{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/25/2015 2:55:21 PM
1
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.
English
-
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?
