Really liking that first bolt action rifle. The barrel seems a little boring though, maybe it could use a sight construct or something.Originally Posted by Warsaw
Really liking that first bolt action rifle. The barrel seems a little boring though, maybe it could use a sight construct or something.
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
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.
Last edited by JackalStomper; March 5th, 2012 at 09:00 PM.
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.
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?
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
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.
Last edited by t3h m00kz; March 5th, 2012 at 09:53 PM. Reason: spoiler'd
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"
Last edited by t3h m00kz; March 5th, 2012 at 10:01 PM.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks