View Poll Results: Which option most closely aligns with your opinion about the look of the zombies.

Voters
49. You may not vote on this poll
  • The zombies look like people. They need to be redrawn to be more decayed, gory, and scary.

    16 32.65%
  • The zombies look like zombies. The artistic choice used by the developers is fine and consistent.

    32 65.31%
  • The zombies are too scary and gross and need to be toned down

    1 2.04%
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 121 to 124 of 124

Thread: Just a little criticism...

  1. #121
    Super Moderator Roland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Spending some Time at Portia
    Posts
    9,851
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by SylenThunder View Post
    Ok, this thread is really going nowhere fast. I think we've all had enough.
    Okay, this thread got heated and both sides had gotten to the point where they were just repeating already posted arguments and so the moderator staff decided to shut it down but I wanted Spartacus to be able to get the last word in and that follows this post. If you have read through all the posts then you will have seen both sides of the argument and can be the judge of where the facts are.
    Last edited by Roland; 5 Days Ago at 08:56 PM.

  2. #122
    Community Moderator Crater Creator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    2,309
    Rep Power
    1
    There's a lot of zombie fiction that realizes zombies as "monstrous," "scary," and "horrible." There's a lot of zombie fiction that "provokes disgust and terror." But then there's stuff like this, too.



    Conventions are not absolute truths. There isn't a zombie kennel club that defines one standard for the breed. If the zombies don't look the way some people want, people holding that opinion can express their views as constructive criticism... but as an opinion it cannot be objectively proven more correct than some other opinion.
    Last edited by Crater Creator; 4 Days Ago at 12:44 PM.

  3. #123
    Scavenger
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    55
    Rep Power
    0

    My answers to Roland

    1)

    S: the anatomy of those zombies (chest, legs, arms) is the same of a living human, male or female, with a fit physique,and
    it is diversified only by the color of the skin (pale green, brown, grey).

    R: True. They used to be humans and are not mutations so it makes sense that their anatomy would be the same.

    S: When I write that they have the same anatomy as that of a living being, I do not mean that they should instead remember a mutant, as you think you have understood, but instead I mean that just because they are zombies, they are walking corpses, which are decomposing ( who is fresher seems less rotten, who has long died seems more rotten),and can not have the anatomy they have, withmuscles and tissues perfectly intact, as if they were living. These zombies, and I repeat it until the nausea, do not differ in anything from human beings still alive, as far as the state of their bodies is concerned. This is wrong both for a speech of realism and logic, and because in this way, their monstrosity is almost nothing!


    2)

    S: Apart from some wounds on the head and near the mouth, drawn to simulate the decay, there are not evidently signs of putrescence in any of the zombies (in any part of their bodies), and there are not signs of a body suffering from decay. The only exception is one of the ferals, the big guy walker, that is drawn differently and more similar to a monster that to a living human, and the zombies soldier and the zombie farmer, that have the face more scaring than all the others (but just the face, not the rest).

    R: True. But we don't know the backstory of how the virus in the game works. We do know that their bodies harden in such a way that they can beat down reinforced concrete with their bare hands and not suffer wounds or crushed limbs. Seems to me consistent that when they turned the same process would cause their bodies to resist decay. Is it true or not that they suffer no visible wounds from beating against steel and concrete?

    S: Excuse me, but is this your interpretation of the story? Is that what you think? Or is it the official story? First you say that they are not mutants, and also I do not think they are mutant, but then you say that if they have no signs of decay it is perhaps because in becoming zombies they underwent a process of fortification ... like a mutation ... or one or the 'other ... You cannot turn the question as you please. But I speak of normal zombies, and in fact when they fall from above, even in the game, they break down. And normal zombies cannot be as they are now, as you admit. If then suddenly after 5 years of play turns up the story that are zombies that resist the decay, I think it's just ridicolous, let me say. And in any case, I do not care why they can destroy the cement with the hands ... I can also close a blind eye if the game works well, but don t joke me, those are not zombies. Because they seem crazy sleepwalkers, not zombies.


    3)

    S: This lack of monstrosity in most of the zombies is evident. They seem more sick people than monsters thirsty for blood and human flesh.

    R: As irrefutable truth this is false. As your opinion it is true for you. The devs often refer to the monsters in the game as "the infected" and those with special abilities as "the special infected". They also refer to them generically as zombies. Whatever it may SEEM to you, the truth is that they do thirst for our blood and flesh. Just stand still and don't fight back and experience the truth of this yourself. Most of the monstrosity of the zombies is our knowledge that they can smash through anything to get to us. That monstrous knowledge is much more important to the horror of the game than some eye candy that players will stop noticing as soon as they get used to it....

    S: Please you of the staff, agree with each other, and then let us mortal know if they are zombies or are "infected"... for five years since I've been playing, this it is the first time that I hear someone calling them infected instead of zombies ... and I assure you that I have been on many servers, and I do not play on Italian servers, but I play in every country, from Russia to England. And where I played, players call them zombies . And in all this discussion I was talking and I keep talking now about zombies, not about infected, not about ghouls, not about vampires…You also, Roland, in the previous post, answered to my words meaning that you and me were talking about zombies, but now you talk about infected. What game are you playing? And I honestly believe that this is what most of the players in the world think, namely that they are zombies, not infectious. We want to do a survey about this? But you should ask to the entire world of players, not on 50 people on this forum. And furthermore I don t’ think the horror of this game does come simply from knowing that they can reach me, because when a players is high level, with the proper equipment, he can eat them at breakfast, and they do not scare high level players at all. And if I think they are attacking my base I ve no fear .Instead what scares me, is the suspense, the knowledge that I have before me a monster, an evil and feral being that from the dawn of time scares the human being. A nightmare. And I'm not saying it's just a visual fact, becouse terror comes from every aspect… it's all, it's the sound of their voice, their appearance, their ferocity, and the difficulty of killing them (and actually another problem is that they're not only NOT SCARING in aspect, but also too weak and predictable in fighting, these zombies… but it is another matter).
    I have never made it a problem of subjective tastes, I have always based my criticism on an objective technical question, or on how the zombies are designed now and how they should be designed, regardless of taste, and it is true if we want to talk of REALISM and not of divisionism, futurism, pointillism, etc etc etc. It seems to me that this game tends to realism ... but this would seem not to apply to zombies. Instead you always move the question of personal taste, subjectivism and relativism. So I pretend to stay at your game and I'll point out that: you mentioned the way you feel fear ... Then I'll make you the same criticism you did to me: that is your way to feel yoursefl scared, not mine, and not the way of thousand of other players too! And to be really good, a game has to satisfy not only yours, but also my way of being afraid… mine, Peter's, Ketty's, John's, and thousands of players that we do not know. But you and the staff pretend to have satisfied all… Instead for now the game, as regards the zombies, or infected, or call them as it seems to you, seems to satisfy only 32 people out of 50 who voted ... too little I think to make sure you have always really satisfied all the players in these years (I'm talking about the horror element of the game, not of the game as a whole, of course, becouse the game as a whole is a good game, I myself have played 3000 hours, but always with a bitter taste for the lack of horror).


    4)

    S: The zombie has ancient origins in human culture and it is not enough to refer to Romero's movies to get a proper perspective on how they might appear. But in any case it is a monstrous archetype, which goes back to the ancient superstition that the dead could walk again out of the tombs to hurt the living.so it must necessarily be visualized as a walking corpse capable of causing terror. What then is more or less decomposed is secondary, and depends on the circumstances, but must still maintain an aspect that is appropriate to his being a monster.

    R: True about history but false that the creative choices of the developers must adhere to anything that has been established before. This point has been illustrated to you several times in this thread by the counter illustrations posted. True, not all of them are scary but not all people process scary the same way so whose to say which are scary and which are not?

    S: I never said that you must follow whatever has been established before. I was talking of zombies as an horror archetype, and for this I mentioned ancient Greece. Also I am not asking anyone to have my same threshold of fear ... I am not saying nor have I ever said that everyone should be frightened in the same way i m frightened. But I go back to say, that if we talk about zombies, those of the game are not scary …and they are not scary even if we call them suddenly infected ... they are obviously not designed to scare, either if they are zombies, or if they are mutants, or if you and the staff consider them as "infected": well, they are not scary in any mode you call them. They are not scary. But i dont care of “infected”, mutants or other…I only intend to say that if we talk about the zombies of this game compared to the "zombie" archetype they are even less afraid of what they should be, and I explained the reason why it happens. And, if you like them, ok, that's fine. But you do not come to tell me that in this game there are horror, suspense, and constant sense of fear ... nothing of those things is actually present in this game! And a lot depends on the fact that there are no real monsters in this game!
    Last edited by Roland; 5 Days Ago at 09:23 PM. Reason: consolidated responses for easier reading

  4. #124
    Scavenger
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    55
    Rep Power
    0

    My answers to Roland part 2

    5)

    S: In seven days to die the zombies are drawn according to the characteristics listed in points 1, 2, 3 and for this reason they do not possess the characteristics of monstrosity necessary to make them scary. The only exceptions, as specified, are too few in number to ensure the game that horror atmosphere that a good part of the players would expect.

    R: True about how they are drawn but false that this does not make them scary to plenty of people. It just makes them not scary to you.

    S: Actually I have already answered you on this matter in point 3 and 4. I have never made it a subjective but an objective question, and anyway if we want to talk about subjectivity you certainly cannot say that I am the only one who do not fear these zombies, because in the meantime they are not scary not only to me but also to other 15 out of 50 who participated in the survey, and in reality what are 50 people compared to the thousands who play this game? It would be a real survey asking thousands of people to express themselves on this point ... and I think we would see some surprises. Maybe it would be inconvenient for those who designed the zombies ... but not for me.


    6)

    S: The problem therefore is not if the zombies are well or badly drawn from an anatomical point of view. They are anatomically correct. The problem is not even related to the taste of the artist, in fact there are different ways to draw a monster that is terrifying and are all valid, provided they reach the desired effect to i nspire a feeling of horror and disgust. The problem is that these zombies are not designed in a way that makes them scary, and it is not a judgment related to the taste of the writer, but deriving from the careful analysis of the points listed above. Infact they seem more sick people walking in a sleepwalking state, than horrible and frightful deads who walk thirsty for blood and human flesh.

    R: False as an absolute truth. This is just your opinion and the value you place on what is horrifying. There are people who will NEVER play this game for the very reason that it is too scary. Also we don't know the backstory. Maybe they are sick people who can be saved. We just don't know how the devs will end up doing it. There is an easy fix if you don't like sleepwalking. You can up the horror factor by making them always run if you want something more scary than default.

    S: I have already answered you in points 3,4,5. Needless to start over


    7)

    S: When you draw something, the effect you want to achieve in those who see your work depends strictly on the way you designed it. If you want to provoke disgust and terror you must know how to arouse disgust and terror, but you can not claim to have obtained that effect if what you have drawn does not leave either disgust or terror in the people that see your creation.

    R: False. Abjectly false. The affect of art is never strictly dependent on the artist. It is very much also dependent upon the viewer's eye. Its also a false assumption that the developers are even intending to provoke disgust and terror in the way you are desiring.

    S: It is always the artist who influences who sees, indeed, the true artist does not care to influence, because he draws and paints what he has inside, not what others want to see. But we're not all the same inside, so maybe an artist will be better at painting cars with airbrushing, another will be better at painting nature, yet another will be better at drawing monsters. Another will excel in female portraits, another in caricatures. In my experience as a teacher of painting and drawing, as well as an illustrator, I had several students, but I rarely saw people able to arouse my admiration in any branch of the design, even if sometimes some genius emerges. But even the genius, always has preferences, it is always better in something rather than in another. So my speech is clear, I think simply that. those who designed these zombies were not able to transmit, not only to me, but also to others, the emotion of fear. I'm not saying he, (or them),is not a good designer, I have not expressed a technical judgment on his ability in general: rather I say that if he draw them againfrom scratch, maybe this time he would make masterpieces of the horror genre, but for the moment these zombies, or as you call them , those infected, do not scare very much, and this depends on the aesthetic choices that the designer has made.OK, these choices will be his free choices, but he failed the goal of creating frightening monsters. Because unlike what many believe, in art there are rules, and if you want a given effect you have to follow a certain road, if you want another effect you have to follow another one ... but nothing comes by chance. You can not draw an atmosphere of fear by chance, but you have to follow certain basic archetypes, certain rules, related to the stroke, the lighting, the anatomy, the taste for the macabre detail, which then, if you are skilled, you will also be able to rework and adapt to your tastes…but you can t ignore it! ... And there is always someone who has done before you something that you think you are the first to have done. And there will always be someone who is better than you in doing that thing. And, in the end, i think that zombies in this game not only need to be drawn from scratch, but they need to be seen as more dangerous, bad, feral entities, also adding new movements, new sounds.


    8)

    S: The present zombies of Seven Day to Die, with very few exceptions, do not arouse either the disgust or the terror that a walking corpse, more or less decomposed and hungry for blood and human flesh, should arouse.

    R: False as a fact but true as your opinion. The zombies in the game are in fact scary as they are for some people and so much so that there are those who pass on the game because it is too much.

    S: I have already amply answered you. It is true, not false.


    9)

    S: And yes, on these eight points I think I'm right, and I firmly believe I'm in the truth. And I would think so even if I were the only one ... Imagine if I do not think so, being in the company of about a third of the voters.
    If you show me, point by point that I'm wrong about everything, but you have to prove it, and convince me, then I'll admit I was wrong.

    R: False. You will never be convinced....

    S: True, but you failed to convince me, sorry!
    Last edited by Roland; 5 Days Ago at 09:22 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •