Weapon design question
Author
Sorry if this is an innapropriate question for this forum but i dont know where else to ask,
I noticed some first person shooters have only 5-9 weapons like serious sam, whereas some have around 40 like call of duty. Why would developers ever not have alot of weapons? Does the scripting and modeling take a lot of time? or does it take up alot of space on the game? It seems like if they set a basic script with values they could make tons of weapons and just model them all. Im not making a game, im just curious.
Mostly from the view of balance and level design its good to have a small number of unique weapons instead of a large number with several redundant ones unless your going for historical accuracy and need to have separate American, British and German service pistols even if they all work the same.
Author
that actually makes alot of since, but I wish someone would take an old engine, like unreal 1, or source gold, and make a game with like a thousand different guns and models, and a load of enemies, and make it really long. I dont care about graphics, if i can tell what something is, they dont need to be any better...
My opinion is that redundancy is fine, as long as there's at least some variable difference, and as long as it's easy to distinguish between them when it matters.
Two pistols might be nearly the same, while one impacts harder and the other uses less ammo. During an intense situation, I couldn't care less which one I grab off of the floor, so I don't need to easily distinguish between them. In any other situation, the slight differences allow me to use the weapon that best suits my style/mood/plan for the given moment.
To answer the question, no, it's not difficult to include a lot of weapons. Including research, designing, modeling, texturing, sounds, scripting, particle development, and stat balancing, I can make a unique weapon for my game in less than one day.
Two pistols might be nearly the same, while one impacts harder and the other uses less ammo. During an intense situation, I couldn't care less which one I grab off of the floor, so I don't need to easily distinguish between them. In any other situation, the slight differences allow me to use the weapon that best suits my style/mood/plan for the given moment.
To answer the question, no, it's not difficult to include a lot of weapons. Including research, designing, modeling, texturing, sounds, scripting, particle development, and stat balancing, I can make a unique weapon for my game in less than one day.
...in general, I don't think they usually feel it's a good idea or investment of their time. Each weapon requires modelling, animating, and scripting to get it going, and the end result of 40+ weapons is likely that 1) Many weapons are redundant and never get used (see Counterstrike) 2) Players are overwhelmed by the number of choices they have or 3) individual weapons do not feel as "solid" or balanced as they would have been if they'd focused on a smaller number instead.
You also give the player problems in that if, ie. group A weapons were redundant clones, and the same for B, C and D, thats great, but how does the player learn which weapons are in which group? Giving the player so many weapons slows down the learning time and bogs down the gameplay. Id rather learn a weapon once and recognize it through out the game than learn it over and over with different models and names and have to remember that mental list when I am figuring out what I just found.
REdundant weapons add very little to gameplay, so unless they're contributing to atmosphere or authenticity, it's wasted assets. If each gun uses different ammo, then it becomes frustrating for the player to have to stockpile and manage a big bag of bullets, especially if it consumes inventory space, as in Resident Evil or Dead Space.
Most players will find a few guns they like and stick with them. Forcing them to switch due to ammo concerns or availability can be a hassle. I like a diverse array of distinct guns. like Halo: CE had. Even the pistol wasn't a throwaway or "last resort" weapon, so you felt good about having it.
Most players will find a few guns they like and stick with them. Forcing them to switch due to ammo concerns or availability can be a hassle. I like a diverse array of distinct guns. like Halo: CE had. Even the pistol wasn't a throwaway or "last resort" weapon, so you felt good about having it.
The way I look at it, all weapons can be divided by engagement type. Every game out there usually covers all of the basic engagement types. In order to add complexity and reduce redundancy, you can add things such as different damage types, or bullet effects, to create a series of weapon sets.
Lets look at Halo. You got physical weapons and you got energy weapons. One damages armor better, and the other damages shields better. Is their engagement-type redundancy? Yes. But the redundancy is over two weapon sets, which means that it balances out.
Lets look at Halo. You got physical weapons and you got energy weapons. One damages armor better, and the other damages shields better. Is their engagement-type redundancy? Yes. But the redundancy is over two weapon sets, which means that it balances out.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
