RANT: Weapons on your back

[ToxicOranges]

I can only say, from a designers point of view, putting something like this ----> http://www.multiplayergames.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/wow_imba.jpg
on one's belt, is slightly difficult.
Admittedly though, not all weapons in games are on the back - in WoW for example, all 1 onehanded weapons are kept on the belt. Things that require two hands (and are two heavy and / or awkward for the belt) are placed on the back. How does it stay there? Well... magic.

I get your point, but it seems picky. Is it easier to run with a sword on the belt or your back? Which one allows you to easily crouch or squat? Which one lets you roll or dodge when not drawn?
I vote weapons on back.

 

[El_Nastro]

Totally agree with the OP.

Swords-on-backs have been a pet peeve of mine since...forever.

Why do they do it?

Because it's soooo keeeeeewwwwl. It's sooooooo 1337. It's like, totally, what a NINJA does, and it has more, like, STYLE.

Also, because many of the people who make these apparently think it was actually done that way. That's why.

It has nothing to do with the designers wanting to make sure we see their awesome weapon, or any other weird reason. It's because some people think it looks "ninja" - like bigass anime-style shoulderpads.

Furthermore, in real life it's not any more practical, it's not more comfortable, and is in no way better. Wearing a sword on your back is the opposite of those things; it's uncomfortable, awkward, and impractical. Think about it....when these weapons were used, it's not as if people weren't capable of conceiving and making a "back-scabbard" - of course they were, but apparently they chose not to. There's 0 evidence it ever happened. No physical remains of "back-scabbards", no illustrations, and no written description. None. Anywhere.

Even larger 2-handed swords weren't worn on the back. They were carried. We have illustrations of people carrying them & resting the sword on the shoulder, but not scabbarded.

The only reference to anything resembling a back-scabbard (that I know of) is from an old Museum Replicas Ltd. Catalog, where they mention that sometimes there was a harness used to carry a large sword to the battle, whereupon the entire harness was taken off (because it was impossible to draw the sword from the back harness), and the harness was discarded. And this is a Museum Replicas catalog, not an actual book. MRL is the J. Peterman of historic weaponry....they make up little stories as a marketing ploy.

So we have zero evidence of any sort for back-scabbards ever having existed anywhere at anytime. The reason there's NO evidence for it is because people never did it because it's stupid.

I put Swords-on-backs in the same category as the notion that the katana is the Ultimate Sword of Absolute Martial Deadliness and can cut through anything and thus is the Best-Sword-In-The-Game even if the game is ostensibly European in tone (like Fable 2 or Oblivion).

I don't think we'll have to put up with it for much longer though, now that Western Martial Arts & organizations like ARMA are gaining traction. Seems like more and more people (especially online) are all of sudden experts on Talhoffer & have nothing but scorn for the katana, so I hope eventually this back-scabbard nonsense will go away.

 

[Ultrajoe]

Why do they do it?

Because it's soooo keeeeeewwwwl. It's sooooooo 1337. It's like, totally, what a NINJA does, and it has more, like, STYLE.

Also, because many of the people who make these apparently think it was actually done that way. That's why.

No, they do it because of clipping issues. Don't insult an entire industry based on peeves and assumptions.

 

[badgersprite]

I bet this has already been said, but, "Attaching Velcro to your sword is an old adventurer's trick!"

Yeah, it usually doesn't bug me at all, because I can understand how it would be really difficult or really annoying to animate all the different swords/staffs/maces/bows fitting into some sort of sheath/scabbard/pouch/loop that also allows the player to conveniently see which weapon they are equipped with. Also, on another level, swords look cool and I as a player like showing them off. But it was either the most recent time I played Oblivion or during DA2 that I REALLY noticed this to the point where it took me out of the game.

 

[darth.pixie]

I had this conversation not two days ago with a friend. I kept asking how the hell does mage Hawke puts his stick away. Staff, spear, glaive...whatever. In a realistic sense I mean. How does he do it? Is there like a hook thingy on his back? I mean, it's not like a sword that has a scabbard...also considering that the blade is down, does it cut at his knees? Does it have straps? How do you keep that on your back?

It annoyed me quite a lot and eventually my friend told me to knock it off. It's magic. Still...is there a way to properly tie a stick to your back and be able to put it back on?

And on the Witcher, it was that more annoying that he had another sword at his belt and knife near his boot. But you can draw it from your back, I've done it and seen it. (I own swords...many in fact). It takes some practice to do it in a fluid motion just as say getting arrows from your back. Watch a rookie try to do it and he'll bend over backwards to reach them. (which I have also done way back when)

 

[El_Nastro]

Why do they do it?

Because it's soooo keeeeeewwwwl. It's sooooooo 1337. It's like, totally, what a NINJA does, and it has more, like, STYLE.

Also, because many of the people who make these apparently think it was actually done that way. That's why.

No, they do it because of clipping issues. Don't insult an entire industry based on peeves and assumptions.

Not buyin' it. I suppose there might be some technical issues involved, but that argument falls apart when we acknowledge that:


A.) Not all games do swords-on-backs (Oblivion & Morrowind, for instance), so it can't be all THAT difficult. Besides, when I look at all the other aspects of computer graphics & see the things that are possible, the idea that hip-worn swords presents a significant challenge is a bit silly.

B.) We see swords-on-backs in movies, anime, western animation, comics, book-cover illustrations, miniatures, etc. etc., so it's not just a gaming-thing.

The reason we see so much swords-on-backs (or "s.o.b.") is nothing more than convention. Back-scabbards are a stylistic choice, and kind of a stupid one.

I'm not sure exactly how or where the swords-on-backs idea was originally spawned, but at this point it's just taken for granted, & designers probably do it without even thinking about it, because, y'know....that's where a sword goes. Everyone knows that. Shoes are worn on the feet, hats go on heads, gloves are for hands, and swords are worn on the back.

 

[El_Nastro]

So we have zero evidence of any sort for back-scabbards ever having existed anywhere at anytime.

*cough

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scabbard

There is some limited data from woodcuts and textual fragments that Mongol light horse archers and some Chinese soldiers wore a slung baldric over the shoulder, allowing longer blades to be strapped across the back.

...

However in "The Ancient Celts" by Barry Cunliffe, on page 94 of that book, Mr. Cunliffe writes,"All these pieces of equipment [shields, spears, swords, mail armour], mentioned in the texts, are reflected in the archaeological record and in the surviving iconography, though it is sometimes possible to detect regional variations. Among the Parisii of Yorkshire, for example, the sword was sometimes worn across the back and therefore had to be drawn over the shoulder from behind the head."

Not saying that you're not probably right about the back scabbard being a modern day affectation, just saying what I quoted of you is probably wrong.

You can argue that Wikipedia sucks, then I'll ask you to provide your easily linkable evidence to the contrary.

OK, I'll amend my statement:

We have exactly 3 pieces of evidence for the existence of back-scabbarding, and they're far from compelling. 2 come from Wikipedia & 1 from a museum replicas catalog.

The first is an unsourced reference to texts and woodcut-illustrations depicting Mongols & Chinese soldiers wearing a type of back-scabbard baldric. Exactly what the text is, or where the woodcut is isn't specified. There is no link to any images of the referenced woodcut or text. I'd rank this as slightly less credible than the Museum Replicas catalog.

The second Wikipedia reference states:

"The Ancient Celts" by Barry Cunliffe, on page 94 of that book, Mr. Cunliffe writes,"All these pieces of equipment [shields, spears, swords, mail armour], mentioned in the texts, are reflected in the archaeological record and in the surviving iconography, though it is sometimes possible to detect regional variations. Among the Parisii of Yorkshire, for example, the sword was sometimes worn across the back and therefore had to be drawn over the shoulder from behind the head."


So we have a whopping 3 pieces of "evidence" for real-life back-scabbards.

One comes from an MRL catalog, and it isn't even really accurate to call what they talk about "scabbards" in that in order to draw the sword, the whole harness had to be removed.

The second is an unsourced Wikipedia reference to mysterious woodcuts & texts regarding the Chinese & Mongols.

The third is also from Wikipedia, & contains one man's assertion regarding a Roman-era Celtic tribe who SOMETIMES back-scabbarded.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to regard each of these pieces of "evidence" as so flimsy that we can confidently disregard them, especially when we weigh them against the TONS of credible material we actually have, like illuminated Bibles, tapestries, bas reliefs, statues, and fighting manuals showing countless swordsmen, and none of those show anyone wearing a sword on their back.

 

[El_Nastro]

Oh yeah, one other thing:

Does anyone really think that ANY of the depictions of back-scabbards in games, movies, illustrations, anime, etc. were done because the artist/designer/costume designer/whatever was thinking about Chinese woodcuts or the Parisii?

The answer is: no.

None of them knew a thing about any of that, nor did they care.

And even if they did, then they'd also know about the Bayeaux tapestry & the Morgan Bible, and about 10,000 other contemporary depictions of swordsmanship & they'd know that of those, 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the depicted swordsman do not wear their sword on their back

But they didn't know/care about either of those things.

All they knew or cared about is: swords-on-backs looks more ninja than a hip-worn blade.

 

[brendonnelly]

LIGHTNING BOLT!

 

[El_Nastro]

...I would suggest that the concept and application is not as far-fetched as it seems...

OK, let's think about that. How far-fetched does it seem? I don't think s.ob.'s are as far-fetched as, say, unicorns. Back-scabbards are definitely within the realm of "physically possible". It is possible to wear a sword on your back, & it is possible to draw it from such a scabbard, & I suppose that if you really practiced alot, & were very, very careful, you could even put the sword back into the back-scabbard. So it's not impossible. We know it's possible because we see it in movies ALL THE TIME (& we know it's not cgi), and lots of SCA-types have some kind of back-scabbard.

Then why don't we see it in illustrations? Why can't I google "back scabbard" and see a picture of one in something other than a bad movie, the He-Man cartoon, or a D&D manual? How come the BEST we can do is two vague (and arguably not very credible) references on Wikipedia? If back-scabbards were anywhere close to anything resembling practical, and was "a personal choice for the few among the majority", then we should see a few (10%, 5%, or even 1%) examples in things like the Bayeux Tapestry. We should see back-scabbards appearing regularly....not often, but sometimes. But we don't see them 1% of the time. We don't see them 1/100 of 1% of the time.

When we take note of that, how far-fetched DO they seem?

The implication is clear: while it's possible to wear a sword on your back, wearing one on the hip is objectively better. In every way it is objectively better. The sword is easier & faster to draw, easier and faster to replace, & it's easier & faster to put the belt on & take it off. It's also probably easier & faster to make a sword-belt than a back-baldric. Maybe it's not even better by a lot, but it's better by enough so that virtually no one ever chose to carry a sword sheathed on their back.

The only advantage to a back-scabbard is: it looks totally ninja.

I mean, how hard would it be for soldiers, government agents, police, & rednecks to make a "back-holster" for their pistols? (& I mean an over-the-shoulder back-holster just like a back-scabbard for a sword, not an underarm holster or small-of-the-back holster or anything like that) It's definitely possible. Maybe someone's even made one. You know how gun-people are. They love making custom accessories for their pieces....& there's lots of examples of innovative custom holsters out there, so I bet if we looked hard enough we could find an over-the-shoulder back-holster for a pistol.

Regardless....if an alien or time-traveler or whatever (who was making an RPG about Information Age Earthling humans) showed me his costume design, & it had a pistol back-holster, I'd be perfectly comfortable saying, "That's all wrong. No one ever did that. Pistols were never worn on the back like that. That's pure fantasy - you might think it looks cool, but it's sort of stupid. Just put the gun on the hip"

So in answer to the question, "how far-fetched do back-scabbards seem"? They seem about as far-fetched as a back-holster for a pistol - far-fetched enough that we see no GOOD evidence for them.




EDIT: I should have thought of this sooner. The back scabbard seems more far-fetched than the Hollywood cowboy fast-draw holster, which is known to be Pure Hollywood. That's where it ranks on the Scale of Far-Fetchedness.

Now that I'm thinking about it, Fast-Draw Holster vs. Regular Holster & Back-Scabbard vs. Belt-Scabbard are almost the same conversation.....

 

[Christian Lerche]

Alright, I'm not even going to take this seriously, if you're more interested in taking this to a personal matter you may as well PM me but I'll answer this nonetheless.

LOL wut? Everything I wrote was in response to what you have stated as having a problem with. The last section was an obvious joke to break the tention and show no hard feelings, but it was still in response to you.

Magic is not expected to hold your weapon since it's never mentioned, shown, or even hinted at.

Magic is never shown? Really, that is your argument? Does the game have to show you the NPC's and PC's breath or do you take it on faith?

It's just there, and yes, I can see the clipping issue, but for me, this is a step backwards since just having your weapon spawn as you enter combat, or just having them in your hands all the time worked, for my part, better in ways of immersion, which is my way of experiencing games.

So you stay immersed when you are walking around in a medieval RPG and pull a sword out of thin air when you have to fight? That seems like it would be less immersive. Holding the weapon will break immersion when you climb, jump, crawl, and go into places that it is innapropriate to have a weapon drawn in.

So, since it's fictional and it doesn't have to make sense, why don't we all fly on Pegasuses and dual-wield two handed war hammers while bombarding the evil "Outragous Creature Here"?

If it fits in the game's world.... sure we could.

It's my impression, that serious mature fantasy games keeps it self in a world we can believe in. Like *MAJOR SPOILERS* when one of your family members dies and deal with it in a very serious way even though we've just been knocking out dragons. Or when you create your character, you're only allowed a few conversation options even though we could answer every NPC with the phrase: "Marmalade" and still get the quest.

So this comes down to the fact that you dislike a game setting that pulls too far away from reality. I'm sorry to be the one to beak it to you but they are called fantasy RPG's for a reason. As for the speech options.... They will never be able to write a dialog that encompasses EVERY answer. This cannot be done. There would be too many variables in the story from all of the different conversations. Think of it as being an exponential variable equation that starts with infinity. They script several game endings and put as many speech options in that will lead to those endings as possible.

And since you are still reading, I thank you for paying attention even though you've it clear you do not agree with me.

I do not disagree with you. I disagree with your point of view. I agree it would be nice if the weapons and armor reacted in a realistic way, but I don't see why it is a deal breaker for you. Don't sweat the little things, you'll live longer.

God of War is not a fantasy RPG like the before mentioned games. Good thing you noticed me saying that I hate that game and it's way of handling the isssue. Oh wait, I think I did the opposite. But never mind.

Look, I won't spend a long time arguing with you. You're drawing everything from out of context and try to pin it against me. All I am saying is this:

-Back scabbards ARE cool, don't get me wrong. They are. BUT! The way the games handle it is going in the wrong direction. For me it's a very small thing, that keeps nagging me throughout games. If it were only one game, I'd be cool with it, but this is spreading throughout the entire fantasy genre.

- People talk of clipping issues, and that very well be true, but it wouldn't be a problem if there was BELIEVABILITY in it. I do recognize the Sparta factor, realism within the given world sacrificed for the overall coolness, but to me it is not a cool thing, it's just silly, and that is my opinion.

- In reality, back scabbards are more of a niché, a thing small groups of people used back in the day. It would be nice to put that knowledge to use, and only have a handfull of characters doing so like in Assasins Creed.

I've said this before, it is minor, very minor, but it seems like the genre could do without, making it even better.

Try talking to the other posters around, because I've gotten over this many days ago.

 

[Christian Lerche]

Now, talking as a LARPer...

Culmination of my reaction to this part.

Nice way of showing respect for your fellow escapist. What, you have something against people who run around in the woods with foam swords and hitting each other? It there a problem painting yourself green and black like an orc? Shall you mock my hobby, in which there is total seriousness and skanky clad elfs?

Discrimination! Slander I say! Slander!

 

[Lawnmooer]

I kind of get why they do the floaty weapon thing - It's easy and allows them to make weapons that are pretty and show them off.

There are only 2 people I can think of that use scabbards on their backs:

Spoiler

Spoiler

Though they still have their issues... Such as how does Link's shield stay on his back? What about the other 20 odd things he carries around (Including a bow and bags full of 10+ bombs the size of his head) also you may say that Caim doesn't technically have his scabbard on his back... but it's behind him (He also gets bonus points for slicing through someones sword and then cutting them in half during the opening sequence of Drakenguard...) He also only uses it for his regular sword (I can't remember if he actually sheathes it during game... been a while and I spent more time looking for the next few hundred guys to kill) none of his other weapons get sheathed in it... or at all I don't think (Especially the sword that is the size of him...)

I say floaty weapons > having few weapons due to the time and resources needed to make individual scabbards and sheathing animations for each one and then making the scabbards look somewhat interesting (Link's one looks quite nice and you only get to see it in combat unless you equip the wooden shield and get it burned off)

 

[Bobbity]

The gaming implementation sucks, but back scabbards themselves are fine.

That said, I still prefer the hip ones, because they look almost infinitely cooler

 

[Hop-along Nussbaum]

Wow. If this pisses you off, I would hate to be around when real life happens.