Poll: Deadliest Warrior, Crap and Poor-Taste?

babinro

New member
Sep 24, 2010
2,518
0
0
This show is cheesy and entertaining. They are very good at what they do. This should should not be compared against something like Mythbusters where they 'try' to take a scientific approach to answering the question.

This is all about putting weapons to fun and strange tests with as much entertainment value as possible.
 

The Heik

King of the Nael
Oct 12, 2008
1,568
0
0
orangeban said:
Is it crap? Hell yes. This is a Spike show we're talking about after all. They don't take any consideration of strategy and individual training, making it so each vs. is a straight up fight rather than testing form each fighter's perspective, automatically putting certain fighters at advantages or disadvantages. As a result the show's results have the same accuracy as a mole trying to play darts. The only reason why I watch it is because it's the only show where I can see the effects of all those crazy weapons, which is DW's only redeeming feature.

Is it bad taste? I wouldn't really go that far, as with the IRA example most of the throwing around of the "freedom fighter" term is done by the IRA side, so it's only a single person's perspective rather than the show as a whole.
 

orangeban

New member
Nov 27, 2009
1,442
0
0
Zap Happy said:
orangeban said:
Zap Happy said:
AmrasCalmacil said:
'Who would win in a fight out of...'
Exactly. You have to have the right mindset to enjoy the show. You have to see it as if it's you and your buddies sitting around and debating about why Master Chief would/wouldn't beat up the Terminator. If you're the kind of person who can't take a silly concept like that and have fun wit it, the show's not for you.

Also, about the IRA vs. Taliban episode: the host didn't scream "HARDCORE!" at actual video of people dying. It was a test of the nail bomb using foam dummies. It's still a little trashy, but nothing worse than Manswers or 1000 Ways to Die.
Fine, I can't quite remember exactly what he said. But they did watch a video of a IRA attack and they did go something along the lines of, "WOW!"
There were reenactments of attacks, obviously. Usually the hosts don't react to those though. There were certainly no real videos of real people dying, however. Also, if I remember, most of the victims in the reenactments were dressed as British soldiers or officials, just the the victims in the Taliban reenactments were American Green Berets (recycled from the Green Beret episode, none the less). I'm not trying to argue that the episode wasn't somewhat trashy, but I think you're overreacting, especially considering Spike's other programs.
Now, I can't be arsed to watch through the whole episode again to see this moment, but it wasn't the usual full screen, coloured video which is heavily dramatised. This was the hosts stooped over a computer screen, watching a black and white video (which you can see clearly) of an explosion, while the Irish expert looks vaguely smug (in their typical, "my team's so badass" way all the experts are smug) maybe it was a recreation, but why would it be in black and white?
 

Cavouku

New member
Mar 14, 2008
1,122
0
0
It's getting better. Still not perfect by any means, and the common complaints about sketchy history and the ever-present butted vs riveted chainmail are still valid, but I think they're improving, if nothing else.

Maybe they'll get it by the fifth season, and they can find the sweet spot between the people who like historically more accurate things, and the people who like to watch gel torsos get turned into mashed potatoes. I welcome the day, but I'll be patient.
 

Arsen

New member
Nov 26, 2008
2,705
0
0
I do personally agree that the show indeed is bad in terms of providing us with a realistic sense of...anything factual in terms of warfare. Vlad Tepes defeating Sun Tzu? Bullshit. Absolute, 100% bullshit.

It's done for nothing other than entertainment and I see it purely as that. It's always a weapon against weapon scenario where computers calculating fictitious results are called into play. Do I enjoy it on some level? Yes. I'll admit to watching it for the fun of it...but the fact that, *goes to look up his name*, David Wenham, the guy who narrated 300 AND this very show...narrates it...says something. It's done for nothing other than the "image" of the two combatants fighting over necessarily being in depth about it.

Some of the results are laughable at times.
 

Apollo45

New member
Jan 30, 2011
534
0
0
JMeganSnow said:
The premise of the show is not the same as the value you gain from the show. What I like about it (and my other friends who occasionally watch it) is seeing various period hardware and fighting styles and learning about their effectiveness. The mock-combat and the "winner" are immaterial.

It's very similar to Iron Chef in that regard, a show all of us very much enjoy.
What he said. The show isn't about the science - they get some stuff right, but they get other stuff wrong, and although they do take some tactics in to account it's often less than should be and even then less accurate.

That said, the show is about pitting two (or, in the case of gunpowder, ten) warriors against each other, head to head, and see how it turns out. In that sense, it is accurate. In the end though, it's about the entertainment and the fight at the conclusion, not the pseudo-science that goes in to their tests. That's the fallacy with their "advantage/disadvantage" ratings; advantages work in different situations, and often the 'head-to-head' nature of weapon testing is flawed in itself, since some of the weapons they put up against each other are completely different from their opponent's.

The computer program, on the other hand, seems surprisingly accurate as far as kills with whichever weapon goes; it seems like the computer, at least, knows what it's doing, even if the "experts" don't.

Slightly off topic, as far as the Ninja vs Spartan, the Spartan definitely should have won that one. That's the premise of the show; if a Spartan ran across a Ninja in the woods and they started fighting, no preparation, the Spartan would come out on top due to the all-consuming power of that shield. All the Spartan would have to do is sit back and wait, and when the Ninja closes in for an attack it's a simple matter of blocking with the shield and stabbing with the spear (or sword, if the spear has been lost). Ninja is done for. Compound that with the fact that the Ninja is unarmored and the Spartan is and that makes all the difference in a one-on-one battle. Remember, Spartans were trained as warriors from birth. Ninja, in their basic form, were first farmers and civilians, then resistance fighters against the Samurai. That makes a huge difference as well.

If they were to try and take in to account every single strategy an enemy would use, more often than not there wouldn't end up being a battle at all. The Ninja, as has been said, would attack while the Spartan was unarmored, sleeping or whatever, and the Spartan would travel with a group and not have to worry about being attacked in the night because they would set up a watch. Similar cases go for almost every match up they have, which is why tactics need to be limited.
 

orangeban

New member
Nov 27, 2009
1,442
0
0
Apollo45 said:
JMeganSnow said:
The premise of the show is not the same as the value you gain from the show. What I like about it (and my other friends who occasionally watch it) is seeing various period hardware and fighting styles and learning about their effectiveness. The mock-combat and the "winner" are immaterial.

It's very similar to Iron Chef in that regard, a show all of us very much enjoy.
What he said. The show isn't about the science - they get some stuff right, but they get other stuff wrong, and although they do take some tactics in to account it's often less than should be and even then less accurate.

That said, the show is about pitting two (or, in the case of gunpowder, ten) warriors against each other, head to head, and see how it turns out. In that sense, it is accurate. In the end though, it's about the entertainment and the fight at the conclusion, not the pseudo-science that goes in to their tests. That's the fallacy with their "advantage/disadvantage" ratings; advantages work in different situations, and often the 'head-to-head' nature of weapon testing is flawed in itself, since some of the weapons they put up against each other are completely different from their opponent's.

The computer program, on the other hand, seems surprisingly accurate as far as kills with whichever weapon goes; it seems like the computer, at least, knows what it's doing, even if the "experts" don't.

Slightly off topic, as far as the Ninja vs Spartan, the Spartan definitely should have won that one. That's the premise of the show; if a Spartan ran across a Ninja in the woods and they started fighting, no preparation, the Spartan would come out on top due to the all-consuming power of that shield. All the Spartan would have to do is sit back and wait, and when the Ninja closes in for an attack it's a simple matter of blocking with the shield and stabbing with the spear (or sword, if the spear has been lost). Ninja is done for. Compound that with the fact that the Ninja is unarmored and the Spartan is and that makes all the difference in a one-on-one battle. Remember, Spartans were trained as warriors from birth. Ninja, in their basic form, were first farmers and civilians, then resistance fighters against the Samurai. That makes a huge difference as well.

If they were to try and take in to account every single strategy an enemy would use, more often than not there wouldn't end up being a battle at all. The Ninja, as has been said, would attack while the Spartan was unarmored, sleeping or whatever, and the Spartan would travel with a group and not have to worry about being attacked in the night because they would set up a watch. Similar cases go for almost every match up they have, which is why tactics need to be limited.
Alright, so you've justified the lack of tactics, but what about this example, where they prove just how full of shit the show is. It was Shaka Zulu vs William Wallace, and one of Shaka's weapons was spitting poison, which was designed to blind your foe, therefore making it incredibly easy to kill them. Do the showmakers take this into account? No, of course not, the spit (which would of turned the tide of battle in a one on one fight) was dismissed and earned 0 kills in the end battle because it couldn't kill enemies. That one made me angry, and not in the same way the show normally does, which is a way that makes me laugh at how stupid the show is, but in a way that finally cemented the show as crap.
 

BoredDragon

New member
Feb 9, 2011
1,097
0
0
I don't get offended very easily so I don't really think it's in poor taste. However, the show is pretty crap until it gets to the choreographed fight between the two factions/people at the end.
 

StriderShinryu

New member
Dec 8, 2009
4,987
0
0
I watch the show because I enjoy the concept and the weapon demonstrations/tests. I do, however, totally agree that their approach at least as far as simulating the battles is majorly flawed.
 

FURY_007

New member
Jun 8, 2008
564
0
0
Yeah, pretty much what everyone here has said don't take it seriously at all.

It's a pretty interesting concept though, and if done right it could have been amazing. Mack makes a good addition because he's actually practical.

Like how Jesse James won against Al Capone. and compared a grenade vs. a lever action in terms of accuracy...... yeah it's a stupid show but what ever
 

TheFloBros

New member
Aug 18, 2010
167
0
0
Actually they do count in tactics and terrain. They talk about it in an episode, and they even count in like they're spirit and motivation.
 

Apollo45

New member
Jan 30, 2011
534
0
0
orangeban said:
Apollo45 said:
Alright, so you've justified the lack of tactics, but what about this example, where they prove just how full of shit the show is. It was Shaka Zulu vs William Wallace, and one of Shaka's weapons was spitting poison, which was designed to blind your foe, therefore making it incredibly easy to kill them. Do the showmakers take this into account? No, of course not, the spit (which would of turned the tide of battle in a one on one fight) was dismissed and earned 0 kills in the end battle because it couldn't kill enemies. That one made me angry, and not in the same way the show normally does, which is a way that makes me laugh at how stupid the show is, but in a way that finally cemented the show as crap.
The simulation was correct though; it wouldn't have killed the enemy. Doesn't mean that it didn't play in to the kills of other weapons. I'm obviously not all too sure about how their computer program works, but it seems to me like it would take that in to account and apply it to how effective the other weapons were. You never know how it accounted for accuracy, dodging on the part of William, the effectiveness of the rest of William's ans Shaka's weapons, and so on. Can I say it's a completely accurate rendition of how the fight would have turned out? Of course not. There are plenty of fallacies in the show, and plenty of reasons any number of fights could turn out differently. That's not quite the point though; the show is meant for entertainment, and to give a bit of a "scientific" approach to the age-old question of "who would win in a fight between ___ and ___?" (Notice the "s around "scientific.")
 

Nannernade

New member
May 18, 2009
1,233
0
0
The new season goes in depth about strategies and what not, I got to say though I don't like the new guy, he reminds me of a bad John Madden impression, oh hey let's go to the board... *pause for effect* Thanks John...
 

orangeban

New member
Nov 27, 2009
1,442
0
0
Apollo45 said:
orangeban said:
Apollo45 said:
Alright, so you've justified the lack of tactics, but what about this example, where they prove just how full of shit the show is. It was Shaka Zulu vs William Wallace, and one of Shaka's weapons was spitting poison, which was designed to blind your foe, therefore making it incredibly easy to kill them. Do the showmakers take this into account? No, of course not, the spit (which would of turned the tide of battle in a one on one fight) was dismissed and earned 0 kills in the end battle because it couldn't kill enemies. That one made me angry, and not in the same way the show normally does, which is a way that makes me laugh at how stupid the show is, but in a way that finally cemented the show as crap.
The simulation was correct though; it wouldn't have killed the enemy. Doesn't mean that it didn't play in to the kills of other weapons. I'm obviously not all too sure about how their computer program works, but it seems to me like it would take that in to account and apply it to how effective the other weapons were. You never know how it accounted for accuracy, dodging on the part of William, the effectiveness of the rest of William's ans Shaka's weapons, and so on. Can I say it's a completely accurate rendition of how the fight would have turned out? Of course not. There are plenty of fallacies in the show, and plenty of reasons any number of fights could turn out differently. That's not quite the point though; the show is meant for entertainment, and to give a bit of a "scientific" approach to the age-old question of "who would win in a fight between ___ and ___?" (Notice the "s around "scientific.")
Sorry, but time to burst your bubble regarding the simulation. Slitherine studios is a game developer. http://www.martialdevelopment.com/blog/deadliest-warrior-combat-simulator/ and that article says all the rest.
 

Bobbity

New member
Mar 17, 2010
1,659
0
0
Screw the show being in poor taste; it's innaccurate, stupid, and almost painful to watch.
 

Kargathia

New member
Jul 16, 2009
1,657
0
0
For the last 2500 years humanity has been trying to get around to accurately predicting how battles would end up.

So far they've been about as reliable as all their fellow crystal-boll gazers.

Bearing this in mind, ask yourself: did you honestly expect an 18-minute tv show to let things as "honest uncertainty", and "unbiased testing" get in the way of a good story?
 

CNKFan

New member
Aug 20, 2008
1,034
0
0
I like the show sure it is kinda retarded in that they dont test the tactics but I dont know of a better way to kill an hour on wensday night.
 

Apollo45

New member
Jan 30, 2011
534
0
0
orangeban said:
Apollo45 said:
orangeban said:
Apollo45 said:
snip
slice
Sorry, but time to burst your bubble regarding the simulation. Slitherine studios is a game developer. http://www.martialdevelopment.com/blog/deadliest-warrior-combat-simulator/ and that article says all the rest.
The article seems to confirm what I was saying, actually. It's obviously not completely accurate, but any decent RTS game takes in to account maneuverability of the units, their ability to 'dodge', the damage they would take, the effectiveness of different weapons, the effects of different weapons, and so on. Of course it limits the strategies that are used to ones the computer can understand, but on a purely weapon-by-weapon basis the simulation seems accurate; the poison shooter would weaken the opponent, leaving them more vulnerable to alternative forms of attack, just as it would in real life. The writer of the blog hits it on the nail as far as martial arts goes - Obviously it'd be impossible to take in to account every strategy a unit might use or can use against an enemy - but he underestimates its ability to account for weapon strengths and weaknesses, armor strengths and weaknesses, effects of each weapon on the opponent's ability to fight, and so on.