When you have guns, why use a sword?

Recommended Videos

Creator1234

New member
Jul 17, 2009
50
0
0
Well there are a lot more places that if sliced you will die than if your shot, also kmives are a lot easier to conceal than guns but as for clouds buster sword thats still got me stumped :/
 

Kazturkey

New member
Mar 1, 2009
309
0
0
Phenakist said:
Because you can't cut a person in half with a bullet.
50.cal rifle will explode your head like a watermelon after going through a couple of brick walls. Also, you can't cut someone in half with a sword either unless you're the fucking hulk.
 

Kazturkey

New member
Mar 1, 2009
309
0
0
Creator1234 said:
Well there are a lot more places that if sliced you will die than if your shot, also kmives are a lot easier to conceal than guns but as for clouds buster sword thats still got me stumped :/
Incorrect, you'd have to stab me in a couple of very specific places to kill me but if I shoot you just about anywhere in the chest or head with a .45 ACP round from a colt, you're going to either die or lie on the ground bleeding.
 

Above

New member
Oct 3, 2009
443
0
0
Because swords are better than boring guns,being able to slice someone into confetti,or just tap a trigger a couple of times?
 

jamesworkshop

New member
Sep 3, 2008
2,683
0
0
In a modern setting swords are next to useless in simple terms we stopped using swords because armour became to effective and we stopped wearing armour when firepower made a mockery of it from 50 yards away while needing no real training and makes a very loud noise while doing so
we also stopped using cavalry once the machine gun was perfected.
Guns kill quicker, with less effort, and create nastier wounds.
 

TeacakeWeasel

New member
Feb 18, 2010
61
0
0
Because there is the general assumption that the person carrying the sword can move with superhuman speed, he storms through the opponents numbers like a giant lawnmower without injuries inflicted on himself.

but then the opponents realise the error of sending idiots who fire from the hip to fight this man, to resolve this matter: they send in the damage soaking thicky that wears armour plating that swords can't cut through and is armed with a flamethrower.
sword boy is in for a world of pain.
_______________________________
I'm not saying guns are better then swords (although they are), i'm saying that swords are inferior to flamethrowers.
just think about it, with swords, all you get is a dead enemy and a horrible mess,
But with a flamethrower you get, a dead enemy, a terrible mess, damage to the nearby environment and a bad smell
 

traineesword

New member
Jan 24, 2010
410
0
0
i could answer this question in several ways

1) because obviously, if he's so stupid as to use a sword instead of a gun, he is also too stupid to realise that he's actually been dead since the first 10 bullets he took.

2) In JRPG's, the swords can he really big but used as deftly as if it were a stick, so blocking bullets will become possible pretty quickly

3) its a different world... maybe they would rather have a Strawberry Ice-cream instead of Chocolate because it actually tastes nicer because the world is messed up in that aspect too. Games aren't really supposed to make sense, even the ones that really try to be realistic will have an aspect that isn't right. because if it was just like real-life, it would suck!

4) also, because you always look cool with a sword. in games, people who use swords don't actually tend to be skilled in the way of the sword or any crap like that, they just tend to have super reflexes and can move really fast. so spinning round the sword in your hand really fast, slashing the enemy several times in places really far away from each other than suddenly appearing behind them to stab them looks cool, especially if its fast, however, it takes very little "skill in the sword" (but an impossible amount of skill in other ways)
oh the other hand, if you don't have "skill" with a gun, it doesn't matter how fastyou can draw it, "RevolverOcelot" it in your hands etc. if each ruddy time you actually fire it you miss because you don't have the skills.

only problem with 4 is if they go against another sword-user who is actually skilled with a sword as well as fast...
 

Gunslinger_GearRust

New member
Nov 19, 2009
10
0
0
TeacakeWeasel said:
Because there is the general assumption that the person carrying the sword can move with superhuman speed, he storms through the opponents numbers like a giant lawnmower without injuries inflicted on himself.

but then the opponents realise the error of sending idiots who fire from the hip to fight this man, to resolve this matter: they send in the damage soaking thicky that wears armour plating that swords can't cut through and is armed with a flamethrower.
sword boy is in for a world of pain.
_______________________________
I'm not saying guns are better then swords (although they are), i'm saying that swords are inferior to flamethrowers.
just think about it, with swords, all you get is a dead enemy and a horrible mess,
But with a flamethrower you get, a dead enemy, a terrible mess, damage to the nearby environment and a bad smell
AH YES! The God of Steel Complex, one who believes that with the might of a sword he can mow down countless lambs to his slaughter. The ultimate moral booster.

How could I possibly forget that plague of psychological disease which Kiwo just had to spread to the West. Along with the wretched Generic Guns Psychosis, where a gun is about a generic as the solider getting mowed down with that guy with the giant butter-knife.