What if...Modern/Futuristic Katana User?

[SweetShark]

I swear, the more i hear about shadow warrior 2, the less i'm looking forward to it.

It's like they take everything that was good about the 1st game and are replacing it with diablo and borderlands.

On topic..Hum..Kenshin from Kenshin manga series? Or Kenshin from Mortal Kombat works out too i guess, there's probably an entire armys worth of katana wielders called kenshin.

And this is a bad things how?
Ok, to be fair, there is a very HUGE problem when I saw an early Let's Play from Two Best Firends crew: The enviroments get repetitive FAST! REALLY FAST!!! Because the game have a random generator merchanic to create new levels from the beggining, some places look exacly the same sadly...
But because it is essentially as me and you said, FPS + Diablo, I am excited!!! In one level I only sa in the Let's Play I spotted 7 new enemies types never seen before. Good staff!!! Many enemy variety is always awesome!

Also Keshin from the manga isn't modern/futuristic character. The other Keshin I think he count.

 

[FalloutJack]

Well, because finding a katana-user outside of Japan IS hard to do, I decided that I would go the route of manga and anime to make it easier, thus...

Spoiler

Kuro from the Kurozuka manga, whose life is eternal hell.

Hideo Kuze from Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex

As for video games...

Spoiler

 

[Frankster]

And this is a bad things how?

It's a bad, nay HORRIBLE thing, if you liked the original for being a throwback to old skol FPS games, and thus resent it being a borderlands/diablo clone.

Why would someone hate it becoming like borderlands/fps diablo? Well random map generator vs handcrafted levels (even you admit this is a problem), bullet spongey enemies with borderland numbers popping up as you do damage, changing the dynamics of combat completely (this is one thing i really hated about borderlands) along with the implied level scaling that comes with diablo/borderland clones, so you are doing the game equivalent of running on a treadmill.
Finally there's the fear there might be a loot drop system of some sort, which might tickle the skinner box effect for a lot of people, but isn't what i was hoping for in a sequel.

Actually that sums it up. Diablo and borderlands=skinner box game. That's not why i enjoyed the previous game.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Sorry, I couldn't resist. But in all seriousness, not to sound like some kind of sword hipster here, but katanas are by far the most overrated weapon.

This.

They were designed for duelling, and that's really all they were ever good for. They were never really effective battlefield weapons due to either being too long or too short for any given situation. I know that duelling element is probably part of the mystique, but it's interesting that we don't attach the same romanticism to Western fencing swords, which often have far more impressive military pedigrees than the katana.

 

[Glongpre]

Sorry, I couldn't resist. But in all seriousness, not to sound like some kind of sword hipster here, but katanas are by far the most overrated weapon.

This.

They were designed for duelling, and that's really all they were ever good for. They were never really effective battlefield weapons due to either being too long or too short for any given situation. I know that duelling element is probably part of the mystique, but it's interesting that we don't attach the same romanticism to Western fencing swords, which often have far more impressive military pedigrees than the katana.

Well, you can't cut a man in half with a fencing sword. People don't like katanas because they were effective on the battlefield.
The popularity of katanas is not due to their battlefield prowess. There, much better.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Well, you can't cut a man in half with a fencing sword.

You can't cut a man in half with a katana either. It took a good deal of skill and physical strength to even be able to decapitate a stationary person during an assisted suicide, hence why it was quite important to pick the right person to assist you. Human bodies are actually pretty tough.

You could certainly cut deeply into someone's body with a katana, but you could do the same with a sabre, for example, hence why in sabre fencing today contact with the edge of the blade still counts as a hit. There's also historical Western fencing traditions which use longswords, which can reach about the same length as a katana and could certainly have cut into an unarmoured person quite deeply.

In truth, I'm posing rhetorical questions. It's obvious why katanas have a certain mystique about them and that's because, certainly during the Tokugawa period, they came to symbolise the social status of the samurai class and thus developed a mystique which to some extent persists to the present day. It's the same reason so many were carried by Japanese servicemen during the second world war, despite not even having the vaguest pretence of military relevance at that point. In the modern period, Western swords increasingly became tools and like any tool they were discarded when no longer relevant. But katanas, at the point they ceased to be useful battlefield weapons, became symbols and thus retained a sense of mystique and importance.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Sorry, I couldn't resist. But in all seriousness, not to sound like some kind of sword hipster here, but katanas are by far the most overrated weapon.

This.

They were designed for duelling, and that's really all they were ever good for. They were never really effective battlefield weapons due to either being too long or too short for any given situation. I know that duelling element is probably part of the mystique, but it's interesting that we don't attach the same romanticism to Western fencing swords, which often have far more impressive military pedigrees than the katana.

Well, you can't cut a man in half with a fencing sword. People don't like katanas because they were effective on the battlefield.
The popularity of katanas is not due to their battlefield prowess. There, much better.

Well since "fencing" actually goes back to the 12th century with plenty of manuals for various fencing techniques,

Spoiler: This is a fencing sword.

Spoiler: As is this.

 

[BrawlMan]

Well, you can't cut a man in half with a fencing sword.

You can't cut a man in half with a katana either. It took a good deal of skill and physical strength to even be able to decapitate a stationary person during an assisted suicide, hence why it was quite important to pick the right person to assist you. Human bodies are actually pretty tough.

You could certainly cut deeply into someone's body with a katana, but you could do the same with a sabre, for example, hence why in sabre fencing today contact with the edge of the blade still counts as a hit. There's also historical Western fencing traditions which use longswords, which can reach about the same length as a katana and could certainly have cut into an unarmoured person quite deeply.

In truth, I'm posing rhetorical questions. It's obvious why katanas have a certain mystique about them and that's because, certainly during the Tokugawa period, they came to symbolise the social status of the samurai class and thus developed a mystique which to some extent persists to the present day. It's the same reason so many were carried by Japanese servicemen during the second world war, despite not even having the vaguest pretence of military relevance at that point. In the modern period, Western swords increasingly became tools and like any tool they were discarded when no longer relevant. But katanas, at the point they ceased to be useful battlefield weapons, became symbols and thus retained a sense of mystique and importance.

You sir or madame certainly know your history. I tip my hat off to you.


As for my 3:



<spoiler=Leonardo>http://hruska.se/leo_02.jpg

<spoiler=Raizo>http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/2/28030/1051468-raizo.jpg

 

[SweetShark]

And this is a bad things how?

It's a bad, nay HORRIBLE thing, if you liked the original for being a throwback to old skol FPS games, and thus resent it being a borderlands/diablo clone.

Why would someone hate it becoming like borderlands/fps diablo? Well random map generator vs handcrafted levels (even you admit this is a problem), bullet spongey enemies with borderland numbers popping up as you do damage, changing the dynamics of combat completely (this is one thing i really hated about borderlands) along with the implied level scaling that comes with diablo/borderland clones, so you are doing the game equivalent of running on a treadmill.
Finally there's the fear there might be a loot drop system of some sort, which might tickle the skinner box effect for a lot of people, but isn't what i was hoping for in a sequel.

Actually that sums it up. Diablo and borderlands=skinner box game. That's not why i enjoyed the previous game.

Yeah, the numbers bother me indeed even me. I hope to have the option to turn them off.
Also I am sorry for saying this, but it have a Loot Drop System in the game. Mostly for getting more powerful weapons.

Yes, I understand why many will hate the new way SW2 would play, but it still a FPS game with the most satisfying katana weapon I used in a game.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well since "fencing" actually goes back to the 12th century with plenty of manuals for various fencing techniques,

Spoiler: This is a fencing sword.

Spoiler: As is this.

As an aside, note the cross hilt on both. Some kind of guard for the hand (though that could be a suitably armoured gauntlet) is a requirement for fencing.

 

[Glongpre]

Well, I have been thoroughly defeated.

It is strange to think of a zweihander as a fencing sword though. I always imagined something like a rapier. I just don't know what the definition of fencing is. Is dueling with any sword considered fencing?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Well since "fencing" actually goes back to the 12th century with plenty of manuals for various fencing techniques,

Spoiler: This is a fencing sword.

Spoiler: As is this.

As an aside, note the cross hilt on both. Some kind of guard for the hand (though that could be a suitably armoured gauntlet) is a requirement for fencing.

Also note that the first one (the war knife) has a lug on the side of the guard.

Well, I have been thoroughly defeated.

It is strange to think of a zweihander as a fencing sword though. I always imagined something like a rapier. I just don't know what the definition of fencing is. Is dueling with any sword considered fencing?

Pretty much. Strictly, fencing's root word is "defense" and it just refers to using a sword with technique. Usually the techniques that involve you not dying. Though when someone says fencing they're probably thinking of Olympic fencing, which is restricted to foils, epees, and sabers sabres.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It's the same reason so many were carried by Japanese servicemen during the second world war, despite not even having the vaguest pretence of military relevance at that point.

A quibble, but given that bayonets were still being used, and hand to hand combat was expected and something that needed to be trained for, couldn't swords be seen to be still relevant, at least to an extent?

Having said that, not for officers, whose weapon was the troops they commanded, not so much what they personally carried.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

It's the same reason so many were carried by Japanese servicemen during the second world war, despite not even having the vaguest pretence of military relevance at that point.

A quibble, but given that bayonets were still being used, and hand to hand combat was expected and something that needed to be trained for, couldn't swords be seen to be still relevant, at least to an extent?

Having said that, not for officers, whose weapon was the troops they commanded, not so much what they personally carried.

Possibly, but it was primarily the officers that had the katanas (that were typically made of stripped rails from railroad lines) and we run into the problem all swords on the battlefield have in every age and culture, the spear is better. And a gun with a bayonet is closer to a spear than anything and had the 2 big advantages spears had over swords, ease of use and reach.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It's the same reason so many were carried by Japanese servicemen during the second world war, despite not even having the vaguest pretence of military relevance at that point.

A quibble, but given that bayonets were still being used, and hand to hand combat was expected and something that needed to be trained for, couldn't swords be seen to be still relevant, at least to an extent?

Having said that, not for officers, whose weapon was the troops they commanded, not so much what they personally carried.

Possibly, but it was primarily the officers that had the katanas (that were typically made of stripped rails from railroad lines) and we run into the problem all swords on the battlefield have in every age and culture, the spear is better. And a gun with a bayonet is closer to a spear than anything and had the 2 big advantages spears had over swords, ease of use and reach.

Oh sure, rifle and bayonet has the advantage, but as armies trained people to fight with daggers, coshes and bare hands as well as bayonets, not seeing the sword as totally useless.

Mind you, you have to carry the damn thing around and its big and bulky, whereas a bayonet is an addition to a weapon you want to be carrying anyway, a dagger is nice and small (and both have other uses) and a cosh is small and easy to make by yourself. Again, if you want a sword, I'd recommend a machete, because you'd use it as a machete more than a sword.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

It's the same reason so many were carried by Japanese servicemen during the second world war, despite not even having the vaguest pretence of military relevance at that point.

A quibble, but given that bayonets were still being used, and hand to hand combat was expected and something that needed to be trained for, couldn't swords be seen to be still relevant, at least to an extent?

Having said that, not for officers, whose weapon was the troops they commanded, not so much what they personally carried.

Possibly, but it was primarily the officers that had the katanas (that were typically made of stripped rails from railroad lines) and we run into the problem all swords on the battlefield have in every age and culture, the spear is better. And a gun with a bayonet is closer to a spear than anything and had the 2 big advantages spears had over swords, ease of use and reach.

Oh sure, rifle and bayonet has the advantage, but as armies trained people to fight with daggers, coshes and bare hands as well as bayonets, not seeing the sword as totally useless.

Mind you, you have to carry the damn thing around and its big and bulky, whereas a bayonet is an addition to a weapon you want to be carrying anyway, a dagger is nice and small (and both have other uses) and a cosh is small and easy to make by yourself. Again, if you want a sword, I'd recommend a machete, because you'd use it as a machete more than a sword.

If you were at the point where you're thinking about daggers, you're at the point where you're thinking about surprising someone when you've snuck up close, which would make a dagger better than a sword. It's not that the sword is useless, it's just one of the least practical weapons in most situations. Are you staring down your enemies from a distance? Use a bow or spear. Trying to be quiet? Use a dagger. Opponent is in plate armor? Use a mace and shield. There's a reason why the sword has, if I'm not mistaken, been a sidearm for every army and culture. Even the Japanese who fetishized their own weapon.

But yes, a machete would probably be most practical and it'd be because you're not using it in a fight except as a last ditch weapon.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If you were at the point where you're thinking about daggers, you're at the point where you're thinking about surprising someone when you've snuck up close, which would make a dagger better than a sword.

Disagree there, or rather, various people thought it worthwhile to train soldiers to fight (not just sneak up and kill) with and against daggers.

Opponent is in plate armor? Use a mace and shield.

Apparently you can grip a sword by the blade and hit people with the hilt like a hammer, this was something that was done in the medieval period.

There's a reason why the sword has, if I'm not mistaken, been a sidearm for every army and culture.

Swords remained in use for cavalry and naval personnel after most other hand to hand weapons disappeared. In WW1, cavalry used the sword, for example. On such occasions where they did fight hand to hand, which wasn't often, of course, but it did happen.

Landsknechts and spanish tercios did incorporate swordsmen, they did have their uses. However, in general I agree that the sword has a mystique far in excess of its utility.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

If you were at the point where you're thinking about daggers, you're at the point where you're thinking about surprising someone when you've snuck up close, which would make a dagger better than a sword.

Disagree there, or rather, various people thought it worthwhile to train soldiers to fight (not just sneak up and kill) with and against daggers.

It's not entirely useless, but merely of very limited use. IF the opponent saw you coming and IF they weren't using a gun and IF you couldn't retreat and IF you didn't have a gun to mount your bayonet on, then trying to dagger fight would be practical. Further, IF the opponent had a sword and IF he had enough room to swing it, he would have the advantage.

Opponent is in plate armor? Use a mace and shield.

Apparently you can grip a sword by the blade and hit people with the hilt like a hammer, this was something that was done in the medieval period.

Yup, it's called the murder stroke and it's from the time when swords most approached being a good primary weapon, when you stop using them like swords. Men-at-arms with full length long swords could cut the peasants in linen and when another man-at-arms in plate showed up, they could either half-sword in an attempt to stab through gaps in the opponents armor or grab the blade and pretend you had a hammer. Meanwhile, landsknecht got paid too much money to use a zweihander like a solid metal spear.

There's a reason why the sword has, if I'm not mistaken, been a sidearm for every army and culture.

Swords remained in use for cavalry and naval personnel after most other hand to hand weapons disappeared. In WW1, cavalry used the sword, for example. On such occasions where they did fight hand to hand, which wasn't often, of course, but it did happen.

Because it was a sidearm, for use when out of ammo or on a death or glory run.

Landsknechts and spanish tercios did incorporate swordsmen, they did have their uses. However, in general I agree that the sword has a mystique far in excess of its utility.

It's not that they're useless, it's just that their uses are limited compared to other specialized weapons, so they usually get relegated to sidearms.