I never really took it seriously, its just entertainment. Like George Washington vs Napoleon, I love me some Washington but Napoleon was a WAY better general and had much better troops and tech.
Poll: Deadliest Warrior, Crap and Poor-Taste?
- Thread starter orangeban
- Start date
yah, I mostly agree, I dont know that I would call it crap quite, it can be kind of fun, but I was massively disappointed with the Napoleon vs Washington musket demo.
Giving them only five shots was stupid, and the Americans (3 muskets 2 rifles) were given a clear advantage because of it, and they weren't even penalized for taking twice the time to get the shots done, not to mention that it left the Americans with muskets sitting around with nothing to do while the rifles took their sweet time.
For those that don't follow, they didn't use the faster firing but less accurate muskets in order to burn through their ammo faster, they used them because after the first few shots, a rifle can take a full minute or more to reload and its better to have 4 shots downrange then one aimed one.
That contest was pretty much comparing 3 assault rifles and 2 sniper rifles,to 5 assault rifles and giving each only 5 shots regardless of weapon and expecting a fair trial.
On a side note, the Americans of that time period used mostly charleville muskets as well, since they where being supplied by the french and since the Napoleonic war was the first where whole units where equipped with rifles, they would have a few too, but I can understand why they didn't show that, charleville and brown bess are pretty much the same thing anyways and otherwise they would have nothing to compare at all.
Giving them only five shots was stupid, and the Americans (3 muskets 2 rifles) were given a clear advantage because of it, and they weren't even penalized for taking twice the time to get the shots done, not to mention that it left the Americans with muskets sitting around with nothing to do while the rifles took their sweet time.
For those that don't follow, they didn't use the faster firing but less accurate muskets in order to burn through their ammo faster, they used them because after the first few shots, a rifle can take a full minute or more to reload and its better to have 4 shots downrange then one aimed one.
That contest was pretty much comparing 3 assault rifles and 2 sniper rifles,to 5 assault rifles and giving each only 5 shots regardless of weapon and expecting a fair trial.
On a side note, the Americans of that time period used mostly charleville muskets as well, since they where being supplied by the french and since the Napoleonic war was the first where whole units where equipped with rifles, they would have a few too, but I can understand why they didn't show that, charleville and brown bess are pretty much the same thing anyways and otherwise they would have nothing to compare at all.
We (the US) probably have all that sympathy for the IRA cause we have a big ass irish population, like, everyhwere. seriously, its a like a virus (kidding).
Now myself personally, i dont care for the show. I mean, I enjoy watching it, but I never really take it too seriously. the one I did, it was the Knight v Pirate one,a nd i was pissed after the result. but I'm not going to get into that.
Obvious stuff is never taken serious on that show. Its not meant to be. its meant to be gore porn mostly. If the show was actually true, then the IRA vs taliban episode would have ended in a draw as the Taliban crashed a plane into the IRA.
And as to being in bad taste, you're going to offend everyone with something. That show is basically made to troll. But the guy's a biomedical engineer (or so he says), and honestly, if you just saw a car go from whole, to blown to hell across a field with that kinda blast radius, you're probably going to think in the first minute or so that that was fucking cool as all hell. and thats basically what he's saying.
besides, he was right in doing so. It is hardcore. an RPG can only do so much, but a car bomb, and one that leveled a building, thats damaging, and what i would want if I were to attack someone without wanting them to tknow.
Now myself personally, i dont care for the show. I mean, I enjoy watching it, but I never really take it too seriously. the one I did, it was the Knight v Pirate one,a nd i was pissed after the result. but I'm not going to get into that.
Obvious stuff is never taken serious on that show. Its not meant to be. its meant to be gore porn mostly. If the show was actually true, then the IRA vs taliban episode would have ended in a draw as the Taliban crashed a plane into the IRA.
And as to being in bad taste, you're going to offend everyone with something. That show is basically made to troll. But the guy's a biomedical engineer (or so he says), and honestly, if you just saw a car go from whole, to blown to hell across a field with that kinda blast radius, you're probably going to think in the first minute or so that that was fucking cool as all hell. and thats basically what he's saying.
besides, he was right in doing so. It is hardcore. an RPG can only do so much, but a car bomb, and one that leveled a building, thats damaging, and what i would want if I were to attack someone without wanting them to tknow.
You've got to be kidding me man! They are starting to talk about tactics and "x-factors" in that show and its boring as hell!
Also i don't see anything wrong with calling the IRA freedom fighters. After all, they were fighting for Ireland's freedom, even if they were terrorists.
Also i don't see anything wrong with calling the IRA freedom fighters. After all, they were fighting for Ireland's freedom, even if they were terrorists.
On the first point, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. While I have no sympathy for the IRA whatsoever, calling them "freedom fighters" doesn't offend me. They were, allegedly, fighting for their rights to self-govern, no matter how idiotic or misguided they were. The term freedom fighter only has a positive image in society today due to shitty films like Braveheart. Revolutions are always violent, bloody and generally pretty monstrous...orangeban said:
On the second, yeah, that guy does sound like and epic prick. There seems to be a sense of tastelessness developing in American TV right now. I think regulators need to nip it in the bud.
When I first heard about this show I was really interested, I'd love to see how a Spartan would fare against a ninja and other stupid shit.
More importantly I have a huge interest in fighting, I've studied a few martial arts quite heavily and taken some training in swordfighting, knife fighting and general stuff (bit of spear work, bit of sword and shield and so on). To me this would be interesting to watch for the stats and knowledge of experts as much as anything else but it failed to materialise. The only one I remember was a spartan warrior against someone (may well have been a ninja actually...) and while they did take you through the weapons and such it wasn't as in depth as I wanted, nor as accurate with the stuff mentioned in the OP: Setting, TACTICS (seriously...) and so on.
Yeah I don't like the comparison of IRA and Taliban and such at the best of times, it's just blatant attempts to get people watching and if they actually were sympathetic (no idea, not seen it) then fuck them to hell. The IRA has killed more people than the Taliban. Freedom fighters? Fuck you.
More importantly I have a huge interest in fighting, I've studied a few martial arts quite heavily and taken some training in swordfighting, knife fighting and general stuff (bit of spear work, bit of sword and shield and so on). To me this would be interesting to watch for the stats and knowledge of experts as much as anything else but it failed to materialise. The only one I remember was a spartan warrior against someone (may well have been a ninja actually...) and while they did take you through the weapons and such it wasn't as in depth as I wanted, nor as accurate with the stuff mentioned in the OP: Setting, TACTICS (seriously...) and so on.
Yeah I don't like the comparison of IRA and Taliban and such at the best of times, it's just blatant attempts to get people watching and if they actually were sympathetic (no idea, not seen it) then fuck them to hell. The IRA has killed more people than the Taliban. Freedom fighters? Fuck you.
It's corny and all that stuff and it applies to the more general public, what about it? I still like the show, you can still enjoy it even if you sometimes go like "they for real with this shit?" yeah that lasts like a micro-second and then you can just move on.
No offense but to me you come off as a bit arrogant and I would definitely say you are an elitist of some sort. (Yeah and what little I know about spike, I can tell they usually host crappy shit and this is definitely in that category)
No offense but to me you come off as a bit arrogant and I would definitely say you are an elitist of some sort. (Yeah and what little I know about spike, I can tell they usually host crappy shit and this is definitely in that category)
Well, there's certainly not anyone who's in danger of coming out of the show with their brains tickled. Still, I don't really think you should put much consideration into a show which is primarily based around stabbing, bludgeoning or shooting pig cadavers with random historical weapons.
Poor taste, no. Grow thicker skin.
Poor taste, no. Grow thicker skin.
As it's been said, It is Spike Tv. The Station with a show called "MANswers".
That said, I do kinda enjoy the show. Seeing the Weapons and fights are entertaining enough. Although, I do think the show on Terrorist and such are in poor taste. But in the end, those episodes do just what they're meant to do; Get people talking.
That said, I do kinda enjoy the show. Seeing the Weapons and fights are entertaining enough. Although, I do think the show on Terrorist and such are in poor taste. But in the end, those episodes do just what they're meant to do; Get people talking.
I do agree with you. They need to be fair and show multiple scenarios. Ninja vs Spartan is two different fights when one is face to face, and one lets the Ninja actually BE A NINJA! Real ninjas arent Naruto.
The worse was Green Barrets vs Spetznaz. They were too similar from the start and had noe xcuse not to test them the same exact way.
The worse was Green Barrets vs Spetznaz. They were too similar from the start and had noe xcuse not to test them the same exact way.
Light entertainment based on deadly serious issues.Grouchy Imp said:
Then again, I like South Park.
I've read a couple of the comments (About two pages), I personally really like the show because it is just stupid fun, it is the kind of arguements you would have with your mates at a house party...
If you think to much into it ofcourse it's shit but then again, the same can be said for EVERYTHING!
If you think to much into it ofcourse it's shit but then again, the same can be said for EVERYTHING!
I don't recall seeing them losing any of those times. Perhaps it's my bad memory, or your bad memory. More likely mine though.Jacco said:
AugustFall said:
Serious issues indeed, and the 'Hardcore' comment was unwise to say the least, but the show doesn't set out to intentionally offend. It may do so accidentally, but now and then everyone offends someone accidentally.Hides His Eyes said:
Redratson said:
The sides in question don't really matter though, as the results are bogus. I appreciate that they boil down a week of testing into an hour long show, but if they get the weapons' strike PSI readings for one army from 'Average Joe A' and the other army's PSI readings using 'Steroid Junkie B' they can test as long as they damn well like, the data is invalid. Now, if they used a mechanical pneumatic arm whose force could be accurately monitored and repeatedly duplicated, I'd be more inclined to believe their findings. But they don't.dystopiaINC said:
The bottom line is that the show is just harmless (and usually inoffensive) fun, not meant to be taken seriously. They just throw CGI and re-enactment gear at the oldest question around, "Who would win in a fight between...". In fact there is a similar show right here on the Escapist - it's called No Right Answer.
My main problem with the show is the way they test weapons and how they seem to always try to make Americans try to win.Infact,they only lost once ,and it was to a far better opponent.Even then it was a really close defeat.I blame the target audience.
They only look at how impressive wounds a weapon can make.Your weapon can kill a target in one accurate blow? No,you get a disadvantage against the guy who has a unwieldy weapon and goes nuts on a target.
It's not weapon comparison,it's a dick-waving contest.
Then there's shit like a Roman legionnaire having a balista for 1 on 1 combat.A siege weapon.For one on one fight.
But the biggest punch to the balls was the Napoleon vs Washington episode.First of all,they're making Washington look like he won the war on his own.Guess from what country his weapons and tactics came from? Hint,it starts with "F"
Next,they're trying to compare who's army would win,yet fight with not alot of men and at close range.This makes a hell of a difference when one side has the weapons and tactics to fight against armies that are tens of thousands strong,with long range fights that can go on for hours and hours,and the other almost improvised weapons.
I'm sorry,but a bunch of nails in a cannon is not as efficient as real grapeshot,that can actually kill at more than 50 meters.
Lastly on my rant,since when is a odd,never to be seen again sword design better than a cavalry sword? A weapon that would see action until a few random battles in WWII.
Napoleon should have won,he has a whole goddamn era named after him,and was only beaten by the Russian winter,and a second time by a combination of Prussian and British soldiers outnumbering him,and his stubbornness.
They only look at how impressive wounds a weapon can make.Your weapon can kill a target in one accurate blow? No,you get a disadvantage against the guy who has a unwieldy weapon and goes nuts on a target.
It's not weapon comparison,it's a dick-waving contest.
Then there's shit like a Roman legionnaire having a balista for 1 on 1 combat.A siege weapon.For one on one fight.
But the biggest punch to the balls was the Napoleon vs Washington episode.First of all,they're making Washington look like he won the war on his own.Guess from what country his weapons and tactics came from? Hint,it starts with "F"
Next,they're trying to compare who's army would win,yet fight with not alot of men and at close range.This makes a hell of a difference when one side has the weapons and tactics to fight against armies that are tens of thousands strong,with long range fights that can go on for hours and hours,and the other almost improvised weapons.
I'm sorry,but a bunch of nails in a cannon is not as efficient as real grapeshot,that can actually kill at more than 50 meters.
Lastly on my rant,since when is a odd,never to be seen again sword design better than a cavalry sword? A weapon that would see action until a few random battles in WWII.
Napoleon should have won,he has a whole goddamn era named after him,and was only beaten by the Russian winter,and a second time by a combination of Prussian and British soldiers outnumbering him,and his stubbornness.