Poll: Swords or Guns?
- Thread starter Antitonic
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Swords.
They require more skill, and have a certain elegance... or some word like that... : D
As an old fashioned gamer I prefer older weapons.
However sadly there was no bow option. Archers are far superior.
They require more skill, and have a certain elegance... or some word like that... : D
As an old fashioned gamer I prefer older weapons.
However sadly there was no bow option. Archers are far superior.
Guns.
The reason why I like guns more than swords is that there is a much bigger variety in guns such as Snipers and assault rifles. Big weapons such as RPG's or small, such as a handgun.
Swords are cool too, especially in Oblivion, but I still have to go with guns.
The reason why I like guns more than swords is that there is a much bigger variety in guns such as Snipers and assault rifles. Big weapons such as RPG's or small, such as a handgun.
Swords are cool too, especially in Oblivion, but I still have to go with guns.
Corrected that. Also people keep saying that, but it couldn't be more wrong. Yes the Fallout 3 uses the same engine as Oblivion and has a similar gameplay style, but other wise it's a very different game. For one thing there are excessively few trees in the Capital Wasteland while Cyrodile was overgrown with them and there are no very samey Alyied(sp?) ruins in the Capital Wasteland either. Also there are no Oblivion Gates in Fallout 3 either. Shall I go on?Antitonic said:
OT: I prefer swords. I don't know, somehow I just feel more like a warrior when wielding cold steel (in a game of course).
You know what's better than a Sword, a Gun, and a Gun-Blade?
An energy field sheathed Halberd combined with a rapid firing, rocket propelled, armour piercing grenade launcher, aka:
Why should you have to compromise between slashing, chopping, stabbing, impaling, bludgeoning, shocking, burning, shooting or exploding your opponents, when the WH40K Guardian Spear can do all those tasks (and more) at the same time?
An energy field sheathed Halberd combined with a rapid firing, rocket propelled, armour piercing grenade launcher, aka:
Why should you have to compromise between slashing, chopping, stabbing, impaling, bludgeoning, shocking, burning, shooting or exploding your opponents, when the WH40K Guardian Spear can do all those tasks (and more) at the same time?
You are right, guns are currently superior. But that doesn't mean it will stay that way, just like Raiden demonstrates:DkLnBr said:
Well, to be honest, Raiden isn't that cool....but the idea of cyber-ninjas is! =D
Anyway, I would perfer to have both a gun and a sword. While guns are better in most situations, I would hate to be stuck with a firearm in close-quarter combat.
blaze96 said:If they're spraying with a kalashnikov rifle, they aren't a real shooter. No a 30-06. fired from an M1 Garand is more my speed. powerful and relatively accurate considering its age. Not to say I'm against swords in close combat, better than most guns depending on how close we're talking, I would just prefer to not see them die, smell them die, or hear them die. I want to see a human shaped blob falling in the distance, makes the trauma of killing a bit more bearable.Cyberjester said:I'm the opposite, if I _have_ to kill someone, I'd rather make it worth it. No wimpy spray from range with an ak.blaze96 said:
Well yea, rifles are just awesome. But yea, it's the whole have to part. If you have to, it's less traumatic.
No? Then what would we do to pass the time?Thedayrecker said:
Souplex said:
Seriously? Swords were a bar of iron/steel with the edges slightly sharpened, not necessarily light here. Especially the bigger swords, can't cut through armor, you'd be more likely to die from the impact breaking an arm and infection setting in. Not having your arm cut off.
Polearms were put to great use, but get inside their range and they were useless. They were more for infantry to take out calvary.
Bows.. Bows.. Look at the English for a good example of why the bow was just awesome. Rain of arrows can take out an armored knight.
Crossbows were more castle defence, slow to reload for the larger ones. Small ones didn't pack as much of a punch, not as useful really. Bigger ones though could punch through a charging knights armor quite effectively. So effectively and easily in fact, they were "banned". Peasants killing knights, just not cool.
Axes/maces were used, like a sword, just more on the weight side of things and less on the sharpened for maces, equal ways for axes. But a big axe is two handed which means no shield, a small axe.. Well you can't thrust with one, just swing. Sword is slightly more useful in battle, less useful outside.
Yes, in some area's they were a symbol of rank because of their expense. But not because of their quality.
Also, as the other dude pointed out, different swords for different areas. Try having a cavalry regiment armed with polearms.
Scimitar makes much more sense.Rapier was more a gentlemans sword, better for duelling, less good for full scale battles.
I like both swords and guns a lot, but I like guns just a tad bit more, they are a fun sporting weapon, and lets face it, if their was a fight between a guy with a sword and a guy with a gun, Id want to be the guy with the gun. Face reality, you really cant be fast enough to deflect bullets with a sword.
Sure swords dont run out of ammunition, but it only takes one bullet to end a fight as well as one slash
Oh and dont give me that "guns dont require skill" bullshit, it doesnt take long at all to learn how to fire it, but it takes 3-5 years to learn how to be efficient while firing it.
Sure swords dont run out of ammunition, but it only takes one bullet to end a fight as well as one slash
Oh and dont give me that "guns dont require skill" bullshit, it doesnt take long at all to learn how to fire it, but it takes 3-5 years to learn how to be efficient while firing it.
I say F-22. More skill required than a sword, and I'd like to see you shoot down a plane that can simply outrun your bullets.
