When you have guns, why use a sword?

Recommended Videos

Darth Caelum

New member
Jan 21, 2010
1,748
0
0
Well, in real life i'd pick a knife rather than a full on Sword (Length and Weight Problems, Reach of the area, Getting it out of it's DAMNED SHEATH) for a secondary and a good gun for the Primary(Either a Pistol or a good Assault rifle), if this was Fallout or something.
But considering this IS JRPG's we are talking about, then say 'fuck' to the logic and get a sword the size of your house for all i care (Probably because of manliness issues.)
 

MoganFreeman

New member
Jan 28, 2009
341
0
0
Well, when your opponents sportingly stand still and give you all the time you need to sword them in between machine gun bursts, it kind of evens the playing field a tad.
 

Kazturkey

New member
Mar 1, 2009
309
0
0
Daedalus1942 said:
MessiahElephant said:
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.
Its a lot easier to stab someone to death than shoot them. It requires a modicum of intelligence to fire a gun (You need to load it and undo the safety, for example) whereas stabbity death is very easy to inflict.

Guns are still FAR better in every single situation, except the one where I've got no bullets.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
Furburt said:
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 a man with a gun is held at a disadvantage by a man with a sword, the man with the gun is unlucky or he is an idiot. There is a reason people stopped carrying the things in war a century ago - in the face of automatic and semi-automatic weapons, artillery barages that can make every inch of a square kilometer a ruined hellscape inside of 20 seconds, tanks that can send a depleted uranium shell screaming through it's equal at far greater than than an infantryman can worry a foe and aircraft that possess such frightening lethality to put them on par with vengful gods the sword simply has no place. I was issued a rifle when I served and I would take that over a sword ANY day. This is in spite of the fact that I have been a fencer for years and unlike most could reasonably kill most people I meet in a sword duel.
 

RN7

New member
Oct 27, 2009
824
0
0
Because you don't have to be as skilled with a sword to kill someone in a fun way as opposed to a gun. Bifurcating and decapitating someone swiftly is much easier than curving a bullet through and out someone's ears.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
Aphroditty said:
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.
You are mistaken in every assumption about a blade. Without armor to protect it, flesh and bone is easly turned aside by even a crude blade. A simple cleaver can cut most of the way through a limb in a single chop - imagine what a heavier blade combined with a better edge and a faster swing can do. Or, if the trusting weapon is your thing, consider the small sword. A lunge (the most basic way to deliver such a weapon) delivers a blade with nearly 2000lbs of force behind it for the average man, when only a tiny fraction of this is required to drive the weapon through the body bones and all.

Aphroditty said:
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.
It all depends on the weapon in question really. A sword, in general, has FAR more energy behind it than a bullet. Even for all their speed, bullets are very light weight objects. An exceptinally heavy round such as the .50 BMG weighs in at a mere 2 ounces, and thanks to the simple fact that it travels at around 3,000 FPS it possesses more kinetic energy than a simple sword stroke. The difference between the weapons is simply a function of how said energy is delivered to the target - bullets are, in general, much more efficient about it, and thus why they can punch through armor that would turn any blade.

Aphroditty said:
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.
I can, however, agree entirely with this. The fiction of the video game world allows swords to be awesome. In reality, where a simple pistol round is more than sufficient to kill a man, the sword is a liability at best, even in the hands of a master. One is not going to deflect a bullet with regularity or shrug off rounds like so much rain in real life. What's more, in real life one will find that a soldier/guard with minimum training will hit a man in the open with surprising ease, especially when said man has the common courtesy to not bring a gun of his own.

Aphroditty said:
Not really, no.

You do know that JFK was assassinated with a (roughly) .25 caliber bullet, right?
An interesting thing is that this round was a rifle cartridge, which, when paired with the weapon, achieves much higher velocity than say a .22 LR fired from a pistol. Still, one's skull MAY deflect such a round but chances are quite excellent that the round will instead punch through and "disrupt" one's grey matter quite nicely even if it doesn't make it all the way through.

Aphroditty said:
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.
This is generally true. Considering it takes level II body armor to STOP a .45 ACP round, and even then one still suffers significant trauma (deep tissue bruising, internal hemmoraging, broken bones and so forth), to take such a round without the benefit of any protection is a death sentence. In general, the would channel from such a round has a radius of several inches, meaning quite simply that the damage is inflicted across a far wider body volume that most people thing. A round in the sternum is going to do damage to the heart of some kind, and that is often right up there with the quickest ways to die. Lung trauma ensures that long term breathing is going to be difficult at best and the possiblity of spinal damage (and paralysis) is quite high. In general, a round through dead center of mass means the unlucky target is going to die quickly. No amount of will or badassery will keep you on your feet for long without a heartbeat or ability to draw a breath.

Aphroditty said:
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.
Yes, a sword is a deadly weapon - make no mistake. But to wield a sword properly takes YEARS of training and even then a man with a few hours instruction with a firearm has already bested you on the battlefield. Unless the swordsman can guarntee (through magic perhaps) that they will only encounter a gunman well inside sword range then they're already dead before combat begins. To put this in proper perspective, the military considers close combat to be anything under 150m precisely because even a poorly trained rifleman can consistantly hit targets at this range. What's more, even if one fells one opponent using a sword, people often have armed friends - one of them will almost certainly do the job the first one failed at.
 

Weaver

Overcaffeinated
Apr 28, 2008
8,977
0
0
In Japan swords seem to be idolized for some reason as like the best weapon ever. A sword wielder can cut bullets out of the air and fly 100 meters in like 10 milliseconds. There's a reason we don't go to war with swords anymore, guns just outclass them due to range.

However, these are video games and whatever happens happens. In DMC you can kill a lowly enemy with a few sword slashes, but it takes like 60 bullets to bring down the same enemy.
 

Char-Nobyl

New member
May 8, 2009
784
0
0
Couple reasons. Swords don't need reloading, and whoever scoffs with the phrase, "Never bring a knife to a gun fight" must come from some parallel dimension where line-of-sight is never impaired and your gun is always ready to fire with pinpoint accuracy at a moment's notice.
 

Janus Vesta

New member
Mar 25, 2008
550
0
0
In Star Ocean: The Last Hope they (kind of) justified why EDGE MAVRICK used a sword. You see EDGE MAVERICK isn't too good with a gun, he can't get used to the slight delay between firing and hitting the target. EDGE MAVERICK even uses a gun at the start of the game but he can't hit the 10 foot starship-trooper-wannabe bugs (who can block bullets) so he uses a sword. EDGE MAVERICK also trained for years before hand in a special program so he could be an expert swordsman at such a young age. Though it doesn't explain why EDGE MAVERICK's girlfriend Raimi Saionji uses a bow and arrow instead of a sword. It was explained that she studied it as a kid "because she's kind of weird".
 

djpsykotiko

New member
Jan 16, 2010
84
0
0
I'd say that maybe it's because guns are mostly used by the military type enemies. Growing up in the middle of nowhere as a nobody, you can easily practice swordplay with a stick and eventually work up to a sword. Most RPG heros come from small poor villages and probably cant afford the advanced technology. But they do usually throw in at least one gun user for your party.
 

TheKwertyeweyoppe

New member
Jan 1, 2010
118
0
0
Because they're right. katanas are awesome, which is why i never understood why JRPG heroes always use giant impractical western swords when katanas are available
 

Weaver

Overcaffeinated
Apr 28, 2008
8,977
0
0
Janus Vesta said:
In Star Ocean: The Last Hope they (kind of) justified why EDGE MAVRICK used a sword. You see EDGE MAVERICK isn't too good with a gun, he can't get used to the slight delay between firing and hitting the target. EDGE MAVERICK even uses a gun at the start of the game but he can't hit the 10 foot starship-trooper-wannabe bugs (who can block bullets) so he uses a sword. EDGE MAVERICK also trained for years before hand in a special program so he could be an expert swordsman at such a young age. Though it doesn't explain why EDGE MAVERICK's girlfriend Raimi Saionji uses a bow and arrow instead of a sword. It was explained that she studied it as a kid "because she's kind of weird".
Yeah, Star Ocean at least OFFERED an explanation. Oh, these aliens can block bullets somehow but melee weapons work, well I guess that's fine.

On an EDGE MAVERICK note, I'm having a fucking ball playing this game. Not because it's really a great game or anything, but because the dialogue is so cheesy, poorly acted and the character names are so stupid I've probably hit my record for number of puns I've made aloud at a game by time you fight your first monster. With a name like EDGE MAVERICK it's just too easy. You can make them all over the place

"Hang on to the EDGE!"
"live life on the EDGE"
"This weapon will give me an EDGE in combat"
"I'm a regular maverick"

There, I just thought of those in 20 seconds and the game just sets itself up SO hard to be constantly joked on, it's amazingly fun.

Matt1234567890 said:
Because they're right. katanas are awesome, which is why i never understood why JRPG heroes always use giant impractical western swords when katanas are available
In my opinion the Katana has been lifted to a mythical status by samurai movies and other media making it "the greatest sword ever!" A Katana could not cut through armor like everyone seems to think and is really just more or less an average blade.

"But they fold it ten billion times and it takes like a gazillion years to make one!" everyone shouts. Yes, do you want to know WHY the Japanese folded their steel? Because Japanese steel is fucking awful and full of impurities. It's very weak metal and folding it strengthened it. German steel, on the other hand, is very solid and strong and thus folding simply wasn't required.
 

MiracleOfSound

Fight like a Krogan
Jan 3, 2009
17,776
0
0
Monkeyman8 said:
MiracleOfSound said:
To compensate for lack of genital stature.
not true, it's just that my penis does not an effective melee weapon make. they use swords because they can deflect bullets, that might just be my character though.
If they were the size of JRPG swords, then penises would probably make good melee weapons.

It would require a lot of blood to maintain a rigid stance however, and you'd have to bring porn with you onto the battlefield or be turned on by violence. Otherwise your only option would be to strangle your enemies with your floppy friend.
 

Premonition

New member
Jan 25, 2010
720
0
0
WHENTWOTRIBESGOTOWAR said:
Premonition said:
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.
It makes perfect sense. In RPG's at least. Because, even if is fantasy, it still has rules. And they're crystal clear :)
 

AcacianLeaves

New member
Sep 28, 2009
1,197
0
0
Let's list the reasons that writers of video games and other fictional material utilize melee weaponry when guns are available. Obviously in the real world you would use a gun over a sword or knife. Indiana Jones and Sean Connery know this.

1. Sword fights are cool. They are graceful, suspenseful, and powerful. Shooting a gun is not usually suspenseful. This is why gunfights in the Matrix often devolved into fist fights - because up close and personal fighting is more entertaining to watch. Can you imagine The Matrix with only gunfights? Where Neo and Agent Smith exchanged fire from behind cover a la Gears of War?

2. Armor can stop a bullet. If you're properly armored you can be pretty well protected from bullets. Even minimal armor (helmets, body armor) can protect you from easy kill-shots. In a fictional world this armor may be written to easily deflect bullets, leading people to use more blades. If you want to make sure you kill someone, you have to get up and close. The obvious choice for close combat is a blade, which you can guide into someone around whatever armor they're wearing.

3. Magic. Any fiction where magic exists in unison with guns makes swords a better weapon choice. There is usually an easy way to deflect bullets with a magic spell (barrier, shields, mind-power, whatever), however it's a lot harder to 'magic away' a sword coming down on your face. This is why Lightsabers are better than blasters when fighting Jedi in Star Wars. Think Han vs. Darth Vader scene.

4. To ensure a kill. You don't know that a bullet will kill someone. People survive being shot in the head all the time. People have survived being riddled from head to toe with bullets. You can't easily survive a decapitation or a well aimed sword strike to the heart.

As far as JRPGs go, the reason can easily be a combination of all of the above.
 

LiftYourSkinnyFists

New member
Aug 15, 2009
912
0
0
Premonition said:
WHENTWOTRIBESGOTOWAR said:
Premonition said:
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.
It makes perfect sense. In RPG's at least. Because, even if is fantasy, it still has rules. And they're crystal clear :)
It only makes sense if you're heavily inked and have hair which can only be described as a multiple-point polygon.