My A18 feedback

[Ghostlight]

He said that zombies shouldn't be able to tell the difference between wood and steel. My comment was that zombies could tell the difference between a door and a wall in previous alphas and was there no complaint with that level of perception?

 

OMG of course there wasn't!!! These are so different that you just have to be trolling now. Zombies telling the difference between one material and another is ridiculous beyond belief and immersion breaking. Zombies homing in on doors (or windows even) is totally expected. You really saying these amount to the same thing? What's the first thing you do in every zombie movie ever? BAR THE DOORS AND WINDOWS.

[Prisma501]

Generally the zombies in these situations are the slow, lumbering and unintelligent kind first made popular in the 1968 film Night of the Living Dead.[9] Motion pictures created within the 2000s, however, have featured zombies that are more agile, vicious, intelligent, and stronger than the traditional zombie.[12] In many cases of "fast" zombies, creators use living humans infected with a pathogen (as in 28 Days Later, Zombieland and Left 4 Dead), instead of re-animated corpses, to avoid the "slow death walk" of Romero's variety of zombies.

 

In addition, ‘special’ zombie types may also be included, depending on the genre, either as unexpected mutations or superior classes compared to standard zombies, boasting special abilities or heightened skills such as strength, speed or ferocity, as seen in video games such as Half-Life 2 and The Last of Us.

 

There are the Romero zombies and the evolution of them. Its not new. Its not a concrete dried lore. They are still zombies (living dead, mutated if needed). So if the Pimps want to call them zombies, let them. Why on earth limit yourself to the Romero zombies? Its a matter of preference which is subjective. No VAAAAAAST majority can be identified. Speaking for /them/ is an act of guessing and using it as an argument.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_apocalypse

 

Cheers

[Kubikus]

There are the Romero zombies and the evolution of them. Its not new. Its not a concrete dried lore. They are still zombies (living dead, mutated if needed). So if the Pimps want to call them zombies, let them. Why on earth limit yourself to the Romero zombies? Its a matter of preference which is subjective. No VAAAAAAST majority can be identified. Speaking for /them/ is an act of guessing and using it as an argument.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_apocalypse

 

Cheers

I like to think it's deductive reasoning, not guessing. The vast majority of ppl will always use the most common definition to characterise anything. Zombies have some basic characteristics, variations are beyond these. Intelligence is a variation. Feeling pain is a variation. Self healing is a variation. There certainly is no doubt that in a work of fiction you are allowed to call your creature a zombie. You are allowed to call it a banana peel. But when the vast majority of ppl hears "zombie", they don't think of an intelligent creature that can feel pain and self heal. They think of a creature as portrayed in "The Walking Dead". Just like you instantly think of a bunch of certain characteristics when I say "vampire". Even though there are variations as well.

 

It's not really an argument in the discussion wether the new AI is good or not. It's a sidenote, that is being discussed because there seem to be different opinions. I suspect much of the differences root in disagreeing ppls desire to defend the changes. The core of the discussion should be wether it's good or bad that the game's enemy can know things that elude "normal" perception.

[stallionsden]

There are the Romero zombies and the evolution of them. Its not new. Its not a concrete dried lore. They are still zombies (living dead, mutated if needed). So if the Pimps want to call them zombies, let them. Why on earth limit yourself to the Romero zombies? Its a matter of preference which is subjective. No VAAAAAAST majority can be identified. Speaking for /them/ is an act of guessing and using it as an argument.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_apocalypse

 

Cheers

 

Zombies that have a uni degree.....

 

Cheers

[Gazz]

There are the Romero zombies and the evolution of them. Its not new. Its not a concrete dried lore. They are still zombies (living dead, mutated if needed). So if the Pimps want to call them zombies, let them. Why on earth limit yourself to the Romero zombies?

Even if you limit yourself to Romero zombies they could ride a horse or use a rifle so they can clearly be smarter than a brick.

 

It's pretty common that people pick one particular piece of lore or one particular movie and declare everything else illegal. =)

[Prisma501]

Zombies that have a uni degree.....

 

Cheers

 

Yes. Zombies.

 

Cheers

[Prisma501]

I like to think it's deductive reasoning, not guessing. The vast majority of ppl will always use the most common definition to characterise anything. Zombies have some basic characteristics, variations are beyond these. Intelligence is a variation. Feeling pain is a variation. Self healing is a variation. There certainly is no doubt that in a work of fiction you are allowed to call your creature a zombie. You are allowed to call it a banana peel. But when the vast majority of ppl hears "zombie", they don't think of an intelligent creature that can feel pain and self heal. They think of a creature as portrayed in "The Walking Dead". Just like you instantly think of a bunch of certain characteristics when I say "vampire". Even though there are variations as well.

 

It's not really an argument in the discussion wether the new AI is good or not. It's a sidenote, that is being discussed because there seem to be different opinions. I suspect much of the differences root in disagreeing ppls desire to defend the changes. The core of the discussion should be wether it's good or bad that the game's enemy can know things that elude "normal" perception.

 

No. YOU think that. And you want to give more weight to your "argument" by making up that the /vast majority/ thinks the same.

 

I agree that the devs should go wild with their creativity, but if you wanted intelligent enemies, why do you call them "zombies"?

 

This is why i wrote that post. They ARE zombies. You can call it a variant of YOUR perception of a zombie. Its still a zombie.

 

Multiple games and movies have gotten rid of that Romero type of zombie. And thats okey. And they are still called zombies.

 

Sidenote or not. You asked the question in a passive aggressive attempt to make your argument more valuable. I just state that they are still zombies and you have no argument whatsoever that the creatures in 7dtd can not be called zombies.

 

Cheers

[Hek Harris]

Many people are unaware that zombies have evolved considerably since Romeo's movies. Learn to recognize them or you will meet your creator earlier than expected.

 

 

 

[Prisma501]

Even if you limit yourself to Romero zombies they could ride a horse or use a rifle so they can clearly be smarter than a brick.

 

It's pretty common that people pick one particular piece of lore or one particular movie and declare everything else illegal. =)

 

Yeps. Exactly my point.

 

Cheers

[Kubikus]

No.

 

There is no reasoning for your "no".

 

YOU think that. And you want to give more weight to your "argument" by making up that the /vast majority/ thinks the same.

 

I actually honestly think that the vast majority thinks that, for the reasons I layed out, while I personally am fully aware of the fact that zombies come in a million different flavors (including Marvel zombies with super power, a comic series, that, btw, I enjoyed very much). I agree that anybody has the artistic freedom (and should have it) to call anything they want to a "zombie".

 

Still, calling an enemy a zombie creates expectations, and the objection that a zombie should not be intelligent, should not feel pain, should not self heal, is just as valid as the artistic freedom of the creator. I have all the rights in the bloody world to deny that the enemies in 7dtd are zombies. Which I don't do, but I have all the rights. You couldn't sue me over it.

 

On topic, that y'all seem to be avoiding, I do think that the enemies in this game SHOULD behave more like a traditional generic Romero-zombie. No, not the three or five rogues that show a more sophisticated behaviour, but the other 99% and those that we see exclusively in The Walking Dead. I think that because that is the type of zombie I personally enjoy the most, I find the mindless zombie the most terrifying and "atmospheric", when, though, it is orcestrated adequately.

 

This is why i wrote that post. They ARE zombies. You can call it a variant of YOUR perception of a zombie. Its still a zombie.

 

And if the devs call them vampires, they ARE vampires. The question remains unanswered: Why do the devs call them zombies? If the devs want intelligent enemies that feel pain, can heal themselves - they even bleed and die from bloodloss, right? - why call them zombies?

 

Multiple games and movies have gotten rid of that Romero type of zombie. And thats okey. And they are still called zombies.

 

Cuz ppl have a certain expectation what a zombie is, and it is that expectation that sells games and movies and whatnot. To people who like zombies. For example is there a movie by the name "The Dead don't die". I was interested, because it's a zombie movie with an A-league cast. I stopped watching when the "zombies" had coffee in the diner.

 

In 7dtd it's different, though, the devs originally wanted zombies, with the minor variation that they run at night. But then they also thought that it would be kewl when the enemy shows a certain reaction to being hit in a limb, that's when they started feeling pain. They also thought different mocap-animations would be great, and had some made that don't look like zombie-walktypes at all. Already, the atmostphere of the game changed significantly.

 

The AI has been introduced because the old one was making problems, one being the pathfinding, another being that the player could very easily defend against them on horde night. The pathfinding has improved, defending on horde night seems even easier, because their behaviour is very forseeable.

 

Sidenote or not. You asked the question in a passive aggressive attempt to make your argument more valuable.

 

I don't see the passive aggression in that question, can you elaborate?

 

I just state that they are still zombies and you have no argument whatsoever that the creatures in 7dtd can not be called zombies.

 

You just quoted me saying "There certainly is no doubt that in a work of fiction you are allowed to call your creature a zombie. You are allowed to call it a banana peel." But at this point, the one thing that zombies have in common with, you know, zombies, is their appearance. They look mostly dead.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

Even if you limit yourself to Romero zombies they could ride a horse or use a rifle so they can clearly be smarter than a brick.

 

It's pretty common that people pick one particular piece of lore or one particular movie and declare everything else illegal. =)

Same here, noone is doing that. Unless I missed it. And the few zombies in the Romero movies actually serve a plot. There is a reason why they behave like so, and that they behave like so is - within the story - remarkable. Unusual. Not normal.

 

Why are 7dtd-zombies clairvoyant?

[Kubikus]

Btw, afterthought: 7dtd has zombies that "puke" and explode. Is that a zombie? If you ask 100 randomly selected people, how many would say "zombies puke acid and explode"? We accept that that's a zombie because we know why it's there: As an interesting gameplay element. That's where the "zombies" in games come from, they're called zombies because zombies sell, but only zombies are too boring, so special types are added, and just being called zombies too.

[meganoth]

There are the Romero zombies and the evolution of them. Its not new. Its not a concrete dried lore. They are still zombies (living dead, mutated if needed). So if the Pimps want to call them zombies, let them. Why on earth limit yourself to the Romero zombies? Its a matter of preference which is subjective. No VAAAAAAST majority can be identified. Speaking for /them/ is an act of guessing and using it as an argument.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_apocalypse

 

Cheers

 

Not to forget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasting_Away and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warm_Bodies . Both movies show types of intelligent zombies. Comics and movies have been instrumental in widening the definition of what a zombie is. I would guess that people now expect zombies to be half-dead, rotten and hunger for brains. Anything else is negotiable.

 

Whether it is good for the game, is a different question: I would say for horde night it has good and bad consequences. The good consequence is that "tower defense" now really works.

The bad consequence is that many of the rules are not consistent and therefore can't be logically derived. Partly that was the case in A16 too, I remember a horde base in A16 that failed for me because the zombies didn't use the open doorway because a trap behind it made an artificial barrier. Now there are a lot more hidden rules, for example what exactly constitutes a path to the player.

[Kubikus]

Not to forget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasting_Away and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warm_Bodies . Both movies show types of intelligent zombies. Comics and movies have been instrumental in widening the definition of what a zombie is. I would guess that people now expect zombies to be half-dead, rotten and hunger for brains. Anything else is negotiable.

 

Whether it is good for the game, is a different question: I would say for horde night it has good and bad consequences. The good consequence is that "tower defense" now really works.

The bad consequence is that many of the rules are not consistent and therefore can't be logically derived. Partly that was the case in A16 too, I remember a horde base in A16 that failed for me because the zombies didn't use the open doorway because a trap behind it made an artificial barrier. Now there are a lot more hidden rules, for example what exactly constitutes a path to the player.

28 days franchise - they're not dead, not rotten, they don't eat flesh. "In 2007, Stylus Magazine named it the second best zombie movie of all time".

 

iZombie. A fully conscious girl, that eats the brains of murder victims and then has visions of their last moments. She works as some kind of cop, solving crimes.

 

What is a zombie? Can be anything. Literally.

 

Edit: In other words, if you ask "what is a zombie", by these arguments what's called a "zombie" in pop culture, a zombie can be anything. There is no definition of what a zombie is. According to these arguments.

 

Oh and just btw: The brain eating comes from the "Return of the Living Dead"-series, right? Originally.

[meganoth]

28 days franchise - they're not dead, not rotten, they don't eat flesh. "In 2007, Stylus Magazine named it the second best zombie movie of all time".

 

iZombie. A fully conscious girl, that eats the brains of murder victims and then has visions of their last moments. She works as some kind of cop, solving crimes.

 

What is a zombie? Can be anything. Literally.

 

Edit: In other words, if you ask "what is a zombie", by these arguments what's called a "zombie" in pop culture, a zombie can be anything. There is no definition of what a zombie is. According to these arguments.

 

Oh and just btw: The brain eating comes from the "Return of the Living Dead"-series, right? Originally.

 

I stand corrected. 28 days zombies just look rotten and flesh-eating but are defined quite differently. Ironically all the blood around the zombie mouths is explained as their own. Sort of duck typing applied to zombies: What looks like a zombie, rotten, bloody and with an urge to attack humans, must be a zombie.

 

Can we maybe agree on the urge to kill humans and a rotten look as base line characteristics of zombies ?

[Kubikus]

I stand corrected. 28 days zombies just look rotten and flesh-eating but are defined quite differently. Ironically all the blood around the zombie mouths is explained as their own. Sort of duck typing applied to zombies: What looks like a zombie, rotten, bloody and with an urge to attack humans, must be a zombie.

 

Can we maybe agree on the urge to kill humans and a rotten look as base line characteristics of zombies ?

Already

had overcome the "urge". So did Michonnes protection zombies (the narrative is they kinda gave up, with no arms and jaws). Without being able to give you names, I've seen a buttload of movies and books with zombie-interpretations that don't kill, the urge for flesh is there in iZombie (she never kills, though), same with "Santa Clarita Diet", where "Sheila", the "zombie", does not look dead or rotten at all. iZombie at least is pale, so is the guy from Warm Bodies (also not a killer).

 

I guess you can find an example for everything. The original question or assumption, however, was that there is a common general expectation of what a zombie is. When you ask random people. Those who are into the theme might point out that there are all these variations, but even they (us) will, if they have no reason not to, list the traditional characteristics. Dead, rotting, killing and eating people. Do they feel pain? No. Can they heal themselves? No. Do they have supernatural abilities (except being walking dead bodies)? No. How intelligent are they? At best the level of insects, more like bacteria, driven to light, sound, smell, can't use tools, can't reason and know no logic. Who would say "hey, it's that guy from Warm Bodies" or the exploding cop from 7dtd. No1. All these variations are aberrations, and when they occur, they are usually presented in a context that makes sure to explain these irregularities.

 

Again: If you want a game with intelligent zombies, that's fine. Do you? Is that the intention of the devs? To me, it looks much like some sort of unavoidable necessity.

[meganoth]

Already

had overcome the "urge". So did Michonnes protection zombies (the narrative is they kinda gave up, with no arms and jaws). Without being able to give you names, I've seen a buttload of movies and books with zombie-interpretations that don't kill, the urge for flesh is there in iZombie (she never kills, though), same with "Santa Clarita Diet", where "Sheila", the "zombie", does not look dead or rotten at all. iZombie at least is pale, so is the guy from Warm Bodies (also not a killer).

 

I guess you can find an example for everything. The original question or assumption, however, was that there is a common general expectation of what a zombie is. When you ask random people. Those who are into the theme might point out that there are all these variations, but even they (us) will, if they have no reason not to, list the traditional characteristics. Dead, rotting, killing and eating people. Do they feel pain? No. Can they heal themselves? No. Do they have supernatural abilities (except being walking dead bodies)? No. How intelligent are they? At best the level of insects, more like bacteria, driven to light, sound, smell, can't use tools, can't reason and know no logic. Who would say "hey, it's that guy from Warm Bodies" or the exploding cop from 7dtd. No1. All these variations are aberrations, and when they occur, they are usually presented in a context that makes sure to explain these irregularities.

 

Again: If you want a game with intelligent zombies, that's fine. Do you? Is that the intention of the devs? To me, it looks much like some sort of unavoidable necessity.

 

But Bub or Michonnes zombies are the exceptions that overcame the urge that generally exists in the zombies in Day in the Dead and TWD. The urge in them still exists or existed at one time. As you yourself said "There is a reason why they behave like so, and that they behave like so is - within the story - remarkable. Unusual. Not normal.". The urge works as a common general expectation, while for example supernatural abilities or higher intelligence is sometimes a general feature of zombie variants in movies and comics.

 

The intention of the devs seems quite clear from the current state of the game and it is only of academic interest whether that intention was there from the start or came about because a rewrite of the AI code was necessary and/or their behaviour was thought as too simple. Sure, they need the story to explain the behaviour somewhat consistently, which isn't really the hard part. The hard part is writing the AI to apply that behaviour consistently while running on any machine that conforms to the current minimal hardware speccs. And that effort is still ongoing.

 

An AI that emulates A16 by simply running at the position of the player and hitting on anything between seems something that could still be done very easy by Fataal. So the more intelligent behaviour is at least at the moment surely intentional, probably because it gets some tower defense gameplay into the horde night.

 

Personally I'm all for the more intelligent zombies of A17/A18. I never wanted to build bases in A16 because there was no point in making more complicated structures as a box with concentric rings of traps. Since A17 I build horde bases, each time something different.

[Roland]

I haven't seen your opinion on zombie AI on horde night. Do you enjoy building bases around forseeing how zombies will navigate through an obstacle course..?

 

I love the zombie AI and pathfinding for how it enhances POI exploration. This is a separate issue for me from whether current POI design is better or worse than it once was or than it could be. I like the enemies being relentless and that they can find their way back to me while I'm exploring.

 

I recognize the weakness of the AI and pathfinding for horde night. It is easily exploitable and you do have to build with a mind to how you know they will behave. I don't personally take advantage of exploits and so still have fun on horde nights but I definitely would like for them to fix the flaws.

 

I see the current pathfinding and AI as a better starting point than what we had before. I hope they will keep working at obfuscating what the zombies actually know and work on making them seem more organic than programmed.

 

Do you think we should just not discuss any of these things at all? That seems to be a reoccuring angle of yours.

 

Then you're reading me wrong. Of course I want these things discussed.

 

I agree that the devs should go wild with their creativity, but if you wanted intelligent enemies, why do you call them "zombies"? Because it is indeed a true fact that the VAAAAAAAST majority of people understand a fairly certain thing under a "zombie". Being intelligent (or feeling pain) is usually none of them. So why use zombies, when your creative vision is something else?

 

I think, though, that it is not so much a creative vision. It's more a technical problem, that is being solved in a, let's say, less-than-ideal manner. That comes with noticable flaws and new problems. Such as that the zombies are now way too intelligent. Which is not a problem because of expectations, but because it's just not the same gameplay anymore. Was that intended? Was it the plan all along? Or is it actually a flaw the devs accept because they can't solve their problems without introducing such flaws..?

 

What we have now is neither a complete representation of their vision nor is it at a point where it is stuck by technical limitations. It is the early days of their development of a new system where they start out with zombies having perfect knowledge and then work to limit that fact and obfuscate that fact from the player. A17 was the first version and A18 is the second version. I think that A18 is better than A17. If someone thinks that A18 is the culmination and intended stopping point for how the zombies will behave then that is a misconception but it does seem by the way some post that they in fact do believe that TFP are done with zombie AI.

 

faatal did a lot of work and he has more to do but he has been tasked elsewhere and so for the time being this is what we have. If the anger over what we have right now is rooted in thinking that what we have is the intended final product then let me reassure that it is not.

 

As to what their final vision is for zombies is they want them to be challenging and fun. They don't want them getting stuck on decorations. They want them to be able to navigate effectively. They don't want them easily defeated by the first bloodmoon and then never pose a challenge ever again. They want to fix endless behavior loops. They do have truly intelligent enemies planned in the form of bandits so once bandits are in maybe zombies will be dumbified even more so there is a nice spread of enemy intelligence level.

 

In the early days of the game most of these types of conversations about the immersion breaking behavior of zombies was focused on the fact that they could break down wood, concrete, and steel blocks with their bare hands and were upset for that reason that TFP called them zombies. I'll put my own Lorax face on and say that it seems that most players have come to finally accept that behavior as the normal behavior of TFP's zombies.

[Roland]

Already

had overcome the "urge". So did Michonnes protection zombies (the narrative is they kinda gave up, with no arms and jaws). Without being able to give you names, I've seen a buttload of movies and books with zombie-interpretations that don't kill, the urge for flesh is there in iZombie (she never kills, though), same with "Santa Clarita Diet", where "Sheila", the "zombie", does not look dead or rotten at all. iZombie at least is pale, so is the guy from Warm Bodies (also not a killer).

 

I guess you can find an example for everything. The original question or assumption, however, was that there is a common general expectation of what a zombie is. When you ask random people. Those who are into the theme might point out that there are all these variations, but even they (us) will, if they have no reason not to, list the traditional characteristics. Dead, rotting, killing and eating people. Do they feel pain? No. Can they heal themselves? No. Do they have supernatural abilities (except being walking dead bodies)? No. How intelligent are they? At best the level of insects, more like bacteria, driven to light, sound, smell, can't use tools, can't reason and know no logic. Who would say "hey, it's that guy from Warm Bodies" or the exploding cop from 7dtd. No1. All these variations are aberrations, and when they occur, they are usually presented in a context that makes sure to explain these irregularities.

 

Again: If you want a game with intelligent zombies, that's fine. Do you? Is that the intention of the devs? To me, it looks much like some sort of unavoidable necessity.

 

I think that the general populace would look at anything that appears to be a zombie and call it a zombie regardless of behavior. It is only hardcore zombie fans that get upset when they compare anything that claims to be a zombie to whatever cannon they are going by. Regiular people standing around water coolers love the MCU and discuss what they like. Comic Book fans standing around in comic book stores likely hate the MCU and discuss every way it falls short of the cannon.

 

Personally I don't think TFP should worry about ultra zombie fans but should make their monsters however they wish. The ultra zombie fans will be horrified but everyone else will shrug and not really care that TFP labels what they have created as "zombies". I'm not an ultra zombie fan, myself, so I am pleased with every new special ability they add. I'm glad they can dig and pound their way through blocks. I'm glad they are better at pathfinding especially while exploring POI's. Those aspects that make them predictable enough to be exploited in ridiculous ways I expect to be fixed at some point. I don't think they are at the point where they are stumped by technical limitations. I fully believe they will return to look at zombie behavior and polish it up and make it better-- perhaps at the same time they bring bandits in.

[RestInPieces]

It's not about being an ultra zombie fan or anything. You either have zombies or you don't. And media can stretch the definition to oblivion for various purposes. "Zombie" superheroes, romances or whatever, there's literally everything out there. Don't have to conduct a survey either to get a decent definition. Just have to read some horror studies and find out why zombie culture became popular in the first place.

 

If you want a game with intelligent zombies, that's fine. Do you? Is that the intention of the devs? To me, it looks much like some sort of unavoidable necessity.

 

Superpower and intelligent zombies are definitely avoidable. Especially since bandits will get in the game at some point. They could even make a game with normal zombies having zero special abilities, that would be harder than the current one right now, without superficial difficulty inflation like health/damage or increasing their numbers.

 

In the early days of the game most of these types of conversations about the immersion breaking behavior of zombies was focused on the fact that they could break down wood, concrete, and steel blocks with their bare hands and were upset for that reason that TFP called them zombies.

 

Meh, very few ever complained about that, since it's way too obvious that it was necessary for the game.

 

PS: Demos would fit the bandit category better. Even their models are much like F's mutants.

[Roland]

It's not about being an ultra zombie fan or anything. You either have zombies or you don't. And media can stretch the definition to oblivion for various purposes. "Zombie" superheroes, romances or whatever, there's literally everything out there. Don't have to conduct a survey either to get a decent definition. Just have to read some horror studies and find out why zombie culture became popular in the first place.

 

Being an ultra zombie fan or not isn't about whether the game has zombies or not. It is about whether you are upset by what the zombies can do or not. I'm fine with the way guns are portrayed in the game. I don't ever get annoyed (or even know) when something in the game doesn't work like its real counterpart. But we hear from gun nuts that are driven crazy by this or that detail. Same appears to be true here. The zombie purists are the ones upset about how the zombies are behaving.

 

Now there are also those who aren't bothered about how a zombie is or isn't supposed to act but they aren't happy with the AI simply because it isn't fun for them.

 

 

Meh, very few ever complained about that, since it's way too obvious that it was necessary for the game.

 

PS: Demos would fit the bandit category better. Even their models are much like F's mutants.

 

 

Sorry, but my memory is different than yours. I would say in somewhat agreement with you that way too many complained about it given that it is obvious that it is necessary for the game.

[RestInPieces]

Being an ultra zombie fan or not isn't about whether the game has zombies or not. It is about whether you are upset by what the zombies can do or not. I'm fine with the way guns are portrayed in the game. I don't ever get annoyed (or even know) when something in the game doesn't work like its real counterpart. But we hear from gun nuts that are driven crazy by this or that detail. Same appears to be true here. The zombie purists are the ones upset about how the zombies are behaving.

 

Now there are also those who aren't bothered about how a zombie is or isn't supposed to act but they aren't happy with the AI simply because it isn't fun for them.

 

Adding anything to the game and calling it a zombie, simply doesn't make it a zombie. Taking the uncanny valley away from zombies is like taking away the shooting ability of weapons. It's pretty much their key horror element and the reason zombies became a "thing" in the first place.

[Roland]

Adding anything to the game and calling it a zombie, simply doesn't make it a zombie. Taking the uncanny valley away from zombies is like taking away the shooting ability of weapons. It's pretty much their key horror element and the reason zombies became a "thing" in the first place.

 

But nobody has or will add just anything to the game and call it a zombie. The zombies still look human. The zombie dogs still look canine. The zombie vultures still look raptory. The zombie bears look ursusy.

 

Any lay person looking at our game on a youtube video and seeing the enemies in action would immediately call this game a zombie game. The only people saying that it should not be called a zombie game any longer are "the experts" who don't agree with what they can do. I don't even disagree with their anger as they are the experts. I just don't think that TFP should concern themselves with it whenever they add the next special zombie ability.

[Roland]

OMG of course there wasn't!!! These are so different that you just have to be trolling now. Zombies telling the difference between one material and another is ridiculous beyond belief and immersion breaking. Zombies homing in on doors (or windows even) is totally expected. You really saying these amount to the same thing? What's the first thing you do in every zombie movie ever? BAR THE DOORS AND WINDOWS.

 

You are supposed to bar the windows and doors because they are the weak points. Zombies should be attacking everywhere and it is the ones who happen to chance upon the door or window that attack those weak points. But for zombies to target them at the exclusion of other parts of a structure is exactly the same thing that happens now. I'm not trolling and I am serious. In the old code their AI priority was doors.

 

So...did you bar the doors and windows because you knew they were weak points that need reinforcement or did you bar the doors and windows because you knew the zombie AI targeted those types of blocks first? For anyone paying attention from A1-A17 it was the latter.

[RestInPieces]

But nobody has or will add just anything to the game and call it a zombie. The zombies still look human. The zombie dogs still look canine. The zombie vultures still look raptory. The zombie bears look ursusy.

 

Any lay person looking at our game on a youtube video and seeing the enemies in action would immediately call this game a zombie game. The only people saying that it should not be called a zombie game any longer are "the experts" who don't agree with what they can do. I don't even disagree with their anger as they are the experts. I just don't think that TFP should concern themselves with it whenever they add the next special zombie ability.

 

You don't have to be an expert to understand that a zombie, canine, etc is not only about looks, you shallow, shallow man!

 

E.g. there has been a great deal of work and study involved in the creation of TWD (tv and vg alike), to reproduce the uncanny valley effect and get it right, because as certified experts say (can cite, if you like), that's what they are all about. So it wouldn't hurt TFP, if they were slightly concerned about it, would it?

 

Never said I justify the angry ravings of upset fans you keep mentioning -- but I could justify someone being disappointed that not enough attention is being brought into this in a "zombie game". 7DTD doesn't do a bad job at all when portraying zombies, but specials with superhuman abilities, glowing eyes, physics-defying puke etc etc, are certainly reductive to that experience.

[Ac75]

The defense of the current AI is rediculous