Page 2 of 3

Re: Classic weapons vs. high-tech weapons?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:33 pm
by Enjay
Throwing lead at people very fast breaks them and kills them.

According to sci-fi, throwing lasers/plasma/energy/whatever at people breaks them and kills them.

If you want to break and kill people, do either of the above. You can't get deader than dead. A futuristic weapon can just as easily be something that throws lead more efficiently/accuratley/etc than present day weapons*. It needn't be a plasma weapon but, equally, it could be. Futuristic alternative-tech weapons are mainly in games, IMO, to justify fancy effects, interesting fire modes, big destruction and, of course, to obey the rule of cool.

*Analogy, being hit in the head by a musket ball is very likely to kill you. A bullet in the head from a modern rifle will also kill you. However, a modern rifle can hit you in the head with a modern bullet more quickly, doing more damage and be ready to fire again far more quickly.

However, I would suggest that modern ballistic weapons are already pretty efficient and we are unlikely to see the same level of improvement between present rifles and future rifles as we have between muskets and modern rifles. At least, not any time soon. So bring on the bullshit but fun plasma rifles too. :biggrin:

Both have their place.

Re: Classic weapons vs. high-tech weapons?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 4:49 pm
by Arthropleura
Rule of cool for me involves bayonets, not enough games have bayonets. I remember using the spiker near exclusively in halo 3 simply because it had a bayonet. But I think part of the appeal of energy weapons is that they can do just about anything, arc casters, plasma beams, lasers that can be bounced off mirrors, they often do things that are simply absurd when done with conventional firearms.

Re: Classic weapons vs. high-tech weapons?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:55 pm
by Sgt. Shivers
Big C wrote:Image

Accept no substitutes.


I love the pulse rifle because it acts as a great middle ground between conventional and hi-tech weapons. It's very sci-fi, with the ammo counter and sound effects but it's still firing conventional rounds.

Another movie that had cool Conventional vs. Hi-Tech weapons was starship troopers.
Image
You got the regular morita compared to the fancy/explody super morita at the end of the movie. Great movie with great weapons! :D

Re: Classic weapons vs. high-tech weapons?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:01 pm
by jdredalert
I never noticed how similar both designs are... the Starship Troopers assault rifle is like an Aliens Pulse Rifle on steroids.

Anyway, staying on topic, i choose the regular firearms. I usually play games with good old classic weapons than sci fi games that gives you an arsenal of hi tech/plasma/lasers only.

Re: Classic weapons vs. high-tech weapons?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:18 pm
by Reactor
I agree wit' the aspect that both classic and high-tech weaponz has their own strengths and weaknesses. And very frequently, they cannot be measured the same way, for instance, if the goal is other than pure destruction.

A good example for this is a flamethrower vs. an ionspray. The Zicca ionspray is technically a high-tech variant of the flamethrower, or some sort. Comparing the two will clearly signify that both can be useful and useless at certain situations. For instance, a flamethrower can cause great fires, which continously burn for a very long time, effectively wounding or killing anyone crossin' the flames' path. Ionspray cannot do that, however, ionspray can work under-water, where a flamethrower can't. Flamethrower is also ineffective against undead or spiritual hostile entities, whilst the ionspray can erase'em out of existence with ease. As for firing range, a flamethrower wins over ionspray once again, so at large open areas, flamethrower proved to be much more successful, whilst the ionspray works better in close quarters combat.

As for HE weapons, using a bazooka or a missile launcher on close ranges means certain death. Energy superweapons, however, leaves the wielder unharmed, such as the BFG.

Bayonets are always very cool, and are unimaginibly useful when you run out of ammo, and there'z no time to reload. Same goes for rifle butt strike - very few games utilize them. At energy weapons, it is understandable, as their high-tech design never really takes bayonets into account, and their structure makes it undesirable to use the empty rifle as a club. Just take a look at the Doom 3 machinegun.

Basic energy weapons are mostly "pew-pew lazerz" or plasma, and yes, they're in for the nice effects, albeit some of these sci-fi firearms has very unique effect. The Displacer from Opposing force was an extremely thoughtful armament, which could teleport you to Xen. The Deviator from the Dune universe is another brilliant weapon, which turns enemies against each other. The Paralyzer can stun multiple enemies in a large territory for quite a period. As for the Dark Matter Gun, the concept of a superweapon which passes thru enemies (and is NOT a Railgun) was something really notable. Oh and I loved how the mini black-hole dragged the evil Strogg backwards while they squirm and fidget :D And of course, the Railgun itself was also a brilliant creation, the sniper rifle of the future. The Tesla gun is also fine, especially in GTA 2, where you can damage multiple targets in one shot.

The Aliens pulse rifle was indeed a crossbreed between conventional and energy firearms. The Half-life pulse rifles however, are operating entirely on energy.

Re: Classic weapons vs. high-tech weapons?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:37 pm
by Arthropleura
One of the most exotic non energy weapons I've ever come across in a video game was the Mercury Bow from Oni, it work by firing a frozen bolt of mercury at enemies possibly through some sort of compressed air or an explosive charge. It provided a new perspective on kinetic weapons for me.

Re: Classic weapons vs. high-tech weapons?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:22 pm
by xenoxols
My favorite gun in a game is the Galleria Model 1991(Which is actually a Winchester Model 1887 with the wrong tube magazine size) from Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon when it is fully upgraded, but without the semi automatic upgrade. It is a cool mix of Sci-Fi(General metallic look, fire rounds, and glowy parts), older conventional weapons(it being lever action), and ridiculous(How you use the lever and it having 4 barrels.)

Re: Classic weapons vs. high-tech weapons?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:19 pm
by DoomRater
Chesluk Industries Cyclone. It looks and sounds like a freaking vacuum cleaner and reloads like one too.

Re: Classic weapons vs. high-tech weapons?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2015 6:12 am
by Reactor
I get the idea, ye :) the gluon gun from Half-life can also be mistaken for a vacuum cleaner, especially because it leaves no corpses, I always felt that kinda "sucked the enemy in".

Re: Classic weapons vs. high-tech weapons?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2015 11:21 am
by Ghastly
I prefer interesting sci-fi weapons over conventional FPS weapons. I'm really disappointed when I look at a new FPS and see the weapons are all just assault rifles, shotguns and things like that (maybe dressed up a bit more, but they're all still assault rifles, shotguns and things like that). Mass Effect, until the third game, suffered from this quite a bit. One of the things I loved about Red Faction: Armageddon was the interesting and fun weapon lineup. Some of Halo's weapons, too, are pretty awesome. It gives more opportunity to engage the player; rather than giving them a plain hammer and telling them to hit nails, you're giving them a tool that they need to figure out exactly how it works and find the best situations for it. If you can make your player think a bit (in a single-player game, at least), it ends up being a bit more fun.

Though I should point out, "energy" doesn't do enough justice to some of these awesome sci-fi weapons. Things like Halo's Needler and Red Faction's Magnet Gun aren't energy weapons. :P

Re: Classic weapons vs. high-tech weapons?

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:34 am
by DaMan
Borg killing bullets>the pew pews that never killed anyone on G.I. Joe.
Image

Re: Classic weapons vs. high-tech weapons?

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 9:49 am
by Ghastly
DaMan wrote:*gif*
What a badass. He's yawning at the end of the gif. :P

Re: Classic weapons vs. high-tech weapons?

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 10:55 am
by DoomRater
Shadow Man's weapons were always really odd. But I haven't seen anyone really translate those into Doom yet... Some of them including the Marteau are among the most unconventional weapons I've seen from a game. It could also be a good show as to what magic weapons should do in comparison to the rather straightforward weapons everyone makes these days.

Re: Classic weapons vs. high-tech weapons?

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 11:45 am
by MetroidJunkie
How about chemical based weapons like the Chemical Thrower from Bioshock or the Radium Cyanide Launcher from Duke Nukem Zero Hour?

Re: Classic weapons vs. high-tech weapons?

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:02 pm
by Reactor
Chemical weaponry are also "classic" ones, I think. Mainly because they're already thought up and developed. Poisonous gas, such as tabun, was used even in the Second World War, or even earlier. Sarine and somane are new inventions alrighty. Er, same goes for using polonium as weapon. I can't really think of any high-tech poison weapon, except maybe a Poison launcher (a special missile launcher, which uses chemicals-filled warheads).

The problem with poison weapon is that they're only effective against living things, and dramatically useless against machines, robots, automated turret-guns, undead and zombie monsters, or supernatural beings (it's the polar opposite of the Zicca Disintegrator, which is only effective against electic-powered enemies, and largely useless against life beings)