Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
~Kevin~

My A18 feedback

Recommended Posts

I have serious doubts zombies are a case of uncanny valley.

...

Examples of uncanny valley are robots that are almost identical to their human model but betray their "artificiality" almost subliminal.

 

The term uncanny valley was coined in the context of robotics, but has grown far beyond that.

 

For example an old Newsweek article described horror films in terms of uncanny valley, and described the zombies from Night of the Living Dead as "the archetypal Uncanny Valley figure."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what everyone here forgets is that, zombie is an incorrect term for what we have anyways...its been mentioned by Roland and I think MM as well that they aren't zombies in the...technical? sense, but mutants derived from humans due to whatever "great event" caused the breakdown of society and the radiation zones...they act like a type of zombie-like entity, but mutants have no "normal" classification, as a mutation literally means (late Middle English: from Latin mutatio(n- ), from mutare ‘to change’.) meaning it has no specific behaviors/habits/ or structures that it (the Z's/ZM's) have to adhere to.

 

TLDR: Not zombies, mutants, stop bickering like school kids over pokemon cards or whatever they do these days

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well that's probably why I specifically said "extend the definition" rather than "redefine".

 

But you said "extend the definition in any way they wish". Can the definition be extended in "any way"? No. It can't.

 

Not even probably. It is exactly why I phrased it that way. Your extreme example of Pikachu has nothing to do with what I said

 

It has something to do with "any way they wish". If the definition can be extended by a creator in "any way they wish", it can be extended to (something like) a Pikachu. That's a zombie now. Cuz the creator wishes it.

 

And if the definition can't be extended in any way one wishes, the statement, that zombies have to be so-and-so and cannot be so-and-so, is true. What a zombie can be is restricted.

 

nor anything to do with what TFP has done which you admit in your next paragraph. Therefore, I stand by what I actually said and I wholeheartedly agree with the scenario you made up about Pikachus. I agree that Pikachus are not zombies unless they are zombie pikachus.

 

Noone ever said 7dtd broke the universal zombie-definition-laws. That is some kind of assumptions of all those who argue against it. A kind of strawman.

 

 

Exactly. They are zombies-- especially to the casual observer. Less so to the picky zombie aficionados.

 

Where are these people? They are not in this thread or am I blind?

 

So there are two kinds of people not happy. There are zombie aficionados who care about the purity of the definition of a zombie and they don't like the extra stuff because it hurts their immersion. (btw...there was just another thread last week complaining about "zombies" being able to break constructed blocks with their dead decayed flesh and brittle bones.) They wouldn't like the intelligence exhibited by zombies because it doesn't fit their definition of a zombie.

 

Again, I am unaware of "zombie aficionados who care about the purity of the definition of a zombie".

 

Then there are people like you who just don't like the gameplay that results from the intelligent behavior but would be perfectly fine with it and would forgive the unzombieness of it as long as it delivered solid gameplay and entertainment.

 

Yes, that is me. And I am a huge zombie "aficionado". I'd like a game that captures the atmosphere of Dawn of the Dead or the good scenes and episodes of The Walking Dead. 7dtd did that very well until including A12, and then it went downhill. Now, vanilla has not much of that atmosphere left. Unfortunate, I'm not happy! Well, about that.

 

My opinion is that TFP owes the first group nothing and they should be able to follow their creative license and not shy away from extending what zombies can do.

 

The very idea that a video game developer should restrain their creativeness because of a creature's definition is utterly absurd and I must emphasize once more, that I have not seen anybody suggesting this and I refuse to assume such people actually exist until I see them myself.

 

I also believe that TFP owes the second group their best efforts at closing exploits and working on the AI until it appears more organic and visceral and less programmed and predictable. So far they have not declared the current AI and pathing as the shippable best effort and culmination of their efforts.

 

Great. Not every discussion is about what the devs owe whom, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stop bickering like school kids over pokemon cards or whatever they do these days

 

Man... *embarrased laughter* I think you are right, this really is a bit silly...

 

what everyone here forgets is that, zombie is an incorrect term for what we have anyways...

 

Now you hold on a second there, Mister!

 

its been mentioned by Roland and I think MM as well that they aren't zombies in the...technical? sense, but mutants derived from humans due to whatever "great event" caused the breakdown of society and the radiation zones...they act like a type of zombie-like entity, but mutants have no "normal" classification, as a mutation literally means (late Middle English: from Latin mutatio(n- ), from mutare ‘to change’.) meaning it has no specific behaviors/habits/ or structures that it (the Z's/ZM's) have to adhere to.

 

The 7dtd-creatures are zombies, to begin with, by the game's self-description:

 

With nearly 10 million copies sold' date=' 7 Days to Die has defined the survival genre, with unrivaled crafting and world-building content. Set in a brutally unforgiving post-apocalyptic world overrun by the [u']undead[/u], 7 Days to Die is an open-world game that is a unique combination of first person shooter, survival horror, tower defense, and role-playing games. It presents combat, crafting, looting, mining, exploration, and character growth, in a way that has seen a rapturous response from fans worldwide. Play the definitive zombie survival sandbox RPG that came first. Navezgane awaits!

 

You also might want to open the game's "entityclasses.xml" and search for "zombie". The creatures are clearly declared to be zombies. And if the devs would call them something else, it would be valid to call em "zombies", because they share enough characteristics with the creature to justify that.

 

And besides that: Unless I'm blind or it happened somewhere else, it is a myth that anybody would question wether this game's creatures are zombies or not. They're zombies. But due - as it seems - to technical issues, they are being changed more and more and resemble the archtype less and less. Something that people who like zombies frown upon. It's like you like the taste of a certain brand of soda and then they start changing the recipe and you like it less and less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, I am unaware of "zombie aficionados who care about the purity of the definition of a zombie".

 

I'm confused. Do you not realize Roland was describing the same phenomenon that you pointed out here:

They're zombies. But ... they are being changed more and more and resemble the archtype less and less. Something that people who like zombies frown upon.

 

???

 

[video=youtube;V2f-MZ2HRHQ]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm confused. Do you not realize Roland was describing the same phenomenon that you pointed out here:
Was describing what where? Roland is describing a lot of things.

 

The point here is that Roland is talking about two kinds of people:

 

So there are two kinds of people not happy. There are zombie aficionados who care about the purity of the definition of a zombie and

 

[...]

 

Then there are people like you who just don't like the gameplay that results from the intelligent behavior but would be perfectly fine with it and would forgive the unzombieness of it as long as it delivered solid gameplay and entertainment.

Where is the first kind? I've never seen them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

To sup up, I think it is safe to say that objectively/as a fact:

 

1. Theming is important. (A fact for every kind of media).

2. At some point it was mentioned/advertised that TFP want to make a "zombie game" whatever this may mean. (Also mentioned in KS).

3. The most recent TFP comment on the theme was "fallout meeting TWD".

4. TFP are "stretching" the zombie "definition" (Since this has been stated by both sides of the argument).

5. Zombies offer specific horror elements (I did cite several PhD sources and Harvard psychiatrists, so I think this is established, yes?).

 

Two points I wanted to make in this discussion:

 

-TFP are realizing their vision and that's great. But the more they "stretch" the zombie theme, the more (5) is lost. Why? Because more or less, (5) is based on human constraints (read the papers for details). So, my point is, given what TFP seem to want and have advertised, it wouldn't hurt if they pay more attention to (5) and make zombies more thematic according to (5), so that they can offer what (5) describes.

 

-Every now and then someone will complain about the zombie theme and others will reply by saying "there is no defined zombie theme". This perpetuates the discussion and doesn't address their true concern imo. No matter if they are "purist", "overly passionate fans" etc, whatever these may mean, truth is most just want what (5) describes.

Edited by RestInPieces (see edit history)
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was describing what where? Roland is describing a lot of things.

 

With the way you break down posts, I thought it would be clear which part of Roland's post I was referring to: the part you responded to with the first quote I posted.

 

My point was that Roland's "first kind" seems to me effectively equivalent to what you describe here:

they ... resemble the archtype less and less. Something that people who like zombies frown upon.

 

It seems to me you're failing to see the similarities because you don't give much consideration to perspectives that don't closely align or violently clash with your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With the way you break down posts, I thought it would be clear which part of Roland's post I was referring to: the part you responded to with the first quote I posted.

 

It would be false of you to assume I would go look up what that might be. Just quote whatever it is you're talking about.

 

My point was that Roland's "first kind" seems to me effectively equivalent to what you describe here:

 

Roland's first kind as some sort of pedant, it's the "ultra hardcore zombie fan", that he compares to his kids who love Harry Potter and come out of the latest movie complaining about details that are not identical in the books. Ppl who can't enjoy a thing for what it is, if it does not match their preconceptions and who wish to constrain the creative freedom of video game designers.

 

It seems to me you're failing to see the similarities because you don't give much consideration to perspectives that don't closely align or violently clash with your own.

 

A premature conception; study me further and you shall uncover the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To sup up, I think it is safe to say that objectively/as a fact:

 

1. Theming is important. (A fact for every kind of media).

2. At some point it was mentioned/advertised that TFP want to make a "zombie game" whatever this may mean. (Also mentioned in KS).

3. The most recent TFP comment on the theme was "fallout meeting TWD".

4. TFP are "stretching" the zombie "definition" (Since this has been stated by both sides of the argument).

5. Zombies offer specific horror elements (I did cite several PhD sources and Harvard psychiatrists, so I think this is established, yes?).

 

Two points I wanted to make in this discussion:

 

-TFP are realizing their vision and that's great. But the more they "stretch" the zombie theme, the more (5) is lost. Why? Because more or less, (5) is based on human constraints (read the papers for details). So, my point is, given what TFP seem to want and have advertised, it wouldn't hurt if they pay more attention to (5) and make zombies more thematic according to (5), so that they can offer what (5) describes.

 

-Every now and then someone will complain about the zombie theme and others will reply by saying "there is no defined zombie theme". This perpetuates the discussion and doesn't address their true concern imo. No matter if they are "purist", "overly passionate fans" etc, whatever these may mean, truth is most just want what (5) describes.

Well said. And I haven't seen any of the "purists" and it seems that they're plugged outta thin air to actively avoid a discussion about 5.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been absent from this forum for a little while, but I can't help but notice how often I read posts that describe the same user frustrations in the game's design. It may be helpful to have a sticky post of the biggest gameplay gripes and if/how the developers plan to address those gripes. For example, LBD -> gone forever, AI path-finding -> work in progress to make it less intelligent/more like a traditional zombie feel. Then when a new user expresses their experience with the new alpha and the conversation turns back to a well-established user gripe, the moderator can point back to the sticky with the TFP's stance on the topic. It brings awareness to the fact that they are not alone and that TFP have a position on the issue, whether that position is "Sorry, no" or "We agree, it's a WIP, here are the proposed changes...".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been absent from this forum for a little while, but I can't help but notice how often I read posts that describe the same user frustrations in the game's design. It may be helpful to have a sticky post of the biggest gameplay gripes and if/how the developers plan to address those gripes. For example, LBD -> gone forever, AI path-finding -> work in progress to make it less intelligent/more like a traditional zombie feel. Then when a new user expresses their experience with the new alpha and the conversation turns back to a well-established user gripe, the moderator can point back to the sticky with the TFP's stance on the topic. It brings awareness to the fact that they are not alone and that TFP have a position on the issue, whether that position is "Sorry, no" or "We agree, it's a WIP, here are the proposed changes...".

 

We have such a thread actually. I will start directing people to it.

 

https://forums.7daystodie.com/forum/...d-or-concepts=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is stickied sort of. It’s in the list of Important threads which is stickied. Even if it was directly stickied people wouldn’t go unless given a link anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...