42 replies to this topic

[Shrub]

I fall some where in which I like how the gun looks but not necessarily cosmetics but just the cleanliness of the mod and stability for example a TTG I will cut the front of the barrel and dremel it out until my barrel material fit's inside good the my barrel material sticks out a little making the gun look as if tit were made that way. But in some cases I don't mind clear coating my blasters.

Also if your gun looks good not good but very good or eye-popping,etc. it wil daze the other nerfers and will give you the advanage so not exactly performance but tactics.

Edited by Shrub, 17 May 2009 - 11:46 AM.

[fandango202]

I think that of course the performance is much more important (well duh) but since I'm pretty good at painting guns I always paint my favorite guns. Some guns don't even look good painted in the first place.

[Disturbed]

BustaNinja, on May 16 2009, 06:22 PM, said:

Disturbed, on May 16 2009, 06:05 PM, said:

I feel that modding a gun is a challenge, and adding cosmetics is a way to relax after the mod and think out sexy paint schemes.

If I ever put to much tape or glue that shows, I like to find ways to make it less noticable. and who wants bright green, yellow, blue and red all over their gun anyways?

Me? And Im pretty sure my guns will still kick ass

Sorry, I had to go so I didn't think out what I was saying. I meant stock colors.

[nerfdude123]

I want my guns to look good (no duct tape, excessive amounts of hot glue), but I really don't care if they are painted or not. If I can make them look really cool with minimal effort I will, but 3-4 hours of painting and battle-damaging just doesn't satisfy me.

Edited by nerfdude123, 17 May 2009 - 02:18 PM.

[ice]

I think nerf guns that are held near and dear to the users are the ones that should get painted. And the ones being sold as well, cause it seems that they go for a higher price. Many people are in this hobby mostly for the cosmetics of the blasters, and I don't see anything wrong with that. But if you made a primary you always use, I would think you would want it a little more customized then your other blasters. If painting it makes that so, then so be it.

[IronicTrout]

I like painting my blasters for a couple of reasons:
A) It makes them more personalized (because most mods could not be seen)
B ) It is way more fun than just plain modding it.

Edited by IronicTrout, 17 May 2009 - 06:49 PM.

[AssassinNF]

I mod my guns as far as I want to, and then I do simple paintjobs that keep the gun from looking like a hunk of mangled PVC. For example, If you put a PVC stock on a gun, painting the stock to match the gun makes it look a hell of a lot better. I like to make my mods as stock-looking as possible.

Can you imagine what my SoulReaper looked like unpainted? Fugly as hell.

[sublimedom777]

I follow along Trout's thinking.

I'm no pioneer, out there setting the world on fire, but I've put my time in. In the long run, modding is what matters, but to me, paint can seal the deal.

Any tosser could pull off the same mods, just as clean, but when I'm done with a mod I like and am proud of, I show it with a paint job to make it stand apart. Don't waste your paint on any old gun, it's gotta be more than just something slapped together because it furthers the art of modding.

[dizzyduck]

I don't think I shared my views yet, so I guess they are worth sharing.. Personally I like having my cake and eating it too, so to speak. Functionality comes first, but when I have optimized functionality (durability, comfort, and performance), I go to town on cosmetics.

Every blaster that I work on is an investment of my time and energy (and often times, my money), so I want to create something that I would be proud to look upon when I have finished. Each of my blasters receives a name and a full paint job when work has been completed. I almost think of them as works of art, combining the aspects of form and function. It's reminiscent of armourers and blacksmiths of old, who would spend days and weeks carving intricate designs on their metalwork. Or for a more modern analogy, the cars that come out of the show "Pimp My Ride".

As Peter Shickely would say to this topic, "If it looks good, it is good."

[Soothsayer]

Clean and pretty are two different things. If a gun looks like a globed together piece of shit, I don't like/use it. A gun /must/ look clean otherwise it won't keep my interest or approval.

[Crankymonky]

A blaster isn't complete until I've filled in any holes in the shell and supported the barrel with masking tape. Glue is optional.

Contrary to what mystefansdontflystraight said, cleanly modded crossbows were quite rare until about 2005. Tape has always been the defining characteristic of a crossbow


While the above was my old belief, now I'm a fan of a clean mod that retains the guns stock design as much as possible. I rarely due paintjobs and only to the few guns I know I will consistently use.

[CaptainSlug]

I only care about cosmeticss insomuch as I take pride in my craftsmanship. I don't personally like paint because it's not durable and therefore I avoid using it.

I also just don't enjoy the process of painting.

[splat]

Well, I say that you should do both

[Zorns Lemma]

This point has been iterated before, but I will emphasize that your distinction is invalid. There a 3 levels to a modded blaster's looks:

Functional only: Tape, glue, bolts and retaining brackets everywhere
Clean: What it says on the tin
Artistic: What it says on the tin

Achieving "clean" is a cosmetic ability, and is very important, because it is representative of your abilities as a modder. If you can achieve the same functionality as someone else, but in a more secure, efficient, and aesthetically pleasing manner, then I would say you are much more skilled.

The "artistic" level is much less important, for, while showpieces are great to look at, guns will inevitably be scuffed at wars.

Thus, to an extent, cosmetics reflect functionality and practical ability, but beyond that, only artistic competency and vision.

Edited by Zorn's Lemma, 18 May 2009 - 06:11 PM.

[spartan062]

I believe the same as many others have said about paint: do it only to the guns you use the most frequently.

[wisdom000]

Allow a word from the other side of the fence. I don't war, other than spontaneous gunfights that erupt in my house with my friends. These guns are decoration for me. They are functional, I remove the air, restrictors. But for me it is far more important that they look cool than that they actually shoot anything. Not to say I don't like shooting them, but cosmetic mods and paintjobs are the reason I got into it the first place.

[SchizophrenicMC]

If you ask me, Clean falls under aesthetic, not cosmetic.

An aesthetically pleasing mod would have everything inside the shell or reasonably outside. It would be clean.
A cosmetic mod would mean it has to be clean and it needs a new paintscheme.

Cosmetic mods are good as display pieces, IE the various Lancers, however, a cosmetically enhanced functional mod, like the Lancers, is a great thing.

If I had a greatly functional gun that looked horrible, I'd get to work redoing it so it looks good. If there are things sticking out of the shell, I'd try to move them inside of the shell.

So, perhaps cosmetics aren't necessary, but aesthetics are. Cosmetics are the final touch on a good gun; the very thing that makes it one's own creation. There are likely hundreds of Angel Breeched Longshots, but only one Lancer (A la FA_24. There are other lancers).

[Talio]

Seeing as this has turned into a state your opinion thread and not an actual conversation, I'm shutting it down. We all know there are two opinions here to be stated. You either like to cosmetically modify your gun or you do not. Both are fine and neither is superior. We also have 3 pages of arguments thus far and that's all that's needed.

Talio.