I'm not going to defend his arguments, but by the way, fanboys, suspension of disbelief is pretty important, and something that can *not* be just 'explained away'. How people just naturally think something should look and function. Writing it off with a bunch of bogus pseudoscience crap should never be necessary. Even something as crazy as a 'nanite weapon' can by stylized in a way that suggests as such to the user. Jarring a reader, viewer, or player out of their suspension of disbelief can be highly damaging to a game's overall feel. Even something like being able to see your own feet adds that little bit.
A good example - Far Cry 2. Most games 'get away' with weapon jams via something dumb like just a 'click' when you pull the trigger, and you simply reload and the jam is cleared. In Far Cry 2, you have undoubtedly the most realistic weapon jams ever seen in a game - visible double-feeds with your character trying to clear it, until you hit the button, and the proper steps to clear a jam are visibly taken - the guy reseats the magazine, pulls back the handle, observes the chamber and lets the round out, releases the handle, taps the forward assist, and resumes firing - and on top of it all, you're down one bullet from the one you lost in clearing the jam. Little things like that add up in a game (though they couldn't save FC2, admittedly).
Saying some as mind-breakingly dumb as 'the shotgun works by nanites breaking down junk and fabricating ammo!' is stupid beyond my meager lexicon to describe. Not only is that 'justification' simply made-up to try to justify something that clearly isn't even happening, but an explanation doesn't fix the fact that it STILL looks really, really bad.
Some people will always be overly pedantic (OP), and some people will screech like harpies to defend any kind of idiotic thing they're fanboys too, under some moronic assumption that some people will NEVER DO ANYTHING WRONG... Complaining about ironsights? Not really a huge deal. Get over it. The shotgun reloading? Yeah that looks just dumb as hell.
Most of the people who complain about things like this don't actually give a damn about how something works, no amount of psychobabble can justify something that simply looks and feels odd. Half Life: Opposing Force had an alien gun that was a weird green thing stuck on your arm. You fed it spore balls and it shot them out. Nobody demanded any justification beyond this - you shove spores in its mouth, it spits them out to devastating effect later. Battlefield 2142 had air-burst rockets that could be manually range-tuned. Nobody complained that there were no visible range-adjusting buttons on the model itself - the effect they achieved was entirely convincing enough to distract the user.
The point is, <b>nobody should ever be noticing these things</b>. When something fits seamlessly in the world, it goes ignored. If people are noticing things, it means there's a problem.
I am in agreement with temphage. Well written I say!
Something that seems blatantly weird can be very difficult to explain away as shown by some attempts in thread.
In summary:
The shotgun is a tad weird, most would get over it but it really doesn't work so well. Maybe if the shells were placed further back on the weapon it could be feasible. But the position it is right now is a little much.
Aliens have armour where they do for the reason stated earlier. Because they are attacking and winning and thus surviving but with wounds in their frontal area; evolution dictates that these survivors would then develop armour to protect against similar wounds in future conflicts.
Marine guns are big and bulky because they pack some mean punch with minimal recoil. Something which requires bulk unless you're willing to drop extreme amounts of mulah for a sleeker looking weapon (I dont think so), or packing railguns (which I believe to have very little recoil but could be completely wrong).
<!--quoteo(post=1790647:date=Aug 2 2010, 09:32 AM:name=Harathan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harathan @ Aug 2 2010, 09:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790647"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I realises you and your idiot cronies just want to wheel out "IT USES NANITES!!111one" every time someone levels a logical criticism at some design aspects, but honestly it just makes you look stupid.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, trying to make logical criticism of something that fundamentally makes no logical sense (i.e., marine technology) is stupid. NANITES!!!11one is actually the best explanation for everything given the context.
I mean, if you're going to bring logic to the table to try to explain the way things look in NS, why stop at the weapons? How are commanders able to produce buildings and objects out of thin air? The answer is literally, nanites. If you're willing to accept that (as that is the core concept behind the NS lore), then why not accept it as an explanation for the look of the weapons?
<!--quoteo(post=1790964:date=Aug 3 2010, 06:42 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Aug 3 2010, 06:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790964"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not going to defend his arguments, but by the way, fanboys, suspension of disbelief is pretty important, and something that can *not* be just 'explained away'.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of "suspension of disbelief". You suspend your disbelief when you no something makes no logical sense. The entirety of the NS universe requires suspension of belief because very little of it makes sense, and it wouldn't be required if things looked like they did.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The point is, <b>nobody should ever be noticing these things</b>. When something fits seamlessly in the world, it goes ignored. If people are noticing things, it means there's a problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When you start entering into the realm of fantasy, everyone has a slightly different interpretation of things. Things that are more grounded in reality obviously have less chance to be disputed.
I also haven't witnessed any of this alleged fanboyism. Nobody here is even implying in their posts that UWE's aesthetic choices are infallible. In fact, I think we all know they just wanted things to look cool (well, except maybe the OP).
There is an acceptable level of illogical, unreal, unbelievable, etc that a given medium can present before suspension of disbelief is broken.
Given that we're looking at guns, and guns are a known value (you pull the trigger, bullets come out the end) the level of weirdness thats acceptable is low.
You can invoke the nanites excuse for many things in this game, but how the shotgun loads is not one of them.
No. Because the issue isnt what the gun is, its whats being done to the gun.
The absolute bottom line of this is: on the shotgun model, ammo of some kind is beind loaded one in front of the other into the same barrel its being fired from. You've put things that go bang one in front of each other down a tube.
I'll buy the nanites reasoning for a lot of things, but even nanites cant explain why the gun doesnt explode in your face when you pull the trigger.
"IT WORKS BY NANITES!" is not an excuse for terrible design. The Assault Rifle and Pistol are stupid looking, but they still look and act like guns, so I'm not compelled to headbutt my keyboard every time I see them in action.
The Shotgun, by comparison, is hilariously dysfunctional. I can deal with the fact that it's the future and we're using weapon technology inferior to what we already have today because an Automatic Shotgun would basically ruin the game for Skulks, but there's no excuse for saying "This is a gun" and then making something that blatantly cannot function.
<!--quoteo(post=1791243:date=Aug 3 2010, 05:02 PM:name=Voyager I)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Voyager I @ Aug 3 2010, 05:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791243"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"IT WORKS BY NANITES!" is not an excuse for terrible design. The Assault Rifle and Pistol are stupid looking, but they still look and act like guns, so I'm not compelled to headbutt my keyboard every time I see them in action.
The Shotgun, by comparison, is hilariously dysfunctional. I can deal with the fact that it's the future and we're using weapon technology inferior to what we already have today because an Automatic Shotgun would basically ruin the game for Skulks, but there's no excuse for saying "This is a gun" and then making something that blatantly cannot function.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What he said.
<!--quoteo(post=1790964:date=Aug 3 2010, 06:42 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Aug 3 2010, 06:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790964"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Some people will always be overly pedantic (OP)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I must agree.
<!--quoteo(post=1790964:date=Aug 3 2010, 06:42 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Aug 3 2010, 06:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790964"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The point is, <b>nobody should ever be noticing these things</b>. When something fits seamlessly in the world, it goes ignored. If people are noticing things, it means there's a problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What he said.
<!--quoteo(post=1790987:date=Aug 3 2010, 08:03 AM:name=Donner & Blitzen)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Donner & Blitzen @ Aug 3 2010, 08:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790987"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In fact, I think we all know they just wanted things to look cool (well, except maybe the OP).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know what they were trying to do. It just didn't work.
<!--quoteo(post=1790981:date=Aug 3 2010, 07:50 AM:name=Donner & Blitzen)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Donner & Blitzen @ Aug 3 2010, 07:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790981"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How are commanders able to produce buildings and objects out of thin air?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I figured it worked on the same/similar technology as phase gates and infantry portals. A technology not far from Star Trek's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transporter_%28Star_Trek%29" target="_blank">Transporter</a> which worked by means of de-materialization and re-materialization. The marines coming in through IFs had to come from somewhere, I figured the weapons and structures dropped by the comm came from the same mass military base/warehouse.
<!--quoteo(post=1790976:date=Aug 3 2010, 07:32 AM:name=alphz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (alphz @ Aug 3 2010, 07:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790976"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Aliens have armour where they do for the reason stated earlier. Because they are attacking and winning and thus surviving but with wounds in their frontal area; evolution dictates that these survivors would then develop armour to protect against similar wounds in future conflicts.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In regular evolution, yes. But considering the Aliens are a Hive Mind, the hive is aware of what the Aliens are feeling, seeing etc. Therefore, when the Alien is shot, the Hive knows that and remembers that. So the hive would then spawn new life forms armored in the places required. I don't think it's a bad idea to have the armor on the face and spine, it makes sense, just maybe if they had taken into account things like this(yes if you're going to make a game and have been saying you're doing so since at least 2006, I think at least this amount of thought should be put into it) and decided to make armor continue down the body.
<!--quoteo(post=1791409:date=Aug 4 2010, 02:06 AM:name=kira`)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kira` @ Aug 4 2010, 02:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791409"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In regular evolution, yes. But considering the Aliens are a Hive Mind, the hive is aware of what the Aliens are feeling, seeing etc. Therefore, when the Alien is shot, the Hive knows that and remembers that. So the hive would then spawn new life forms armored in the places required. I don't think it's a bad idea to have the armor on the face and spine, it makes sense, just maybe if they had taken into account things like this(yes if you're going to make a game and have been saying you're doing so since at least 2006, I think at least this amount of thought should be put into it) and decided to make armor continue down the body.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Im not sure how having a hive mind 'remember' the injuries is any different to 'regular evolution' other than the fact that its much much faster. Its still evolving to counteract something in its environment.
It's all good and fine to say they should have more armour. But at what point do you go, ok, now we have too much armour, is it realistic to expect this thing to move that fast or with any kind of agility? So priority is to armour the key locations, then, additional armour comes down to a speed vs durability balance.
A good example is the onos, it has sacrificed speed to have a hefty amount of armour. Im not sure if you were suggesting that he should have more armour on his flanks etc. But, I personally would rather have more armour at the front, not have to worry about turning around because ideally I should be facing my opponent then spread my armour around to cover all my areas which might, or might not get attacked.
Its all about drawing a line in the sand and going, ok I cant have unlimited amounts of armour, so where do I put the armour I am willing to evolve/grow to maximise effectiveness?
UWE has stated that one of the main points of the armour was to give a stylistic indication of how effective your guns will be against the beasties. More armour = less effect.
If all the creatures were more completely armoured it becomes increasingly difficult to differentiate them.
<!--quoteo(post=1791243:date=Aug 3 2010, 05:02 PM:name=Voyager I)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Voyager I @ Aug 3 2010, 05:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791243"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"IT WORKS BY NANITES!" is not an excuse for terrible design. The Assault Rifle and Pistol are stupid looking, but they still look and act like guns, so I'm not compelled to headbutt my keyboard every time I see them in action.
The Shotgun, by comparison, is hilariously dysfunctional. I can deal with the fact that it's the future and we're using weapon technology inferior to what we already have today because an Automatic Shotgun would basically ruin the game for Skulks, but there's no excuse for saying "This is a gun" and then making something that blatantly cannot function.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fair enough. But good bad/design is related to intent. It's a bad design if the intent is to make it look like a shotgun. It is a better design if the intent is to convey a weapon with futuristic technology that works in ways unfamiliar to our own, but that is reminiscent of a shotgun. If it's the latter, then it only requires a little imagination to make it make sense.
I'm not trying to argue whether or not it's a bad design, simply that the aesthetics of it can be approached from different perspectives.
<!--quoteo(post=1791426:date=Aug 3 2010, 10:44 PM:name=alphz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (alphz @ Aug 3 2010, 10:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791426"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So priority is to armour the key locations, then, additional armour comes down to a speed vs durability balance.
A good example is the onos, it has sacrificed speed to have a hefty amount of armour.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
UWE stated that skulks are now slower to avoid player death. Nothing about armor slowing skulks down, just bad players.
Yes I do think the aliens should be armored on their flanks. The Onos especially considering it's size and that it's rare that in a 3-4 marine vs onos fight that the marines are all standing in front of its face to shoot it. Marines will spread out and shoot it from all sides.
The <a href="http://www.brywright.co.uk/gallery/albums/artwork/charging_onos.jpg" target="_blank">onos</a> already had a large amount of armor on its head. It didn't add such large amounts as you claim, it grew plates of armor on its front legs and chest as well as bones protruding from its <a href="http://games.softpedia.com/screenshots/Natural-Selection-2-Onos-Reveal-Trailer_2.jpg" target="_blank">head</a>. It's front feet also seem to have changed from the elephant style feet into a form that actually seems like it would make it run faster. Besides, they're supposed to have evolved, who's to say their muscles haven't gotten stronger.
If you <a href="http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/100/1001060/natural-selection-2-20090702045844657-000.jpg" target="_blank">look</a> <a href="http://www.naturalselection2.com/storage/kharaa_skulk_render.jpg" target="_blank">at</a> <a href="http://www.naturalselection2.com/storage/kharaa_gorge_render.jpg" target="_blank">each</a> life form they have roughly the same armor except that they differ in size. The Onos does have more armor on the legs and chest though. (not that a skulk or gorge need chest armor, lerks are exempt since you can't expect armor on a wing)
<!--quoteo(post=1791426:date=Aug 3 2010, 10:44 PM:name=alphz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (alphz @ Aug 3 2010, 10:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791426"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->UWE has stated that one of the main points of the armour was to give a stylistic indication of how effective your guns will be against the beasties. More armour = less effect.
If all the creatures were more completely armoured it becomes increasingly difficult to differentiate them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh snap I had forgotten that in NS1 when all the life forms were relatively unarmored(except spikes etc.) that people had a hard time differentiating a skulk from an fade. Or thought they would take anywhere as many bullets. I think <b>size</b> already accomplishes the role UWE wanted armor to accomplish.
<!--quoteo(post=1791489:date=Aug 4 2010, 05:20 AM:name=kira`)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kira` @ Aug 4 2010, 05:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791489"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Oh snap I had forgotten that in NS1 when all the life forms were relatively unarmored(except spikes etc.) that people had a hard time differentiating a skulk from an fade. Or thought they would take anywhere as many bullets. I think <b>size</b> already accomplishes the role UWE wanted armor to accomplish.
Not to be harsh, your arguments are valid.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just to refer back to an unqouted part, but how pray tell does 3-4 marines spread out to surround a lifeform which fills the corridor?
The size of the life forms fulfills the role of indicating how many hit points it has, but as was indicated in a blog only very recently; UWE plan to implement an ARMOUR system as well, so not only will a larger lifeform have more life but for example, the onos may have more armour than a fade and therefore require amour piercing while a fade might suffer more damage from conventional fire. Thus a fade would be less vulnerable to specialised onos weaponry while an onos might be quite resilient to weapons which would effect fades.
All of this information will be attempted to be conveyed via the amount of armour a player sees on a lifeform (Im making the assumption the fade wont be as armoured as the onos for the above example). So having more armour makes this distinction more difficult.
And stating that the onos doesn't have much more armour than previously is clearly a personal preference as I personally feel he looks much more plated than before.
dunno why you complain about a top loading shotgun..i think you never heard of the NEOSTEAD combat pump action shotgun. that thing was developed in south africa in the 90´s, and featured a dual tube magazine on top of the barell to switch between different shell types or just to increase magazine capacity. <div align='center'><img src="http://www.gun-world.net/safrica/truvelo/neostead/dsc066.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /></div> <center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/d-EiFtypUfQ"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/d-EiFtypUfQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center> <div align='center'><img src="http://www.gun-world.net/safrica/truvelo/neostead/pump.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /></div> as you can see they made it more compact by inverting the pump action, also the magazine loading works like a breach loading barell. <div align='center'><img src="http://www.gun-world.net/safrica/truvelo/neostead/nsparts.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" /> <img src="http://www.gun-world.net/safrica/truvelo/neostead/rotated.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" /> <img src="http://www.gun-world.net/safrica/truvelo/neostead/load.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /> <img src="http://www.gun-world.net/safrica/truvelo/neostead/rightmag.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /></div>
theres your top loading shotgun... now calm down damnit.. just pretend the lower tube is the actual barell
sometimes i think i should do the actual technical design of those weapons for uwe.... or at least clout cory each time he designs awesome looking nonsense. just give me those designs, and i make them work without nanites :p
maybe something like this.. i would have to whip together a receiver mechanism from the design of the neostead to get the shells from the tube magazine into the chamber, but thats roughly what ive imagined
<!--quoteo(post=1793387:date=Aug 10 2010, 08:22 PM:name=sheena_yanai)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sheena_yanai @ Aug 10 2010, 08:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1793387"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wall of Lame...
just pretend the lower tube is the actual barell<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Err... no. Exactly why should I have to pretend that the lower tube is the barrel when it clearly isnt on the in game model? Exactly why should I have to use my imagination to compensate for poor model design choices?
Once again, Suspension of Disbelief. Youre doing it wrong.
<!--quoteo(post=1793524:date=Aug 12 2010, 01:54 AM:name=Harathan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harathan @ Aug 12 2010, 01:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1793524"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Err... no. Exactly why should I have to pretend that the lower tube is the barrel when it clearly isnt on the in game model? Exactly why should I have to use my imagination to compensate for poor model design choices?
Once again, Suspension of Disbelief. Youre doing it wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
your spirit is weak :p
it does not matter if it isnt on the actual model, it was a suggestion on how to make it happen that you load your shotgun from the top
It does matter that its not on the actual model. In fact thats the entire point. The solutions proposed (making it similar to the Neo, or the image you posted) are great. But suggesting that we should imagine them being there is a bit of a stretch.
<!--quoteo(post=1793535:date=Aug 12 2010, 02:38 AM:name=Harathan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harathan @ Aug 12 2010, 02:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1793535"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It does matter that its not on the actual model. In fact thats the entire point. The solutions proposed (making it similar to the Neo, or the image you posted) are great. But suggesting that we should imagine them being there is a bit of a stretch.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> ive sugested it just because it cant be helped by now, uwe has other things to do than fixing minor design issues like that, i think when the time comes you get your fixed shotgun, or maybe someone else will mod it ^^ it bothers me in a similar way, but then again i think "whatever, i still remember that silly XM-29 SABR OICW like grenade launcher model of NS1.. or that stupid mp7 thing from hl2 with grenade launcher, but no grenade magazine.. as long its "point away from face and fire to kill something" and it does its job, hey.. the shotgun could be a block of tofu for christs sake if cory wouldnt have whipped together some designs for guns which already got built so you can hold something with shape in your hands, to mess around in the ALPHA. ^^
It's purely cosmetic, so it either will get fixed in the future, or it wont. It's not going to stop anyone playing either way. Doesnt mean I'm going to stop calling them on it.
I think the question about the shotgun is why are they still using a pump-action tube fed shotgun at all. A semi-automatic, balanced action, magazine fed shotgun makes much more sense. No, not the useless AA-12.
As to the AR, the bulk seems to come from what one would think is a UBGL, but isn't? The rest of the gun is sleek and rather straight forward.
The pistol reminds me of the KARD really, although it could look better.
As to the issues with aiming, almost positive they use a HUD that ingrates the weapon within the system, so the need for iron sights, or nearly any kind of sight mounted on the gun, is a waste and a bit useless.
Armor? I'd say a reduction in the bulkiness of body armor is a plus to any soldier. The reduction in size and weight keeps the soldier from becoming tired or fatigued easily, and keeps them mobile and flexible, but too great a reduction increases vulnerability. Lighter, more durable materials could be used, and from what I've seen the armor covers the vital areas for the most part, so the armor is doing the bare minimum job. Which it's intended to do, there is a reason heavy armor exists after all.
<!--quoteo(post=1793387:date=Aug 10 2010, 09:22 PM:name=sheena_yanai)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sheena_yanai @ Aug 10 2010, 09:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1793387"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->dunno why you complain about a top loading shotgun..i think you never heard of the NEOSTEAD combat pump action shotgun. that thing was developed in south africa in the 90´s, and featured a dual tube magazine on top of the barell to switch between different shell types or just to increase magazine capacity.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The difference is that you can easily look at this gun and see how it works, where you can easily look at the NS2 Shotgun and see how it doesn't.
um, look at an FS2000, Pretty damn bulky and highly advanced. An AA-12 shotgun is about as advanced as it gets atm and ###### huge and chunky. Pretty damn bulky and highly advanced. also a a good onos spends most of it's time charging through marines, it makes perfect sense. perhaps marine weapons are larger calibers and more powerful to punch through more armored aliens. in general aliens that have their back to marines, with the exception of maybe gorges, are going to get slaughtered, they are meant to be hiding or going straight toward marines to attack. what makes you think skulks brains are in their heads or they even have one, it's the business end of their weapon so it's armored.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited August 2010
Maybe the shells don't go into the barrel, but down into the lower tube? Seems to me that each shell you put in there is going down into the lower tube... There is no way 6 shells all fit into the barrel, which would be silly anyway as it would end up with at the very least 2 shells on the floor coming out of the end of the barrel...
It seems you guys over-analyzed right around the corner (and are now lost in a corridor with an Onos staring at you), while not seeing the obvious fact the shells are going down south <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/youreallwrong.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Top loading also makes your shotty faster to get back into action and it will not obscure your view while reloading. gun pointing down vs gun pointing up (in your face, so to say) while reloading seems like a better choice in an area where aliens areth coming
<!--quoteo(post=1782947:date=Jul 25 2010, 06:23 PM:name=kira`)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kira` @ Jul 25 2010, 06:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1782947"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So it was to my understanding that in this intergalactic war between the Marines and the Aliens time had passed and both sides had evolved and innovated. So aliens evolved to have armor on different parts of their body and I assume new abilities. Marines on the other side have improved their current technology and possibly created new weapons.
Now here is where I see a problem.
Marine technology doesn't seem to have advanced as the devs claim. It just seems to have gotten bulkier.
Note that it has a (unusable) scope and has a light build. In NS2, in a screenshot viewable <a href="http://www.naturalselection2.com/storage/squad.jpg" target="_blank">here</a> the rifle is bulky, has no scope(despite lack of use) and takes up nearly a quarter of the screen.
If it's bulkier to explain the ammo counter which is now present, get rid of the ammo counter, if it's purpose is to eliminate the need for small numbers in the bottom right telling me how many bullets I have. The purpose has been defeated by the bulkiness of this gun.
The <a href="http://www.naturalselection2.com/storage/screenshot_lerks.jpg" target="_blank">pistol</a> is another great example, it has a very boxy, short shape to it. In <a href="http://www.brywright.co.uk/gallery/albums/weapons/pistol.thumb.gif" target="_blank">NS1</a> the pistol was sleeker, slimmer and seemed maybe an inch longer.
The NS2 <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E8dOerSVTA" target="_blank">shotgun</a> is yet another needlessly bulky weapon. It takes up way too much place in the screen as with the lmg and has another useless ammo counter that looks like it could snap off like a piece of flimsy plastic. Not only is the (useless) ammo counter flimsy it also has a placement that makes 0 sense. If I had a gun with an ammo counter there in real life, how am i looking through the sights if a stupid ammo counter is in the way. Another issue, top loading shotgun? Seriously? Did the discussion about the shotgun happen this way: "Well we've already side-loaded, bottom loaded, lets top load the shotgun!" Ok sure. Have your top load shotgun but at least have it make sense as to where the shells are going inside the gun. And once again, instead of intelligent innovation we have another bulky, ugly boxy model of a gun that used to be this slimmer, effective <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNRZnm6ZS2I" target="_blank">shotgun</a>.
This problem of bulkiness seems to be a growing trend in all marine technology. It's as if the devs wanted innovation but didn't know how to incorporate it into their already futuristic devices. So after playing Halo they decided to add in ammo counters on EVERY gun and make them bulkier. Because more, is better, right? Not exactly, if you look at most technology(irl) as it is increasing in efficiency it also tends to reduce in size.
Onto the marine armor: in <a href="http://www.spitefulcritic.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/ns32game1ow0-1.jpg" target="_blank">NS1</a> the Marine armor featured a sort of visor that could explain easy access to map and contact with the commander as well as eye protection. The new marine armor not only lacks a visor of any sort but also seems to be more lightweight. Considering that they're fighting aliens who can bite off an entire leg I don't understand why their armor would be lighter and not protect the back of the leg(as seen in the screenshot of the lmg).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ok so i'll fluff it for ya
unusable scope because the scope is implanted directly on the iris, actually heads up displays even for weapons will be common fairly soon so the next point is to directly project onto the eye removing the need for the visor, hence the unneeded scopes
the bigger gun is for bigger bullets we'll say, or for increased tech maybe? (does it have an alt fire?) the bigger gun is for meleeing skulks, with the enemy being close quarters and having enhanced strength through there suit it could be advantageous to be able to do that
flimsy plastic....talk about realism sounds like the M16, which was in fact faulted for the same reason, the simple fact is ulta tech means it could be a gun made from carbon nano-tubes, and google that stuff if you'd like to know how flimsy it could look and how tough it could actually be.
marine armour has many explanations the easiest of which is very simple, see that is in fact very much what real body armour looks like armour on the back side of your knee restricts movement generally and is annoying thats why knights didn't have it on the inner bends like the armpit, the inside elbow and inside knee.
I mean think about this why doesn't a tank simply have equal armour everywhere, because cost, weight, etc basically they put armour in places your likely to get hit without having so much it becomes a negative to have it. HEAVY armour upgrade does cover all these but you'll notice that suddenly that suit is expensive and complex and basically its the basic armour is grunt armour, its not perfect but then again why didn't kings outfit all there soldiers in elite knight armour? the reasons for not making everyone knights are the exact same for not making everyone have elite armour.
oh and top loaded.... the rounds are loaded directly into the barrel (so you can push them in) there stacked one in front of the other, they then nanite fire from front to back. It's how there considering right now honestly loading rail guns (google if you don't know how they work) so again not bsing here this is honest to god a way to load a gun. as to top loading to stack them, it's a shotgun that the barrel breaks in half to load, other than the barrel breaking in half instead of seperating the barrel from the stock/reciever thats exactly how many shotguns have worked to be loaded. So that makes sense.
Comments
A good example - Far Cry 2. Most games 'get away' with weapon jams via something dumb like just a 'click' when you pull the trigger, and you simply reload and the jam is cleared. In Far Cry 2, you have undoubtedly the most realistic weapon jams ever seen in a game - visible double-feeds with your character trying to clear it, until you hit the button, and the proper steps to clear a jam are visibly taken - the guy reseats the magazine, pulls back the handle, observes the chamber and lets the round out, releases the handle, taps the forward assist, and resumes firing - and on top of it all, you're down one bullet from the one you lost in clearing the jam. Little things like that add up in a game (though they couldn't save FC2, admittedly).
Saying some as mind-breakingly dumb as 'the shotgun works by nanites breaking down junk and fabricating ammo!' is stupid beyond my meager lexicon to describe. Not only is that 'justification' simply made-up to try to justify something that clearly isn't even happening, but an explanation doesn't fix the fact that it STILL looks really, really bad.
Some people will always be overly pedantic (OP), and some people will screech like harpies to defend any kind of idiotic thing they're fanboys too, under some moronic assumption that some people will NEVER DO ANYTHING WRONG... Complaining about ironsights? Not really a huge deal. Get over it. The shotgun reloading? Yeah that looks just dumb as hell.
Most of the people who complain about things like this don't actually give a damn about how something works, no amount of psychobabble can justify something that simply looks and feels odd. Half Life: Opposing Force had an alien gun that was a weird green thing stuck on your arm. You fed it spore balls and it shot them out. Nobody demanded any justification beyond this - you shove spores in its mouth, it spits them out to devastating effect later. Battlefield 2142 had air-burst rockets that could be manually range-tuned. Nobody complained that there were no visible range-adjusting buttons on the model itself - the effect they achieved was entirely convincing enough to distract the user.
The point is, <b>nobody should ever be noticing these things</b>. When something fits seamlessly in the world, it goes ignored. If people are noticing things, it means there's a problem.
Something that seems blatantly weird can be very difficult to explain away as shown by some attempts in thread.
In summary:
The shotgun is a tad weird, most would get over it but it really doesn't work so well. Maybe if the shells were placed further back on the weapon it could be feasible. But the position it is right now is a little much.
Aliens have armour where they do for the reason stated earlier. Because they are attacking and winning and thus surviving but with wounds in their frontal area; evolution dictates that these survivors would then develop armour to protect against similar wounds in future conflicts.
Marine guns are big and bulky because they pack some mean punch with minimal recoil. Something which requires bulk unless you're willing to drop extreme amounts of mulah for a sleeker looking weapon (I dont think so), or packing railguns (which I believe to have very little recoil but could be completely wrong).
No, trying to make logical criticism of something that fundamentally makes no logical sense (i.e., marine technology) is stupid. NANITES!!!11one is actually the best explanation for everything given the context.
I mean, if you're going to bring logic to the table to try to explain the way things look in NS, why stop at the weapons? How are commanders able to produce buildings and objects out of thin air? The answer is literally, nanites. If you're willing to accept that (as that is the core concept behind the NS lore), then why not accept it as an explanation for the look of the weapons?
What? I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of "suspension of disbelief". You suspend your disbelief when you no something makes no logical sense. The entirety of the NS universe requires suspension of belief because very little of it makes sense, and it wouldn't be required if things looked like they did.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The point is, <b>nobody should ever be noticing these things</b>. When something fits seamlessly in the world, it goes ignored. If people are noticing things, it means there's a problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When you start entering into the realm of fantasy, everyone has a slightly different interpretation of things. Things that are more grounded in reality obviously have less chance to be disputed.
I also haven't witnessed any of this alleged fanboyism. Nobody here is even implying in their posts that UWE's aesthetic choices are infallible. In fact, I think we all know they just wanted things to look cool (well, except maybe the OP).
Given that we're looking at guns, and guns are a known value (you pull the trigger, bullets come out the end) the level of weirdness thats acceptable is low.
You can invoke the nanites excuse for many things in this game, but how the shotgun loads is not one of them.
The absolute bottom line of this is: on the shotgun model, ammo of some kind is beind loaded one in front of the other into the same barrel its being fired from. You've put things that go bang one in front of each other down a tube.
I'll buy the nanites reasoning for a lot of things, but even nanites cant explain why the gun doesnt explode in your face when you pull the trigger.
The Shotgun, by comparison, is hilariously dysfunctional. I can deal with the fact that it's the future and we're using weapon technology inferior to what we already have today because an Automatic Shotgun would basically ruin the game for Skulks, but there's no excuse for saying "This is a gun" and then making something that blatantly cannot function.
The Shotgun, by comparison, is hilariously dysfunctional. I can deal with the fact that it's the future and we're using weapon technology inferior to what we already have today because an Automatic Shotgun would basically ruin the game for Skulks, but there's no excuse for saying "This is a gun" and then making something that blatantly cannot function.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What he said.
<!--quoteo(post=1790964:date=Aug 3 2010, 06:42 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Aug 3 2010, 06:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790964"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Some people will always be overly pedantic (OP)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I must agree.
<!--quoteo(post=1790964:date=Aug 3 2010, 06:42 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Aug 3 2010, 06:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790964"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The point is, <b>nobody should ever be noticing these things</b>. When something fits seamlessly in the world, it goes ignored. If people are noticing things, it means there's a problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What he said.
<!--quoteo(post=1790987:date=Aug 3 2010, 08:03 AM:name=Donner & Blitzen)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Donner & Blitzen @ Aug 3 2010, 08:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790987"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In fact, I think we all know they just wanted things to look cool (well, except maybe the OP).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know what they were trying to do. It just didn't work.
<!--quoteo(post=1790981:date=Aug 3 2010, 07:50 AM:name=Donner & Blitzen)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Donner & Blitzen @ Aug 3 2010, 07:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790981"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How are commanders able to produce buildings and objects out of thin air?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I figured it worked on the same/similar technology as phase gates and infantry portals. A technology not far from Star Trek's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transporter_%28Star_Trek%29" target="_blank">Transporter</a> which worked by means of de-materialization and re-materialization. The marines coming in through IFs had to come from somewhere, I figured the weapons and structures dropped by the comm came from the same mass military base/warehouse.
<!--quoteo(post=1790976:date=Aug 3 2010, 07:32 AM:name=alphz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (alphz @ Aug 3 2010, 07:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1790976"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Aliens have armour where they do for the reason stated earlier. Because they are attacking and winning and thus surviving but with wounds in their frontal area; evolution dictates that these survivors would then develop armour to protect against similar wounds in future conflicts.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In regular evolution, yes. But considering the Aliens are a Hive Mind, the hive is aware of what the Aliens are feeling, seeing etc. Therefore, when the Alien is shot, the Hive knows that and remembers that. So the hive would then spawn new life forms armored in the places required. I don't think it's a bad idea to have the armor on the face and spine, it makes sense, just maybe if they had taken into account things like this(yes if you're going to make a game and have been saying you're doing so since at least 2006, I think at least this amount of thought should be put into it) and decided to make armor continue down the body.
Im not sure how having a hive mind 'remember' the injuries is any different to 'regular evolution' other than the fact that its much much faster. Its still evolving to counteract something in its environment.
It's all good and fine to say they should have more armour. But at what point do you go, ok, now we have too much armour, is it realistic to expect this thing to move that fast or with any kind of agility? So priority is to armour the key locations, then, additional armour comes down to a speed vs durability balance.
A good example is the onos, it has sacrificed speed to have a hefty amount of armour. Im not sure if you were suggesting that he should have more armour on his flanks etc. But, I personally would rather have more armour at the front, not have to worry about turning around because ideally I should be facing my opponent then spread my armour around to cover all my areas which might, or might not get attacked.
Its all about drawing a line in the sand and going, ok I cant have unlimited amounts of armour, so where do I put the armour I am willing to evolve/grow to maximise effectiveness?
UWE has stated that one of the main points of the armour was to give a stylistic indication of how effective your guns will be against the beasties. More armour = less effect.
If all the creatures were more completely armoured it becomes increasingly difficult to differentiate them.
The Shotgun, by comparison, is hilariously dysfunctional. I can deal with the fact that it's the future and we're using weapon technology inferior to what we already have today because an Automatic Shotgun would basically ruin the game for Skulks, but there's no excuse for saying "This is a gun" and then making something that blatantly cannot function.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fair enough. But good bad/design is related to intent. It's a bad design if the intent is to make it look like a shotgun. It is a better design if the intent is to convey a weapon with futuristic technology that works in ways unfamiliar to our own, but that is reminiscent of a shotgun. If it's the latter, then it only requires a little imagination to make it make sense.
I'm not trying to argue whether or not it's a bad design, simply that the aesthetics of it can be approached from different perspectives.
A good example is the onos, it has sacrificed speed to have a hefty amount of armour.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
UWE stated that skulks are now slower to avoid player death. Nothing about armor slowing skulks down, just bad players.
Yes I do think the aliens should be armored on their flanks. The Onos especially considering it's size and that it's rare that in a 3-4 marine vs onos fight that the marines are all standing in front of its face to shoot it. Marines will spread out and shoot it from all sides.
The <a href="http://www.brywright.co.uk/gallery/albums/artwork/charging_onos.jpg" target="_blank">onos</a> already had a large amount of armor on its head. It didn't add such large amounts as you claim, it grew plates of armor on its front legs and chest as well as bones protruding from its <a href="http://games.softpedia.com/screenshots/Natural-Selection-2-Onos-Reveal-Trailer_2.jpg" target="_blank">head</a>. It's front feet also seem to have changed from the elephant style feet into a form that actually seems like it would make it run faster. Besides, they're supposed to have evolved, who's to say their muscles haven't gotten stronger.
If you <a href="http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/100/1001060/natural-selection-2-20090702045844657-000.jpg" target="_blank">look</a> <a href="http://www.naturalselection2.com/storage/kharaa_skulk_render.jpg" target="_blank">at</a> <a href="http://www.naturalselection2.com/storage/kharaa_gorge_render.jpg" target="_blank">each</a> life form they have roughly the same armor except that they differ in size. The Onos does have more armor on the legs and chest though. (not that a skulk or gorge need chest armor, lerks are exempt since you can't expect armor on a wing)
<!--quoteo(post=1791426:date=Aug 3 2010, 10:44 PM:name=alphz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (alphz @ Aug 3 2010, 10:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1791426"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->UWE has stated that one of the main points of the armour was to give a stylistic indication of how effective your guns will be against the beasties. More armour = less effect.
If all the creatures were more completely armoured it becomes increasingly difficult to differentiate them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh snap I had forgotten that in NS1 when all the life forms were relatively unarmored(except spikes etc.) that people had a hard time differentiating a skulk from an fade. Or thought they would take anywhere as many bullets. I think <b>size</b> already accomplishes the role UWE wanted armor to accomplish.
Not to be harsh, your arguments are valid.
Not to be harsh, your arguments are valid.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just to refer back to an unqouted part, but how pray tell does 3-4 marines spread out to surround a lifeform which fills the corridor?
The size of the life forms fulfills the role of indicating how many hit points it has, but as was indicated in a blog only very recently; UWE plan to implement an ARMOUR system as well, so not only will a larger lifeform have more life but for example, the onos may have more armour than a fade and therefore require amour piercing while a fade might suffer more damage from conventional fire. Thus a fade would be less vulnerable to specialised onos weaponry while an onos might be quite resilient to weapons which would effect fades.
All of this information will be attempted to be conveyed via the amount of armour a player sees on a lifeform (Im making the assumption the fade wont be as armoured as the onos for the above example). So having more armour makes this distinction more difficult.
And stating that the onos doesn't have much more armour than previously is clearly a personal preference as I personally feel he looks much more plated than before.
Especially the shotgun, I saw it and went "oooooo fancy!"
Then again i havent really taken that much interest into how real guns work.
Now that i have read the thread. I still don't care.
The OP complaining that the guns take up to much of the screen is a valid argument.
The rest though... pass. I love the new stuff.
<div align='center'><img src="http://www.gun-world.net/safrica/truvelo/neostead/dsc066.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /></div>
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/d-EiFtypUfQ"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/d-EiFtypUfQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
<div align='center'><img src="http://www.gun-world.net/safrica/truvelo/neostead/pump.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /></div>
as you can see they made it more compact by inverting the pump action, also the magazine loading works like a breach loading barell.
<div align='center'><img src="http://www.gun-world.net/safrica/truvelo/neostead/nsparts.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://www.gun-world.net/safrica/truvelo/neostead/rotated.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://www.gun-world.net/safrica/truvelo/neostead/load.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://www.gun-world.net/safrica/truvelo/neostead/rightmag.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /></div>
theres your top loading shotgun... now calm down damnit.. just pretend the lower tube is the actual barell
sometimes i think i should do the actual technical design of those weapons for uwe.... or at least clout cory each time he designs awesome looking nonsense. just give me those designs, and i make them work without nanites :p
<div align='center'><img src="http://yanai.blackmage.org/3d/Shotgun_Concept1.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /></div>
thats even more gimicky than some silly thing popping up on the top like it is right now
just pretend the lower tube is the actual barell<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Err... no. Exactly why should I have to pretend that the lower tube is the barrel when it clearly isnt on the in game model? Exactly why should I have to use my imagination to compensate for poor model design choices?
Once again, Suspension of Disbelief. Youre doing it wrong.
Once again, Suspension of Disbelief. Youre doing it wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
your spirit is weak :p
it does not matter if it isnt on the actual model, it was a suggestion on how to make it happen that you load your shotgun from the top
ive sugested it just because it cant be helped by now, uwe has other things to do than fixing minor design issues like that, i think when the time comes you get your fixed shotgun, or maybe someone else will mod it ^^
it bothers me in a similar way, but then again i think "whatever, i still remember that silly XM-29 SABR OICW like grenade launcher model of NS1..
or that stupid mp7 thing from hl2 with grenade launcher, but no grenade magazine.. as long its "point away from face and fire to kill something" and it does its job, hey.. the shotgun could be a block of tofu for christs sake if cory wouldnt have whipped together some designs for guns which already got built so you can hold something with shape in your hands, to mess around in the ALPHA. ^^
See what I did there?
As to the AR, the bulk seems to come from what one would think is a UBGL, but isn't? The rest of the gun is sleek and rather straight forward.
The pistol reminds me of the KARD really, although it could look better.
As to the issues with aiming, almost positive they use a HUD that ingrates the weapon within the system, so the need for iron sights, or nearly any kind of sight mounted on the gun, is a waste and a bit useless.
Armor? I'd say a reduction in the bulkiness of body armor is a plus to any soldier. The reduction in size and weight keeps the soldier from becoming tired or fatigued easily, and keeps them mobile and flexible, but too great a reduction increases vulnerability. Lighter, more durable materials could be used, and from what I've seen the armor covers the vital areas for the most part, so the armor is doing the bare minimum job. Which it's intended to do, there is a reason heavy armor exists after all.
The difference is that you can easily look at this gun and see how it works, where you can easily look at the NS2 Shotgun and see how it doesn't.
It seems you guys over-analyzed right around the corner (and are now lost in a corridor with an Onos staring at you), while not seeing the obvious fact the shells are going down south <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/youreallwrong.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Top loading also makes your shotty faster to get back into action and it will not obscure your view while reloading. gun pointing down vs gun pointing up (in your face, so to say) while reloading seems like a better choice in an area where aliens areth coming
Now here is where I see a problem.
Marine technology doesn't seem to have advanced as the devs claim. It just seems to have gotten bulkier.
Marine lmg: <img src="http://www.fileshack.com/images/finclude/images/natural_hl_2510_player3.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Note that it has a (unusable) scope and has a light build. In NS2, in a screenshot viewable <a href="http://www.naturalselection2.com/storage/squad.jpg" target="_blank">here</a> the rifle is bulky, has no scope(despite lack of use) and takes up nearly a quarter of the screen.
If it's bulkier to explain the ammo counter which is now present, get rid of the ammo counter, if it's purpose is to eliminate the need for small numbers in the bottom right telling me how many bullets I have. The purpose has been defeated by the bulkiness of this gun.
The <a href="http://www.naturalselection2.com/storage/screenshot_lerks.jpg" target="_blank">pistol</a> is another great example, it has a very boxy, short shape to it. In <a href="http://www.brywright.co.uk/gallery/albums/weapons/pistol.thumb.gif" target="_blank">NS1</a> the pistol was sleeker, slimmer and seemed maybe an inch longer.
The NS2 <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E8dOerSVTA" target="_blank">shotgun</a> is yet another needlessly bulky weapon. It takes up way too much place in the screen as with the lmg and has another useless ammo counter that looks like it could snap off like a piece of flimsy plastic. Not only is the (useless) ammo counter flimsy it also has a placement that makes 0 sense. If I had a gun with an ammo counter there in real life, how am i looking through the sights if a stupid ammo counter is in the way. Another issue, top loading shotgun? Seriously? Did the discussion about the shotgun happen this way: "Well we've already side-loaded, bottom loaded, lets top load the shotgun!" Ok sure. Have your top load shotgun but at least have it make sense as to where the shells are going inside the gun. And once again, instead of intelligent innovation we have another bulky, ugly boxy model of a gun that used to be this slimmer, effective <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNRZnm6ZS2I" target="_blank">shotgun</a>.
This problem of bulkiness seems to be a growing trend in all marine technology. It's as if the devs wanted innovation but didn't know how to incorporate it into their already futuristic devices. So after playing Halo they decided to add in ammo counters on EVERY gun and make them bulkier. Because more, is better, right? Not exactly, if you look at most technology(irl) as it is increasing in efficiency it also tends to reduce in size.
Onto the marine armor: in <a href="http://www.spitefulcritic.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/ns32game1ow0-1.jpg" target="_blank">NS1</a> the Marine armor featured a sort of visor that could explain easy access to map and contact with the commander as well as eye protection. The new marine armor not only lacks a visor of any sort but also seems to be more lightweight. Considering that they're fighting aliens who can bite off an entire leg I don't understand why their armor would be lighter and not protect the back of the leg(as seen in the screenshot of the lmg).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ok so i'll fluff it for ya
unusable scope because the scope is implanted directly on the iris, actually heads up displays even for weapons will be common fairly soon so the next point is to directly project onto the eye removing the need for the visor, hence the unneeded scopes
the bigger gun is for bigger bullets we'll say, or for increased tech maybe? (does it have an alt fire?)
the bigger gun is for meleeing skulks, with the enemy being close quarters and having enhanced strength through there suit it could be advantageous to be able to do that
flimsy plastic....talk about realism sounds like the M16, which was in fact faulted for the same reason, the simple fact is ulta tech means it could be a gun made from carbon nano-tubes, and google that stuff if you'd like to know how flimsy it could look and how tough it could actually be.
marine armour has many explanations the easiest of which is very simple, see that is in fact very much what real body armour looks like armour on the back side of your knee restricts movement generally and is annoying thats why knights didn't have it on the inner bends like the armpit, the inside elbow and inside knee.
I mean think about this why doesn't a tank simply have equal armour everywhere, because cost, weight, etc
basically they put armour in places your likely to get hit without having so much it becomes a negative to have it.
HEAVY armour upgrade does cover all these but you'll notice that suddenly that suit is expensive and complex and basically its the basic armour is grunt armour, its not perfect but then again why didn't kings outfit all there soldiers in elite knight armour? the reasons for not making everyone knights are the exact same for not making everyone have elite armour.
oh and top loaded.... the rounds are loaded directly into the barrel (so you can push them in) there stacked one in front of the other, they then nanite fire from front to back. It's how there considering right now honestly loading rail guns (google if you don't know how they work)
so again not bsing here this is honest to god a way to load a gun. as to top loading to stack them, it's a shotgun that the barrel breaks in half to load, other than the barrel breaking in half instead of seperating the barrel from the stock/reciever thats exactly how many shotguns have worked to be loaded.
So that makes sense.