Yup! And you'll notice I'm not saying a word about the idea that any of these weapons can hold up to 13 shots (such is the case with Hawkmoon), or that they have absurd effects like "void damage". I mean, "void energy exists in this universe" is good enough for me. But when you're obviously basing the visual design of a weapon on a real-world counterpart, there's no valid excuse for it being an impossible design. The shotguns happen to all be fine. The same can be said for snipers, and for the most part, the auto rifles, scout rifles, and pulse rifles (with the exception of the ridiculous thumb-hole stocks). That means the fact that the hand cannons and MGs are so poorly designed can only be attributed to laziness/oversight, and "we've created an impossible universe" is not an excuse.

I just think there's no real use in overthinking this. I'm willing to suspend some disbelief for the sake of letting the devs make their guns look however they want, and give them some cool effects and such. Meh, it's a sci-fi game, with heavy emphasis on the "fi."

Cool effects and outlandish designs are all fine and dandy. I have no issues with things like the Stranger's Rifle, Fusion Rifles, Thorn, Ice Breaker, etc. But things like the Hand Cannons are, for all intents and purposes, meant to be "basically unchanged". Because "it just works"... No. No it doesn't. There's just no logic to the design at all. Like they put no thought into it. Almost as if they just didn't care. The fact that there are some examples of weapons that are believably designed within the game, while the rest are not, just strengthens the sentiment. "Overthinking" is a it much. More like I go to upgrade something, look at the design of the weapon, and just think "lol that's so dumb..."

This actually reminds me of something I see [i]all the time[/i] with my father. He used to be a pilot and always got really annoyed whenever something about aviation is depicted inaccurately in something. He'd go on and on about how this or that wouldn't work and, unfortunately, he allows that to get in the way of the fact that whatever he's correcting is just entertainment. I imagine it's a similar problem with [i]anyone[/i] who's fairly knowledgable about any particular subject. Like anyone with a PHD of some obscure science could go watch a movie and pick out all the things that aren't realistic, but personally I wouldn't find that to be a fun way to consume entertainment.