from what i remember the flak cannon would completely gib someone at close range and would bounce off walls without leaving a mark. the alt fire would leave a mark on walls but i cant remember if it changed colours. ill check the game, i need to install it.
Something that was missing from UT2003/4
- Thread starter Deadmeat
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
<Warning Heavily Opinionated Post Incoming>
Ahhh the Flak Cannon ’99, for when you absolutely, positively HAVE to kill eeeeevery motherf***er in the room - accept no substitute.
My poor Flak baby what did they do to you? They gave him the chop. Neutered. B****d’s.
Seriously though I loved the UT flak cannon over all other models and it was almost certainly my most used weapon. I can understand why Epic made the changes they did, ie make it less spammy and more skilful, but they didn’t really pull it off (except for the slightly reduced rebounds which I thought was good) and it kind of lost a lot of it’s fun factor.
Give Me Back My Weapon Of Mass Destruction !!!!!!
Ok on topic – visual’s and sounds:
Yes I know what you mean, at point blank range there was an extra sickening crunchy sound when you shot someone. It was a nice little touch that added character and helped convey the sheer brutality of a gun that basically fires jagged chunks of metal which ripped out large chunks of the body. It might have been in UT2k’s but I never really noticed it – but then I could rarely get that close to an opponent anyway.
I preferred the huge, hand size chunks of twisted metal from UT over the UT2003/4 shrapnel that didn’t really look much bigger than a large calibre bullet. And why exactly did they have party streamers attached? Ok it was meant to be the blur from fast moving light, but they were all you could really see – perhaps they needed them because the shrapnel was small and it would have looked abit rubbish without them.
I liked the way the flak glow visibly changed as it cooled down flying through the air and at longer ranges / after rebounds it lost its glow completely. I think it adds to the feel of the Flak Cannon being a close range monster, it’s a sort of visual cue that the weapon loses it’s power at medium to long range. What I didn’t like was walking over a piece of shrapnel that had settled on the floor, having lost all momentum and heat, and being damaged by it. I think Epic did also get rid of that as well in the UT2k’s.
Finally the model itself – I got the impression that the Flak Cannon was the kind of thing used by shock troops: squat, massively overbored, noisy and intimidating. I felt the UT’99 model was the one closest to these things – big, chunky and obvious.
Here endth the rant.
Oh P.S. – f.sardis: the glow everyone is talking about is the flak itself not any marks left on the wall (there weren’t any, except grenade but that’s different).
Ahhh the Flak Cannon ’99, for when you absolutely, positively HAVE to kill eeeeevery motherf***er in the room - accept no substitute.
My poor Flak baby what did they do to you? They gave him the chop. Neutered. B****d’s.
Seriously though I loved the UT flak cannon over all other models and it was almost certainly my most used weapon. I can understand why Epic made the changes they did, ie make it less spammy and more skilful, but they didn’t really pull it off (except for the slightly reduced rebounds which I thought was good) and it kind of lost a lot of it’s fun factor.
Give Me Back My Weapon Of Mass Destruction !!!!!!
Ok on topic – visual’s and sounds:
Kharnellius said:
Yes I know what you mean, at point blank range there was an extra sickening crunchy sound when you shot someone. It was a nice little touch that added character and helped convey the sheer brutality of a gun that basically fires jagged chunks of metal which ripped out large chunks of the body. It might have been in UT2k’s but I never really noticed it – but then I could rarely get that close to an opponent anyway.
gregori said:
I preferred the huge, hand size chunks of twisted metal from UT over the UT2003/4 shrapnel that didn’t really look much bigger than a large calibre bullet. And why exactly did they have party streamers attached? Ok it was meant to be the blur from fast moving light, but they were all you could really see – perhaps they needed them because the shrapnel was small and it would have looked abit rubbish without them.
I liked the way the flak glow visibly changed as it cooled down flying through the air and at longer ranges / after rebounds it lost its glow completely. I think it adds to the feel of the Flak Cannon being a close range monster, it’s a sort of visual cue that the weapon loses it’s power at medium to long range. What I didn’t like was walking over a piece of shrapnel that had settled on the floor, having lost all momentum and heat, and being damaged by it. I think Epic did also get rid of that as well in the UT2k’s.
Finally the model itself – I got the impression that the Flak Cannon was the kind of thing used by shock troops: squat, massively overbored, noisy and intimidating. I felt the UT’99 model was the one closest to these things – big, chunky and obvious.
Here endth the rant.
Oh P.S. – f.sardis: the glow everyone is talking about is the flak itself not any marks left on the wall (there weren’t any, except grenade but that’s different).
For me personally it's the build quality that has suffered most, in UT99 level designers didn't have static meshes and they relied just on good design and BSP geometry.
Couple of factors regarding BSP is how solid everything looked and how well structures were lit etc, structures looked really solid and convincing. Most level designers (not all) obeyed certain laws of construction. Better contrasts were achieved in the old UT99 levels with lighting because BSP created better lighmaps and better shadows and I think it was this that made the arenas more convincing and I have to be honest here, even the old animated water textures rocked.
Couple of factors regarding BSP is how solid everything looked and how well structures were lit etc, structures looked really solid and convincing. Most level designers (not all) obeyed certain laws of construction. Better contrasts were achieved in the old UT99 levels with lighting because BSP created better lighmaps and better shadows and I think it was this that made the arenas more convincing and I have to be honest here, even the old animated water textures rocked.
Unleashed said:
That’s a good point. I used to really enjoy creating maps for UT’99 but found mapping for UT2004 was a completely different experience. The newer UEd was definitely an improvement but I just couldn’t create the maps I wanted because:
a) The scale was abit funny
b) The static meshes were very restrictive to place, they had too much influence over were you could use them and could be a pain to light.
In the end I gave up on static meshes and went back to building BSP levels with the smallest amount of fancy decoration. Improved the playability and lighting no end. Unfortunately that’s something the UT2k mappers couldn’t really do.
In reguards to the flak cannon. I think the original model was the least spammy, most skill oriented, out of all the flak cannons. It had a narrow but powerful flak spray, and a slow rate of fire, it was great.
Something horribly wrong about static meshes is that they look hollow, fake and non-solid, lighting looks terrible on them.
BSP in UT99 made everything look solid and realistic, no matter how fantastical and imaginary the map's setting was! BSP, good quality lighting and excellent textures grounded UT maps in reality. Meshes just dont seem like real surfaces!
Lighting has definetly improved from what i've seen in the video's, Meshes aren't overused. One gripe i do have , is that the textures seem tiled and homogenous in the videos, It would be hard to tell one area of the maps from the other because of this.
Epic needs to vary the textures through out the level, put in small defects into the maps, create features that are unique to a place on the map, stuff like debris lying around, cracks and holes in walls, banners, monitors, statues, grafitti, loose brick, planks of wood, a corpse, barrels, coloured lights, a loose floor tile, a broken hand rail.
all of these in specific places on maps to break up monotony so its easier to find your way around a map. Its hard on many 2kx maps to tell one area from the other!
I've to agree with unleased here, the old anmated water texture were better, as were the old tarydium crytals! Procedural textures gave unreal a unique look and differenciated it from engines like Quake etc, Hopefully Epic can create the same effects as procedural textures now, using particle effects and materials instead. The old liquidy lava looked amazing aswell, i hope they bring that back with materials.
BSP in UT99 made everything look solid and realistic, no matter how fantastical and imaginary the map's setting was! BSP, good quality lighting and excellent textures grounded UT maps in reality. Meshes just dont seem like real surfaces!
Lighting has definetly improved from what i've seen in the video's, Meshes aren't overused. One gripe i do have , is that the textures seem tiled and homogenous in the videos, It would be hard to tell one area of the maps from the other because of this.
Epic needs to vary the textures through out the level, put in small defects into the maps, create features that are unique to a place on the map, stuff like debris lying around, cracks and holes in walls, banners, monitors, statues, grafitti, loose brick, planks of wood, a corpse, barrels, coloured lights, a loose floor tile, a broken hand rail.
all of these in specific places on maps to break up monotony so its easier to find your way around a map. Its hard on many 2kx maps to tell one area from the other!
I've to agree with unleased here, the old anmated water texture were better, as were the old tarydium crytals! Procedural textures gave unreal a unique look and differenciated it from engines like Quake etc, Hopefully Epic can create the same effects as procedural textures now, using particle effects and materials instead. The old liquidy lava looked amazing aswell, i hope they bring that back with materials.
I don't mind realism. What the maps lack is imagination. LOTR, that movie was both imaginative and drew you in to feeling like you were there. That is what UT had over UT2kx.L/\N|)O said:Maps in UT2k4 are too realistic, they should be UNREAListic as thay are in UT'99
gregori said:
Agreed on the same-y-ness. Obviously this is a flaw of the maps... But it still annoys me every time I play Orbital2. I can barely find my way around on that map because every corridor looks exactly the same (not to mention the foolish, flow-breaking dead ends). What really needs to happen is that Epic needs to make a really excellent set of maps to ship with the retail game that make subtle use of new effects instead of adding 10 million pipes that dominate the visual design and hinder playability. Mappers will follow suit using Epic's levels as a base, so it's really important to get those first few levels down correctly.
Wail of Suicide said:
Even if this means only a handful of maps. Id rather have a few awesome maps than a ton of mediocre ones.
L/\N|)O said:Maps in UT2k4 are too realistic, they should be UNREAListic as thay are in UT'99
I agree that Unreal Tournament should try to avoid going towards photo-realistic graphics style. I don’t know about anyone else but I find that the more ‘real world’ the graphics look the more I expect the game to play realistically – moving in a realisitic manner (slow running, prone, leaning, fatigue), being killed by just one (or if your lucky two) bullets, being able to properly interact with the game environment etc... When a game has realistic graphics but unrealistic gameplay it doesn’t seem to gel together very well.
I think the maps / actors in UT2007 should be designed realistically (or believably for exotic locations) but the graphical style be more unrealistic/cartoony - it will suit UT's style of play far more. The distinction between real and unreal is mainly down to the use of lighting and colour (although surface texture also plays its part).
Last edited:
Deadmeat said:
Yeah I totally agree. Some of the most enjoyable console games I have played are ones that use bright colors and make it easy to see your opponent and tell different items apart using said colors. It's unrealistic but a blast to play.
Look at tetris, mariokart, smash brothers, etc....simple and easy for most anyone to jump in and have fun without getting confused. Yet, there were elements that gave practiced veterans the edge.
well i would like to see realistic visual effects + fantastic geometry design
yup ut is not a realistic game, but that doesn't mean ut can't have realistic visual effects like realtime shadow, realtime global illumination, displacement map...
in another word, ut could be in a different universe than ours(so no realistic geometry design, especially architecture design), but still looks believable and kind of realistic
yup ut is not a realistic game, but that doesn't mean ut can't have realistic visual effects like realtime shadow, realtime global illumination, displacement map...
in another word, ut could be in a different universe than ours(so no realistic geometry design, especially architecture design), but still looks believable and kind of realistic
Neophoenix said:
Exactly the point im' trying to make! UT99 wasn't cartoony, its texture were extremely photo realistic, esp compared to its contemporaries, It was one of the first thing i noticed about the game! Despite how fantastical all the weapons, enviroments and characters are they look believable!
UT2kx Had fantastical stuff, but it looked cartoony, and tiled, instead of being photorealistic. Everything in the maps looks plasticy and fake , EVERYTHING!
Compare CTF Face from UT99 and CTF FACEClassic from 2k4. In Ut99 it feels like your on a solid piece of rock spinning through space, in UT2k4 it feels like your on a brown marshmallow floating through a flat skybox.
Photorealism doesn't mean you can't have bright and varied colours, interesting lighting, Fantastical imaginative maps etc It just makes those better, because it makes the place feel real to the player no matter how imaginary the maps is!
THough DM Antalus is a very imaginative map, the central stone sculpture doesnt look or behave like stone, none of the map feels solid, i blame the lighting and poor texturing! The colours of the map are also too bland.
Photorealism doesn't mean bland colours. THis is a mistake ID made with DOOM3 which is why the new cacodemon looks like ****!
Even though Epic has HDR lighting and lightblooms, I'd still like to see corona's, they are still great and arent as glarey as HDR. Some more colourful lighting and skies too.
Skyboxes are way too static in UT2k4 and the textures for them look blurry and lo res, so they look fake
Its my philosophy that, the more fantastical and imaginary you make something, the more you have to ground it in reality with photo-realism! Whatever it is, it doesn't have too look too flashy, it just has to look natural.
Last edited:
gregori said:
Your confusing realistic design with realistic graphics. The aim of photorealism is just that - to look as real as a photograph. You could create a completely un-natural image and make it look photorealistic but not convincing. Cartoon graphics on the other hand don't necessarily mean the Simpsons but generally refer to the use of strong and/or contrasting colour (graphic novels are a fancy name for comic books but they can have an incredibly realistic style without looking 'photorealistic'). UT'99 was quite cartoony - strong and varied use of colour, bright characters and effects, deep shadows ... you get the picture. But they were designed in a realistic manner which made it believable. The use of 'cartoon' style graphics can add emphasis to situtations in a similar way to sound effects - it helps make up/simulate for the other senses and emotions that you would be feeling if you were really in that kind of situation. A game can have realistic environments and effects without having photorealistic graphics.
moonflyer said:
I would like to see the effects you've mentioned included in UT2007 but you don't need photorealistic graphics to use them.. You can have realtime shadow, displacement map etc... in an 'unrealistic' graphical style.
Last edited:
moonflyer said:
Yup, its why UT99 works and UT2kx doesn't. The Graphics are just too cartoony and fake looking in UT2kx.
Its also what sucked about the new star wars films, the characters and graphics looked too cartoony and flashy.
Good examples of photo realisitic and fantastically imaginative in the film world would be:
The Machine world in the Matrix, completely imaginary, but it looks believable.
Esp the embryonic chambers the humans are traped in.
The T1000 in Terminator 2, Photorealistic but totally Sci-Fi. The T800 Terminators themselves look like machines that could exist (They have pistons and hydraulics, machine pieces, Infrared camera eyes)
The Laserguns in the future of Terminator, were made to deliberately sound like machineguns by james cameron. He wanted the audience to be able to identify them with modern weapons more, lasers in previous sci fi made rediculous sounds and didn't sound intimidating!
The Dropship in Aliens, was based on a Milltary helicopter. The soldiers, their equipment and weapons were all based on contemporary millitary models, but made more futuristic. The Aliens themselves are completely imaginative but look real, they look like a creature that could exist!
The Creatures in Pitch black are photo-realistic, so is the desert world in it.
In the Stargate movie, the technology is ridiculousy advanced looking, but beleivable and photorealistic.
Cartoony visuals in Science Fiction just don't work, it makes the world twice as unbelievable. Photorealistic doesn't mean drab, bland colours and dull lighting, flat textures and dull enviroments. Your trying to make people believe things that don't exist, or they have never seen, so they have to be at least look a little natural, and be made out of things that are grounded in reality!
I think it may be the cartoonish models that give you that impression about UT200x. You can't very well look at this and tell me that it doesn't look more realistic than UT:
I can tell you not all maps in UT2kx look that good. Most don't infact. Texture and lighting are mostly better in UT99 than in its sequel.
Epic and DE didn't take advantage of the Tech they developed, instead had over- complicated meshes that look fake and hollow, and far too shiny and flashy. Because of the Graphics are cartoony and flashy in UT2kx, I don't think of the fantastical world i'm fighting in, I loose any sense of immersion, and think about it as a collection of rendered computer graphics instead.
If you notice a special effect watching a film for the first time, thats bad, you just think of it as a special effect, the illusion is broken, you no how that trick is done and it all loses credibility very quick. The best special effects are so subtle you don't notice them as special effects! Photo-realism makes things look less and less rendered and more natural looking. Films with crap special effects always look rendered and cartoony, the special effects stick out of their backgrounds instead of blending seamlessly with them.
I think this applies to games too, the player shouldn't be aware of the illusion that been created around them, I shouldn't be able to play a map, and think of it as a collection of skyboxes, meshes and BSP, point out which is which and how each effect was done.
Epic and DE didn't take advantage of the Tech they developed, instead had over- complicated meshes that look fake and hollow, and far too shiny and flashy. Because of the Graphics are cartoony and flashy in UT2kx, I don't think of the fantastical world i'm fighting in, I loose any sense of immersion, and think about it as a collection of rendered computer graphics instead.
If you notice a special effect watching a film for the first time, thats bad, you just think of it as a special effect, the illusion is broken, you no how that trick is done and it all loses credibility very quick. The best special effects are so subtle you don't notice them as special effects! Photo-realism makes things look less and less rendered and more natural looking. Films with crap special effects always look rendered and cartoony, the special effects stick out of their backgrounds instead of blending seamlessly with them.
I think this applies to games too, the player shouldn't be aware of the illusion that been created around them, I shouldn't be able to play a map, and think of it as a collection of skyboxes, meshes and BSP, point out which is which and how each effect was done.