PC My A18 feedback

Add the uncanny valley in the mix and you got a zombie.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Zombies never had any special affect on me, so I don't really see them differently to any "generic monster".

But I think I get what you're talking about WRT the uncanny valley, because it's my understanding that's the underlying reason why some people (like myself) find even relatively simple masks and facial make-up particularly disturbing.

images.jpgindex.jpg

 
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.
Click to expand...
See, and this is simply not true. Example: Someone created Pikachu. That very creative person could now have insisted that Pikachu is a zombie. That would be legal. They could've done it. But Pikachu - is not a zombie. Certainly and obviously, because he has no characteristics of a zombie. Pikachu would never be accepted as a zombie, because "zombies" already: Exist.
The same counts for 7dtd: If the creatures were hostile Pikachus, the devs could call them zombies and noone would call the police, but no matter how popular the game would be, the so called "zombies" (that really are Pikachus) would never be accepted as zombies. Maybe, if the game was really really impactful on pop culture, it would get some sort of mention in essays or articles, but it would always be along the lines "they called their creatures zombies, but noone really knows why and it makes no sense".

The actual creatures in 7dtd are zombies, because, to begin with, they look like zombies. They are supposed to be dead, you can see that they are humans with severe injuries or even skeletonised heads (farmer. They also behave like zombies: They walk around aimlessly, but approach and try to kill humans as soon as they notice them. They never get tired, they never give up, they are not afraid, even if you just shot 50 of their fellow zombies or shot them in the head without killing them.

And everything about them that is not typical for zombies is as it is because it's a game mechanic supposed to make the game more entertaining. That's why we have the special zombies, the reaction to hits, the self-healing, the radiated zombies, the feral zombies, even the running zombies, of course the new AI and the pathfinding. This is not even actual creativity in regard to designing a monster, this is - "merely" - game design. And that's fine and allright. If I would actually like the new AI and the pathfinding, I wouldn't complain about it at all, and when I complain - it has nothing to do with the definition of what a zombie is, though, cuz I like the monster and the atmosphere it "delivers", I can indeed mention that I dislike the game moving too far from that atmosphere, by chaning the characteristics of the creature.

 
See, and this is simply not true. Example: Someone created Pikachu. That very creative person could now have insisted that Pikachu is a zombie. That would be legal. They could've done it. But Pikachu - is not a zombie. Certainly and obviously, because he has no characteristics of a zombie. Pikachu would never be accepted as a zombie, because "zombies" already: Exist.
The same counts for 7dtd: If the creatures were hostile Pikachus, the devs could call them zombies and noone would call the police, but no matter how popular the game would be, the so called "zombies" (that really are Pikachus) would never be accepted as zombies. Maybe, if the game was really really impactful on pop culture, it would get some sort of mention in essays or articles, but it would always be along the lines "they called their creatures zombies, but noone really knows why and it makes no sense".
Click to expand...
Well that's probably why I specifically said "extend the definition" rather than "redefine". Not even probably. It is exactly why I phrased it that way. Your extreme example of Pikachu has nothing to do with what I said nor anything to do with what TFP has done which you admit in your next paragraph. Therefore, I stand by what I actually said and I wholeheartedly agree with the scenario you made up about Pikachus. I agree that Pikachus are not zombies unless they are zombie pikachus.

The actual creatures in 7dtd are zombies, because, to begin with, they look like zombies. They are supposed to be dead, you can see that they are humans with severe injuries or even skeletonised heads (farmer. They also behave like zombies: They walk around aimlessly, but approach and try to kill humans as soon as they notice them. They never get tired, they never give up, they are not afraid, even if you just shot 50 of their fellow zombies or shot them in the head without killing them.
Click to expand...
Exactly. They are zombies-- especially to the casual observer. Less so to the picky zombie aficionados.

And everything about them that is not typical for zombies is as it is because it's a game mechanic supposed to make the game more entertaining. That's why we have the special zombies, the reaction to hits, the self-healing, the radiated zombies, the feral zombies, even the running zombies, of course the new AI and the pathfinding. This is not even actual creativity in regard to designing a monster, this is - "merely" - game design. And that's fine and allright. If I would actually like the new AI and the pathfinding, I wouldn't complain about it at all, and when I complain - it has nothing to do with the definition of what a zombie is, though, cuz I like the monster and the atmosphere it "delivers", I can indeed mention that I dislike the game moving too far from that atmosphere, by chaning the characteristics of the creature.
Click to expand...
So there are two kinds of people not happy. There are zombie aficionados who care about the purity of the definition of a zombie and they don't like the extra stuff because it hurts their immersion. (btw...there was just another thread last week complaining about "zombies" being able to break constructed blocks with their dead decayed flesh and brittle bones.) They wouldn't like the intelligence exhibited by zombies because it doesn't fit their definition of a zombie.

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

My opinion is that TFP owes the first group nothing and they should be able to follow their creative license and not shy away from extending what zombies can do. I also believe that TFP owes the second group their best efforts at closing exploits and working on the AI until it appears more organic and visceral and less programmed and predictable. So far they have not declared the current AI and pathing as the shippable best effort and culmination of their efforts.

 
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.
Click to expand...
I have serious doubts zombies are a case of uncanny valley. Zombies are usually already too far away from a human likeness. But the big gotcha of Uncanny Valley is exactly that you normally would not suspect aversion to occur anymore because the object is mimicking a human almost perfectly

Examples of uncanny valley are robots that are almost identical to their human model but betray their "artificiality" almost subliminal. The human face that stares at you strangely, the odd movement that is almost but not exactly as expected.

Part of what makes a zombie horrific is his grossly abnormal, inhuman and dangerous behaviour, i.e. similar to how Sutherland acts in the last frame of "Invasion of the body snatchers", the loss of any humanity. Another part is the stark rotten transformation, provoking our revulsion to blood, wounds, internal organs, broken limbs.

Now don't get me wrong, being essentially humans is certainly part of the horror we feel about zombies, but it is not the uncanny valley.

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.
Click to expand...

 
I have serious doubts zombies are a case of uncanny valley. Zombies are usually already too far away from a human likeness. But the big gotcha of Uncanny Valley is exactly that you normally would not suspect aversion to occur anymore because the object is mimicking a human almost perfectly

Examples of uncanny valley are robots that are almost identical to their human model but betray their "artificiality" almost subliminal. The human face that stares at you strangely, the odd movement that is almost but not exactly as expected.

Part of what makes a zombie horrific is his grossly abnormal, inhuman and dangerous behaviour, i.e. similar to how Sutherland acts in the last frame of "Invasion of the body snatchers", the loss of any humanity. Another part is the stark rotten transformation, provoking our revulsion to blood, wounds, internal organs, broken limbs.

Now don't get me wrong, being essentially humans is certainly part of the horror we feel about zombies, but it is not the uncanny valley.
Click to expand...
Don't take it from me, take it from a PhD thesis. And there are several studies like this one using zombies as an example. It is also becoming a topic in neuroaesthetics. Indeed, it started being used for robots initially, but zombies are a less sublime but also perfect example.

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

Examples of uncanny valley are robots that are almost identical to their human model but betray their "artificiality" almost subliminal.
Click to expand...
The term uncanny valley was coined in the context of robotics, but has grown far beyond that.

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

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

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

 
Well that's probably why I specifically said "extend the definition" rather than "redefine".
Click to expand...
But you said "extend the definition in any way they wish". Can the definition be extended in "any way"? No. It can't.

Not even probably. It is exactly why I phrased it that way. Your extreme example of Pikachu has nothing to do with what I said
Click to expand...
It has something to do with "any way they wish". If the definition can be extended by a creator in "any way they wish", it can be extended to (something like) a Pikachu. That's a zombie now. Cuz the creator wishes it.

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

nor anything to do with what TFP has done which you admit in your next paragraph. Therefore, I stand by what I actually said and I wholeheartedly agree with the scenario you made up about Pikachus. I agree that Pikachus are not zombies unless they are zombie pikachus.
Click to expand...
Noone ever said 7dtd broke the universal zombie-definition-laws. That is some kind of assumptions of all those who argue against it. A kind of strawman.

Exactly. They are zombies-- especially to the casual observer. Less so to the picky zombie aficionados.
Click to expand...
Where are these people? They are not in this thread or am I blind?

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

Then there are people like you who just don't like the gameplay that results from the intelligent behavior but would be perfectly fine with it and would forgive the unzombieness of it as long as it delivered solid gameplay and entertainment.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is me. And I am a huge zombie "aficionado". I'd like a game that captures the atmosphere of Dawn of the Dead or the good scenes and episodes of The Walking Dead. 7dtd did that very well until including A12, and then it went downhill. Now, vanilla has not much of that atmosphere left. Unfortunate, I'm not happy! Well, about that.

My opinion is that TFP owes the first group nothing and they should be able to follow their creative license and not shy away from extending what zombies can do.
Click to expand...
The very idea that a video game developer should restrain their creativeness because of a creature's definition is utterly absurd and I must emphasize once more, that I have not seen anybody suggesting this and I refuse to assume such people actually exist until I see them myself.

I also believe that TFP owes the second group their best efforts at closing exploits and working on the AI until it appears more organic and visceral and less programmed and predictable. So far they have not declared the current AI and pathing as the shippable best effort and culmination of their efforts.
Click to expand...
Great. Not every discussion is about what the devs owe whom, though.

 
stop bickering like school kids over pokemon cards or whatever they do these days
Click to expand...
Man... *embarrased laughter* I think you are right, this really is a bit silly...

what everyone here forgets is that, zombie is an incorrect term for what we have anyways...
Click to expand...
Now you hold on a second there, Mister!

its been mentioned by Roland and I think MM as well that they aren't zombies in the...technical? sense, but mutants derived from humans due to whatever "great event" caused the breakdown of society and the radiation zones...they act like a type of zombie-like entity, but mutants have no "normal" classification, as a mutation literally means (late Middle English: from Latin mutatio(n- ), from mutare ‘to change’.) meaning it has no specific behaviors/habits/ or structures that it (the Z's/ZM's) have to adhere to.
Click to expand...
The 7dtd-creatures are zombies, to begin with, by the game's self-description:

With nearly 10 million copies sold' date=' 7 Days to Die has defined the survival genre, with unrivaled crafting and world-building content. Set in a brutally unforgiving post-apocalyptic world overrun by the [u']undead[/u], 7 Days to Die is an open-world game that is a unique combination of first person shooter, survival horror, tower defense, and role-playing games. It presents combat, crafting, looting, mining, exploration, and character growth, in a way that has seen a rapturous response from fans worldwide. Play the definitive zombie survival sandbox RPG that came first. Navezgane awaits!
Click to expand...
You also might want to open the game's "entityclasses.xml" and search for "zombie". The creatures are clearly declared to be zombies. And if the devs would call them something else, it would be valid to call em "zombies", because they share enough characteristics with the creature to justify that.

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

 
Again, I am unaware of "zombie aficionados who care about the purity of the definition of a zombie".
Click to expand...
I'm confused. Do you not realize Roland was describing the same phenomenon that you pointed out here:

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

[video=youtube;V2f-MZ2HRHQ]

 
I'm confused. Do you not realize Roland was describing the same phenomenon that you pointed out here:
Click to expand...
Was describing what where? Roland is describing a lot of things.
The point here is that Roland is talking about two kinds of people:

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

Then there are people like you who just don't like the gameplay that results from the intelligent behavior but would be perfectly fine with it and would forgive the unzombieness of it as long as it delivered solid gameplay and entertainment.
Click to expand...
Where is the first kind? I've never seen them.
 
To sup up, I think it is safe to say that objectively/as a fact:

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

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

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

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

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

Two points I wanted to make in this discussion:

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

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

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Was describing what where? Roland is describing a lot of things.
Click to expand...
With the way you break down posts, I thought it would be clear which part of Roland's post I was referring to: the part you responded to with the first quote I posted.

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

they ... resemble the archtype less and less. Something that people who like zombies frown upon.
Click to expand...
It seems to me you're failing to see the similarities because you don't give much consideration to perspectives that don't closely align or violently clash with your own.

 
With the way you break down posts, I thought it would be clear which part of Roland's post I was referring to: the part you responded to with the first quote I posted.
Click to expand...
It would be false of you to assume I would go look up what that might be. Just quote whatever it is you're talking about.

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

It seems to me you're failing to see the similarities because you don't give much consideration to perspectives that don't closely align or violently clash with your own.
Click to expand...
A premature conception; study me further and you shall uncover the truth.

 
To sup up, I think it is safe to say that objectively/as a fact:
1. Theming is important. (A fact for every kind of media).

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

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

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

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

Two points I wanted to make in this discussion:

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

-Every now and then someone will complain about the zombie theme and others will reply by saying "there is no defined zombie theme". This perpetuates the discussion and doesn't address their true concern imo. No matter if they are "purist", "overly passionate fans" etc, whatever these may mean, truth is most just want what (5) describes.
Click to expand...
Well said. And I haven't seen any of the "purists" and it seems that they're plugged outta thin air to actively avoid a discussion about 5.

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

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

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

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

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top