So, admittedly, it took me some time to notice Unturned 4.x development underway and now I’m late to the party. That said, after watching some of the devlogs I think there’s some areas that are definitely headed in the right direction and others that I really believe aren’t. I’m going to focus on the second category today, because that’s the one that’s been bugging me this weekend.
To throw my two cents into the mix, the weapon models (well, models in general) are the single biggest thing I’ve seen that I think isn’t headed in the right direction (I’ve got reservations about high-resolution textures too, but I’ll wait to see how that turns out). I understand the intent: adding more details provides more possibility for interaction. However, in the process of adding this detail, the models have lost the minimalism they had before. Put simply: the models now include details that aren’t necessary for recognizing what the thing is supposed to be. I think this is a problem for a handful reasons that have doubtlessly already been expressed, but I’ll collect together here (hey, it’s my manifesto, and I can’t be asked to necro someone else’s!).
Higher-detail models and textures will somewhat increase development time. I’m assuming based on the direction 4.X seems to be headed that Nelson’s already accepted this trade-off, but I would nevertheless like to present my opinion that “more” content is vastly superior to “prettier” content (especially given that prettier is subjective when it doesn’t match the entirety of the game, as mentioned in my first point).
Most worryingly to me, it weakens the visual identity of the game. Unturned has previously been a low-poly game, and though these models are still technically low-poly, they are high-poly enough that they create a stark contrast between gun- and player-model (and the shell casings). It’s somewhat amusing that the firearms have more organic shapes than the stark edges of the player-models, but I don’t think it fits. One solution could be to improve the polycount of the player model, but it’d take a smarter man than I to accomplish this without slipping straight into the uncanny valley, and it doesn’t look like that’s the plan based on the reading I’ve completed before this point.
“But Mourne,” I can hear in response, “It’s just visuals! Good gameplay doesn’t come from visuals!” To which I’d agree (of course I do–it’s why I’ve been so engaged by the minimalist presentation of Unturned 2.x and 3.x). I’d argue, however, that this change to visuals is important on a deeper level because they represent an evolution to Unturned’s design philosophy. My personal opinion is that a tremendous amount of Unturned’s charm comes from how it embraces its limitations and makes them a strength. This move toward higher-fidelity designs seems, to be blunt, to threaten to make the game more generic. My greatest worry is that this visual change represents a shift in mindset; that Unturned is going from taking an inventive and unique approach to presenting itself to a more generic and less interesting standard. My primary fear isn’t the visuals themselves, but that the mindset that leads to the creation of such visuals might reduce the game’s distinctness. Unturned isn’t DayZ, H1Z1, or any number of existing “realistic” zombie-survival-stroke-free-for-all-shooters out there that already do their best to capture high-poly, high-texture realism. It could try to be, but I don’t think it should.
I may be totally wrong. Perhaps the plan has always been to increase the level of detail in the game-world over time. Developing a game as a one-person team is daunting stuff, and I think a lot of Unturned’s minimalism originated from a totally pragmatic desire to not make things more complicated than they needed to be. If this is the case, I’d love to hear it.
But for now, I don’t see what the increased detail adds–and it seems to risk a lot of what I’ve come to love. Discuss!
VS
For people who want to play because the game also just looks beautiful, I couldn’t blame them.