Poll: Deadliest Warrior, Crap and Poor-Taste?

[FWL_MeRc]

While I strongly disagree with the OP. I see his point.

Sadly one mans "Freedom Fighter" Is another mans "Terrorist". Also the IRA has a surprisingly long history that I would suggest you read more of. Such as near the formation ages (IRB - IRA) etc. The Acts were, of course brutal. But it now means the Republic is free from 800+ years of oppression.

And, as I am skimming over alot here. The IRA and its many different factions, splinter groups whatever you wish to call them today are nothing more than over glorified criminals.

While I never seen this show I am now curious to see this specific ep, if anyone could provide me with where I may be able to view this in Ireland I would appreciate.

Just on a parting note. Yes. The IRA were terrorists to the English. But both sides were guilty of great evils during the conflicts. And while I may have de-railed this slightly I had to throw this in.

And to make it also clear, I do not hold any dispute/hatred toward England. English etc. This is all in the past and its time to move on like a civil society should. So please excuse me if I sound "Pro RA".

 

[Jacco]

snip

I'm inclined to agree with you and even though of starting a thread on this very subject. That being said, I am always finding fault with their tests- namely the "instant kill" focus. ANd to be fair, The newest episode with Joan of Arc and William the Conqueror reviewed the tactics of key battles in each of their careers.


For the most part I am with you- it's crap. The biology the "doctor" cites as why something is fatal is more often than not flat out wrong and they seem to base their opinions on who "wins" a round on what they think is cooler instead of more effective. In combat, you don't always want to kill everyone. For instance, the rounds the US military uses are designed to not be instantly fatal (aside from the obvious). They are designed to cause a significant amount of damage without killing because 1) if you have an injured guy, that automatically takes 2 or 3 extra people out of the fight to tend to him as opposed to just 1 if you straight up them them and 2) it causes more psychological trauma to see their friends torn apart and still breathing.

Though to be fair, the show is called "Deadliest" warrior and not "most effective" or "smartest" warrior.

 

[Commissar Sae]

I gave up after Gangus Khan vs Alex the great
They gave it to Khan a hit and run fighter/ Alex was know to ride up frount of his men. His men loved him and after the persion where defeated they loved his too. Alex loved to fight there a story where he one scaled a wall so fast he was the only one up there for a few moments while everyone else tried to catch up.

Granted I haven't watched the episode so I'm not sure what they bring out but Genghis Khan would annihilate Alexander the Great. Sure Alexander was a great leader beloved of his men, but so was the Khan. The mongols carved out the biggest contiguous empire in Human history. They slaughtered all who resisted but actually were pretty lenient towards populations that surrendered.

That said the show is notorious for being poorly researched and making the confrontations between groups as contrived and illogical as possible. Their bias is usually clear and the 5 on 5 matchups are completely retarded when comparing generals. Example: Washington won in the show, despite historically having a fraction of the fighting force Napoleon had. In most warfare, victory is determined by numbers and tactical advantage, not brute force.

 

[xXAsherahXx]

The show isn't very accurate as far as results go, and it's incredibly biased towards America. Have you seen America lose a face-off a single time? No, because this is 'Mericuhhh!!!!!!

The FBI should have lost, and the CIA should have lost. Everybody knows tasers don't work for shit against moving targets behind cover, it's just bullshit. And on the latter episode, the way they won was pure shit, the KGB had much better gadgets.

 

[Jacco]

there's quite a lot of iffy science and flamebait to this show. Most of it tried not to be in bad taste but at the end of the day it's always gonna be like that. The reps of the factions always end up fighting like kids about my warrior is better then yours. The funny thing every time the Russian military was on they were the most professional compared to other factions.

I especially liked the episode where they pitted Spetsznas against Green Berets and teh Spetsznas won. Those two aren't even in the same league, much less the same operational framework.

 

[Jacco]

The show isn't very accurate as far as results go, and it's incredibly biased towards America. Have you seen America lose a face-off a single time? No, because this is 'Mericuhhh!!!!!!

The FBI should have lost, and the CIA should have lost. Everybody knows tasers don't work for shit against moving targets behind cover, it's just bullshit. And on the latter episode, the way they won was pure shit, the KGB had much better gadgets.

I've seen American units lose loads of times. SWAT vs GSG9 (I think that was the matchup), Special FOrces vs Spetsznas etc

 

[AmrasCalmacil]

Its pretty dumb in the way that it only compares weapons and not the people who would use them, yeah, and the 'experts' are very dubious, but just take it as a lighthearted 'Who would win in a fight out of...' sort of thing and its fun enough in its own way.

I mostly just like the choreographed fights and stuff, though I've only seen a few.

 

[orangeban]

While watching a video of an IRA bombing (which killed civilians) the main host went, "WOW, HARDCORE!"

Thoughts on this? Have I been reasonable?

Yes and no.

While I don't know the rest of your posting history, I imagine that at least once or twice you've played a game (you're at the Escapist afterall). And I'd be willing to put some money down on the fact that you have done something like shoot a person in one of these games you've played. Or perhaps seen a friend playing a game and said something along the lines of "Wow; Hardcore!" If such is the case, then I'm afraid this post smacks a little bit of hypocrisy. You'll probably counter "but that was a video game" or "it wasn't a civilian being shot/maimed/killed" or "it wasn't committed by a terrorist." I think the difference isn't all that different. Deadliest is an entertainment project. Video games are entertainment products. Perhaps the more critical question is "why are we entertained by sensationalized killing".

Hmm. Hmmmmm. Hmmmmmmmmmm. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Alright, thought of an answer. My problem here is I think that the host of the show should have shown restraint. He should of thought, "No, that would be a tactless thing to do." and I'm shocked by something that most people would of had the common sense not to say. Good response though.

 

[ChocoFace]

I agree. If you are to watch the show, this is what it's good for. *guy who thinks he's an ancient warrior swings a stick at a dummy and it's head falls off* Hostuuuude! Doctor: Yeah you can see here his head fell off. Opponent: Yeah but a real Conquistador would have dodged it, he's the slickest dude in the world! Other guy: Nuh uhhh! Opponent: yuu huhhh!
You've now seen every episode.

mind=blown.

You've saved me valuable hours of my life.

 

[Jakub324]

It's entertaining in a retarded way, but the game is really, undeniably fun and, if possible, even stupider.

 

[jonyboy13]

You should've seen the Shaolin vs Maori, Maori won. I laughed my ass off for hours and hours. It's really pathetic, especially since it tries to be so real and historical.

What's with the crap Captcha? I miss the fun one:<

 

[Lenin211]

The show is not perfect, its tests are not consistent. But it is fun to watch. I don't see why a rant needs to be directed at it.

 

[Lord_Ascendant]

Considering Spike's target audience, I'm not surprised really. I think you're just thinking about it too much. Yeah it's rather stupid, but it's the same for pretty much everything on Spike. It's there for entertainment first, scientific facts and whatnot, like, 4th or something.

Yeah your being reasonable, but it's kind of wasted energy. It's Spike, it's kind of what they do.

That being said, I still watch it. I kind of like the corny action-scenes.

^^^
This.

/thread perhaps??

 

[TheDooD]

The show isn't very accurate as far as results go, and it's incredibly biased towards America. Have you seen America lose a face-off a single time? No, because this is 'Mericuhhh!!!!!!

The FBI should have lost, and the CIA should have lost. Everybody knows tasers don't work for shit against moving targets behind cover, it's just bullshit. And on the latter episode, the way they won was pure shit, the KGB had much better gadgets.

I've seen American units lose loads of times. SWAT vs GSG9 (I think that was the matchup), Special FOrces vs Spetsznas etc

They can't let US lose to everybody (eventhough imo we lost each time) the show would have been cancelled. I saw the rage on the Spike forums when the Spetsnez beat the Special Forces. If the streak kept going they might have tossed up the bias card.

 

[Steve Butts]

You're reading far, far, far too much into it. The show is light entertainment, not factual documentary. Don't take it seriously.

But it pretends to be serious and factual, it acts like it is hard science. Maybe I am reading to much into it, but maybe it should make it clearer that it is light entertainment.

Yes, but we're also talking about a medium where "Ice Road Truckers" and "Ancient Aliens" qualify to be on the History Channel. I think it's a valid criticism.

 

[Acenamedvlad]

American Soldiers were terrorists in the battle for independence... I think that is where the sympathy is from.

 

[orangeban]

You're reading far, far, far too much into it. The show is light entertainment, not factual documentary. Don't take it seriously.

But it pretends to be serious and factual, it acts like it is hard science. Maybe I am reading to much into it, but maybe it should make it clearer that it is light entertainment.

Yes, but we're also talking about a medium where "Ice Road Truckers" and "Ancient Aliens" qualify to be on the History Channel. I think it's a valid criticism.

...
Those are shows?
...
I don't even know what to think any more.

 

[orangeban]

Now, I say that the IRA vs Taliban episode was in poor taste for a few reasons. Firstly because according to the show the IRA (Irish Republican Army, a group of terrorists trying to make Northern Ireland part of the Republic of Ireland) are "freedom fighters" fighting for "the freedom of Ireland". The show is incredibly sympathetic to them (but not to the Taliban of course) despite the fact that the IRA were terrorists, who killed innocents. You may say why worry, but I say that there is a strange amount of IRA sympathism in America already, and while people are entitled to opinions, I want people clear that the IRA are terrorists, not freedom fighters, not oppresed liberators.

The other reason is about an event that happened for a split second, but disgusted me. While watching a video of an IRA bombing (which killed civilians) the main host went, "WOW, HARDCORE!" I wonder what he did when he watched the videos of 9/11, did he say HARDCORE then? Seriously, what a moment of utter tastelessness.

I don't want to comment too much on this because I already thought the same as you, but I will say that this is why the rest of the World isn't sympathetic about 9/11. The US liked the IRA a lot, enough to be one of the biggest contributors to their funding and those citizens that donated money were paying for bombs and bullets to kill innocents. Course, after the towers fell down everyone is all terrorism is a scourge' and 'war on terror', conveniently forgetting that they paid money to blast children to pieces for the right to drink green milkshakes and play up their 1/16th Irishness.

I hope it was worth it.

I wouldn't say I'm not sympathetic about 9/11, but still... this.

"Money for The cause, Brothers! Money for The Cause! you don't need all that drinking money just to celebrate Saint Patrick's day, so why not stuff a few notes into my rattling tin! Remember, when the Taliban blows up innocent people it's a heinous crime, but when your distant relatives blow up blameless bystanders, they're fighting to free themselves from British rule in the defense of a nation they were only born in through sheer chance! hooray!"

Also, Deadliest Warrior-related: why do the guys who claim to be total badasses always seem to be complete and utter dickheads? I seriously doubt any true professional is going to strut around, bragging and arguing because he's placed all his faith in the outcome of a notoriously idiotic virtual fight just to prove how big his dick is. Where the hell do they find these guys, and who decided to let them near deadly weapons?

If you look into it, most of the "experts" turn out to be actors or stuntmen or other related crap. Though you can't fault the doctor who brings such expert knowledge as the fact that a cannon ball tearing straight through your torso would indeed kill you. Thousands of dollars of medical school, totally worth it.