerted by the Boomer—a phenomenon that makes itself known when everyone, in the heat of the game, starts shouting at everyone else in the computer shop.

In fact, I have witnesssed relationships blossom out of this horrifying yet uniquely gratifying experience of wiping out zombies side-by-side in adjacent computer stalls. I guess simulating being the only survivors in the aftermath of an apocalypse makes for a great date.

After a couple of months of playing, strengthening and establishing friendships, though, it struck me that this game appeals to me so much not just because it’s a social experience, but also because it’s so gosh-darn believable.

Establishing believability is a lot more than just displaying good graphics with the appropriate music. A lot of it is based on the execution of a concept and the way you play with contexts. In Left4Dead, for example, the zombie apocalypse is established in such a way that it seems plausible, and thus spectacularly terrifying.

Among the various elements, it is the very idea of a societal breakdown—a key element in any zombie apocalypse concept—that adds so much to the game’s believability for me. As zombie apocalypses go, the overwhelming generation of zombies often happen out of nowhere, and for no reasonable explanation. And the reason for why they propagate is because authorities often do not act fast enough to stop them, despite the wide range of measures available at their disposal.

Yet if there’s something that Left4Dead suggests, it is the fact that when individuals, concerned entirely with self-interest, refuse to act towards the greater good, the group collapses. Try going solo-flight in a scenario, and you’ll be lucky to survive for five minutes. This is one game where it is important for you to communicate with teammates, heal them, and revive them when incapacitated. Otherwise, you’ll never make it to the safe room.

It’s the same thing, I would think, in a world that is perilously close to complete breakdown. We live in times that are ripe for a zombie apocalypse. And it’s either we put aside differences and help each other, or in gameplay terms, we end up being overrun by zombies.

I admit that I’m going out on a limb here: it’s hard to believe that the programmers at Valve created a zombie shooter as a form of social commentary. I’m more inclined to believe that this comparison of a zombie apocalypse to a real-life one is a product of my overactive imagination. I guess this game simply reminds me too much of the breakdown that can result in the real world, and reflects my inherent desire to survive despite of it.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I’m thinking maybe our world leaders should get together and play Left4Dead sometime.

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 22 April 2009 Issue (Page E-2)

“Alex, quickly! Who was the author of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies?”

This was how my text message to Alex read last Wednesday afternoon, as I frantically searched through bookstore after bookstore in Trinoma for this virtually unheard-of title in the local scene. I had found out about it the previous night, on a Time magazine article, and proceeded to share my newfound knowledge to Alex, who had similar tastes in bizarro-fantasy-space cowboy fiction.

We ended up talking about it all night, which made me feel like a member of the living dead that afternoon, frenetically peering through shelves as my body longed for cushions and some coffee.

I suspect this to be the reason why the people at customer service gave me weird looks each time I asked about the novel.

Either that, or they thought I was seriously mistaken . The one at National Bookstore was nice enough to humor me: she typed “Pride and Prejudice” on her computer, and showed me that they had seven editions of the original Austen novel available.

I stubbornly insisted it was a real novel—this was where Alex’s reply came in handy—but it turns out that they didn’t have it. Neither did Powerbooks nor Fully Booked.

Yet this mash-up parody by Seth Grahame-Smith combining Austen’s unsinkable classic with elements of modern zombie fiction is already garnering fantastic reviews and followers around the Western world. Library Journal called it a must-have “for all popular fiction collections.” The book has risen to number three on the New York Times bestseller list. The Sunday Times in London reported that Hollywood has plans of turning into a movie. I’m thinking maybe it is as brilliant as people say it is.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is basically the same old plot unfolding in an alternate Victorian England where the undead rove around the countryside as annoying but deadly pests. Mr. Darcy is still your proud, dashing aristocrat, well-versed in the art of cadaver-slaying. Elizabeth Bennet is still your prejudiced young dagger-wieding heroine. The supporting characters still play the same roles, if slightly altered: the infamous Lady Catherine, for example, still plays Darcy’s haughty aunt, except her pride now extends to having her own personal cadre of ninjas (yes, you read right), and being a legendary slayer in her own right.

According to various synopses, the memorable scenes still stay the same, except with the addition of the living dead. The ball where Darcy and Elizabeth meet is assaulted by zombies. Lady Catherine still confronts Elizabeth regarding her engagement with Darcy, ending in a duel with ninjas. Darcy proposes to Elizabeth a second time, which the latter accepts, and they happily wipe out a field of zombies after.

While this may seem either incredibly fun or unbelievably retarded, don’t fret: even critics are divided as to the purpose behind the zombie mash-up. Some say that the zombies were simply an addition made by the publishers to boost sales. Others say that the zombies are integral to the plot’s social commentary.

I lean toward the latter due to a very simple question: Why zombies? Why not werewolves or demons or, the classic cool kids of horror, vampires?

Maybe it isn’t a coincidence that zombies are the epitomy of social upheaval. When the system breaks down, all hell breaks loose, and the masses collectively embrace their role as harbringers of the next apocalypse, members of a big, unruly mob. Essentially, isn’t this what zombies are all about? While vampires are sleek fiends for fairer seasons, zombies are brutally menacing hordes created to cause massive carnage.

But more on these and zombie movies and games another time.

For now, I am content to recommend this book, even if I have yet to get my hands on a copy. It reminds me of the time when I was telling people to read The Lord of the Rings series, even though I hadn’t read the novels yet—and had a blast after finally finishing it. Besides, if it convinces younger people to get interested in the classic, why not?

At last, a monster novel that is worthy of popular note, unlike that other one about vampires.