Mount & Blade General

The "sword on the back" thing here is only done with two-handed swords in the game. Even the hand-1/2 swords are sheathed at the waist. Think of it more like a rifle sling than anything else. If you had to juggle the weapon between a tonne of others, are you saying you wouldn't carry it across your back?
 
Carrying is mostly fine, but drawing it from the back only works if there's no actual sheath, and if the length of the blade is short enough.
 
They can't just let you equip a greatsword and a pike at the same time and then make it impossible for you to draw it, though.

Pro-tip: It's a video game.
 
Y'know one of the many reasons the classic Fallout games are so great? Attention to detail and proper homage to realism. Yeah, sure, they clearly embody some obviously impossible feats, like pulp fiction radiation making things gigantic rather than simply causing cancer, genetically engineered virus that can mutate anything, and more. But they never disregarded simple admissions of reality, like bullets going through you, you go down. Or, like in this discussion, if your gun is in your hands, it's not in your holster.

Facetiousness deactivated: "It's a video game" is not a catch-all excuse for ignoring realism. If it works, that's great, but it still doesn't excuse it.
 
The problem is that we cannot be all about realism. Real realism is *this*, you and me and him and her sitting on our butts, foruming, then going to bed, then having breakfast

Getting a flu

sneezing from time to time.

If we *begin to count* unrealistic elements of Fallout - or any fiction considered "realistic", the list will grow longer and longer and longer. Mount and Blade is one of the *more realistic* games in terms of weapons design and appearance, for example. So... swords on backs I really don't see as a major issue :I

Don't get me wrong, I'm a realism-nut and I am often criticized for it by others I discuss with, to the point of full-cheek sighs and eyerolls sent my way, but good fiction needs to balance the realistic with the unrealistic. Concessions must be done. And to finally add: I would prefer to carry the sword in a realistic manner in M&B, just for the record.
 
Last edited:
No, we totally can. Realism doesn't mean that each and every aspect of all physical possibilities be stipulated upon by a chosen source of storytelling. Realism simply means not openly contradicting common knowledge or practicality... cause that's unrealistic. We don't give that same lame excuse to books, do we? No, we have higher expectations for them... for some unspecified reason. Maybe it's because of the "dumbing down" trend of movies because of summer blockbusters going for spectacle over substance, but for some reason people find it easy to waive the "it's just a video game" tag line to excuse things that need no excusing. Nightmare never draws his blade from his back in gameplay, so it's not a big deal to ask the question of "is this even possible?" of the Soul Calibur series. We can pardon that his weapons are gargantuan and totally unfeasible to carry, let alone wield, because he is an inhuman demon, after all. Two perfectly good examples of how some aspects can be rationalized and made sense of, and at NO POINT did "because video game" facilitate in that matter.

It's a lazy man's excuse, which makes it a poor excuse. It's not good in any level of discussion. "It's a video game" is no different than "it's a book" or even "it's a shirt". It's just a shallow blanket argument lacking any reasons behind it. But, by contrast, "it's just not worth the hassle trying to cater to each and every detail" IS a good reason. But note, that ALSO has nothing to do with "because video game" either.
 
But an inhuman demon is not realistic...

We always must draw a line, and then step over it, that is what fiction is. Saving Private Ryan was hailed as SO realistic, the Norwegian military showed it to recruits - but how resalistic is it, if we make a list? Pretty damn realistic! But not 100% - if it was, we would be watching a bunch of troops come and go, fight and die, and sure, it would have been interesting enough - but so far nobody has made that movie. Everyone adds *an element* to it, that makes it stand out from reality, even if only by a fraction. The very main premise of this movie is probably the least realistic thing about it - so unrealistic, it had to be dealth with in the scene with all those military commanders having to be convinced by a speech to actually set in motion the resque mission.

In the end, M&B is way more realistic than for example Morrowind, which we praise into the sky. Again, realism *isn't everything*, and that coming from someone accused of being obsessed with realism.
Would you believe me if I told you I am *not* obsessed with realism? :D

My favorite handling of realism is this: Unrealistic setting (a space colony that does not exist, or a super-villain that will never exist, or a setting/situation that is unlikely ever to occur)
coupled with Realistic human reactions. I cannot stand little details like villains expecting to die, because they're supposed to die in the script, and such. Like that raider-chick in the alien-DLC of FO3, who tells you to punch her so the guards can come - but then adds "Don't kill me though - " she might as well have thrown in "If you do, you'll have to reload previous save!"
That little detail ground my gears to no end... :D
 
Last edited:
The only realistic way around it is to not allow you to do it in the first place. Nobody would be able to carry four greatswords at once and still fight with them.

Have you actually played the game? It sounds sort of like you haven't.
 
No I havn't, but I always thought mount & blade was seen as a more believable/realistic approach on sword/melee combat. My comment about the weapon on the back of the player was more a ramble in general.

To say this a certain lenity with games is to be expected. Particularly when the developers have a certain gameplay in mind. So compromises can be taken.

For example, inventories. Pretty much every RPG has them. And realizm is never much of a problem here.

Though if mount and blade is really trying to re-create this medieval feeling going further than the typical fantasy fanfare, than it has also to deal with the criticism, in my opinion.

And besides, it looks super fucking ridiculous to see someone runing around with a 10 foot pole glued on his back ...
 
Last edited:
This seems kindov mis-guided - one of the very most realistic "medieval combat"-games in existence recieves two pages of flack for _one_ particular error of realism?

Should we start a thread about realism issues of Fallout? :I
 
Was it sold as most realistic post apocalyptic game? By the way, we can talk about authenticity and verisimiltude even in a setting like Fallout. For example if I would suddenly start to introduce magic, fire balls, wizards, dragons and shit would it still work in the setting of Fallout as well like the Power Armor? hey its a game after all! Fallout saw its fare share of criticism. Particuarly F2 with the mobs in new Reno, the Shi etc. not really working well with the setting and beeing somewhat out of place.

I am not saying M&B is a shitty game. It's just nitpicking from my side. And I would say the combat of the game is a fairly important part. But the looks of a game is equally important - in my opinion. And I just can't help it but to shake with my head when I see someone runing around with a 10 foot pole straped to his back. It kinda destroys the verisimiltude, but that is me.
 
It is nitpicking! :D
Anyway, this should serve as a good advertisement anyway, M&B Warband (which is the version anyone should play) is not very demanding, and extremely sand-boxy, things take a lot of time, it CAN be extremely monotonous - OR - dedicated, depending how you see it.

It's one of my favorite games, and allows for a very satisfactory XP-Level curve, forcing you to start specializing quite early on
 
They could do it the way The Deluge mod does it, the only way you can carry a pike is in your hands. If you want to switch to a sidearm, you automatically drop the pike on the ground.
 
zegh8578 said:
But an inhuman demon is not realistic...
Click to expand...
Um... yes it is. You're confusing "realism" with "it exists". They're not the same thing. Realism can define high fantasy settings where magic exists despite the fact that magic does not exist. Likewise, realism can define cyber punk science fiction settings despite the fact that many of their depictions are totally fictitious. "Realism" is all about consistency. The term is "realism", NOT "real". "Realistic", NOT "real".

No part of designing totally badass weapons that are gratuitously large changes the fact that holstering them on your back is unrealistic. The physical impracticality of the weapon design or unlikelihood of being CAPABLE of carrying them around doesn't have any relationship to the nature of a sheath and a strap, or the angle that an elbow or shoulder joint can bend. The weapon designs can be physically impossible, and yet still realistic in their function.
 
Last edited:
But the demon itself is unrealistic. If I am shifting the topic of this discussion from weapons - to biology - or politics - then dealing with demons is completely unrealistic, compared to dealing with human adversaries, political opposition, etc, no matter what the genre is. If it is fantasy - then it allows demons - and huge swords with jagged edges - apparently! Neither exist historically, or in reality. Realism is about several things, not just one - it also covers what exists and what doesnt. Jurassic Park with dragons instead of dinosaurs would be more unrealistic. Jurassic Park with Victorian "crystal garden"-dinosaurs would be a bit more realistic, at least they are supposed to be beings that exist, but they went with the most realistic approach they knew at the time.

Anyway, I think this is on its way to turn into a tangle of how we define the word "realistic"

Play M&B!
 
But the demon itself is NOT unrealistic. Again, you're confusing what that truly means. It's unrealistic to assume that, following concepts we already know and which are established, for elements to suddenly change the rules. But no such concepts explicitly state "there can not be a demon which inhabits a weapon which craves souls and can parasitically inhabit a host while stealing their soul yet mutating their body into a superhuman beast". Meanwhile, simple concepts of inertia and weight distribution and tensile strength DO explicitly or implicitly state that certain things are simply physically impossible.

Realism is about consistency, not about imagined rules of what can and cannot be. If the rules introduced somehow wave the possibility of the physically impossible, then those things being consistent with those rules are being REALISTIC, despite them being physically impossible, because what's real is absent of those introduced rules, but those introduced rules are what we're going by. Take for example, Terminator rules of time travel. Time travel IS physically impossible. But it's realistic in T1, because it follows its own rules. You cannot send inanimate objects. Terminator is a cyborg, not inanimate. Kyle Reese is sent back naked without any of his future weapons because they are inanimate and he is not. Check. History self-perpetuates itself. Skynet sending Terminator back in time allows the creation of Skynet. Resistance sending Kyle Reese back in time allows for the birth of John Connor and the creation of the Resistance. Double check. This idea of an unreal thing can be realistic, so long as it follows its own rules and by doing so makes a degree of sense, suspending a total fixation on what's possible. Suspension of disbelief doesn't mean ignoring all semblance of rational cognition. Just suspending an understanding of one operating force to humor the conceptualization of an introduced concept. Even if the concept CANNOT exist, it can still be realistic in its presentation.

This is where my example of Nightmare fell into the equation. You suspend the disbelief that a demon of Inferno's nature cannot exist and to that degree you accept the existence of Soul Edge and Nightmare. At NO POINT did you amend or alter the qualities of sheathes when you suspended your disbelief in a soul-devouring demon. So a game's depiction of a totally fictional, non-existent entity is still REALISTIC, because he carries his sword in hand as you play the game, and he never sheathes it on his back or draw it from a magical strap that appears and disappears depending on what the "rule of cool" says. It is consistent, because at no time does some skinny mortal wield the weapon in the same fashion or style as Nightmare, because they do not possess his inhuman strength. THAT would be unrealistic!

It's hardly a "tangle" if you simply acknowledge it for what it is. So this fictional setting allows for some unspecified capacity for conjuring fire in the palm of your hands, among other supernatural abilities. Does this unspecified capacity have any impact on the laws of physics or human physiology? No? Well then the weight of weapons and the vulnerability of the human body to vital strikes still applies! People confuse these things all the time, but they're very easy to understand. All you have to do is follow the pattern.
 
Last edited:
In that case, a sword can be carried on someone's back, and it can be impractically shaped, and it can theoretically be swung, and do damage. It ends up depending on what rules are allready established in the fictious lore, which renders realism pointless. If you allow demons to exist, out of lore continuity, you can also allow for physics to function differently - after all - there is nothing in this universe, that actually supports the existence of demons. They are not real, and will and can never be.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(arts) "and avoiding artistic conventions, implausible, exotic and supernatural elements.")
You allowed demons to be real, in a given setting. If that does not go against set laws of physics, why would a piece of metal? A demon is supposedly made of all kinds of stuff, bone, cartillage, muscle - or is it? Maybe it's "ectoplasm", which is even less realistic - but allowed so long as the lore allows it - the very same lore that says "in this universe, swords are humongous, and carried on top of peoples heads, like hats in fact!"

Either something is completely realistic - only real things exist - doing real things - in a real scenario
Or unrealism is introduced, to set limits.

In the end, I'm getting increasingly confused at why we're even discussing. I would love to see a more realistic weapons handling in a game. I also, generally, prefer human opponents - as opposed to super mutants for example, because I find humans much more realistic, than super-mutants - in general!
In this world, that I live in, super-mutants are unrealistic!

Aaaanyway... let's agree to ... disagree? To what ever extent we do disagree
 
Last edited:
zegh8578 said:
It ends up depending on what rules are allready established in the fictious lore, which renders realism pointless.
Click to expand...
Once again, you're totally missing the point. It's not that the rules established even CAN render realism pointless, but rather they're all a FACET of realism. You don't suddenly "lose" realism because of the time travel paradox as displayed in The Terminator (1984) that I brought up, because it treated it realistically. See that word cropping up again? You don't suddenly "lose" realism because totally fictitious elements such as magic are added to the setting. Realism is a consequence of paying attention to detail, adhering to whatever "rules" may apply to what you work with, and acting accordingly. Changing rules doesn't affect "realism" unless so many are added that they start to contradict each other. For instance, Terminator 2 AND/OR Terminator 3. The first film depicted a realistic possibility for time travel including a premise for why a cyborg was necessary and why a soldier from the future couldn't keep his toys. The second film ignored BOTH the crucial premise as well as the realism of the possibility itself by changing the rules in a contradictory fashion. Then YET AGAIN the next film changed it once more, while although it could be argued it somewhat adhered to and reinforced the rules as presented in the 2nd film, it also contradicted those rules and present another entire possibility which was not reinforcing nor reminiscent of the first film, yet conflicted with the concepts as presented in the 2nd. In and of themselves, their cross-continuity contradictions didn't render the entire concept unrealistic. After all, T1 STILL followed its own rules, which made sense.

Take another, wildly different example. Acting. MANY people complain about certain genres of TV shows or films because of the acting present, pointing out how people simply DO NOT behave in the way that the actors... uh... "depict them" to be behaving. This is because those genres NEVER assume that anything is different about the setting as opposed to the real world. They DO assume that the setting and rules are identical to our own. No magical fairies, no future death rays, nothing special or different about these settings. Ergo, they follow the same rules as the real world, so when things are not properly representing what would actually happen- be they fiery explosions when real detonations don't look that way, or be they teens who have the odd tendency to allow each other to speak in full paragraphs one at a time and are always armed and ready with culturally-appropriate quips and puns, or whatever the case may be -then these things ARE being "unrealistic". The reason, as always, is because they contradict the "rules" that are established... this time by reality itself.

Again, "realism" and "real" are not the same thing. Adding or changing a premise does not negate realism in any way. Ignoring realism is the only way to negate realism.

To bring it back to the point of the discussion at all...
ChildServices said:
Once again, it's done so that you can see what characters are equipped with if they're not using that weapon at that specific moment in time.
Click to expand...
This is a MUCH better reason given for an "unrealistic" element than any "because video game" excuse. It's still not realistic, but there's a reason for it. Likewise, take MOST shooters, and notice how damn near every one of the (though not all of them) treats ammunition as something you pick up by walking on it. This is ENTIRELY unrealistic, but it's okay and we accept that, because it would be INCREDIBLY inconvenient if we had to physically location and grab and pick up each and every bullet or cartridge, on top of physically reloading. Some games DO do this, however. But as much as I truly ADORE Breakdown as a game, I cannot escape the fact that its "pick up everything" is incredibly cumbersome. Somewhat immersive, sure, but ultimately tedious to the extreme.

So when you have a game that has a guy with a gun walking over ammunition and that ammunition automatically being added to his invisible stockpile "inventory" without so much as bending over, calling that "unrealistic" is a PERFECTLY VIABLE criticism. Likewise, pointing out that the convention of "magical ammo collecting boots" gameplay avoids unnecessary tedium by presenting acceptable streamlining of repetitious grind to make the game less boring and more fun is ALSO a perfectly viable point. It IS unrealistic, but arguably necessary.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top