PDA

View Full Version : OMG they can't IN ANY WAY be serious about this


DigitalPixie
22nd Jul 2005, 02:02 AM
I just saw a concept model.

http://tinyurl.com/9289x (UT2K7)

Whatever happened to the "two moving parts" simplicity that made it what it was? The thing was a rock-simple, deadly serious stoneage monster that spewed the only "I-don't-care-how-many-health-points-you-have" ammo that existed in the game. I mean, you had to have practically full health, armor, and shield just to survive one point-blank hit. In the unpatched version of Unreal the noise it made - that wholely unrefined ka-klank when it loaded itself on pickup - was enough to make anyone hesitate and review just how short their lifespan was about to become. It was one of the most appropriate weapons models I'd ever seen for a one-hit frag. ..And then this?? Jeez, the flak is nothing more than a crude single shot scattergun for cryin out loud... I mean COME ON, wth have they been smoking? (/RANT)

1337
22nd Jul 2005, 02:06 AM
If it looks cool, is fun to use, and it's fire function doesn't stray too far away from the original fire function concept, I don't care about how much the weapon model evolves from the original look.

Look at the shock rifle and how much it's changed. Why can't everything else evolve?

DigitalPixie
22nd Jul 2005, 02:28 AM
If it looks cool, is fun to use, and it's fire function doesn't stray too far away from the original fire function concept, I don't care about how much the weapon model evolves from the original look.

Look at the shock rifle and how much it's changed. Why can't everything else evolve?

No one asked you to care, no offense.

--

UT99 rules the shock roost.

Okay, evolution my tight booty. If you want to put a one-word spin like evolution on it, mutation sounds better. IMO, of course*.

Really, I mean, what kind of physical machinery does it take to fling one metallic projectile? Can anyone else say about that design, "too far"?


*It's crap!

1337
22nd Jul 2005, 02:40 AM
rofl. It's not ut99 with pretty graphics. You can get your simple weapon model with the classic ut99 modification for ut2007. I wouldn't try making assumptions about how the weapon will feel just from a simple still picture, I'd wait till you see it in action before you make objections to it.

Discord
22nd Jul 2005, 02:49 AM
Really, I mean, what kind of physical machinery does it take to fling one metallic projectile?

Well, that depends. If you don't mind setting the thing on the ground and like an all- the- recoil- you- can- eat buffet, and are further satisfied with a simple muzzle- loading setup and don't need semiautomatic fire, then I'd say probably not a lot.

If, on the other hand, you want ZERO recoil, a 25- round autofeeding magazine, 50 rpm rate of fire, and what's more a handheld platform that you don't even have to shoulder FFS (you see a buttstock on that thing? I don't), then you might have to get a little creative with your design.

And anyway, I think it looks cool. :D

It's the shock rifle I'm disappointed with. :(

DigitalPixie
22nd Jul 2005, 03:13 AM
rofl. I'd wait till you see it in action before you make objections to it. lol.. You won't have to. :)

all- the- recoil- you- can- eat buffet
hehe I really like that :D

DigitalPixie
22nd Jul 2005, 03:18 AM
If, on the other hand, you want ZERO recoil :( I don't! Dang why can't they make your view snap up when you fire those?

Slainchild
22nd Jul 2005, 03:43 AM
I for one do not give a flying flak monkey what the weapon models look like. :D

-AEnubis-
22nd Jul 2005, 04:09 AM
I kinda digged the old "carved from stone" look of the Unreal flak myself. I also prefer most aspects of shock from Unreal as well.

All in all though, I'm with SC in that, I don't care too much what the models look like, as long as they are distinguishable.

The weapons were cool when they felt more alien, but you gotta consider now, they are human reamakes of said weapons...

Good points Dischord...

edhe
22nd Jul 2005, 04:52 AM
Clunky dirty 'underground' overpowered seksi hybrid weapons pls.

Sir_Brizz
22nd Jul 2005, 10:03 AM
I for one do not give a flying flak monkey what the weapon models look like. :D
:tup: +1

killalot0
22nd Jul 2005, 10:43 AM
it looks more like the ut99 flak again :woot: . I always wondered why they made
sutch a brutal weapon look like the flak did in ut2k4. But now it looks big and brutal again. :flak: :tup:

Selerox
22nd Jul 2005, 10:48 AM
Now that in industrial strength frag power! :eek:

gregori
22nd Jul 2005, 11:27 AM
Looks like a missile launcher not a flak,

There was nothing wrong with the 2kx design, its just the effects for sucked and seamed so under powered

the new flak looks like my vacuum cleaner though!

Wowbagger
22nd Jul 2005, 12:00 PM
It looks like it can do its job, pushing ****loads of shrapnel through 1337 OMG****INGLAMEFLAKN00B screaming targets ;)

I just hope the weapon effects both shoot and death ones looks awesome :)

Sahkolihaa
22nd Jul 2005, 12:36 PM
IMHO, I think they have gone FAR over the top with detail on that.

LooseCannon
22nd Jul 2005, 12:44 PM
... as long as they are distinguishable. ... at a reasonable distance from the enemy. Agreed.

I don't care what my own weapon looks like because it's hidden. It's the cross-hair that counts there.

EDIT: But many new players and the reviewers probably will care and almost certainly will comment on all graphical details. Look and feel helps move software off the shelves in the first instance.

hal
22nd Jul 2005, 02:46 PM
I don't see what the fuss is all about. (That's a really old concept drawing btw)

It looks industrial enough, though highly machined and engineered versus something slapped together for mining. It looks like there are really only a handful of moving parts. Did anyone stop to think that maybe the UT era weapons were simpler because of lower-poly demands?

Like others have alluded to, I really don't care that much as I hide my weapons anyway.

Oh, and you're wrong about UT's ShockRifle ruling... it's all about the ASMD!

ChampionHyena
22nd Jul 2005, 02:53 PM
OH NOS!!!

These "Epic" people are going to change things that THEY want to change about THEIR game that THEY'RE working their asses off on so that lowlife slugs like us have something to do on the weekends? They want to introduce scary NEW ideas just because it's THEIR GAME!?

SAY IT AIN'T SO, BOBARIAH!

DigitalPixie
22nd Jul 2005, 03:39 PM
IMHO, I think they have gone FAR over the top with detail on that. After some beer-soaked thought I'm convinced that the drawing is much more a styling exercise. Someone must have turned someone loose to do a whatever with miminal instruction. I understand that I could be absolutely wrong, yeah, but if reason beats anyone about the head long enough, though, it will morph into something much more frightening to look at when it's about to go off in your face. (Lord Jesus please!). I mean, visual intimidation is half the fun!

While I'm here :P about the lone hand grip (slight change of pace). If it has to stay, would be cool to see some sort of zowwie anti-grav thing holding it up for you, something like, well, like three Saturn 5 rocket engines. :D

I kinda digged the old "carved from stone" look of the Unreal flak myself. Yes! It promised only one very elemental task. Instant butchery!! :)

DigitalPixie
22nd Jul 2005, 03:44 PM
OH NOS!!!

These "Epic" people are going to change things that THEY want to change about THEIR game that THEY'RE working their asses off on so that lowlife slugs like us have something to do on the weekends? They want to introduce scary NEW ideas just because it's THEIR GAME!? Don't know who you are but I suppose it's best to see that as light-hearted sarcasm. That said, I agree with most of it.

DigitalPixie
22nd Jul 2005, 03:49 PM
Oh, and you're wrong about UT's ShockRifle ruling... it's all about the ASMD! Hal you sweet talker you.

Starry Might
22nd Jul 2005, 05:55 PM
About the concept art in the original post...that's what the Flak Cannon looks like in "Unreal Championship 2".

This post in Lauren's "UnrealED2.x PC Version To Mod UC2 Via PC" topic in the "Unreal Championship 2: The Liandri Conflict" part of these forums has a picture of it in-game (first-person perspective):

http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showpost.php?p=1824483&postcount=11

Personally, I don't care too much about how it looks (the look of the original "UT's" Flak Cannon is my favorite, though, I guess) - I still love it. :flak:

*FLAK MONKEY 4 LYFE*

Breadtruck
22nd Jul 2005, 07:24 PM
wait a second, is it just me, or when you were a kid did you always picture guns liek that? i mean everyday i thought about guns liek that, after i was introduced to guns that is, other then that the gun looks great and i hear that they are keeping the flaks firing modes the same.... or i could just be hearing storys in my head by that phsycotic rubber duckie... i though i got rid of that thin years ago....

DigitalPixie
22nd Jul 2005, 09:46 PM
The projectiles in the flak screen capture look like they're being pushed out of a quad shot. Nice visual effect, of course, but that model is still too much imo even though the visible shot pattern demands a completely different approach to modeling the weapon.

If the primary shock button results in a multi-beam as shown, nice, but if anyone has played UT anime then you know there is a potential for incredible lag for something like this, even in single play. Anyway, Hal indicated that discussing this weapon has likely already had its day, and may it RIP.

Vault
22nd Jul 2005, 10:50 PM
i think everyone has glazed over the fact that the concept drawing says, "Flack Cannon"...... i always thought is was "flak" ...

Radiosity
23rd Jul 2005, 08:22 AM
Well, give me a while to actually get my weapons all completed and you can see how it looks and feels ingame ;)

http://www.radiant-studios.net/junk/ht/flaknew02.jpg

hal
23rd Jul 2005, 10:10 AM
Can't wait!

klasnic
23rd Jul 2005, 10:10 AM
Well, give me a while to actually get my weapons all completed and you can see how it looks and feels ingame ;)

:eek: omg :flak: :lol:

Personally I think it's pretty cool looking and if you look toward the centre it looks like the actual flak could be an attachment of some sort... Which leads me on to say how's about another attachment called super flak which can actually tear through walls :D

*hopes nothing's changed about the fire like from 2k3 -> 2k4 as it means all that practice is gone to waste*

Steyr
24th Jul 2005, 03:18 AM
I have to say, i miss the old flack cannon. this new one is lacking the brutal, barbaric simplicity of the first models. It just looks to much like a yellow version of the new rocketlauncher to me. I mean, yeah, having the new freedom in level of detail has got to be tempting, but not everything should be horribly complex with gears and joints and pipes everywhere. It violates the rules of style and art.

zynthetic
24th Jul 2005, 04:18 AM
Looks heavy.
A glaring issue many ppl seem to have w/ the appearance of 2k3 era weapons was thier giant size and chunkiness. I also think it's kinda absurd to imagine someone carrying around what seems to be 150lbs of steel balanced gingerly in two hands.

-AEnubis-
24th Jul 2005, 06:00 AM
Think they had to be kind of big with the player scaling as is. Otherwise, you couldnt' tell what you opponent is toting, which isn't very easy as is, and that would suck.

->Sachiel<-
24th Jul 2005, 09:22 AM
IT IS A FLAK CANNON! you know, the weapon that we use to shoot down planes. If you want it looking like a shotgun and shooting like a flak cannon it would be pretty queer. besides, this model makes more sense than the last one, have you actually looked at it carefully? The Flak Cannon has dual firing modes, each being completely different. Therefore it is required that there are two different barrels, one for launching the shell as one piece(lower barrel), and one for launching flak chunks(upper barrel). Now how do you make it so that you can choose where one shell goes? well, if you look at the barrels it is clear that they connect halfway through the gun, so it is actually one barrel that splits, this probably works like a train track interesection or whatever its called. where what you press determines which way the shell will travel. Also, notice how in UT guns don't need to be reloaded, this is because they reload themselves. if you look at the bottom you can see a flak ammo container, above it directly is a revolver, this revolver would insert a new clip into the piece above it whenever one runs out. A gun of this caliber cannon be simplistic looking because it does not function like a shotgun nor is it a modern style weapon. if it was up to me the UT2004 Flak Cannon would have been much more complex looking also.

->Sachiel<-
24th Jul 2005, 09:26 AM
heh.... whoops, should have introduced myself, I have all UT games and have been monitoring the UT2007 activity and threads for a while now, The statement above is expressing my anger towards people who want UT weapons to be weapons that monkeys can use.

Sahkolihaa
24th Jul 2005, 09:29 AM
heh.... whoops, should have introduced myself, I have all UT games and have been monitoring the UT2007 activity and threads for a while now, The statement above is expressing my anger towards people who want UT weapons to be weapons that monkeys can use.Welcome to the forum :wavey:

I'm still standing next to my comment ;)

->Sachiel<-
24th Jul 2005, 09:46 AM
I think alot of people see detail as messiness instead of beauty, fortunately, I am not one of them.

Starry Might
24th Jul 2005, 10:39 AM
Welcome to the Forums, ->Sachiel<-! :D (I'm fairly new, myself.)

-AEnubis-
24th Jul 2005, 04:41 PM
Uh, a simply mechanical bar that retracts to shoot bombs would make one barrel very realistic. Both of them use the same ammo, the bomb is simply split in the weapon to shoot chunk, so that the chunk pojects from the barrel, as opposed to the bomb when it makes impact.

This would be harder to figure out from the 2kx weapon, but in UT, it made much more sense.

->Sachiel<-
24th Jul 2005, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by -AEnubis-
Uh, a simply mechanical bar that retracts to shoot bombs would make one barrel very realistic. Both of them use the same ammo, the bomb is simply split in the weapon to shoot chunk, so that the chunk pojects from the barrel, as opposed to the bomb when it makes impact.
What are you talking about, obviously its the same basic shell, which can be either split or launched. One barrel carries the shell, it splits into two, one direction launches the shell in a similar fashion to a grranade launcher while the other launches it in a similar fashion to a shotgun. what I argued is how could one launching mechanism offer both a grenade launching and shotgun-like firing feature? look at the firing animation for primary, then secondary, it is the same in UT2004, how is it possible for a grenade launcher to split a shell rather than launching it whole and vise versa?

Sir_Brizz
24th Jul 2005, 05:54 PM
Er....detonating the shell BEFORE it fires it? :p

-AEnubis-
25th Jul 2005, 01:37 AM
I'm just saying one barrel, one retracting metal arm. Retracted you should a bomb, un-retracted it splits the bomb in the barrel to chunk. Two barrels isn't necessary.

Not that I care either way, I'm just pointing out the flaw in your logical explanation of the new flak cannon's asthetic ;) Decent logic, but not necessary.

->Sachiel<-
25th Jul 2005, 06:32 AM
Originally posted by Sir_Brizz
Er....detonating the shell BEFORE it fires it?
A) Do you know what would happen if someone were to shoot a bullet inside a weapon's barrel? not alone an EXPLOSIVE one.
B)http://unrealtournament.com/ut2004/weapon_profile.php?weapon=flak_cannon
One way that I think -AEnubis-'s explanation would work is if the front of the Flak Cannon (where the shell is held in place) has an adjustable opening, where it would expand in order to let the entire shell through when it is hit by the hammer-like apparatus at the back of the gun when using secondary fire mode while it would retract when using the primary fire mode so that when the hammer-apparatus hits the shell it would be crushed and its pieces (flak chunks) would come out only.

I still would rather have the logical yet unnecessarily complex NEW version over the old one

edhe
25th Jul 2005, 07:20 AM
1) this is unreal
2) it's just a game
3) get outside and have a life instead of arguing about how fictional weapons should work.

Gawd, Kids.

Persefone
25th Jul 2005, 07:28 AM
Itīs quite a lot of surrealistic reading complaints about how unreal is Unreal

->Sachiel<-
25th Jul 2005, 01:16 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: We're all correct, YAY :lol: :lol: :lol:

SkaarjMaster
25th Jul 2005, 01:41 PM
Itīs quite a lot of surrealistic reading complaints about how unreal is Unreal

True and how true. This isn't the first time this has happened and definitely won't be the last. I'm a flak ho :eek: and like the new flak cannon. Let's wait and see how it fires.;)

FireCrack
25th Jul 2005, 01:49 PM
What's with all this two barell buisness people are talking about? I dont see a glaring hint of the flak gun having two barrels anywhere.

->Sachiel<-
25th Jul 2005, 01:59 PM
Are you looking at the right picture? um.. look at the front where it fires, there are two exits, hints two barrels.

FireCrack
25th Jul 2005, 02:16 PM
There is one barrel, the thing at the bottom is a compressed air cylender.

->Sachiel<-
25th Jul 2005, 02:27 PM
But that would be wierd because then the one barrel there is bent? doesn't really make sense to bend a barrel if your not gonna split it.

Renegade Retard
25th Jul 2005, 03:50 PM
I don't see what the fuss is all about. (That's a really old concept drawing btw)

UT2007 FO's - dramatic overreactions to mere speculations

That should be a banner at the top of the 2k7 boards :p

Persefone
25th Jul 2005, 08:38 PM
Let's wait and see how it fires.;)
Ditto.

Zur
25th Jul 2005, 09:01 PM
I think alot of people see detail as messiness instead of beauty, fortunately, I am not one of them.

Hmm, for me the weapons are like a mix between the heaviness of romanesque architecture and the over-decorative side of gothical architecture. It looks like someone has added some mechanical bits and bobs without tending to the credibility of their function.

FireCrack
25th Jul 2005, 09:35 PM
But that would be wierd because then the one barrel there is bent? doesn't really make sense to bend a barrel if your not gonna split it.

umm, theres nothing bent, not that i can see atleast.

-AEnubis-
26th Jul 2005, 12:31 AM
If I spent any time thinkin' up that information, I might almost be insulted.

Flak bombs didn't used to explode, they just kind of busted open. Minimal spash radius damage.

I still don't feel we should expect any weapon attributes we see in those vids to remain steady unto release.

BITE_ME
26th Jul 2005, 12:38 AM
In less its Boobies....I dont like it when they make the old stuff bigger.

edhe
26th Jul 2005, 06:17 AM
:con:

DigitalPixie
29th Jul 2005, 08:00 AM
1) this is unreal
2) it's just a game
3) get outside and have a life instead of arguing about how fictional weapons should work.

Gawd, Kids. NOE :)

Swerto
29th Jul 2005, 01:36 PM
It has to look like it does in UC2 because that is 1 year or so after this and as long as they don't make it as powerful as the riot shotgun in the fraghouse invasion mod this is fine

Steyr
30th Jul 2005, 01:56 PM
I think alot of people see detail as messiness instead of beauty, fortunately, I am not one of them.
I don't see complexity and detail as messiness, I just don't see messy detail as beauty. It's like glueing a bunch of random sh*t onto tables and chairs, to add to their "beauty". Or wearing an outfit with bells, buckles, zippers, and unnecessary flaps everywhere. Sure, in the right places extra detail can look good, but in the wrong places it just looks retarded. Also, there is beauty in simplicity, too, and to neglect simplicity and overuse complexity is just wrong. it looks ugly, it looks stupid, and it does not belong in a good game.

Also, this is my beloved flack cannon! The flack cannon has a certain style, a brutal, simple, barbaric style. It's not "the newest in high technology energy excelleration systems." It's a f*cking big*ss gun that shoots big flaming hunks of metal!

Careless unartistic detail is teh suck.

->Sachiel<-
30th Jul 2005, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by Steyr
I don't see complexity and detail as messiness, I just don't see messy detail as beauty.
So you do see detail as messiness.

What YOU refer to as detail/messiness is random crap on something, this new flak cannon doesn't look like random sh*t placed together. I think if you take my and -AEnubis-'s explanations of how it works, you would see that it is not random nor is it crap. Besides, in Unreal Tournament all the guns are supposed to be futuristic, not simple, you can appreciate simplicity today (Knife, Shotgun, Handgun, Rifle, Machine Gun, Minigun, Grenade launcher, Bazooka) but you'll have to appreciate complexity in the future ( Impact Hammer, Flak Cannon, Shock Rifle, Enforcer(s), Link Gun, Stinger, Canister Gun, Rocket Launcher).

In a slightly unrelated subject, why the F*** are they getting rid of the Lightning gun, its my favourite gun despite my limited moving-while-sniping capabilities.

Steyr
31st Jul 2005, 10:28 PM
So you do see detail as messiness.

What YOU refer to as detail/messiness is random crap on something, this new flak cannon doesn't look like random sh*t placed together. I think if you take my and -AEnubis-'s explanations of how it works, you would see that it is not random nor is it crap. Besides, in Unreal Tournament all the guns are supposed to be futuristic, not simple, you can appreciate simplicity today (Knife, Shotgun, Handgun, Rifle, Machine Gun, Minigun, Grenade launcher, Bazooka) but you'll have to appreciate complexity in the future ( Impact Hammer, Flak Cannon, Shock Rifle, Enforcer(s), Link Gun, Stinger, Canister Gun, Rocket Launcher).
Impact Hammer=powerful thermally enhanced air compressor + big hunk of metal.
Enforcer=Ordinary simiautomatic handgun.
Flack cannon=shotgun w/ thermite magnisium pellets + electromagnetic coil for secondary fire. add an impact detinator to the shells and there you have it, functional flack cannon made from everyday, modern materials. Actually, it would probably be stronger than the ut flack cannon, cause thermite burns unbelieveably hot (stick a drop on someone's car hood, light it, and it'll burn all the way through the engine and into the concrete underneath.) The launcher would be incredibly simple, you could make it from junkyard parts. The shells would be bigger, and probably need small chips, but they still wouldn't need to be any bigger than they already are. Of course, the magazine would be huge, but all the previous cannons have apparently used teleportation or somthing, cause none of the models, old or new, have magazines of sufficient size. Except possibly the first.

Really, the big reason why i don't like the new model is cause it doesn't have it's own style. it looks like a yellow rocket launcher. I would much prefer it if the new detail capability was spent tword things like wear, scratches, and battle damage. Make it look rugged.

Anyway, thats my feeling on things. But hey, this is supposed to be UNreal tournament, eh? As long as it plays the same, I'll use it.

JohnDoe641
1st Aug 2005, 08:01 PM
1) this is unreal
2) it's just a game
3) get outside and have a life instead of arguing about how fictional weapons should work.

Gawd, Kids.
A quote that's really worth it.

Steyr
2nd Aug 2005, 10:03 PM
A quote that's really worth it.
Yeap. Really, I don't care so much about the game, I just wanna get my hands on the engine! :P

Steyr
2nd Aug 2005, 10:03 PM
A quote that's really worth it.
Yeap. Really, I don't care so much about the game, I just wanna get my hands on the engine! :P

Oh, and I like to argue. Sue me.