Weapon design and you: how to avoid sci-fi samery

Hello. I am here to tell you guys to STOP MAKING ALL YOUR GUNS LOOK THE SAME. :eng101:

This isn't going to be a big thread really, just a few pointers.

1. Every part of your weapon has to be machined, stamped, or otherwise formed from some kind of material (probably polymer or steel, or space analogues). As a result, there is only so much complexity you can have on a surface before it becomes expensive, weak, and time-consuming. Think about this before you decide to make all sorts of fiddly engravings or extrusions that serve no logical purpose.
2. Metal is heavy. Less of it is better. Again, extrusions and random shit fall foul of this.
3. Rivets do not belong on guns. Screws only belong in a very few areas on guns. Most things are retained by pins or quick-release latches, or simply by spring tension. All military weapons are designed to be quickly and easily disassembled (and reassembled) by troops, put some thought into this when you design things.
4. Giant slab-sided blocky weapons are going to be seriously awkward to hold and fire. Avoid them.
5. Random plaint or logos are stupid and make no sense. Add visual interest with wear, material definition (machining marks and tool marks are a big one on military weapons) and small stampings like proofmarks or serial numbers. Y'know, the kind of shit we've been using for centuries and still use with almost no change at all.
6. If it is a shooty gun rather than a railgun or plasma or whatever, pay some mind to the way projectile weapons actually work and proportion it correctly. Look at real guns for help here.

There is no excuse for making the same idiotic bullshit every game dev and their mother is addicted to these days. It does not look good, it does not make sense, and it is fucking lazy. Use your own creativity and design something new from the features of something old.

Here is a good example of what to avoid:



Halo 1's AR was perfect. Everything made enough sense to avoid causing a major sperg breakdown, it looked cool as hell, and it was clean and simple. Halo 3's was still better than most contemporary games, but look at those random indents - the writing was on the wall. Reach... yeah, fuck off, that shit is gross.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_yyx55teYnw...ttle_rifle.JPG
Halo 2's BR was good, too. The tesselated triangles made sense as strengthening stampings to reinforce thinner metal, and overall the weapon was clean, attractive and well-designed. Then this happened:


Fuck off forever.

http://i.imgur.com/qc5FE.jpg
This express ride to hell ain't got no brakes.

I'll edit in some examples of actually good sci-fi weapons as I find them (Halo 1 notwithstanding; all of its weapons were good designs).

You should rename this, My opinion of what your weapon design should look like.

Personally I agree with Ross. Alot of weapons in the newer Halo games have an unnecessary amount of detail and boxy designs, along with plenty of other games. He's also correct about most of the points about guns and realism.

Other than the gross amount of greeble, I actually like the new BR. It's SUPPOSED to look sci-fi. Its a sci-fi game. If it has to be realistic, why don't you just go play COD or something?

Sure is fucking opinions stated like they're scientifically proven in here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by t3h m00kz

Sure is fucking opinions stated like they're scientifically proven in here

---

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TVTyrant

Other than the gross amount of greeble, I actually like the new BR. It's SUPPOSED to look sci-fi. Its a sci-fi game. If it has to be realistic, why don't you just go play COD or something?

---

Are you trying to say COD is a realistic game??

I have to agree with what he's saying. I've been guilty of such things in the past too. It's a good design trait to follow. The DMR was a really bad looking gun compared to the BR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Higuy

Are you trying to say COD is a realistic game??

---

No, I am saying its guns are. Some are more than others, but for the most part its guns are as close to reality as you will get without, you know, owning a gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Higuy

Are you trying to say COD is a realistic game??

---

p sure he's talking about graphic design :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobtheGreatII

I have to agree with what he's saying. I've been guilty of such things in the past too. It's a good design trait to follow. The DMR was a really bad looking gun compared to the BR.

---

I think the Reach AR is way, way worse than the DMR. I agree on that one. That thing is horrendous.

I didn't like most of the weapon arsenal in Reach, becuase: All of the weapons, including even some Covenant ones, were way to polygonal and box like, compared to most of the traditional, more organic shapes that payed more homage to modern guns while still retaining a distinct look. The guns in Reach were more of a generic sci-fi/industrial like that you see throughout movies and games today

Worst offenders are anything made by id or Epic Games.

Also, I've drawn heaps and heaps of sci-fi guns. Some sketches:





Example of greebly gun:



And what I turned it into because I despise greeble:



tl;dr: you don't have to make it look like a blocky piece of shit with detail for the sake of detail. I can tell you what every detail on my guns does.

E: the same can apply to armour and vehicles. Look at the Halo 1 Mk. V vs. the Halo: Reach Mk.V. Tons of greeble.



Do you see any greeble at all on there? No. You do not.

wait what

ut3 was fucking amazing

then again really I don't even really give two shits about the graphics in ut3 to be honest. I personally liked ut2004's graphic design more.

I gave a shit about the graphics for about ten minutes before I turned off the on-screen weapons and started caring about the gameplay, which has far more lastability than the fucking cosmetics.

if I gave two shits about graphics I wouldn't have played minecraft for as long as I did, and I wouldn't be playing ROTMG like crack

I'm going to drop this here:

Penny Arcade on Graphics vs. Aesthetics.

UT's design aesthetic is fine, and I'm not going to knock it for greeble. However, when talking about games attempting some amount of realism, I am completely justified in doing so. Halo, Crysis, Rage, Doom 3, Gears of War...I could keep going.

sweet busted link

found it, watched it

guess you could say minecraft and realm have decent aesthetics, they've both got a unique graphical style to them, and based on that I'd say they look good.

http://www.pakman.com/wp-content/upl...minecraft3.jpg

http://egamer.co.za/wp-content/uploa...d-_Image-3.jpg

just based on what I've seen of h4 so far I'd say it's got great aesthetics as well. talking about the product as a whole, not just "omg teh wepinz" (which still look fitting in my opinion) because those are honestly just a tiny piece of a huge picture.

I felt like reach hit the grittiness they were trying to achieve as well; to me it just sounds like everybody was just disappointed there wasn't happy fanfare and blinding colors and shiny smooth metals everywhere because they had the balls to break off and do something different

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

Worst offenders are anything made by id or Epic Games.

---

Eh, id was fine up until doom 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by t3h m00kz

they had the balls to break off and do something different

---

By which you mean doing exactly what every other developer was doing at the time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

*bringing gameplay into a conversation about aesthetics??*

---

better doing that than rehashing the same shit over and over

silly halo 3, being halo 2 HD

if they didn't cut xbl support for h2 I probably would be playing that over xbl instead

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

Worst offenders are anything made by id or Epic Games.

Also, I've drawn heaps and heaps of sci-fi guns. Some sketches:

*imarges*

Do you see any greeble at all on there? No. You do not.

---

Really liking that first bolt action rifle. The barrel seems a little boring though, maybe it could use a sight construct or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by t3h m00kz

something about gameplay or whatever

---

What the hell are you talking about? I was saying that by making the design SO GRITTY they were just copying what every other developer at the time was doing. By having a visual design with lots of washed out colours and greebles.

Hence the question marks bro ;)

as I said before I'd rather they did that than rehash the same asthetic feel over and over. After three games it got kinda fuckin old

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

---

Those two concepts are insane, really liking them. Do you have any other concepts that I can see? (thread on here, deviant, etc).

UT3's visuals from levels to weapons was nothing but greeble. It needed to be. It was Epic's game to showcase Unreal Engine 3. But they can get away with it because it's supposed to be unreal. Triple barreled rocket launcher, plasma link gun, flak cannon, minigun that shoots crystal shards, shoulder mounted nuclear missile launcher, handheld teleportation device. All of these are about as un-conventional as it can get.

You also need to look at it from an entertainment standpoint. The weapons gameplay is very simple, just a big cache of invisible ammo that you can shoot until it runs dry. No reloading or melee to spice things up. This means you need them to look and move in interesting ways to make up for an otherwise static model that does nothing but idle and fire.

Gears of war falls under the same category. They need tons of flashy visuals and animations to make hiding behind a rock seem more interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TVTyrant

Other than the gross amount of greeble, I actually like the new BR. It's SUPPOSED to look sci-fi. Its a sci-fi game. If it has to be realistic, why don't you just go play COD or something?

---

It doesn't have to be realistic. Being visually distinctive from the sea of absolute dross that is modern sci-fi weaponry would be a good start, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by t3h m00kz

Sure is fucking opinions stated like they're scientifically proven in here

---

Think about it for a second; if you hadn't been explicitly told that either the DMR or H4 BR were what they are, and hadn't seen them in context, and the UNSC logos were removed, would you be able to identify them as Halo weapons? I sure as fuck wouldn't, because they don't look visually distinctive in the slightest. They could be from any recent sci-fi movie or game. They are not particularly interesting designs to look at because between that sameness and a retarded amount of greeble, there is absolutely nothing that hasn't been done to death already and no interesting shapes. Look at Warsaw's designs; even his greeble is well-done and is the kind of detail I would expect to find on actual weapons. Now look at the newer Halo weapons, and ask yourself if a single element of their design makes any goddamn sense at all.

I'm aware not everyone finds excessive greeble, random paint, boxy profiles and all the other crimes against originality that modern sci-fi weapons entail to be a bad thing or ugly to look at, but if you honestly think there is any argument to be made against them all looking the same, then I really don't know what to say. Take them out of their context, and you have no idea where they're from. Take the Halo AR or Halo 2 BR out of context, and you know exactly where they're from. It's pretty simple.

lol, bro Halo 1 was a generic mashup of everything ever, you can't deny that. would you have been able to identify Halo weapons as anything unique when they first came out, considering most of the stuff in the first game were re-stylized remakes of alien 2 and everything else out there at the time?

really. if you placed the halo weapons in a pile of all of these weapons without having seeing them before, would they have really stricken you as anything outstanding?

http://pnmedia.gamespy.com/planetunr...ages/grace.jpg
http://www.writeups.org/img/inset/UT99_enforcer_h.jpg
http://www.videogamesblogger.com/wp-...hot-pistol.jpg
http://pnmedia.gamespy.com/planetunr...m32_duster.jpg
http://pnmedia.gamespy.com/planetunr...00_shotgun.jpg
http://s2.n4g.com/media/11/newssi/25...9337_0_org.jpg
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__.../bb/Dragon.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cbm2JQV6Hc...00/g_cx_01.jpg
http://pnmedia.gamespy.com/planetunr...-13_popgun.jpg
http://images.wikia.com/perfectdark/...allistoNTG.png
http://www.imfdb.org/w/images/thumb/...Sec_4_Load.jpg
http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs30/f/20...kieranoats.jpg
http://www.tk560.com/studioprops/stu...-Images/29.jpg

really now. Halo's weapons only stand out now because you're used to them after all of these years. you're clinging onto nostalgia. did the BR, carbine, beam rifle and SMG strike you as "halo" when you first saw them? would you have been able to "point them out" as Halo weapons? I'm willing to bet they you couldn't, I bet you were going "homfg where's teh fucking pistol what's this br smg bullshit" like everybody else who played the game. the only reason everybody recognizes H3's weaponset is because it was a lazy, up-resed rehash of everything from the previous games.

and herein lies the problem. if shit gets kept the same, people complain about rehashing and lazy developers. if shit changes, people says the original feel is lost.

I accept these changes with open arms.

and that, sir, is my opinion.

/sperg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackalStomper

Triple barreled rocket launcher, plasma link gun, flak cannon, minigun that shoots crystal shards, shoulder mounted nuclear missile launcher, handheld teleportation device.

---

I feel I should remind you the design of most of those weapons were carried over from Unreal Championship 2. the rocket launcher, flak, and shock rifle were up-resed.

seriously. go look at some screenshots. they're nearly identical.

http://mimg.ugo.com/201001/35145/asm...tournament.jpg
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/1...nshot00116.jpg

Uhhh... yes, they would have been easily identifiable? They have a totally different visual style to every other weapon in that list. I really don't know how you can say otherwise.

I expected that response 100%

welp.
inb4 "because it's true"

It's true, though. Look at them again. The Halo weapons have clean lines, a few small details, and no greeble to speak of. Everything else you posted in with them is either greebly, chunky, or just an entirely different design language. I'm not saying this to be a dick, but from any artistic standpoint, they are visibly different and quite distinctive.

Now compare Reach/H4 weaponry to their contemporaries. There is a hell of a lot less between them than there is between Halo and other games of its time.

Using Halo 1, or any game from then or earlier, is a poor example to compare to newer generation games. Most of the time the lack of greeble is from hardware constraints rather than artistic design. When games from older times have the bonus of coming with the concept art illustrations you can see that they are usually just as noisy and complicated as they are in current games today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by t3h m00kz

I feel I should remind you the design of most of those weapons were carried over from Unreal Championship 2. the rocket launcher, flak, and shock rifle were up-resed.

seriously. go look at some screenshots. they're nearly identical.

---

Never played the UC games. Just Unreal, UT2K4, and UT3.

That wasn't quite my point though, it was more providing an argument as to why they can get away with crazy weapon designs.

Either way, it is a good example of how clean lines and well-planned detail are demonstrably superior to the 'blocks and greeble' school of design.

best sci-fi weapon:

http://i.imgur.com/whcHe.jpg

No u.



That's the best sci-fi gun. It's so...I don't know...down to earth. I love the OSI.

--------------------------------

Even Halo 4's stuff is far cleaner than what you often see, but the point is that they are gravitating in a direction that's been beaten to death. And no, Gears of War doesn't fall under the same category as Unreal Tournament because if you read the lore, they actually are trying to be dead serious with it. Go read Halo's fiction, then read GoW's, and tell me which one comes off as more believable when you picture the equipment in your head. It's not the chainsaw that's the problem, it's the ridiculous crap hanging off of everything and everyone. Yes, GoW's aesthetic design works, but it doesn't work with their attitude toward the franchise. I can't look at what they call a tank, the Boltok, and the armour worn by COGS and suspend my disbelief. I consider it nothing more than a game, not a world to lose myself in.

And why the fuck does a gun that shoots rounds as big as the Lancer NOT have a stock?

Rule-of-Cool should always be used sparingly to avoid cheese-factor, unless your game is deliberately way over the top like Unreal Tournament. I suspect GoW started off that way, but then they tried to take it seriously in GoW 2 and GoW 3.

@Higuy: there's this right here. Anything with a watermark is not up for grabs, and even then if anybody wants to do something with any item, ask first. Most of it is for a personal project and none of it is complete or final, only doing something of higher-quality when I feel like I'm done iterating.

@ICEE: Barrel on the bolt-action I.R. Mk. IV is messed up because of the scanner. There would normally be a rough texture on it, but I don't show that in line-drawings. Imperial stuff is supposed to generally be clean. The sighting system is based on a UV laser that reacts with a coating on the goggles of Imperial troops to form a front and rear aperture that need to be lined up; this makes it hard for the enemy to effectively use captured munitions. I'm not about to add detail for the sake of detail; a Brown Bess musket is rather boring looking if you take the colours away as well. I will agree that a front-sight projector should be added, though. I already have that idea prototyped on a different gun that, in-universe, would be the successor to that weapon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

Take the Halo AR or Halo 2 BR out of context, and you know exactly where they're from. It's pretty simple.

---

But I would no where any variation of the two are from. Instantly. Because they are so ingrained in my mind. Especially the BR. My opinion is that, no matter what they change about it, as long as it has that shape I can tell what it is instantly. Its like an AK. It might not always look exactly the same, but you can always take a basic look at one and say "That's an AK".

Except when that AK turns out to be an AEK...

:mech:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

Except when that AK turns out to be an AEK...

:mech:

---

:mech2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TVTyrant

But I would no where any variation of the two are from. Instantly. Because they are so ingrained in my mind. Especially the BR. My opinion is that, no matter what they change about it, as long as it has that shape I can tell what it is instantly. Its like an AK. It might not always look exactly the same, but you can always take a basic look at one and say "That's an AK".

---

But they haven't really retained the shape all that well, and more and more sci-fi genre stuff is getting hard over bullpups with carry handles. The AK example is a bit dodgy too, since even the AK-12 is very similar to a classic AK-47 in shape, and on AK-based weapons like the Groza, the entire receiver is unmodified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

But they haven't really retained the shape all that well, and more and more sci-fi genre stuff is getting hard over bullpups with carry handles. The AK example is a bit dodgy too, since even the AK-12 is very similar to a classic AK-47 in shape, and on AK-based weapons like the Groza, the entire receiver is unmodified.

---

Thats because they're copying Halo lol. And yeah, but thats the closest it gets. I mean, for the most part there are no other military firearms that have seen as many variations as the AK-47. The AKM, the Type-56, the PSL/Dragunov/Romak, The AK-74, the AK-74M, the 100 series, the 200, the newest version, the AN. The PKM. Fuck have the Russians gotten some mileage out of that fucker.

The Dragunov isn't an AK in any sense of the word. The PSL is, so I'll give you that. The AN-94 isn't even a gun, let alone an AK. It's a strange alien artefact designed via mind-control. I doubt even Nikonov knows how that fucker works, and he designed it.

PKM isn't an AK in the strictest sense, but it is based off the action I believe so I'll give you that one too.

Lots of things that look like AKs aren't actually AKs at all. See: basically every 9x39 assault rifle, the vz.58, the SVD, the AN-94, the AEK...

They all fit into very, very similar packages, and draw heavy inspiration from it.

Most use similar magazine lockup systems and have identical fire control switches.

Its like saying the M14 is not a Garand design. Technically, its not. But its almost exactly the same and uses many of the same guts.

And yeah, the Dragunov uses a different gas system... That's really it lol.

The M14 is a hell of a lot closer to the Garand than most non-AK Russian weapons are to the AK. They're only designed to handle and look similar for familiarity, and most of them disassemble in a similar way, but the guts are different (in some cases radically).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

The M14 is a hell of a lot closer to the Garand than most non-AK Russian weapons are to the AK. They're only designed to handle and look similar for familiarity, and most of them disassemble in a similar way, but the guts are different (in some cases radically).

---

I am aware. But I am just saying that it is the only rifle that has had that much mileage. You put a AK-74M next to an AN-94 and you go "Oh, duh". You put an M16A1 next to even an SCAR or ACR and you go "I don't get it".

And yes, I think super aliens made the AN-94 as well. Thats why nobody uses it all that much. Shit is like magnets. Nobody fucking knows...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

No u.

---

Eh, I never liked the Pulse rifle. The way it reloads seems so illogical and weird (how come you never put more of those funky disk things into the gun, or reload the grenade launcher?) and it seems like it would be really awkward to aim with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TVTyrant

I am aware. But I am just saying that it is the only rifle that has had that much mileage. You put a AK-74M next to an AN-94 and you go "Oh, duh". You put an M16A1 next to even an SCAR or ACR and you go "I don't get it".

And yes, I think super aliens made the AN-94 as well. Thats why nobody uses it all that much. Shit is like magnets. Nobody fucking knows...

---

I dunno, I can look at nearly any Western weapon and either an M16A1 or AR-18 together and it immediately clicks. Control layout and all that.

Man, we need to stop trying to improve pointless aspects of ergonomics and start actually improving the basic actions of our rifles. But that's for another thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

Man, we need to stop trying to improve pointless aspects of ergonomics and start actually improving the basic actions of our rifles. But that's for another thread.

---

I completely agree, as long as it feels solid in your hands you really don't need much more. If I were to go to war, I wouldn't want something that feels super comfortable in my hands as opposed to something that's very reliable. I'm not saying ergonomics should merely be an afterthought, because yes some guns just feel plain awkward, but reliability should be first and foremost.

I personally prefer the Reach and Halo 4 design's, they are less bland. Yeah they have random indents and extrudes everywhere, but tbqh I prefer that then having a flat boring surface to look at. Newer engines allow more detail, what is the point in not using this (within reason), may as well stick with a Xbox or PS1 if designs aint made more interesting.


Larger texture sizes are also useless if the pixel density isn't used, the point in making a flat metal surface larger on a texture sheet? All of the indents in the Reach Battle Rifle seem like they would make the weapon more comfy to hold, although the indents on the stock and magazine do look pointless.

I agree with you, but I don't. If you get me :L

That's the thing, excessive greeble isn't interesting and doesn't add anything. You can do a lot more with a simple, clean design than a pile of extruded and bevelled bullshit.

I don't see what else you could add though tbqh, apart from more mechanical parts and attachments... nothing else a weapon needs really.

Art isn't always about whats realistic.
Observe:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6XJ1Il_-lW...00/photo_3.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by =sw=warlord

Art isn't always about whats realistic.
Observe:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6XJ1Il_-lW...00/photo_3.jpg

---

I FUCKING LOVED THIS SHOW AS A KID

omg Zoids was amazing, and then as usual they make it crap by milking it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by =sw=warlord

Art isn't always about whats realistic.

---

As far as I can tell no one's saying that it is. Realistic is not necessarily the same thing as logical, practical, plausible or feasible.

Art doesn't always have to be those either!

Quote:

---

avoid sci-fi samery

---

Well, if you're trying to do this it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TVTyrant

I FUCKING LOVED THIS SHOW AS A KID

---

I miss that show. I can't find it on YouTube and DubHappy has only one series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

Eh, I never liked the Pulse rifle. The way it reloads seems so illogical and weird (how come you never put more of those funky disk things into the gun, or reload the grenade launcher?) and it seems like it would be really awkward to aim with.

---

With the Pulse Rifle, the Combine just took the loads of AKs lying around, removed everything from the receiver, and slapped their own mechanisms in place. As for reloads, I'd assume you would load multiple magazines in when you expend all of the caps, but you never carried enough in the game to show that. No idea about the grenade launcher, it would make more sense to me if it drew from the same ammo supply.

So yeah, it is one very awkward gun, by nature. I just like its aesthetics (firing sound, appearance, etc.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

As far as I can tell no one's saying that it is. Realistic is not necessarily the same thing as logical, practical, plausible or feasible.

---

Was the BFG9000 practical, plausible, logical, or feasible? No, but was it fucking awesome? Yes

as was the entire dragonball series

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by t3h m00kz

as was the entire dragonball series

---

Great show. Changed manga and anime forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

As far as I can tell no one's saying that it is. Realistic is not necessarily the same thing as logical, practical, plausible or feasible.

---

Uh..what?

re·al·is·tic/ˌrēəˈlistik/

Adjective:

Having or showing a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected: "jobs are scarce, so you've got to be realistic". Representing familiar things in a way that is accurate or true to life: "a realistic human drama".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobblehob

Was the BFG9000 practical, plausible, logical, or feasible? No, but was it fucking awesome? Yes

---

What in god's name are you talking about? I don't see how that reference has any relevance to anything. The BFG wasn't making any attempt to avoid sci-fi samery, nor did it need to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by =sw=warlord

Uh..what?

re·al·is·tic/ˌrēəˈlistik/

Adjective:

Having or showing a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected: "jobs are scarce, so you've got to be realistic". Representing familiar things in a way that is accurate or true to life: "a realistic human drama".

---

necessarily [ˈnɛsɪsərɪlɪ ˌnɛsɪˈsɛrɪlɪ] adv

1. as an inevitable or natural consequence "girls do not necessarily like dolls"

2. as a certainty "he won't necessarily come"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

What in god's name are you talking about? I don't see how that reference has any relevance to anything. The BFG wasn't making any attempt to avoid sci-fi samery, nor did it need to.

---

By that logic, the mass bitching about what 343 does is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

necessarily [ˈnɛsɪsərɪlɪ ˌnɛsɪˈsɛrɪlɪ] adv

1. as an inevitable or natural consequence "girls do not necessarily like dolls"

2. as a certainty "he won't necessarily come"

---

Then what the hell are you talking about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TVTyrant

By that logic, the mass bitching about what 343 does is irrelevant.

---

Quote me on where I bitched about what 343 is doing? I don't think that was the topic of the thread either. It was "weapon design and you".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TVTyrant

Then what the hell are you talking about?

---

A weapon doesn't have to be strictly based on something in the real world to have the slightest bit of sanity or logic in its design. The example of DOOM is an idiotic one because DOOM quite flagrantly makes no attempt to be sane or logical. Halo, for what it's worth, does.

shut up and drink beer

all of you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

A weapon doesn't have to be strictly based on something in the real world to have the slightest bit of sanity or logic in its design. The example of DOOM is an idiotic one because DOOM quite flagrantly makes no attempt to be sane or logical. Halo, for what it's worth, does.

---

I agree. But for the most part it is very close, and there will always be those gun nuts like myself who love the mechanical aspect of the canon. Thats what attracted me to Halo, it was very close to reality compared to UT or Doom and whatnot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

What in god's name are you talking about? I don't see how that reference has any relevance to anything. The BFG wasn't making any attempt to avoid sci-fi samery, nor did it need to.

---

Sci-fi samery is so ridiculously subjective in the first place.

yet ut and doom were STILL FUCKING AMAZING

Reality and logic is overrated as shit. I want games that are fucking crazy

im finding that the only fun i get out of realism and logic is when game developers make an awesome game that just happens to be based in realism. its kind of a "hey thats pretty neat" kind of thing.

before they started milking it, i thought assassins creed was awesome for that reason. fun, well thought out, and beautiful game that also happens to be (somewhat) historically accurate and grounded in reality. i guess it makes it a little more believable. like "wow i feel like this could have actually happened".

sometimes its just the little things, too. like that blue highlight added to the assault rifle texture near the screen in halo 1 to make it seem like the screen was giving off light.

Little things really add up, I find. In RO, if you hit someone in an artery, blood would actually fountain out of it and piss all over any nearby surface. Even just normal wounds would drip blood. In RO2, all that happens when you shoot someone is a blurry red smudge appearing where they were hit and a really half-arsed reddish spray on whatever is directly behind them. It's really noticeable and feels like a step backwards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

Little things really add up, I find. In RO, if you hit someone in an artery, blood would actually fountain out of it and piss all over any nearby surface. Even just normal wounds would drip blood. In RO2, all that happens when you shoot someone is a blurry red smudge appearing where they were hit and a really half-arsed reddish spray on whatever is directly behind them. It's really noticeable and feels like a step backwards.

---

How nice of a machine do I need for RO, btw? I have been considering purchasing it.

RO1? It's UE 2.5, so nothing special. RO2? I'm not sure, but I have a 560Ti and run it at pretty much full settings with no issues. Most of the performance stuff has been fixed but you will want at least a decent CPU, most of the issues are tied to that rather than GPU. My Phenom X3 720 can handle it now, but choked badly during beta.

Both are dead as fuck, sadly, unless you're OK with playing on servers in the middle of Siberia. RO because RO2 stole its community, and RO2 because it pissed that community off by thumbing its nose at them and paying fanservice to mainstream shooters. If you want to hear the whole sorry affair, hit me up on Steam, since this thread isn't the place for my furious ranting about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

RO1? It's UE 2.5, so nothing special. RO2? I'm not sure, but I have a 560Ti and run it at pretty much full settings with no issues. Most of the performance stuff has been fixed but you will want at least a decent CPU, most of the issues are tied to that rather than GPU. My Phenom X3 720 can handle it now, but choked badly during beta.

Both are dead as fuck, sadly, unless you're OK with playing on servers in the middle of Siberia. RO because RO2 stole its community, and RO2 because it pissed that community off by thumbing its nose at them and paying fanservice to mainstream shooters. If you want to hear the whole sorry affair, hit me up on Steam, since this thread isn't the place for my furious ranting about that.

---

We aren't friends on Steam, and my Steam account is borrowed lol.

Get your own then, scrub. Steam is pretty much the only IM program I ever use now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

Get your own then, scrub. Steam is pretty much the only IM program I ever use now.

---

I haz zero money for da games.

My favourite games are the ones that suck you in with well developed visuals, audio, and lore. Obviously, good gameplay is a must. For a realistic game, all of these facets must be nailed, or it will suck. There are no two ways around it. For a non-realism oriented game, they all have to be on par with each other, but not necessarily realistic. Good gameplay is still required.

The problem with sci-fi is that it is inherently realism based. That's the "science" part of "science fiction." If there is no realism, it is fantasy (that's right, fantasy doesn't have to be a Tolkien wannabe to be fantasy!). That means we can now criticize a sci-fi game for realism, because it comes with the territory. Of course, there is always a line at which you say "it's a game," but there is also a line where you should say "oh come on."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TVTyrant

I haz zero money for da games.

---

Get Steam anyway. I periodically decide I have too much money and throw games at people and then have to live off of shoe leather for a week or two, you might get lucky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

Get Steam anyway. I periodically decide I have too much money and throw games at people and then have to live off of shoe leather for a week or two, you might get lucky.

---

K, I'll make my own account. Gonna have to add some folks@ TVTyrant2 lol.

To the OP: all a matter of opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TVTyrant

I haz zero money for da games.

---

You say that now, but when Midweek Madness comes by....well you find a way to make $10 fast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FreedomFighter7

To the OP: all a matter of opinion.

---

Whether or not one enjoys the intricate sci-fi stuff is, yes. What makes something realistic or practical, no.

The problem as I see it isn't so much "rawr, fuck your greeble!" by itself as it is developers saying "Hey, look, we made a realistic and believable game universe" and then taking a dump on that idea by making everything look frigging ridiculous and impractical.

Rule of Cool is fine, and necessary, but you have to know where to draw that line based on how believable you want your world to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FreedomFighter7

To the OP: all a matter of opinion.

---

So is "Daikatana is a good game".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rossmum

So is "Daikatana is a good game".

---

So is "Halo CE is a good game, Zelda OoT is a good game, Half Life 2 is a good game."

In matters of opinion, please consider "Spiders are adorable. A few of them are, anyways."
Are your legs tingly yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobblehob

So is "Halo CE is a good game, Zelda OoT is a good game, Half Life 2 is a good game."

---

You do know what Daikatana is, right?

An abomination?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

You do know what Daikatana is, right?

---

That was my point, as much as people say its a bad game(in this case definitely), if someone enjoys it, in their opinion its a good game, its just as subjective as calling Halo CE a good game. The same goes for the subject of this entire thread. Especially when there is no accepted standard of what is good and bad when it comes to aesthetics in sci-fi.

Well there is, in a way.
It's SCIENCE Fiction because of the basis in SCIENCE. Not because some half-incompetent artist extrudes fucking everything.
But each to their own, I mean, I like some of the REACH guns but I hate others.

I have heard good things about Daikatana

apparently I have been lied to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobblehob

That was my point, as much as people say its a bad game(in this case definitely), if someone enjoys it, in their opinion its a good game, its just as subjective as calling Halo CE a good game. The same goes for the subject of this entire thread. Especially when there is no accepted standard of what is good and bad when it comes to aesthetics in sci-fi.

---

Some people also believe genocide is cool and that there is nothing wrong with pedophilia. I consider there to be such things as 'correct' and 'incorrect' opinions. :allears:

Quote:

---

There is no excuse for making the same idiotic bullshit every game dev and their mother is addicted to these days. It does not look good, it does not make sense, and it is fucking lazy. Use your own creativity and design something new from the features of something old.

---

That's what I'm getting at. The above is a matter of opinion. Mainly the first and second sentences.

Also, I happen to be an artist, though none of you have seen much from me. I believe I know what looks good, and to me the Halo 1 AR was alright, the Halo 2 BR was kind of ugly, to thin in my opinion, and the Halo 3 AR was alright. The DMR is amazing in my opinion, I don't care whether it looks like a realistic weapon or not. In fact, let me state this: I'm into geometry, specifically artistic geometry. Realism is out the window for me, and truth be told unless you are one sick bastard if games were 100% realistic you would be puking your guts out every time someone died. I think most guns in real life are pretty ugly, especially the Steyr AUG.

Games are about art, and having fun, not being a murder simulation! Games have been striving for that coveted title "art" for decades, when did we switch over to (terminology aside) simulating murder?

I do agree with the last sentence Rossmum wrote, I believe games (at least the Triple - A titles) aren't creative enough. Halo is a creative game when it comes to shooters, I don't know why that formula went out the window.

Quote:

---

Warsaw

Quote:

---

http://www.modacity.net/forums/style...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by FreedomFighter7 http://www.modacity.net/forums/style...post-right.png

To the OP: all a matter of opinion.




Whether or not one enjoys the intricate sci-fi stuff is, yes. What makes something realistic or practical, no.

The problem as I see it isn't so much "rawr, fuck your greeble!" by itself as it is developers saying "Hey, look, we made a realistic and believable game universe" and then taking a dump on that idea by making everything look frigging ridiculous and impractical.

Rule of Cool is fine, and necessary, but you have to know where to draw that line based on how believable you want your world to be.

---

---

I agree with you Warsaw (and your drawings are great!) on some parts of that. How can a Sci Fi concept be realistic if its not even been invented yet? Its completely hypothetical! I've read just a few of your posts, and I know you can figure that kind of thing out, but not even you could know how a hypothetical weapon would work.

Lastly, this is a community primarily of artists, of whatever medium. If you're going to get into the games industry, do you have to be completely realistic? I don't think so. If you're going to work on architectural drawings I can see where using completely realistic modeling would come into play.

Everything is relative.
Quit bitching.

It can be realistic because there it's designed to be utilitarian. A military weapon is a tool, nothing more. It has a job to do and every detail should be geared towards accomplishing that job. Sometimes extrusions make sense as lightening cuts (AK-47 has two huge ones), cavities for moving parts, etc. Most of the stuff you see on science fiction guns is, however, just mindless Greeble. Halo Reach actually wasn't that bad at all, and I'm not going to harp on it. The Halo 4 BR also isn't that bad, but there are a ton of snags all over it that really don't serve any function and couldn't (what are those tabs around the LCD for? Things like that). Even still, the human weapons are literally the same technologies we have today. The AR is a gas-operated assault rifle firing a 7.62 NATO cartridge...that's a cartridge that was adopted 648 years before the events of the first game. So come on, we all know how these guns work, it's the same crap, different century.

And no, I can't explain *exactly* how a hypothetical weapon would work, but I can get pretty damn close because not only am I a Game Design major, I'm also a Systems Engineering major.

You remember this one from earlier, right? Try this on for size:

This is weapon is what I refer to in context as a linear induction rifle (LiR). It fires a tiny osmium-jacketed ferrous grain (~0.0005 kg)accelerated fast enough (~4404 m/s) to have a muzzle energy of ~ 4848 J. The caliber (stamped on the side of the gun...well, scanner didn't pick it up) is written as .606-08, and interpreted as 60.6% of 8 kJ. Ok, we know how coil guns work and we know how railguns work. Peachy. I don't need to explain that much to you.

Now here's where it gets fun.

You need energy to actuate such a weapon. It's impractical to have two separate power sources in a firearm; it would be like having separate powder and shot in the old black-powder weapons. So instead we have cartridges that contain both your projectile and your propellant so you only have to worry about loading one thing. Propellant gases and recoil are your means to cycle the weapon for automatic fire. Solution? Combine your grain and your power source into a cartridge that gets disposed of on each shot. Sure it creates complexity by adding moving parts to the system, but it also increases portability. Ok, so what could contain this power? Ultra-capacitors. They are real and in development right now and could replace batteries. They hold massive amounts of energy per volume and can retain it over time. Obviously, though, this gives the ammo a relatively short shelf-life (side-effect: it keeps the military from over-spending).

So how does this all work together?

Inside each cartridge is a stack of ultra-capacitors connected to what is essentially a miniaturized rail-gun. They are obviously charged at the factory. It's an open circuit. At the base of each cartridge is what I call an ignition cap. This is simply a piece of copper that gets severed from the base and pushed inwards by a firing-pin. This completes the circuit, causing the weapon to discharge on contact with the bottom of the pit. The grain is fired out into the set of rings that push it to even higher velocities (LiR is somewhat of a misnomer in this regard). The inner components of the cartridge all get vaporized and burned away by the intense energy discharge.

Now, when the bolt is cycled, it actually primes the cartridge, because the firing pin also serves as a conduit from the energy source to the aforementioned magnetic coils. It energizes those rings when you lock the bolt because the pin travels slightly inwards. There is a drawback to the design. Once you cock the weapon (close the action in this case), you cannot remove the round without permanently wasting it.

Some gun specific details:

• holes on magazine show you your ammo level.If the pusher is crossing over the first hole, you know you have 4 rounds left. Second hole, 2 rounds. Total capacity is 5, but 15, 25, and 75 round magazines are available (25 and 75 are normally used in the automatic weapons)
• there are no physical sights; I need to draw some projectors on, but it uses a UV-laser that reacts with coatings o effectively make a holo-sight in the user's goggles. Why? To make it harder for enemy troops to use it effectively. Why? Technology is at a premium and Perstyr Imperium is the top dog. There are no gradations for distance and windage because the round is traveling so fast that drop and wind are irrelevant at ranges where you can see the target.The recoil and round shape of the grain makes these awful sniping platforms at any rate.
• fat end of the cleaning rod also doubles as the front bayonet lug.
• fully stocked to the muzzle in order to protect the more delicate insides. It's not fragile, but bending it out of shape would have disastrous results.

How does automatic fire work with this system? Recoil energy, just like in many chemically-powered weapons. That said, this tech is fairly new in-world. I have a whole meticulously designed universe for all of this, and it very coherent. I have tons of stuff like this, including a real reasons why they can't just use lasers and traditional ballistics. I can't just say "Rule of Cool" because that undermines believability. If I'm going to do something fictional in my sci-fi, I am going to back it up believably. In my universe, the hardest thing to explain away is FTL. Apart from that, there is little to no hand-wavium going on. If you want to know more, I believe my Steam ID is in the appropriate thread. The point of this exercise is that all you have to do is some research into the physics and technologies that could be behind your idea and you can come up with a rather convincing system. If you want a particular aesthetic style, find a real reason to have it; the solution may not be found in the obvious locations, i.e. you may have to find a social or economic reason for a piece of tech.


E: If you are working in a universe that isn't this one, make sure you keep your physics consistent, or your product will suck...like space combat in Mass Effect.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you read my blurb about artists? It's in Sel's thread about capitalism being detrimental to "art."

I'll just sum it up here for you in case you don't want to go find it:
The best art comes from engineers because they use science to understand how everything works together. Their work is natural, fluid, and logical and that leads to a simultaneously pragmatic and aesthetically pleasing result.

Very interesting! I actually learned something from that. I've heard something similar about capitalism, that investing can be bad for practically anything in business.

But what rim size does it work off of?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

It can be realistic because there it's designed to be utilitarian. A military weapon is a tool, nothing more. It has a job to do and every detail should be geared towards accomplishing that job. Sometimes extrusions make sense as lightening cuts (AK-47 has two huge ones), cavities for moving parts, etc. Most of the stuff you see on science fiction guns is, however, just mindless Greeble. Halo Reach actually wasn't that bad at all, and I'm not going to harp on it. The Halo 4 BR also isn't that bad, but there are a ton of snags all over it that really don't serve any function and couldn't (what are those tabs around the LCD for? Things like that). Even still, the human weapons are literally the same technologies we have today. The AR is a gas-operated assault rifle firing a 7.62 NATO cartridge...that's a cartridge that was adopted 648 years before the events of the first game. So come on, we all know how these guns work, it's the same crap, different century.

And no, I can't explain *exactly* how a hypothetical weapon would work, but I can get pretty damn close because not only am I a Game Design major, I'm also a Systems Engineering major.

You remember this one from earlier, right? Try this on for size:

This is weapon is what I refer to in context as a linear induction rifle (LiR). It fires a tiny osmium-jacketed ferrous grain (~0.0005 kg)accelerated fast enough (~4404 m/s) to have a muzzle energy of ~ 4848 J. The caliber (stamped on the side of the gun...well, scanner didn't pick it up) is written as .606-08, and interpreted as 60.6% of 8 kJ. Ok, we know how coil guns work and we know how railguns work. Peachy. I don't need to explain that much to you.

Now here's where it gets fun.

You need energy to actuate such a weapon. It's impractical to have two separate power sources in a firearm; it would be like having separate powder and shot in the old black-powder weapons. So instead we have cartridges that contain both your projectile and your propellant so you only have to worry about loading one thing. Propellant gases and recoil are your means to cycle the weapon for automatic fire. Solution? Combine your grain and your power source into a cartridge that gets disposed of on each shot. Sure it creates complexity by adding moving parts to the system, but it also increases portability. Ok, so what could contain this power? Ultra-capacitors. They are real and in development right now and could replace batteries. They hold massive amounts of energy per volume and can retain it over time. Obviously, though, this gives the ammo a relatively short shelf-life (side-effect: it keeps the military from over-spending).

So how does this all work together?

Inside each cartridge is a stack of ultra-capacitors connected to what is essentially a miniaturized rail-gun. They are obviously charged at the factory. It's an open circuit. At the base of each cartridge is what I call an ignition cap. This is simply a piece of copper that gets severed from the base and pushed inwards by a firing-pin. This completes the circuit, causing the weapon to discharge on contact with the bottom of the pit. The grain is fired out into the set of rings that push it to even higher velocities (LiR is somewhat of a misnomer in this regard). The inner components of the cartridge all get vaporized and burned away by the intense energy discharge.

Now, when the bolt is cycled, it actually primes the cartridge, because the firing pin also serves as a conduit from the energy source to the aforementioned magnetic coils. It energizes those rings when you lock the bolt because the pin travels slightly inwards. There is a drawback to the design. Once you cock the weapon (close the action in this case), you cannot remove the round without permanently wasting it.

Some gun specific details:

• holes on magazine show you your ammo level.If the pusher is crossing over the first hole, you know you have 4 rounds left. Second hole, 2 rounds. Total capacity is 5, but 15, 25, and 75 round magazines are available (25 and 75 are normally used in the automatic weapons)
• there are no physical sights; I need to draw some projectors on, but it uses a UV-laser that reacts with coatings o effectively make a holo-sight in the user's goggles. Why? To make it harder for enemy troops to use it effectively. Why? Technology is at a premium and Perstyr Imperium is the top dog. There are no gradations for distance and windage because the round is traveling so fast that drop and wind are irrelevant at ranges where you can see the target.The recoil and round shape of the grain makes these awful sniping platforms at any rate.
• fat end of the cleaning rod also doubles as the front bayonet lug.
• fully stocked to the muzzle in order to protect the more delicate insides. It's not fragile, but bending it out of shape would have disastrous results.

How does automatic fire work with this system? Recoil energy, just like in many chemically-powered weapons. That said, this tech is fairly new in-world. I have a whole meticulously designed universe for all of this, and it very coherent. I have tons of stuff like this, including a real reasons why they can't just use lasers and traditional ballistics. I can't just say "Rule of Cool" because that undermines believability. If I'm going to do something fictional in my sci-fi, I am going to back it up believably. In my universe, the hardest thing to explain away is FTL. Apart from that, there is little to no hand-wavium going on. If you want to know more, I believe my Steam ID is in the appropriate thread. The point of this exercise is that all you have to do is some research into the physics and technologies that could be behind your idea and you can come up with a rather convincing system. If you want a particular aesthetic style, find a real reason to have it; the solution may not be found in the obvious locations, i.e. you may have to find a social or economic reason for a piece of tech.


E: If you are working in a universe that isn't this one, make sure you keep your physics consistent, or your product will suck...like space combat in Mass Effect.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you read my blurb about artists? It's in Sel's thread about capitalism being detrimental to "art."

I'll just sum it up here for you in case you don't want to go find it:
The best art comes from engineers because they use science to understand how everything works together. Their work is natural, fluid, and logical and that leads to a simultaneously pragmatic and aesthetically pleasing result.

---

it still looks dumb.

Right. It still looks dumb. Because you know exactly everything about the world it comes from and can can make such a statement.

No. If I found a Halo assault rifle in Unreal Tournament, I would say it looks dumb. If I found your Warthog in Battlefield 3, I would say it looks dumb. Context is everything. Not to mention, that's a technical drawing with no textures or lighting at all. It looks just as dumb as a wire-frame.

E: I suppose that you think a Lee-Enfield looks dumb, too.

Need to be a balance between greebles and realism. Spam a gun full of greebles for the sake of random detail it's going to look way to busy and obnoxious. Kind of like the Halo 4 BR.

This is turning into one massive opinion war. I firmly believe that in this world the most likely type of person to be misunderstood are geniuses. , If they're too dumb to understand where you're coming from, fuck em'. You can't please everybody. I just ignore the haters, I didn't even try to reply to =sw=warlord.

I don't know why I'm even supporting you Warsaw, as I hate every one of you guyses guts. I only come here for inspiration. Maybe it was the fact that I saw something in your drawings I see in myself. I don't come across a lot of people who actually draw, design, and do it well. And the haters, I've got so many, I know what its like to be hated.

For my part, it's about consistency. If you can explain why your world is the way it is and has the look it does and it maintains that throughout, great. If you say one thing and do another, well, that's just poor form regardless.