I merely offered an honest opinion on the subject at hand and derailed nothing. All this warrior talk is making you feisty.
The shotgun pierced the armor easily, and the grenado did some good damage to it. The blunderbuss did the most damage out of any weapon. It just wasn't accurate. But what DID hit the mark pierced. The flintlock pistol did dick-all.
I am not above derailing your jiu-jitsu and MMA thread.
Originally Posted by rezo
I merely offered an honest opinion on the subject at hand and derailed nothing. All this warrior talk is making you feisty.
I've only seen the first two, but so far this show is pure fluff. I like hearing the (extremely brief) history about the weapons and their use, and seeing some of the ballistics, but there is absolutely nothing conclusive about the "who would win" scenarios. I realize the show needs a template and testing goal, however the artificial bravado and trash talk is just a time waster. I'd also prefer some of the tests be less abstract. For instance, the Katana couldn't cut through chain mail, but could it stab through it? I bet the Katana, especially in battle, could rarely cut through the Samurai armor, so it would only reason that Samurai would be well-trained in dealing with armored opponents, but they don't account for that in their analysis.
For all the experts they bring on the show, I want to see people suit up with training weapons (lipstick on the edges or w/e), and go at it a bit, get a feel for what it's like to move with the particular equipment and weapon styles. I realize that authenticity would go right out the window the moment someone feels they're losing though. It would also reason that seasoned warriors would be able to evaluate their opponent, and if they were geared for a mass military engagement, probably pare down for a 1-on-1 encounter. I haven't seen the knight episode, but that was an extremely specialized unit, and seems silly to consider it for 1-on-1...I mean, I'd take an unarmed, unarmored person over a knight in that scenario.
I think I might be more interested in just seeing how different weapons would fare against each other...like say, a rapier fencer versus a claymore or katana user. I don't know how to do it without it being completely dependent on the individuals involved...but say you had a dozen or so general "weapon experts", who after gaining some familiarity with the weapon, had a sort of round-robin melee, you might get a good overview of weapon effectiveness. Using fake weapons and battling without actual injury or context still makes it pretty moot though.
Last edited by FuryFox; 30 Apr 2009 at 04:43 PM.
This concept would make a great videogame.
And aroused.I merely offered an honest opinion on the subject at hand and derailed nothing. All this warrior talk is making you feisty.
Originally Posted by rezo
Dolemite, the Bad-Ass King of all Pimps and Hustlers
Gymkata: I mean look at da lil playah woblin his way into our hearts in the sig awwwwwww
I'm not sure if that was a joke, but that's probably one of the biggest draws to fighting games, and why I tend to prefer 3D fighters. Having the game provide the fantasy of roughly equivalent power levels for such diverse fighting styles/strategies (especially exotic, impractical things like Capoeira/Nunchaku) is a pretty compelling experience.
Obviously Soul Calibur describes this show exactly, pitting disparate, anachronistic warriors against each other.
Last edited by FuryFox; 30 Apr 2009 at 06:14 PM.
I thought Bushido Blade was a better example of this. Since at least it used realistic weapons as opposed to some of the stuff you see in Soul Calibur. A new Bushido Blade is long long overdue.
I thought everyone in Bushido Blade were just different samurai. I'm talking about a dude with a CLAYMORE fighting a dude with a BATTLE AXE.
ALSO, their nationalities are different ooh
No but seriously there's only like 2 make-believe weapons in the whole series and one of those is a combination of 2 actual weapons. I'm sure Bushido Blade has a much more realistic moveset though.
Bookmarks