Looking forward to see a deploy animation <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
UWE is flawless, huh? Well then I guess it's time to buy some stock before their inevitable global take-over. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
In all seriousness, I completely disagree. Like you all, I to find that <i>most </i>of what I have seen in NS2's design has be phenomenally awesome and creative. But this specific design is not. Granted I can't foresee your motivations for posting, and some may be genuine (although I still think you all are kind of crazy and I'm certain that if I could show you a better design you'd probably think that was cool too), but I can't help but wonder because I'm not that naive to believe that <i>everything</i> could be 100% awesome. There is always room for improvement.
Amazing textures? Are you kidding me DoloresHaze?! After all of the amazing texture work for the map wall & floors and even the improved hive that Matt and Cory have been doing? That was awesome, but this... it reminds me of one of the hobby-quality alternately skinned model fun packs you used to see on NSArmsLab.org (nothing against the web hosts or artists there including some awesome work by DrFuzzy on that site, but it illustrates my point that it looks like something somebody did as a hobby instead of professional quality work which we have come to expect out of the world-class NS & NS2 development team) Granted, is it bad texturing? Nah, it's ok. But it's <i>not </i>on-par with the excellent work we have already seen from this team, and as a result it will stick out as an eye-sore in the game.
Here's the big question some of you may be asking me: <i><b>Why does it matter what the RT looks like?</b></i>
The most important part of the answer to that question is that the resource tower (RT) is one of <i>the</i> most important structures in the game, which you <i>will</i> see every game and probably on a frequent basis. (considering how vital resource collection is to the RTS aspect of the game) Furthermore, the original NS resource tower was iconic. Iconic is good, especially for a commercial game. Hell you can even sell trinket items based on those icons: <a href="http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Type-1_Energy_Weapon/Sword" target="_blank">Halo's Plasma Sword</a> <img src="http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s216/phyreblade_blog/Misc%20Weapons/Halo%20Energy%20Sword/halo_energy_sword_original.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headcrab" target="_blank">Half-Life's Headcrab</a> <img src="http://www.ohgizmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/headcrab_hat.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /> <a href="http://www.epicweapons.com/products/frostmourne/" target="_blank">Warcraft III's Frostmourne</a> <img src="http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/wowwiki/images/1/14/NEWFrostmourne_wc3.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
And that's just to name a <b>FEW</b>!!!
The old NS resource tower is iconic. Now that I've finally had time to talk to people I haven't seen a year from in-game most of these friends (who don't follow the NS2 development process regularly like I do) are shocked and keep asking me why they would change it to something so ugly? I don't know what to reply with honestly.
<!--quoteo(post=1698410:date=Jan 25 2009, 12:34 PM:name=juice)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(juice @ Jan 25 2009, 12:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698410"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah it does look nice but I admit the first thing I thought was:
Hey, it's as tall as marine view level! Things can hide behind it! Gameplay++<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So if lerk umbra was opaque instead that would make for better gameplay too? Come on, I can think of MUCH better things for impacting gameplay, one of which that is frequently neglected is the audio (not just the music, but the ambiance and implementation of 3D locational sound) [See <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=105328" target="_blank">Moultano's topic</a> for more information]
<!--quoteo(post=1698411:date=Jan 25 2009, 12:40 PM:name=TheNinthPlayer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TheNinthPlayer @ Jan 25 2009, 12:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698411"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm glad you guys kept the dimensions from the original<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Where did you see this implication? The original was wider and lower than this model appears to be and there's no way they could possibly have the same clipbox and hitbox shape or size. Besides, play testing often mandates changes in things such as these to adjust the balance or fix an exploit.
<!--quoteo(post=1698455:date=Jan 25 2009, 05:06 PM:name=the_x5)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5 @ Jan 25 2009, 05:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698455"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ugh... this is like being in a sales meeting and listening to all of the "yes men" pandering to the boss...
UWE is flawless, huh? Well then I guess it's time to buy some stock before their inevitable global take-over.
because I'm not that naive to believe that everything could be 100% awesome.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lets try not to talk down to people just because you have a differing opinion.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->(the_x5 @ Jan 25 2009, 05:06 PM) Ugh... this is like being in a sales meeting and listening to all of the "yes men" pandering to the boss...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow. That has to be one of the most arrogant statements I've come across in awhile. Has it occurred to you that everyone saying that they like they model may - and I'm just throwing this radical idea out there - actually like the model. We're talking aesthetics, there's no right and wrong, there's no way you can please everyone. Their opinion is just as valid as yours, and it comes across as extremely condescending and rude to belittle people for their opinions. Bad x5 - no e-cookie for you.
On the model itself, I can see the design development Cory's gone through - overall working towards a more efficient and compact design and I like the amount of thought that’s gone into that. From above you can clearly see the resemblance with the old RT. However as a few others have already said the legs themselves seem a bit weak and not particularly robust which looks a little out of place. Perhaps just giving it larger feet to rest on would help it feel more balanced, or lowering its centre of gravity somewhat.
The texture work is nice for the most part; only thing I'd say is watch the rounding on some of the normal mapping - some of the chipped paint looks too organic almost due to very rounded and uniform edges.
On the whole, another nice piece guys - look forward to seeing more.
pSyk0mAnNerdish by NatureGermanyJoin Date: 2003-08-07Member: 19166Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Silver, NS2 Community Developer
edited January 2009
<!--quoteo(post=1698455:date=Jan 25 2009, 08:06 PM:name=the_x5)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5 @ Jan 25 2009, 08:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698455"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ugh... this is like being in a sales meeting and listening to all of the "yes men" pandering to the boss...
UWE is flawless, huh? Well then I guess it's time to buy some stock before their inevitable global take-over. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> GJ posting some arrogant crap the 2nd time in a week. Your opinion is neither more important nor special, so quit suggesting that ppl are liars or fanboys, just because they like what they see and don't agree with you. You are insulting and depreciating many ppl in this thread just to make yourself and your post look better.
Regarding the model I agree with those considering the legs seem too weak, but overall I like the model as I said before. I'm only concerned about the balance and how this "thing" is going to effect the minigame between skulks attacking the rt while hiding behind and marines trying to hit them, but you probably can't talk much about balance in this state of ns2.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ugh... this is like being in a sales meeting and listening to all of the "yes men" pandering to the boss...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And that's where I stopped reading. I don't care what points you make, arrogance like that is so off-putting I won't bother to read your posts. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, you included, so make your opinion known without being so disrespectful to everyone else.
I don't like the design either. Here's why: It looks nice, but doesn't make sense- tactically or movement-wise.
Two reasons: Why does it have legs, if it doesn't walk and is built on the node?
Do you REALLY want a tall resource tower that things can hide behind easily?
Alternate suggestions: Have it teleported in, or built in main base. I think it needs a small turret too, but then again, I think EVERYTHING needs a turret, so... whatever.
Option 1: Have it walk there (I like treads). Then it drops down onto the node and starts sucking. As a bonus, you could have it drop a tube on the way there dynamically.
Option 2: Have it float there, then deploy legs and settle down. I do think it should be shorter.
AND- you could give aliens the same kind of thing. Either the alien commander makes a bot that crawls out like the tank version of the human harvester, or the aliens hatch to it and walk there, or maybe have it be a vehicle for a skulk. (Oh yeah, and a turret would be amusing... humans would have to grenade it tactically instead of just rushing up and knifing it.)
<!--quoteo(post=1698488:date=Jan 26 2009, 10:18 AM:name=EvilSmoo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EvilSmoo @ Jan 26 2009, 10:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698488"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't like the design either. Here's why: It looks nice, but doesn't make sense- tactically or movement-wise.
Two reasons: Why does it have legs, if it doesn't walk and is built on the node?
Do you REALLY want a tall resource tower that things can hide behind easily? Alternate suggestions: Have it teleported in, or built in main base. I think it needs a small turret too, but then again, I think EVERYTHING needs a turret, so... whatever.
Option 1: Have it walk there (I like treads). Then it drops down onto the node and starts sucking. As a bonus, you could have it drop a tube on the way there dynamically.
Option 2: Have it float there, then deploy legs and settle down. I do think it should be shorter. AND- you could give aliens the same kind of thing. Either the alien commander makes a bot that crawls out like the tank version of the human harvester, or the aliens hatch to it and walk there, or maybe have it be a vehicle for a skulk. (Oh yeah, and a turret would be amusing... humans would have to grenade it tactically instead of just rushing up and knifing it.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--coloro:#00FFFF--><span style="color:#00FFFF"><!--/coloro-->You are right in these approach, but think that the great majority of players of NS wants a NS2 that looks like NS1 but with source, ragdoll... and the same kind of gameplay... It's good that the aliens have other form of work and build... the game makes more funny ^^ Very funny!
Your reasonings in the human RT are logics in real live, but it's not that the player wants (i don't want it, at least), i want a RT with 4 legs that helps the body to extract resources, and a RT that store the resouces. You can logically look by this way...
If the RT includes a turret, it will be harder to destroy, the functionality of buy a "turret factory" (i don't remember the name) decreases.
I see that you are in the human side more than in the alien... we want a well balanced game, like NS1 ^^
Thx for read this, it was hard because i'm spanish and write this was a hard work. But seing a post like that i need to write a reply.
I wait for NS2 ^^ THX!<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
x5 I made a relatively large post earlier but it got deleted because of the corruption. You are entitled to your opinion but DO NOT talk down to people because their opinion differs. I like the design. I am allowed to say this, just as you are allowed to say you don't.
Get off your high horse, please. I did not even read your points because of your attitude.
In my opinion. The old RT looks like a 1969 Yellow Corvette with an open top. The thing just screams sexy, and who hear doesn't like sexy amirite? The new RT, just looks like an H2 Hummer, tall and blocky, can't do any off-roading at all. I want an UGLY RT if anything, and this isn't the ugly I am looking for.
Turn it on its side, lower it and put rims on it and you might have a deal.
Can anyone explain what - aesthetically or gameplaywise - is so wrong with this resource tower?
Without referencing sexy nanites.
Who says that the RT needs to be cool looking? Maybe they WANT a clunky looking design. You are criticizing the corner of the Guggenheim without even going outside to see the rose shape, because you can't. You are not privy to the overall artistic styling of the game, why would you criticize this structure without seeing it in context against the rest of them?
Contrast is essential. And gameplay is way more important than the ###### color of the resource tower. Get off their backs and let them get into the important stuff or this game really will finish September 31.
If a futuristic and heavily armed military force spends years dealing with vicious and hell-bent aliens, one could reasonably expect their most important structure (arguably) to look badass and/or rugged. The aesthetic problem with this design is it looks neither badass nor rugged, in my opinion at least. The container part of the RT does look extremely solid, it's just that everything attached to it looks extremely fragile. I also just noticed the tubing that connects the resource nozzle to the RTs computer. If that tube is what is transporting the nanites, a skulk could chew through it in one bite and disable the entire tower (though the tube could serve another purpose entirely). I agree with Radix that gameplay is a lot more important than small details, but the overall visual effect of this design doesn't promote the industrial feeling that I think a resource tower should.
I don't think you guys should really go into TOO MUCH detail, because this is a sci-fi game after all, not a lot of stuff make sense in this game anyway.
Because realistically, the marines wouldn't even need to go through all the trouble shooting down the hive and crap, all they need to do is just phase a FREAKING BOMB to the middle of the hive and detonate it...and pretty much job done. But that wouldn't make it a game now would it?
So for a Sci-fi game in my opinion I don't go into too much detail, as long as the stuff looks cool, fit to atmospheric, and don't ruin gameplay I'm okay with it. I mean really though, when you playing natural selection, you better be on the look out for skulk, and commander voice commands. You really don't have time to worry about gravity, freaking balance, and physic cause you'll be doing those stuff at school.
But right now I don't think everyone is ready to except this new design ( could be nostalgia ), but I guess improvements can be made. Just give it bigger legs, make it so that skulk can't shield behind it, and remove the tube because it giving quite lot of confusion.
<!--quoteo(post=1698409:date=Jan 25 2009, 09:23 AM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Jan 25 2009, 09:23 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698409"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Remember in your criticisms that we wanted NS2, not NS:S - this is a mild differentiation from NS and it seems promising. I don't think that skulk kills will be too hard by any means - if anything, they might be too easy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We've been talking about the negative reaction we've been hearing and I think this post gets at the heart of the matter. These forums exist for discourse and to keep us abreast with the voice of the community so this conversation (including any negative reaction) is important to us.
We are making a sequel, not a remake of Natural Selection. Of course, we want you guys to love it (we probably won't be able to make any more games if you don't!) but we also want to really improve the game.
There are many aspects of Natural Selection 1 that we weren't totally happy with, or that we were unable to give full attention to. For Cory, that meant that he wasn't even able to paint concept art for every model and that we often took the very first model that was created. Although we don't have the luxury of iterating tons now either, we are at least able to re-think the artistic choices made in NS and are throwing out the stuff we're not happy with.
Cory would be better able to tell you about the intentional decisions he's making about the marine and alien art design in NS2, but let me say that we are all a lot happier with our "new" art look now then we ever were with the final results you've grown to know in NS1.
I love it, looks fresh, not as clumsy as the old one and very atmospheric. Can’t see why it would be hard to kill skulks with it, if anything they are giving as much cover as the alien rts gave in ns. That pump looks like it’s gonna soak up the next wave of my shotty rush, arr arr arr!
Whats with people 'not understanding what the legs are for, since it doesn't walk'? You can blatantly see that the legs fold up into the core body. Meaning, this new rt likely spawns as a box sitting on top of the res node. Once the marines build it, it probably has the legs come out, lift up the core body, and then the nozzle lowers. It would look waaaay cooler than the current res tower's build animations.
Out of all the comments that I've read here, the only criticisms that really made complete sense to me were that the resource tube looks pretty fragile and exposed. Other than that I wouldn't complain about the size or the new look at all.
aeroripperJoin Date: 2005-02-25Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited January 2009
It looks great, outside of it looking a little fragile like other people have said. It actually looks like its a real machine with all the displays working. Hope you guys get a good animation for it.
Yeah I agree with people valuing gameplay above aesthetics. Just look at the success of downloable retro games and the Wii. Just make the game fun first with all the right gameplay and then you can spend all those hours deciding where a hose goes in a resource tower. Honestly an RT can look like a giant toilet for all I care. Just get the game to be fun first then worry about the art. But it does look good, just the concern is that it seems real bulky for skulks to hide, which affects gameplay...actually an rt that looks like a toilet sounds like fun <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
I want to be concise and brief with my points so people don't have to read a huge post.
1. A tank? For harvesting <b>nanites</b>? Nanites sound small. And if it's only 50 or whatever to build an armory, do you really need a big tank to hold 50 nanites? 2. More interestingly, if the new RT's do hold nanites, could destroying an RT cause marines to actually LOSE some res instead of just stopping their income? 3. So what if it gives the aliens somewhere to hide. That's why they're called SKULKS and LERKS. If everything were out in the open, it wouldn't be a very fair fight for the aliens [skulks don't have range btw]. 4. I enjoy the model. I just want you to consider the fact that it's supposed to be holding [small] nanites, and if it is <i>holding</i> resources, what the implications of that is.
1. Nanites are small, the goo fuelling them and bacteria (commonly known as "resources") takes more space. But since we can store an infinite amount of the stuff already, being a tank doesn't make immediate sense anyway. I'm sure it's just there to look cool. 2. Could be interesting for gameplay, although losing a RT is already a fairly severe setback 3. Well, isn't the idea that skulks and lerks shouldn't be able to be in the open very long when a marine is there? 4. Think you're looking a bit too deep into it...
Thanks for all the comments, everybody. Some good feedback and concerns. To start with, I just want to make sure everyone tries to respect one another's opinions, no matter what side of the fence they are on, and so far, aside from a few posts, that's mostly been the case, and we appreciate that.
While we do want to keep the community informed about the progress of NS2, I also want to make clear that you are only seeing a small piece of the development process. Obviously we can't post up every conversation and design iteration we have internally in regards to NS 2 and it's assets. And, while it is understandable to want to judge a single specific asset on its own, please also realize that there is often a lot of context missing. In this case, seeing this building in relation to all of the other NS2 redesigned structures, in relation to the aliens, in relation to the environments, etc. Not to mention it's being viewed in still images, at mostly 1 angle, and without any of the animations.
In the design phase of the Resource Tower, there are a lot of considerations to make. How to tie it in aesthetically to the other marine structures and general look that has been developed for NS2. What kinds of interesting deploy animations and active animations can it have? What does it look like from top down Commander Mode view? Does it visually convey the information of what it does, even to people not familiar with the original NS? Part of the design aesthetic of NS2 is also a sort of blending of looks between the aliens and marines. Most of the marine structures are designed to have a distinctly animal feel to the way they look, and I think this gives them much more personality then most of the original NS 1 designs.
Something like having an exposed hose might not make the most sense from a realistic standpoint, considering there are skulks running around all waiting to chew on it, but it does help get the idea across as to what the machine does. I would argue that the original NS resource tower had very few visual clues to let a new player know what it's gameplay purpose was. But if you see this, sitting on top of a resource nozzle, with the hose animated as if it's sucking something up, and seeing the storage containers expand out, like it's being filled, I think it will give a good impression as to what it's function is, as well as have a lot more visual interest in general. the design of the horizontally expanding storage containers also adds more interest from the commanders top down view, and allows him to see how it is functioning.
There was an interesting comment regarding the relative banality of the modern day electrical warning symbol. While I agree that it would be nice to spend the time to develop a whole futuristic symbol system for the marines to employ, given our very limited time and resources it just doesn't make sense to devote the time necessary to do that. So, the fastest and easiest way to get the idea across, and add some extra visual details, is to slap an existing standard symbol on the machine and call it done.
As far as the new resource tower looking too low tech and not futuristic enough in comparison to the old, I can understand where you are coming from. However, the marine machinery was always meant to have a low tech industrial look. To a large extent the lack of detail we could fit into a model for the halflife engine meant that the models lacked a lot of the mechanical details that I would have liked to show. Exposed hydraulics, cables, etc. Therefore, because the technology behind how the machines actually worked is missing from the NS models, they appear in many ways to be more futuristic. I also wanted to make sure that the NS2 machines all felt plausible in their mechanical working, and not just have parts appear out of nowhere as it plays it's animation (an example is comparing the old transformers to the new ones in the movie, where parts just appear, grow, bend and do whatever just so it can transform and look cool).
There have been some mentions as to the direction of the new "bright, clean, saturated and colorful" look of NS2 assets, and I would disagree with that. I do agree that we are trying to make a game with some color to it, unlike the majority of next gen brown and yellow games out there right now. But I don't think that these assets are going to be any more saturated and colorful then the original NS ones, and I think if you look at the actual textures from then, like the highly saturated green of the marine's armor, you'd be able to tell. That said, the in engine render of the resource tower was set taken with a lighting setup that was a bit overly colorful, and I think that contributes to the more "colorful" look of it.
I can't really speak about the gameplay aspects of the skulk mini games that apparently were so popular in the original NS, and how the new resource tower is better or worse, since that's not my area of expertise. However I would warn against bemoaning the potential change or loss of one small gameplay aspect when NS2 might add many more that wouldn't have been possible in the original.
I also understand a lot of people's concerns about the thinness of the legs. The size of the legs were designed partly to reduce footprint of the resource tower, since several of the other structures in NS2 are larger then the original ones, and we want to make sure that the resource tower doesn't stick out too far into the gameplay space. Also the legs are meant to fold up into the slots on the side of the body, so the machine can be more compact for transporting, and to add more interest to the deploy animation. Additionally, as part of our early discussions regarding the design of the RT, we felt like the original one felt too big and thick and invulnerable, and that it didn't look like a skulk could actually destroy it by biting it, and therefore designed the new one to look more vulnerable to bite attacks. I personally also happen to like the slightly top heavy look of the RT.
That said, I don't feel that the thing would topple over easily. Between the 4 legs and the extended hydraulic part that anchors onto the resource nozzle, I think it could easily support the weight of it's body, without just toppling over. And if it is pushed in one direction the hydraulic legs could self correct. Now, standing up to an Onos attack might be another thing, but who knows, maybe that can be worked into gameplay. I have seen plenty of examples of existing machinery that looks fairly precarious and implausible. Here's an image of a gigantic crane vehicle raised off the ground by supports that don't look like they would hold all that weight. And it's lifting a large military plane.
[attachment=35874:crane.jpg]
So, I understand that everyone knows and loves the original NS assets, and it is never easy to see stuff changed. We value your opinion, but we also have to weigh the cost of refining each asset to be universally accepted, versus getting the rest of the game finished. We would love to create every NS2 asset to be the coolest, most iconic, thing you've ever seen, but realistically that's not going to be the case. There are going to be designs that almost everyone loves, and ones that almost every one hate, but if, at the end, we have a fun game, that looks good, and has some really cool stuff in it, then we've done our job.
KassingerShades of greyJoin Date: 2002-02-20Member: 229Members, Constellation
edited January 2009
Yes, it's hard for us fans to fully appreciate all the thought that been going into each and every design, which is probably one of the reasons most companies don't publish a lot on the development process. And it's a testament to how much you care about the community that you let the feedback concern you so much. I'm glad UWE doesn't just panic either, and change all plans because the feedback on one particular feature (on one particular day) doesn't turn out as great as you hoped. It's hard to tell how strongly people mean or feel something in writing.
(If only we had something other than emoticons for conveying tone of voice in writing.)
On the model itself, I really liked it, though I wouldn't mind if the legs were made stockier.
I disagree with the notion some posters have that just because TSA is a futuristic military, everything has to look Ãœber and flashy. I looks practical and something that could easily be moved in a box. I like the industrial feel.
And on a sidenote, constructive criticism is important in avoiding '<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink" target="_blank">groupthink</a>', which is fatal to projects and especially groups high on enthusiasm, which is what I think x5 meant by 'yes-men'. He just forgot that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, that people might honestly see the model different from him.
nowadays games tend to look less real, and more special especially sci-fi/fantasy games
dont get me wrong, the RT model doesnt look bad its just it looks very "normal" it doesnt make me say "wow!"
it looks <b>too</b> real, <b>too</b> comprehensible why it probably could really look like this this is ok, but automatically eleminates the players fantasy, and make it look kind of "boring".!
if i would design those models, i'd make it look much more futuristic, more metallic, more shiny, more SPECIAL
Comments
<!--quoteo(post=1698384:date=Jan 25 2009, 03:57 AM:name=glimmerman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(glimmerman @ Jan 25 2009, 03:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698384"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I really like it!
I don't think I'd say it looks upgraded in respect to the old one but it looks good nevertheless<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1698385:date=Jan 25 2009, 04:19 AM:name=DoloresHaze)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DoloresHaze @ Jan 25 2009, 04:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698385"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Amazing textures. Looks really nice.
Looking forward to see a deploy animation <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1698398:date=Jan 25 2009, 08:42 AM:name=StandingCow)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(StandingCow @ Jan 25 2009, 08:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698398"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sweet!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
UWE is flawless, huh? Well then I guess it's time to buy some stock before their inevitable global take-over. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
In all seriousness, I completely disagree. Like you all, I to find that <i>most </i>of what I have seen in NS2's design has be phenomenally awesome and creative. But this specific design is not. Granted I can't foresee your motivations for posting, and some may be genuine (although I still think you all are kind of crazy and I'm certain that if I could show you a better design you'd probably think that was cool too), but I can't help but wonder because I'm not that naive to believe that <i>everything</i> could be 100% awesome. There is always room for improvement.
Amazing textures? Are you kidding me DoloresHaze?! After all of the amazing texture work for the map wall & floors and even the improved hive that Matt and Cory have been doing? That was awesome, but this... it reminds me of one of the hobby-quality alternately skinned model fun packs you used to see on NSArmsLab.org (nothing against the web hosts or artists there including some awesome work by DrFuzzy on that site, but it illustrates my point that it looks like something somebody did as a hobby instead of professional quality work which we have come to expect out of the world-class NS & NS2 development team) Granted, is it bad texturing? Nah, it's ok. But it's <i>not </i>on-par with the excellent work we have already seen from this team, and as a result it will stick out as an eye-sore in the game.
Here's the big question some of you may be asking me: <i><b>Why does it matter what the RT looks like?</b></i>
The most important part of the answer to that question is that the resource tower (RT) is one of <i>the</i> most important structures in the game, which you <i>will</i> see every game and probably on a frequent basis. (considering how vital resource collection is to the RTS aspect of the game) Furthermore, the original NS resource tower was iconic. Iconic is good, especially for a commercial game. Hell you can even sell trinket items based on those icons:
<a href="http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Type-1_Energy_Weapon/Sword" target="_blank">Halo's Plasma Sword</a>
<img src="http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s216/phyreblade_blog/Misc%20Weapons/Halo%20Energy%20Sword/halo_energy_sword_original.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headcrab" target="_blank">Half-Life's Headcrab</a>
<img src="http://www.ohgizmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/headcrab_hat.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<a href="http://www.epicweapons.com/products/frostmourne/" target="_blank">Warcraft III's Frostmourne</a>
<img src="http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/wowwiki/images/1/14/NEWFrostmourne_wc3.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
And that's just to name a <b>FEW</b>!!!
The old NS resource tower is iconic. Now that I've finally had time to talk to people I haven't seen a year from in-game most of these friends (who don't follow the NS2 development process regularly like I do) are shocked and keep asking me why they would change it to something so ugly? I don't know what to reply with honestly.
<!--quoteo(post=1698410:date=Jan 25 2009, 12:34 PM:name=juice)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(juice @ Jan 25 2009, 12:34 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698410"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah it does look nice but I admit the first thing I thought was:
Hey, it's as tall as marine view level! Things can hide behind it! Gameplay++<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So if lerk umbra was opaque instead that would make for better gameplay too? Come on, I can think of MUCH better things for impacting gameplay, one of which that is frequently neglected is the audio (not just the music, but the ambiance and implementation of 3D locational sound) [See <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=105328" target="_blank">Moultano's topic</a> for more information]
<!--quoteo(post=1698411:date=Jan 25 2009, 12:40 PM:name=TheNinthPlayer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TheNinthPlayer @ Jan 25 2009, 12:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1698411"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm glad you guys kept the dimensions from the original<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where did you see this implication? The original was wider and lower than this model appears to be and there's no way they could possibly have the same clipbox and hitbox shape or size. Besides, play testing often mandates changes in things such as these to adjust the balance or fix an exploit.
UWE is flawless, huh? Well then I guess it's time to buy some stock before their inevitable global take-over.
because I'm not that naive to believe that everything could be 100% awesome.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lets try not to talk down to people just because you have a differing opinion.
I don't like the new RT either x5, but that doesn't mean that no one does. At least their voicing their opinions.
Ugh... this is like being in a sales meeting and listening to all of the "yes men" pandering to the boss...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow. That has to be one of the most arrogant statements I've come across in awhile. Has it occurred to you that everyone saying that they like they model may - and I'm just throwing this radical idea out there - actually like the model. We're talking aesthetics, there's no right and wrong, there's no way you can please everyone. Their opinion is just as valid as yours, and it comes across as extremely condescending and rude to belittle people for their opinions. Bad x5 - no e-cookie for you.
On the model itself, I can see the design development Cory's gone through - overall working towards a more efficient and compact design and I like the amount of thought that’s gone into that. From above you can clearly see the resemblance with the old RT. However as a few others have already said the legs themselves seem a bit weak and not particularly robust which looks a little out of place. Perhaps just giving it larger feet to rest on would help it feel more balanced, or lowering its centre of gravity somewhat.
The texture work is nice for the most part; only thing I'd say is watch the rounding on some of the normal mapping - some of the chipped paint looks too organic almost due to very rounded and uniform edges.
On the whole, another nice piece guys - look forward to seeing more.
UWE is flawless, huh? Well then I guess it's time to buy some stock before their inevitable global take-over. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
GJ posting some arrogant crap the 2nd time in a week.
Your opinion is neither more important nor special, so quit suggesting that ppl are liars or fanboys, just because they like what they see and don't agree with you.
You are insulting and depreciating many ppl in this thread just to make yourself and your post look better.
Regarding the model I agree with those considering the legs seem too weak, but overall I like the model as I said before.
I'm only concerned about the balance and how this "thing" is going to effect the minigame between skulks attacking the rt while hiding behind and marines trying to hit them, but you probably can't talk much about balance in this state of ns2.
And that's where I stopped reading. I don't care what points you make, arrogance like that is so off-putting I won't bother to read your posts. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, you included, so make your opinion known without being so disrespectful to everyone else.
Two reasons:
Why does it have legs, if it doesn't walk and is built on the node?
Do you REALLY want a tall resource tower that things can hide behind easily?
Alternate suggestions: Have it teleported in, or built in main base. I think it needs a small turret too, but then again, I think EVERYTHING needs a turret, so... whatever.
Option 1: Have it walk there (I like treads). Then it drops down onto the node and starts sucking. As a bonus, you could have it drop a tube on the way there dynamically.
Option 2: Have it float there, then deploy legs and settle down. I do think it should be shorter.
AND- you could give aliens the same kind of thing. Either the alien commander makes a bot that crawls out like the tank version of the human harvester, or the aliens hatch to it and walk there, or maybe have it be a vehicle for a skulk. (Oh yeah, and a turret would be amusing... humans would have to grenade it tactically instead of just rushing up and knifing it.)
Two reasons:
Why does it have legs, if it doesn't walk and is built on the node?
Do you REALLY want a tall resource tower that things can hide behind easily?
Alternate suggestions: Have it teleported in, or built in main base. I think it needs a small turret too, but then again, I think EVERYTHING needs a turret, so... whatever.
Option 1: Have it walk there (I like treads). Then it drops down onto the node and starts sucking. As a bonus, you could have it drop a tube on the way there dynamically.
Option 2: Have it float there, then deploy legs and settle down. I do think it should be shorter.
AND- you could give aliens the same kind of thing. Either the alien commander makes a bot that crawls out like the tank version of the human harvester, or the aliens hatch to it and walk there, or maybe have it be a vehicle for a skulk. (Oh yeah, and a turret would be amusing... humans would have to grenade it tactically instead of just rushing up and knifing it.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--coloro:#00FFFF--><span style="color:#00FFFF"><!--/coloro-->You are right in these approach, but think that the great majority of players of NS wants a NS2 that looks like NS1 but with source, ragdoll... and the same kind of gameplay...
It's good that the aliens have other form of work and build... the game makes more funny ^^ Very funny!
Your reasonings in the human RT are logics in real live, but it's not that the player wants (i don't want it, at least), i want a RT with 4 legs that helps the body to extract resources, and a RT that store the resouces. You can logically look by this way...
If the RT includes a turret, it will be harder to destroy, the functionality of buy a "turret factory" (i don't remember the name) decreases.
I see that you are in the human side more than in the alien... we want a well balanced game, like NS1 ^^
Thx for read this, it was hard because i'm spanish and write this was a hard work. But seing a post like that i need to write a reply.
I wait for NS2 ^^ THX!<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Get off your high horse, please. I did not even read your points because of your attitude.
The new RT, just looks like an H2 Hummer, tall and blocky, can't do any off-roading at all. I want an UGLY RT if anything, and this isn't the ugly I am looking for.
Turn it on its side, lower it and put rims on it and you might have a deal.
Without referencing sexy nanites.
Who says that the RT needs to be cool looking? Maybe they WANT a clunky looking design. You are criticizing the corner of the Guggenheim without even going outside to see the rose shape, because you can't. You are not privy to the overall artistic styling of the game, why would you criticize this structure without seeing it in context against the rest of them?
Contrast is essential. And gameplay is way more important than the ###### color of the resource tower. Get off their backs and let them get into the important stuff or this game really will finish September 31.
Because realistically, the marines wouldn't even need to go through all the trouble shooting down the hive and crap, all they need to do is just phase a FREAKING BOMB to the middle of the hive and detonate it...and pretty much job done. But that wouldn't make it a game now would it?
So for a Sci-fi game in my opinion I don't go into too much detail, as long as the stuff looks cool, fit to atmospheric, and don't ruin gameplay I'm okay with it. I mean really though, when you playing natural selection, you better be on the look out for skulk, and commander voice commands. You really don't have time to worry about gravity, freaking balance, and physic cause you'll be doing those stuff at school.
But right now I don't think everyone is ready to except this new design ( could be nostalgia ), but I guess improvements can be made. Just give it bigger legs, make it so that skulk can't shield behind it, and remove the tube because it giving quite lot of confusion.
We've been talking about the negative reaction we've been hearing and I think this post gets at the heart of the matter. These forums exist for discourse and to keep us abreast with the voice of the community so this conversation (including any negative reaction) is important to us.
We are making a sequel, not a remake of Natural Selection. Of course, we want you guys to love it (we probably won't be able to make any more games if you don't!) but we also want to really improve the game.
There are many aspects of Natural Selection 1 that we weren't totally happy with, or that we were unable to give full attention to. For Cory, that meant that he wasn't even able to paint concept art for every model and that we often took the very first model that was created. Although we don't have the luxury of iterating tons now either, we are at least able to re-think the artistic choices made in NS and are throwing out the stuff we're not happy with.
Cory would be better able to tell you about the intentional decisions he's making about the marine and alien art design in NS2, but let me say that we are all a lot happier with our "new" art look now then we ever were with the final results you've grown to know in NS1.
1. A tank? For harvesting <b>nanites</b>? Nanites sound small. And if it's only 50 or whatever to build an armory, do you really need a big tank to hold 50 nanites?
2. More interestingly, if the new RT's do hold nanites, could destroying an RT cause marines to actually LOSE some res instead of just stopping their income?
3. So what if it gives the aliens somewhere to hide. That's why they're called SKULKS and LERKS. If everything were out in the open, it wouldn't be a very fair fight for the aliens [skulks don't have range btw].
4. I enjoy the model. I just want you to consider the fact that it's supposed to be holding [small] nanites, and if it is <i>holding</i> resources, what the implications of that is.
2. Could be interesting for gameplay, although losing a RT is already a fairly severe setback
3. Well, isn't the idea that skulks and lerks shouldn't be able to be in the open very long when a marine is there?
4. Think you're looking a bit too deep into it...
While we do want to keep the community informed about the progress of NS2, I also want to make clear that you are only seeing a small piece of the development process. Obviously we can't post up every conversation and design iteration we have internally in regards to NS 2 and it's assets. And, while it is understandable to want to judge a single specific asset on its own, please also realize that there is often a lot of context missing. In this case, seeing this building in relation to all of the other NS2 redesigned structures, in relation to the aliens, in relation to the environments, etc. Not to mention it's being viewed in still images, at mostly 1 angle, and without any of the animations.
In the design phase of the Resource Tower, there are a lot of considerations to make. How to tie it in aesthetically to the other marine structures and general look that has been developed for NS2. What kinds of interesting deploy animations and active animations can it have? What does it look like from top down Commander Mode view? Does it visually convey the information of what it does, even to people not familiar with the original NS? Part of the design aesthetic of NS2 is also a sort of blending of looks between the aliens and marines. Most of the marine structures are designed to have a distinctly animal feel to the way they look, and I think this gives them much more personality then most of the original NS 1 designs.
Something like having an exposed hose might not make the most sense from a realistic standpoint, considering there are skulks running around all waiting to chew on it, but it does help get the idea across as to what the machine does. I would argue that the original NS resource tower had very few visual clues to let a new player know what it's gameplay purpose was. But if you see this, sitting on top of a resource nozzle, with the hose animated as if it's sucking something up, and seeing the storage containers expand out, like it's being filled, I think it will give a good impression as to what it's function is, as well as have a lot more visual interest in general. the design of the horizontally expanding storage containers also adds more interest from the commanders top down view, and allows him to see how it is functioning.
There was an interesting comment regarding the relative banality of the modern day electrical warning symbol. While I agree that it would be nice to spend the time to develop a whole futuristic symbol system for the marines to employ, given our very limited time and resources it just doesn't make sense to devote the time necessary to do that. So, the fastest and easiest way to get the idea across, and add some extra visual details, is to slap an existing standard symbol on the machine and call it done.
As far as the new resource tower looking too low tech and not futuristic enough in comparison to the old, I can understand where you are coming from. However, the marine machinery was always meant to have a low tech industrial look. To a large extent the lack of detail we could fit into a model for the halflife engine meant that the models lacked a lot of the mechanical details that I would have liked to show. Exposed hydraulics, cables, etc. Therefore, because the technology behind how the machines actually worked is missing from the NS models, they appear in many ways to be more futuristic. I also wanted to make sure that the NS2 machines all felt plausible in their mechanical working, and not just have parts appear out of nowhere as it plays it's animation (an example is comparing the old transformers to the new ones in the movie, where parts just appear, grow, bend and do whatever just so it can transform and look cool).
There have been some mentions as to the direction of the new "bright, clean, saturated and colorful" look of NS2 assets, and I would disagree with that. I do agree that we are trying to make a game with some color to it, unlike the majority of next gen brown and yellow games out there right now. But I don't think that these assets are going to be any more saturated and colorful then the original NS ones, and I think if you look at the actual textures from then, like the highly saturated green of the marine's armor, you'd be able to tell. That said, the in engine render of the resource tower was set taken with a lighting setup that was a bit overly colorful, and I think that contributes to the more "colorful" look of it.
I can't really speak about the gameplay aspects of the skulk mini games that apparently were so popular in the original NS, and how the new resource tower is better or worse, since that's not my area of expertise. However I would warn against bemoaning the potential change or loss of one small gameplay aspect when NS2 might add many more that wouldn't have been possible in the original.
I also understand a lot of people's concerns about the thinness of the legs. The size of the legs were designed partly to reduce footprint of the resource tower, since several of the other structures in NS2 are larger then the original ones, and we want to make sure that the resource tower doesn't stick out too far into the gameplay space. Also the legs are meant to fold up into the slots on the side of the body, so the machine can be more compact for transporting, and to add more interest to the deploy animation. Additionally, as part of our early discussions regarding the design of the RT, we felt like the original one felt too big and thick and invulnerable, and that it didn't look like a skulk could actually destroy it by biting it, and therefore designed the new one to look more vulnerable to bite attacks. I personally also happen to like the slightly top heavy look of the RT.
That said, I don't feel that the thing would topple over easily. Between the 4 legs and the extended hydraulic part that anchors onto the resource nozzle, I think it could easily support the weight of it's body, without just toppling over. And if it is pushed in one direction the hydraulic legs could self correct. Now, standing up to an Onos attack might be another thing, but who knows, maybe that can be worked into gameplay. I have seen plenty of examples of existing machinery that looks fairly precarious and implausible. Here's an image of a gigantic crane vehicle raised off the ground by supports that don't look like they would hold all that weight. And it's lifting a large military plane.
[attachment=35874:crane.jpg]
So, I understand that everyone knows and loves the original NS assets, and it is never easy to see stuff changed. We value your opinion, but we also have to weigh the cost of refining each asset to be universally accepted, versus getting the rest of the game finished. We would love to create every NS2 asset to be the coolest, most iconic, thing you've ever seen, but realistically that's not going to be the case. There are going to be designs that almost everyone loves, and ones that almost every one hate, but if, at the end, we have a fun game, that looks good, and has some really cool stuff in it, then we've done our job.
Thanks.
--Cory
(If only we had something other than emoticons for conveying tone of voice in writing.)
On the model itself, I really liked it, though I wouldn't mind if the legs were made stockier.
I disagree with the notion some posters have that just because TSA is a futuristic military, everything has to look Ãœber and flashy. I looks practical and something that could easily be moved in a box. I like the industrial feel.
And on a sidenote, constructive criticism is important in avoiding '<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink" target="_blank">groupthink</a>', which is fatal to projects and especially groups high on enthusiasm, which is what I think x5 meant by 'yes-men'. He just forgot that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, that people might honestly see the model different from him.
But I do see valid arguments in all of the rebuttals posted above.
I would like to make a question, what about the different destruction stage, when a alien attack it.
nowadays games tend to look less real, and more special
especially sci-fi/fantasy games
dont get me wrong, the RT model doesnt look bad
its just it looks very "normal"
it doesnt make me say "wow!"
it looks <b>too</b> real, <b>too</b> comprehensible why it probably could really look like this
this is ok, but automatically eleminates the players fantasy, and make it look kind of "boring".!
if i would design those models, i'd make it look much more futuristic, more metallic, more shiny, more SPECIAL