Poll: Swords or Guns?

[Fbuh]

Why not have both?

 

[Queen Michael]

The katana. Always the katana.

 

[LightspeedJack]

It feels much better to slice someone's head off with a sword than to just pop them with gun...in videogames of course...

 

[Eponet]

I could realy care less about which is the superior weapon (Money is obviously the best weapon most of the time), but in terms of games, as the OT was referring to, I prefer swords. There are just too many shooters out that all more or less play near identically.

On the other hand, well played medieval melee weapon combat has proven a rarity. I'm still waiting to see whether a game will come out with combat as fun as that of Dark Messiah, preferably with a much better plot line to it >_>.

Dark Messiah's combat was far more enjoyable than any of those shooters I played at associates. (Counterstrike, CoD 4, CoD 6, Halo, Halo 2 etc.)

 

[firedfns13]

I was looking at my shelf of games, and couldn't help to think that like attracts like. I have way more fantasy games than modern games, for example. This got me thinking. If all games were equal, ie: COD had swords, or Oblivion had guns for example, would it make a difference to the weapons you'd use? Are there any scenarios that alternative weapons would make more enjoyable gameplay?

Note: I'm aware that Fallout is basically Oblivion with guns, but it's hard to think of a recent fantasy game off the top of my head that didn't include guns.

With all the stupid bull they added in MW2, there should be a sword added once you get 1000 knife kills. Then I could run around like Jack Churchill!

 

[Jedamethis]

I have a preference for swords... but I know that a gun would kill you dead a helluva lot more efficiently

Yeah, what he said.

 

[MrSteveyP]

Personaly I think that a light saber would just dominate both a sword and a gun.

 

[Wewt]

If we should abolish swords as a thing of the past, why should we not abolish knives since they're less usefull against guns.

Because under some, very rare, circumstances, hand-to-hand combat will be required, and for those circumstances a knife will be much better than a sword.

They compliment hand-to-hand combat techniques much better than swords that would require a, relatively, specialized training.

They're smaller and lighter, thus easier to carry (hindered movement is especially unwanted in a fire fight), more usable in very tight quarters (example: in a narrow corridor your sword swing could hit a wall and leave you open for a counter) and quicker to draw (considering these would not be primary weapons and as such would probably be sheathed).

Knives are simply more versatile than swords, that's why they're still employed and, even then, only to a limited extent.

As for the poll, I'm a quite an adept of archery as far as the "rule of cool" goes.

Knives are still issued for use as a tool (opening a can, cutting a rope), if it really does get too close, chances are that they will use a pistol instead. A knife is very rarely used as a weapon.

 

[MrDarkling]

Man this little discussions use to always get me into trouble with FFfans x)

Guns, that is all.
I had someone whining about how dishonourable I am for choosing guns over swords and all I could say was "today in the MODERN world, everyone uses guns. I honestly don't think your enemy will feel guilty for shooting you down while you whine about tradition and honour on your last breaths"

 

[Jared]

WHY CAN I NOT CHOOSE "GUNBLADE" ON THIS POLL!?

You dare steal my picture?!?!
Very well then...
i shall one-up you.

Thats epic o.o

OT : Guns, for sure. Swords are nice, but, I dont wanna get close enough for something like that, not if my life was on the line

 

[F-I-D-O]

Mr. Shooty McPewpew, reporting in!

But really, gun > sword. Trying to argue otherwise is pointless.

He deflects bullets!


But most of the time, a gun is better. It's more reliable (as in more likely to kill each time), harder to avoid, easier to hide, and easier to use.
And the TF2 heavy can help me here...
"I've yet to meet one who can outsmart bullet"

 

[Th37thTrump3t]

Guns. At both ends of the spectrum.

A good rifle is a very effective weapon in the right hands.

While neither is desirable, I'd rather be shot than have a limb lopped off by a sword.

But what if that gun that shot you was a minigun and it obliterated your leg off...

 

[Kelethor]

Can't I have both? Squall had both...

 

[jboking]

I like swords and all, but if my enemies are using guns I'm going to use a freaking gun. Fallout 3 has affirmed to me that this is the correct choice.

 

[PixelJunk]

Hmmm...

Guns or Swords...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pTGXUig6lY

 

[guntotingtomcat]

Is the question "which guy would win if one had a sword and one had a gun"? Seems obvious...

 

[Souplex]

Other: Swords were historically one of the less effective weapons. They were the ancient equivalent to an officer's pistol: Light, easy to carry around, less effective than a rifle (Polearms, (Assault rifle) axes, (Shotgun) bows, (Sniper) and crossbows (One of those really big heavy duty snipers)) and more of a symbol of rank than anything else.
Knights equated only having a sword to being unarmed. Swords main advantage came from the fact that they could be sheathed at your side, because otherwise they were generally inferior.
It wasn't until the rapier that swords really were a good choice. It cold get through any type of armor, could easily be poisoned, was capable enough to run someone through with a pound of force, was cheap to produce, and could once again; be easily carried around on your person.
I would go with polearms. Preferably a halberd.

I hope you realize there were hundreds of varieties of swords across the world, all with different abilities.

And I hope you realize that they were pretty much all less effective than polearms, axes, bows, crossbows, and miscellaneous others. Swords were popular because of their portability, and had no real advantages otherwise.