Why the big swords anyway?

Recommended Videos

A1

New member
Jul 9, 2009
367
0
0
Starke said:
A1 said:
Okay, now it seems that you're being one hundred percent presumptuous.
If that was statistically quantifiable, I would be fucking amazed.
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.
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:
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.
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:
And I never said that the original discussion was settled. I said that it was derailed.
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 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.
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:
Just who are you to outright state what was going on in my head at a given time? Who are you to do that?
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:
This is part of the reason that I didn't believe you when you claimed that you were willing to be persuaded.
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:
I could be wrong but you seem to have a sort of needlessly confrontational attitude or perhaps some kind of chip on your shoulder.
I swear I read that carp... no idea why.
Nice.
 

A1

New member
Jul 9, 2009
367
0
0
Starke said:
A1 said:
Okay, now it seems that you're being one hundred percent presumptuous.
If that was statistically quantifiable, I would be fucking amazed.
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.
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:
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.
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:
And I never said that the original discussion was settled. I said that it was derailed.
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 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.
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:
Just who are you to outright state what was going on in my head at a given time? Who are you to do that?
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:
This is part of the reason that I didn't believe you when you claimed that you were willing to be persuaded.
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:
I could be wrong but you seem to have a sort of needlessly confrontational attitude or perhaps some kind of chip on your shoulder.
I swear I read that carp... no idea why.
Okay, now you seem to be doing little more than trolling.
 

moretimethansense

New member
Apr 10, 2008
1,617
0
0
Because swords like that actually did exist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanbato
they were more the blacksmith showing off than anything then someone took a look at one and said "anyone that could wield THAT must have been a total badass lets make a character that can" and the rest is history.
 

A1

New member
Jul 9, 2009
367
0
0
Starke said:
A1 said:
Starke said:
SlowShootinPete said:
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 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.
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.

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.
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.
In that case, it would be Anime, not Equilibrium.
Nice try. Next time try to make sure you know specifically what it is that you are talking about.
 

A1

New member
Jul 9, 2009
367
0
0
Starke said:
A1 said:
That the test is meant to show? That sounds a bit presumptuous.
Actually Pete, you're freakin' me out right now, you're writing things I'd say if I was more annoyed, only you're being polite about it...
A1 said:
I think that this discussion is becoming pointless for two reasons.

First, I think that it's ultimately misguided. In determining the outcome of a fight the kind of weapon used is not as important as the person who's using it.
Unfortunately, history does not agree with you. That's why we invented heroic fiction.
A1 said:
I guess I forgot that.
It happens to everyone eventually.
A1 said:
It would also seem that the question whether a sword or a gun is a more effective weapon is also highly subjective as each have inherent advantages and disadvantages.
Guns kill people. Swords kill people who jump on them? [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/94731-College-Student-Kills-Intruder-With-a-Sword]
A1 said:
Which brings me to my second reason.

You seem to have already throughly and firmly made up your mind on the subject and I think that nothing anyone says is going to change it.
If you would make convincing arguments that didn't predicate existing in the same universe as Elijah Snow, he might be more persuaded. I know I would.
A1 said:
Therefore there's really no point in continuing.
Aw. But, the drones need you, they look up to you.
Well, it's abundantly clear that you don't agree with me. But as far as history is concerned there really doesn't seem to be any way to know for sure with it seemingly being subject to interpretation.
 

SlowShootinPete

New member
Apr 21, 2010
404
0
0
A1 said:
But as far as history is concerned there really doesn't seem to be any way to know for sure with it seemingly being subject to interpretation.
With what being subject to interpretation?
 

A1

New member
Jul 9, 2009
367
0
0
SlowShootinPete said:
A1 said:
But as far as history is concerned there really doesn't seem to be any way to know for sure with it seemingly being subject to interpretation.
With what being subject to interpretation?
Whether or not history agrees with me.
 

Comma-Kazie

New member
Sep 2, 2009
739
0
0
PayJ567 said:
Isn't it obvious... They are all over compensating. Like a man with a big car and very loud engine.
Bugger, you stole my answer!

Ah well, nicely put my friend.
 

A1

New member
Jul 9, 2009
367
0
0
SlowShootinPete said:
A1 said:
SlowShootinPete said:
A1 said:
But as far as history is concerned there really doesn't seem to be any way to know for sure with it seemingly being subject to interpretation.
With what being subject to interpretation?
Whether or not history agrees with me.
Agrees with you about what?
About the importance of the human factor in combat.
 

SlowShootinPete

New member
Apr 21, 2010
404
0
0
A1 said:
SlowShootinPete said:
A1 said:
SlowShootinPete said:
A1 said:
But as far as history is concerned there really doesn't seem to be any way to know for sure with it seemingly being subject to interpretation.
With what being subject to interpretation?
Whether or not history agrees with me.
Agrees with you about what?
About the importance of the human factor in combat.
It would appear to, but I don't see why that's relevant here.
 

A1

New member
Jul 9, 2009
367
0
0
SlowShootinPete said:
A1 said:
SlowShootinPete said:
A1 said:
SlowShootinPete said:
A1 said:
But as far as history is concerned there really doesn't seem to be any way to know for sure with it seemingly being subject to interpretation.
With what being subject to interpretation?
Whether or not history agrees with me.
Agrees with you about what?
About the importance of the human factor in combat.
It would appear to, but I don't see why that's relevant here.
It was just another thing that Starke got on my case about. In any case thank you for the kind words.
 

LloydEsaka

New member
Oct 26, 2009
51
0
0
Right then, I'll put my two cents in.

Big swords are awesome, yes. If we're going with D&D rules we can also make them do elemental damage and let out bursts of elemental energies on critical hits! (at least I think its crits, its been awhile). Also, I'm pretty sure that vs. anything that isnt' a Barret 50 cal a giant sword would hurt more than a bullet per hit. The problem being that most guns shoot several tens to hundreds of rounds per minute and have a massive range benefit. I won't get into reliability because a in a fight like that whether or not the gun got wet or nor either won't, or would've already been, an issue.

So lets see.....per hit Big swords hurt more. But someone would easily be able to empty out a clip or magazine on someone running at them with a large sword before said swordsman even got to them. But what does this prove? They aren't effective in real life anymore.

In anime and video games? Well, said swordsmen would get slashed and still be able to wield the sword, not to mention be able to jump several tens to hundreds of feet in the air while holding a giant sword, with relative ease, ergo bullets probably wouldn't be that much of a problem....

Final line
Real life effectiveness? None, not anymore at least
Anime Effectiveness? Depends on the setting and whether or not one of the main characters is using it.
Awesomeness? Plenty of it
 

SlowShootinPete

New member
Apr 21, 2010
404
0
0
LloydEsaka said:
They aren't effective in real life anymore.
It's not that they stopped being effective. A weapon's effectiveness depends primarily on what your opponent is fighting with.

Don't try to bare-hand fight someone with a knife. Don't try to knife someone with a knife, either; get a club. If they have a club, get a gun.
 

Pyotr Romanov

New member
Jul 8, 2009
575
0
0
Because largeliness is in direct proportion to manliness!

So yeah, because a lot of people think they're cool, as has been said before.
 

TazTheTerrible

New member
Feb 20, 2010
80
0
0
Visual style. Overly large swords are mostly impractical in realistic circumstances but they look cool and iconic, especially in visual media where everything else is larger than life as well.

Bladed weapons still have a great many uses. In terms of swords and knives vs. everything else, the answer is simply that different weapons have different advantages and therefore different uses.

Large swords don't have much realistic use though. Two handed swords, yes (at least in the olden days). But swords were only effective to the point where the wielder was still strong enough to swing them at a reasonable velocity.

There comes a point where you can't put more force behind the thing because your speed decreases as the mass increases, and the reduced speed makes the combat disadvantage far more noticeable than the fractions of extra force you might be able to add at that point.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
A1 said:
Nice try. Next time try to make sure you know specifically what it is that you are talking about.
Equilibrium was a film which actually provides your argument with more credence. Pete and I were actually discussing it earlier in this thread.

I misread your comment and assumed you were responding to me saying something to you along those lines, which I had. Pete and I knew what we were talking about, unfortunately you were out of the loop. There've been loads of oblique references to it, including it's star, it's director, and its title several times by both of us.

SlowShootinPete said:
A1 said:
SlowShootinPete said:
A1 said:
SlowShootinPete said:
A1 said:
But as far as history is concerned there really doesn't seem to be any way to know for sure with it seemingly being subject to interpretation.
With what being subject to interpretation?
Whether or not history agrees with me.
Agrees with you about what?
About the importance of the human factor in combat.
It would appear to, but I don't see why that's relevant here.
It wasn't the importance of the human factor, it was that the human factor is more important than the weapons. That's basically true up to the invention if firearms. Here's the original quote:
Starke said:
A1 said:
First, I think that it's ultimately misguided. In determining the outcome of a fight the kind of weapon used is not as important as the person who's using it.
Unfortunately, history does not agree with you.
Anyway, I'm off to bed, g'night everyone.
 

ShadowsofHope

Outsider
Nov 1, 2009
2,623
0
0
Because dick waving isn't the only competition where bigger is reassuringly better.



Just look at the sheer awesomeness! Reality =/= JRPG or awesome.