{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Zoop:
6/1/2015 3:46:21 PM
7
None of this is confirmed, but rather an interpretation.
All carryable items are digitized (thats why you can pull a sparrow out of your pocket). Its futuristic scifi tech that allows you to 'spawn' an object out of data.
There is a whole lot more wrong with most weapons, how come a perk can suddenly make heads explode, or increase magazinesize (especially silly with handcannons with fixed chambers to hold the bullets). Its because the weapon you hold is only a physical representation. Its isnt an actual gun, its more or less a program with variables. The way it looks and handles is just for aestethetic purposes and guardians handling a weapon they know.
So it doesnt matter if the barrel is aligned with the hammer and all, its there so it represents a gun, but has no actual function unless used as such (like the last word).
This also explains why most guns can shoot an element (you couldnt explain that in real world physics either). Also why an old looking weapon like No Land Beyond functions as well as the more futuristic looking weapons like mythoclast.
Tl;dr, the explanation still is just space magic.
English
-
They aren't digitized. They're stored in your ship and are transmatted down to you.
-
Or stored digitally on your ship, more like it. Thats exactly what an engram is, its the equipment in digital form but needs to be decrypted before it can be used
-
A) There is literally no evidence in the game or the lore of digitization. B) Engrams are a fourth (Fifth, actually. I don't think the writers knew about plasma.) state of matter. They are not digitization.
-
Or something close to it. There is little to no explanation to it. It can be interpretated freely. So its not digitized but some other form of state, you get what i mean. Point im trying to make, the appearance and workings of the gun are merely visual. Or do you believe in the far far future we still fire by hammering on thr backside of a bullet to set of its explosive charge hurling the projectile forward? And somehow it magically gains an elemental type and its ammo can easily be synthesized? And all the magical perks they have to heal, burn, poison etc? Its spacemagic (light) given human-understandable form. The weapon needs to feel and look like a weapon. Its not required that everything on it is actually functional.
-
I know exactly what you mean. What I said is [b]not[/b] a rewording of what you said. Guns in Destiny are physical. They do physical things. Your idea of the shape of the gun being a representation makes absolutely no sense. Unless the entire universe is cannononically within a computer, you can't just "run code" and then have things manifest in the physical world. Moreover, do not try to strawman by saying what you think I think, because what you said on my opinions are incorrect.
-
Edited by Zoop: 6/1/2015 6:38:13 PMNot at all, youre overthinking what i mean and fits the things unexplained. Things [b]are[/b] digitized or some form. Have you seen what an engram looks like? And when [b]decrypted[/b] it suddenly takes the shape of a gun or armor piece. So really not that far fetched. They freely mix computer terms with magical things as 'light'. Trying to find logical explanations for things is going to be far more of stretch then just say: they are magical weapons made from light given form by some sort of program. There, everything explained (including their faults like op states). [quote]you can't just "run code" and then have things manifest in the physical world.[/quote] Why not? They seem to suggest that this is exactly what 'light' is capable of. An easy conclusion to make, id say, and enough things to support a theory like this. Also, i started with my post saying this is just my interpretation. Meaning, its what i [b]think[/b] what it could be. Making it an opinion. So ofcourse you can disagree but you cant just blatantly say im wrong without a proper rebutal.
-
