Realism with weapons.

Nieroshai

New member
Aug 20, 2009
2,940
0
0
Not G. Ivingname said:
Nieroshai said:
demoman_chaos said:
One thing that annoys me is the relationship between armor and weapons, particularly in movies. Watch any medieval blockbuster and count the number of mail armored goons cut with slice. All of those men died not from their wounds, but from not being named characters. A drawing slice on mail is utterly useless and I am not going to bother trying to explain how plate armor is not made of something weak like paper mache (or Raditz). Armor only seems to work when you are a named character important to the plot, except when the plot demands that you die.

Nieroshai said:
Here's my thought. Agreeing wholeheartedly by the way.
It makes perfect sense for a character with supernatural strength to use a heavier weapon. Cloud Strife, for example, is genetically modified and can wield a whole freaking tombstone for a sword as if it was just a greatsword, considering his abilities also of being able to leap to the second or third story building while still carrying such a weapon. Conan, on the other hand, is just muscular. He has to stick with normal greatswords or tear something in his shoulders or throw out his back. So it depends on what kind of fantasy setting. If the character is human, or around that strength rating, then of course bigger and freakier weapons become out of the question. But Dante can run up a building and survive impalement, so one-handing a greatsword like a rapier doesn't seem any more ludicrous than Dante himself.
What is the point of something that ridiculously big? It cannot be useful in close combat so a quick fellow with a dagger will easily trump someone with overcompensatorypieceofmetalvariety#6. It is like when fighting someone with a spear, once you get past the tip there isn't much they can do besides die.
A melee weapon's damage has multiple factors. Speed, momentum, sharpness, etc. The point of a large weapon is that it is more likely to do massive smashing damage and cleave all the way through, due to having more momentum. That dagger wielder would have to get close first to be effective, and dodge the attack in the first place. Keep in mind, the wielder would have to be immensively powerful in the first place, and to that wielder the weapon would feel like a lighter class of weapon. Let's use D&D as an example. A heavy halfling greatsword is a really light orc longsword. A halfling couldn't even lift an orc greatsword in any way useful in combat. Therefore, why handicap Dante or Cloud with weapons that deal less damage when they are dextrous with oversized weapons due to being not quite human? In a game like Skyrim, it's understandable that you can't do that since you're, well, human or something similar. But this is getting long.
Bigger swords have had their uses in history. Large swords are actually the only swords that have much uses as single primary weapon. The No dachi and long swords were highly effective on the open battlefield, since any strike landed by these weapons was going to do a LOT of damage to your enemy. Other, lighter, swords such as the gladius, the cutlass, or the katana were used respectably in conjunction with a heavy shield, as a up close and personal weapon on crowded decks where one can't have the ability to make long swings, or as a side arm (the legend of the katana weilding samuri charging into battle is little more then a legend). However, their is an upper limit for putting all stats into one thing.

No matter how strong you are, inertia is going to make swinging that thing about as fast as a glacier even if you were the Hulk. If you were in any kind of confined space, you would be screwed with that sword. However, if you did have the ability to actually hold that thing, you could most likely shatter bones by just punching your enemy, if not out right killing them.
Most likely, any smart warrior would sheathe a large weapon in favor of a small one in confined spaces. A medieval knight will charge in with a lance until being on horseback stops being viable. Then he fights with sword, axe, or mace. If and when that stops working, then out come the daggers and the punching. Ultimately, if we're talking weapon viability by scenario, we're kinda diverging from the original topic though. Assume an open, level field or a Coliseum match. A large weapon is about wide, sweeping arcs, but sometimes in combat you're forced to get in range of those swings if you plan on ending combat any time soon. And if you've ever seen a Scot wielding a claymore in a reenactment, heavy arms aren't that slow to begin with, just comparatively slow if you throw short swords and rapiers in the mix. Also, never doubt the intimidation factor of a large man with a large sword bearing down on you.
Many of my opponents in boffer tournaments are too busy recovering their footing from being charged to counterattack when my backswing comes. You wouldn't think so, but large weapon attacks can be chained and redirected. Forget parrying with one, but don't think a greatsword can't chase you down when you dodge. Granted, I use padded weapons, but A. mine is usually significantly longer and heavier than my opponents', and B. I have wielded a claymore. Being as I'm not a finely-tuned warrior and can still use one two-handed without being freakishly clumsy, I'm sure it is possible for a real fighter to be amazing with one.
 

Zantos

New member
Jan 5, 2011
3,653
0
0
The size doesn't annoy me nearly as much as in some games where I take a gigantic swing into a large group of enemies, only to hit the one with the all powerful targeting icon around it. Even then, it only annoys me if the game is actually trying to be realistic. Whenever Dante does his usual party trick of sword in the chest, you just know it's not exactly playing by the reality rules. Look at some of the stuff he does in DMC4, absolutely awesome and hella fun but definitely not trying to play the realism card.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,258
1,115
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
Mmm...there's a little thing called "Willing Suspension of Disbelief" that you might want to look into. While granted, gigantic weapons would realisitcally be clunky, fantasy (and animation particularly) is not confined by the rules we're familiar with. For the most part, enormous weapons are subjected to "Rule of Cool", with part of the unstated implication being that the character wielding the weapon is badass by virtue of the simple fact that they actually can use it effectively enough to win. This is rarely stated outright, and I can only think of a few instances where it is. Those cases are: in FFVII (while in Shinra HQ, Cloud comments that only Sephiroth actually could wield the oversized katana they found), and in Hellsing (In the first Hellsing Ultimate OVA, at least, Seras marvels at the fact that she could wield the 33mm she was given with such ease, to the extent of making a shot she considered borderline impossible a few seconds beforehand). In a slightly different vein, Rurouni Kenshin deserves a special mention here for both pointing out the incredible strength needed to wield a giant sword, and acknowledging some of the flaws of the weapon type (namely the way that size and weight limits possible attack patterns).

The short rule of thumb though is that you have to be willing to accept that the weapons in question are being used effectively because the characters are skilled and/or strong enough to compensate for the weapons' drawbacks. It's a very old story trick used to emphasize the sheer power of the characters. Case in point: the Epic of Gilgamesh has Gilgamesh and Enkidu carrying blades that weighed 120 pounds each.
 

The .50 Caliber Cow

Pokemon GO away
Mar 12, 2011
1,686
0
41
Asita said:
Mmm...there's a little thing called "Willing Suspension of Disbelief" that you might want to look into.
Agreed. Now excuse me while I totally waste the rest of my night on TVtropes due to your link.

Moo.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,258
1,115
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
The .50 Caliber Cow said:
Asita said:
Mmm...there's a little thing called "Willing Suspension of Disbelief" that you might want to look into.
Agreed. Now excuse me while I totally waste the rest of my night on TVtropes due to your link.

Moo.
Nokshor used one of them before I did. :p
 

Yokai

New member
Oct 31, 2008
1,982
0
0
I have no problem with big or ornate weapons in small quantities. I have a slightly different issue, however: I don't want my RPG character going around in gilded full plate studded with emeralds, with lion heads for pauldrons and a helmet with elephant tusks attached, wielding a sword made out of glowing crystal with three distinct crossguards. It looks gaudy as fuck.

I much prefer more realistic interpretations of weapons and armor--they can still look intimidating and impressive without being covered in half a treasure chest and several small animals. Observe:
That looks awesome. An intimidating outfit and weapon with a small amount of decoration that is nonetheless made almost entirely out of steel, leather and padding, like real armor and weapons. This gives the appearance of high-level gear without resorting to this:
Look at this shit. The first guy appears to be wearing a the front end of a steampunk locomotive, whereas the second image features a chain-and-gem-covered dragon skeleton worn as a cape and helmet. It's a lazy shorthand to suggest the gear is more powerful since it has more glowing things and spikes, and an unfortunate trend. It bugs me how in most games--take Oblivion for example--the practical-looking sets of weapons and armor were strictly low level, and the highest-level equipment was made of glass and lava. One of my favorite things about the visual design of The Witcher 2 was the fact that even the best armor and weapons in the game were made out of materials it makes sense to make armor and weapons out of.

My point, I guess, is that I'd like to see high-level gear in RPGs that looks functional and not purely decorative. And I may have gone on a little too long about it... >_>
 

Blindswordmaster

New member
Dec 28, 2009
3,145
0
0
Peter Storer said:
Ok, I am aware that this is a truely petty quibble, but I hate the way so many fantasy games seem to feel obliged to make weapons not just more powerful as the game progresses, but also progressivly bigger and more ornate. This leads inevitably to having 5'6" elves wielding swords 8' long, 2' wide, and more gaudily decorated than your average christmas tree.
Am I the only person this annoys?
Is anyone realy attracted to a game based on the size of the weapon you get to swing around?
I completely agree, why can't a game just give me a pointed stick? Seriously though, it's either make more ornate, better looking weapons or weapons that look exactly the same, but have much better stats.
 

emeraldrafael

New member
Jul 17, 2010
8,589
0
0
i11m4t1c said:
-image snip-


OH HAI THARR
The only thing I can say in defense of Cloud and sephiroth is that while both their swords are massively unrealistic, at least on some level, they can still be functional.

<spoiler=Not like this of course>http://thedarkblade.com/wp-content/uploads/squalls-gunblade.jpg
 

Sectan

Senior Member
Aug 7, 2011
591
0
21
Regardless of physics it just looks really stupid. OH LOOK AT ME I'M SWINGING A FUCKING CAR AT YOUR FACE! I always had the stance that if you knew what you were doing in a fight you didn't need half of a building to get the job done.
 

Furioso

New member
Jun 16, 2009
7,981
0
0
Who cares about overly ornate weapons when there are rediculously silly weapons to pick on!


The kid is using a cup and ball for crying out loud!

(Tales of Symphonia by the way, great game, but such a silly weapon, he casts magic by bouncing the ball)
 

darkcalling

New member
Sep 29, 2011
550
0
0
In my view realism in games is overrated. In fantasy games I'm just fine swinging a sword bigger than I am. In fps I'll take the crazy alien weapon with the weird physics issues over the generic assault rifle every time. I get enough reality in my real life thanks.
 

AdeptaSororitas

New member
Jul 11, 2011
642
0
0
I agree. Not because of realism but because, honestly, I have never seen a supermassive sword/gun/ect. that actually looked good compared to the person. I don't care if someone COULD wield Cloud's stupid big Buster Sword, it looks doofy when they do. It's aesthetically off at it's very foundation.
 

NeutralDrow

New member
Mar 23, 2009
9,097
0
0
Honestly, the only extra realism I'd like with weapons in games is more realistic usage. I think games are finally getting the idea that slashing things with a rapier or smallsword doesn't do appreciable damage, but I'd really like to see someone use half-sword techniques with a bastard sword, or fight duels with poleaxes, or switch weapons based on situation (not just knights discarding lances off horseback, but a normal soldier pulling a mace or hammer against someone with full armor).

With general oversized weapons, I have no problem just assuming "it doesn't weigh as much as it looks."

Not G. Ivingname said:
You swing that thing once, your weapon is going to be impaled a foot into the ground, stuck, wit you having a brocken spine and who every you were trying to kill stabbing you to pieces.
Not if it weighed a realistic amount. In other words, if this picture is more accurate.



It's still shaped impractically for most purposes (may as well be a giant machete), but it probably wouldn't weigh more than five pounds or so. It's thicker than a "typical" zweihander, but also shorter.

demoman_chaos said:
What is the point of something that ridiculously big? It cannot be useful in close combat so a quick fellow with a dagger will easily trump someone with overcompensatorypieceofmetalvariety#6. It is like when fighting someone with a spear, once you get past the tip there isn't much they can do besides die.
I think you're mixing up spears with pikes, or other oversized polearms. With a normal size spear or shortspear, getting past the tip just means you stopped fighting a spear-wielder, and are now facing a staff-wielder.

With swords, the principle is similar. You're only within their guard if they can't do anything to you without the edge or tip of their weapon (or if they're overextended, in which case, they're just generally boned). Even someone with a rapier can still defend themselves with the rest of the sword besides the point, someone with a giant sword, assuming they can swing it at all, just winds up with a somewhat unwieldy club (and if the surface area is big enough, a shield). They're certainly at a disadvantage against someone with a weapon intended for extremely close-range, but it's not an insurmountable one.

Dirty Hipsters said:
What always annoys me is when characters use a giant sword and wear it on their back in a full scabbard. HOW THE HELL DO THEY DRAW THEM?! Seriously, their arms aren't long enough to draw a sword that big from behind their back, and the sword's blade doesn't bend, so the only way it would be physically possible for them to get the sword out would be to do a handstand and wait for it to fall out of the scabbard on its own.
I've seen <url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHuaJ5ZWgNM#t=0m10s>one possibility. There's also the chance that, while a sword is mostly inflexible, a scabbard isn't necessarily, and can tolerate some bending...though even in the best cases, it'd just be to draw and sheathe the weapon, not to pull off any Link-style "mortal draw" iaijutsu attacks.

And of course, there's ones like Dante who don't use a full scabbard.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Peter Storer said:
Ok, I am aware that this is a truely petty quibble, but I hate the way so many fantasy games seem to feel obliged to make weapons not just more powerful as the game progresses, but also progressivly bigger and more ornate. This leads inevitably to having 5'6" elves wielding swords 8' long, 2' wide, and more gaudily decorated than your average christmas tree.
Am I the only person this annoys?
Is anyone realy attracted to a game based on the size of the weapon you get to swing around?
Realism has to be a guide, but it has to be based in something relate-able.

The problem with straying too fare from realism - to me - is the loss of relevance and significance.

Such as the oversized swords wielded with ease, that ruins the impression that the sword is heavy and powerful, it leaves the impression they have giant Styrofoam weapons even if the canon and stats say it is solid steel sword that does 5-figure damage per hit.

One thing they absolutely MUST keep is they must animate the weapons with momentum. I can accept that a 5'6' 120lbs elf can swing a giant sword around if they have magic muscles, but the sword will still end up weighing a huge fraction of their weight. That means when they throw a sword around they will be thrown around with it, like throwing a bowling ball but your thumb gets stuck in the hole you go flying with the ball!

Some things you can get away with, like conservation of momentum a shotgun blast can repel a charging zombine back 6 feet yet not do the same to me when I fire the weapon.

It's not a matter of physics, it's a matter of innate human logic physics, even if conservation of momentum is defied.

Bottom Line: weapons have to keep to a certain amount of realism to make them seem powerful, but sometimes they need to break the rules to make weapons seem as powerful as they actually are (shotguns).
 

NeutralDrow

New member
Mar 23, 2009
9,097
0
0
Treblaine said:
It's not a matter of physics, it's a matter of innate human logic physics, even if conservation of momentum is defied.
But sometimes human logic physics is wrong. Actual oversized weapons throughout history (the ones that were actually intended for combat) could give the impression of being heavy and powerful, but <url=http://thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html>really weren't the former. And even a heavier example of a sword could be swung with ease if well-made; unlike bowling balls, swords are designed to be swung around.

Same with the shotgun; it's much easier to accept that a shotgun could blast an unbraced target back several feet, while the experienced and prepared gunwielder can be hit with similar recoil (slightly less momentum, since the shotgun weighs more than the fired ammo) but compensate for it.

I don't disagree that realistic basis is a good guideline, but reality itself is wonky enough to make the line spectacularly blurry. Unless I totally misunderstood, of course.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
NeutralDrow said:
Treblaine said:
It's not a matter of physics, it's a matter of innate human logic physics, even if conservation of momentum is defied.
But sometimes human logic physics is wrong. Actual oversized weapons throughout history (the ones that were actually intended for combat) could give the impression of being heavy and powerful, but <url=http://thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html>really weren't the former. And even a heavier example of a sword could be swung with ease if well-made; unlike bowling balls, swords are designed to be swung around.

Same with the shotgun; it's much easier to accept that a shotgun could blast an unbraced target back several feet, while the experienced and prepared gunwielder can be hit with similar recoil (slightly less momentum, since the shotgun weighs more than the fired ammo) but compensate for it.

I don't disagree that realistic basis is a good guideline, but reality itself is wonky enough to make the line spectacularly blurry. Unless I totally misunderstood, of course.
The examples you give of historical weapons are quite reasonable in size and weight especially for a larger man in peak physical condition to wield with certain conservative tactics. But I'm not talking about a depiction like that in games.

I'm talking about things like Cloud's Buster Sword which is an absolutely massive hunk of metal, probably a type of steel alloy or similar.



The bowling ball was ana analogy of how momentum can screw you, a normal person swinging such a massive weapon around. Presumably Cloud uses magic in order to lift it, or he is somehow supernaturally strong, but the problem is to spite it having the surface appearances of solid steel the way it moves leaves the impression it is a painted steel effect over styrofoam! At least in this pose he seems to take some effort to support the mass, but other poses he twirls it like a rapier! In Advent Children the animators did a much better job of making the Buster Sword seem like a powerful and heavy weapon.

"But sometimes human logic physics is wrong."

Exactly. Real world physics are a guide, while in a video game the designer is god of that world, they can tweak physics and physiology to suit their vision, like how an animator might use "Roadrunner Logic" for dramatic effect. Now Momentum gets pretty complicated when you have the lead-shot impacting against their deformable flesh in their centre of gravity, might that propel them further back than the same force applied to the breech-face of a heavy shotgun (that may have a recoil absorbing assembly) from someone who is holding the weapon firmly and has prepared to "absorb" the recoil such as leaning into it with feet braced (ergo, momentum transferred to earth's rotation).

So I suppose there is a real-physics basis for the "fly back from shotgun blast" effect, that is so vital to give the weapon a sense of power against the cannon-fodder enemies. But I'm mindful that Mythbusters have done some tests, like shooting at precariously perched crash test dummies (same size/density as a person/zombie) and a full shotgun blast just tipped them over as if caught by a brisk breeze. But they may have missed something...

I believe that considering all that, the artist needs to ask what is more important in their game: to be an accurate physics simulator, or to make a good game.

Thing is, physics can be FUN, especially when you get to exploit power-square and power-cube effects you can have the enjoyment of doing a lot with a little. There are times to break the rules and there are times to de things that defy "common sense".

"Common sense" says a 2000lbs plane cannot fly, but a combination of hard to perceive and subtle phenomena exploited by the large surface area of wings allows such craft to lift into the air as if by magic. There are other physical phenomena one can introduce into games to help the artist walk the fine line between amazement and maintaining sense of disbelief as with the right presentation it's "all physically possible".

Like Portal. Once you suspend you disbelief over the space bending portals you then can have great fun exploiting conservation of momentum flinging yourself through portals.

Another Valve game here, in a Half Life 2 episode Gordon can propel himself a massive distance by throwing a grenade under a metal sheet, then standing on the metal sheet the pressure of the explosion acts over a huge area and throws the sheet up and Gordon with it, catapulting him to an inaccessible area.