I think it would only make sense to have motorized vehicles for the massive unused mainland area of the map if it is ever added to the game. Ostertorn is too small… You would attract immediate attention and miss many awesome things.
The cars were left behind because the people got kidnapped. Why did they get kidnapped? They didnt run away in a car.
This evidence is circumstantial at best. This is like saying “I carry a rock with me. Since I carried this rock with me I didn’t get mauled by a bear. So the rock protects me against bears.”
Nobody would force anyone to drive the cars. Theres always gonna be that one dude that doesnt get the point of them, and thats fine. But many people would drive them, and put them to use. So it isnt fair to say that cars cant be in the game, just because some people who play the game dont want them.
Naw, carry a dersert eagle bro.
Is it fair when The Boss Man himself (Paul, Product Owner of Generation Zero) says it? 
At 00:47:37,
link: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/791718316?filter=archives&sort=time
You also cant say that cars wouldnt be useful, because they arent in the game. So, using circumstantial evidence, to prove that something else is circumstancial evidence, doesnt make any sence. The catapault worked great until they invented cannons, but nobody tbhought that there would be anything better than a catapault until there was.
If its his opinion of them game, then it cant be considered fair, I can say that a neon house wouldnt catch anybodys attention, but that would be a false reality that I created to justify painting my house neon. Then, when sombody reports my house as an eyesore, I tell them that thats there opinoion.
As our Community Manager, Pontus, said in the dev stream: “Generation Zero is not Need For Speed” and i agree with him.
GZ is designed in a way where player walks the map, not drives it. And as stated in the dev stream, current Fast Travel already accomplishes the need to “zap around the map”. Cars would be pointless, other than the poor excuse of: “i like cars and i want them just because”.
1 Like
I agree with you there. GZ shouldn’t ever become a need for speed game…however, There are many places that are open, and you cant fast travel to them. So, something like a four wheeler would still be logical to have. Im not saying you need to implement 18- wheelers into the game, but bikes are a little lacluster in manny ways.
True. But safehouses are located so close to each other that it takes only a bit of running to reach any area. And once you’re there, place Field Radio, for on-command Fast Travel spot (with 3 uses).
If there wouldn’t be any Fast Travel in the game, then maybe, MAYBE, some other form of faster than sprinting transport method would come in handy. Then again, there are games out there that have even bigger maps than in GZ and players have only 2 feet to move around (e.g Rust, DayZ).
1 Like
Well, thats actually a bit of a problem. If you place a field radio somewhere, then not use it even ounce…if you get to a place where you can save, turn off the game and come back later, any field radios that you placed have de-spawned. So field radios are not an overly viable means of transportation either.
So, we have canvases that we don’t want to be like other games (such as need for speed) so, by making it that we can only walk/run, makes us exactly like Rust and Day Z. Plus, although I agree we shouldn’t be need for speed, as I said earlier…Adding a a truck with the option to be armored, a four wheeler/dirt bike, and MABY a small, unarmored car, would certainly not make this game need for speed. It would just make it more logical, and more versatile.
1 Like
My take on cars in this game is: please let me use them for strategic purposes. Let med make the horn go off. But to drive and mod the cars I feel like there are better games for that. Like Mad max. I don’t wanna see GZ become a CARPG.
If it would get possible to drive cars I wish that it almost wouldn’t be worth it. In my head it would just be a louder and bigger tarket for the machines to blow up.
You would still be free to only use the cars for strategic purposes. But to those of us who see value in them besides that, it seems like there should at least be an option.
A car would be a death trap in my opinion. They blow up easy. I use them for setting traps and blow them up.
Historically like in WWII resistance in occupied areas in eastern europe with large presence of enemy forces didn’t use cars that often because of risk of being stopped and killed. You used your legs because it is the safest transportation. And in this game when there is no traffic at all. It would be like putting up a sign telling all enemies where I am.
But being able to rig a car and blow up with remote yes please. Or getting horn to sound.
Driving a car and commit suicide no thanks. It’s a game of stealth not Grand theft auto.
2 Likes
I am mostly traveling the map on the bicycle now. It’s much faster than running and I can look 360 around me for anything interesting or dangerous. When danger is near I hop of the bike and, if I am not spotted yet, decide to engage or not. Of course I also walk parts where biking is not possible.
1 Like
It’s been said many times that the idea is to be able to armor the cars. This would make them much more resistant to damage, therefore, not blow up nearly as easily. Obviously, your not going to be able to drive right up to a tank, be cause one missile salvo direct hit, and your cars definitely not coming out of that battle. But, in the same way, even if your health is upgraded as much as it can be, one missile salvo has essentially the same affect. Besides, recently, anytime I try to blow up a car in this game since the update, if I don’t use a gas can, I can empty several clips (depending on the caliber) of any given gun. So, there not as flimsy, even unarmored, as your making them out to be.
So the “danger” quality Is definitely there. However, the game literally revolves around danger.
Also, I’m not saying bikes are not useful at all, but they are not armored at all, and you cant take nearly as manny hit as a car can before you get thrown off. So saying that they are somehow better than a car, besides there a little bit quieter than really good muffler, is not an overly valid argument.
Besides drive-able vehicles not fitting into the GZ, there’s also the issue of them not looking good when they move. For best example, look how jerky and weirdly Calle’s truck moves or when you ride the clunky bike.
Apex Engine isn’t designed for vehicle movements, instead, it is designed for stunning world views and no loading times when walking/running across the map.
4 Likes
Quite a lot of arguments based on the desire for there not to be cars, rather than anything thought through.
If you’d read through the very first thread in this topic you’d notice how vehicles could be implemented in a way which wouldn’t break the immersion of the world, how they could be an interesting addition to the inventory system and how they wouldn’t make players miss anything.
And let’s not forget that even suppressed guns are MUCH louder than 80’s cars. If players can fire guns without enemies coming from miles away, then they could easily drive a car or truck.
I understand why people don’t want players to be able to just grab any vehicle they can see and drive about from the very start of the game. But that’s not the only means by which vehicles can be implemented. Personally I find the density of fast travel points as something more detrimental to the experience than vehicles ever could.
2 Likes
What about Mad Max and Just Cause games? 