{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/25/2015 1:58:00 PM
1
Okay but it fires the same way, from the bottom cylinder. The barrel is at the bottom. Same firing method
English
-
No it's not, because the hammer on the Rhino is false, while it appears to be functional (in relation to firing the the weapon) in Destiny. The hammer on the Rhino is simply there to indicate that the firearm is cocked... manually or otherwise. Meanwhile, the hammer on the hand cannons in Destiny appear to be functional (given the fact that all of them except The Last Word appear to be double-action). If the hammer is functional, then the hammer can't be aligned with the top of the cylinder while the barrel is aligned with the bottom.
-
Who says the hammer is functional?
-
The game.
-
It looks like it's functional but that doesn't mean it is
-
I can only argue about them based on what is shown at face-value. Anything that needs an explanation of "it just works" or "space magic!" is not valid. The hand cannons in Destiny are all shown to be double-action revolvers (meaning that pulling the trigger cocks the weapon and also fires it), with the exception of The Last Word, which is shown to be a single-action revolver. There is no indication that any of them have the same internal functionality of the Rhino, and given the animations and action displayed by the hammer in-game, there is no indication that it is meant to work any differently than a standard revolver. Given this deductive reasoning, it's safe to assume that the current configuration of Hand Cannons in Destiny would not work.
-
It's the future..700 years into the future to be exact. Plus, it's a game
-
[quote]Anything that needs an explanation of "it just works" or "space magic!" is not valid.[/quote]
-
Those aren't my explanation
-
Edited by JustOnePepsi: 5/25/2015 3:12:04 PM"it's a game" and "it's a future" are demonstrably equal in uselessness. Falls under shifting goalposts and special pleading.
-
But you know it's true
-
Edited by JustOnePepsi: 5/25/2015 3:25:41 PMAnd you know my points regarding the impossibility of the design is also true. Hence, your only real response is the "it's just a game" non-argument. It's a deflection more than anything.
-
It's a completely valid argument. It's just a game, they can do whatever they want with it
-
I could make a game that has a police officers that allow you to murder them in broad daylight in public... and the fact that I CAN do it doesn't protect me from scrutiny for making that design decision. It's a pretty stupid decision... regardless of whether or not "it's just a game", which is why "it's just a game" is not a valid counter-argument. It's just dismissive... in which case, why even bother trying to argue?
