XT said:
Sethran said:
Swords do more damage than bullets in reality, why should it be different in video games?
A large bladed object ripping through your flesh, muscle, and internal organs is bound to have more effect than a small piece of lead piercing your skin, muscle, and, if aimed right, maybe a major organ.
O_O do you know what a JHP rifle round will do to the human body?
imagine 1,309 foot lbs of energy collected into a small hole in the tip of a five and a half millimeter round being released in your body. A projectile going 3100 feet per second suddenly stopping and expanding and shattering in your body.
Yeah, when a bullet can hit your let, bounce off the bone, and fly up through your internal organs and kill you, while a sword would leave a 'flesh wound'(you're legs cut off! no it isn't), I have to say the bullet is more destructive.
The reason video games have the swords and melee weapons doing more damage, is balance. The difficulty of getting in close with all those little death pellets wizzing around the battle field is somewhat offset by the damage from close ranged weapons. It's not realistic, it's functional. Shoot, ever since people started fighting they've wanted ways to hit harder from father. You got a club, I got a spear. I get a sword, then you get a bow. You get a rifle, I get a Sniper Rifle. You go all bomber on us, we get all ICBM. More damage, farther away, is the gist. Transferring that to a game realistically is tough because real life weapons are designed to be both powerful and safer at range, then up close. So a little bit of reality gets tossed out for this "fun" thing to be allowed in.
And after saying that, I've gotta say it's nice to go and shoot a few rounds off down range.