PC My A18 feedback
- Thread starter ~Kevin~
- Start date
Kubikus
New member
Sarcasm is not a conspiracy. Here are some excerpts from the the Wikipedia article on sarcasm, that you should read in full:
Again: Do you think Roland actually apologized for not quoting a wall of text that he did not wish to respond to? Is that honestly your opinion? Hm?
Roland
Moderator
What? I was lightly teasing Meganoth. Nothing in The rest of that post was mocking or sarcastic. Sorry if you took that one line to be mean-spirited. It was not intended that way. I’m fine with anyone ceasing to respond at any time. It’s even noble at times to allow the person you are conversing with to have the last word.
Roland
Moderator
Again, I’m sorry. It wasn’t meant to be biting or rude and was directed at Meganoth. It wasn’t even the point of that overall post.
You should know that your criticism of my manner in responding to angry people has led to me striving to be less sarcastic and more placating. I’m not going to be perfect at all times but I did listen to your feedback.
Last edited by a moderator:
I assumed I was the target as well. In the past I used to prune quite a lot, but after a vehement complaint I decided to keep whole posts. Sadly splitting quotes to comment on specific paragraphs is not available in the editor, so replying to big posts is quite cumbersome with copy and paste. (Oh, that gave me an idea how to misuse the "quote" function for that. Thank you for giving me a reason to think about it again :chuncky: )
But your post felt a bit off-topic, if I may say.
@Kubikus : You might think splitting a reply into two posts makes sense. For me this is a line I don't want to cross. Having arguments the size of 10k is already enough to make me seriously think what not to respond to so the conversation doesn't get out of hand.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kubikus
New member
"Sorry, I didn't mean to!" - something heard from you quite frequently, making it impossible to believe you just coincidentally made this remark right after my corresponding ones. But, Roland, I could be persuaded to believe that you honestly believe there is no connexion. It's not unusual.
What seems to be the problem with that?
What does "getting out of hand" mean?
I think it is rude to make someone make an effort, by asking them a question or "suggesting" they should respond to an argument, and then just ignore the reply.
In this case: Getting out of hand -> Using too much time for a discussion that (lets be honest) has run its course. We exchanged arguments, you summarily pronounced my last arguments as weak, what else is there to say?
Should I continue by saying, "no, I think your argument is weak", to which you respond with "No, your argument is weak", to which I respond ... :sneakiness: . I really think we said everything there is to be said
Tombuilder
New member
"I think it is rude to make someone make an effort, by asking them a question or "suggesting" they should respond to an argument, and then just ignore the reply."
"It sounded like you had a general rule of putting an upper cap on how much you said. In case of our discussion, yeah, I felt like you had not really anything substantial left to say. Which is why I decided to discontinue."
Glad you cleared That up Kubicus, thought for a second there you were just being rude after Mega made the effort to reply to you :congratulatory:
"It sounded like you had a general rule of putting an upper cap on how much you said. In case of our discussion, yeah, I felt like you had not really anything substantial left to say. Which is why I decided to discontinue."
Glad you cleared That up Kubicus, thought for a second there you were just being rude after Mega made the effort to reply to you :congratulatory:
RestInPieces
New member
Kubikus, you make great points but you got to work on being more succinct!
PS: None has replied to what I said about the "elusive zombie definition" not being so elusive, in my last post of the 10th page :'(
PS: None has replied to what I said about the "elusive zombie definition" not being so elusive, in my last post of the 10th page :'(
alphaniner
New member
Wasn't it already addressed? Basically, "zombies don't exist, so they can be 'defined' how ever one wants."
It's not a particularly intellectual response, but from a gameplay perspective it's not unreasonable IMO.
RestInPieces
New member
But this is inherently a false statement. We already use definitions for concepts and imaginary entities, because we obviously need differentiation standards to describe what we are talking about. E.g. vampires and dragons don't exist but have their own definition, so that people understand two different kinds of concepts. If you "stretch" the vampire definition to resemble a dragon, it will become a dragon. If you create a new imaginary entity you will unavoidably attribute it with certain characteristics. Communication would literally not be possible if you don't define concepts, whether they are imaginary or not.
My point was that what defines zombies as an entity has some unique core characteristics. If it didn't, the "zombie" would never have become a thing and there wouldn't be a definition for it in the first place. And these characteristics are common knowledge in horror studies and have been researched by actual psychologists already, and as I pointed out earlier, they extend further than appearance. So every time this is being discussed, I am like "wtf" for a good reason.
Last edited by a moderator:
alphaniner
New member
I guess the problem is, when it comes to imaginary concepts especially, there can be wildly different degrees of leeway in what people will "allow in".
For example, while I doubt I ever would have conceived of acid spitting or exploding - or even simply running - zombies, I'm not particularly bothered by them. OTOH I absolutely refuse to accept that the sparkly beings from Twilight can be called vampires. :twitch:
For example, while I doubt I ever would have conceived of acid spitting or exploding - or even simply running - zombies, I'm not particularly bothered by them. OTOH I absolutely refuse to accept that the sparkly beings from Twilight can be called vampires. :twitch:
Last edited by a moderator:
Kubikus
New member
I never ignored mega and what I consider rude is when you go back and forth and back and forth and then all you get is a "snip" or chunks of your reasoning are simply missing with no comment. If I have to expect that, it demotivates me to make an effort.
I don't have time to keep it brief.
The discussion about what zombies are fell victim to the protective instinct of the company vindicators. Even for no good reason, 7dtd zombies are still clearly zombies, noone ever denied that, it's really just a nerdy meta discussion. The whole narrative of the "angry experts" is just mockery and defamation.
There is obviously no doubt that zombies are a certain monster archetype; unreasonable to deny that.
RestInPieces
New member
One can stretch anything as much as they want, but at the point the entity loses its defining characteristics, it becomes something else and gets a new (or existing) name. That was always the case with both philology referring to existing entities and mythology/pop culture referring to imaginary ones. Try, for example, to imagine Twilight vampires having a human lifespan, drinking water instead of blood, or even being completely identical to a human without anything special other than the movie calling them vampires with it being advertised as a vampire movie.
Roland
Moderator
There are those who are allowed to stretch the definitions of concepts. They are the creators of their own work. Nobody points to my grandfather to see what he has to say about zombie attributes because he never contributed anything to zombie-hood. People point to Romero because he created something that gained popularity and so his own version of zombies and now his definition has become part of the overall concept.
TFP are creators and have license to extend the definition in any way they wish and to still call their monsters “zombies”. If the game reaches enough popularity then in future years this game will be referenced as part of the definition of what makes zombies zombies. If it sinks into obscurity then it won’t.
But like my grandfather, neither myself, Kubikus, Rest-in-Pieces, Mega, or anyone else’s view really matters (except to themselves) whether this game’s creatures are actually zombies. The creators claim that they are so for this game they are and only time will tell if their vision becomes incorporated into the general view of what constitutes a zombie.
I’m sure that if there were message boards back in 1968 there would have been people scratching their heads and wondering where the voodoo was in the new supposed “zombie” movie everyone was talking about. Romero did not stick to already established definitions but that did not stop people from immediately recognizing and calling them zombies and now his definition is part of the definition.
alphaniner
New member
Maybe that's the linchpin. I'm not a zombie aficionado, and to me the only defining characteristics of a zombie are undeath and some reduction of higher brain functions vs its living counterpart. Insofar as 7DtD zeds diverge from my expectations, I accept it as necessary developmental compromises.
It's probably also very relevant that I didn't kickstart 7DtD because of the zombie theme, I did so in spite of that...
Roland
Moderator
This is the way I should have just put it simply so as not to ruffle the feathers of anyone. But this is the same point I made made earlier but I suppose I did it in an unflattering light. As a casual fan of zombies nothing TFP have done to extend their abilities bothers me at all. They're zombies as far as I'm concerned.
RestInPieces
New member
Neither am I particularly, I am a horror aficionado though. Add the uncanny valley in the mix and you got a zombie. That alone implies that zombies have to resemble humans -- not in appearance alone. I am all for gameplay compromises, but we can always have both.
I disagree about the creator being able to change/stretch that definition. Romero (who isn't the creator of the zombie concept, they even exist in ancient mythology) is known for introducing them into pop culture and became popular in this entertainment-focused era, because they resonated with people, for the very same reasons they also exist in mythology and are even subject of horror studies. Romero experimented to vary and sell his movies (as he should), however you can see that the definition itself is well beyond Romero, as you can see by recurring works that have existed up until today. When someone wants to create zombie horror fic, they seek to replicate those certain defining characteristics.
As I said earlier, 7DTD in general does a good job at portraying zombies, however specials come dangerously close to resembling something else e.g. mutants/generic monsters, devoid of these aforementioned characteristics. That's not to say that TFP can't experiment and build whatever they like (can't wait to see the new zombie models), but it will unavoidably be reductive to the "zombie game" they initially described. And that's where those who complain about zombies come from. It's not about being a passionate fan, it's simply about wanting to get that specific thing out of your experience which that doctor describes in the article I linked.
Oh I absolutely agree with you, OP. A17 and A18 did some wonderful things, but at the end of the day none of them really matter when the new progression system which replaced Learn-by-doing is just so inferior. I think the game peaked at Alpha 16, hopefully at some point a mod will come out to restore its former glory, though.
It's a shame that a inherently superior system with a mediocre implementation was canned for the sake of an inherently inferior system with even worse implementation.
It's a shame that a inherently superior system with a mediocre implementation was canned for the sake of an inherently inferior system with even worse implementation.