I agree with this, it's just awesome (most of the time)Kajin said:What is so attractive about swinging around an excessively and unrealistically large sword?
Because the Rule of Awesome overrides realism?
I agree with this, it's just awesome (most of the time)Kajin said:What is so attractive about swinging around an excessively and unrealistically large sword?
Because the Rule of Awesome overrides realism?
Indeed, very few swords consume ammo. Very few gunmen run out of ammo when facing a single foe.A1 said:There is also the issue of ammo, which sword wielders generally don't have to worry about.
Yeah... Obi-Wan is kinda a snob. Well... not kinda. He's also not wielding a sword. He's wielding a flashlight OF DOOM. That can cut through everything presented in the films. Even Lucas' bullshit script.A1 said:And in general with guns there are more factors to consider that can greatly effect the results of using a gun. In this sense a sword would be at least somewhat more reliable. It's probably also worth noting that Obi Wan Kenobi dismissed blasters as clumsy and random.
As an aside, once you've been shot, it's not like the video game where you can keep functioning. If a gunshot tears muscle tissue you're using, ruptures a critical organ (lungs being the most common victim), or shatters bone, (bullets really seem to enjoy doing all three at once as frequently as possible), expect to be incapacitated.SlowShootinPete said:Swords aren't very reliable when you're shot before getting close enough to use it on someone.
For example humans, against whom bullets are exceptionally effective. And wild boars, against whom Cary Elwes highly effective.A1 said:As I already said, the amount of damage a gun can do varies depending on the kind of foe it's used against.
And stopping power, and killing power, and the lower level of skill needed to be employed, and...A1 said:It's true that a gun would have an advantage in terms of range.
World War I would like to have a word with you about using clothing to stop bullets. It seems it didn't work for his younger brother that well either.A1 said:But this advantage can be nullified easily enough through the use of strong enough armor or clothing or if the sword wielder is fast and agile enough to avoid being it.
A marine once told me, if someone pulls a gun on you, fucking run. There's a 50/50 chance the gun is loaded. A 50/50 chance they're willing to pull the trigger. A 50/50 chance the safety is off. And a 50/50 chance he can actually hit a moving target. So half the time you're fucked.A1 said:And this is of course assuming that the one using the gun is even a decent shot.
Again, if you know what you're doing, which requires minimal training, you can hit something. Maybe not what you're aiming at, but considering most handguns give you at least nine more shots to make up for your initial mistakes...A1 said:This would be an especially significant issue in the case of handguns. Contrary to what you may have seen in movies, on television, in books, or in video games, hitting a target with a handgun is nowhere near as easy as it looks.
These all tell you if the person knows what the hell they're doing. Usually, they'll either get all of them, or none.A1 said:Among the factors to consider are the the way you hold the gun, the way you grip the gun, the way you pull the trigger, and your stance.
If you live in the early 20th century. In the second half we developed guns that, if maintained, do not jam frequently. A weapon like the SIG226 estimates 1/1000 shots will fail to fire in some way. But, if you like those odds, Vegas is your friend.A1 said:Many guns also have to deal with the issue of jamming.
...if you're living in the 19th Century. While it is true that traditional saltpeter and charcoal mixed powder will not detonate when wet. Historically preloaded cartridges would be stored in paper bags (~1860s) which if wet could ruin your day. Today most firearms use sealed preloaded cartridges that are, while not necessarily water proof, water resistant.A1 said:On top of that, guns are often rendered useless if they get wet, which is yet another issue that sword wielders don't have to worry about.
Aside from, you know, all those other advantages, like casual lethality.A1 said:Guns have the advantage of range. But one could plausibly argue that that is a gun's only advantage,
Like committing sepuku. Or making sure you can stage an ambush from within 2 meters.A1 said:and one which there are numerous ways to counteract.
There was an episode of Mythbusters where they stuck a bunch of guns in water and shot them to see how effective they'd be. All of them fired (the shotgun kind of exploded, but still, the round went off). They jammed, but they fired. And they worked after (except the shotgun).Starke said:Trying to fire a gun underwater can be problematic, and result in a reduced number of digits, but most weapons have no issue with firing after having been submerged.
one of the reasons i included it, there was a picture of just dragonslayer, but that's not as noticeable. Plus i thought the caption had something to do with the original topicDarkPanda XIII said:Funny p[art is that when you put Guts in that picture, he's really the only anime guy that can make sense out of big swords. Mostly it shows raw power from the guy who wields it. For Cloud, it means power despite the fact that he's tiny. THough rather unrealistic in my opinion >.>rekabdarb said:Because of the amount of detail you can add to it
![]()
Plus swords of this size are more iconic
Guts was built to carry a sword like that. He trained to wield something of that power. Plus it doesn't help that every time you see him do things, you can tell he's unnatural, even from the day he's born >.>
Actually the character from this manga/anime wields a zweihander so HAThe Madman said:Japanese anime ain't got nothing on reality.
![]()
Meet the Zweihander, or Greatsword! They were used primarily as a weapon to break up pike formations with their massive reach and weight, but found other uses as well. One famous rebel soldier named Pier Gerlofs was renown for the massive sword he wielded, and was said to be capable of beheading multiple enemies in combat with one swing.
Anime 0
History 1
But, I miss my Glock 17c of Wounding from D20 Modern.mangus said:It's easier to follow the movements of a larger object in fancy sequences.
Also science has proven it's easier to install magic on swords.
I'm hiding behind "can be problematic." So far as it goes, disruptor rounds for a shotgun are quite literally a shotgun shell loaded with water.SlowShootinPete said:There was an episode of Mythbusters where they stuck a bunch of guns in water and shot them to see how effective they'd be. All of them fired (the shotgun kind of exploded, but still, the round went off). They jammed, but they fired. And they worked after (except the shotgun).Starke said:Trying to fire a gun underwater can be problematic, and result in a reduced number of digits, but most weapons have no issue with firing after having been submerged.
I'm glad you added Guts to the conversation.rekabdarb said:Because of the amount of detail you can add to it
![]()
Plus swords of this size are more iconic
SlowShootinPete said:The point where you realized your argument was going to lose.A1 said:Yes I guess the discussion did start out that way. But at one point it occurred to me that the most important factor in any battle is the human factor.
No, it did not. The original discussion was not settled, you tried to use a completely different argument to achieve the same purpose.A1 said:But I guess this in turn largely derailed the original discussion largely by rendering it moot.
If the most important factor is skill, why are you so determined to prove that a sword-fighter can dodge bullets point-blank? They could also be a completely uncoordinated buffoon, while the gun user could be an SAS operator. Or they might both be equally terrible fighters. Saying that skill is the deciding factor proves nothing.
A1 said:I guess this is yet another reason to discontinue the discussion.
I am okay with this.A1 said:And so you say that you come into discussions willing to be persuaded. Sorry, but I don't think I believe you, at least not with regard to this particular discussion.
Of course I'm being stubborn. Otherwise what's the point of arguing.A1 said:It could just be my imagination but I've been getting a certain stubborn vibe from you. No offensive intended of course. But anyway if you haven't been convinced then it's possible that it's because, as I mentioned before, we at one point essentially stopped speaking the same language.
sword of the berserk actually kinda pissed me off. so much non-canon SO MUCH! ARGH! 4xedcr5ijnTerramax said:I'm glad you added Guts to the conversation.rekabdarb said:Because of the amount of detail you can add to it
![]()
Plus swords of this size are more iconic
Unlike other overly massive swords in games and anime, his one makes him REALLY brutal. Gut's Rage on the Dreamcast makes most other game characters look like pussies in comparison.
Damn, I wanna play that game again now.
I like debating.A1 said:This is part of the reason that I didn't believe you when you claimed that you were willing to be persuaded. I could be wrong but you seem to have a sort of needlessly confrontational attitude or perhaps some kind of chip on your shoulder.
Oh, and incidentally I don't know what you're talking about with this "Equilibrium" thing. Is that a television show? Because I haven't heard of it.Starke said:The rest of this post comes with one major caveat, I've never watched Equilibrium all the way through. It's always been either starting when I needed to leave to do something, or just ending when I turned on the TV.SlowShootinPete said:The thing is, Equilibrium presents the maximum support that reading an opponent's body language produces the maximum effect when dodging, thus ensuring maximum survivability, and thus lends maximum persuasiveness to the maximum advantages of swords of firearms.Starke said:But, as an aside, as someone who keeps bringing up, what certainly appears to be Equilibrium as evidence of their claims, you're in no position to dictate what is and is not to be taken seriously. ...that may have been a touch rude. I'm sorry.
The problem is, Equilibrium actually exceeds human limits. Snarfing off of TV Tropes for a moment, the Gun Kata parrying scene would leave both combatants with shattered eardrums and permanently deaf. On top of it only works so long as neither combatant executes a snapshot. By the nature of the skill, snapshots are something I would expect people with this kind of proficiency to be quite skilled at.
There's some other serious issues, but basically, it comes down to this, bullets are inherently chaotic. Bullets do all sorts of weird shit that no one can figure out. In something like the evasion techniques (well, the ones I've seen) from Equilibrium, they just aren't possible, or offer no real advantage without some kind of superpower that allows you to precisely predict the bullet's flight paths.
Its brilliant visual art (again, what I've seen), but its relationship to reality is minimal.
If that was statistically quantifiable, I would be fucking amazed.A1 said:Okay, now it seems that you're being one hundred percent presumptuous.
Then, I would recommend, acknowledging where your errors are, and articulating how you have revised your opinion. Failing to do so makes you appear passive aggressive.A1 said:I know you probably don't believe me but I really did abandon the original discussion because I came to believe that I was on the wrong track.
If you don't want to win the argument, then you probably will attempt to avoid it. There are a lot of cues that you can dump into your text that will indicate that, such as weasel words. From an argumentative position they weaken your argument if identified. From a non-confrontational stance, they give you an out.A1 said:Your claim that I did so as a way of avoiding the loss of an argument would seem to be little more than something you would like to believe possibly because you wanted to win the argument.
As a third party, it really hasn't... well... it is now, because you appear to be whining about how you didn't really loose the argument in spite of having its legs kicked out from under it on (almost literally) every point.A1 said:And I never said that the original discussion was settled. I said that it was derailed.
To be fair, a lot of this is built out of the way you've tried to back out of the conversation. Accurate or not, it has made you come across as petulant as hell. Something which, surprisingly, most people tend to look down upon.A1 said:And I am sorry to say but I'm very disappointed. I was hoping to put this altercation to rest and make peace so we could both move on (albeit perhaps I could have done a better job of trying). And what do I get in return? You hit me with accusations.
Not speaking for Pete, but I'm basing my comments not on my secret psychic powers that let me peer into your very soul, but rather, exclusively on your behavior.A1 said:Just who are you to outright state what was going on in my head at a given time? Who are you to do that?
The fact that I was able to persuade Pete on a couple of points should tell you, the willingness was there, it was your ability to capitalize on that, that was lacking.A1 said:This is part of the reason that I didn't believe you when you claimed that you were willing to be persuaded.
I swear I read that carp... no idea why.A1 said:I could be wrong but you seem to have a sort of needlessly confrontational attitude or perhaps some kind of chip on your shoulder.
In that case, it would be Anime, not Equilibrium.A1 said:Oh, and incidentally I don't know what you're talking about with this "Equilibrium" thing. Is that a television show? Because I haven't heard of it.Starke said:The rest of this post comes with one major caveat, I've never watched Equilibrium all the way through. It's always been either starting when I needed to leave to do something, or just ending when I turned on the TV.SlowShootinPete said:The thing is, Equilibrium presents the maximum support that reading an opponent's body language produces the maximum effect when dodging, thus ensuring maximum survivability, and thus lends maximum persuasiveness to the maximum advantages of swords of firearms.Starke said:But, as an aside, as someone who keeps bringing up, what certainly appears to be Equilibrium as evidence of their claims, you're in no position to dictate what is and is not to be taken seriously. ...that may have been a touch rude. I'm sorry.
The problem is, Equilibrium actually exceeds human limits. Snarfing off of TV Tropes for a moment, the Gun Kata parrying scene would leave both combatants with shattered eardrums and permanently deaf. On top of it only works so long as neither combatant executes a snapshot. By the nature of the skill, snapshots are something I would expect people with this kind of proficiency to be quite skilled at.
There's some other serious issues, but basically, it comes down to this, bullets are inherently chaotic. Bullets do all sorts of weird shit that no one can figure out. In something like the evasion techniques (well, the ones I've seen) from Equilibrium, they just aren't possible, or offer no real advantage without some kind of superpower that allows you to precisely predict the bullet's flight paths.
Its brilliant visual art (again, what I've seen), but its relationship to reality is minimal.
Starke said:There is also such a thing as a gun. And a gunman, and the body language of a gunman isn't something that provides useful information to the person receiving a bullet.A1 said:There is such thing as body language and there is such a thing as people who can read it.Because as we all know, applying two pounds of pressure with your index finger is every bit as visible as someone swinging a sword... wait...A1 said:One would also be able to anticipate the trajectory of a bullet by taking additional factors into account such as the position and general behavior of the shooter.Pete, for the most part isn't... well... you both are, you're luring the conversation into territory where, you believe the situation provides an equal footing. Unfortunately, it doesn't.A1 said:And now you seem to be starting to venture into hypothetical territory again. I am becoming convinced that this is pointless but it's too easy to get deadlocked and it's still largely beside the point.Debate implies a range of opinions and the ability to move the other participants based on logic. While Pete has made some errors, particularly in following your rabbit tracks. He's offering you some reasonable information.A1 said:And I'm not so sure if there really is much of a point to this debate because even if the variables of combat skill are equal that wouldn't make them any less relevant.Again, unless there are very specific situational criteria, the advantage will go to the gunman every time.A1 said:It would seem that all that would mean is that the outcome of the fight would be that much harder to predict. This is of course assuming that the one doing the prediction is unbiased.FOR SCIENCE!?Spitfire175 said:Why do you need to combine the two when the western swords+martial arts already do all of it, without the anal ceremonial stuff?Sporky111 said:I just thought of another thing. It may also be an attempt to merge the symbolic strength of large western swords (like the Claymore, or Excalibur) with the Japanese grace of motion and relative ease of swinging a katana or masamune.
Yeah, that's all I've got. Still, you're making good points, and it doesn't sit well with me just snarking you and running.