Why the big swords anyway?

[Teh Ty]

To show manly manly manliness, because people who have huge swords are made of manly man manlieness man-y manileness... Sorry, where was I going with this?

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Swords are a large part of Japanese culture if I'm not mistaken. I also understand that when the samurai were still around, the highest ranking samurai got the biggest sword, I don't know if that has anything to do with the big swords in games, but it makes sense.
In any case, I'd prefer a big sword to a big gun any day.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

You'd think it would work... but no.

Only Bruce Campbell can pull this off I'm afraid. And God bless him for it. In Bruce we Trust!

Well, the boomstick would work.

But this is fantasy, remember, and the fact that chainsaws are heavy, unwieldy, require fuel, and will probably just graze your enemy and bounce off is beside the point!

Spoiler

What good is a sword when this sucker can take you out from seventeen miles away?

Furthermore, what good is a sword when guns can fly? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Weapon_systems]

"So I invented this fucking awesome gun the other day, and I thought, 'Say, it would be really kick-ass if this gun could fly.' So then I built a plane around it."

 

[Caligulove]

immature mind's idea of what awesome looks like?
penis extension?
forgot to stop drawing sword?

I think its all of them.

 

[Therumancer]

{Search Bar Approved!}

{First actual thread!}

Well I've always wondered and I've decided to ask. What is so attractive about swinging around an excessively and unrealistically large sword?

JRPG's are the staple of the extremely large sword, but I ask, why? Why a large sword, when a small one would probably be less unruly? Why a sword, when guns are available, even revolvers or western guns that seem to be popular in anime.

Not only why the gigantic sword, but why the sword at all?

{This is a bit short, I realize, but I don't really know how to post those nice long ones; I don't really do the forum thing.}

I'm sure someone already said this in the 4 pages this has already gone on but:


#1: "Big Sword Mania" as it currently stands seemed to begin with Cloud Strife, whose oversized sword was something of a trademark, and it was cool at the time because it was fairly unique.. especially seeing as the guy wielding it was not built like Hercules.

This of course lead to imitators with other characters doing the same basic thing, and of course the simple fact that Cloud was popular enough where he has remained in circulation in one form or another pretty much since his initial creation.


#2: To be honest the "two handed sword" has been a staple of fantasy RPGs for a long time. There are plenty of examples of swords in real life that can come fairly close to the ones used by certain Cloud-inspired fantasy characters. Though typically most two handed swords (Zwiehanders, Greatswords, Fullblades, Claymores etc...) are the kinds of weapons that would be wielded by very large, very strong men. In many PnP RPGs (but not all) such weapons do impressive damage but also typically result in a decent amount of encumberance, and a fairly hefty minimum strength requirement... not to mention one needing the space to actually use one which can be awkward in 5' or 10' wide dungeon cooridors. As a result you'll find that the good old fashioned Longsword (or broadsword in some games), and Bastard Sword are the typical mainstays of dungeon crawlers just the same.

Such weapons tend to be wielded by characters who look like they should be able to bench press mountains though, at least in most RPGs.

Of course then if you want to get more fantastic than Cloud, a lot of RPGs nowadays include rules for people dual wielding two handed weapons. I believe 3E and it's "Monkey Grip" feat is the most famous staple (and what most imitate) though there is a class abillity of the Barbarian O.C.C. in Palladium's "Eastern Territories" (I believe) that allows them to use two handers in one hand.

So basically just imagine what happens when some dude decides he wants to wield a Greatsword or Fullblade in each hand and then do the Drizzt thing. You ask "why would someone do this?" well... when you can deal like 200 damage in one attack sequence in a high level D&D game the results are self explanitory.. assuming of course your guy is in an outdoor fight or whatever where you can swing those things around.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

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


Because the Rule of Awesome overrides realism?

Pretty much what he said. Especially if it's from Japan.
I mean just look at Cloud's hair. DOES THAT EVEN LOOK REALISTIC TO YOU? No, I didn't think so.

 

[awol360]

Because if you hit somebody with one, odds are the weight alone of the blade will put them in traction. Unless their split in half like lumber. Either way they aren't going to be able to fight you anymore.

 

[The Madman]

Meet the Zweihander, or Greatsword!

Literally Two-Hander, but, close enough.

Actually, "hander" in German is "händer", gotta love cognates.

I know, but Zweihander just sounds so much cooler than 'two hander sword', although I can't remember what the code is for ä is.

The man must have been a living giant, with the strength of 10 men!

It's a bit hard to tell how long that isd but it looks to be atleast 6 feet long ... that's no sword ... it's a freaking spear with a sharp metal haft O.O

The sword Pier Gerlofs wielded was 7ft actually and is on display in a Dutch museum. He was reputedly a giant of a man as well, almost inhumanly strong, but how true that is no one actually knows since we're talking around 500 years ago. He was also a pirate, how cool is that?

The sword in that picture however I have no clue about, just one of the results when I did an image search.

 

[A1]

As I already said, the amount of damage a gun can do varies depending on the kind of foe it's used against. It's true that a gun would have an advantage in terms of range. 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. And this is of course assuming that the one using the gun is even a decent shot. 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. 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. Many guns also have to deal with the issue of jamming. 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.

Guns have the advantage of range. But one could plausibly argue that that is a gun's only advantage, and one which there are numerous ways to counteract.

Your standard assault rifle produces more damage than almost any melee weapon, can bust through any reasonable personal body armor in 1-3 shots, and can be used at over 150 times the range of melee weapons.

And honestly, when ammo is smaller than your pinky, its not a big deal.

Firearms > Melee in all but the most slanted circumstances.

Just saying.

Interesting. But it still doesn't seem to do all that much to counteract the argument that range could still be a gun's only real advantage. It also doesn't address the issue of dodging. And there's always the option of riot shields or some other such form of secondary protection. There's also the possibility of vision impairment via flash bombs, smoke bombs, or some other such means.

I'm not saying that firearms aren't advantageous. Range may only be a single advantage but it does often count for quite a bit. What I'm saying is that they, and handguns in particular, have they're own set of issues that any melee fighter could take full advantage of if they tried. And incidentally it might be just a little bit of a stretch to describe blowing a hole in someone as more damaging than cutting them clean in half.

And your argument seems a bit unbalanced. You may be right on the money concerning the advantages of assault rifles, but to use that alone to speak in more general terms regarding firearms seems to be at least somewhat of a stretch. After all, firearms are not all assault rifles.

 

[Billion Backs]

It's symbolic and makes the hero look more glorious or whatever.

I mean, look at real life - many of the great swords ever used (not just long swords that could be used with either 1 or 2 hands, and I'm not going to go over all the types of popular straight and curved swords that could be wielded so) were rarely used for battle and were more of a status symbol.

Of course, the above statement moreso relates to the West and not the East, namely Japan where Katanas were a big cultural thing in their whole fucked up social order... But then again, they weren't really "big", all katanas I have seen, both in museums and in modern models are rather slim and light compared to some kind of claymores and swords you see in various fiction.

Frankly I'm indifferent here. Sometimes giant weapons look truly retarded, sometimes they're awesome enough to ignore it. And sometimes something more "realistic" or equally unrealistic but in the other direction - think Kenpachi's sword from Bleach for the first example and Assassin Creed hidden blades for the second.

 

[A1]

As I already said, the amount of damage a gun can do varies depending on the kind of foe it's used against.

Spoiler: Your argument is invalid.

But this advantage can be nullified easily enough through the use of strong enough armor or clothing

Armor you say? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armor-piercing_shot_and_shell]

Armor slows you down, by the way.

or if the sword wielder is fast and agile enough to avoid being hit.

And this is of course assuming that the one using the gun is even a decent shot.

This does not nullify the inherent advantage of using a gun. If one guy can run fast enough to dodge bullets, there will be another guy who knows how to lead a moving target.

This would be an especially significant issue in the case of handguns.

Effective range of 50 yards versus effective range of 1 or 2 yards.

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. 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 one guy is competent at using a sword, there will be another guy who understands basic marksmanship.

Many guns also have to deal with the issue of jamming. 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.

Legendary reliability [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47]

"A particular requirement of the competition was the reliability of the firearm in the muddy, wet, and frozen conditions of the Soviet frontline."

Guns have the advantage of range. But one could plausibly argue that that is a gun's only advantage, and one which there are numerous ways to counteract.

Mo' dakka? [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmB-ME8i2bA&feature=related#t=49s]

Big swords do look pretty cool, though, sometimes.

Armor does tend to slow one down but guns also run out of bullets. And it may not matter all that much if the person wearing it is exceptionally strong. Who's to say that a guy who's a decent marksman and has experience with moving targets would still be able to outmaneuver a guy who's fast and agile, especially if the gun in question is a handgun.

But I guess that's all beside the point. We're both bringing up all kinds of hypothetical circumstances. But it would seem that from all of this there is an overarching conclusion. That the result of a fight between a sword fighter and a gunfighter would depend first and foremost on the individuals. The individual skills, abilities, and ingenuity of each of the combatants. This is of course as opposed to the idea of one kind of weapon having an inherent advantage over another.

 

[Zhukov]

Phallic symbolism.

'Nuff said.

 

[Fidelias]

I really don't care about that much about it. But I thought having Soldiers in FF7 wield big swords was a good idea. It brought out how plain inhumanly strong they are, that they could wield swords that big and still be able to kick ass. Other than that... I just don't care. Depends on the movie/game/book and what reason they give for the character to be able to wield it.

 

[Enzeru92]

Honestly who cares ITS CAUSE ITS AWESOME

 

[Billion Backs]

As I already said, the amount of damage a gun can do varies depending on the kind of foe it's used against. It's true that a gun would have an advantage in terms of range. 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. And this is of course assuming that the one using the gun is even a decent shot. 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. 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. Many guns also have to deal with the issue of jamming. 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.

Guns have the advantage of range. But one could plausibly argue that that is a gun's only advantage, and one which there are numerous ways to counteract.

Your standard assault rifle produces more damage than almost any melee weapon, can bust through any reasonable personal body armor in 1-3 shots, and can be used at over 150 times the range of melee weapons.

And honestly, when ammo is smaller than your pinky, its not a big deal.

Firearms > Melee in all but the most slanted circumstances.

Just saying.

Interesting. But it still doesn't seem to do all that much to counteract the argument that range could still be a gun's only real advantage. It also doesn't address the issue of dodging. And there's always the option of riot shields or some other such form of secondary protection. There's also the possibility of vision impairment via flash bombs, smoke bombs, or some other such means.

I'm not saying that firearms aren't advantageous. Range may only be a single advantage but it does often count for quite a bit. What I'm saying is that they, and handguns in particular, have they're own set of issues that any melee fighter could take full advantage of if they tried. And incidentally it might be just a little bit of a stretch to describe blowing a hole in someone as more damaging than cutting them clean in half.

And your argument seems a bit unbalanced. You may be right on the money concerning the advantages of assault rifles, but to use that alone to speak in more general terms regarding firearms seems to be at least somewhat of a stretch. After all, firearms are not all assault rifles.

I hate to bust into someone else's argument, but all of your examples of disadvantages regarding firearms also apply to melee weapons in a very similar way. Dodging melee attacks is always a possibility, and it's obviously easier then dodging a bullet - even the fastest swing, with a sword or not, will be much slower then a bullet. Dodging bullets is not the same as dodging a blow. One can reasonably dodge an overhead sword slash or some similar attack, but in similar circumstances the bullet will almost always hit unless you're in some kind of Hollywood movie. Using cover or trying to move in confusing ways so the shooter's aim can't keep up are the only realistic ways to "dodge" a bullet.

Riot shields can also be used against a sword. Even an average shield. Hell, even one's hands - there are plenty of martial arts techniques that could block certain swings rather easily.

And vision impairment obviously enough would affect melee combat as well, if not in the same degree. Especially if you consider that people probably wouldn't be fighting toe to toe and try to use said advantage of low visibility.

And yes, blowing a hole in something is generally deadly enough. Cutting someone in half would require a lot more effort then it might seem, and it will only be truly lethal if it hits the body - limbs might only hamper the opponent, although then again, without any medical help someone's gonna bleed out from a lost limb pretty quickly.

Piercing the body, with projectile or melee weapon, generally has a good chance of hitting some important organ. And that if we ignore obvious things like headshots. Just shots to the body or limbs would do considerable damage and can cause mortal wounds if not treated even if it doesn't hit any vital organs. And if you consider explosive ammunition and other special types of ammo created for various effects, I'd say blowing a hole in someone is just about as deadly as slicing them in half.

And in that sense, a gun could be used to simply incapacitate the target for capture, while a sword would be pretty ineffective for that, unless used as a diplomatic aid. But so can be guns...

Of course, then again, if someone can run around swinging a huge sword, he or she can probably tackle and submit whoever even without any knowledge of hand to hand martial arts.

 

[Panda Mania]

Well, if you're feeling particularly Freudian, it DOES always seem that they're...compensating for something, if you know what I mean.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

I'm not saying that firearms aren't advantageous. Range may only be a single advantage but it does often count for quite a bit. What I'm saying is that they, and handguns in particular, have they're own set of issues that any melee fighter could take full advantage of if they tried.

Pistols are very good weapons for close-range self-defense. They're small and light, which makes them easier to bring to bear than a long gun, and at melee range all you have to do is point and fire. If you've got your pistol out in a ready position, it may even be faster than a blade.

If the hypothetical sword-fighter is skilled enough to be a serious threat, then the gun-user is also skilled enough to be a serious threat. Champion swordsmen are frighteningly effective at what they do, but so are champion marksmen. In that situation it comes down to who has the better weapon, and guns simply trump blades in a stand-up fight. The sword-fighter would need a tactical advantage, such as jumping out in an ambush, or they would never get close enough to use their weapon unless luck was on their side. And luck isn't something you want to count on.

 

[Billion Backs]

I really don't care about that much about it. But I thought having Soldiers in FF7 wield big swords was a good idea. It brought out how plain inhumanly strong they are, that they could wield swords that big and still be able to kick ass. Other than that... I just don't care. Depends on the movie/game/book and what reason they give for the character to be able to wield it.

I think it's very hard to imagine big swords ever being widely used in combat by some army for obvious reasons of their considerably larger reach then smaller swords and lack of shield.

And with super human strength, one would be pretty good with any melee weapon as long as it can actually survive the impact of attacking with it with super human strength.

Some kind of super-durable piercing weapon similar to a lance or a spear or a rapier would help focus said super strength into an incredibly powerful blow targeting a tiny area. And said attack would be more controllable because no swings that could potentially hit allies would be required.

 

[Billion Backs]

To show manly manly manliness, because people who have huge swords are made of manly man manlieness man-y manileness... Sorry, where was I going with this?

I don't know if your average oversized sword user can be defined by anything close to generic "manliness".

So... Yeah, I'll go with compensation for something.