“When You Have Guns, Why Use a Sword?”

raging-schoolgirl-by-combat-bizen-osafune

Western gamers have once again been the cause of consternation amongst Japanese JRPG fans as they dared to question why it is JRPG heroes insist on using swords despite the availability of perfectly good guns in the same world.

The discussion started amongst English speaking gamers:

When you have guns, why use a sword?

“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 it’s a sword, and is therefore cooler than a gun?”

“I suppose the sword is still in there because it is symbolic of power, I think.
After all, you get crossed swords on walls, not so much crossed guns.

So I just think they are in there because they symbolise power, and perhaps bravery, as the person has to be willing to charge the enemy…”

“Because the Japs think swords are more cool than guns.”

“To compensate for lack of genital stature.”

“I’m going to give you the only logical answer. Games defy logic (especially JRPGs) just to put that super stupidly impractical awesome sword in your hands.”

“It takes more XP to level up bullets than guns because the points are distributed evenly amongst all the bullets in the clip.

There are two level 10 characters, one with a gun and one with a sword. The sword is level 10 which is highly effective against a level 10 character. The bullets are only level 3 which is not enough to get past the damage resistance of a level 10 character.

It’s simple maths really. I don’t know why the military don’t do proper research on this and train all soldiers with swords.”

“To be badass. Case Solved.”

“Would you prefer playing an RPG where you just picked up a rocket launcher and killed everybody in one hit with it?

It’s way more fun using a sword and casting a lightning bolt and riding a chocobo than just using some lame gun like in every other FPS clone out there.”

“Hardly unique to JRPGs though. Hell, Fallout 3 offers a wide variety of melee weapons, many of which are vastly more effective than most of the small arms in the game. […] Realistically, the guy that wins the bayonet fight is the guy with one bullet left.”

“In Star Ocean: The Last Hope they (kind of) justified why EDGE MAVERICK 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. […] 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.'”

“It’s a samurai wet-dream to defeat guns with a sword. That is the JRPG ethos, also known as gayshido.”

“Are you seriously pondering the realism of a JRPG?”

Soon this discussion spread to the insular world of Japanese gamers.

The 2ch response is less than insightful, with most commentators evidently having trouble grasping that it is the presence of swords and guns in the same setting which is what seems so counter-intuitive, not the dominance of swords as a whole:

“Because Japan is not a gun society!”

“The story is based on swords and magic.”

“Because it’s boring with guns!”

“They’re not really looking for realism anyway.”

“It’s because looks get the highest priority. Look at Gattsu swinging his great big sword about.”

“Wait, don’t they have swords in Star Wars? The setting even explains that they can deflect projectiles.”

“Guns are just tools for killing but with swords you have bushido.”

“Foreigners have no dreams. Why do you have to think about everything in terms of realism?”

“These guys only know about FF anyway.”

“What I’d like to know is why you can be shot hundreds of times in an FPS and it automatically regenerates your health…”

“It’s a game so stop thinking about that stuff.”

“What’s fun about a gunfight? It’s just noisy and boring.”

“A gold sword is stronger than an iron sword. There’s no point in trying to explain this stuff in the first place.”

“Japan isn’t a gun society so guns are part of the fantasy to Japanese, hence both appearing together.”

“I felt it was a bit off having combat aircraft flying overhead whilst troops on the ground were all fighting with swords in FF12’s intro.”

“The combat in FF is really basic considering the tech they have, isn’t it?”

“The movements used in firing a gun are quite small.”

“Because it’s a JRPG. You want some beefcake firing a gun, you play western games.”

“JRPGs have a traditional level system. It’s no good just being able to one-shot someone. Eh? Fallout? What’s that?”

“This is what is called “samurai.” Foreigners will never understand this and that’s fine with me.”

“Foreigners just don’t understand Japanese artistic sensibilities.”

“It’s due to historical differences? American history started with the gun around, but Japan has mythical blades like Kusanagi from ancient history. It’s a historical difference. American history is just shabby.”

“It’s exciting to hear about Excalibur or similar. Not so exciting to hear about some guy’s AK47.”

“Foreigners have no imagination.”

“For Japan, guns always a villainous image, being used dishonourably in traps or to take hostages. It’s about the image. Like with Kenshiro and Jagi.”

“You wouldn’t want Harry Potter to be waving a gun around.”

“It’s because those huge swords just look so cool.”

Leave a Comment

819 Comments

    • People always whine and b*tch, and not not westerners…

      Why can’t East and West accept each other’s raunchy fetishes, hot kinks and various turn-ons–er, I mean weapon preferences, game audience targets and appealing videogame protagonists..?

      It’s always the constant comparing and b*tching about “Why do you have this?” or “Why is it like that?”…

      Personally, we should be strengthening and working together to make games that appeal to BOTH east and west and not just for the convenience of the other so we can end these petty conflicts that (eventually, if not already) spiral into hatred and loathing…

      I mean, we both make porn–er, games that appeal to our culture, so why not make games that appeals to both..?

      @Palmtop Tiger

      “It never needs reloading.”

      Indeed~

      Also, When I think of Guns and Swords, I instantly think of Dante from Capcom’s “Devil May Cry”…

    • in the world of jrpg’s you can get machine gunned a hundred times in the chest and still walk away, but if you get shot in the chest once during a cutscene, you’re a dead man.

      the same is true about swords. -sephiroth&aeris.

      and beachballs wakka ffx

      and ball in a cup genis tos.

    • Never needs reloading, AND assuming superhuman strength, a sword has more potential than a gun. A sword can sever a person in two. A gun can only ever hope to put a little hole in them.

      But honestly, this topic is stupid. Games have unrealistic elements, either to make the gameplay more fun, programming limitations, or because it’s a fantasy setting. A critical analysis is hardly required to see something so ridiculously obvious.

      • There are guns that have the same potential as swords. Just find the right one and it can pretty much tear up a body just as or better look up AA12 which the ammunition can be interchanged with grenades too….

    • Why not make combination sword and gun ? Since Sword doesn’t need targetting, just hack and slash @ ur victim, while gun u need to target and reload ( except Machine Gun which is heavy but u can shoot at random )

      and One side notes

      GUNS ( and its ammo ) ARE EXPENSIVE !
      while
      SWORDS doesn’t need one.

    • I said both have advantages and disadvantages. But having both just makes you awesome. Look at “Devil May Cry” The main character Dante has both and is one of the most badass people in gaming. He uses his guns for long range, then gets in close to finish them off. They work together PB&J. For short, who wouldn’t want a cool gun fight that with bullets flying everywhere and final shot that finish the opponent off flying. Or the joy of duking out with someone with every swing of the sword just to end it with a final blow that has cool poses. I say both or nothing.

      • But archers are so fun to play as. -3-

        By the way, Archery is also just as if not as hard to master as it is with swords. Not only does it require physical aptitude rivaling those of the heavy weapons persuasion (most warbows back in the days were produced with draws in the excess of 80 lbs, some even over) and you had to be able to hold it too (because you were expected to aim with it and fire continuously). Now add that to the skill required to both fire them and redraw for another shot as quickly as possible (you were expected when the enemy is charging you with Knights) you needed to have serious training to be able to shoot with the best.

        Now combine that with the Cavalry archers from mongolia who were not only taught to shoot from Horseback (firing while STANDING on a horse and moving) but also to fire freaking BACKWARDS, you now have one of the most difficult to master weapons in the world.

      • Depends on the metal used and the forging method. A well forged blade can maintain its sharpness much longer than any run of the mill weapon.

        Taking that into account, a lot of weapons are subject to the inverse law of sharpness and durability. Often times the most durable weapons can’t really maintain an edge while the sharper weapons are much easier to chip.

    • Japanese blades are known to break after carving up a few bodies. They’re practically a disposable weapon and only good as demonstration piece or as a collectors item.

      Who cares if it ‘never needs reloading’, when push comes to shove it’ll let you down. It cannot stop bullets, nor can it hack through more than a dozen foes.

      The only swords that can do that and survive are massive broadswords and I doubt your needy ass could even lift one. Fag.

    • Swords are more useful in some type of close combat settings. Guns (esp. riffles) more in areal combat. Much of it depends on the skill of the wielder of course, no matter if you have a machine gun or a spoon.

      As for Japanes, think it’s more a tradition thing.

        • @Anon 7:53 Truth

          Bayonet’s were also used quite often in WW1. Great for if your gun jams or to stop a rush on a trench.

          As a matter of fact they were used in WW2 for trench fighting, but were often made out of the combat knives of the fallen. Mostly because the Allied troops were under supplied and had to make due with what was on hand.

        • “The British Army performed bayonet charges during the Falklands War, the Second Gulf War, and the war in Afghanistan.[6] Recently in Iraq at the Battle of Danny Boy, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders bayonet charged mortar positions filled with over 100 Mahdi Army members. The ensuing hand to hand fighting resulted in an estimate of over 40 insurgents killed and 35 bodies collected (many floated down the river) and 9 prisoners. Sergeant Brian Wood, of the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment, was awarded the Military Cross for his part in the battle.[7] This engagement brought to notice the tactical use of the weapon for close combat and the sheer psychological effect it can have. Similarly, in 2009, Lieutenant James Adamson, aged 24, of the Royal Regiment of Scotland was awarded the Military Cross for a bayonet charge whilst on a tour of duty in Afghanistan: after shooting one Taliban fighter dead Adamson had run out of ammunition when another enemy appeared. Adamson immediately charged the second Taliban fighter and bayoneted him.[8]”

          The last time the US had a bayonet charge was in the Korean War. (I’ve been to the hill where it happened.)

        • Today bayonets are only used as a last resort when you’re out of ammo our your weapon is damaged, bayonets stem from a time where it took minutes to reload your weapon and it was practical to be able to convert your weapon into a spear to prepare for close combat.

        • Bayonet use is very rare in modern ware fare. If your at that range, a knife tends to be the weapon of choice.

          I know quite a few people in Iraq who had to open some necks, but none have had to use their bayonet, except as a crowd control device.

        • I can if they’re fast enough. Subconciously a man usinga gun will have a WTF moment(read logical disconnect) lasting at minimum 2 nanoseconds. If you’re close enough and fast enough that’s enough time. It is highly improbable however but it is certainly possible. Also in martial arts classes they do still teach moves that are designed to disarm a gunman. My old instructor showed one of em to us once.

    • In a world with proper guns then swords have no place like they do in todays world. Short blades like knives can be useful in close quarter combat, some sort of super pro assassins could even use swords in those circumstances, but in open combat and in big open areas guns would always win. Swords are ‘cooler’ yea. But guns can kill you from further away 😛

      • I’ll try to tackle this question a bit better.

        1) You’re not always going up against something humanoid in size or shape, Trying to drop a behemoth for example would probably require you to have a gun with a very high calibur… where as cuts inflicted by a sword can always cause the thing to bleed out.

        2) Unless you carry around a mobile bullet factory, it can be very hard to resupply on the field… Running out of bullets is a huge issue for modern day soldiers as you can only pack around *so* many magazines before it starts to cut into space needed for your *useful* supplies, like food.

        3) Well made swords/axes don’t need as much upkeep as a Gun… Swords need sharpening and they need to be repaired if they chip. Guns need constant cleaning and oiling or they jam/misfire… and god forbid you do something like drop a gun in sand, that’ll require you to strip the whole thing.

        4) Sometimes guns just aren’t the right tool for the job, either they make too much noise or they lack stopping power or they’d inflict too much collateral damage or their ammunition is just plain dangerous to carry.

        • problem, even though a war axe or warhammer would work better against a bear, thats just fucking stupid. how we killed bears is we’d get a nice posse and some spears, circle around it, constantly piercing its skin, slowly letting it bleed out without getting to close.

        • Which is why when fighting bears a War axe,War hamer or mace not to mention any of their variants are better. They have thye ability to crus and/or shatter the bears bones.

          BTW i have indeed put ALOT of thought into this seeing as i want to someday have a special suit of armor made and go melee fight abear.

        • Also, IRL things like *bears* are hard to kill with most guns, due to thick hide + bones. Trying to get a bullet inside the cranium is incredibly hard due to their thick skull and their general body posture isn’t exactly conducive to putting a bullet in a major organ like the heart.

          Most people are jaded in how easy they think guns are to kill with due to a humans upright body posture which leaves a lot of our organs open to being damaged. We also have pretty thin skulls with huge brains all things considered, an animal with a smaller brain will tend to have an even thicker / more heavily muscled head which makes it harder to kill in a single shot.

        • Someone actually answered the fucking question. Thank god.

          And shooting a gun is not easy AT ALL. There’s a way to aim, a way to hold a gun, a way to position your body depending on the type of gun you’re holding. People take for granted that just because a gun is fast and effective that it doesn’t take skill to shoot properly. If that were the case there would be no legendary gunslingers of the old west.

          And if winning a battle was just a matter of armament and not skill US troops wouldn’t have gotten their asses handed to them by rag tag insurgents in Iraq.

    • Who cares if it doesn’t, I can shoot you 30 times before you get in range to use that sword.

      There is a reason swords haven’t been a main infranty weapon for a long, long time. They were inferior to the spear for main army use, and completely outclassed by the gun following that.

      • That’s if you can. Since my earlier post hasn’t shown up i’ll say it again. There will be a logical disconnect for people usinga gun when someone comes at them witha sword. Giving the swordsman about 2 nanosecond at least maybe more. Depending on the range and speed of the melee user they can win. It is improbable that they will but they can. Don’t go all macho this is what i would do. I have been in fights barroom brawl style and thensome so i KNOW how i would react. But as for most people they just blow it out their ass. Besides while guns are easy to USE aiming is another matter.

        • Just FYI: two nanoseconds is two billionth of a second. Considering how our universe works, a window of 2 nanoseconds is not enough for any human to do anything (light in empty space would only travel 0.6 meters in such interval). Srsly, if you want to make a point, at least don’t make such a obvious mistake. Though reaction time argument in close quarters is still valid I guess (reaction delay is just not 2 fucking nanoseconds).

        • In the past, they don’t bother with aiming and just fire volleys, since those guns have pathetic accuracy. And the riflemen have about a 25% chance of hitting anything. Massed fire increases the chances.

          Personally, why not a gun AND a sword? Shoot enemies that come at you until they get within melee range, then proceed to hack and slash, using the gun as a means to counterattack with a nice bullet in the belly after a block.

    • Never needing to reload wont do much good when you were sniped so far from the enemy you couldnt throw the sword to hit him. 😛

      Daggers are understandable in close quarters but in long range open field battle, swords have no place.

        • it’s actually to do with mentality and the fact that swords are generally regarded as more honorable than guns

          yes, you could just pull out a gun and shoot the guy in the face, but when you kill someone, you have to make a point and essentially prove that you are better with them

          anyone can pull a trigger, not everyone can swing a sword well

        • Guns have a set amount of damage- an AK round will be just as powerful when shot by a SPEZNAS as it is when shot by a Somali Islamist.

          This is not the case with swords or meleé weapons in general, for instance a hardened soldier will do much more damage with a blade than a 11-year-old girl. Except if she happens to be a killerloli.

        • Why RPG chars use sword or melee weps?
          Simply – coz, they have supernatural strenght, durability etc etc. When u use sword, injures u cause are COMBINATION of melee weapon cuttin/hacking/slashing/whatever ABILITY and CHARACTERS PHYSICAL ABILITY (well, sometimes mental/magical). When using guns, the only thing it depends on is amount of gunpowder (yeah yeah, shape and calliber of bullet too, but to less extent).
          So now, aswer me, why use gun, that can only shoot through wooden deck, when character is strong enough to break through concrete block with bare fists?

          And whats more, why the hell make realistic games? If u want realism – go outside and find life -.-

          Cheers

        • Well it generally is in the interest of the fun factor, but if you compare a gun to say sword in terms of damage, often times, the sword actually wins out because of the mass and force behind it. The only reason why humans are so susceptible is because we are made of explodium.

          Of course missiles are a completely different story. I guess it is all in the fun factor.

        • W T F ?

          Don’t group ‘Western gamers’ like this. I myself is one of them, but I never questioned such. If a swordfight seems right, then go for it, don’t reach for your guns. I’m pretty sure some Japanese would question this as well. It’s a matter of being able to leave games and reality apart. Has nothing to do with where you come from.

        • They actually exist. Sword that converts into assault rifle like in FFXIII would actually be as badass as impractical, but so would FFVIII’s sword that uses powder charges for extra damage.

          A lot of games kind of explain the dominance of the sword one way or another. For example, in FFVII guns are generally low damage weapons, so being able to snipe people doesn’t do much. In lots of other games guns and swords are counterbalanced in a way that somehow makes swords practical in a world with guns.

        • both have their advantages and disadvantages:
          with a blade, you need to score a precise hit to do a lot of initial damage, unless you go for bleeding your victim to death or breaking his/her bones. and that is not easy if they wear strong armour, or are very nimble.
          also, you need to get very close.
          light weapons with a far reach (halberd, flail, pike, etc.) are more practical, but useless in close combat. a mace or a hatchet might be the best bet against someone wearing armour.
          blunt weapons are good too, they don’t need sharpening to be effective. but it’s difficult to kill someone quickly with them.
          guns have to be loaded with ammo – and the ammo must be effective against the target. hv ammo causes wounds but doesn’t incapacitate quickly. hp is very effective against unprotected tissue, but doesn’t do much damage against armour. u238 coated bullets are mostly useful to kill the crew inside heavily reinforced vehicles.
          automatic weapons need a lot of ammo – do you want your delicate hero to carry around 100s of assault rifle clips?
          the same goes for heavy weaponry. rocket launchers can be very light, but who’s going to carry around 100 rockets for you?

          if you wan’t a realistic setting, you should go for an assault rifle or a repeating rifle with a bayonet and a few clips of various ammo types. then be conservative with using them up. or hope the enemy uses the same type of ammo.

          jrpgs are not meant to be realistic. if you want realism, play a realistic game. if you want fantasy, play a fantasy game. it’s as simple as that.

        • When it comes to zombie apocalypse, yo’ll need a decent sword so you can conserve ammo

          when it comes to sci-fi you can easily deflect laser pistol with a little swing ( assuming you’re a jedi )

          when it comes to world war you can yell tenno heiko banzai !!! and charge up to front line

          when it comes to absurdness you can cut up even an airplane with your sword

          bottom line … its cool

        • if it’s about logical then when yo got shot first you must get the bullet out and stitch your wound,but what they use is just some med kit and my health bar back to 100%
          medkit is not a fantasy jrpg style potion no

          so which one is close to logic,gun wound with med kits or sword/melee wound with magical potion ?

        • You don’t get the:

          1. May the bigger Gun Win
          2. Snipers can Kill All.
          3. I have better skill than you. (I shoot faster and got you).
          4. Spray and Pray and kill the enemy VS Wave Sword And Succeed.
          5. Who cares. Just Nuke them.

          OR we can go with…

          Disarming Criminals with Kendo Sticks (Sankaku did cover that.)

          and miss out on an Oakland Transit Officer accidentally drawing his Pistol instead of his Taser.

          At least the Kendo Stick has less Drama than a Gun (oops Taser). Note, you can use a Club with less social anger than a gun. Everyone Buy hoses and spray the zombies off the Bridge. I meant Kids.

        • @Anonymous at 13:34

          I have been military trained and so I can tell you for sure that firearms are uch easier to learn than swords or those melee stuff…

          It takes a few hours for a soldier to be taught about the technical informations required, a couple of days for them to get use to reloading, carrying the firearms around and probably a couple of weeks for him to fire decently, IN A RANGE…

          But try picking up fencing, kendo, etc… It is going to take you weeks just to get the stances carved into you mind, and even months to be able to swing a sword well… Let alone use it!

          Thats because you need to train you body to utilise the weapon of choice… On the other hand, even a fat-kid can fire decently with around 2weeks of firearms training…

        • ‘Guns have a set amount of damage- an AK round will be just as powerful when shot by a SPEZNAS as it is when shot by a Somali Islamist.

          This is not the case with swords or meleé weapons in general,’

          Also note that a bullet to the leg is not a bullet between the eyes, and a sword to the leg is not the same as a sword through the eye socket.

          In other words, hit locations matter.

          A Spetznatz with an AK47 would probably hit between the eyes nine times out of ten, whereas a jihadi would probably miss the target five times out of ten.

        • its because swords are a symbol of bravery, honor and power, any fool can point a gun at you an just pull the trigger, besides you guys are forgeting that the characters in JRPGS are not NORMAL, they have super human strenght and speed, they can dodge bullets or deflect them with the sword, thats why if you put a sword in a super human arms it will work better than having stupid ass gun, just think about it, would a gun work with someone like sepiroth? or kefka?, nop it wouldnt, thats why swords are better in this tipes of games

        • Simple. It just looks cool as hell. Dodging and deflecting bullets. Now that is cool. Besides in the game, they usually explain how the guns(in their universe) are either weak or under developed or that the sword has some kind of power which makes it better than guns.

          If you ask in real life, I would say that carrying bullets and the limit of it a factor why one might use a sword. In real life there has always been a debate that is still going on today : the 5.56 rounds vs the 7.62 rounds. Although 5.56 rounds are lighter(therefore you could carry more) they have lesser damage compared to the 7.62 but the 7.62 is heavy and the weight is stressful to the soldier. Nevertheless, the weight and the limited amount of bullets is a problem a gun user faces. That is also why they still carry knives around.

          I don’t think that it is not possible for swords to be used today, but not as a primary weapon of course. Well there are tons and tons of reason why swords are still used in games and even in anime besides the fact that it looks cool.

          Katana vs gun(.45 caliber, not the weaker 9mm) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNiX_l-HEGM And that is without their super ass ninja skills!

        • Srsly guys, it also takes skill to shoot guns. Its _NOT_ like playing Counterstrike or Call of Duty. Headshotting with a mouse or a joystick does not translate to real life.

          Go on, go to a range. Pick up a gun. A real gun, NERF gun, paintball gun, airsoft gun, a rubber-band gun, a crossbow, a longbow, a javelin, a slingshot. Try to hit something. Not so fucking easy now innit?

        • Because martial-arts combat was still “fair” in the eyes of the beholder whereas the new firearms warfare is really “unfair” since the best armed army will usually win the fight regardless of training.

          Training with a sword or fists are usually linked with honor and dedication which leads to heroes whereas in rpgs people that use guns are taken as cowards.

          I’d go deeper and say that war was never beautiful and guns just made it more evident but that’s going too deep in a superficial argument so I’ll leave it as is.

      • That’s called cowardice and the opposite of the image the hero has in these kind of games.

        Also, there is one more simple reason. Guns don’t intimidate people like swords, because even if you know, you can’t really imagine how bad a gun can hurt you, but with a sword it’s a different story, or so I heard.

      • Then everyone might as well claim the chainsaws on those Lancer guns in Gears of War as useless, since realistically it requires time to start up, and it relies heavily on some form of power to rotate it. But guess what? People still enjoyed using them in games, so why make it sound like nobody wants it in the game?

        I really hate it when a minority of whiners always end up louder than the supporters.

      • Thats true. When we watch a mech series like Gundam, close combat/swords are always preferred and “superior”. This is not true in real life, tell me if there’s any human who can hold a katana and dash forwards, evading every single bullet, or a pilot that evades every single laser beam shot, when lasers travel at the speed of light.

        • But Gundam are more like a super robot series, than a realistic series so…
          …a mecha slicing a humongous space station with a sword… sure is an epic sword with +525 strenght, +1.000.000 dodge rating.

        • I heard the story of a British soldier in WW2 that had his arm cut off by a Japanese officer during the storming of a hill. In his blood lust he grabbed the sword from the officer with his other arm, killed the man and then kept charging the hill. 1 armed, with only a katana, and what I can assume to be the biggest balls any one man ever possessed. He killed and wounded several men before being shot down, but his act of pure insanity encouraged the other british soldiers to follow suit and charge the hill in what I assume to be a sort of blood orgy, needless to say the Japanese surrendered.

      • What if you, or your target is physically faster then a bullet? This is often portrayed in anime and even some western films.

        Your only option is to use a melee weapon, then if you are bad ass enough, like DBZ ridiculous, only your own personal power and fist will even work since no material or weapon can even harm you or your foe.

      • This reminds me of those stupid arguments like “why don’t you learn to play an actual guitar instead of playing Guitar Hero”.

        It’s a game, it doesn’t need to be 100% realistic; it just needs to blow your mind.

      • Especially with the range and stopping power of today’s rifles. You can reload in a second and then continue firing. It’s the equivalent of trying to slash and then having to reverse your own motion with the sword to slash again. Then again, JRPGs don’t have inertia either.

  • When the sword was replaced by the gun, things like honor and style were not in any of the armies’ minds when they made the transition. That includes the Japanese army itself.

    So how does a gun, a weapon that needs reloading and is susceptible to jamming, manage to replace a simple, lower-maintanence sword? The reason lies both in the training and tactics used with the gun.

    Take a look at the training regiments of modern-day armies and take a look at that of feudal/medieval armies: With feudal/medieval armies, the army has to hire a bunch of rich knights/samurai to train, and they have to start their training from childhood. Whereas with modern firearms-based armies, you can get people from any class and train them in 2 to 5 months (maybe a year for spec ops). If you compare a training regiment that requires a lifetime vs. a 2 to 5 month training, there’s gonna be a HELL of a cost difference, one that completely dwarves the cost of things like ammunition and spare parts.

    Additionally, when armies fought with swords, you’d have a bunch of guys charging at each other in huge waves. There’d be massive casualties on both side, with dead bodies all over the place–It was a matter of how many men are needed to kill a single man. When they developed firearms and improved their tactics, they could actually make it so their armies can minimize casualties of their own and maximize enemy casualties. In modern-day times, the increased range and rates of fire of projectile based weapons made warfare a question of how many men can an individual kill. By introducing guns, bombs, and artillery, as well as camoflauge into the battlefield, the army doesn’t need to have massive waves of people charging at the enemy to win a battle. Combined with good tactics and teamwork, a few soldiers wielding guns, artillery and air support could sneak into battle, and the only dead bodies left behind would be that of the enemy.

    The armies don’t give a shit about honor or style, all it cares about is efficiency. The main reason why the gun isn’t as revered in many cultures is because it’s relatively new and hasn’t developed the same sort of symbology in culture/literature that the sword has. It also has to do with the fact that the sword was also prevalent in a time where culture was dominated by religion and mysticism instead of science and logic. That’s why swords seem more imaginative than guns.

  • “You wouldn’t want Harry Potter to be waving a gun around.”

    speak for yourself, that sounds hilarious.

    also:

    “It’s due to historical differences? American history started with the gun around, but Japan has mythical blades like Kusanagi from ancient history. It’s a historical difference. American history is just shabby.”

    …really

      • Well, in Dune, those force fields are very effective in blocking fast projectiles and fast impacts, hence why they use knives so often. And when knife-fighting, they need to stab SLOOOOOOWLY to stop the force fields from kicking in.

        Oh, and lasers hitting those force fields will result in nuke-level explosions, so it’s no go. You don’t want to start a war that ends up wiping out both sides.

  • Well, from a practical standpoint, guns are much more unreliable than swords.

    Other than that, if everyone in a JRPG used guns, it would just turn into a party-based shooter game, which would isn’t what most people are looking for in an RPG.

    And of course, swords and such are cooler.

    And using “old” weapons such as swords, spears, etc. brings great variety to the parties. It’s sure as hell be boring if all they had was a guy with a sniper rifle, a guy with an assault rifle, a guy with a handgun, a guy with a rocket launcher, a guy with a shotgun and a guy with a flamethrower.

    And finally, using swords, knives, spears etc is faster. Guns need to be loaded, aimed and fired. Even if an actual gun maniac in real life can shoot at amazing rates, it’s still not going to make them appear more often in JRPGs since the main characters are often unfamiliar with weapons, such as Tidus from Final Fantasy X. And really, giving a guy a sword is going to produce a better result than giving him a gun.

    And most JRPGs that I’ve played include at least a choice to use guns, or a character that uses guns. For example, there’s Laguna in FF8 and Yuna’s default dress sphere in FF10-2.

    • Look at all the kids who think that guns are magical weapons so unfair that a blind man can overcome anyone…

      I’m sure looking ‘cooler’ is an advantage in war. They see my katana and they drop out all their M16s and M79s! derp…

      As for guns supposedly being ‘easy’…

      1. Gun-holding stability
      2. Aiming, which is determined by Minute of Angle, bullet velocity, gravity, and windspeed to name some.
      3. FMJs or hollow/soft-point for penetration control

      That’s just a few critical ones on top of my head at the moment. I’m sure there’s more.

      Know what happens to the weak when defending for their lives with a gun? They forget to turn the safety off, miss, or get knocked back by recoil, or even just the sound.

      It’s relatively easier to kill with a gun, but that shit requires PRACTICE, which is why armies train almost everyday.

      You can say that it’s for fantasy purposes that swords are more prevalent in JRPGs, aside from gameplay balance issues. However, you’d have to be fucking ignorant to say it’s not practical. That’s an insult to soldiers worldwide who risk their lives defending sovereignty of their countries(including your own).

    • actually, giving a gun to a person is much better than to give him a a sword, why? contrary to what rpgs-jrpgs teach you, it takes a lot of time and practice, to be good with a friggin sword, why do you think armys replaced the sword-spears when guns became better?, because they where much more usefull, more easy to train the troops and cheaper.

      • Yes this is true. Why do you think i train with practice weapons. I intend to buy some metal training weapons soon but as i am now i’d just chop a leg off unless in a berserker rage. I still prefer melee to ranged however and i always will. It’s some kind of odd genetic trait in me.

    • “since the main characters are often unfamiliar with weapons, such as Tidus from Final Fantasy X. And really, giving a guy a sword is going to produce a better result than giving him a gun.”

      ??????

      Isn’t that completely backwards? Guns are much, MUCH easier to handle as well as reliable compared to a spear or any variant of the sword, both of which require a good deal of martial training to become adept with. Even someone that has never fired a gun in his or her life can be taught how to within hours, if not less (mostly due to recoil from semi to fully automatic weapons, stuff like handguns are so basic and easy to use that you really don’t even need any training at all).

      This is one of the reasons why gunpowder arbalests / rifles etc slowly but surely eroded away the status of knights in Europe (and later the Samurai in Japan) – an untrained peasant with hours to a few days of training being able to kill a warrior that trained and dedicated his entire life to swordsmanship just doesn’t add up in the long run.

    • “Well, from a practical standpoint, guns are much more unreliable than swords.”
      totally wrong. everyone on the planet who understand something of weapons say the opposite. the guns advantage is the distance, not the reliabily.

        • “You don’t even need to truly see you’re opponent to beat them. That to me is cowardice.”

          That is one of the stupidest things I’ve seen so far. As far as I’m aware, bullets don’t magically home in on your opponent after being blind-fired into the air, so you need to see the guy and know where he is in order to hit him. In fact, this is true with ALL weapons. Guided missiles require either a radar or infrared lock. Artillery requires a forward observer/spotter in order to prevent wasted shells. Hell, even suppressive fire, which is basically shooting just for the sake of making the enemy keep their heads down, requires you shoot at the enemy to be effective.

          Another thing; All other things being equal, being able to shoot at the enemy puts you in the risk of being shot at back. Radar guided missiles require radar to obtain locks (obviously), but radar activity makes it easier to be locked onto. IR guided missiles are used at dogfight ranges, and all sorts of shit can happen there. Snipers must always be on the look out of counter-snipers. Even artillery is subject to counter-battery fire.

        • I’m saying it’s a pseudo instinctive response. Basically because guns are considered unstoppable it will cause a logical disconnect(akan a WTF moment) even if only for a split nanosecond.

          I also already said the odds of getting to him are minimal as in nigh impossible HOWEVER it is possible.

      • It has distance but ACCURACY is not perfect, most guns have a spread which must be accounted for when shooting hence why you don’t see cops just shooting around hostages because there is a good chance the bullet will miss that small window and hit them instead, this is applied even more so with automatics in addition to things like moving targets, bullets dropping over distance, and winds etc.

  • Why did most of those posters just say that westerners lack an imagination? Don’t you guys think that’s an ignorant way of thinking?

    Also on the swords vs. guns debate i lean towards guns, not because guns are superior but because Vash uses guns and he is as stylish as you can get.

  • Also, if we look at turn-based RPG’s such as Final Fantasy, imagine every character was using a gun, all the attack animations would be a character standing and shooting and every damage animation will be a character standing and shacking with some cool bullet hitting metal effect.

    Also, now if it was only guns, then the characters should always sit behind a cover as that would be more logical.. man how stupid.

  • Westerners striving for realism in games in every possible aspect is why almost every big-budget western game is either racing, short-and-shallow RPG or a shooter nowadays. I’m sick and tired of it, I wouldn’t mind if we got more Japanese games imported, but we get only a few and those that are imported suffer from unnecessary censorship. Bullshit.

    • That’s a great way to generalize western developers, that’s the same thing as the average FPS nut putting down japanese games. It’s like I start saying bullcrap of JRPG not having any kind of strategy, it’s insulting and annoying. The average western and japanese games are both shallow and devoid of challenge, if you think there aren’t shovelware from Japan, check again.

      Go check XBLA, Wiiware, PSN and, especially, steam before you spout crap again. This goes to western gamers too, JRPGs are not even the majority of Japanese games.

      This comment section is enough to tell you that there are quite a few of people that only play japanese games and others who only play western games to troll and say cuss words. None of them is superior to each other, so don’t start saying crap all over again, like every comment section about this.

    • Except many FPSs and racing games don’t even attempt to be very realistic at all. Halo, TF2, Split/Second, ect.

      And even though every CoD game probably says “realistic” on their back covers about three times, they aren’t in the least bit.

  • See the biggest flaw with the gun vs sword logic is that fact that Final Fantasy…. is Fantasy.

    It’s not meant to have realism. You have this world filled with magic, summons and various aspect of … Fantasy!

    In fantasy, maybe you really can block bullets with a sword. Maybe you can even cast a magic armor(Protect) to help block bullets and fireballs and lighting and various other aspects of fantasy.

  • Honor,GAR factor and the concept/fact(IMO) that guns are for the weak.

    Almost any idiot can point and pull a trigger withgout hurting thelselves. Now try swinging a sword and not cut yourself in a fight.

    Besides it’s better in my mind to FACE your enemy rather than attack from so far away they could never hurt you as sai above no honor in that. Besides despite modern belief guns won’t always win. I once read a news stroy about a guy holding a woman up at a store in new york. She pulled out an axe and won. Why cause the guy probably had a nigh instinctinve WTF moment and stalled just long enough for the axe to drop. Yep his own belief in the gun caused his downfall.

      • what is this crap about crossbowmen? crossbowman of genoa (now in ITaly) kicked frederick II !

        from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genoese_crossbowmen

        History

        The Genoese crossbowmen came to prominence during the First Crusade, when the Genoese commander Guglielmo Embriaco used them in the course of the siege of Jerusalem, and again at the Battle of Jaffa in 1192 during the Third Crusade. The Genoese crossbowmen remained one of the most respected military corps until the 16th century, well after the introduction of black powder weapons in Europe.

        The heavy losses created by Genoese crossbows led medieval monarchs to extreme measures. Emperor Frederick II, after the defeat at the siege of Parma triggered by a Genoese sally, ordered that the crossbowmen taken prisoner have their fingers cut off.Source?

        During the Battle of Crécy (1346), 6,000 Ligurian crossbowmen were deployed by the French in the first line. When they came under heavy fire from the English longbowmen, the Genoese commander, Ottone Doria, ordered his troops to retreat. This was seen as a desertion by King Philip VI of France, who ordered his cavalry to charge without care of the Genoese retreating in face of them. Most of the crossbowmen were killed, their commander included. Profiting from the ensuing confusion, the English won the battle.[1]

      • Agreed though back in the day they felt differently from what i know.

        I actually plan to learn to bow hunt one of these days. Why bow hunt more honor. I believe in repecting the animals and not just shoot them dead from about 50 feet away and cart em off. Hell if i could i’d hunt em with a warhammer or battle axe. I even have an idea for hunting armor.

        • In what way is it more honorable to kill your prey in a way were you risk causing it a lot more (unnecessary) pain and suffering?

          If you hunt for the fun of it, you have no honor to start with, since there is no honor in someone who kills for his own amusement.

          If you hunt due to need, then killing your prey swift and without unneeded suffering is the only honorable way.

        • beacause humans lack any natural protection or weapons. biologically we are among if not THE weakest species on earth. Think of it as a handicap. besides with bow hunting i’s skip armor. the armor would be for BEAR hunting with MELEE weapons.

        • If you want to give them a fighting chance go up to them face-to-face and punch them to death.

          I don’t see them using swords or armour, so why are you using them?

          Its the only honorable way.

          God, some people are stupid.

        • First off i don’t believe in hunting or killing ANYTHING for that matter if it isn’t for food or clothing. As it just so happens i have an unusually large appetite so hunting may be one of my few options financially.

          Now as for the hurting them. Sorry but i believe in affordin animals the same chance i ould ndesire and that is to be able to at least try to kill my enemy or at least die trying.

          As fgor the rang the lower rang is one of the biggest reasons i dissaprove of guns. As said above i’d rather risk myself while takinga life than do anything risk free.

          Now about the deer. I don’t think we have those here and have you ever seena moose they’re FUCKING HUGE. Not to mention the horns. And bears as well we have them here and i do want to someday hunt one in specially made armor and usinga warhammer or mace while well long story short i’d be prepared.

        • ‘I believe in repecting the animals and not just shoot them dead from about 50 feet away and cart em off.’

          You said bow hunting… how long away are you planning to shoot from? 1 metre?
          Good luck getting that close

        • False, bowmen were amongst the most well trained and disciplined soldiers, at least in western military customs. Crossbowmen, however, not so much, due to less training and skill required.

          A sword’s actual practicality in battle is something that has been heavily embellished and exaggerated by both western and Japanese cultures; go into battle with your sword drawn and be prepared to be impaled on a spear.

          Swords were status symbols awarded to officers and such, but no once with brains actually went into battle brandishing their sword.

          Though in the case of Japanese archers, whose bows were laughably weak and ineffective, your statement probably would be true.

        • No, I accept that bows required skill to use effectively, the point I was making was that the prestige of a weapon was not determined by the level of skill required to use it.
          Swords were prestigious simply because they were so expensive, not because they were more powerful or required more skill than any other weapon.

        • Samurai were originally mounted archers. Things changed after that, but there was still some tradition of archery among samurai, which lived basically as long as they did – that’s why kyudo is taught in some japanese school clubs as well as kendo. The bow was still considered as honorable, but basically only if it was a samurai using it. Peasant archers – yeah they didn’t get much love.

          and western archers varied too; the vaunted Welsh Longbowmen basically sucked at everything; they had numbers and a type of wood which made for great distance bows; so they just arrow spammed. nobody liked being arrow spammed, so they became famous/feared. They were pretty dreadfully inaccurate, and if they ran out of arrows, (which they didn’t carry many of) they just ran for it.

          Most other archers were basically as talented as the Welsh longbowmen but with weaker range bows.

    • God, you sound like a deluded idiot. The whole concept of “honour” is a farce. It’s basically rich upper class people saying “You can’t do that, that’s not fair!” “You can’t hit me yet! I am not ready!” and all that bullshit. The whole point of Honour is to make things supposedly “fair”.

      Bottom line is: A trained soldier with a gun going against some insurgent with an Ak47 is more fair than a heavily armoured knight going against a malnourished peasant.

      • “Honour is the morality of the strong.”

        Any code of honour is a set of rules an individual follows (either as a consequence of their upbringing or through some other means) as a way of not abusing their power.

        • I think you are mistaking honour with a natural sense of fairness. From your past posts you call yourself a “beserker” when fighting and that is an anethema to Honour. Honour is about Discipline and adhering to a personal code during combat and life. You may follow some naive code when you go about your daily life, but clearly you have none when fighting. You’re suppose to keep a level head in combat and not let emotion cloud your judgement and still follow the rules of engagement.

          That is honour. You sir, are just a psycho and a dishonourable fighter.

          Now I hope you will stop throwing the word “honour” around as if it applies to you or any of your fights.

          Good day.

  • hmmm.. so the ROOT of EVIL is … FPS vs JRPG … seriously…

    american heroes are OLD MAN and they don’t FEAR death.. so they have RESOLUTION OF DEATH..

    JRPG heroes are YOUNG MAN and they fear death, beacuse they fear the death, they fighting for LIFE.. so they have RESOLUTION TO LIVE..

    while american game mainly FPS where they want players feel the realistic game so they choose GUNS… cause its practically GOOD in real life..

    while JRPG is based on fantasy.. they want to make every one feel their game through imagination.. and imagination itself making you smarter…

    so BASICALLY American want everyone outside that county become an IDIOT… IDIOT = DON’T HAVE ANY IMAGINATION/INSPIRATION/FANTASY/CREATIVITY… haha… i think every FPS don’t have any STORIES… basically KILL’EM ALL, RESCUE, OR WHATEVER… thats why they choose MACHO… to make everyone BRUTAL people

    • If a YOUNG MAN fears death, then why do most of them rush into battle without so much as a plan?
      RESOLUTION TO LIVE does not excuse being an idiot.

      A person fighting for their life does not usually run head-first into battle bro, unless the battle comes to them, and even them, some type of PLAN is usually formulated beforehand.

      Not fearing death..so what?
      Running into battle like an idiot can be seen on on both sides from BOTH points of view.

      AND there are YOUNG MEN that have more of a RESOLUTION OF DEATH than some if not most of the OLD MEN.

      Try stepping outside your little box every once and a while, brohan.

    • uh…what?….idiot = I can take on a guy in real life with a sword even though he has repeating fire arm pointed at my head cocked and ready to fire….

      In real life..Practicality does not equal stupid…
      In real life..Fantasy does equal stupid…

      But video games aren’t ment to be real…

  • Wow, 2ch really didn’t read the original post. Either that or it was “mysteriously mistranslated,” which I wouldn’t doubt in million years. But still, if they can’t comprehend a simple question like that then it’s no wonder they’re live on the internet.

    I, myself, have no answer. The only thing I can think of is that sometimes you have to go hand to hand but even that’s not really good enough answer. I’m gonna go with the “bravery” comment.

    I just had a thought. What if it more to do with myth than looking cool? You know, the knight slaying the evil dragon of immeasurable might or the like a monk or shrinekeeper using a sword to seal away a powerful demon. I think if we look at it like that then we might have our answer. That’s not to say guns don’t have anything going for them. There is the silver bullet. But guns fall under “machines” and myth doesn’t really have a place among science or technology though I could be wrong. Who knows.

    • With a ‘Magnum’ designated ammo .44 and larger, you can literally blow someone’s head clean off.

      With a regular ball 5.56 NATO, you can penetrate 3mm of steel, and bricks about as thick as your house’s wall.

      With a single .338 Remington Ultra Magnum cartridge, you can penetrate 5 layers of Kevlar, and most people don’t wear Kevlar that thick because it’s fucking heavy.

      With a .50 sniper rifle and good sniping skills, you can kill someone over 2 kilometers away.

      With more than 10 simultenously launched hydrogen bomb built with current technology, we can wipe out civilization as we know it. Even after START 2, there are still over 20,000 such weapon around the globe, IF we only take into account the official ones…

      TL;DR: Fuck you weaboos.

  • If people took damage in RL like they do in mainstream RPG’s from D&D to Final Fantasy swords would still be popular. Except for the anti-vehicle, anti-armor level stuff, guns don’t do that much damage… Except in RL it hurts bad and bleeding internally is lethal. A sword, or even a bow/crossbow can do more damage, but the little that a single .22 can do is plenty to disable/kill. Taking damage like a fantasy rpg character, you could take several hits while you close the distance or shrug off one it from afar, take cover, and use cover to approach the enemy if far enough away to take too many hits before reaching.

    I read a neat article by Gene Wolfe in the “Castle of the Otter” book where he predicted the age of melee and armored cavalry could indeed return.

    It’d need genetic engineering for the steeds and a materials (again likely biological like spider silk) revolution that makes lightweight armor cheap and practical. If you have a band of people with “Horses” that are almost cheetahs (100mph bursts) and can ride over land that’d kill a tank combined with armored riders and mounts, they could easily surprise an infantry unit and smash them with few if any casualties. Close up, even a plain old club/axe is better than a gun if the risk of a desperate rifle shot is minimized. Over time a high tech civilization could rise and fall, but the engineered riding creatures and perhaps the means to make the better armor could remain.

    Oh, and good old fashioned “Full Plate” will stop bullets. Real full plate, not tinfoil decoration at a knife shop. But, try to move around in it. Even peasants learned to counter that by pushing the knight over with wooden sticks and using a “Warhammer”.

    • Noramlly i disagree with you whole heartedly but this post is quite sensible.

      And actually the thing about spider silk can be done with goats supposedly some scientists are looking at modifying goats to produce spider silk instead of milk.

  • If you’re actually creative, the heroes of the future probably have some holistic fields of super-resistance to simple physics of bullets and rockets.

    Meaning they’re all largely bullet-proof and super-evolved.

    The only way to cut through a nemesis is to use a holy blessed as f*** sword. Because bullets are 100x times weaker by comparison.

  • Well… the anime Grenadier have a good answer for this I think… I don´t have here the exactly quote but, is all about the feeling when you fight… with a sword you have the weight of the life that is in front of you… the type of thing that you don´t grasp when wielding a gun.

    You know… tou pull the thrigger you can hit just anything. A enemy, a comrade, your dog… logic or not this could as well work in the real world… don´t you wonder about it?

    Just tergiversing
    See Ya
    mr.poneis

    • Actually, most sissies would end up with a broken wrist if they fired a gun without training. Can’t any sissy also stab or cut a person?

      The real answer, naturally, is that any -true- MC will be using both guns and swords.

  • If I’m not too out of place to quote Immortal Technique…

    “any bitch nigga with a gun can bust slugs…
    but only a real thug can stab someone till they die
    standing in front of them, staring straight into their eyes”

    Says the crazy Peruvian nigga from AMURAKUH…
    This is probably the reason why Ryoko Asakura uses a knife >.>

    • You’ve clearly never seen what happens when someone is shot in the head with a shotgun or high-powered rifle. It’s a lot scarier than seeing a limb get cut off.

      Guns don’t always make neat little holes like they do in Hollywood; they often blast people’s faces apart so badly that it’s only recognisable as human when you see an eye floating in the middle of the bloody and deformed mess.

  • Americans tend to be hung up on their entertainment being realistic. This is so in movies TV shows and games. Even when some things are a stretch they like the rest to be realistic so it is more believable. The Japanese do not have this hang up. Entertainment is just entertainment and if it is supper realistic what is the point we live in the real world why does entertainment have to mimic it so closely. I think this is the main issue in all these cases. Like why are the hero’s not macho men with guns but emo teens and little girls in pastel. The Japanese just like to suspend their disbelief more than Americans do.

  • BloodyNights says:

    Because their is no substitute, for taking your giant epic sword, and slashing some guy who thinks he is bad ass with his gun, arm off, and watching he blood fly.

    On a side note, Guns actually look cool some times too, but nothing replaces that cold steel :3

  • Its pretty pbvious that its for style reasons. The way I see it, realism always stands on the way of style. If Devil May Cry was realistic (with the execption of demons exsisting ofc) then Dante would have gotten hes ass kicked in 2 seconds, and it wouldnt have been nearly as cool as thee game is. I still question why does any work of fiction have to be realistic? Also you dont get much more badass then gun and swords at the same time.

    • Yeah I don’t think Dante would’ve gotten his ass kicked in two seconds if it was “realistic” keep in mind he does know how to use a sword as well that’s why he uses one so it’s a bit unlikely especially if he’s holding the sword and shooting at the same time.

  • As a personal lover of realism, yet still very imaginative in story concepts, I can say guns and swords all have their place. It’s just the way that you want it, what purpose you make a game for.

    Obviously, in Japan, where it is shunned as a child’s interest to play video games, and realism is thrown out the window in place of any true sensibility, like emo teens saving worlds, cool looking swords doing more damage than practical ones, and crazy creatures that pop out of no where, you’re not going to care too much about guns. Because, you know, it takes the fun out of finding reality to be not to their likings.

    In the west, where the average gamer is literally 36, “next-gen” graphics are the common goal for realism, and guns are talked about like our sports cars, you know why we don’t think of swords as right to have. You’d be blown, shoot, and torn apart 30 times before you even got to the distance needed to even try to hit the opponent. Not to mention, almost all soldiers train in martial arts (the deadly kind, not self-defense kind) and wielding a knife to stab in vital one-kill lunges. It’s not a lack of imagination, just impracticality. It would be like saying to fight a bear with your bare hands, instead of using a F-22 to blow the fuck out of it. It’s just more awesome to us in general, compared to just hack and slashing, with optional shiny neon colors and dramatic poses.

    It is stupid though to even include guns in those fantasy games. Why have them at all then? I think it’s just basically to satisfy their wet dreams of seeing a hero kill all the bad guys with guns super easy.

  • Guns are for wussies in desert camouflage and sunglasses, chewing dirol and listening to oldschool rock. The western version of cool I guess.

    Why swords? Because they’re swords! Period.
    Guns are like mobile phones, they don’t have a personality, just a crappy OS and insufficient battery-life.
    Swords serve as weapons as well as fancy-looking accessories. You can tell a lot about the character as soon as you see his epic bigass greatsword, or a fragile, yet elegant rapier.
    Guns are easy-to-handle cheap whores, while swords are exquisite ladies of subtle beauty. Each requires its own unique approach, but rest assured, they’ll never let you down as trusty companions if handled appropriately.

  • Anonymous says:

    A blade, no matter it’s size does less noise than a gun and is more stealthy, usually.

    On the other hand, being stealthy is an achievement.

    In the end, it falls all back on the time were guns replaced blades, arrows and bolts back in the 17~1800s or whenever.

    It was easier, faster and cheaper to train some poor fucks to shoot at targets than it was to train someone with sword & bow.
    Yes, the early rifles weren’t so much about aiming, you just pointed them in the general direction of the enemy and hoped you hit someone, but still.

    The first shootouts were highly ritualized, with strictly formed rows and ranks of shooters marching against each other shooting volley after volley and spreading death everywhere, not only were they were aiming at.
    Until sharp, the very first sharpshooter and his squad, Sharp’s Shooters, started to make an impact in the napoleonic wars.

  • Anonymous says:

    sword does more damage to the human body than
    small caliber rounds …..bad guys come equipped with .22 guns and you happend to have you trust kevlar in and out of your steel armor as a hero of course . think that about handle that

  • Y’all completely something, its not about the guns, its about the one gun, the Revolver. much like the sword, the revolver is the Wests own variant symbol of honor. not much can come close to the badassery of a gunslinger, sleek revolver on hand, six shots nothing more, standing out on the town, waiting for the duel at high noon, where one will fall and one will stand.
    why use a sword when you have six shots of nothing but pure power

  • i just saw a load of bullshit, a gold sword would be stronger than a normal steel one, thats not true whatsoever. gold has no where near the durablity of iron or bronze, it would break the second it hit something just a little to hard

  • I ACCIDENTALLY says:

    Both are epic. (guns and bladed weaps in general)

    Both have strengths and weaknesses.

    Though:

    Swords look more “epic” ingame (gunfights are still no match for an epic dramatic swordfight)

    Swords don’t run out of ammo (though it, like the gun, can break)

    Guns are (relatively) easier to use (years of training with swords VS gun = point and shoot)

    In an unlikely, but realistic scenario, guy with gun beats guy with sword (unless sword guy has superhuman speed/strength)

  • I believe in COD Black Ops, in Wager matches when you knife someone it yells “Humiliation!”, and if you get knifed it yells “Humiliated!”. And need I mention the throwing Tomahawk? Face it, even Call of Duty thinks it’s more badass to knife someone than shoot them.

  • Besides, it’s a game. Not everybody wants all gunners’ games all the time, and not everyone would prefer all sword games all the time.

    (Gun game remakes can and will get annoying after a while. Same fore sword game remakes.)

    While games are not always meant to mimic real life to the T, variety is a must. Having them both in the same game caters to that ideal.

  • Gun: just aim and shoot
    Sword: We have slash, we have hack, we have two swords, three swords (Zoro), six swords (basara), seven swords (Killerbee), Hitten Mitsurugi (Samurai X), Shinmeiryuu (demon-exorcism), etc.

  • Oh, look, this news post again. Gosh, I missed it for the day or so it wasn’t on the front page. I was worried perhaps English gamers and Japanese gamers had stopped disagreeing and insulting each other in the process. Thanks, Sankaku Complex.

  • And here I thought that I couldn’t see a bigger bunch of idiotic self-righteous asshated morons than 4chan.

    I stand corrected.

    I saw a few good responses but most were massively ignorant piles of bullshit and the “I know everything about everything” idiocy which is the biggest fault of out species easily, dialed up to damn near weaponized levels.

    Congratulations.

  • In close combat that is what most rpg’s are made up of a sword is far more effective then a gun guns in close combat don’t work to well they can easily be misdirected a gun is a mid to long range weapon if your a foot away from someone wont work out to well if you’ve got a gun and they’ve got a knife/sword every herd the expression don’t bring a knife to a gun fight the opposite expression is also around for the reason I just explained most rpg’s battles are players being ambushed by monsters or random encounters and at the same time its entirely possible for a race to develop high grade technology without ever coming close to anything like a personal firearm and while still having cannon and such for aircraft so yeah guns are your best bet in general but if all you do is fight in close range a sword is the way to go not to mention for sustained fights I’m pretty sure everyone can agree once you run out of ammo for whatever gun you have it’s basically becomes a piece of useless junk

  • It´s not the sword but the user that makes it a deadly weapon.

    The blade usefulness grows in a parallel way along with the user potential (at least really good swords) whereas the guns eventually hit their limit.

    Although it´s worth to mention that there are heroes that make good use of both of them, like Dante.

  • the question is why have BOTH GUNS AND SWORDS at the same time in the same universe, not which is better, you du^H^H^H^H smart-otherwise folks.

    Swords don’t make sense (unless we’re dealing with enemies like those goddamn SuperMutant Masters; but even in Fallout guns are vastly superior to melee weapons), daggers do.

    • Zergs have massive numbers. They don’t care. Shoot one zergling and chances are, there’s another dozen bearing down on you. And all zerg has carapaces meant to protect them long enough to get to their targets, then rip them to shreds.

      And even zerglings need support from hydralisks, broodlords and etc, most of which were ranged units, to keep things from shooting zerglings down from the air.

      As for Protoss? Energy shield and fast movement speed. The shield will help them survive long enough to charge into range (which is very very damn fast) to carve up the marines. And even they need help against the marauders that are firing at them to slow them down with concussion grenades.

  • OK, people who agree to the topic are stupid. Sure in the real world guns are better than swords. But, you’re playing games and there’s nothing says that you’re invincible than killing guns with your sword, right? I know we’re talking about games but, go back to watch star wars, see how cool it is to use swords to kill guns with guns.

  • bah, guns are boring and cowardly… you shoot someone, they collapse like the world economy, and it starts all over again.
    with a sword on the other hand, you’re actually FIGHTING instead of just shooting someone in the face.

  • Yeah, we Westerners have no imagination. Meanwhile your country goes mindnumbingly crazy over the same rehashed music, video games sequels and rip-offs, regurgitated movie clones, dated anime and tired manga sroies all sharing the same artwork… but anything with any true originality is shunned. In fact any person who dares question Japanese culture is immediately treated as a social and professional outcast unless they live their lives exactly like everyone else does. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones at others.

  • Because when all else fails (you run out of ammo) You will always have a generic uber japanese katana with you to save the day. Honestly its just a weapon to kick ass with so who cares but those 2chaners and 4chaners that wanna start flame wars because they are bored?

  • ok
    let say you have an rpg that the male main hero can equip either gun or sword, and your female secondary heroine can only equip far range weapon (scared to go close quarter combat), what would you give the hero to equip, a gun or a sword? (note that having gun will have less defense stat on close quarter combat)

  • Guns are weaker in comparison to a sword? Swords don’t need reloading? Swords are cheaper to maintain? You don’t to buy bullets for a gun? I’ve actually seen a video of two guys fighting with sword and electric powered BB. Guns are freakin’ expensive in JRPG world. Guns are inaccurate in JRPG. Langua and Irvine from FF8 used a gun and so did Vincent from FF7, so stfu. many JRPG takes place in FANTASY worlds not REALISTIC or SCI FI worlds. i know i’m an american but stfu and roll your damn die to see what your lame ass +2 gun can do. lol.

  • Swords are just cooler to me & some others then Guns are…

    I however do like the idea of a character that utilizes both Guns & Swords…I mean that is just baddass no matter how you look at it…

    In regular RPGs, I see Swords being more interesting weapons then Guns, just saying…

  • I see alot of “Foreigners don’t understand the samurai way” lines then someone says Excalibur is cooler then an ak-47, sorry buddy but Excalibur is one of our “Foreigner” swords not one of your katana’s so you can’t lay clame to it or any other none japanese sword. (I know by Foreigners they likely only mean NA, but I still had to say it 😛 )

  • “Tech plus Ammo capacity equals I WIN!”
    “You don’t need to be a better shot, you just need to shoot more bullets!”
    “Dakka: You need moar of it. No exceptions.”

    1.4 out of 100 rounds jam in modern day guns…and most are point and click…sorry guns beat swords in real life….

    But I try to keep real out of my RPGs 😛

      • Inb4swordscanteither

        Even if a sword/gun encounter actually happens, a sword wielder can input much more variety than just pointing a gun and pulling the trigger.

        So it all comes down to skill.
        They say guns don’t require much time to learn, while sword training takes longer.

        The need for compensating for minute differences in the environment, does not mean it takes more skill.

        If you fired a gun, and a bullet is aiming for somebody’s head, and a second later, you hear that this person is to be kept alive, you’re fucked.

        However, with a sword, MUCH more control is implied over a longer stretch, I.E. Ranging from a little cut to severing a limb.

        PLUS, when you deal with swords, eventually you’ll learn how to hack a body apart WITHOUT losing much durability/sharpness, if not any at all.

        If you hack through bone, and it dulls/chips the blade, then you’re not strong enough.

        Also..

        JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE A SWORD DOESN’T MEAN YOU HAVE TO HACK THROUGH BONE TO KILL A GUY.

      • Inb4swordsdonteither

        Duh. Swords have a higher degree of control.
        With guns, you have to compensate for gravity, wind, climate, temperature, visibility…

        Just because you can hit a target under the most extreme conditions, makes it require more skill?

        Then why does it take such a short time to learn how to use a gun?

  • funny that AMMO is an issue?
    Perhaps, because some games impose an ammo limitation to facilitate a sense of realism. Although its rather odd that the exact caliber of ammo that you happen to need in the most peculiar places are laying around in plain sight. And in some games you can carry many thousands of “clips” that would take a lowry to carry.

    As for why, use a blade when a gun is available?
    Well, there are times and places that a blade is better suited for “close-in” fighting. In real life.
    But its is also because of the “limitations” the writers of the game impose on the game scenario, some writers haven’t a clue what its like to do combat in real life, so there are little if any restrictions or limitations a player may have to contend with, in most games.

    However, there are some games, that are a hella pain in the ass to get used to play, play wise, because it was written with realism in mind.
    A labor of love by the code writers, because these things use up a lotta code. That or the producers invested a lot in getting it done right on their priciples.

    Still, I just can’t get over that there are reloads in plain sight that just happen to fit your gun, and that you can carry hundreds or thousands of clips.

    What is missing is a “down time” for a player character,… If it were a requirement for your player to go to eat and sleep some where for R & R,… follow up on a lead & interact with NPC’s that aren’t shooting or ambushing all of the time.
    Its what makes today’s games tedious. To the point that someone gullible enough to get addicted to it will play it till they have heart failure and perish in obscurity, only to be found months later by the stench of their rotting corpse.

    sighs, people,…
    ^_^

  • This seems like a good time to mention that someone once said, it is not the weapon alone which determines the victor, but the warrior. Given that all weapons have their inherent strengths and weakness, and there are excellent and crappy close and long range weapons, when you assume that you have already won the battle just because you have a gun while your opponent has a sword, or vice versa, you automatically place yourself at a disadvantage. Therefore, if you’re going to fight, go with the gear that fits you best. Personally,my rankings would go:

    1. barehanded/gauntlets and grieves
    2. sword/s or scythe
    3. a handgun or two

  • It’s funny that everyone mentions the problem of ammo.

    Every melee weapon suffers the same limited usage. Take a sword and hit a solid tree with it once or twice, then look at the blade, it’ll deform, possibly chip, and most definitely begin to dull.

    It’s also not very likely someone like these emo-teen-heroes will have enough strength to deal any considerable amount of damage with a sword. Muscles are dense, bone is very dense. Your only hope with a sword to inflict mortal damage is to strike a vital area of the body where there is either little bone or critical veins near the surface.