The ejection port...
Mkilbride
Join Date: 2010-01-07 Member: 69952Members
Join Date: 2010-01-07 Member: 69952Members
<div class="IPBDescription">I know it's silly in a game like this...</div>But for the Marine weapons, you should always have it on the right side...you know, so the hells go away from the player.
I know Iron-sights aren't in the game, but it breaks a little immersion seeing shells flying inwards, when they're supposed to be flying away.
So many games have the ejection port facing the player...for some reason, I guess some people think it's cool, but it's kinda annoying to me.
Any chance of changing this? The Pistol having it on the top makes no sense either, if you were to aim down the sights iwth it, the casing would fly back and hit you in the face.
Again, I understand there aren't iron sights, but for the sake of immersion. Of course you could claim that this is a future weapon, so there may be reasons, but I can't think of one.
I know Iron-sights aren't in the game, but it breaks a little immersion seeing shells flying inwards, when they're supposed to be flying away.
So many games have the ejection port facing the player...for some reason, I guess some people think it's cool, but it's kinda annoying to me.
Any chance of changing this? The Pistol having it on the top makes no sense either, if you were to aim down the sights iwth it, the casing would fly back and hit you in the face.
Again, I understand there aren't iron sights, but for the sake of immersion. Of course you could claim that this is a future weapon, so there may be reasons, but I can't think of one.
Comments
The Luger mechanism is indeed a controversial choice for the bacteria infested environment in which the TSA are fighting, judging from the "<i>easy to jam when grit/dirt gets in there</i>" using this Luger-like jointed arm.
But the shell ejects quite similar to other guns, just in a more upward trajectory instead of the common slightly to the side ejection. But it will in no way eject the shell backwards into your face. A slide action gun has more of a chance for the shell to go backwards a bit, if it were to get hit by the slide or deflected by the recoil action (gun hits shell), even if this would be a <!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro--><b>Highly</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> unlikely scenario.
Besides who in their right mind would aim down the sight, with their face up close and personal to the back of a pistol anyways. Try it with a big recoil gun like a Desert Eagle and you will get hit in the face by the recoil. LOL, try it too close and the slide action gun would be even worse as it would "Muhammad Ali" you right in the kisser <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/biggrin.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
On the other subject +1 indeed :D
because "other games do it too" :S
and for the luger machanism.. i think thats cool..
it would explain the bullets beeing shot from the gun...
the pistol has 2 fire modes.. 2 different bullets? maybe.. and the luger like princip is the only i know
that could fire bullets with different powers without being modded (at least if i understood that right)
I do not believe realism is very high on the list of priorities in this game.
I think when the game has you shooting a giant space gorilla made of germs on a planet made entirely of industrialisation, then the game has fairly clearly abandoned all pretense of realism and is going for 'oh my god holy ###### that was amazing' instead.
The game also features miniature tanks which shoot magic go-through-walls sonic explosions at spike flower farms grown by alien pigs. It runs on coolness, therefore having shell casings wooshing across the screen is pretty consistent.
hey, BUT they are not pigs they are gorgeous :P
btw, the lmg in ns1 ejects out the right... just checked :P
Nana nana nana nana Nanites!
btw, the lmg in ns1 ejects out the right... just checked :P<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, well, it's just a small annoying thing to me, seeing the shells coming towards me, it often distracts me away from combat. I get that it's not a realistic game, but cmon.
Why not have the rifle eject about 45 to 60 degrees and to the right? Maintain the visual aspect but not have it be ridiculous.
Maybe you don't remember how intricately designed and thoroughly planned all of the weapons designs were. Flayra clearly cares about the ###### that apparently "doesn't matter"- down to the most aesthetic, nonfunctional and inconsequential detail.
Props for being constructive.
Caseless ammo is a thing that exists nowadays.
Also, you never saw shells flying everywhere in Aliens, now, didja?
Definitely something to be considered in the polish stage, which is at least half a year off.
Props for being constructive.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Planning and thought don't mean realism.
When I do a level for example, I will make sure I build structures which seem structurally sound, employ limited engineering knowledge in the construction of braces and buttresses and pillars to hold up the ceiling, try to make things out of realistic materials like prefabricated components which lock together, with concrete and other pourable materials to fill in the complex shapes, and lighting will use knowledge of colour theory and the physics of lighting to create realistic scattering and reflectivity, but the <b>reason</b> I do all of that is so that I can build stupidly oversized and horribly impractical buildings which look cool and have big crossbeams and stuff running through them at cool angles and are covered in awesome mutlicoloured lighting for no adequately explained reason.
There is making a thing look like what it is, and then there's the point where you say 'yeah, I could build this at a reasonable scale and make efficient use of space and put handrails around the 4 kilometer deep pit of death filled with 100 meter wide fans with lights behind them, but I think this way looks cool, so I'm not going to.'
You do the realism so that it looks like it <i>could</i> exist, and then you do the cool stuff so that people think it <i>should</i> exist. Nobody in their right mind is interested in realistic things, you can go outside and get realism all day long, in games you have the power to make things that are interesting, that you can't get by going outside, that's the appeal of them. Hence why the game is about shooting space germ aliens in space with folding space guns, despite all three of those things being entirely ridiculous.
I suppose I just find it a little peculiar/unnecessary to theorize/fantasize about minor details when larger underlying issues still exist. I also remember reading a commentary from the higher-ups saying it's best to hold on to suggestions until it's closer to the time when they're going to address those issues, so that the threads don't get washed away in the sea of threads by the time the topic is actually relevant. But I don't suppose there is any harm in it either way, and this is what the forum is for, so I apologize if I sounded dismissive. I was attempting to answer the seemingly more pertinent question of, "Why is it currently this way," rather than, "Why I agree/disagree with the suggestion."
When I do a level for example, I will make sure I build structures which seem structurally sound, employ limited engineering knowledge in the construction of braces and buttresses and pillars to hold up the ceiling, try to make things out of realistic materials like prefabricated components which lock together, with concrete and other pourable materials to fill in the complex shapes, and lighting will use knowledge of colour theory and the physics of lighting to create realistic scattering and reflectivity, but the <b>reason</b> I do all of that is so that I can build stupidly oversized and horribly impractical buildings which look cool and have big crossbeams and stuff running through them at cool angles and are covered in awesome mutlicoloured lighting for no adequately explained reason.
There is making a thing look like what it is, and then there's the point where you say 'yeah, I could build this at a reasonable scale and make efficient use of space and put handrails around the 4 kilometer deep pit of death filled with 100 meter wide fans with lights behind them, but I think this way looks cool, so I'm not going to.'
You do the realism so that it looks like it <i>could</i> exist, and then you do the cool stuff so that people think it <i>should</i> exist. Nobody in their right mind is interested in realistic things, you can go outside and get realism all day long, in games you have the power to make things that are interesting, that you can't get by going outside, that's the appeal of them. Hence why the game is about shooting space germ aliens in space with folding space guns, despite all three of those things being entirely ridiculous.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You realize I don't disagree with the main premise of your post. It just gets old when people say "realism isn't a factor, we're shooting aliens in space remember?" to dismiss any discussion on the topic. Frankly, I don't think anybody playing NS actively or subconsciously will really appreciate casings flying across the screen as you put it "thinking it should exist".
It doesn't add to the immersion, its distracting, and furthermore its unrealistic. It's purely a miscalculated aesthetic feature.
Here instead of using realism as an issue, I'll use function. Space marines shooting aliens don't want hot brass (or whatever being used) flying in their faces or across their field of view.
No problem =). I understand, I was just jumping in to give comments to the OP.
Mm, not true, if you use the iron sights, while you can't in game, it'd still be pounding against your chest or so.
Also, another reason why ejection ports are on the left? So they enemy has trouble pinning down your position, at least it was like that in the past. Of course that will never factor into gameplay, but in real life it's made so the spent casings fly a good bit away, so they have trouble tracking you.
It doesn't add to the immersion, its distracting, and furthermore its unrealistic. It's purely a miscalculated aesthetic feature.
Here instead of using realism as an issue, I'll use function. Space marines shooting aliens don't want hot brass (or whatever being used) flying in their faces or across their field of view.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's realism.
It's a game, you don't have to worry about being hit in the face with brass. You do however have to worry about whether it looks cool, and having stuff flying out of the gun looks cool, the only counterargument is realism. If it's actually getting in the way of your view (which I don't think it is because honestly I didn't even notice that it did eject brass, let alone out of the left side) then you can move it down a bit, but there isn't any reason to remove it other than people shouting NOOO MY VERISIMILITUDE!!!
Also, another reason why ejection ports are on the left? So they enemy has trouble pinning down your position, at least it was like that in the past. Of course that will never factor into gameplay, but in real life it's made so the spent casings fly a good bit away, so they have trouble tracking you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
have the brass eject with a forward angle = problem solved.
do left handers have a problem with the m16/m4?
<a href="http://www.sabretactical.com/lefthandedtraining.PDF" target="_blank">http://www.sabretactical.com/lefthandedtraining.PDF</a>
Ah, I was right:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Soldiers who are left handed are taught to shoot right handed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Guess it's kind unfair to lefties, but at the same time, it'd increase expenses if they made special versions.
Is it really sooo cool? Do you even notice the shells flying out? I don't, and I daresay no one really does, therefore, it's unnecessary.
You could also argue that then it's a moot point... Whether it's there or not, who cares?
In this case I personally would prefer it not to be there at all, but whatever.
<a href="http://www.sabretactical.com/lefthandedtraining.PDF" target="_blank">http://www.sabretactical.com/lefthandedtraining.PDF</a>
Ah, I was right:
Guess it's kind unfair to lefties, but at the same time, it'd increase expenses if they made special versions.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
didnt know they trained them to shoot right handed. a bit unfair for left eye dominant people as well.
ive read about lefties shooting m4's without any trouble and have watched many people shoot the saw left handed. i think ive even shot the saw left handed without a drama. bullpup weapons are more of a problem. ive brassed myself a few times shooting around corners using my off hand.