Gun safety rules

Aww, you're right. Pre-order cancelled.

Er....technically you can justify anything by saying this is a video game. A game designer tries to emulate reality as much as is necessary according to their design constraints.

For example, most video games do not implement a requirement to use the bathroom because that is irrelevant to the experience they want to convey. Sims is a life simulator so obviously they'd want to include it, but the real world has guns so why doesn't Sims have them? The designers don't want to include physical violence beyond a single "Fight" mechanic where the characters are covered in smoke so you can't really see anything.

In regards to safety, given that this is a shooter, gun safety is definitely going to be on their radar in most of their designs as a lot of them are intuitive. Why would you be pointing your gun at people if you aren't shooting? However, it'll most likely be an implicit contract, one that can be broken when they think it is not a priority.

In fact, a perfect example is that promotional photo. They want all the characters close to each other for a shot that conveys "team", and they want them to be equipping their gun to look badass. The purpose is to hype people for the game, so safety takes a back seat in favor of visual appeal.

So it's an "error" in that it breaks from norms, but it's one that is handled for a reason.

The bigger question is what Scott is doing. I don't think that's how you hold a gun, dude. And he seems to have misplaced his thumb entirely.

Honestly, I though this thread was a joke until I saw OP repeatedly and vigorously arguing with everyone, in detail.

* cough *

TC, if the rifle shouldn't be pointed at the ground (as long as you're not ignorantly pointing at your own feet), where should it be pointed? Technically, if it's held high and pointed up at the sky, what goes up must come down, and a shot accidentally fired up could come down and hit someone (why people say it's advisable not to shoot into the air)? That's what I've heard, so I'm curious what you think.

Proper trigger discipline would be nice for sure. But I don't think it has been present in any Mass Effect game so far or many games in general.

But this is really a very minor thing and the work needed to properly implement this isn't worth it in my opinion.

I don't think from this very small clip from a promotional trailer that you can say "They haven't bothered to get it right."  We simply don't know that.  I think to draw any conclusions from this photo to the greater quality of the game is taking it too far.

Absolutely, and by itself its pretty much meaningless. But it's just one more thing for me. So I'll wait a bit and see if the good outweighs the bad. Or until it's cheaper, whichever comes first.

I wonder about this, in regard to ME weapon's in particular. I'm about to deviate into off-topic speculation.

The projectiles fired from these weapons are so tiny, and traveling at such high velocity, that I suspect normal "safety rules" wouldn't really apply. I mean specifically in the sense of "what goes up must come down". If I fire a grain of sand into our sky at a not insignificant fraction of the speed of light, how far will it go? Will it burn up, or decelerate, first? If it decelerates, who cares where it falls? It's a grain of sand, after all. It will be carried harmlessly on the wind.

I'm finished. There's always another weird "what if" scenario when this setting's tech is involved.

I think the problem is evident with the long range weapons such as the widow.  

"Keep you booger hooker off the bang switch" doesn't seem like too much to ask. It's pretty basic stuff. I'm with the OP on this.