When you have guns, why use a sword?

[Grayjack]

Because melee weapons look cooler.

 

[Kuchinawa212]

Yeah!

the hit me right when I kept loosing in sword fights in Red Steel
I HAVE A SHOT GUN! why can't I just fill the idiot the brought a knife to a gunfight full of buckshot and move on?

 

[ProtoChimp]

Because ripping the shit out of a well funded army who have a ton of guns with a sword is just badass.
Case in point:(skip to 0:52 for the awesome part.)

 

[Syndef]

It doesn't even have to be in JRPG's. I guess we just know how to appreciate a show of skill. Swords are definitely harder to use than guns, so I guess when you see someone waving it around and actually doing damage, it's something to respect. I've heard arguments about how a sword could possibly superior to a gun, but in all honesty, a dude with a projectile weapon is always more dangerous than a dude with a blade.
Even in the Middle Ages this was true. What's a disciplined knight that endured years of training in hand to hand combat if he has a crossbow bolt lodged in his head? Poof. All that glamor, dedication, and glory, all gone in an instant.

 

[Not-here-anymore]

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.

If by 'a lot of training' you mean bullet proof skin and/or access to the force, and all the jedi-like reflexes that entails, then yes. But guns have a subtle advantage in the range department (assuming we mean rifles rather than pistols). Hell, a bow has a decent advantage in range.

Although swords look cooler. In games, anyway. In real life, probably a little bit messier...

Because ripping the shit out of a well funded army who have a ton of guns with a sword is just badass.
Case in point:(skip to 0:52 for the awesome part.)

Indeed, but magic is cheating.

 

[anthony87]

Because a sword fight is cooler than a gun fight.

Then again there's always;

 

[quack35]

Swords are cool. So just drop it.

 

[Aphroditty]

Because swinging a gun won't cut someone in half unless it's a gun-blade.

You can't cut someone in half with a sword, not in practical terms. Seriously, go buy a claymore and try to hack a person up. You can do some awful damage, but you're not going to be severing limbs at a very high rate. Compare to weapons like the Kalashnikov or AR 15, whose bullets rip and rend flesh, smash bone, and even fragment to compound the damage.

Suppose one fictional character could withstand a bullet shot? Then a sword could do the job. They cut, and have A LOT more kinetic energy. Even if they wouldn't cut, or any of that, the energy laid on your body could damage it severely, whereas if a bullet wouldn't cut, it would give a minor puff.

Nothing said here is true. A bullet clearly has more kinetic energy, unless it's at the end of its trajectory. For example, imagine swinging a sword with all your might, and that in that swing you somehow manage to hit a bullet dead on -- like a bat hitting a baseball, except in this case the baseball is likely moving faster than the speed of sound, and all its force is concentrated into one point. If your gun is unable to inflict serious harm on an unarmored opponent, hitting them with a sword is going to be the rough equivalent of mugging a UFC fighter with a whiffle bat.

Basically, the reason swords are still prevalent in video game worlds where there are also guns is because they are effective in those video game worlds. The reason we keep making up worlds where guns are, overall, less effective than swords is largely psychological. Swords are, in a huge nutshell, a symbol of awesomeness, manliness, power and nobility. Guns are violent, dirty, and cheap -- which is of course why they supplanted swords in the first place.

EDIT:

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.

Not really, no.

You do know that JFK was assassinated with a (roughly) .25 caliber bullet, right? Yeah, he wasn't shot in the forehead, but seriously, go shoot yourself in the forehead at six feet and tell me if you're still functional, regardless of whether or not you die from brain hemorrhaging. Yes, most people won't shoot for the head -- they'll shoot for your goddamn chest. I don't care who you are, take a pop from a .45 ACP in the sternum and you are not going to keep on trucking with your piddly sword. You will have the wind ripped out of you, and a kid can do that for chrissakes. A knife is some deadly stuff up close, yeah -- but you really do have to know what you're doing, or else you're just cutting so much meat. A bullet wound isn't instant death, but it is (generally) far more debilitating than an inexpert knife cut.

 

[ModsDeleteThisAccountPlease]

This topic will relate somewhat to JRPGs, and I'll be honest, I love me some Final Fantasy, but in a world filled with machine guns, rifles and rocket launchers why the hell would you use a sword? In almost every JRPG involving guns, the main character will use a sword and still not die despite hundreds of bullets ripping through him (or her). What is the logic behind this? And while some games aren't like that, I'm just curious to here what you guys think the reason for this would be.

Because bad-assery is bringing knives to a gun fight, and then winning. Except here, the knives is a huge ass sword.

 

[moose_man]

because a guy with a sword will beat a guy with a gun if neither know how to use it.

 

[manythings]

To prove you are the more bad ass of the two? If neither of you has ammo? He's blind? The guns are broken? Aesthetics? There are valid scenarios to this. You should phrase the question a bit more stringently.

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.

Not really, no.

You do know that JFK was assassinated with a (roughly) .25 caliber bullet, right? Yeah, he wasn't shot in the forehead, but seriously, go shoot yourself in the forehead at six feet and tell me if you're still functional, regardless of whether or not you die from brain hemorrhaging. Yes, most people won't shoot for the head -- they'll shoot for your goddamn chest. I don't care who you are, take a pop from a .45 ACP in the sternum and you are not going to keep on trucking with your piddly sword. You will have the wind ripped out of you, and a kid can do that for chrissakes. A knife is some deadly stuff up close, yeah -- but you really do have to know what you're doing, or else you're just cutting so much meat. A bullet wound isn't instant death, but it is (generally) far more debilitating than an inexpert knife cut.[/quote]

I would just like to note that the first balistics expert, pre "magic bullet" theory, said that with that rifle, that ammo and Lee Harvey Oswald's experience and skill with said weapon there was no chance he could've made that shot from the Book Depository.

EDIT: Quotes thing didn't work right, annoying.

 

[MuddShark6]

In JRPGs bullets are actually skittles. Swords beats skittles everytime. My theory anyways.

 

[Zedzero]

Because guns eventually run out of bullets.

And swords eventually get dull...plus it's hard to deflect a bullet, plus they move pretty fast and can be deadly in one hit or can severly cripple a person in pain.

OT: It's just a way of keeping their samurai tradition.

 

[Bjorg3in]

Obviously cause a sword is more dramatic than a gun usually.

 

[Kazturkey]

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.

If the mook knew how to fire the gun, and it was a big one, and it was in an open-ish area, not a chance. I'm an amateur mook (Fired a shotgun once) and if some guy is running at me with a sword, and I've got a gun, he's honestly not going to get near me.

 

[Zannah]

Given the amount of enemies that you butcher on your way through your average Jrpg, If you would carry a gun, and the required amounts of ammunition, your party would consist of the hero and 7-8 mules. Using melee-weapons, you only have to carry 3-4 swords, in case one or two chip on the way.

pseudo-scientific answer, even in theory making a little tiny bit of sense, your welcome.

 

[Daedalus1942]

This topic will relate somewhat to JRPGs, and I'll be honest, I love me some Final Fantasy, but in a world filled with machine guns, rifles and rocket launchers why the hell would you use a sword? In almost every JRPG involving guns, the main character will use a sword and still not die despite hundreds of bullets ripping through him (or her). What is the logic behind this? And while some games aren't like that, I'm just curious to here what you guys think the reason for this would be.

Usually those games have magic in them which could validify why they don't die, as for all Jrpg's using swords, the wild arms series and Valkyria Chronicles don't.
Also, it takes more skill to kill someone with a sword rather than a firearm and they are deemed as just in general a "cooler" weapon.

 

[Anticitizen_Two]

Because it's badass.

 

[Ziadaine_v1legacy]

Well it wouldn't be much of a FANTASY if it didn't have some unique "Slashys" in it. Though in FF-8 and FF-13 they've decided to merge them together, for lol's.