RPS: Can you elaborate on your vision of zombies? What are you trying to evoke in the game? What kind of things have influenced you?

Brian Mitsoda: On paper, our zombies are really not supposed to be threatening. They're dumb, they're slow, they're unorganized - your very basic shambling corpse. They're only dangerous when you forget about them. Make too much noise, get cornered, ignore them - that's when they get dangerous. Most games deal with a Night of the Living Dead scenario where you have to survive one night, one wave, one map. We're dealing with a long-term zombie threat, where you have to worry about keeping people fed, friends getting bit and infected while scavenging, and the desperation of other human beings. Honestly, the game is not about the zombies, but about how people react to a crisis and what they are willing to do to other human beings and even members of their group to stay alive or protect their own. The zombies are just a cause, like economic collapse or a massive earthquake, and it's really the human self-preservation instinct and the survivor mentality that we're interested in portraying.

I think the interesting thing about a disaster is this mentality that everything is going to be okay - that 'someone' is going to come in and save me, of course. This idea that as long as you aren't in immediate danger, you can keep your head down and hope the problem will go away. We're short-term thinking creatures and we don't like to think of the big picture implications of our actions - global warming, borrowing money, cutting education/space spending. I think rationally we want to believe the governments of the world would mobilize quick enough to stop a zombie plague (only infected people rise from the dead in our game) but I think that generally we're only mobilized when we are directly threatened. By the time people start to notice the dead walking in their neck of the woods, the problem has spread beyond containment. The zombies in Dead State are a faceless (sometimes literally) force and dealing with the zombie problem is a lot like waging a war on an ideal.

RPS: The Combat system will be turn-based, without full party control - though with room for you to equip characters - and heavy on psychological modelling. What are you trying to evoke with the system?

Brian Mitsoda: As I was mentioning earlier, we wanted to make our allies feel as though they were individuals rather than extensions of the player. They can be ordered around by the player, but as to whether they will follow that order or not depends on their ability, their aversion to the task, and their respect for the player's commands. That might make it sound like they will NEVER do anything you say, but really what it means is if your ally is scared of zombies and you tell him to run into a pack of zombies, he's most likely going to ignore the order or do it and possibly start panicking as the zombies start to mob him. Each ally has different perks and personalities, and most of these can be altered by your interaction with them. Through dialogue/time they might grow to respect you and be more likely to put themselves in danger to protect you or your encouragement might make them fearlessly aggressive - there's quite a few ways you can shape their behavior, and not always in healthy, feel-good back-patting.

The big difference in our group and something like Jagged Alliance is these are normal people with little to no combat experience, not a veteran squad of commandos, so they handle like you'd expect them to. It's best to think of them as intelligent Gradius options - they're there to assist and absorb damage. They make combat much easier than going it alone, but they can die and you're really going to have to work at it to bring everyone home all the time. Sometimes you may have to let someone go to get the rest of your group out safely. If everyone else is at the rally point and one ally is still in that house surrounded by ten zombies, let 'em go, 'cause they're gone.