{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/25/2015 9:48:21 AM
1
You don't need sights to function. Especially when it's implied that targeting is handled via electronics (MC's visor/HUD, the little visors on Marine helmets, etc)
And yes, the Halo 1 AR did in fact have a charging handle. The biggest issue in that game was that it didn't move when firing. Though that was corrected in later games.
You can clearly see it on the weapon in this screenshot:
http://cdn.instructables.com/FBC/05Q0/FS8RCKWE/FBC05Q0FS8RCKWE.LARGE.jpg
And they made it function correctly in Halo 3:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViznEXrgpAk
The guns in Halo were actually realistic enough that MC even switches the safety off when you switch to the AR...
English
-
I never said you couldn't function without sights.. it is possible. But not accurately. Plus that recoil is well.. wait.. what recoil? See my point yet. And no realistic gun doesn't have sights. So.. your point is what exactly now?
-
None of your points are related to the fact that a gun in which the receiver is not aligned with the barrel physically CANNOT work. Everything in Halo was explained in some way, and from a functional standpoint, was realistic. A gun without sights is realistic. It's "accurate" in the game because you're a super-soldier with a fancy suit that interfaces with the weapon and helps you aim it. Also, the gun is shown to have recoil... all of them are... in all Halo games. The fact that it doesn't bounce your reticule is irrelevant because it's a video game. My point is... you've completely missed the point.
-
My point is relevant to that.. for the fact that.. in 300 years when destiny takes place.. there will be research that could possible allow that to happen.
