Why do we want weird looking markers?

[coolcatpete]

I mean come on look at this it looks like it could be in an alian movie
Pete

[ej_y4]

ya that looks bad, but the dm4 and angel air tanks do sell. I dont think that hopper will though, when is the release date on it by the way.

[Danman69]

I know man it looks the best when it is photoshopped!!!

[Bad_Dog]

I think that that picture was put together a little out of focus... but otherwise, I think that the origionality of each product is what companies are looking for. Some people look at a DM4 and say "wow, that looks like a melted hunk of metal" while others look at it and say "that milling makes that marker stand out"

its all about which way you look at the topic, there are definatly reasons for different shapes (physical, purpose, comfort) but that extra milling, that extra uniqueness is what people are looking for when they want to purchase a marker...

[Target Practice]

Hey, some people (not this guy) dig the DM4. It has...uh...progressive styling. Personally, I don't like it, but the milling is impressive; there's no denying that. That hopper though, *shudder*, is one ugly mutha.

[coolcatpete]

Yes it is photoshoped, however not by me. Still that is what the general concept would look like and it is just plain wierd.
Pete

[Z-man]

I think that there is more though. The guys responsible for the design and appearance of the equipment (industrial designers) are charged with the job of making what think this is a beautiful or successful look that will enhance sales.

There IS good design and bad design. What separates them is how "classic" a look is and that can only be seen after many years. Cars are a good example. Some cars have that timeless beauty about them that will remain no matter how old they get (like the Shelby Cobra or the 57 Chevy). Some cars are ugly when they are made and still look ugly 30 years down the road. Show me a marker that still looks good 10 years later and Ill show you good design.

IMO the Nike Shoe is NOT good design. The phrase "what looks new and hip today, looks old and tired tomorrow" applies to that Sure it looks "new" now but what are you buying for? a new look or a good look?

[coolcatpete]

I think that there is more though. The guys responsible for the design and appearance of the equipment (industrial designers) are charged with the job of making what think this is a beautiful or successful look that will enhance sales.

There IS good design and bad design. What separates them is how "classic" a look is and that can only be seen after many years. Cars are a good example. Some cars have that timeless beauty about them that will remain no matter how old they get (like the Shelby Cobra or the 57 Chevy). Some cars are ugly when they are made and still look ugly 30 years down the road. Show me a marker that still looks good 10 years later and Ill show you good design.

IMO the Nike Shoe is NOT good design. The phrase "what looks new and hip today, looks old and tired tomorrow" applies to that Sure it looks "new" now but what are you buying for? a new look or a good look?

Very well siad this is also my opinion on things.
Pete

[notcreative]

buddy why dont you try photoshopping something in but the DM4 has milling that is by far the best i have seen on a Matrix. so when you say the milling on the DM4 is bad just go look at the other Matrixs and tell me what there milling is like. and Angel air is nice cuz of the digital read out but is also heavy and those hoppers will not sell i dont so anyways

[Tack]

I think for the most part the main stream paintball companies like DYE, AGD, WGP and others are looking for a way to make their markers catch people’s eyes, and also stay as far away from the “real gun” look as they can. I personally like the mil/sim gear, but there are a lot that don’t. Those are the people who want the flashy sci-fi looking guns.

Political correctness in today’s society causes some people to steer as far away from military and real guns as they can. Plus it is flashier to have a brightly colored fancy milled Cocker or X-Mag on the speedball field. It’s all about looks and perception.

[coolcatpete]

What z-man and I are saying that sure it may look cool now but in 20 years will that be the case. The automag is very simple looking gun. I like the look of the classics and they have been around forever so that is a good design. I just dont think people will like the llok of these in 20 years. Does that make sence because I am just kind of rambling on.
Pete

[hitech]

"Everyone" wants to stand out in the crowd, but not look so different as to appear to not belong to said crowd.

[RoadDawg]

I'm not personally fond of the DM4. The milling is too extreme for my liking. I personally like the NYX's milling better then the DM4's. It's not as dramatic and over done. I like the simple boxy design with a a little bit of milling.

[Rather]

I like my future wierd gun. :D :cool:

*sig*

But yeah that DM4 looks like it was an alien weapon from Dr. Who...
*nerdy giggle*

[Z-man]

I think one last little bit of info I would present is this.

When a new invention or technology emerges. it takes several years for the "look" of that to form. Again, to use the car analogy when the first cars were designed, did they look like a car in the general sense? No. They looked like the technology that was currently used and closest to it: the horse drawn buggy. It took almost 30 years for the "look of what we call a car in the general sense to establish itself.

Look at paintball. It's a whole new realm of technology and activity. What should it look like? Well since its new, we will take our ideas from what we have around now. Real weapons (the sim gun look), the space gun look (seems to be influenced by Hollywood: Aliens, Starshp troopers, anything with contrived guns). I won't try to claim I know what the general "look" the the paintball marker will settle on but I will suggest that it wont be a carbon copy of any existing technology like military weapons or Super Soakers.

As was correctly pointed out, we all want to be known for our unique little group. Roller Bladers have their look and would be offended if you asked them if they were skateboarders. Paintball will settle into its own "look" that people will recognize.

[-=Squid=-]

The thing is, were talking about paintball guns, not cars.

[Z-man]

The thing is, were talking about paintball guns, not cars.

What are you saying? That design only applies to cars? Design applies to everything we make. The computer screen you are staring at, the mouse you are clicking, someone designed it to look that way and it's what we recognize as a mouse and screen.

Do you really think that somehow the same principals don't apply to paintball?

[Chris42050]

I think you guys are making good points except that I dont think people will be using dm4's in 20 years. They will have better guns and different rules by then. People are buying new guns all the time. It wont matter what our perception of the gun will be. Just what our perception is today. And my perception is its kinda ugly.

[Konigballer]

I think the DM4 is very fugly looking, but my real hangup on its lines are at the front of the body were it blends into the barrel. I just think it looks like some lame Dr. Seuss gun.

[Z-man]

well Chris, the design or look of the marker has little to do with the mechanics of it. You can mill an angel to look like a VM-68 or an intimidator and it functions the same. Of course we will all be using something newer and (hopefully) improved, but that will likely have little effect on the (aesthetic) design of the markers.

[Chris42050]

Ha ha ha. Dr. Suess gun. Thats perfect.

[coolcatpete]

I think you guys are making good points except that I dont think people will be using dm4's in 20 years. They will have better guns and different rules by then. People are buying new guns all the time. It wont matter what our perception of the gun will be. Just what our perception is today. And my perception is its kinda ugly.
Sure but what about 10 years hasn't the classic mag make it over that.
Pete

[tyrion2323]

I think that there is more though. The guys responsible for the design and appearance of the equipment (industrial designers) are charged with the job of making what think this is a beautiful or successful look that will enhance sales.

There IS good design and bad design. What separates them is how "classic" a look is and that can only be seen after many years. Cars are a good example. Some cars have that timeless beauty about them that will remain no matter how old they get (like the Shelby Cobra or the 57 Chevy). Some cars are ugly when they are made and still look ugly 30 years down the road. Show me a marker that still looks good 10 years later and Ill show you good design.

IMO the Nike Shoe is NOT good design. The phrase "what looks new and hip today, looks old and tired tomorrow" applies to that Sure it looks "new" now but what are you buying for? a new look or a good look?


I must also add:

63 Corvette Stingray w/ split rear window
75 Corvette Stingray
50th Anniversary Corvette