An in depth discussion on zombie loot in alpha 17

[eidobunny]

Probably because it is opinion and not fact?

 

Again, I don't think that fighting bosses at the end of a linear game is fun. It's brutal. It's hard. I usually get really mad a time or two when I don't succeed. When I finally do succeed, what I have gained is a sense of accomplishment, and I was able to get it through twiddling my thumbs and fingers around rather than through sweating outside at some task. That's what was fun about it for me.

 

Incidentally, vacations are fun for entirely different reasons, and they don't require brutal, hard things which cause me to curse at the world.

 

Yes but this isn't a linear game. I used this example in the main thread, but here we have Days Gone

and unsurprisingly there is no zombie loot. So what's the point of killing the zombies? Well, it's fun. That's what the game is about. What's the point of winning? Well if you don't win, you can't progress in the game. You can't make it to the next area, the next boss, you can't see the next cutscene, or finish the game and get the credit roll.

 

In 7 Days, as a sandbox game, those motivational factors are completely different than a linear game, and we need inherent risks and rewards to the specific activities we engage in. Looting a city has a matching risk and a certain reward. Chopping trees in the forest has a matching risk and reward. Mining underground has a matching risk and reward. Fighting a blood moon horde on a ground-level base should, theoretically, also have a matching risk and reward. That's all I've been saying.

[Roland]

Most of my introductory posts clearly state that I am aware that there is zombie loot being dropped at a rare percentage. If you step into a middle of a conversation I can't be expected to repeat a giant disclaimer every post I make. To be fair, this forum moves too quickly to read everything so I don't blame you for missing my disclaimers. I've written this particular disclaimer every time I'm engaged in this discussion:

 

lol...then your disclaimer is also the non-starter for your argument. Your premise is bogus but you type a quick disclaimer you immediately ignore? I can go back and read your disclaimer on page one but what astounds me is that you are still arguing on page 7 against no zombie loot when your disclaimer, itself, is the end of your argument.

 

Disclaimer: The devs have said their is zombie loot

 

Argument: The devs are removing zombie loot!!!

[eidobunny]

99% of zombies die on spikes or to turrets in your setup. I level up a few times thanks to horde nights. Trap XP is likely to be a "never" and not a "yet". Your last bit is not at all fair. You're taking an announcement for A17 and putting into a known A16 buggy context.

 

I don't see how blood moons are really possible to get a majority of the zombie kills once you've passed a certain point. They're just too difficult. 20, 30, 40 zombies at a time, you need a whole lot of defenses and most of the zombies are going to be dying to those defenses. I don't think exp gained from killing them is a reasonable reward. I really like the A16 dynamic of just turning my brain off and shooting zombies all night and then getting my reward once the storm has cleared It's such a perfect implementation and I'm going to miss that. I'm going to give the new system a shot before I make my judgment, but I'm still here stating my concerns in advance. Mostly because I can't play A17 right now.

[Jedo]

Yes but this isn't a linear game. I used this example in the main thread, but here we have Days Gone

and unsurprisingly there is no zombie loot. So what's the point of killing the zombies? Well, it's fun. That's what the game is about. What's the point of winning? Well if you don't win, you can't progress in the game. You can't make it to the next area, the next boss, you can't see the next cutscene, or finish the game and get the credit roll.

 

In 7 Days, as a sandbox game, those motivational factors are completely different than a linear game, and we need inherent risks and rewards to the specific activities we engage in. Looting a city has a matching risk and a certain reward. Chopping trees in the forest has a matching risk and reward. Mining underground has a matching risk and reward. Fighting a blood moon horde on a ground-level base should, theoretically, also have a matching risk and reward. That's all I've been saying.

 

I was showing how people can assess that different aspects of a video game are "fun." (Though I previously referred to linear video games for a different reason.)

 

The reward of something in a video game is not always an in-game benefit.

[eidobunny]

lol...then your disclaimer is also the non-starter for your argument. Your premise is bogus but you type a quick disclaimer you immediately ignore? I can go back and read your disclaimer on page one but what astounds me is that you are still arguing on page 7 against no zombie loot when your disclaimer, itself, is the end of your argument.

 

Disclaimer: The devs have said their is zombie loot

 

Argument: The devs are removing zombie loot!!!

 

Not to make any sort of judgment or insinuation regarding to your intelligence, but I'm just wondering if you've done limit mathematics? Essentially the idea is that as a function goes on, eventually it's indistinguishable from some other function. It is said that the limit approaches some value or some other function over time. So my argument premise of "if the developers completely remove loot" is based off the idea that the loot is so rare that there might as well not be any. If there is a 95% reduction, there might as well be a 100% reduction. We don't know how harsh the reduction is. That's why my post has a disclaimer. Loot has been reduced, but we don't know how much so we can't make an accurate assessment. We do know that we didn't see any in madmole's video. We do know that you've said yourself that it is "extremely rare." We do know that the developers will say they will tweak it. I don't have a solid premise because I haven't played A17. If zombie loot is 50% of A16 that's a lot different than if it's 5%. I'm arguing as long as people keep quoting my post and teling me I'm wrong or I'm stupid or my arguments are baloney. I have laid out the premise to the discussion and the subjects I'm talking about and how I feel about different scenarios and why. There's nothing more I can do before I get my hands on A17.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

I was showing how people can assess that different aspects of a video game are "fun." (Though I previously referred to linear video games for a different reason.)

 

The reward of something in a video game is not always an in-game benefit.

 

Yes. I know that. I play RPGs, I play bullet hells, I play simulation games, FPS games, all kinds of games. I can think of many example of rewards that comes in all sorts of forms. But right now I'm talking about a very specific case of risk vs reward in the set of two possible decisions to make during this very specific game event in a sandbox game.

[Exxodous]

Yes and in my opinion the most efficient option should also be the most fun option. The "easy" option should be to run and hide but should come with less rewards. I don't see how anyone can argue with this but you people are doing a damn good job of it.

 

High risk, high reward.

 

Low risk, low reward.

 

Duh???

 

It seems TFP believes the reward is to survive. Either way you survive but the xp experience of one is considerably higher than the other, thus additional reward. Right?

 

Fight the horde = Did not die + xp experience

High risk, high reward

 

Run from the horde = Did not die

Low risk, low reward

 

You want:

 

Fight the horde = Did not die, xp experience + valuable loot.

High risk, maximum reward.

 

I think it is a matter of perspective and expectations. Obviously TFP has their own in mind.

[eidobunny]

It seems TFP believes the reward is to survive. Either way you survive but the xp experience of one is considerably higher than the other, thus additional reward. Right?

 

Fight the horde = Did not die + xp experience

High risk, high reward

 

Run from the horde = Did not die

Low risk, low reward

 

You want:

 

Fight the horde = Did not die, xp experience + valuable loot.

High risk, maximum reward.

 

I think it is a matter of perspective and expectations. Obviously TFP has their own in mind.

 

Most of my horde zombies die to spikes, I don't know how many I manage to kill as a player because there's barely any indication that I was the one who killed the zombie. I don't feel like exp is a significant reward unless you only use like, electric fences and shoot all the zombies yourself. Even then, the fence can get the kill. It's like playing DotA or LoL but you can't immediately tell whether or not you're the one last-hitting the minions.

[Exxodous]

 

Incidentally, vacations are fun for entirely different reasons, and they don't require brutal, hard things which cause me to curse at the world.

 

You have better vacations than me. I think sometimes I'm related to the Griswolds Just completed a 5k mile trip in a 20 year old RV with 3 kids...trust me I sure wanted to curse the world a few times lol but we still had fun.

[Exxodous]

Most of my horde zombies die to spikes, I don't know how many I manage to kill as a player because there's barely any indication that I was the one who killed the zombie. I don't feel like exp is a significant reward unless you only use like, electric fences and shoot all the zombies yourself. Even then, the fence can get the kill. It's like playing DotA or LoL but you can't immediately tell whether or not you're the one last-hitting the minions.

 

If most of your kills come from spikes then it sounds like what your after is.

Low risk, high reward

 

At least the underground dwellers realized their playstyle was

No risk, No reward

[Jedo]

Yes. I know that. I play RPGs, I play bullet hells, I play simulation games, FPS games, all kinds of games. I can think of many example of rewards that comes in all sorts of forms. But right now I'm talking about a very specific case of risk vs reward in the set of two possible decisions to make during this very specific game event in a sandbox game.

 

So we're on the same page here.

 

You seem to want to define the reward for the horde night in one way (a way that would cause you to consider it to be "fun") while others (including the devs?) define it a different way. For the Dead is Dead crowd, not dying is the ultimate reward. When the goal of the game is "survival" (whether you want that to be the goal or not), I would say that not dying is the ultimate reward.

 

Let's take a different approach entirely. I want to be able to restore civilization in this game. I go into a town, eliminate the zombies, repair the buildings, etc. That is "fun" to me. You know what? I can't do that, or at least, TFP has things in place which make that impossible to do 100%. Where does that leave me?

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

You have better vacations than me. I think sometimes I'm related to the Griswolds Just completed a 5k mile trip in a 20 year old RV with 3 kids...trust me I sure wanted to curse the world a few times lol but we still had fun.

 

I do! Probably because I never would take a vacation like that. (It may also have to do with the fact that a trip with the kids is known as a "trip," not a "vacation." )

[Exxodous]

I do! Probably because I never would take a vacation like that. (It may also have to do with the fact that a trip with the kids is known as a "trip," not a "vacation." )

 

You may be right and I'm leaving them home next year lol

[eidobunny]

If most of your kills come from spikes then it sounds like what your after is.

Low risk, high reward

 

At least the underground dwellers realized their playstyle was

No risk, No reward

 

????

 

I mean, what do you do, meet the zombies on ground level with a sledgehammer and act like you're William Wallace in Braveheart?

 

Eventually the hordes are so extreme that you better have something more than just a simple wall if you want to not die. For most early and mid-game hordes I prefer a giant field of wooden spikes (not log spikes). They slow down the zombies and kill them quickly but are also destroyed rather quickly. It's a good balance. They're not cheap, and they take time to craft. The investment is in the time and energy required to set your fort up. I don't get a majority of those kills because they are coming from multiple angles and zombies take multiple headshots to kill. Usually I'll end up doing like 80% damage to a zombie, and he'll die on the spikes as 4 other zombies die on the spikes, then I do 80% damage to a new zombie and he'll die on the spikes as 4 other zombies die on the spikes. I wouldn't call my method low-risk high-reward. I'm still right there on the front line with only my defense standing between me and the zombies. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the player is going to use... defenses... during a blood moon. And most of those defenses are going to be traps that kill zombies.

[eidobunny]

So we're on the same page here.

 

You seem to want to define the reward for the horde night in one way (a way that would cause you to consider it to be "fun") while others (including the devs?) define it a different way. For the Dead is Dead crowd, not dying is the ultimate reward. When the goal of the game is "survival" (whether you want that to be the goal or not), I would say that not dying is the ultimate reward.

 

I just want to say that I really feel like I'm in a "moving the goalposts" situation. That or a game of ping pong. I keep hearing this "survival is the reward" take, but that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I can always survive. Surviving is easy. Hop on a minibike and ride. I'm saying that the risk vs reward is thrown off between fighting the horde and riding my minibike. It used to be that fighting the horde was high risk, high reward and riding a minibike was low risk, low reward, but now it's such that (IN THEORY) fighting is high risk, low reward and riding a minibike is low risk, low reward. So why not just ride a minibike? I am opting to increase the reward for 7th night (ASSUMING THE REWARD SUCKS, WHICH WE DON'T KNOW YET), so we maintain the balance of high-high, low-low.

 

Let's take a different approach entirely. I want to be able to restore civilization in this game. I go into a town, eliminate the zombies, repair the buildings, etc. That is "fun" to me. You know what? I can't do that, or at least, TFP has things in place which make that impossible to do 100%. Where does that leave me?

 

Isn't this actually possible though? Isn't it such that zombies can't spawn on player-crafted blocks? I don't know when the last time those mechanics were changed, it's just what I have in the back of my head. So you'd just have to replace the whole ground level of the city and defend it from outside invaders.

 

I actually often think about revitalizing an entire city, I've never had the patience to go through with it though.

 

Anyway going back to the actual question at hand, I think that would leave you looking for another game.

[Exxodous]

????

 

I mean, what do you do, meet the zombies on ground level with a sledgehammer and act like you're William Wallace in Braveheart?

 

Eventually the hordes are so extreme that you better have something more than just a simple wall if you want to not die. For most early and mid-game hordes I prefer a giant field of wooden spikes (not log spikes). They slow down the zombies and kill them quickly but are also destroyed rather quickly. It's a good balance. They're not cheap, and they take time to craft. The investment is in the time and energy required to set your fort up. I don't get a majority of those kills because they are coming from multiple angles and zombies take multiple headshots to kill. Usually I'll end up doing like 80% damage to a zombie, and he'll die on the spikes as 4 other zombies die on the spikes, then I do 80% damage to a new zombie and he'll die on the spikes as 4 other zombies die on the spikes. I wouldn't call my method low-risk high-reward. I'm still right there on the front line with only my defense standing between me and the zombies. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the player is going to use... defenses... during a blood moon. And most of those defenses are going to be traps that kill zombies.

 

No I fight horde night very similar to you, but I can't remember the last time I actually felt at risk on horde night after day 14 or so. My goal is to survive the night and any exp I get is a bonus.

 

So in reality and I'm really trying to understand the crux of your argument, you are really most concerned about:

 

Time invested vs reward gained.

 

Ie time and energy making all those spikes every week needs to be offset with a resources or way to replenish said spikes. I would assume that is why many have hid underground in the past as this is rarely the case for most of us. Maybe riding the bike all night will be the best option for you as I don't think the reward for horde night is going to be the same as it was before. It will still be there for some, but it will be different.

[eidobunny]

No I fight horde night very similar to you, but I can't remember the last time I actually felt at risk on horde night after day 14 or so. My goal is to survive the night and any exp I get is a bonus.

 

So in reality and I'm really trying to understand the crux of your argument, you are really most concerned about:

 

Time invested vs reward gained.

 

Ie time and energy making all those spikes every week needs to be offset with a resources or way to replenish said spikes. I would assume that is why many have hid underground in the past as this is rarely the case for most of us. Maybe riding the bike all night may be the best option for you as I don't think the reward for horde night is going the be the same as it was before. It will still be there for some, but it will be different.

 

Yeah I think you get me 100%

 

Why should I spend 1-2 days repairing spikes and walls for a reward I never got, rather than ride my minibike and spend 0 days repairing spikes and walls for a reward I never got.

 

Fun of fighting a horde yeah, but that's it. Most nights I'll probably take a ride, if the loot sucks. I used to like fighting the hordes. It's a major design decision to change the reward structure for such a core gameplay mechanic. I hope the loot that does drop from the zombies makes it worth my while to participate.

[Jedo]

I just want to say that I really feel like I'm in a "moving the goalposts" situation. That or a game of ping pong. I keep hearing this "survival is the reward" take, but that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I can always survive. Surviving is easy. Hop on a minibike and ride. I'm saying that the risk vs reward is thrown off between fighting the horde and riding my minibike. It used to be that fighting the horde was high risk, high reward and riding a minibike was low risk, low reward, but now it's such that (IN THEORY) fighting is high risk, low reward and riding a minibike is low risk, low reward. So why not just ride a minibike? I am opting to increase the reward for 7th night (ASSUMING THE REWARD SUCKS, WHICH WE DON'T KNOW YET), so we maintain the balance of high-high, low-low.

 

We could be talking past each other to a certain extent, but I think (I could be wrong) that we're talking around each other.

 

When you say "reward," you mean a return on your investment (as Exxodous just said)? If so, why should you receive that? Is that part of the fabric of the game? Is that part of TFP's vision for the game?

 

Furthermore, to what end is the return on your investment, as in, what would be the purpose for giving it?

 

Anyway going back to the actual question at hand, I think that would leave you looking for another game.

 

This is true, and it is true for most people who want TFP to change something that isn't in TFP's vision. You might find yourself there soon. (Of course, most of us will be generally happy to say that this game is the closest that we currently have to the ideal game that we want, so we'll keep playing it even with its imperfections.)

[eidobunny]

When you say "reward," you mean a return on your investment (as Exxodous just said)? If so, why should you receive that? Is that part of the fabric of the game? Is that part of TFP's vision for the game?

 

Furthermore, to what end is the return on your investment, as in, what would be the purpose for giving it?

 

I don't think I would need a reward if I was forced to engage the 7th night horde. The reward would be surviving, right? Except that game mechanics allow other methods of surviving that don't also consume hours of hard work. That's the crux of my argument. Again, BIG IF - but IF loot was removed, you're just encouraging players to hide in a hole or ride around on a minibike, or log off for the night in multiplayer. I think players should be encouraged to fight the horde, not discouraged. It's relative to the other options you have to survive. If zombies always attacked your main base (however the developers would calculate "main base") then you would be forced to defend it, and in that case, surviving would be all the reward you need. But that's not how it works. The zombies just follow you. Which makes sense. But also I can just ride a minibike and never be in any danger ever.

[Roland]

Not to make any sort of judgment or insinuation regarding to your intelligence, but I'm just wondering if you've done limit mathematics? Essentially the idea is that as a function goes on, eventually it's indistinguishable from some other function. It is said that the limit approaches some value or some other function over time. So my argument premise of "if the developers completely remove loot" is based off the idea that the loot is so rare that there might as well not be any. If there is a 95% reduction, there might as well be a 100% reduction. We don't know how harsh the reduction is. That's why my post has a disclaimer. Loot has been reduced, but we don't know how much so we can't make an accurate assessment. We do know that we didn't see any in madmole's video. We do know that you've said yourself that it is "extremely rare." We do know that the developers will say they will tweak it. I don't have a solid premise because I haven't played A17. If zombie loot is 50% of A16 that's a lot different than if it's 5%. I'm arguing as long as people keep quoting my post and teling me I'm wrong or I'm stupid or my arguments are baloney. I have laid out the premise to the discussion and the subjects I'm talking about and how I feel about different scenarios and why. There's nothing more I can do before I get my hands on A17.

 

It's just so extra the amount of energy you are expending on something you claim to be reserving judement on. I mean if they increase the loot tomorrow then pages of worry and angst is for nothing. You say that your goal is to make sure TFP knows your viewpoint. They know. It's been discussed. Madmole has said they will be looking at the balance.

 

I did say it was extremely rare. Guess what? There are also no tree stumps in the game right now because their texture is borked but that doesn't mean its intended that no stumps are in the game. Shall we go 7 pages talking about how wrong it would be to remove stumps? Nothing in that video that Joel showed is final. He showed an early sample of the WIP build they are doing. The only thing that is final is that zombie bodies are no longer loot containers and that is only final for A17 as they might come up with something different for the next update.

 

I'm not trying to stifle your opinion. That's impossible at this point. You've re-posted it now across at least three threads and to such a degree that someone of questionable intelligence like me has figured out your stance. Now, I've said my piece and I'll leave off and if you want to continue filling pages and pages talking about something you're supposedly reserving judgement on until you've played it go right ahead. I'm not sure why anyone would want to engage with you in it as it bound to be a phenomenal waste of time. In fact, this whole topic is just like a horde night that yields zero loot by the end of it. My job is done which is to make sure the new reader who stumbles upon this thread doesn't take your greatest fear as the gospel truth about A17.

[eidobunny]

It's just so extra the amount of energy you are expending on something you claim to be reserving judement on. I mean if they increase the loot tomorrow then pages of worry and angst is for nothing. You say that your goal is to make sure TFP knows your viewpoint. They know. It's been discussed. Madmole has said they will be looking at the balance.

 

I did say it was extremely rare. Guess what? There are also no tree stumps in the game right now because their texture is borked but that doesn't mean its intended that no stumps are in the game. Shall we go 7 pages talking about how wrong it would be to remove stumps? Nothing in that video that Joel showed is final. He showed an early sample of the WIP build they are doing. The only thing that is final is that zombie bodies are no longer loot containers and that is only final for A17 as they might come up with something different for the next update.

 

I'm not trying to stifle your opinion. That's impossible at this point. You've re-posted it now across at least three threads and to such a degree that someone of questionable intelligence like me has figured out your stance. Now, I've said my piece and I'll leave off and if you want to continue filling pages and pages talking about something you're supposedly reserving judgement on until you've played it go right ahead. I'm not sure why anyone would want to engage with you in it as it bound to be a phenomenal waste of time. In fact, this whole topic is just like a horde night that yields zero loot by the end of it. My job is done which is to make sure the new reader who stumbles upon this thread doesn't take your greatest fear as the gospel truth about A17.

 

First of all, come on now. I specifically said I was NOT trying to bring your intelligence into the matter. I just didn't want to start talking about calculus and have you think I was trying to out-smart you or something. It's just the way I was thinking about the situation and I specifically wanted to make sure you didn't feel like I was attacking you on an intellectual level.

 

Yeah it's a phenomenal waste of time. I wouldn't be talking at all if A17 were out. I've got idle hands because it isn't out and I tend to respond when posted at. If nobody fought me on the subject I would have made one post about my point of view and left it at that, but everyone keeps coming out of the woodwork like "you're wrong" "you're stupid" "this is actually a good decision" "there are no possible factors to worry about" "I don't understand what you're getting at with (gigantic detailed explanation)"

[Jedo]

I don't think I would need a reward if I was forced to engage the 7th night horde. The reward would be surviving, right? Except that game mechanics allow other methods of surviving that don't also consume hours of hard work. That's the crux of my argument. Again, BIG IF - but IF loot was removed, you're just encouraging players to hide in a hole or ride around on a minibike, or log off for the night in multiplayer. I think players should be encouraged to fight the horde, not discouraged. It's relative to the other options you have to survive. If zombies always attacked your main base (however the developers would calculate "main base") then you would be forced to defend it, and in that case, surviving would be all the reward you need. But that's not how it works. The zombies just follow you. Which makes sense. But also I can just ride a minibike and never be in any danger ever.

 

So this, that I posted ~35 posts ago? (I think I was correct about "talking around each other.")

Really, the diminution of loot from zombies has finally caught you up with where the underground builders crowd have been: fighting the 7th night horde is not worth it. And yet, you can't stop it from coming. TFP are making more and more efforts to make you HAVE to fight the 7th night hordes, but they aren't necessarily making more efforts to make you WANT to fight them.

 

Where I disagree with you is that we should want to fight them. Why? I don't want to fight Bowser in a Mario game, but I have to in order to reach my goal: beating the game. That's what I want to do. That's the real design of most games: put obstacles in the path of the player as they attempt to reach their goal. What's the goal of this game? Surviving. What's the obstacle? A recurring horde of zombies threatening to decimate your survival chances the next time around. In that case, TFP should focus their efforts on the obstacle, and I think they have no need to make it desirable.

 

Look at the situation this way then: It is a WIP. In this alpha, TFP has reduced the incentives (the "WANT"s) for fighting the horde (taking it back down to survival being the reward), but they haven't yet implemented all of the methods for making a person HAVE to fight the horde. (They can make vehicles vulnerable to the horde, make floating in water all night vulnerable, make flying above the fray vulnerable, etc.)

 

If they fully implemented this process, you would be content with everybody having to engage the horde in some way and not receiving any reward except for surviving to do it again in 7 days?

[Guppycur]

I don't like that once again, the game has been made easier and the world more static by having my ability to search a body removed.

 

I don't care about lower chances of loot (but still maintain that if there is loot, it should be something worthwhile) but I do care that I now kill a zombie then no longer have to WONDER if there is something cool on him... No longer have to CONSIDER dangerously going back in to find out...

 

...my choice has been handed to me on a backpack platter.

 

Yawn.

 

Quit gimping the game please, thank you. I'm sure there are better solutions to performance issues.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

...might as well just put a floating bar over the zombie letting us know there's no loot...

[eidobunny]

So this, that I posted ~35 posts ago? (I think I was correct about "talking around each other.")

 

Look at the situation this way then: It is a WIP. In this alpha, TFP has reduced the incentives (the "WANT"s) for fighting the horde (taking it back down to survival being the reward), but they haven't yet implemented all of the methods for making a person HAVE to fight the horde. (They can make vehicles vulnerable to the horde, make floating in water all night vulnerable, make flying above the fray vulnerable, etc.)

 

If they fully implemented this process, you would be content with everybody having to engage the horde in some way and not receiving any reward except for surviving to do it again in 7 days?

 

Yeah, also I don't remember reading that post, I must have missed it. I guess I can see it as a small move in a big picture, but I guess I didn't think of it that way before. Maybe I was making assumptions because of the year-and-a-half-long development cycle for this patch. Doesn't seem like taking zombie loot out is a decision you make last-second.

[Guppycur]

Don't be fooled by the "tfp vision" illusion. It's used often but easily rebutted by the many, many choices Tfp has made in the past...

 

...this is strictly a performance boost. Using rationales seems silly to me, but I guess that's their choice.

[eidobunny]

It's obvious to me that they are trying to rationalize and legitimatize a performance decision by making this up like "hey guys, you always hated looting zombies and destroying gore blocks, right, RIGHT????"

 

Damnit I liked it.

[Jedo]

Don't be fooled by the "tfp vision" illusion. It's used often but easily rebutted by the many, many choices Tfp has made in the past...

 

...this is strictly a performance boost. Using rationales seems silly to me, but I guess that's their choice.

 

Just because the director has to cut out a scene of the movie or film it in a slightly different way because of budget constraints doesn't mean that the end product is not their "vision." It may not be their "ideal vision," but it is their vision nonetheless. After all, they made the choice about how to adapt to the new approach, regardless of the factors which motivated the need to adapt.