I know most people probably don't care, but I figured I'd make this anyway.
There's a lingering problem in fantasy when it comes to the terminology used for weapons and armor. I think it primarily stems from classic D&D, and the terms given to various pieces of gear within its manuals. I honestly have no idea how the creators of D&D came up with most of the improper terms they used, but it seems to still plague fantasy games even today. The most common ones I see:
Claymore - Used to refer to any two handed sword. In reality it was a style of Greatsword specific to a certain time period in Scotland. All Claymores are Greatswords, only Scottish Greatswords of a specific style are Claymores.
Zweihander - Used to mean any two handed sword, though not nearly as often as Claymore. Zweihander is simply the German word for "Two Hander." Which while not being an improper term, really doesn't fit in with non-German localizations of games.
Greaves - Used to refer to armor worn on the upper legs. Greaves are pieces of armor that cover the tibia, i.e. lower legs. This is entirely the wrong term for what it's used to refer to.
https://www.darksteelreplica.com/images/P/300Greaves_2.jpg
Spaulders, Pauldrons, Epaulets - Generally all used as generic terms for any shoulder armor. Each of these refers to a specific sort of shoulder armor: Spaulders cover the top of the shoulder, and a small amount of the upper arms. Pauldrons wrap around the front and rear of the breastplate, covering the armpits in addition to the rest of the shoulders, and a bit of the upper arms. Epaulets are frilly cloth worn on more modern (circa 18th century to now) military uniforms.
Daikatana - Used to refer to a large, large two handed katana. Ignoring the fact that all Katanas are two handed by default, making it really repetitive to refer to something as a "two handed katana", Daikatana is a complete nonsense word that means nothing in any language. Somehow this became a term for a weapon in D&D, then spread into games like Morrowind, and let's not forget the arguably worst game on earth aptly titled "Daikatana." The proper term for the sort of large Japanese style war sword that one can only assume Daikatana is referring to would be Nodachi or Odachi, meaning essentially "Greatsword."
Bucklers: Used as simply a term for Shields, no matter what type of shield it is. A buckler is a specific type of shield, much smaller than most of the shields assigned this term in fantasy games.
http://www.swordacademy.com/home/buckler02.big.jpg
The different terms for the different types of pole weapons: Pole weapon terminology gets thrown out the window in most cases. Something is either a Spear or a Halberd in fantasy games, even if it's neither of those. And generally if something is called a "Pike" in a fantasy game, it's not. I somehow doubt there's any game out there with a 10 to 25 foot long pike as a weapon.
http://www.retromud.org/frames/images/weapons/polearms.gif
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/9038/aagv.jpg
This barely scratches the surface of all the things wrong with arms, armour, and martial arts in the Fantasy genre, but I hope it's at least somewhat educational.
/end rant
The only advantage the Terminology of Fantasy it does not Need any Reality Explanation.
Would look Better., Top of post the Definition of Fantasy then At the Bottom Post the Definition of Reality then Below that Post a Thank you to The Modders who put the Reality into ( Time Effort and Brain Power ) into Creating Fantasy Games so WE can Keep Playing Them.
No offense, but I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say.
If I was starting to babble about how incorrect all of the weaponry, martial arts, armours and names are in fantasy it would take me 10 days to finish this post. Lots of it doesn't make any sense whatsoever, and the more you dig into it the more ridiculous things and common misconceptions and myths you find... I only hope I can save some horribly annoying mistakes with my designs (which are often looking crazy, but realistic enough to work in Morrowind's alien environment).
I've already got pages upon pages of things I want to try to fix for my realistic combat mod for Skyrim, in the future. It's like every time I turn around I find something else that could really use changing. It's going to take me probably another years or more to actually have something substantial for it, though currently my goals are: Realistic weights and speeds for weapons, realistic animations, new weapon types, adjusted weapon meshes, weeding out bad terminology, etc.
And I've got to say Drago, I love your designs, you know how to make believable stuff.
Oh, I have plenty of ideas on how to make Skyrim's combat system realistic, if you ever need any feedback I'll be happy to give you a lecture on anything :P
For example, did you have anything in mind concerning bows? I'd love if each bow had its poundage (from 0 to 100 I'd say). The closer the poundage would be to our skill, the more efficient we are with it. If we take a bow with a poundage too low, we can draw it very easily and hold it drawn for long, but the damage wouldn't be great due to the fact that the bow itself has low poundage (and is below our skills). If we take a bow that is too strong for us, we'll not be able to fully draw it (and therefore it will reduce its potential damage), our reticle will be shaking all over the place decreasing accuracy, and also we won't be able to hold it drawn for too long. The optimum with draw weight being the same as our skill level would give us stable reticle for 5 seconds, and maximum amount of damage.
But that's just bows, I have it all set up in my mind along with all other gameplay systems, like exploration, economy, armour and weapons designs, combat mechanics, quests... Basically how to make Skyrim a really good game :P
Most of what I have in mind has to do with animations and speed, and behavior editing to allow for more animation types, though that won't come in until Eham finishes his HKX tool. Bows will probably function like that to at least some small degree, i.e. poundage wouldn't be an actual part of the calculations, but would be reflected in draw speed and damage.
I also want to have an integrated Equipping Overhaul type feature, though without that mod's requirement for SkyUI.
That's all your own opinion however and you state it as if your opinion is the only fact. Note, that to each is own, I love Skyrim as it is, and don't want others to touch it. They can change their own, but I prefer the way it is now.
I am casual, and I don't get the inability to understand my viewpoint. I don't have the time, or the any sort of desire to strain myself just to explore a fictional world. And having such desires for a casual experience doesn't make someone some sort of simpleton, who can't do anything either.
And about the termology-
No offense, though I must speak honestly, again, Jorgen, you speak as if you are the only one who knows anything, which is incredibly pretentious, and annoying to read, quite honestly. The largest, and best aspect of fictional worlds in my opinion, is that they are fictional. So one can get creative, and do whatever the hell they want when making one. In something like termology, in fiction, there is no real reason why "Katana" or "Zweihander" can't be used, because if Japan, or Germany don't exist in a fantasy world, then they don't, and those words can have any sort of meaning or origin that the author desires.
I'm having a hard time explaining my reasoning, but I'll attempt to. I look at games from a fictional author's point of view, not as if those fictional worlds are supposed to be tied, and creatively restricted based on reality, because that ruins the fun of it, in my opinion. I couldn't care less if my Akaviri sword is a "Katana," because if that's how it is, that is simply how it is, and there is no other reason to look at it negatively unless you wish to to rain an someone else's parade, who actually wishes to enjoy the game as it is. Often, things like "Katana" are used as a general, accessible term for the audience, who will hear that and immediately know what the game is talking about, which is good.
I find it depressing when people obsess and complain over these things, and I just wish they could be happy with it.
Our opinions are equally legitimate, though I simply disagree with yours, and I wish to state so professionally.
If someone downvotes what I have said here simply because they disagree with me, they do so knowing that they did so only for that reason, which is no good reason to do so at all.
Saivryn wrote:
If I said anything that offended you I'm sorry. As for "speaking as if I'm the only one who knows anything", my intent was never to make anyone feel as though they were being talked down to, merely to inform anyone who didn't already know these things.
The issue I have with the "It's just fantasy." argument is that without some sort of believable logical grounding for fantasy stories, there can't be any suspension of disbelief. If you're into that sort of thing though, more power to you, don't let my preferences rain on your parade.
On the subject of terminology, I really can't get behind the idea of people using whatever terms they want to refer to objects. Words have meanings, and I think it's irresponsible on the part of creators to use any word to describe an object that word has never applied to within that language. A lot of misconceptions about real objects and ideas are spread this way, and I simply don't abide that.
I don't have an issue with the term Katana being used to describe something that fits the bill, if it has a saber like blade, is two handed, and has a round guard, it's a Katana. There aren't really any other swords with those features, and the English term for a Katana is well... Katana. With Zweihanders it's simply that we don't need a German term (one of many different German terms to refer to those types of swords) to refer to something that we have multiple English words for.
Thanks for understanding, I'm normally quite hesitant to voice my opinion online, because it is often met with harsh backlash. I was thinking about this, and I think another interesting example could be like galactic basic in Star Wars. It's not really a solid thing, it's more just a name applied to the reader/ viewer/ player's language. For me, that would be English, of course. Though of course, English itself couldn't actually exist in the Star Wars universe, as there is no actual England, nor the European regions that inspired that language itself. So many terms and titles are used for things. One example could be "chancellor" which comes from Rome, which of course doesn't exist in Star Wars, though the term is used anyways to describe the prime democratic speaker of the Galactic Republic. And this title is used by the writers because it is easily understandable, and non-estoeric to the readers/viewers/players, so it conveys well what the person is in the universe there.
So I guess what I mean to say, in short, as that there are so many things like that throughout all fiction, so it would be impossible to address them all. So instead, I say the best thing to do is simply accept it, unless it is absolutely ridiculous.
With things like "greaves" being used to describe the wrong part of thw leg armor, I just don't think it really matters. While this thread is certainly quite educational, I don't think there is really any problem in the misuses of terms like these, because these things are so subtle that I don't think it really effects the quality of the narrative overall.
But anyways, I again thank you for responding so well, it made me feel like it was a very successful exchanging of opinions.
Also, I'm keeping that pole weapon name sheet, it seems quite useful for writing, thanks
People for some reason often tend to refer to the real world's history with what they know from fantasy games and movies, and many misconceptions spread that way, naming of weapons being the least annoying of those. Horned, barbaric vikings clad in fur, knights in armour so heavy that they can't walk, people fighting on foot in closed helmets, keeping a bow drawn for a long time to build suspense and threat someone, or not using shields for anything other than counterbalance, fights shown as a series of chaotic duels with no defined lines or formations, women shown every bit good as men at anything, and that's usually fighing (well, usually they're shown to be better than men, but end up as a love interest anyway. I miss characters like Ellen Ripley...), people using giant fire brazziers for lighting, or torches hung on walls in the middle of the day for no reason, so high it would be very hard to change those... Just to name a few. I get really frustrated when I see stuff from fantasy put into historical context, mainly in movies, while stuff from actual history is shoved off from fantasy context because "it's just a fantasy".
But, as I said, the key to make something work in fantasy, is making it work in its own environment. That's how it happens on Earth, people either get inspired by nature, or make things to cope with it better. That's why armours in Morrowind had scarves and masks.
I also can't agree with your opinion that realism in fantasy kills the fun. It's quite the contrary actually, the more real and believable the world seems the more awe - inspiring the magic is. The more realistic and consistent a world feels, the more it will grab you as something that could actually exist. Take Lord of the Rings for example (granted, there was plenty of stuff that wouldn't make sense in a historical context - like an army taking a forest of pikes to a siege... Were they expecting to poke Helm's Deep when they get there?), but its style was very low fantasy for the most part. Majority of the weaponry and armours, especially human seemed actually practical and not overblown. So in such a realistic setting, whenever we saw Ents or Balrog the magic seemed all the more real, and thus impacting.
And the same rule applies to games. If a game holds some level of realism, all that happens in it will have more impact on us. It's not about making everything unreal, or making everything nice, or making everything epic. People tend to lose sense of good storytelling lately, and generally composition. You can't have real epicness, without a real obstacle. Facing an impossible obstacle and winning againts all the odds, at great costs - that's what is epic, that's what made LotR, Gladiator and a few other movies epic. Streamlined killing of everything on your way is not epic, it's just boring for someone who wants to experience art in games. You can't have a dream-like experience without a level of realism. If the whole experience doesn't give you any realistic anchor to refer to, you won't really feel how unreal it is. You can't have a believable beautiful world without some darkness in it. The nice things just don't have the same feeling when there's nothing to compare them to. You can't have a stressful experience if it doesn't give you a moment of breath from time to time, to build up the tension again. There's no light without shadow, and I rarely see that done in games lately. I'm really, REALLY tired of spoon feeding success, rewards for no effort and no punishment, hand holding, impossibility to fail, too much in-game information, streamlined and linear gameplay, bad console ports, no learning experience, no challenge, simplified everything and nice graphics to cover it all up. This may be fun for you, but it is definetly not close to any kind of fun for me.
That doesn't mean I'm all negative, because I'm not. I've played plenty of games and many of them were really, REALLY good. Examples?
Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines. Man, they really did put lots of love in that game. Dialogue is unmatched to this day, facial expressions are still amazing, branching story is timeless, and the setting and world is just so detailed and filled with little curiosities to dig up you get soaked in it instantly. And at the end of every dig you always find some humorous easter egg.
Arx Fatalis (made by the same guys who brought us Dark Messiah of Might and Magic and Dishonored, and IMO the best game of the three). Some of the best first person system in RPG I've ever seen, extremely immersive and fun, with clever puzzles and generally very innovative. Its story is a bit cliche, but it makes up with clever side quests and dialogue, and an AMAZING game world.
Planescape Torment, one of the most legendary RPG's of all time. Timeless story and one of the first games to fully realise the potential of interaction, allowing you to find answers to some actual, real world philosophical questions, through it's extremely twisted plot, unforgettable world and characters.
Fallout 1 and 2... It's a shame most people remember this series from Bethesda's Fallout 3. Granted, Obsidian did fix a few things in Fallout NV, but it's still nowhere close to the quality of the first two. They made a harsh environment for a game, and the game actually treated you harsh. And guess what - it was FUN. When you finally developed your character and geared up it felt better than any silly dragon souls or shouts. And of course their stories are just gold, some of the most athmospheric games I've played.
Gothic 1 and 2 - these were ton of harsh athmosphere, some action, lots of exploring, humour and excitement. Especially the first one plunged you into an environment in which everyone would try to kill you, beat you up, steal from you, and those who seem friendly at first might as well betray you. So when through hard work you finally make a name for yourself... Now that is TRULY epic.
From newer titles - Witcher games keep a really high standard in terms of story (combat system can get a bit annoying, but nothing too bad and the dialogue compensates in 100%). They are a perfect continuation to the books, picking up all the moral issues brought up in the original story and expanding on them, exploring them with tough choices and fascinating characters.
There's also this very creative russian game - Pathology, in which you investigate an epidemic in a desolated village in Siberia, but it quickly turns around to be a struggle for survival. Now how fun is THAT?
And that's mostly the RPG genre. I know plenty good games of other types too, like the amazing Telltale games for example.
Okay, this has grown into a post about the nature of games overall, but I guess it was unavoidable when talking realism vs. fantasy. The fact that some people are unable to chew through a steak doesn't mean porridge is more tasty. Realism doesn't kill the fun in games in any way if implemented right. Anything implemented wrong kills the fun though, whether realistic or not. So please stop hating on realism, there's nothing wrong with it, and it can enhance the experience very much.
And lastly, don't bring up the "opinion" thing. Everything we say is an opinion. A fact is something outside of our mind, in the actual, physical world. We can't talk facts. We can give proof, logical or material to prove that our opinion is closer to the fact than somebody else's, but saying "it's just your opinion" is like saying that your hair is just your hair.