So… You Can Look At Syndicate’s Guns

By Jim Rossignol on December 1st, 2011 at 3:23 pm.


UPDATE: Turns out there is a trailer, too. (Below.)

This has to be one of the weirdest asset releases we’ve seen lately: a batch of screenshots in which the protagonist of Syndicate is having a good look at the gun that he’s carrying. That’s what it’s about: admiring the shooting cylinder. Conveniently it features most of the guns you’ll be toting in the game. So big. So gunny! Mmm. Full gallery below!









I am presuming this isn’t the default view for carrying these weapons…


, , .

108 Comments »

  1. MasterBoo says:

    A gun that fires bloom?

    • kshh says:

      Syndicate earns the:
      http://tinyurl.com/cogsfsl

    • simoroth says:

      Urgh. Yet another AAA game using anamorphic lens flares with absolutely no appreciation of how such a lens actually works.

      Edit: Just went back through all of them full screen. Terribly ugly, and utterly incorrect.

      If you want to make a game and call it “cinematic” hire a bloody cinematographer, don’t just jam tons of shit into the frame.

    • RaytraceRat says:

      I’m afraid that “lens flares everywhere” became cinematic since the new Star Trek movie.

    • coldvvvave says:

      What are you a lens flare elitist?

    • Premium User Badge

      Maltose says:

      Occupy Lens Flare! We are the 99%!

    • Droopy The Dog says:

      @Maltose

      *groan!* Parrotting a topical phrase with no logical connection to the topic at hand does not humour make…

    • Premium User Badge

      Big Murray says:

      @DROOPY … OCCUPY PARROTS.

    • Droopy The Dog says:

      Damnit, I just snirked at that, thanks for invalidating my point! :P

  2. Inigo says:

    The lights don’t glare enough – I can still see parts of the screen.

  3. Toberoth says:

    Gosh, what a bunch of dull, generic screenshots for a bunch of (for the most part) dull, generic guns. I hope something fantastic happens at the last minute to rescue this game. From everything I’ve seen so far, it stinks of compromise and mediocrity. Thanks for the screens anyway Jim.

    • fivesixpickupsticks says:

      What were you expecting?

    • Unaco says:

      I disagree. I do not think they look ‘generic’ (a word I think gets over used in video gaming these days, along with vague criticism about ‘pacing’). I think they look quite interesting, quite fresh… Minigun for a start (wouldn’t be Syndicate without a minigun), the Scopes and off-centre Ironsights both being used, lots of detail gone in to both the guns themselves and the additional details (fingers on the triggers etc).

      I’m quietly confident about the game.

    • Shooop says:

      What could possibly happen to save this mess other than the complete collapse of EA Games under the weight of their own mediocrity?

    • Toberoth says:

      Are you trolling me? If you think those guns looks interesting and fresh then I’m assuming the last FPS you played was… I don’t know, Doom? They wouldn’t look out of place in basically any sci-fi tinged or even straight up military FPS from the last ten years or so. Generic, whether you think the term is overused or not, is exactly right for describing what’s going on in these screens.

    • Unaco says:

      I’m not trolling you, and I don’t see what could possibly have made you think that, simply because I do not agree with you.

      The guns don’t look like what we’d see in all these tactical shootahs… Sci-Fi, yes… but they seem quite few and far between recently, and we haven’t really seen that many in recent years (apocalyptic futuristic shooters, but not the Dystopic Sci-fi feel of this or Hard Reset). Each gun looks quite unique and individual (maybe the carbine and the Assault rifle look quite similar). Like I say, the double sights thing is new (I don’t think I’ve seen that in a game before except for maybe ArmA2). We’ve got the classic Minigun, the staples of a pistol, shotgun and AR. They all look as if they’ll play individually as well.

    • Brun says:

      So what we have are:

      Revolver with Laser Sight – DXHR and innumerable other games. Nothing new here.
      Coil Gun – One of the two semi-interesting weapons. That said, a Coil Gun is basically the same as a Rail Gun or Gauss Rifle; the principle of operation is slightly different (Coil Gun operates by direct magnetic attraction, Railguns/Gauss Rifles operate via Lorenz Force), but the effects are generally the same – shoots a big piece of metal very fast for high damage. Big magnetic guns have been the ultimate weapon in pretty much every sci-fi shooter in history.
      Generic Assault Rifle with ACOG – Call of Syndicate anyone?
      Minigun – The other semi-interesting weapon simply because not every FPS ever made has included it. Still it’s been featured prominently in many shooter games.
      9mm Pistol – See comments on Assault Rifle.
      Shotgun with RDS – Still generic as hell.
      SMG with Holographic Sight – Again, Call of Syndicate.

    • Toberoth says:

      Thanks Brun, I was just about to type up a post evaluating each gun in turn and you beat me to it! :-P

      I want a god damn pulse rifle, an electron mace, and a handful of nuclear grenades. Then I’ll be happy.

    • Toberoth says:

      Oh, and a flamer.

    • Shooop says:

      I’m becoming more and more certain Unaco’s entire purpose of posting is to let us all know what games are derivative, bland mush by giving them his mark of approval.

      A tad roundabout way of doing it, but whatever works right?

    • RaytraceRat says:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6CXAaI1OAo I think it just need a mod to make guns look like this.

    • ninjapirate says:

      To be fair, as gamers, we’ve already seen a heck of a lot of guns in games; we’ve been there and done that.
      From what I remember of the original game’s setting, why should we expect more than guns that shoot bullets? (Oh, and flamethrowers! Guns that shoot flamethrowers!)

    • coldvvvave says:

      Hey you, Syndicate haters – bring in examples of good weapon designs or something.

    • Shooop says:

      @ninjapirate:

      Obviously what we need are more guns that shoot people with guns.

      http://www.indiegames.com/2010/08/browser_game_pick_metagun_mark.html

    • Quinnbeast says:

      Hmm. Since this isn’t the first game of said title, perhaps they could try looking at the substantial weapon selection from Syndicte Wars rather than “Pistol, Shotty, SMG”. Just a thought.

      http://syndicate.lubie.org/swars/html/swars_weapons_late.php

    • Premium User Badge

      Revisor says:

      coldvvvave: Red Faction Armageddon has some beautiful and inspired guns. The Magnet Gun forcefully attracts two objects together. The Singularity Gun shoots small black holes. Also a big hammer. :)

    • Toberoth says:

      Fucking hell, my comments are being lost and/or marked as spam. It’s a conspiracy I tell you.

    • Brun says:

      Even the Gravity Gun – excuse me, Zero Point Energy Field Manipulator – from HL2 is more interesting than these guns. Not only was it a cool gun, it was also quite appropriate for a theoretical physicist to use physics as a weapon.

    • theleif says:

      Gotta agree with unaco here. The guns are detailed and have a nice near future design, and I think they fit the game world.
      I like.

    • coldvvvave says:

      So, a Gravity gun and a Magnet gun? Do I need to remind you guys that these things got old fast? In the end, HL2 had the same pistol-shotgun-smg-assaultrifle-revolver-rocketlauncher-snipercrossbow arsenal that every other shooter game has and had for years. For christsakes, what do you guys want to shoot in a shooter if not a ‘generic’ firearm, a slingshot?

    • Brun says:

      Let’s put it this way coldwavve.

      So far this Syndicate has done very little to distinguish itself from the rest of the Sci-Fi or even Modern Military shooters that it shares space with. We’re presented with these guns and see nothing special. They are being shown as marketing material in an effort to convince me, the consumer, to buy this game over any other shooter out there. Clearly the developers think they’re something special, or they wouldn’t be using them in their promos. The problem is that they AREN’T. At all. You said it yourself – you can play HL2 and use all of these guns. So why would I play Syndicate?

      If EA/Starbreeze think these guns are going to set their game apart, they’re woefully mistaken. They SHOULD be showing us things that make Syndicate Syndicate, like hacking people, etc. But most of what they’ve shown is shooting or guns. Both of which look pretty run-of-the-mill.

      I guess what I’m saying is that, given everything we’ve seen so far, these guns are a fair reflection of the game as a whole – bland, generic, and uninteresting.

    • Toberoth says:

      Yeah, they fit the game world perfectly because the game world is also drab as fuck.

      I appreciate that the guns are trying to be sleek, and cool, and businesslike, and in a sense they do achieve that, but it’s at the cost of looking individual or unique or appealing to play with. Even the guns in the video there (there’s an electron mace at least, yay!) look like standard FPS guns with some very slight bells and whistles and visual effects tacked on.

      I think my objections to what I’ve seen so far of the Syndicate weapons come down not just to visual design (which is dull, dull, dull), but a lack of a sense of scale or the ability of the weapons to impact on the world. There’s none of the sheer insanity of some of the weapons in Syndicate Wars, for example, which you could use to level whole cities or reduce entire populations to piles of dust. I don’t think anything in the Syndicate FPS reboot is going to match the sheer destructive potential of a nuclear grenade or a graviton gun, because they would quite literally break the corridors in which the action takes place.

    • YourMessageHere says:

      Brun: Good point, why would you play syndicate? Or even HL2? Or any FPS ever again?

      I’d expect the answer to that to be: because it’s fun, and because those weapons are fun to use. The point of this is essentially art design, not pointless innovation for its own sake. The game’s got a futuristic take on modern military weapons, and as someone who’s really interested in guns generally, I think they’re well thought out and credible for the most part. Also, if Syndicate didn’t show its guns, wouldn’t you be one of the people going “they’re not showing the basic shooting, that means its terrible!”?

      EDIT: actually, since Brun seems to have missed the point of gun choices in FPS games entirely, let’s try appraising them again, without the unwarranted cynicism:

      Revolver: A riff on a gun from Neuromancer, probably (seems to have a cut-away trigger guard and very short barrel, just as Julius Deane’s belly gun is described). A novel take on a classic weapon, given that the classic FPS magnum is long and silver.

      Coil Gun: Looks like it took a design cue from District 9 mostly, with a touch of the HL tau cannon in the cables. Like the depth of field blurring near the camera, been hoping to see that on guns since way back.

      Assault Rifle: Looks like a fusion of three or four current guns, mostly the SCAR H. The two sighting systems is, to my knowledge, unique. Not a fan of the iron sights view, though, the scope blocks vision quite badly, and as for ACOG-style sights, on a gun without single-shot mode I’ve never found them very useful. Looks like it fires pretty slowly, though; a quite interestingly thought out gun.

      Minigun: Not really liking that, to be honest; it looks too big for the way it’s being held, so the weight distribution seems wrong, and I don’t know what all that garnish all over the barrels is all about. I always saw the Syndicate minigun as actually being pretty small.

      Semi-auto pistol: It’s simply a Walther P99 (a first edition one, as well, not even the latest model) with big sights. Seems very lazy; the least impressive thing on view here. Still, P99s are nice.

      Shotgun: Not very innovative, but it seems to have a number of switches and stuff on the side, so maybe it does more than your average shotgun; they could have chosen a shot where we could actually see the thing. They better get the sound right, the Syndicate shotgun sound was second only to Doom as shotgun sound par excellence.

      SMG: looks like a cross between an MP7 and an Uzi. Not sure I like it, but the muzzle is unusual and interesting. Have to wonder if the fact you can see through the breech as it fires is intended or a texturing error (you shouldn’t be able to on any real gun).

      Video guns: A beam laser! those are excellent fun, as players of FEAR expansions and DXHR ought to know. Also a belt-fed machine shotgun, unless I’m much mistaken, which to my knowledge is a first. The curving-shots rifle is not very pretty. The spore launcher reminds me of Rise of the Triad’s drunk missile, and that was excellent fun. Not really into the Electron Mace, though, seems a bit UT lightning gun for my tastes. Don’t like the look of the sniper rifle much (silver isn’t great for hiding) but it seems to be effective against riot shields, which suggests I’d rather enjoy it.

      Overall, I remain cautiously optimistic about this. Doubtless it’ll not be as good as I hope, but I expect it’ll be a damn sight better than most people round here seem to fear.

    • Bhazor says:

      I’ll just leave these Resistance weapons here for reference on how to do interesting weapons.

  4. Blackcompany says:

    Oh a First Person Shooter. Good. I’ve missed those.

    • Joe The Wizard says:

      What is this First Person Shooter you speak of? I’ve been spending all my time playing ASCII-art military sims.

    • coldvvvave says:

      I like how some people imply that we are drowing in FPS games.

    • Shooop says:

      @coldvvvave

      In order of release:

      Bulletstorm
      Homefront
      Crysis 2
      Brink
      Operation Flashpoint: Red River
      Duke Nukem Forever
      F.E.A.R. 3
      Call of Juarez: The Cartel
      Red Orchestra 2
      Rage
      Payday: The Heist
      Battlefield 3
      Modern Warfare 3
      Serious Sam 3

      That’s just PC FPSs for 2011. The proper order of things is think, then post. I recommend trying it immediately.

    • theleif says:

      @Shoop

      Anno 2070
      Stronghold 3
      Dawn of Fantasy
      A Game of Thrones: Genesis
      King Arthur: Fallen Champions
      Men of War: Vietnam
      The Kings’ Crusade: Teutonic Knights
      Patrician IV: Rise of a Dynasty
      Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II – Retribution
      Men of War: Assault Squad
      Theatre of War 3: Korea
      Elements of War
      Sword of the Stars II: Lords of Winter
      Might & Magic Heroes VI
      Disciples III: Resurrection
      Pride of Nations
      Total War: Shogun 2

      That’s just some of the PC only strategy games this year, so I wouldn’t say there’s been an over-abundance of FPS’s. Just lots of games. All said, this has been a good year for the PC gamer.

    • Shooop says:

      theleif, you seem to have missed the point. The point is we have had lots of FPS games this year, and most of them terrible. Other genres have fared much better, but that isn’t what coldvvvave was on about.

      And I didn’t even mention any of the console FPSs this year. Overall 2011 was not a good year for first-person shooter fans on any platform.

    • Supahewok says:

      @ theleif

      Also, the list you gave is Strategy. That is one broad genre, with several major and many minor subgenres. Shoop gave us a list of FPSes, which, believe it or not, are a subgenre of Shooter. There can be variations between FPSes, but I would not say that Serious Sam 3 is as different from MW3 as Might and Magic: Heroes 6 is from Anno 2070. If you included cover based and third-person in Shoop’s list, it would dwarf yours.

      Also, Shoop, you missed Portal 2. I’ll forgive you. Once.

    • Shooop says:

      @Supahewok

      Isn’t Portal 2 a an action/puzzle game instead of a shooter? It definitely has some elements of shooters in it but that’s not really the focus of the game is it?

      I purposely left out Deus EX HR and Dead Island for the same reason – they may be first-person but aren’t quite shooters.

  5. cafe says:

    Whats up with the 5th picture?

  6. Duckee says:

    Fov of 55 and guns the size of a mini-buses. No thanks.

    • db1331 says:

      Seriously. It reminds me of console BF3 footage. When those guys get an unlock during gameplay, I swear at least 80% of their screen is covered up between their gun, map, and the unlock notification popup.

    • InternetBatman says:

      I noticed that. Those guns are freaking massive.

    • gonzAllex says:

      Yeah, so many people complain about narrow FOV in console ports these days yet no dev seems to care.
      It would be so easy for these fools to program a fov slider in the game’s menu yet they don’t do it.
      It’s like they deliberately try to shit on us.

    • Snargelfargen says:

      Is there any reason why games have such a terrible FOV these days?

      Now that 4:3 has gone the way of the dodo, you would think devs would actually take advantage of flatscreens. Is there some sort of design rule I’m not aware of?

    • Nallen says:

      It’s because it reduces what you have to render thus improving performance isn’t it? much like how most of the console games don’t even render at 720p, they upscale.

    • Brun says:

      The biggest reason is probably related to performance. Console hardware is aging and a narrow FOV means that less stuff needs to be rendered.

      As for why they don’t include a FOV slider in PC ports, it’s probably for balance reasons, at least in multiplayer games. Increasing your field of view gives you better peripheral vision (it lets you see more of what’s around you) at the expense of warped central vision. If a player can get used to playing with a very large FOV it can turn into a big advantage for them.

      Another reason might be a (bewildering) desire to maintain performance and/or experience parity with consoles. I’m not really sure how prevalent this is, but I get the feeling that some publishers or developers intentionally make their PC ports nearly identical in every respect to the console version, I guess to boost console sales.

    • Snargelfargen says:

      …oh :-(

      That makes a lot of sense.

    • woodsey says:

      I’m surprised they don’t lose money with the amount of QA testers they have to pay sick-leave to, from getting astronomical migraines from the bloody thing; I cannot look at a screen with a FOV that narrow for more than 5 minutes before feeling nauseous.

      Valve and the DX:HR guys are the only ones I’ve seen bothering to include it.

    • gonzAllex says:

      @ Brun

      Yeah,everyone should have a fair chance to suffer from a headache because of tube vision during multiplayer matches,agree.(sarcasm) But how do you explain the narrow fov in SP?
      Dude,we’re respectable pc gamers here.I’d vouch my rig could render a few more inches of walls with no performance loss.
      No mate,the best way to explain this nFOV phenomenom that infects out pc games today is that the devs don’t give a fuck about pc gaming.They just port it,box it and godspeed.

      This type of “pc games” shouldn’t be able to pass quality check.

    • Brun says:

      @Gonz:

      I never said I agreed with the industry practices regarding FOV. I think that the “standard” FOV (which seems to be between 55 and 60 degrees) should be widened to at least 75 degrees to accommodate widescreen TVs and Monitors.

    • Akaichi says:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blZUao2jTGA

      So it’s not entirely about performance, kinda makes sense to have a smaller FoV on consoles.

    • theleif says:

      What that the YouTube video Achaci posted explained.
      Long story short: Console games have a narrower FOV because you’re farther from the screen. The closer you are to your screen, the wider the FOV should be. Otherwise it feels strange, and people like me get motion sickness.

    • subedii says:

      Which is also why I never bought Republic Commando. For all the gushing about it, I tried the demo and blurrrgh. My eyes were watering pretty badly when I first started playing Bioshock until they patched in some support for a wider FOV. Similar with Human Revolution until I discovered they actually did the nice thing and permitted me an FOV slider.

      However, there is also truth in that it’s used to reduces rendering as well. ESPECIALLY the large guns thing. That’s partly for readability of the weapon when you’re sitting away from the screen, but frankly, a lot of times smaller weapon models would be easily readable at those kinds of distances. It’s also because the large weapon occludes the rest of the screen and cuts down on the necessity to render a pretty sizeable chunk of the scene. Console-side, when you’re looking at a game that’s seriously pushing the hardware for framerates and you’re snipping down resolution literally a line at a time (despite being advertised as such, a lot of modern console FPS’s don’t even reach a native 720p. They cut down on lines and then upscale), every little trick helps.

      So often you get a gun that can fill literally something like 1/6 – 1/4 of the screen, and when you “iron-sight” it, your view of the weapon shrinks but your FOV is zoomed in further anyway.

  7. iARDAs says:

    Good screens. Some of the people’s standarts in here seems way too high if you ask me.

  8. Flakfizer says:

    Syndicate : The Gunnening

  9. Echo Black says:

    Getting some definite DXHR vibe from the black/chrome revolver, the coilgun and the rifles. Then again, it’s not like these aesthestics weren’t done eons ago by Ghost in the Shell or some other obscure cyberpunk series I’m too much of a pleb to mention.

  10. deadly.by.design says:

    In the future, everyone has cataracts.

  11. Brun says:

    Here’s hoping this game brings about a much-needed crash in the shooter genre.

    • Blackcompany says:

      This. Just…this.

    • InternetBatman says:

      The problem isn’t with shooters, it’s with certain types of other games not being made. Even then, this year has exploded for some genres, like roguelikes. Let them keep on making their games, and indies will slowly fill in missing niches.

  12. RogB says:

    couldnt even concentrate on the guns, too distracted by the horizontal light flare ‘streaks’ in every single picture . ugh!

    • Brun says:

      Seriously. All it is is a cover-up for lazy texture and detail work. This game has “designed-by-committee” smeared over it so thick it makes me wonder whether there are any actual game DEVELOPERS working on it.

    • mousearmy says:

      I hadn’t really noticed that, just glanced over the guns. Now I find it maddening.

  13. Wooly Wugga Wugga says:

    So uninspiring not even RPS could be arsed with a funny alt-text.

  14. diebroken says:

    UZI! … (*sigh* ?)

  15. Moni says:

    Finally, someone has realised Trespasser was on to something with their wonky guns.

    • Snargelfargen says:

      Haha, yeah holding a pistol at an angle above one’s forehead is a very Trespasser thing to do.

    • Echo Black says:

      Trespasser will forever be remembered by allowing you to fire just about anything gangsta-style, or using any other combination of anti-anatomic wrist and forearm angles you could accidentally produce by fumbling with the controls

    • Rane2k says:

      You got it all wrong, it´s not the position of his arms thats weird, it´s his _eyes_!

      The guy on the last 3 pictures clearly has his eyeballs implanted into his left shoulder or upper arm. :-)

    • theleif says:

      Or just maybe not all of the screenshots are taken from the view of the shooter?

    • Rane2k says:

      You mean they implanted someone else´s eyes on his shoulders? Gross!

      Just kidding, but if you look at 0:54 in the trailer, it´s really the guy shaking his gun around in a weird way. I guess it´s supposed to be him being hit.

  16. Premium User Badge

    Phinor says:

    Tiny screenshots are tiny. I wish marketing teams finally make the leap to 21st century sometime soon.

  17. Shooop says:

    Amazing how we’ve gone from Doom 3′s “You can’t see anything because there’s no lights in this room” to “You can’t see anything because there’s nothing but lights in this room!”

    • Moni says:

      This is why we should avoid complaining too much. Programmers are notoriously passive-aggressive.

  18. Hoaxfish says:

    Some of the guns come from the left of the screen, while others are on the right.

    Those agents must have strong arms to hold those guns so far forward.

    • Saiko Kila says:

      I suppose these agent are cyborgs, as in Syndicate. That would also explain the poor vision – cybernetic eyes have a long way to go before they can compare to natural ones.

  19. rayne117 says:

    Once you notice those stupid lines (that are present in literally every picture) you just can’t stop staring at them.

  20. John Magnum says:

    Most of them look at least decently detailed, but yeah pretty generic. The coilgun in particularly looks like every gun from Mass Effect 2. The minigun I suppose looks okay but not particularly great.

  21. ThTa says:

    In more noteworthy gun-on-screen related news: the latest Tribes: Ascend patch allows you to reduce the size of the weapons on screen.

    (And don’t imply this is unrelated, as this newspost was clearly about the developers’ ability to cover half of your FOV with their pretty guns, something Hi-Rez clearly beat them to)

  22. Beelzebud says:

    I’d like to shoot JJ Abrams with one of those guns just for popularizing the Lens Flare A Go-Go look…

  23. Tei says:

    In my head I can still heard the word “Minigun” with the voice of the game. And probably “Gauss cannon”. These weapons where pure awesomenes. Laser was also high-voltage.

  24. MrUnimport says:

    I am almost certainly alone in this, but I have absolutely no problem with “generic” bullet-firing weapons in my near-future first-person-shooters provided they come with appealing visual design. My complaint about these guns isn’t their screen-hogging heft, isn’t the fact they fit into generally-recognized “pistol, sniper rifle, assault rifle, shotgun, SMG” roles, it’s that they’re really kind of ugly. This is one area where they could stand to learn a few things from DX:HR.

  25. Premium User Badge

    Nero says:

    Hooly fov Baman.

  26. Suits says:

    Errr. OP sniper rifle?

  27. Rane2k says:

    Thanks for that link Akaichi, very informative.

    I vaguely remember someone mentioning that in some shooter they fiddled about with the FOV because either the guns in the player´s hand or the people in the game looked distorted. (I think it was Half Life 2 and someone linked a dev commentary here on RPS)

    Ultimately.. I want my FOV slider back, for some games FOV 100+ just “feels” better.
    Damn, I think I´ll have to play some Quake Live again, they have that. :-)

    Edit: Nooouuuuuu, this was supposed to be a reply to the FOV discussion on page 1. Oo

  28. Revenge says:

    http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/images/11/dec/syn7.jpg
    What is this even? Why would you want your video game to look like this?

  29. Wulf says:

    So here’s an idea…

    No more guns. Well, that sounds silly initially, but let me elaborate by saying: No more guns visually. I’d love to see more of the approach where you actually have to look down to see your gun and body, and where you may only see the tip of your gun in most instances. Perhaps have a key to hold your gun up to inspect it if you really want to, but keep it out of the field of view, most of the time.

    There were mods for Morrowind and Oblivion that gave the first person view the third person animations. I’m eagerly awaiting those mods for Skyrim, too, because the third person animations are leagues better. And it works, it just works. Seeing your hands/weapons on screen sometimes, when you’re actually doing something with them, is better than seeing them there all the time.

    If there’s one thing I’ve found silly in all Bethesda engine games it’s this. I mean, in the third person view you’re holding a heavy axe sideways, on a horizontal slope. This makes a hell of a lot of sense. Yet if you’re in first person, you’re suddenly, immediately holding it vertically! I really dislike that. It’s just a pet peeve. I’d rather be holding the axe sideways in first person and have to look down to see my hands and the axe.

    Am I the only person that feels that way?

    There’s one thing I worry about, and that’s that big developers think we’re too stupid to know what we have equipped unless it’s showing on screen all the time. I think that may be why this hasn’t changed, and that bothers me, too. If you didn’t have a visible weapon on screen all the time, would you be confused about what you had equipped? If somehow you’d forgotten, you could just look down, after all, or check in your inventory what you have equipped.

    This goes for shooters and every kind of game that does this. It’s just silly!

    And again… am I the only person that thinks like this?

    I tend to do combat in Skyrim in the third person for precisely this reason, and I’ll probably continue to until the mod comes along that replaces those animations, and you can’t know how much… how very, very much I’m looking forward to that.

    • Hoaxfish says:

      Isn’t it generally the practise that when you hold a gun you kinda have it in your field of view so you can aim “along it”… obviously not as much as FPSes do, when the whole gun + hands + forearms are sort of waving around far in front of your body, but maybe just the tip poking into view or something.

    • Wulf says:

      I covered that! I did! *points at his post.*

      The weapon will be in the field of view when you’re actually using it.

      Let me give you an example. Okay, in Fallout 3, I saw Brotherhood of Steel guys sensibly holding their weapons low when they weren’t using them, this is to conserve energy, since holding a weapon up all the time is going to exhaust you. But me? I was running around like an idiot! Because we were in a hostile environment, I had to keep my weapon drawn, but keeping my weapon drawn meant keeping it held up the entire damn time.

      With the third person animations, there are a number of phases between out of combat and fully in combat, and you can see them. There’s the aiming thing (walking or standing), the idle thing (walking or standing), and then there’s the shooting animation set. Unfortunately, I’m stuck in the ‘shooting’ pose in first person all of the time. I can never slide my gun down into an idle position without ‘sheathing’ it.

      Now if you look at more common shooters, like this Syndicate game, you’re not even going to be able to ‘sheathe’ weapons in that way, so the entire time you’ll be running around looking like an idiot with your gun held up. And even the way it’s held up just looks awkward and incorrect because you’re staring down the side of it.

      I don’t know, I often think that third person animations from a first person view work better. They have in pretty much every Bethesda game thus far, and that includes Fallout.

      What I’m saying is that I think it’d work better if third person animations were designed, like those in Bethesda games, and those were then applied to first person. (So you could see your entire body, including your weapon in an idle position.)

      From there, the animations would be tweaked as necessary so that they don’t clip or obscure anything, but we wouldn’t have to have a gigantic gun in view all the time. We could have an idle position where we could look down to see our gun.

    • Hoaxfish says:

      Oh right, I must of skimmed over that bit.

    • Shooop says:

      Like this?

    • InternetBatman says:

      The original UT had that option I believe. It was an awesome game.

  30. Wulf says:

    …is it doing that again, or is it just the spam filter? Gah, can’t tell…

    • Wulf says:

      Yep, it was doing that again. …I have no idea why it hides the very latest post.

  31. wab1981 says:

    one thinh I have liked in the (admittedly cimematic) trailers is the close range take downs, that slide and neck snap looks damn cool

  32. DrSlek says:

    0:56 of the trailer. Top notch AI right there….

  33. Dreadwolf says:

    Another great opportunity lost to make a modern tactical squad game.
    The screens nearly made my eyes bleed. Enemy behavior made me cringe (not just from this video. The last one they released showed a lot more of it and it was terrible, at best)…

    But at least we’ll get “uninteresting shooter 74″ this year. Don’t get me wrong i like a good shooter every now and then, but this doesn’t look good in any way and it could have been so much more