Integrations In Nerf - New Article
Posted 07 July 2003 - 06:08 PM
Read it and let them know what you think.
Posted 07 July 2003 - 11:42 PM
I really like the sudden birth of the articles section, they are all quite good.
Posted 08 July 2003 - 12:41 AM
Anyways, to my opinion (You know you want to listen... Right?....Guys? Guys?);
Integrations retain the limitations of Nerf through their technological limits. Though an integration can often combine the abilities of several guns, the base parts of those integrations, which are drawn from Nerf guns, retain their original functions. For instance, let's analyze Daemon. Two 1500's in a Crossbow shell. The central advantages are ergonomics and the combination of two long range, single-shot guns. The gun still retains the limitations of the two Super Maxx 1500's it was constructed of; Long priming time, single shot. Even, say, an integration combination such as a Powerclip and a Supermaxx 1500, retains limitations. Though there is a single shot and 10 rapid-fire shots on one gun, the Powerclip portion retains a long reload time, as does the 1500. You could get the same from an integration by simply grabbing some tape, and slapping the guns together. "Fugly," not to mention unweildly, but essentially the same thing. Even integrations involving different parts from different guns, such as a Powerclip tank, Supermaxx 1500 valve, and Rapid Fire 20 pump, suffers from each individual part's shortfallings, namely low pressure, pressure-relative trigger resisitance, and long pump stroke.
The only way we're going to surpass these shortcomings is to design the parts ourselves, or take non-nerf parts, such as Paintball products, or various beverage valve products. Nerf remains within the limitations cheap plastic and basic design impose upon the game, unless we introduce new elements through homemade Nerf gun technology. Otherwise, our guns can only become convenient reorganizations of cheap Nerf parts.
Posted 08 July 2003 - 01:09 AM
in response to shindig's part of the argument, i'd have to say that i take somewhat of a VACCesque standpoint: having two (or more) guns integrated into the same mass of plastic is in no way getting rid of dissadvantages. yes, you can capitalize on the advantages of particular guns, and put them together for an ultimate gun, but you also have to see that those spring up their own dissadvantages.
first off, you're forced to carry around the weight of all of the guns, plus the akward firing position because integrations are generally front-heavy. second, you are limited to all of your guns pointing in the same direction. also, after your amazing supergun has fired all of it's compartments, you're fucked for the 7 minutes it takes you to load a x-bow barrel, two 1500 barrels, and a SSPB while you cock and prime(x3).
if someone with an integrated gun has adapted his/her playing style to cope with these dissadavantages, then i would say that they have proven their skill as a player, and are in no way on steroids or out of everyone else's league.
in reply to evil's bit, i have a bit less to contest. the only two points that i am willing to argue are: 1) integrations are in no way on the "next level" above standard modification. 2) evolution of nerf doesn't have endless boundaries.
integrations are not really pushing nerf to a new level, they are taking two nerf guns and putting them together. you're adding them...everyone knows that you'll never get to the next level unless you multiply. it's just like carrying around 2 nerf guns, with different pros/cons...and that is in no way revolutionary.
also, the evolution of nerf is in no way boundless, as plenty of people found out after the holy day when CXWQ splattered foam on the punchball wall from 150'. the boundary is safety. i'd say: mods that are in compliance with LANO standards is the general boundary. the great thing is, there is a whole lot you can do with nerf guns and still be safe.
overall, i really liked your article, and it's been a lot of fun thinking and debating your points through this reply. the dual point of view approach was a good one.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users