![]() |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Just to get back to this now I'm not posting on my lunchbreak;
Quote:
Quote:
The main reason I partially rewrote that article* was it fell into a trap that really bugs me, that of talking about fictional weapons like they're real and including mostly in-fiction information about them. *I'm planning a second rewrite anyway if I every get around to screencapping it. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As above, I agree with you that saying a fake gun is the real gun it most closely resembles is off-limits. On the other hand, identifying that it shares elements with a real design I'd say is ok if it looks believable enough to fool a layman and it is said in no uncertain terms that it is not a real weapon. Just to give an example I like using: ![]() If this appeared in something, the overall design is believable enough that a layman would conceivably ask what kind of gun it is. Obviously, the answer is not "it's a Winchester Model 1895" because it's not, and it's not "it's a Lee-Enfield No.4" because it's also not. It is, however, both of those. So, you cover it under the weapon's fictional name, and explain that it's actually a hybrid design made up of two real-life weapons. Obviously, drawing the line between "made of recognisable real-life weapons" and "heap of random gun parts" is never going to be easy, and I think we should encourage people to bring these things to the forums so they can be discussed before they go up on pages if they're not sure about them. Trying to create a rule that covers all situations will either leave us with a system open to but-the-rules-say-so abuse or one so restrictive it removes authentic-looking but fictional designs that we should be telling people aren't real, such as Leon's "Silver Ghost" handgun in Resident Evil 4 (though the designer helped us out there by outright saying what he based it on). Remember, we're here to field "what kind of gun is that?" Part of that is to tell people when something isn't real if they could reasonably be fooled by it. Last edited by Evil Tim; 10-08-2011 at 02:49 PM. |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Yes I know sentence structure is not my strong suit. |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well sure, but you know MPM's told us before that he's been asked if that absurd railgun from Eraser was real, so you have to set the bar pretty low for what people may or may not assume. I don't really see much problem with "looks like" descriptions if we're only identifying possible influences, as long as we're not bending over backwards to make excuses for an obviously fictional gun to be on the page just because it looks cool, rather than because it's important, looks convincing or is interesting for trivia purposes.
|
![]() |
|
|