And what we’re saying is that the art style is pretty consistent overall, those two weapons aside.
Your example of Rambo is a good example, but for our side of things. An M60 can be used by a normal human, it’s just not meant to be used that way effectively. That would be like some of the pictures people have posted in this thread and other threads about this topic.
We don’t have a problem with weapons being a little oversized for dramatic effect. That fits.
But this isn’t Rambo carrying an M60, it’s Rambo carrying the the GAU-8/A cannon from the A-10.
And this goes back to the art style conveying expectations. If I can carry weapon as absurdly massive as the war hammer, then I would expect to be able to carry a cannon or ballista as well. Why is one fine, but the other not allowed?
I’d just like to say that part of why I enjoy playing axe/hammer is the exaggerated sfx and gfx. It feels and sounds impactful. Please don’t change it!
GA being shit broken in PVP and the problem we see with it is its visuals. Non funny, bro.
I have a solution though - remove this OwerPowered weapon from the game completely. Together with life staff and heavy armor. May also add Hatchet to this pile as well. Will fix bothj problems at the same time.
Because the magic that the axe or hammer contains allows it and those weapons don’t have it? Make up any excuse you like? Think about Thor’s hammer in the Avengers. There’s something to the hammer that allows only him to wield it or fast travel with it.
See, now you’re having to make up excuses for things that are obviously wrong according to the in-universe rules. It just leads to more questions like “why don’t we make cannon with the same magic?”. Or “why does such a huge hammer not work any better than a normal sized sword?”
Marvel is a bad counter-example because that’s a universe where damn near anything goes.
Why is this not a universe where anything goes? You seem to have a weird assumption there confined only to the weight of 2 weapons, that is limited to there and nothing else in the world. That’s pretty inconsistent.
Ugh, it’s based on the presentation of the game’s art and the in-game lore. That’s the freaking point.
We can’t fly, we can’t run super fast, we’re not dual wielding two giant swords. Nor are we using huge levels of magic. The spells the staves and gauntlets cast are pretty tame by fantasy settings. Hell, going out into the wilderness and you can get killed by what seems to be a mundane bear.
Even our inventory is limited by bags that require magical runes of holding to craft.
Aside from the art style, nothing in the lore speaks of being granted immense strength to wield massive weapons.
You might like giant weapons but that doesn’t mean the fit the aesthetics of the game. And that’s all this conversation is. I (and other people) show why the weapons don’t fit the art style, and your (and other people’s) only response is “but I like them”
That’s not the only response. You just ignored all the millions of other data points that we are trying to point out where something doesn’t fit, but you have this hyperfocused view on these two weapons. The truth for you is that same as us, you just don’t like the way they look, but you’re trying to make it into some objective thing where it’s sensical. But any invitation to argue that these don’t fit the bounds of the world begs the question: why do you get to decide what the bounds are? And any example you point out showing “realism” is counterbalanced by millions of other points: I.e., we can’t fly, sure… BUT WE CAN TELEPORT LIKE STAR TREK. I mean come on man. You can’t see how nit-picky this one little aesthetic detail is in the bounds of your argument? The real truth is: “I just don’t like how it looks!” Like us saying “we do!” It’s just preference.
dude… millions? and the post is specifically about those two weapons… so shouldn’t they be you know, hyperfocused on them? what are you smoking? it’s bad stuff
It was an exaggeration but there are countless examples. Instead of attacking me or picking apart semantics, maybe address the question? My point is that it’s strange to be hyperfocused on these two weapons, when you could say there are an infinite number of things in the game that are slightly inconsistent with the “art style” and then just throw out arguments as to why it doesn’t make sense. But all the arguments are grounded in some kind of rule about reality, suspended for some things but active for only the things on which to make your point. It’s just extremely fallacious reasoning. I’d prefer the honest statement of: “I just don’t like how they look.” When it’s ironic that that’s what you accuse the defense of this art style to be. Then when I point out ways these can also be grounded in the rules of the universe, they are dismissed as non-plausible. But then it’s like…. When does the plausibility stop and start besides with the points you want to make?
The examples you provided (cannon, repeaters, etc) are all either period appropriate or mild exaggerations of contemporary technology.
That or you’re picking the obviously magical stuff (rain of arrows for example) in a setting that contains magic.
Your defense of “maybe the hammer/axe are magically enchanted to let us wield such heavy weapons” doesn’t work because it brings up more questions than it answers.
Why don’t we enchant other weapons like cannon to be man-portable?
Why don’t we use giant versions of the other weapons? A 20’ spear would be very useful
Even if you’re strong enough, why add the 2nd head to either weapon? That’s not something a competent weaponsmith would add because it adds nothing but bulk
What’s more, there haven’t been any shown examples in the universe that allow us to make such magic. You basically just said “magic exists, so therefore we can be extra strong”.
And again, for the thousandth time, **IT’S NOT ABOUT REALITY! IT’S ABOUT AN ART STYLE GROUNDED IN REALITY".
You know what’s not realistic? Using a rapier as a battlefield weapon. The first time you struck armor it would snap in half and you’d be screwed. But it’s fine because rapiers are associated with the time period and the pirate aesthetic.
What’s also not realistic? Not keeping your shield in front of you at all times. But we accept that because it’s a game and if shields could block 95% of the time, even while attacking, everyone would run sword and board.
But nothing anybody has been able to find has justified the size of those weapons beyond “big hammer go brrr”.
Hell, if I had the choice between a giant hammer that was magically enchanted to let me wield it and a normal sized war hammer that made me just as strong but only weighed a few pounds, I’d take the normal sized one because it would do damage!
all the weapons but those two, follow a stylistic theme and size… so yeah, seeing two massively oversized weapons is jarring to some of us. i don’t care about some exotic explination, consistancy now, or we’re going to get more shit like the lion and the rabbit.
You’re still not addressing my point. You are only using the realism argument to address this issue. But in all other aspects of the game, you say it’s fine to ignore. ( Show me an example of a giant chain gun from the 17th century by the way. You’re at least two centuries off: The Gatling gun is a rapid-firing multiple-barrel firearm invented in 1861 by Richard Jordan Gatling. It is an early machine gun and a forerunner of the modern electric motor-driven rotary cannon. )
And a more fundamental point: most people come to a fantasy game to be immersed in fantasy. To argue that you need realism to be immersed in the fantasy is strange to me.
The gatling gun isn’t the first repeating weapon. There are repeating rifles that date back to 1690.
The siege weapon in New World is called a repeater and bears a resemblance to an upscaled pepperbox gun, pistol/rifle versions of which existed in the 1600s. The NW version, while anachronistic in terms of complexity, is based on real weapons.
You have really got to stop with “stop using realism” because you obviously don’t understand what you’re arguing against. None of us care if we’re wielding a sword that bigger than us if we’re playing Monster Hunter or Final Fantasy. Those games art styles are all about exaggeration everything.
However New World has a much more grounded style. That’s why we dislike these two weapons, not because they’re unrealistic. Magic doesn’t exist in our world, but it’s realistic in terms of New World (there’s that verisimilitude thing again!). But even by New World rules, those weapons don’t fit.
Here’s an example of some pepper box pistols. Rifle versions also exist if you google.
Upscale one of those, separate the barrels some and you have something resembles what’s in New World.
The difference between a pepperbox gun and a gatling gun is that the pepperbox guns have their barrels preloaded and the rotation of the barrels is to bring the barrel in line with the firing mechanism. Whereas the gatling gun uses the same firing mechanism and just rotates an empty barrel in front.
So if the New World version was loading the barrel in the bottom position as it fires the one in the top position, it could achieve a good rate of fire. Did that exist in real life? Not with that level of sophistication or size, but there’s no reason it couldn’t. Especially on an island where you’re constantly having to fight off sieges and death is irrelevant. So each siege you can iterate your design and not worry about losing your knowledge weaponsmiths due to a acute case of being dead.
Wait wait wait… hold on… did you just say…. gasp upscale!!? Just pause a minute and think about that… just for a minute… up… scale…. Hmmmm what was this whole thing about again?
