Gun safety rules

Alrighty ill try and clarify what i mean a bit more with the comparison. Sword fighting isnt exactly accurate in most games, like skyrim and so on. The RPG i mentioned is "attempting" to make the fighting much more accurate to how it actually works, its very very complex, that includes the stances, which are the equivalent to this only with guns more so. They are trying to use actual moves you would use in in a historic fight. I'm not asking for bioware to get way into the equivalent tactical nature of combat like that studio is, or even with proper positions to hold the rifles pistols etc (they dont do things entirely accurately as it is).

What im trying to say is, it would not be like a huge deal like that studio(Warhorse) is going through to make as much accurate as possible, merely to simply hold the weapons properly. Thats just one simple but VERY important thing. If you pick up a rifle and arent planning on shooting your buddy in the butt you dont pick up the gun and point it there with your finger on the trigger. Its pretty much obviously a dumb thing to do. I used the comparison of that studio to say its not nearly as hard as one might think to get the basic things right without going to extreme efforts. I guess i didnt explain myself too clearly on that, so im sorry about that. (maybe i still didnt get the analogy across i dont know, it sounds great in my head though). These things stick out to some of us like highlighted lines in text, thats why we notice.

So I'd call it more of an obvious error being noticed than nit picking. If i want to get into nit picking, id mention the concept that had everyone talking about how great it is if you can shoot left handed in Andromeda optionally for lefties. The realilty is, if the firearm permits, you should left handed or right handed based on your dominant eye, not hand. Now that is more nit picking in my opinion.

That was clearly for dramatic effect as it was accompanied by flashbacks. 

People have really got to understand that all of these design decisions are based on multiple factors. Sometimes storytelling supersedes sensibility.

And I've designed video games

I never said they are mutually exclusive so I'm not sure what you are quoting here. I just said one may be more important than the other given the context. The point of that "shoot walk" was finality, moving towards the end, and standing still would not be consistent with that theme. Do you disagree on this point?

Just because it's not sensible to walk towards the target in a default encounter, doesn't make it sensible for him to not walk towards it given the context of this particular situation from all perspectives, internal (Shepard assumes they will die anyway, and is desperate enough to destroy it with their own hands if the gun doesn't work) or external (dramatic effect of movement during flashbacks)

Never pointing a weapon at anything you aren't prepared to shoot will never change. It's a very basic part of the professional handling of firearms.

So with that said I do think the original post is a legitimate gripe. While there are certainly many more pressing concerns, weapons being holstered outside of combat would make the game more immersive. I'd rather not see the protagonist approach some non-threatening NPC to initiate a conversation, while pointing a gun in the person's face.

I'm just going to ignore the condescension towards the developers so don't bother with that stuff

What you described is a potential approach that you think is more appropriate, but you are not mentioning the flashbacks. Where would they fit in? It is rather apparent that you are focusing on the act of shooting itself, as you are describing individual frames of that shooting.

Rather than focus on the frames of the shooting, they opted for flashbacks and in between them they had Shepard moving forward and finishing the job no matter what. 

You're just giving an alternative without considering the entirety of the context here. They could have theoretically just made Shepard stand still and perhaps adjusted the angle or something in between flashbacks, but what purpose would that serve really? 

This is argument for the sake of it.

It's been a really long time since I've finished ME3 so I don't remember much of the context of this particular situation.

Just by reading the context you provided though, I could say that it would emulate the chaos and confusion of combat.

Also, how do you know the reaper flew away completely? I remember that we just see it leaving the screen after (presumably) killing everyone. Perhaps another was approaching? Perhaps a new set of minions were approaching? You can ask many questions. Why focus on one particular situation without taking all possibilities into consideration?

In truth, the falling back was there for narrative effect. The player is all alone now and has to move forward after sustaining heavy injuries and almost dying to the final boss, Marauder Shields

You just called Mass Effect fiction. You admit it is not a 1:1 translation of realism then.
So apparently we do agree and you're just fixating on one event to argue for the sake of it.

I still don't get where the lack of realism comes in. You have not provided sufficient evidence to explain how walking towards the target in this particular situation would not be sensible beyond a description by another poster stating protocol in a normal encounter when this particular situation is anything but normal.

Again, you are applying a protocol used to describe a normal encounter to that of one that is not typical. 

I could give you a reason why Shepard moved towards the target. Perhaps the gun would not work and Shepard would have to interact with it manually. Wouldn't he need to approach it? It's not a living target and there is no inherent threat. 

Are you also using aim as a justification? It's a light weapon and Shepard has had years of experience. It's also a large immobile target. Do you really think Shepard would miss? 

I have provided several situations which would deem it sensible. How about that?

In the end, they are all irrelevant, because the POINT that this SCENE is trying to CONVEY is FINALITY. There was music, flashback, cutscenes, and all sorts of other signaling, and you are choosing to fixate on this particular facet.

I am sorry. Your arguments are weak.

If you want to argue "how much fiction is fiction" then go right ahead. The point is that this is a video game and given that Mass Effect is a narrative, sometimes what makes sense in the real world is not as relevant as to what makes sense in the setting.

I'm not sure I agree that what you argue for is better.  Or even more logical.  Remember Shep is at the end of his/her life here.  Hit by Harbinger's beam, stumbling through the whole ending sequence.  He/she's got blood-loss, a concision, probably blurry vision.  It makes sense then that he/she would, with his/her dying steps, ensure he/she hits the target that is fading in and out of his/her vision by walking forward and shooting it.  So what you argue for is different, and certainly not worse, but I don't think you can say at all that it is better.  That's completely subjective and I actually prefer his stumbling forward.

This isn't Rainbow Six, Arma, or even Metal Gear Solid, so I don't care.

edit: But let me amend this because it did annoy the shit out of me that no one held SMG's correctly, so I understand why it bothers people.

I really don't care.

I haven't been keeping up with the latest gameplay footage, can we hold SMG's the correct way now? Using the forward grip with the supporting hand?