While this might seem too far for you, the idea that they have no logistical capability to mass produce and distribute the vaxx is just basic logic about the world and their shoddy setup.
This is why bad writers poorly writing a game world that has no internal logic don't write good games.
What you're saying is logical and sensible, but you're making that argument in a game where there was no logic, there was no sense, and as you pointed out, it's clear that the writers didn't know what they were talking about half the time.
Yes, formulating a vaccine would require a massive lab, chemical vats, precision instrumentation, and probably many hard-to-acquire reagents.
But formulating a functional society requires fresh water, large-scale farming, sanitation, and cooperation.
The game decided to literally wave it's hand and determine that absolutely fuck-all about any of that was actually needed, so why do they need a vaccine lab? The writer just had to write one line claiming they could do it and who can say otherwise? 'Well we never see the lab', well we never see what the fuck this retarded cannibal village is eating to sustain a thousand people, up in the mountains, in winter, with nearly no vehicles. They just somehow survive because the game needed them to.
We ask the same questions as to how the nuclear-blasted ruins of Washington DC in Fallout 3 can somehow sustain an entire village living in a rusted aircraft carrier surrounded by a million billion Supermutants that look like they require 12,000 calories a day of pure protein to sustain their killer gains. There's zero farming, zero logistics, nothing at all. Everyone just survives because that's what they need the game to do. Christ the entire fucking game plot revolves around the fact that all the water is pure poison, what the fuck is everybody actually drinking then?
You don't ask because the writer didn't know either.
We ask the same questions as to how the nuclear-blasted ruins of Washington DC in Fallout 3 can somehow sustain an entire village living in a rusted aircraft carrier surrounded by a million billion Supermutants that look like they require 12,000 calories a day of pure protein to sustain their killer gains. There's zero farming, zero logistics, nothing at all.
This is a fundamental problem with all zombie media. The zombies just keep shuffling around without food or water till the end of time, as if the reanimate virus is also a perpetual energy machine and an antibacterial agent.
Well half of that comes about because lazy writers keep trying to use zombies as metaphors for humans they don't like, like Americans or consumers. Something in which the problem is somewhat perpetually able to continue.
It happens a lot with "satire or social commentary" media, where the message is meant to handwave away any logic or even internal consistency.
but you're making that argument in a game where there was no logic, there was no sense, and as you pointed out, it's clear that the writers didn't know what they were talking about half the time.
Honestly the only reason this point even exists is because the second game tried to piss on our face and say it was raining. None of these questions or logic mattered that much until then, because it was left ambiguous to a point where you could simply pick your preferred explanation and it was open enough to be possible.
I think that's passable writing. It may come about from lack of ability or skill, but it at least functions at what it needs to.
The second game attempting to hard confirm certain facts means those facts need to check out with what is already established, and when it contradicts that, and basic sense, it unravels quickly. Its just another way to say "lol Part 2 bad" but without needing to get into the Woke elements, because sometimes that'll get you tuned out.
You don't ask because the writer didn't know either.
Most media runs on the suspension of disbelief to some amount. Without it you would have to bog down your story with a lot of time spent talking about worldbuilding that isn't usually very interesting and often isn't necessary. Its why hard sci-fi is a niche genre, because it does spend that time.
Its not an inherently bad thing, because its an agreement between audience and creator to allow the story to function.
But that contract needs to be respected from both ends. When the writer or whoever starts making hard claims about things, then they need to be able to fit in established framework and hold up to at least a base level scrutiny.
This is why bad writers poorly writing a game world that has no internal logic don't write good games.
What you're saying is logical and sensible, but you're making that argument in a game where there was no logic, there was no sense, and as you pointed out, it's clear that the writers didn't know what they were talking about half the time.
Yes, formulating a vaccine would require a massive lab, chemical vats, precision instrumentation, and probably many hard-to-acquire reagents.
But formulating a functional society requires fresh water, large-scale farming, sanitation, and cooperation.
The game decided to literally wave it's hand and determine that absolutely fuck-all about any of that was actually needed, so why do they need a vaccine lab? The writer just had to write one line claiming they could do it and who can say otherwise? 'Well we never see the lab', well we never see what the fuck this retarded cannibal village is eating to sustain a thousand people, up in the mountains, in winter, with nearly no vehicles. They just somehow survive because the game needed them to.
We ask the same questions as to how the nuclear-blasted ruins of Washington DC in Fallout 3 can somehow sustain an entire village living in a rusted aircraft carrier surrounded by a million billion Supermutants that look like they require 12,000 calories a day of pure protein to sustain their killer gains. There's zero farming, zero logistics, nothing at all. Everyone just survives because that's what they need the game to do. Christ the entire fucking game plot revolves around the fact that all the water is pure poison, what the fuck is everybody actually drinking then?
You don't ask because the writer didn't know either.
This is a fundamental problem with all zombie media. The zombies just keep shuffling around without food or water till the end of time, as if the reanimate virus is also a perpetual energy machine and an antibacterial agent.
Well half of that comes about because lazy writers keep trying to use zombies as metaphors for humans they don't like, like Americans or consumers. Something in which the problem is somewhat perpetually able to continue.
It happens a lot with "satire or social commentary" media, where the message is meant to handwave away any logic or even internal consistency.
With one exception. 28 days later. The plot of the first was that they just quarantined England to let the zombies all starve to death.
Honestly the only reason this point even exists is because the second game tried to piss on our face and say it was raining. None of these questions or logic mattered that much until then, because it was left ambiguous to a point where you could simply pick your preferred explanation and it was open enough to be possible.
I think that's passable writing. It may come about from lack of ability or skill, but it at least functions at what it needs to.
The second game attempting to hard confirm certain facts means those facts need to check out with what is already established, and when it contradicts that, and basic sense, it unravels quickly. Its just another way to say "lol Part 2 bad" but without needing to get into the Woke elements, because sometimes that'll get you tuned out.
Most media runs on the suspension of disbelief to some amount. Without it you would have to bog down your story with a lot of time spent talking about worldbuilding that isn't usually very interesting and often isn't necessary. Its why hard sci-fi is a niche genre, because it does spend that time.
Its not an inherently bad thing, because its an agreement between audience and creator to allow the story to function.
But that contract needs to be respected from both ends. When the writer or whoever starts making hard claims about things, then they need to be able to fit in established framework and hold up to at least a base level scrutiny.