If you’re implying that this will work only with fictional guns, it’s an even more questionable suggestion.
We obviously have to start by looking at how this could fit into the current picture of real-life firearms and the existing system. Fictional weapons are best left for another discussion entirely, seeing as how much of a tangent it is from the OP. It’s not entirely relevant.
Also, again, the problem with this system is that it takes realism and throws it entirely out the window.
“Takes realism trows it out of the window” “zombie survival game” haha just messing with ya
Sorry, but how is that relevant?
see also: realism =/= realistic
And that’s a great thing to improve the games longetivity
Yes but so far, the model aspect does not change that much, I mean yes it will have extra grips and optics on but with this suggestion, you could bring the makeshift crafting to a new level. Brand new weapons, increased variety and longetivity (cus as said above you would be searching for new parts to improve what you already have).
I’m thinking of an enviroment where resources are scarse cus of the apocalypse, where you won’t just find some functional rifle behind every corner. In that scenario, it’s realistic to think that people would try to find new ways to protect themselfs, and that could mean scrapping weapons that may have malfunctions, to craft something new.
Or even another example, let’s say you find a 3.0 grizzly but there is no way you’ll also find\have the ammo for it, but on the other hand you are full of 7.62 ammunitions. It would be legit to think that a guy with enough skills could work out the different pieces in order to make something that works.
What I’m saying, is that in an apocalyptic scenario any makeshift (insert name) is an extremely realistic possibility.
If that’s the case, why did it take so long for this to be mentioned? And why are the examples exclusively about real, military-grade firearms that don’t work that way?
What you’re describing is an incredibly ghetto process, and the end result may not even fire correctly. Plus, the whole point of the current system is to stop people like you from modding a Grizzly to literally any caliber and magically having ammo forever, even when the proper ammo for it is scarce like it actually would be.
I suppose the suggestion has potential as a makeshift system but right now it definitely doesn’t feel like that, it feels like a complete annexation of the current, perfectly good weapon modification system.
I really don’t see how randomization resulting in “more” (but not actually more) guns would therefore increase the game’s longevity.
While I agree with that, I feel like this suggestion takes that to an extreme. Besides, there’s no known lore about the whole outbreak in UII, so it’s hard to suggest that the world will be “super apocalyptic” or just a few weeks after whatever world ending even happened, thus rendering the guns being “normal”.
It’s much more likely that people would figure out how to create their own guns rather than just mashing existing gun parts together to see what works.
Guys its unturned chill… 3.0 has a raindbow car a pirate boss and exploding bubblegum… i mean have you ever played unturned?
3.0 is completely unrealistic.
4.0 is meant to be a hardcore, fully realism-centric survival game.
The two are completely uncomparable in that manner.
Yeah can you show me were nelson says its going to be a hardcors shooter? I only recall him saying its going to be more survival based then 3.0.
One second. Will edit this when found.
Sure buddy
https://blog.smartlydressedgames.com/unturned-4-x-devlog-001/
" I want 4.x to be more geared toward survival and PvE than the average 3.x server (PvP) so this may seem counter-intuitive, but I think these are some of the core complex features of the game that everything else is built upon."
I dont see hardcore realistic shooter in there? Edit: i mean hardcore realism centric survival game
I said nothing about Unturned II being a shooter FYI.
Yeah already edited
Proof #1
Proof #2 (See Nelson’s reply to my comment)
Proof #3 (Nelson in response to a hyperrealistic gun related suggestion
Proof #4
Proof #5 (The various other people who have cited Unturned II as being hardcore survival, though I am of course a primary advocate)
https://forum.smartlydressedgames.com/search?q=hardcore%20survival
Proof #6 (more citations)
I could find a lot more.
On top of everything GHJ said, the fact that Nelson also said “Realism for the sake of realism is bad” gives insight into the fact that Nelson wants the game to be more realistic. The quote in question is just a caveat that he set in place to that people don’t exactly go super hardcore realism simulator XXX.
I dont see mixing and matching random guns that are not compatible in any way shape or form, which doesnt make the game more interesting and instead takes all the reward and interest that comes from finding valuable and good guns, while also dumbing down gameplay and gunplay as there WILL always be a meta gun combination that is stronger than other combinations, instead of the inherent balance that would come with having guns be standalone, letting balancing work well. It would also make guns feel unique, which your idea, ironically does the exact opposite of as no guns matter, only their parts. The name combonations would also be godawful because most gun names dont have the classic two name combonation. In general bad idea that throws balance and fun gunplay out of the window by watering down all guns into a combination of parts that are meant to be swapped around, while also butchering any kind of desire for realism, which i personally dont really care to much about but hey whatever
edit this is really rambly sorry lol
Well this would not be the main thing I think, plus the guy said that it was something made on rush. I even said that I think that the modles which he proposed are not the best but it’s the idea behind it that matters.
Now what’s a ghetto process, never heard of those o.O
Also important to mention, is that rifles that can use multiple calibers are a real thing. Ok maybe you won’t be able to use both 9mm and .50 cal with the same gun, but the entire thing is more then possible.
And anyway, who said that the whole point of the new process is to stop “people like me”, I thought it was the simpliest way to improve realism, that is actually one of the key features needed if you also want to improve a games immersion, and that’s Nelsons goal about UII.
Cus it will be actually your first “more”, meaning that if you could combine most of your weapons to create new ones, the available ones would be more (so variety).
You are right about this, but it is assumed that the story starts from where it left off, since UII is actually the sequel to UI, so the story is expected to continue (and the last time the world was more then a mess). But it could easily be a new story in which the infection has just spread so you’re right we can’t know for sure.
Well if in front of me I had a stack of metal, tape and forging materials, and on the other some evidently broken rifles, I would totally try to fix those for sure, maybe even trying to swap parts. It’s way more convinient that taking random materials and try to make a gun out of it, and here comes realism again.
Nothing is assumed. Just because the game is a “sequel” does not directly mean the stories are linear, or even parallel. Current 3.x enemies are referred to as “zombies”, but UII refers to them as “Turned”. For all we know, the two timelines can be vastly different.
