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.
Poll: Deadliest Warrior, Crap and Poor-Taste?
- Thread starter orangeban
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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
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
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.
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.")orangeban said:
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...
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?
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?
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.orangeban said:
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.
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)