Why the big swords anyway?

[A1]

Okay, now you seem to be doing little more than trolling.

Wait. Honestly, if this is your idea of what trolling looks like, you've never seen trolling, nor have you seen a flaming. While I'm not cutting you slack, I gave up on that sometime around the suggestion that people use their clothes to stop bullets. The only post in this chain that could be considered trolling is your response to it.

Oh. I am acquainted with trolling and flaming. Trolling actually has numerous definitions. And one of them is to purposely antagonize people on the internet.

By that definition you are succeding at trolling me, and I really do mean that. By posting, repeatedly, logically flawed arguments, and then attempting to defend them, not through a reevaluation of their flaws, but simply by saying "it can be done," you have effectively trolled my instinct to provide well reasoned arguments and my aversion to the propagation of arguments with no factual basis. I would dispute the application of that definition, I don't think you are a troll, though your underlying theory about how to define a troll is sound...ish.

I have attempted, in this thread to provide reasonable, logical and accurate arguments against both, your position and Pete's. I have injected a degree of humor into this because, honestly, who wants to come in here and read a dry wall of text on your own time. But, that humor was never intended to come across as condescending towards you, or Pete, if it did, then that is unfortunate.

Splicing posts like this is also not intended to troll, though I certainly have seen it used to do so. It cuts down on potential room for misunderstanding. If I am addressing a specific sentence of your post directly, you cannot say that "I didn't understand what you were talking about" three lines down. It's not what I'm responding to.

My previous post was directed specifically at SlowShootinPete and the reason it's on the forum is because it was a response to one of SlowShootinPete's posts, which was already on the forum. But once again you rudely butted in evidently because you just couldn't resist a chance to take a swipe at me.

In one case, you are correct, the post where you argued that you could use clothing to stop a bullet, and we'll get there in a minute, did blow my fucking mind. While I can respect Pete's position on evading gunfire, even while I know the idea is flawed, it is because he has taken steps to attempt to defend it that are, quite honestly, reasonable. You on the other hand, have not. You've simply kept bringing up the same discredited claims over and over again.

On the other hand, no, I have had no personal commitment to this thread, and no vendetta against you. Accusing me of trolling certainly provides some fuel for the former, but at the end of the day, you're making poor arguments repeatedly in the hope that frequent repetition will blind us to whatever argument you're trying to make.

This repetition technique works in propaganda for a number of reasons, unfortunately for you, you do not have the resources to avail yourself of those reasons.

I realize that you are entitled to do that kind of thing because this is a forum but all the same that is not respectable behavior. So you claim that you are not a troll. In that case I strongly urge you to start acting like it.

And before you go accusing me of being a hypocrite let me point out that you are the one who threw the first punch in this case.

Lapsing into intellectual assry for a moment, there has been no fight. There may have been some condescending language, but, I believe I have refrained from direct insults. I have challenged your arguments, on their own merits, and have not launched a personal attack. I did not accuse you of being a troll, I accused your argument of being flawed. One of these is a personal attack, the other, is not.

And incidentally things like ballistic vests and body armor are technically clothing. That's what I was referring to.

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.

Yeah, I'm sorry. You already brought up armor. You said you meant "ballistic vests and body armor", both are, in all honesty, types of armor. They differ from historical armor in their construction, but at a fundamental level, what distinguishes a modern kevlar vest from a 15th century breast plate is the technology involved in its construction. Both are armor. Neither are clothes. Clothes do not stop bullets.

Dodging a bullet is very different from dodging a melee attack to be sure. But it can be done. The difference is that in order to dodge a bullet the move generally has to be made before the bullet is fired.

A1, there is one thing everyone in this thread agrees on, except you. You cannot dodge a bullet, no matter how much you would like to. It isn't physically possible. As an intellectual exercise, it is not possible. As a theoretical concept it is, at extreme ranges, beyond 300m or so, it is theoretically possible, but not as a planned action. As a practical tactic it is flat out impossible.

Everyone except you understands this.
Everyone except you who has weighed in on this has used considerable historical data to support their other positions.
Everyone except you who has examined this thought process of you has approached it within the confines of the physics the universe operates under.
Slow Shootin' Pete did attempt to provide a similar argument along these lines and actually acquitted himself quite well. He has responded to other users, who've criticized his argument and evaluated the evidence they provided, and weighed it against his argument, and while, I think, he's abandoned it by now, he actually had a much stronger argument for it. Yelling "People can dodge bullets in teh real world!" every time a user reminds you that it is not possible isn't making an argument, its making you appear petulant, thick headed, or both.

First of all, I must apologize for posting on these blogs again after indicating that I wouldn't. But since my last post something else has popped into my head so to speak. So I guess I'll do it one last time.

Before I get to my main point I'm going to bring up two lesser points that have relevance with regard to the main point.

Saying such and such is the reason hero "fiction" was invented does not seem to reflect well on you I'm afraid. I think that to say such a thing is presumptuous and arrogant.

Another thing is this. As far as I've been able to find there is no conventional definition of the word "dodge" that specifies that whatever is being dodged has to already be in motion for a dodge to take place. Therefore by that logic it would seem that people can indeed dodge bullets by simply moving out of a bullets path before the bullet is fired out of a gun. And besides, suppose the bullet is not actually fired out of a gun but simply thrown by hand and the person in question sees it coming and is able to move out of the way. Such an action also constitutes the dodging of a bullet. Since these ideas seem to have eluded you that too seems to be strongly indicative of something, which brings me to my main point.


I have become convinced that you are not worth dealing with because you are too rude and obnoxious and you seem to have done little, if anything, to prove otherwise. But more recently it has dawned on me that there appears to be another reason. And that is because you are apparently far too narrow-minded. It can be plausibly argued that no human being really has any right to use the word impossible, or at least not for descriptive purposes, or to say anything to that effect. Human beings by all accounts are flawed, fallible beings. They are not perfect, all-knowing, infallible gods. This is why I believe it's important for any human to keep his or her mind open. To never close one's mind off to the seemingly infinite possibilities that exist within this universe. This is what I try to do, although I'm sorry to say that I may not always succeed. What I take issue with are people who don't try or perhaps simply don't care enough to try. And this is a category that you seem to fit rather well into unfortunately.

Just because we don't know how something can be done or can't think of how something can be done does not mean that it can't be done. Who is any human to say anything with absolute certainty and/or with no room for doubt? To do so I believe is nothing short of arrogant.

In any case it would seem that any altercation between us was doomed to end on a bad note from the start. Therefore I see no point in continuing the altercation and so I'm done dealing with you. This last post of mine I made for the sole purpose of properly clarifying that.

And I am also quite serious about being done with the forum and blogs on this website. I've butted heads with people on this forum before and now I've grown throughly tired of it. I haven't decided whether or not to move on to the forum and blogs of another website or leave blogging behind altogether. But either way I have no intention of coming back here to this forum and these blogs. I still haven't read this post of yours, nor do I have any intention of ever doing so. The same goes for all of the responses I've gotten since my last post and any that may come after this one.

As I said mentioned before the only reason I posted this was to properly clarify myself and now that that's over and done with I am moving on. Goodbye once again and hopefully it will be for the final time.

 

[Fraeir]

What is so attractive about swinging around an excessively and unrealistically large sword?

Isn't it obvious? They, as well as their fans, are compensating for something! 8D

They got nothing else impressive to swing around, so..

 

[Starke]

First of all, I must apologize for posting on these blogs again after indicating that I wouldn't.

Uh... they're forums.

But since my last post something else has popped into my head so to speak. So I guess I'll do it one last time.

Once more unto the breach dear friends. Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.

By the way, I think you may have terminally undermined your "I don't care routine", you're still thinking about it days later, that doesn't bode well for your claims of detachment.

Before I get to my main point I'm going to bring up two lesser points that have relevance with regard to the main point.

Saying such and such is the reason hero "fiction" was invented does not seem to reflect well on you I'm afraid. I think that to say such a thing is presumptuous and arrogant.

I'm pretty sure it was Pete that brought that one up, but aiming to be precise isn't your goal so I can understand that error.

Another thing is this. As far as I've been able to find there is no conventional definition of the word "dodge" that specifies that whatever is being dodged has to already be in motion for a dodge to take place.

Okay [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Dodge].[footnote]To be clear, you're being obtuse. You cannot dodge a parked car. You cannot dodge someone's clenched fist while it is not in motion. You cannot dodge a bullet while it is still in the battery.[/footnote]

Therefore by that logic it would seem that people can indeed dodge bullets by simply moving out of a bullets path before the bullet is fired out of a gun.

Okay, so the term "dodge" is problematic in this case, though, if this is what you were arguing, I'd grant you that this can be called dodging gunfire. Unfortunatly it isn't what you were arguing.

And besides, suppose the bullet is not actually fired out of a gun but simply thrown by hand and the person in question sees it coming and is able to move out of the way.

Okay, a cartridge thrown by hand can be dodged or caught.[footnote]I say "cartridge" rather than "bullet" for clarity.[/footnote] Attempting to do either with said projectile after being fired would be extremely hazardous, however.

Such an action also constitutes the dodging of a bullet.

In a very narrow context. When you say you "dodged a bullet" you usually are inferring that someone took a potshot at you and you got the hell out of the way. While you can also say you "dodged a bullet" because someone tossed a 9x19mm round at you, the phrase is being used in a deceptive way here.

Since these ideas seem to have eluded you that too seems to be strongly indicative of something, which brings me to my main point.


I have become convinced that you are not worth dealing with because you are too rude and obnoxious and you seem to have done little, if anything, to prove otherwise.

There's one thing that you need to understand, I have not been particularly rude to you. Certainly not on the scale of aggressive posts I've made on these boards. Not within the confines of general opinion.

If anything you've made posts that could have gotten you reported. Now, in the face of your rudeness, I have attempted to keep an even tone and avoided tearing into you.

I have not refrained from tearing into your, quite frankly, moronic arguments. While other people have discussed with each other various merits and made various convincing (and some less than convincing) arguments, you have whined, thrashed, cried, and demanded that we treat you with respect. While we would have, you have refused to back your arguments, instead settling on a logical fallacy that if you say it enough times it must be true. Unfortunately for you, the real world doesn't work that way, and your "help I'm being oppressed" cries are getting really tiring at this point.

But more recently it has dawned on me that there appears to be another reason. And that is because you are apparently far too narrow-minded.

The irony baffles me.

It can be plausibly argued that no human being really has any right to use the word impossible, or at least not for descriptive purposes, or to say anything to that effect.

The word impossible exists in the English language as an adjective for a reason. That reason is to denote an action or event that cannot occur. We have had participants in this thread who have explained how, evading gunfire requires neural functionality the human species simply does not posses, yet. In this context, using the term "impossible" is entirely legitimate.

Human beings by all accounts are flawed, fallible beings. They are not perfect, all-knowing, infallible gods. This is why I believe it's important for any human to keep his or her mind open. To never close one's mind off to the seemingly infinite possibilities that exist within this universe. This is what I try to do, although I'm sorry to say that I may not always succeed.

Let me know how that works out for you.

Or, to put it another way, many self defense and martial arts schools teach basic handgun disarm techniques. These techniques are completely valid, and quite effective. But, they are also incredibly dangerous. Most students, who then attempt to actually utilize these techniques end up sucking air through a bullet hole.

While there is a philosophical level where what your saying has merit, in this context, as a practical context, it does not function. And bringing philosophy to guns is a good way to get perforated.

There are things which are possible within the physical confines of human existence. There are things which are not. Evading an object moving faster than the speed of sound falls into the later category. This is not philosophical myopia, it is a reasonable biological byproduct of there being no natural predators capable of such speed which rely on humans filling one of the four major food groups.

What I take issue with are people who don't try or perhaps simply don't care enough to try. And this is a category that you seem to fit rather well into unfortunately.

While I'm in general a huge fan of making assumptions about poster's personalities. I usually base this on something.

If you want to argue philosophy, that's fine. But saying someone can dodge a bullet isn't philosophy. There is no state of zen here. Just bullets, corpses and blood.

You are, by all means free to attempt to follow these beliefs of yours, however, you will not survive, and I can't recommend this, no matter how much you've gotten on my nerves.

What you've done is taken Platonic thought about philosophy and attempted to apply it in the modern context, which, aside from being about 2500 years behind the ball, doesn't work. Back then, everything was philosophy. Today, philosophy and science are separate fields, with separate focuses of study. The behavior of a bullet, ballistics, is a science, not a philosophy, the ability to dodge rapidly moving objects is a science, biology with bits of neurology, not a philosophy. Drenching everything in "philosophy" doesn't make you look smarter, it makes you look arrogant.

Just because we don't know how something can be done or can't think of how something can be done does not mean that it can't be done.

Okay, I'm going to be slightly unfair here, you see where I point out up there, that part that says "yet" when I'm talking about the impossibility of dodging a bullet? Right. I'll wait.

Okay, see that? Good. Okay, there's about three ways this can work out, either the human race continues to evolve, developing faster reflexes on their own, cybernetic enhancements improve reflex times, or some kind of bio-engineered enhancements are developed replicating the effect of evolution. But, for the purpose of this, and the historical context of blades versus swords, these aren't relevant, they're science fiction. While there were technical cyborgs[footnote]The definition of a cyborg includes individuals with prosthetic replacements.[/footnote] historically, they did not posses this ability to dodge gunfire. Nor did the martial arts masters of the orient, as evidenced by their repeated curb-stomping by European powers beginning sometime around 1800 and ending... at some point in the future.

Who is any human to say anything with absolute certainty and/or with no room for doubt? To do so I believe is nothing short of arrogant.

If you'll go back, and actually read my posts, you will find that, at least early on, I did take pains to afford you as much latitude or legitimacy as I could. You ignored that and steamed on ahead in your mindless crusade, and that slack vanished. If it seems I'm being arrogant, it is only because you're not fucking listening.

In any case it would seem that any altercation between us was doomed to end on a bad note from the start. Therefore I see no point in continuing the altercation and so I'm done dealing with you. This last post of mine I made for the sole purpose of properly clarifying that.

Making this, I believe the eighth time you've said that? When you're gone, you're gone. But until then, this Lieutenant Colombo routine of yours is childish.

And I am also quite serious about being done with the forum and blogs on this website.

Again there are no fucking blogs associated with this site.

I've butted heads with people on this forum before and now I've grown throughly tired of it.

If you would stop, and listen to what they're saying, then you might have actually had some good debates, unfortunatly you've deprived yourself of that.

Its ironic, you claim you cannot find a good debate here because you've been butting heads, but at the same time, you're accusing me of being narrow minded. When, in fact, it is your own posts that have been so myopically narrow minded as to preclude debate.

I haven't decided whether or not to move on to the forum and blogs of another website or leave blogging behind altogether. But either way I have no intention of coming back here to this forum and these blogs.

Where are these fucking blogs you're talking about? (Okay, I'm done with that gag.)

I still haven't read this post of yours, nor do I have any intention of ever doing so. The same goes for all of the responses I've gotten since my last post and any that may come after this one.

So you admit, you can't accept losing in a logical argument? Yeah, I'm not sensing this enlightened shit you're talking about.

As I said mentioned before the only reason I posted this was to properly clarify myself and now that that's over and done with I am moving on. Goodbye once again and hopefully it will be for the final time.

I seriously doubt it.

 

[Starke]

Oh, shit, man, I'm sorry. In the chaos of the end of the semester I missed this post somehow. God, now I feel like an asshole.

A bit, yeah. I was simply trying to provide you with the technical reasons behind some of the behavior you'd observed.

Don't get me wrong it was interesting, I'm just conscious that some websites cry their eyes out if topics veer away from their origins. So far this one doesn't, which I prefer.

Honestly, this is one of the things about the Escapist that I love. We get the freedom to wander off topic, but the thread hijacking quota is low enough that it doesn't seem to result in the staff tearing us a new one.

Drama might, but a lot of the shorthands don't.

I didn't realize you were coming at this exclusively from a game perspective though. Mybad.

No we're on the subject of other mediums however, I've always been a firm believer that there is more power in what you don't say than what you do. In everything.

Giving the audience a fantastic starting point and leaving it is a masterful way of drawing in the audience. The first example I can think of is Lost, mostly because one of my colleagues loves it.

I've never watched it myself (mostly because it would be like having the same conversation twice), but an avid fascination turned to very bitter disappointment when attempts to explain the Smoke Monster began.

To paraphrase a great quote; "The road to a goal is better than achieving", which certainly rings through Westerns and the such.

On the subject of Lost, I'm another non-viewer, but have been victimized by a lot of botched myth arcs over the years. Actually, I'm going to ditch lost and use the X-Files because I did actually stick with that, sorry. The series, in pieces was great, because it did work off a fairly well constructed setup. It's in the long term where the whole of it fell apart. It's a really clear example of where the journey is more important than the destination (which was a trainwreck).

I'm not sure if I'm missing the point, but with westerns there's a kind of focus on structural patterns. It kind of makes westerns very easy to identify even when they're in unconventional settings, off hand Yojimbo and Copland come to mind. Structurally they're westerns, but one is in 1998 New Jersey and the other is in Feudal Japan.

I want to say I actually have, but I can't remember where. It was pretty common back in older FPSs to have absolutly no clue how much health your enemy had, and the original Fallout games would only give you a prose estimate based on how much of their health they had left.

The reason this was dropped, was at least in part, related to what your describing.

Then my fears that this industry is declining into idiocy increases. If we've already been at the peak I doubt we'll return.

Why is clever thought so unpopular? Scratch that - I can answer myself, because deep things can only be appreciated by deep people, whereas shallow things can appeal to both shallow and deep people.

Same reason why Death Metal is underappreciated and Britney Spears printed money. Simplicity is easy and at heart we're all lazy if given the option.

Back into the games spectrum, developers like BioWare have faltered and crumbled either due to their own ineptitude or simply because they're clever to realise stupid sells.

Why do you inflict bioware on me again? Okay, in all fairness, I think Mount and Blade only shows you how much damage enemy units have taken based on how bloody they are, but I haven't played it in a couple months.

Action games like Just Cause 2 also tend not to have life bars (with some exceptions). Games do exist out there without life bars, but they are a lot rarer than they used to be.

 

[dangitall]

Because big sword is big. End of discussion

 

[Dana Ng]

I bet I could take out any guy with my buster sword.
http://youtu.be/sltRNK8le2c
Big swords are op compared to that mid-evil historical bs. My buster sword attacks are unblockable, can slice through any shield, fast, deadly, & superior reach. Buster Sword > Historical swords & shields.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

I bet I could take out any guy with my buster sword.
http://youtu.be/sltRNK8le2c
Big swords are op compared to that mid-evil historical bs. My buster sword attacks are unblockable, can slice through any shield, fast, deadly, & superior reach. Buster Sword > Historical swords & shields.

That's of course assuming you actually hit your target, can actually pick up said sword, not get skewered by you opponent before you have a chance to swing, and you actually reach the battlefield lugging that thing.

The thing is comparing 'Anime' style swords vs the real thing is that:

1) Medieval (I assume that's what you were referring to) swords are the product of centuries of development inter-spaced with extreme battle-testing, ie someone used them on a battlefield against trained human opponents.

2) 'Anime' swords are designed to look flashy, cool, and tend to ignore things like ease of use, ease of manufacture, and the laws of physics in the more extreme versions.

Also: Welcome to the Escapist! Remember while you're here there are some things you should know.

[user]Daystar Clarion[/user] is your ruler.

Stay out of the Basement.

And above all else, Blame [user]Kross[/user]

Additional: Nice Necro.

 

[Dana Ng]

Because its different it has an advantage, if some one tried to parry this thing they'd be dead. I can swing 5 consecutive swings very fast with great range in combo style. I've swung samurai swords & other swords, they are not swung any faster than my buster sword. The physics of things are that you can only humanly swing so fast before you need to add weight to it to deal more damage. You can't see in the video but when I swing my sword its fast enough to create sparks on the concrete floor.



Finally buster is far superior vs lets say a dragon, a beast, bear, or lion. When it comes to beast slaying buster sword is far superior.

I bet I could take out any guy with my buster sword.
http://youtu.be/sltRNK8le2c
Big swords are op compared to that mid-evil historical bs. My buster sword attacks are unblockable, can slice through any shield, fast, deadly, & superior reach. Buster Sword > Historical swords & shields.

That's of course assuming you actually hit your target, can actually pick up said sword, not get skewered by you opponent before you have a chance to swing, and you actually reach the battlefield lugging that thing.

The thing is comparing 'Anime' style swords vs the real thing is that:

1) Medieval (I assume that's what you were referring to) swords are the product of centuries of development inter-spaced with extreme battle-testing, ie someone used them on a battlefield against trained human opponents.

2) 'Anime' swords are designed to look flashy, cool, and tend to ignore things like ease of use, ease of manufacture, and the laws of physics in the more extreme versions.

Also: Welcome to the Escapist! Remember while you're here there are some things you should know.

[user]Daystar Clarion[/user] is your ruler.

Stay out of the Basement.

And above all else, Blame [user]Kross[/user]

Additional: Nice Necro.

 

[Dana Ng]

I can hit with great accuracy up to 3 inches within target. I can pick up sword & wield it easily. I can swing just as fast as any katana user. I have gone hiking with my giant sword & it works great as a hiking aide.

I also have a dragon slayer from Berserk now that thing requires a beast of a man to use properly.

That's of course assuming you actually hit your target, can actually pick up said sword, not get skewered by you opponent before you have a chance to swing, and you actually reach the battlefield lugging that thing.

The thing is comparing 'Anime' style swords vs the real thing is that:

1) Medieval (I assume that's what you were referring to) swords are the product of centuries of development inter-spaced with extreme battle-testing, ie someone used them on a battlefield against trained human opponents.

2) 'Anime' swords are designed to look flashy, cool, and tend to ignore things like ease of use, ease of manufacture, and the laws of physics in the more extreme versions.

 

[Dana Ng]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPaYmMqMNzc
Also if you did some real research you'll realize that back in the mid evil times their swords couldn't even strike through their opponents armor. Because their swords were too puny now if I were to swing my buster sword at a fully armored knight. He would be killed in 1 swing & If I were fully armored too his sword wouldn't even do any real damage to me.

"That's of course assuming you actually hit your target, can actually pick up said sword, not get skewered by you opponent before you have a chance to swing, and you actually reach the battlefield lugging that thing.

The thing is comparing 'Anime' style swords vs the real thing is that:

1) Medieval (I assume that's what you were referring to) swords are the product of centuries of development inter-spaced with extreme battle-testing, ie someone used them on a battlefield against trained human opponents.

2) 'Anime' swords are designed to look flashy, cool, and tend to ignore things like ease of use, ease of manufacture, and the laws of physics in the more extreme versions.
"

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

-snip-

-snip-

-snip-

You might want to repost whatever it is you said.

It looks like you've stuck my post into the middle of yours.

Heres a handy guide for you to help with formatting

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/markup_help.php

So you can do things like this

 

[SomeLameStuff]

Because its different it has an advantage, if some one tried to parry this thing they'd be dead. I can swing 5 consecutive swings very fast with great range in combo style. I've swung samurai swords & other swords, they are not swung any faster than my buster sword. The physics of things are that you can only humanly swing so fast before you need to add weight to it to deal more damage. You can't see in the video but when I swing my sword its fast enough to create sparks on the concrete floor.



Finally buster is far superior vs lets say a dragon, a beast, bear, or lion. When it comes to beast slaying buster sword is far superior.

They don't NEED to parry it. They just need to take two steps to the side and let momentum ground your blade, then you're dead. Your "Buster Blade" has no control whatsoever. Try stopping or changing direction mid swing with it, go on, I'll wait.

Done? You'll notice that it's incredibly hard, and you probably dropped the sword while trying it out. Also, note that it's incredibly easy to chop through branches and firewood; they tend not to move and swing back.

Also if you did some real research you'll realize that back in the mid evil times their swords couldn't even strike through their opponents armor. Because their swords were too puny now if I were to swing my buster sword at a fully armored knight. He would be killed in 1 swing & If I were fully armored too his sword wouldn't even do any real damage to me.

The reason why their swords can't penetrate the armor? IS BECAUSE IT'S ARMOR. If any old sword could cut through armor plating, they might as well go into battle in their underwear, amiright? And of course, they found a way around it, called a MACE. Which is what your Buster Sword really is, an oversized mace with a sharper edge than most. Meant for engaging heavily armored targets who can't move quickly out of the way, absolutely useless against lightly armored targets.