When you have guns, why use a sword?

[katsa5]

The logic of sword vs guns made sense in the earlier days, Warring States (Nobunaga Oda) Era and the West, because guns were incredibly unreliable. There's always a chance that they might not hit the target, no matter how good you aim. Nowadays, guns are more efficient and well-made, swords have become more obsolete.

 

[Macgyvercas]

Any average joe can wield a gun with above average leathality, but it takes REAL skill to use a sword.

Hence, swords are more awesome.

 

[Xpwn3ntial]

snip

I stand corrected.

 

[Altorin]

as for "why use a sword when you could use a gun", I give you, Mad Jack Churchill:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill

Spoiler: This is what Cracked.com had to say about him:

Who Was He?

An allied commander in WWII, and an avid fan of surfing, Captain Jack Malcolm Thorpe Fleming Churchill aka "Fighting Jack Churchill" aka "Mad Jack" was basically the craziest ************ in the whole damn war.

He volunteered for commando duty, not actually knowing what it entailed, but knowing that it sounded dangerous, and therefore fun. He is best known for saying that "any officer who goes into action without his sword is improperly dressed" and, in following with this, for carrying a sword into battle. In WWII. And not one of those sissy ceremonial things the Marines have. No, Jack carried a fucking claymore. And he used it, too. He is credited with capturing a total of 42 Germans and a mortar squad in the middle of the night, using only his sword.

Churchill and his team were tasked with capturing a German fortification creatively called "Point 622." Churchill took the lead, charging ahead of the group into the dark through the barbed wire and mines, pitching grenades as he went. Although his unit did their best to catch up, all but six of them were lost to silly things like death. Of those six, half were wounded and all any of them had left were pistols. Then a mortar shell swung in and killed/mortally wounded everyone who wasn't Jack Churchill.

When the Germans found him, he was playing "Will Ye No Come Back Again?" on his bagpipes. Oh, we didn't mention that? He carried them right next to his big fucking sword.

After being sent to a concentration camp, he got bored and left. Just walked out. They caught him again, and sent him to a new camp. So he left again. After walking 150 miles with only a rusty can of onions for food, he was picked up by the Americans and sent back to Britain, where he demanded to be sent back into the field, only to find out (with great disappointment) the war had ended while he was on his way there. As he later said to his friends, "If it wasn't for those damn Yanks, we could have kept the war going another 10 years!"

The Best Hollywood Could Come Up With:

Colonel Bill Kilgore (Robert DuVall) from Apocalypse Now, of "I love the smell of napalm in the morning" fame.

Why It Doesn't Compare:

Well, truth be told, they're pretty much the same person. They're both at home on the battlefield, they have the same philosophies of war and both of them seem to be immune to mortar fire and bullets. Churchill's basically a crazier, Scottish version of Kilgore. With a big fucking broadsword. Like if Kilgore was played by William Wallace from Braveheart on crystal meth.

http://www.cracked.com/article_17019_5-real-life-soldiers-who-make-rambo-look-like-pussy.html

 

[viking97]

swords are instant kills and give radar stealth. wait, jrpg? oh i have no idea then

 

[Nomanslander]

Because guns eventually run out of bullets.

Blades dull eventually

Yeah but not after six rounds.

 

[SplitThought]

A master with nothing but a rock is more powerful than the amateur with the latest death-ray-mech-machine.

That being said, you can also throw your sword at someone. :3

 

[Nick Holmgren]

if your gun is old and gets wet so the bullets are useless, or if the event involves magic. IE if your against gannon then using the master sword is the only way to really finish him thus making ur gun useless

 

[KurtzGallahad]

Sex appeal
Definately just for show

 

[LiftYourSkinnyFists]

because in an RPG, it's all about the stats. Some weapons bring stats but we'll not go in to that. If an Attack Power: 100 sword with a HP char of 100 fights an AP: 20 Gun with a HP char of 20, then the sword will win.

You're not taking in to account range, lets see a guy wielding a sword run twenty feet into an oncoming hail of bullets and win. Of course, the gun will always win since JAY ARR PEE GEES arn't real and the gun will always win.

It's fantasy for a reason, because none of it bloody makes sense.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool


Just sayin'

Also, they're cheaper and easier to maintain, and don't we all love plucky characters who don't have much money and spend too much time killing baddies to bother cleaning a gun?

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

It's Rule of Cool, there's no other option really.

Also, Gameplay and Story Segregation. As mentioned, In order to keep a game balanced, they have to make swords do as much, if not more, damage than guns, and if there's instant heal magic, then guns have no real advantage over swords.

In the real world of course, a gun is always the sensible option, as long as you know how to use it safely for yourself.

 

[asinann]

well.. in the real life if you get shot in the head with a weak pistol you are dead. In video games you can get shot 3 times with a magical 10000 caliber sniper rifle and have enough time to run off and cast a healing spell. A sword is much much much stronger.

The human skull is more than hard enough to bounce off small caliber rounds (.22, .25) at a range any longer than about six feet. Small caliber handgun rounds don't travel very fast and don't hit very hard. I got shot in the forearm with a .22 long rifle round and while it hurt, the bullet bounced of the bone without doing any damage. No chips, no cracks, no breaks and your skull is harder than your forearm (the forehead is the hardest part of the human body.) Most people aren't going to shoot for the head either (small target) and most handgun rounds smaller than a .44 aren't going to do more than hurt unless they hit a vital organ and a .44 is less likely to kill you than most rifle rounds if you don't lose an organ (the hole is so large your body goes into shock.) That's how people get shot multiple times with small caliber weapons and live, you get cut by someone with any kind of blade that knows how to use it, you have almost no chance of survival if they want you dead.

 

[Sennz0r]

I like knives even more because you can be more precise, equalling more efficient kills for the skilled knife wielder.

But I suppose the don't deflect bullets like Cloud's titanium umbrella.

 

[anian]

Just reading Snow Crash and early on a point is made on why the main character decides to use two samurai swords instead of a gun to protect himself while doing his job:
"The punks in Gila Highlands weren't afraid of the gun, so the Deliverator was forced to use it. But swords need no demonstration."

 

[MercenaryCanary]

If you're good enough with any weapon, you can use it as an advantage against someone with a gun.

Given enough (and I mean a lot) of training I'm sure a master on swordsmanship could take down an amateur mook with a gun.

Er...
Considering that pretty much all firearms require little skill to use, said swordman would have to be extremely good at his skills.

 

[almostgold]

In KOTOR, they tried to justify it by saying that vibroblades cut through energy shields, which was pretty bullshit. I'd honestly just rather a game straight up tell me its for gameplay resons than try to fool me. Same witht the sniper from Halo leaving a massive white line.