It's called a magazine not a clip

Thats exactly what I meant. ;-)

Captain Obvious here :-) hey man, this article was written for gun-nuts who have no clue how games are made. I didn't ask slashdot to post it here, but I can see how they got confused since these are two topics in one. Also, guns are tools, no mater what your personal view on gun control is. This was written from a design point of view and maybe you should read the whole article, because it's on designing sci-fi weapons not an advertisement for buying guns. Cheers mate, keep it up :-)

Hey guys, first of all, this headline is misleading. I didn't wrote this article as a Crytek Dev, I just happen to work at Crytek and this is my personal opinion. The article was written for gun-nuts to explain to them why guns are often portrayed wrongly in games, not for gamers. Also, since I just joined Crytek I'm not responsible for anything you've seen in our released games. So, remember: This has nothing to do with Crytek. Also, I want to make it very clear that my article was about games that are set in "realistic" environments, like MW, Crysis, CS, BC and so forth. I absolutely agree, that realism is not at all needed in games like UT, Serious Sam etc. The job of the gun-designer in these sort of games is completely different: he has to create an "Icon" or a recognizable shape so the player knows what he is holding without even directly looking at it. Something like the rocket launcher in Q3 or the flak in UT99. This weapon does not need to be designed around internals, but have to have a certain feel for the power and limitations of the weapon. A good "funweapon" is designed around a unique shape, something a kid could doodle on a desk at school. I personally don't like the UT3 Weapons because they are overly detailed and not as recognizable as the original guns. Thanx, iPeg