When you have guns, why use a sword?

[dmcc85]

think about "JEDI"

do i have to say more?

 

[Velocity Eleven]

simple answer: swords are cool, guns are cool, why have a game with just one when you can have both?

if you're complaining about the irrationality of using swords when guns are available, then its a wonder you're even able to play games at all

 

[Latinidiot]

Well if you've seen final fantasy 7 advent children, cloud gets shot at point blank range in the head and shrugs if off like nothing, on the other hand he gets stabbed in the shoulder and is almost dead. I guess in rpgs bullets can't kill you, only cause a slight annoyance.

it's not that ridiculous, his sunglasses deflected the bullet.
it's still highly illogical, but FUCK it, guns are for the weak!

 

[dreadedcandiru99]

This topic will relate somewhat to JRPGs, and I'll be honest, I love me some Final Fantasy, but in a world filled with machine guns, rifles and rocket launchers why the hell would you use a sword...What is the logic behind this?

Come on, these are JRPGs we're talking about--at no point does logic enter into the equation. Remember Rinoa's wrist-mounted dog-launcher?

 

[Sethzard]

Because guns are not as awesome as a sword, simple as that

 

[Riobux]

Because in turn-based combat, it doesn't make a difference most of the time if the character is using a gun or sword.

 

[dreadedcandiru99]

The perfect antidote to a Jedi is an AOE weapon. Something like a shotgun. They go all force-jump and you yell "PULL !" and blow them away. They can block 1 plasma beam, but try blocking 12 pellets all traveling at the same speed when you can't see them. Unless they stopper the barrel, push it out the way or somehow create some "force shield", their Jedi ass is toast. Come to think of it, if stormtroopers had scatter weapons they might actually hit something once in a while, even if it is only at close range.

You know, it just occurred to me that, nine times out of ten, when a guy with a sword defeats a guy with a gun, the sword has almost nothing to do with it--it's mainly just because Sword Guy also has superpowers. You know, like super speed/reflexes, or precognition, or something else. So it's not really "Swords > Guns," it's "Superpowers > Guns, and if you've got a sword too, then okay, cool."

 

[slipknot4]

If you're good enough with any weapon, you can use it as an advantage against someone with a gun.

Given enough (and I mean a lot) of training I'm sure a master on swordsmanship could take down an amateur mook with a gun.

Even if the guy in question is sitting in a house 3 miles away with an anti material sniper rifle that shoots .50 caliber bullets that can take out a tank?

 

[slipknot4]

Because guns are not as awesome as a sword, simple as that

Trust me, no. They're not

 

[Lazy Kitty]

Because blades are awesome!
It doesn't matter wheter they're katanas, longswords or scythes, they look way more awesome than guns.
And that's a good selling point for games.
Who needs logic, when you're that awesome?

 

[Sethzard]

Because guns are not as awesome as a sword, simple as that

Trust me, no. They're not

Erm, yes they are

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[slipknot4]

i love the effect of your comment versus your profile picture, though lucy is kind of a special case.

Yeah that's where "dreadedcandiru99's" comment proves it's value.

You know, it just occurred to me that, nine times out of ten, when a guy with a sword defeats a guy with a gun, the sword has almost nothing to do with it--it's mainly just because Sword Guy also has superpowers. You know, like super speed/reflexes, or precognition, or something else. So it's not really "Swords > Guns," it's "Superpowers > Guns", and if you've got a sword too, then okay, cool."

 

[Gunslinger_GearRust]

Actually, it seems to be more of the animosity of the weapon rather the effectiveness.

For example, the dagger is a small, sharp weapon that is used for quick movements. This description leaves the idea that the dagger is a quick, cunning, and visually nonthreatening form a distance.

That description then allows the brain to make the nearest connection to something we already know of and if I'm not mistaken the dagger seems to resemble the snake; and, as we all know the snake is also related to a deceptively silent and sneaky threat.

This is why when you see someone with a dagger from a distance, they seem like someone you can either outrun or disarm; but, close up, it seems to be something that can potentially kill you or lacerate the crap out of you jugular (especially if that dagger is right against your throat).


So if you apply that to a Sword, I could say that it resembled a threat because of it's long and broad geography that is sharp and moves with sweeping and lunging actions.

Along with a shield, that is used to knockdown opponents or defend the users self, it is viewed as The Lion.

The Lion being a proud and noble creature that uses its large paws and legs as the sword, sweeping, lunging, and knocking down its opponents, with a paralytic roar used to defend itself against any strike of its opposition.

Then when we think of lion we think of a beast that will kill without warning and without prejudice, having a full arsenal of debilitating and massacring its opponent. That is the sword.


Then finally the gun, a contraption that fires a blinding light and makes its enemies fall. It seen as a certain magic that will not work 100% of the time, because we cannot the bullet hitting the person and accuracy is an issue.

This leaves the gun to a the meager status of magic with low guarantee of working (depending on how good a shot the person is).



So in the respect of efficiency, yes the Gun far defeats the Sword.
In the respect of psychological sanctification, the Sword is a much more visceral and visually pleasing weapon; prompting the entire theory of why society, like the roman's, love their bloodshed.

Sword = Power, Sword = Bloodshed, Bloodshed = Excitement.
Gun = Visual Magic.

 

[Dr. Wily III]

That's why.