Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About RhinoW

  • Birthday 08/13/2001

Personal Information

  • Biography
    20y game design student and concept artist aspirant! Follow @rhinowarlord on instagram where i post some of my drawings and creations!
  • Location
  • Interests
    Music (Rock,metal, electronic), gaming, drawing concept art, working out, martial arts, game design

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

RhinoW's Achievements


Hunter (4/15)



  1. Indeed, left 4 dead 2 was way ahead of it's time, and truly, the only game that can compete in terms of dismemberment, is Dead Island. I stabbed a zombie corpse on that game in each part of the body, from what I remember. Arms are divided in 4 sections, each with 5 tiers of gore/deterioration, from skin to bone (hand, forearm, bicep, shoulder); Legs are also divided similarly, also with 5 tiers; Upper chest, lower chest, upper back, lower back, all with 5 tiers as well; Can't remember for the head. However these details are only noticeable if you literally start stabbing an inanimate corpse. In Dying Light they simplified the gore most likely because of this. For Left 4 Dead 2, I can only imagine that the common's bodies are already heavily divided, and they have gore parts ready to be replaced whenever that specific body chunk is destroyed. That's why you can sometimes see the gore replacements off place. EDIT: I did work on exploring mesh replacements/destruction on my last project, getting simple dismemberment (especially on death) or body decay based on health is nothing complicated, but l4d2 is something else...
  2. I think you misunderstood what I said. Graphics, performance, voxel is irrelevant to what I'm talking about. When I mean smooth, I'm talking animation frames, I'm talking the animation itself, I play 7 days with constant 60FPS and good looking settings, and I have tested every single weapon, the problem is not lag or graphics... One of the recurring problems, for instance, that all guns have with the exception of the double barrel and the new sniper rifle (even the showcased pipe weapons have it), is that the shooting/recoil animation is too snappy, and the recovery is essentially invisible. Shooting them feels completely off, I don't know if it's a frame rate problem ON THE ANIMATION ITSELF, or the animation duration/frame ratio is too low, but it just feels off. Maybe Unity is interpolating the frames poorly on the import settings, again, I can't know the cause, from here, it looks like a fundamental animation problem to me, so I'll go with that. Either way, it's a problem that hinders the combat fluidity potential. There are so many great references for FPS animations and weapon positioning/viewmodel, this really shouldn't be an issue. I could write a few more paragraphs about it, and all the problems regarding the animation/combat fluidity of the game. But I have a distinct feeling that one really gives a crap about this unfortunately. Visually A20 is looking stunning though, the artists and level designers are hard carrying this.
  3. Ah yes, Civilization series, the infamous top selling first person shooter. Jokes aside, quite interesting how they played around an interface based game, however, from what I just saw, it does have hitboxes, when you click on the unit tile to attack. A game with no hitboxes would be those choice based text games like dating sims. Where did I compare apples to oranges? I'm comparing two first person shooter games, with inventory based weapon selection, with aiming down sights and with simple melee combat (light and power attack). Furthermore, I'm comparing animation and hit feedback "quality". Sandbox or not, is not relevant to the topic, when the main combat is literally the same in both games.
  4. Do I need to remind people of the existence of a game named Unturned? That despite the goofy nature, has way smoother first person animations both melee and weapon, great melee combat and hit feedback and I'm gonna add the fact that the melee is hitscan, no swing angle is implemented. though the zombies are much wider. But this is just an example, made by 1 person btw.
  5. Same opinion here, animations are still mediocre (besides the reloads, but even they have flow issues) and snappy in all the wrong ways. Viewmodels/idle holding animations also don't do justice to most weapons, and aiming down sights still feels rough all around, no smooth transitions and everything is all up in your face. For reference, animating a weapon isn't hard (unless it's something high-tech with lots of moving components and disassembling, which isn't the case here), making the skeleton is the hard part as always (rigging). However these guys have more than enough skill to make great weapon animations, I really have no clue what's happening, there's no excuse for the weapons still feeling bad to shoot while looking that good. You can be critical all you want, we're talking more than 200 millions dollars here. I've been yapping about this issue since A17-18 when the game started taking it's looter shooter turn and literally the only weapon that has good animations (shooting and aiming down sights included), is the double barrel shotgun. But I'm gonna wait until I can actually shoot them in-game, and hope I'm wrong until then.
  6. I know that, hence my question.
  7. @faatal About the dismemberment and gore topic. I believe I saw you say that 7 days to die is made on the default Unity 3D pipeline correct? If so, are bullet wound decals even in the plans? From what I've searched when making an fps project, for complex meshes you need HDRP in order to get decals to wrap around them (perhaps there's a workaround for the default pipeline but I dunno). I'm asking this because from all I've seen so far, 7 days to die has always been in need of some decent visual feedback when shooting zeds, and now more than ever with the new high-res models.
  8. I don't play with mods either, and the drone still seems underwhelming. While the sledge turret did get improvements, let's not forget it's a turret made for home defense, not really a weapon to carry around (using it like that is really just for the memes). The drone strikes me as the third weapon type in the intelligence arsenal (baton, turrets and drone), much like in perception is explosions, javelins and rifles, and because of that I would really like to see it having more impact than what I've gathered so far. You either add it with an intent or don't. It seems that so far TFP has stayed true to their A17 re-route of the game's balancing and have made all their additions have a purpose (weapons finally having their playstyle purpose/related skills and feel imposing). I hope the drone sticks to the same formula and doesn't feel off or useless. That's just all. But only time will tell...
  9. So the drone is a flying backpack by default, shouldn't the storage actually be a mod while his default behaviour would be to help you in a fight? Is the shock hit on the zombies discarded? Let's just hope it's not too expensive to craft then, because the drone really just sounds more like a gimmick than a useful craft (unlike the junk turrets).
  10. I heard that something was being done about the looks on the dismemberment. Besides that, is there going to be a VFX rework (not necessarily just blood)? or the addition to blood splatter decals?
  11. List should tell you that there would be options to increase the difficulty, as zombies aren't just "zombies", they got 2 different variants that could serve different purposes when destroying the base, or could be tiered direct upgrades to the zombies themselves. Meaning, having a full concrete/steel base wouldn't make the game trivial (which wouldn't anyways). Why do you see it as a nerf? They continue to have the same impact early on, and only have a harder time destroying harder blocks, which would make sense, as you are actively trying to find better ways to make the zombies more ineffective towards your base. Also, you are bound to have blind angles on your base or have the zombies separated into 2 groups if you have an actual square fortress/wall, so shooting them isn't always constant action. Wait, so by that logic, you should always have enemies that scale with you in order to give them a use. Doesn't that kind of ruin the point of progression? You never really notice the difference in that case, as there would be nothing to compare yourself to. One could argue they could be removed near the true endgame, but...that already happens mate, they are replaced with radiated versions. After (old) gamestage 300 (correct me if im wrong), 90%+ the zombies you are facing are radiated. And commons aren't weak, they would become weak as a sign of your efforts. Must admit, my opinion here is totally biased because of my experience ever since the A17 pathfinding update. Zombies focus on the block with the lowest health and breach through concrete walls like butter, so much for using and upgrading military bases with concrete walls around them. Worst part? We literally had 2 open gates in front of the base, set with traps, and they ignored the open entrances to destroy 2 previously damaged concrete blocks. So I still believe concrete (not even gonna mention steel) should be that impenetrable block against a small horde of trash zombies (unlike lesser blocks), and a "normal" block for actual base buster zombies. Reminding the problem here is the late game, how they still deal too much damage to concrete, screwing with damage values for the zombie itself, means it alters it's interaction with ALL blocks, not specific tiers, hence the damage reduction based on tier. Giving specific zombies the ability to consistently deal 40, while weaker zombies have a falloff, means they will always be VIP targets, and at the same time, you realize your base becomes stronger against hordes. Not just *this upgrade adds about 5 extra seconds of survival time to the block against X recurring scenario because it's health increases*. There are many more variables that make damage interesting, right now, 2-1=1 is the most basic and most boring of them all.
  12. Radiated zombies? Ferals? Game stage integration with the damage dealt? And even so, isn't that the point of using up all your resources and hours of work to make a fortress to hold off a horde? It's not like you'll stay there scratching your b*lls and not shoot them, you know damn well players would still want to play normally. And getting a full concrete base takes time, I play with 2 other friends and we only get a stable concrete income by day 30 (90m days), and that is because we specialize in 3 major categories. I really can't imagine a single guy going through all the hassle to stabilize his base in full concrete, only to have 2 of it's blocks destroyed and become a free real estate for the horde. Besides, that's an existing thing with automated slaughterhouses anyways...it's not like cheese strats don't already exist (except these cost less and actually exploit pathfinding).
  13. Damage is good as is in my opinion, however , i believe all objects in the game should have keyword labels (if they don't already) to determine % damage reduction with fists (weak), mid and high tier damaging weapon/entity. Concrete should have significant damage reduction against weaker things, currently it is completely overwhelmed by anything more than 5 zombies attacking it. I'm all for strength in numbers, but not when zombies are strong on their own. Wood/Cloth 0% damage reduction (current) Iron -25% damage Cobble -40% damage Concrete -60% damage Steel -80% damage Bonus health is good against a single opponent, but damage reduction would be good for normal zombie hordes and long term stability. And then you have bruisers and the demolishers that would ignore the damage reduction, making the extra block health do its part. Currently the only thing (at least from what I could tell) that differentiates a concrete block from a wooden block, is the extra hit points.
  14. That's very unintuitive for endgame. Wasn't the whole point of having those frames to setup the layout, upgrade it while skipping early game steps without manually switching a placeholder block? Rebar frames could stay, I really can't see how their existence is a problem, just have them upgrade into the (new) concrete or cobblestone. And I still feel like concrete should be a thing on it's own (cobblestone path), those old metal upgrades from wood always felt gritty and satisfying. While I agree about the no downgrade to a certain extent, that has always been the logic behind the "reinforced" block types, you're just adding more layers, (wood to metal mostly, and their extra upgrade within their tier) which makes sense and feels rewarding watching them get broken down into what they were (means they served the purpose).
  15. We already have an implemented electrical system, all they gotta do is spawn it in a PoI, and allow the player to interact with it. As for the fuse boxes, it would be like the switch, but with a new model and animation.
  • Create New...