Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
BOWS ARE EASY AND ONLY FOR WOMEN - CLICHÉS TO HATE
Isn't it boring how almost every female warrior in fantasy settings is forced to use a bow?
MoralAnxietyStudio- 06/11/2017 01:43 PM
- 29806 views
Introduction
I love good storytelling and I love when an idea catches me completely off guard and creates a deep, emotional response. But because of this passion, I find most of the stories, especially in video games, repetitive and boring, not just “inspired” by great art, but rather lazily pushed forward by deadlines, limited to overused clichés in assumption that “if it worked before, it’s going to work for the 500th time, right”?
In this series I’m going to share some of my thoughts on story clichés that I don’t want to experience anymore. I know they won’t disappear from AAA industry, but maybe some of the indie storytellers are going to use different, more creative (and less dumbed down) approach?
Previous article in this series: Spread Diary Entries
And now...
Clichés To Hate:
Bows Are Easy And Only For Women
Common in: RPGs, strategy games, anything related to fantasy.
Description: Most popular in two cases:
A) You have to write an in-game lore or a story involving a group of heroes, but you don’t have a chance to give everyone you’re describing a unique personality or an interesting design. (Especially if these characters are not going to say anything/will disappear in a minute or two.) You already used the most convenient stereotypes, like a male-barbarian with an axe, a wizard in a pointy hat and so on, so to be more “inclusive” you put there a bonus sexy female archer (it’s easier to draw it than a rogue or a priestess anyway).
B) You need to make an archer unit for a fantasy strategy game, and since it’s one of the very few female-friendly archetypes in popular culture, you make all the archers from this group females just so they are easier to distinguish during action sequences.
Why it is useful: Portraying females as archers is something that will never disappear and has overwhelmed movies and novels, especially when an artist has to create female-elven characters. After all, females and elves are related to the same attractive features: agility, grace, cute and small bodies... Majority of players won’t question it, since a common person assumes that using a bow is something that requires little to no strength and is mostly related to accuracy, coordination and speed (especially when you look at the in-game stats).
After all, this cliché was not entirely made from nothing. It’s not historically accurate, but even the Greek goddess of hunting and wild nature, Artemis (also very close to the elven stereotype), was often portrayed with a bow, arrows and animal companions. And since, as I mentioned, portraying a stereotypical archer does not include drawing great muscles, huge body or heavy armor, it perfectly suits never dying need of making sexy fan-service-friendly chicks.
The problem: Not unlike the majority of gender stereotypes (both male- and female related), this cliché reached the point of being boring. Unfortunately, these stereotypical features lead to the portrayal of hundreds of “attractive female archers” without thinking this design through, what sometimes may hurt the coherence of portrayed world.
If you want more details about this topic, you can watch this cool video below:
But if you want just a very quick TL;DW, here it is:
• Bows, especially the ones used in battles, require A LOT of strength and are extremely fatiguing.
• Using a bow effectively requires months (if not years) of practice. A “casual” weapon for a person who is not a warrior, is not a bow, but rather a crossbow. The latter is basically like a bad, primitive gun – just point and shoot. Even a child can hit someone’s belly with a bit of luck. Majority of people CAN’T use a bow, though.
• Sure, average woman is weaker than an average man, but a true female warrior is probably much stronger than an average man anyway. In most cases, portraying her as a tiny, graceful sniper is not going to do to her much justice, since she can just as well break people skulls with a mace or an axe.
• And, as I already said – it became really boring because of repetitive nature of this cliché.
Alternatives: The two paths I think are the most convenient ones are very easy to figure out, and if used well, they may make the game’s setting much more interesting and logical, what for some players is going to be very valuable.
The first option is to resign from this cliché and to allow your female characters to use whatever weapon the artist finds interesting and suitable in the given context. In this case, a bow would be just one of many, many possibilities and you could offer your female characters an option to successfully engage in melee fight scenes, join an army as a soldier or to become a well-trained, adaptable warrior. In other words, you can just allow your female characters to do the same thing the male characters would do (although, if you want to stay realistic, less often – in most worlds women are not even close to being a 50% of fighting characters, but rather a minority – you can, of course, change it, but it doesn’t always make sense).
Just remember, that if a woman is a master of a bow, she probably can also be a master of every other type of combat.
The second way of solving this problem is to find a reason why an average woman would be interested in using a bow above any other weapon. It’s quite difficult to accomplish that without rising a next question: “so why is this weapon not more popular among men as well?”. But you can try – starting with religious/cultural reasons, or making a fictional type of wood which would make the bows much easier to use while requiring much less strength, or maybe it would be just a female-elf thing... I didn’t find a really creative example, but if you are determined to show nice girls standing with a bow just because other people made it in the past, well, I mean... You can.
Thank you for your attention. If you think I’m completely wrong or you would like to discuss this topic, let me know below!
See you next week!
I love good storytelling and I love when an idea catches me completely off guard and creates a deep, emotional response. But because of this passion, I find most of the stories, especially in video games, repetitive and boring, not just “inspired” by great art, but rather lazily pushed forward by deadlines, limited to overused clichés in assumption that “if it worked before, it’s going to work for the 500th time, right”?
In this series I’m going to share some of my thoughts on story clichés that I don’t want to experience anymore. I know they won’t disappear from AAA industry, but maybe some of the indie storytellers are going to use different, more creative (and less dumbed down) approach?
Previous article in this series: Spread Diary Entries
And now...
Clichés To Hate:
Bows Are Easy And Only For Women
Common in: RPGs, strategy games, anything related to fantasy.
Description: Most popular in two cases:
A) You have to write an in-game lore or a story involving a group of heroes, but you don’t have a chance to give everyone you’re describing a unique personality or an interesting design. (Especially if these characters are not going to say anything/will disappear in a minute or two.) You already used the most convenient stereotypes, like a male-barbarian with an axe, a wizard in a pointy hat and so on, so to be more “inclusive” you put there a bonus sexy female archer (it’s easier to draw it than a rogue or a priestess anyway).
B) You need to make an archer unit for a fantasy strategy game, and since it’s one of the very few female-friendly archetypes in popular culture, you make all the archers from this group females just so they are easier to distinguish during action sequences.
Why it is useful: Portraying females as archers is something that will never disappear and has overwhelmed movies and novels, especially when an artist has to create female-elven characters. After all, females and elves are related to the same attractive features: agility, grace, cute and small bodies... Majority of players won’t question it, since a common person assumes that using a bow is something that requires little to no strength and is mostly related to accuracy, coordination and speed (especially when you look at the in-game stats).
After all, this cliché was not entirely made from nothing. It’s not historically accurate, but even the Greek goddess of hunting and wild nature, Artemis (also very close to the elven stereotype), was often portrayed with a bow, arrows and animal companions. And since, as I mentioned, portraying a stereotypical archer does not include drawing great muscles, huge body or heavy armor, it perfectly suits never dying need of making sexy fan-service-friendly chicks.
The problem: Not unlike the majority of gender stereotypes (both male- and female related), this cliché reached the point of being boring. Unfortunately, these stereotypical features lead to the portrayal of hundreds of “attractive female archers” without thinking this design through, what sometimes may hurt the coherence of portrayed world.
If you want more details about this topic, you can watch this cool video below:
But if you want just a very quick TL;DW, here it is:
• Bows, especially the ones used in battles, require A LOT of strength and are extremely fatiguing.
• Using a bow effectively requires months (if not years) of practice. A “casual” weapon for a person who is not a warrior, is not a bow, but rather a crossbow. The latter is basically like a bad, primitive gun – just point and shoot. Even a child can hit someone’s belly with a bit of luck. Majority of people CAN’T use a bow, though.
• Sure, average woman is weaker than an average man, but a true female warrior is probably much stronger than an average man anyway. In most cases, portraying her as a tiny, graceful sniper is not going to do to her much justice, since she can just as well break people skulls with a mace or an axe.
• And, as I already said – it became really boring because of repetitive nature of this cliché.
Alternatives: The two paths I think are the most convenient ones are very easy to figure out, and if used well, they may make the game’s setting much more interesting and logical, what for some players is going to be very valuable.
The first option is to resign from this cliché and to allow your female characters to use whatever weapon the artist finds interesting and suitable in the given context. In this case, a bow would be just one of many, many possibilities and you could offer your female characters an option to successfully engage in melee fight scenes, join an army as a soldier or to become a well-trained, adaptable warrior. In other words, you can just allow your female characters to do the same thing the male characters would do (although, if you want to stay realistic, less often – in most worlds women are not even close to being a 50% of fighting characters, but rather a minority – you can, of course, change it, but it doesn’t always make sense).
Just remember, that if a woman is a master of a bow, she probably can also be a master of every other type of combat.
The second way of solving this problem is to find a reason why an average woman would be interested in using a bow above any other weapon. It’s quite difficult to accomplish that without rising a next question: “so why is this weapon not more popular among men as well?”. But you can try – starting with religious/cultural reasons, or making a fictional type of wood which would make the bows much easier to use while requiring much less strength, or maybe it would be just a female-elf thing... I didn’t find a really creative example, but if you are determined to show nice girls standing with a bow just because other people made it in the past, well, I mean... You can.
Thank you for your attention. If you think I’m completely wrong or you would like to discuss this topic, let me know below!
See you next week!
Posts 
suzy_cheesedreams
1480
View playlists
CloseI have a character who has trained in medicine, poisons, archery and sword & shield combat from childhood. She lives in a small, isolated town, so the people there learn diverse skills. The woman is a priestess, and all priests/priestesses in that church undergo combat training so they can defend civilians.
Dragon Age: Inquisition's Sera's arms look quite strong, and overall she looks athletic rather than just slender. I thought that was a cool detail.
Dragon Age: Inquisition's Sera's arms look quite strong, and overall she looks athletic rather than just slender. I thought that was a cool detail.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
Oh cool, I don't have to worry about necromancy because someone else already did that today! :V
Anyway, I skimmed the comments and nobody brought up another reason why archery is The Thing for ladytypes- at least in Japanese settings: in Japan, the bow is one of the weapons (along with the naginata) that's considered acceptable for a woman to wield, and is popular as a traditional art form.
Also WRT the crossbow discussion: Vinland Saga's most recent volume (as of this post) has a female character who uses a crossbow for its power, but who designed her own custom frame to make up for both the weight and the reload time. It's pretty badass. (Which could be a good summary of Vinland Saga in general.)
I'm personally just inclined against archery for characters in video game making just because, if there's not some mechanical ability to do something like sniping, or some way to distinguish them from the characters with melee weapons, it just feels pointless. :I
Anyway, I skimmed the comments and nobody brought up another reason why archery is The Thing for ladytypes- at least in Japanese settings: in Japan, the bow is one of the weapons (along with the naginata) that's considered acceptable for a woman to wield, and is popular as a traditional art form.
Also WRT the crossbow discussion: Vinland Saga's most recent volume (as of this post) has a female character who uses a crossbow for its power, but who designed her own custom frame to make up for both the weight and the reload time. It's pretty badass. (Which could be a good summary of Vinland Saga in general.)
I'm personally just inclined against archery for characters in video game making just because, if there's not some mechanical ability to do something like sniping, or some way to distinguish them from the characters with melee weapons, it just feels pointless. :I
Zephire, there are plenty of women in the world who are archers. My suggestion isn't to get rid of her or change the fact that she's an archer, but research archery and to actually understand something about it. The main character in my Gay Mak game is a female archer.
The trope being described here isn't about having a female archer; it's about women being archers because they're women.
The trope being described here isn't about having a female archer; it's about women being archers because they're women.
Zephire98
659
This might make me have to rethink one of the characters in my current project, because, coincidentally, the character is both female and an archer.
I was not aware of this cliche, but that's not why I developed a character that was female and an archer. Though, technically, she can use other weapons as well, since she's a huntress, so she's not entirely an archer.
Again, I was not aware that this was cliche. The character was developed out of a need to have a female character to play, not out of a desire for an archer class or whatnot.
I was not aware of this cliche, but that's not why I developed a character that was female and an archer. Though, technically, she can use other weapons as well, since she's a huntress, so she's not entirely an archer.
Again, I was not aware that this was cliche. The character was developed out of a need to have a female character to play, not out of a desire for an archer class or whatnot.
Irog
4858
author=KylailaI tried to give a very distinct role to each weapon in MinST. Especially bow and crossbow that games too often makes as (in)effective as javelins.
But this is an aspect that I have never seen a game make use of, and it'd be really fun to try (especially for a one-man game or smaller stuff, so you need not balance different stances etc. for every weapon type)
Weapons all had their place and were used in tandem for a reason : )
If you want to get creative with weapons, you can also look up weapons made without metal.
https://invidio.xamh.de/watch?v=2C6_pSEPbO8
A lot of the games we're talking about are generic fantasy medieval with no set time period and rule-breaking anyway (robes that protect against dragon fire and giant sword slashes? riiiiight) so getting creative with weapons is a good idea, especially if one fits your character better than a sword.
That said, if someone couldn't have a sword, daggers are the next best thing. Most people carried a knife of some kind, usually a sharp one for cutting stuff (meat/rope/cloth/etc) so it's not out of character to have a couple laying around in any medieval period (if you're wanting to be true to the times but replace swords). Also, not all places had swords!
For example, Australia certainly didn't! The Aboriginals used flint knives, sure, but their main weapons were short spears (that were used with a spear flinger), boomerangs and, usually, club-type weaponry. Of course, it helped that they didn't have to wage war against more superior armies and thus move into the metal ages, (until Australia got founded, at least), and that the largest predators they had to deal with were dingoes (which they tamed) and crocodiles (which were avoided when not being hunted). So yeah, there's a fair few places that didn't need swords or use them.
That said, if someone couldn't have a sword, daggers are the next best thing. Most people carried a knife of some kind, usually a sharp one for cutting stuff (meat/rope/cloth/etc) so it's not out of character to have a couple laying around in any medieval period (if you're wanting to be true to the times but replace swords). Also, not all places had swords!
For example, Australia certainly didn't! The Aboriginals used flint knives, sure, but their main weapons were short spears (that were used with a spear flinger), boomerangs and, usually, club-type weaponry. Of course, it helped that they didn't have to wage war against more superior armies and thus move into the metal ages, (until Australia got founded, at least), and that the largest predators they had to deal with were dingoes (which they tamed) and crocodiles (which were avoided when not being hunted). So yeah, there's a fair few places that didn't need swords or use them.
Crystalgate
694
What weapon someone will use depends not only on who that person is, but also on time and situation. If we look at early medieval, only those with notable better economy than average could afford a sword. However, at late medieval, everyone who wasn't a beggar could afford one. If you wonder how a lowly peasant could afford a sword, they afforded it the same way as someone today with poor economy can afford a car, they buy it used. As time went on, there would be more and more swords in circulation since the mass production improved and as someone who could afford it got a new sword, the old one would go to someone less wealthy.
The same thing happened with armor. Early medieval, only the rich could afford mail. Late medieval, every peasant could afford mail and/or brigandine.
Now, in warfare, swords were rarely the primary weapon for infantry. If you were a close range fighter, you would usually use a spear or other polearm. What you see in Hollywood movies where two sides run towards each other with a sword and shield and then starts fighting pretty much never happened. Sometimes one side would choose a sword as primary weapon, the Romans did it for some time and knight would sometimes do it if they were fighting unarmored opponents like peasants (not during late medieval period of course). However, in over 90% of the cases, a polearm would be the primary weapon for close range and a sword would only be a secondary weapon (it could be an axe or mace or something else as well though).
Knights would usually use lances when they were heavy cavalry. Later, when knights became infantry rather than cavalry, they would often use pollaxes as their main weapon. The samurai would usually use either a bow or a polearm as their primary weapon, use the other of those two as the secondary weapon and their katana was their tertiary weapon. Really, a swordsman wasn't that much of a thing as fiction depicts it.
The sword was however a great secondary/backup weapon. It's flexible, as has been mentioned, and it can easily be carried in a scabbard and (less easily in a stressful situation) drawn when needed. If you have a spear and a sword, you have to carry the spear in your hand and keep the sword in you scabbard. If needed or desired, you can drop the spear and draw the sword. You cannot do the opposite. A spear cannot be kept in a scabbard and keeping it on your back is too awkward to be practical, you can only carry it in your hands.
The sword was also very popular outside of war. You're not going to lump around a spear when going to a bar, but you can easily carry a sword in your scabbard. Also, people were generally not wearing armor unless going to war, and that made the sword extra effective since one of the main weaknesses of a sword is armor. If you could afford a sword, that was your primary weapon for peace time (unless the law forbade it and you decided to respect it).
I got a bit sword heavy here. Still, what weapon someone will use depends on a lot of factors. What is the current technology (early vs late medieval has a huge technological difference), who is it and is the person expecting battle or just carrying a weapon for self defense in case she/he gets attacked?
The same thing happened with armor. Early medieval, only the rich could afford mail. Late medieval, every peasant could afford mail and/or brigandine.
Now, in warfare, swords were rarely the primary weapon for infantry. If you were a close range fighter, you would usually use a spear or other polearm. What you see in Hollywood movies where two sides run towards each other with a sword and shield and then starts fighting pretty much never happened. Sometimes one side would choose a sword as primary weapon, the Romans did it for some time and knight would sometimes do it if they were fighting unarmored opponents like peasants (not during late medieval period of course). However, in over 90% of the cases, a polearm would be the primary weapon for close range and a sword would only be a secondary weapon (it could be an axe or mace or something else as well though).
Knights would usually use lances when they were heavy cavalry. Later, when knights became infantry rather than cavalry, they would often use pollaxes as their main weapon. The samurai would usually use either a bow or a polearm as their primary weapon, use the other of those two as the secondary weapon and their katana was their tertiary weapon. Really, a swordsman wasn't that much of a thing as fiction depicts it.
The sword was however a great secondary/backup weapon. It's flexible, as has been mentioned, and it can easily be carried in a scabbard and (less easily in a stressful situation) drawn when needed. If you have a spear and a sword, you have to carry the spear in your hand and keep the sword in you scabbard. If needed or desired, you can drop the spear and draw the sword. You cannot do the opposite. A spear cannot be kept in a scabbard and keeping it on your back is too awkward to be practical, you can only carry it in your hands.
The sword was also very popular outside of war. You're not going to lump around a spear when going to a bar, but you can easily carry a sword in your scabbard. Also, people were generally not wearing armor unless going to war, and that made the sword extra effective since one of the main weaknesses of a sword is armor. If you could afford a sword, that was your primary weapon for peace time (unless the law forbade it and you decided to respect it).
I got a bit sword heavy here. Still, what weapon someone will use depends on a lot of factors. What is the current technology (early vs late medieval has a huge technological difference), who is it and is the person expecting battle or just carrying a weapon for self defense in case she/he gets attacked?
Crossbows have a ridiculously slow reload rate compared to a trained archer. Like 2 bolts per minute vs 10 or 12. Plus, there were those English edicts to say 'THOU MUST TRAIN IN YE BOW & ARCHERY EVERY SUNDAY AND HOLIDAY', and basically every boy was required to have a bow and 2 arrows, and every man (17+) have 4 arrows.
Regarding swords, they are very versatile, and can be used in almost all situations (including tight spaces indoors). They can both slash and pierce, and even used as clunky club. Swords have many angles of attack, and are well balanced. Other weapons are more effective in a particular situation, or are cheaper (ie- spears), but the universality of swords is hard to beat. Even if you had a lance or spear, you also had a sword as a backup weapon.
Regarding swords, they are very versatile, and can be used in almost all situations (including tight spaces indoors). They can both slash and pierce, and even used as clunky club. Swords have many angles of attack, and are well balanced. Other weapons are more effective in a particular situation, or are cheaper (ie- spears), but the universality of swords is hard to beat. Even if you had a lance or spear, you also had a sword as a backup weapon.
The upside of swords is that they are very, very versatile. You can use them with one or two hands, you can cut or stab/thrust in various positions, you can even grab them by the blade (yes, yes you can if you know how) and use them like a mace, and it's all one weapon.
They take longer to learn how to wield as mentioned before (I followed that one guy who did the cutting practice thing for a while), for all I know, and have their disadvantages, of course.
But this is an aspect that I have never seen a game make use of, and it'd be really fun to try (especially for a one-man game or smaller stuff, so you need not balance different stances etc. for every weapon type)
Weapons all had their place and were used in tandem for a reason : )
They take longer to learn how to wield as mentioned before (I followed that one guy who did the cutting practice thing for a while), for all I know, and have their disadvantages, of course.
But this is an aspect that I have never seen a game make use of, and it'd be really fun to try (especially for a one-man game or smaller stuff, so you need not balance different stances etc. for every weapon type)
Weapons all had their place and were used in tandem for a reason : )
Basics swords are not even that powerful, though really, really pricey. Using them is really difficult, they don't give you that much impact and they are sort of "universal, but not that special weapon" for rich people, useful more for defense than aggressive attacks.
For example, a basic medieval knight (most likely - a man) will use mostly a lance, since he will do everything he can to never leave a horse. Horses are awesome. But if he looses his lance, he will not instantly think about a sword - he will use an axe, since its really easy to swing it and just brutally punch footmen around you.
There is so much interesting stuff hidden in this topic that people want to ignore in the name of "making things cool". I honestly think that using more historically accurate research is just as, if not more, "cool".
Still though - use crossbows. They are so good and easy to use it's just stupid.
- Aureus
For example, a basic medieval knight (most likely - a man) will use mostly a lance, since he will do everything he can to never leave a horse. Horses are awesome. But if he looses his lance, he will not instantly think about a sword - he will use an axe, since its really easy to swing it and just brutally punch footmen around you.
There is so much interesting stuff hidden in this topic that people want to ignore in the name of "making things cool". I honestly think that using more historically accurate research is just as, if not more, "cool".
Still though - use crossbows. They are so good and easy to use it's just stupid.
- Aureus
Irog
4858
author=LibertyYes, please write it !
I have to admit to after reading this wanting to make an article myself based on weapons in games and how they can be spiced up - something along the lines of 'replacing the sword, a look at what else can be used' or 'class restrictions - yay or nay?', so this article has been pretty inspiring.
I think there is one key element we didn't talk about yet: how the character acquired the weapon?
It is very unlikely that a low class person can afford a sword. For example a farmer will most likely use a farming tool converted into a polearm. A noble will be taught the ways of chivalry and use a sword. The daughter of a viking king will use a Dane axe or an Ulfberht sword. Whether the person was initially fit to wield such weapon or not, he/she learned techniques and built some muscle that now makes him/her more proficient with that weapon than any other weapon.
The above leads me to think that the best way to give the correct weapon to a character is to write his/her story first. But I usually build games completely the opposite and easily fall into the clichés. I start with a mechanic; something that is fun to do as player; then put characters in, and finally write a story. Wizard apprentice Lya is a typical example. Shooting spells at enemies is fun so I built that. Consequently, I need an offensive mage character. Red hear girls look great as fire mages so I felt right in a cliché.
Aegix_Drakan
6037
author=kentona
time to go back and fix all of my old RPG projects
Oh you think that's a twist?
You know that the whole "Priests don't use bladed weapons" was invented by D&D, right? Back in the crusades, plenty of the priests that went along used swords. :P
Now you'll REALLY have to go back and fix all your old RPG projects if you intend to stay realistic! XD
Crystalgate
694
Here's a good video about sword weights:
A note though to avoid confusion when going into that video, what aD&D and most video games call longsword should actually be called an arming sword. A longsword is a sword that, while it can be used one-handed somewhat decently, is intended for two-handed use.
A note though to avoid confusion when going into that video, what aD&D and most video games call longsword should actually be called an arming sword. A longsword is a sword that, while it can be used one-handed somewhat decently, is intended for two-handed use.
"Two-handed sword, Scottish, mid 16th century, (IX.926). Weight: 5 lb 10oz."
Swords weren't as heavy as you might assume. mostly between 2lbs and 5lbs. Swinging even such a light weight for an extended amount of time is very tiring, so they were as light as possible while still remaining effective. And balanced, of course.
I don't know how much a typical cat weighs. Probably about 6 lbs?
Swords weren't as heavy as you might assume. mostly between 2lbs and 5lbs. Swinging even such a light weight for an extended amount of time is very tiring, so they were as light as possible while still remaining effective. And balanced, of course.
I don't know how much a typical cat weighs. Probably about 6 lbs?
...I do not believe for a second that a great sword, made of metal, will weigh less than a cat. At all. Metal weighs a lot. Unless that blade is hella thin OR the blade is really a metal cast around air, there's no way it's weighing less than this cat sitting next to me, even dead weight.
That said, while yes, skill is required for GREAT use of a melee weapon, to even swing the damn thing requires a decent amount of strength in and of itself, which is the point we're making. Not whether it is used effectively (that that is something to consider as ell), but whether it can be used at all.
That said, while yes, skill is required for GREAT use of a melee weapon, to even swing the damn thing requires a decent amount of strength in and of itself, which is the point we're making. Not whether it is used effectively (that that is something to consider as ell), but whether it can be used at all.
Crystalgate
694
author=Liberty
Hell, even bladed weapons require strength to use well, especially larger swords which require strength to even lift, let alone use effectively.
A greatsword intended for battle and not just for hanging on wall or ceremonial purposes, will weight less than the average adult cat. A small child can lift a cat, so large swords do not require anything above a tiny amount of strength to lift. However, actually handling them effectively does indeed require strength, although not a huge amount. An average man should be good to go with less than a months training.
Anyway:
author=kentona
A bow's "power" is limited by its draw weight and works by augmenting a person's strength with the bow's tension. A melee weapon, especially blunt ones, are pretty much pure strength.
It is true, a bow is limited by it's draw weight. If you have a 70 pound bow, but is perfectly capable of using a 120 pound bow, the extra strength will not let you loose more devastating arrows. However, a stronger archer would not use the same bow as a weaker one.
Blunt weapons are not pure strength by a long shot. Having a great technique is hugely helpful even with a mace. If someone with great strength, but poor technique fought someone with poor strength, but great technique, the latter would have the advantage. That said, someone with great strength and technique would have a big advantage over someone with just great technique.
I don't think even blunt weapons makes as much use of strength as bows though.
Eh, it does depend on the community, but for the most part, yeah. Even the better youtube communities have some rotten eggs. The issue with youtube is that anyone can stumble on a video and those anyones have the potential to be fuckwits, so... XD
Aegix_Drakan
6037
author=MoralAnxietyStudio
You are officially more kindhearted than GDC's Youtube section. ; )
Well that's your problem right there. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than the comment section on youtube. XD
You won't have to worry about that here, bud~ We're very inclusive towards all genders/sexes on this site. In fact, we have rules against hate speech in general so any woman-bashing would be dealt with quite sternly as per our rules.
I have to admit to after reading this wanting to make an article myself based on weapons in games and how they can be spiced up - something along the lines of 'replacing the sword, a look at what else can be used' or 'class restrictions - yay or nay?', so this article has been pretty inspiring.
I have to admit to after reading this wanting to make an article myself based on weapons in games and how they can be spiced up - something along the lines of 'replacing the sword, a look at what else can be used' or 'class restrictions - yay or nay?', so this article has been pretty inspiring.
