Why does 7dtd still have no end game content?

[InfiniteWarrior]

It's just not a good use of development resources to put effort into creating and maintaining an enemy type that many players may never experience in game. That calculation changes when you're putting the finishing touches on a game, but I think it's fair to say TFP has a way to go yet.

Honestly reminds of the publishing company execs refusing to support true choice and consequence in RPGs because they insist the studio will be creating alternative content for branching storylines no one will ever see. Well, we know from experience how untrue that is given that some of the most beloved RPGs of all time are choice and consequence RPGs (like New Vegas) and that's why choice and consequence RPGs are so hard to come by anymore despite that most players of RPGs will exhaust every possible permutation. That is, after all, what accounted for their enormous replayability in the first place. Fact is: publishers today are just too greedy and cheap to fund it. I mean, we can blame BGS for ruining Fallout all we like, but the simple fact is it's the ones holding the purse strings who call the shots when it should be the other way around: the artists and developers making the game should be calling the shots and the publishers/marketers publishing and marketing what they produce. Strange how things have become so bass-ackwards in that regard.

Make the "specials" generic and they will come off generic.

 

[Sapient6]

Well, we know from experience how untrue that is given that some of the most beloved RPGs of all time are choice and consequence RPGs (like New Vegas) and that's why choice and consequence RPGs are so hard to come by anymore despite that most players of RPGs will exhaust every possible permutation.

To me these are two unsupported claims.

I'll give you "some of the most beloved RPGs of all time are choice and consequence RPGs (like New Vegas)" on the grounds that 1. it's super non-specific ("some" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here), and 2. "most beloved" is impossible to quantify.

But "most players of RPGs will exhaust every possible permutation"? Nah, that claim looks like BS right on its face, and a quick look at steam achievements for a few different RPGs make it abundantly clear that most players of RPGs don't even finish the game one time.

but the simple fact is it's the ones holding the purse strings who call the shots when it should be the other way around: the artists and developers making the game should be calling the shots and the publishers/marketers publishing and marketing what they produce.

Sounds good to me, but I don't believe this in any way refutes what I was saying. Whether the resource you're talking about is "money" or "time", it will always be finite. So every feature added to a project like this should have a cost\benefit analysis attached to it, because 100% whatever does get added gets added instead of something else. This is inescapable.

And my entire point is that in my opinion a zombie that only shows up in one or two specific POIs would not be a good investment of resources right now. It is still a good idea, but it's one that makes a lot more sense from a cost\benefit perspective when the game is much more feature complete.

 

[Kyoji]

Yep, I understand it's on the roadmap. That roadmap has been out since 1.0 and it doesn't look any different post townhall (unless I'm blind). My point was TFP announcing that Bandits have been "delayed" does not necessarily mean they aren't coming in 3.0. It's entirely possible that 3.0 itself has been delayed (again).

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what that means. I believe 3.0 will be delayed to make the adjustments for 2.0.

I am supportive of it though. I think it's best to finish the features we need now before moving on. We had a storms update but no weather fix that was supposedly in the pipeline.

 

[Riamus]

almost 2 years after its official release

You do know that 1.0 came out only about 14 months ago (just a little over one year), right? And that it wasn't any "official release" as you seem to imply. It was just another alpha version. The "official release", which I assume you mean to be the gold/finished release is not until 4.0. Yes, the version numbers are dumb, but that's how it is. 2.0 is basically Alpha 23 regardless of name. The game still states on the menu that it is pre-release.

As far as end game content, the only content that they've mentioned is a story. You can include bandits if you want, but I don't really think they'll really be end game content. And a story will probably not be worth doing more than once. This game isn't designed to have you sit at the end of the game and just spam the same things over and over like an MMO. When you feel like the current game is done, you start a new one. That's how it has always been and is likely how it will always be. They may add more content - technically, the new zombie tiers are "end game content" because they appear only towards the end of the game, extending difficulty further than was previously in the game. But even if they add more content to extend the game - stronger enemies, more weapon tiers, etc. - there won't really be what most would consider end game content. It'll just take longer to complete a game before you start a new one.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

a zombie that only shows up in one or two specific POIs

Did I say one or two? No. Did I give one or two as examples? Yes. Split those hairs!

Of course, that would be ridiculous. I said overused and who would argue that Spitter and Frostclaw were spawning ridiculously often? From what I gather, their spawn rate has been cut down to 50% or so. Guess we'll see if people still think that too high. Can't believe I have to point this out yet again, but the point is that when assets are overused, they become ho-hum quick. Now, many in the community think Screamer is showing up too often not only because it's annoying but because it's robbed her of her special status. It doesn't matter much that some, like the Demo, will only appear at higher levels when they become just another zombie variant in a pool of idential zombies you eventually see all the time.

a quick look at steam achievements for a few different RPGs make it abundantly clear that most players of RPGs don't even finish the game one time.

Maybe because there's only one path through most erroneously and misleadingly labelled RPGs and branching storylines that result in multiple endings that aren't chosen from a list are rare these days. Hard to believe it's only taken a little over a decade for players to become acclimated to and satisfied with that, but I chalk that up to younger players having never experienced anything else, e.g. the original Fallouts. Of course, 7 Days is not a choice and consequence RPG. Those are just examples not unlike the overused uniques that have drawn so much criticism for Elden Ring and I don't care in the least to "refute" what you or anyone else has to say. I'm just making a point. People can see it for themselves or not. Either way, it's no skin off my back. It's a reflection on the game in question whether Elden Ring or any other, including 7 Days to Die.

 

[theFlu]

Can't believe I have to point this out yet again, but the point is that when assets are overused, they become ho-hum quick.

Your point isn't wrong; but two new spitter clones that both just roll over when you simply rush them... they're were doomed to become hum-ho after meeting them twice, either way.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

Because players can never agree on what “end game” content is. I have never been on a forum that did not include constant complaints/criticisms of the lack of an end game or the monotonous state of the end game.

And this observation includes several live service games that are being regularly updated with new content but still lack an “end game” according to some.

Precisely. Taking down the Scorchbeast queen is the "end game" for Fallout 76. Yet, the clamoring for "end game" content has resulted in ridiculous expeditions that overpowered players with broken weapons can play for a *cough*challenge*cough*. And still they clamor for "end game" material. It is to laugh. The irony is what I said earlier about execs expecting us to live and work and play and shop in their games while our corporeal selves wither away.

That and "Meta" type endeavors would make for fantastic prewar lore in the next Fallout...if lead writer Emil Pagliarulo hadn't said himself, "players want to live in our games."

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

Your point isn't wrong; but two new spitter clones that both just roll over when you simply rush them... they're were doomed to become hum-ho after meeting them twice, either way.

The "specials" could be quite a bit more special. No doubt about that. But that probably ties in more to what Sapient6 is saying about leaving it until the game is feature complete.

 

[Sapient6]

Did I say one or two? No. Did I give one or two as examples? Yes. Split those hairs!

Not really splitting hairs. The post of mine you responded to was one where I was specifically responding to the OP asking where the "POI specific zombies" are. Maybe you lost the plot.

 

[Kyoji]

"most beloved" is impossible to quantify.

Not as hard as you think. It's not a math equation. For example, are people generally happy with the direction of the new Battlefield game? I would say yes. Are people generally disappointed with the new Civilizations game? Generally yes. I can use common sense to quantify it based on reviews, word of mouth, posts on the internet and critics.

 

[CVenton]

1. Alpha
2. Beta
3. Gold

TFP/Mods have said this for years. The story comes during the gold phase. We are in the Alpha phase. Thus "A22" When a patch is released.

I personally look forward to the beta testing phases!

 

[Roadkill115]

It really is rather ridiculous that we have almost nothing for end game content and have had to rely on mods for that kind of content for years.

don't blood moons get harder depending on gamestate?

 

[Sapient6]

Not as hard as you think. It's not a math equation. For example, are people generally happy with the direction of the new Battlefield game? I would say yes. Are people generally disappointed with the new Civilizations game? Generally yes. I can use common sense to quantify it based on reviews, word of mouth, posts on the internet and critics.

And? Keeping in mind the original quote was "some of the most beloved RPGs of all time [have this rpg design feature]":

What does "some" mean? Two rpgs? Three rpgs? At least one third? It's impossible to tell where Infinite intended that goalpost to stand.

What does "beloved" mean? ... and here your post illustrates my point exactly. From your post I have to infer that you think "beloved" means "generally happy with the direction of the [game]". Not exactly how I'd define "beloved". If that is what "beloved" mean, then wtf does "most beloved" mean? Does that apply to the new Battlefield game? Is this new Battlefield game one "of the most" "people are generally happy with [its direction]"?

So I said it was a given both because 1. I agreed and 2. even if I didn't agree, the claim was extremely vague and entirely unquantifiable... so disagreeing and agreeing were equally meaningless.

 

[Kyoji]

And? Keeping in mind the original quote was "some of the most beloved RPGs of all time [have this rpg design feature]":

What does "some" mean? Two rpgs? Three rpgs? At least one third? It's impossible to tell where Infinite intended that goalpost to stand.

What does "beloved" mean? ... and here your post illustrates my point exactly. From your post I have to infer that you think "beloved" means "generally happy with the direction of the [game]". Not exactly how I'd define "beloved". If that is what "beloved" mean, then wtf does "most beloved" mean? Does that apply to the new Battlefield game? Is this new Battlefield game one "of the most" "people are generally happy with [its direction]"?

So I said it was a given both because 1. I agreed and 2. even if I didn't agree, the claim was extremely vague and entirely unquantifiable... so disagreeing and agreeing were equally meaningless.

I was responding to a specific part of your statement suggesting that it's difficult to prove what is a beloved game or by logic even a good game. Either way it's possible to infer trends both positive and negative.

So I wasn't replying to your quote in the broader context.

 

[Suxar]

For example, are people generally happy with the direction of the new Battlefield game? I would say yes.

I am not happy and will never buy Battlefield again. I really didn't like that without releasing all the updates for one version, they release the next one. As a result, you are simply forced to buy the next version, because people stop playing this one. And even if you get new content, you can't play anymore.

 

[Kyoji]

I am not happy and will never buy Battlefield again. I really didn't like that without releasing all the updates for one version, they release the next one. As a result, you are simply forced to buy the next version, because people stop playing this one. And even if you get new content, you can't play anymore.

Live service gaming. CoD, BF, etc are all on one year cycles where a new game is released every year and that is an unfortunate byproduct of how those styles of games are operated these days, but I would still argue the sentiment towards the newest BF game is very positive, especially when you compare it to previous iterations within the last few years. People are calling it a return to form. So I agree with your sentiment, but I don't think that detracts from the general good sentiment the game has leading up to release.

 

[Suxar]

Live service gaming. CoD, BF, etc are all on one year cycles where a new game is released every year and that is an unfortunate byproduct of how those styles of games are operated these days, but I would still argue the sentiment towards the newest BF game is very positive, especially when you compare it to previous iterations within the last few years. People are calling it a return to form. So I agree with your sentiment, but I don't think that detracts from the general good sentiment the game has leading up to release.

If we talk specifically about Battlefield 1, it was sold in two versions:
1 - Only the main game, and all the DLC for an additional fee.
2 - The full version, which included all future DLCs, they promised five of them.

In the end, the following happened. Those who bought the full version were unable to play it. When the third DLC with Tsaritsyn came out, the next version of Battlefield came out right away. And people ran away to the new game. I waited in line for 20 minutes, closed Battlefield and never opened it again. In fact, this is a deception of players who bought the full version.

 

[Sapient6]

I was responding to a specific part of your statement suggesting that it's difficult to prove what is a beloved game or by logic even a good game. Either way it's possible to infer trends both positive and negative.

So I wasn't replying to your quote in the broader context.

That's cool, but "it's difficult to prove what is a beloved game" is a total misinterpretation of what I was saying, and extrapolating that to "it's difficult to prove what is a good game" only serves to further divorce it from what I was saying.

 

[Razorpony]

I could be wrong here, and I'm sure many of you will let me know if that's the case, but it occurred to me that the reason there's such a disconnect between a lot of the fans and the Pimps is that this isn't even the game they want to make. They always talk about their vision and the closer the vision gets the worse the game gets. Because their vision is a linear on rails looter shooter story mode. Sandbox mode is just there so we can play early access and test features. They never meant for that to be the final game so there is no end game for it. Just play til you get tired and restart.

We messed up and fell in love with the wrong game, guys.

 

[Kyoji]

That's cool, but "it's difficult to prove what is a beloved game" is a total misinterpretation of what I was saying, and extrapolating that to "it's difficult to prove what is a good game" only serves to further divorce it from what I was saying.

Fair enough. I think I was unintentionally responding to criticism writ large when people say things like "we can never know" as if we cannot infer trends from a multitude of sources (of which we do in real life for chasing trends in marketing).