They make it look pretty easy in the game.

I thought the weapons in Oblivion were fine. Admittedly, I'm not all that hard to satisfy in the graphics department, but I think I'd have noticed over-sized plastic.

Swords and dragons, magic and physics. Warhammer ≠ ball peen hammer. Warhammers are intended to defeat strong defenses, ie. heavy armor, shields, etc. They are big. 'Nuff said.

This.

What about armor than? It's interesting people only complain about weapons...You know,fantasy is about...unrealism,really :rolleyes:

Maybe because there was nothing about the armour that didn't make fundamental sense? New, otherworldly materials are fine, the inconsistencies in the physical rules of the fantasy world are what produce these 'complaints'.

That has got to be the plain most stupid thing ive EVER heard,you REALLY think that if someone hit you with a warhammer on your shoulder you just go ow,get someone to hit you with a normal size house hold hammer at full swing and you will be lucky if you ever use your shoulder again.A hammer the size of the hammers in oblivion wouldnt even be able to be swung,and saying its a fantasy game is just daft,plenty of the oblivion content is firmly based on REAL world stuff infact most IS.At no point did i say i hated oblivion i just said i hoped they hadnt gone the same ott style and plastic textures.The lord of the rings books and films are Fantasy but i dont see any stupid sized weapons and i think most sensible people would agree the Art direction in the films is second to none.

Yeah my point was it's possible to wield big swords in real life, a claymore in Oblivion is small compared to a 6ft sword!.

True, the in-game claymores are reasonably close to the real thing, which tend to be a lot more modest than people assume: I have an Albion replica of similar proportions, somewhat skinnier than a traditional claymore but close enough: it's about 4' long and weighs less than three pounds; their more traditional replica is a bit heftier at around 4 lbs but is still much less obtrusive than often assumed. http://www.albion-europe.com/search/model.aspx?model=92 for those who are interested.

This. One would think Bethesda would have figured out how to do finer bump maps in the last five years... Or would that really strain the consoles too hard?

Only 4'? The blade of a typical longsword was 40 to 48 inches with another 7 to 9 inches of hilt. Great-swords, defined by some sources as an intermediary sword between longsword/bastard swords and true renaissance two-handers, has blades up to 53 inches, but weighed more (up to 4 lbs). True renaissance two-handers (or zweihanders), though, had blades up to 6 ft, with hilts between 14 to 18 inches. That could actually put it at 7ft 6 in sword.

Oblivion had nothing close to that.

I dunno, I have quite a collection of swords and most "longswords" (which I understand to be "knightly swords" or "arming swords") have blades that are 24-30" long, with typically another 5-6" for the crossbar, grip and pommel. A claymore/hand-and-a-half/bastard sword is bigger with a 36" or so blade and the remainder taking it to around 46-48" total length, and then you have the really huge two-handers that are 5-6' in total. They're made by fairly reputable swordsmiths such as Albion, Armour Class and Castle Keep who are all pretty hot on researching their area of expertise, so they should be fairly authentic.

The typical fantasy "shortsword" is a more peculiar creature with a size that seems more comparable with a typical gladius or a very large dagger, but I suspect didn't really have a direct mediaeval anologue.

Actually, I made a bit of a stupid mistake. It's not 48in + 9in. It's 48in total, of which 9in was hilt. So that does shorten them considerably. Anyways, an important thing to remember is that there are no hard rules regarding the classification of swords. There are various methods and they don't all agree. The numbers I used were from one of my books by John Clements, one of t he founding members of the Association of Renaissance Martial Arts and one of the leading experts on European Medieval and Renaissance sword fighting styles.

According to that same source, an arming sword refers to no single particular type of sword, but was, apparently used at one time to distinguish a shorter, pointier, thing one handed sword from the war-sword and longsword. And it's interchangeable with knightly swords or riding swords. The longsword, war-sword and great sword are defined as swords that have both a long blade and a long hilt. The longsword was primarily a one handed weapon while the great sword was primarily two. Then you have my personal favorite, the bastard or hand-and-a-half sword that had a hilt that allowed it to be used with one or two hands.

Ultimately, though, like I said, there is no hard rule for naming. That means that all we're really doing is arguing semantics and that is rarely fruitful.

True. The general RPG theme of dagger/shortsword/longsword/claymore works quite well in game but can be a bit awkward to translate into real-world swords; and I guess if we all have our own interpretation... I realised the hazard of writing "knightly" and "arming" swords and probably shouldn't have described them as such, so from my personal perspective I understand them to translate directly to the one-handed variety of the length I mentioned (i.e. 24-30" blade), with the hand-and-a-half/bastard/whatever being the 48"-long claymore. But I guess others' interpretations may differ...

Honestly I've gotta say the plastic doll look and the overuse of bloom effects killed immersion for me in OB. Glowing butterflies and flowers did not give off an atmosphere of danger

"No PLASTIC" looking textures that does not make a game to me!

i have held a real English long sword in my hands and the sword length was fine from first person. i do agree with the plastic looking swords i also hated how some of the sword do not look sharp

This. This so hard.

ROFLMAO.....Assassin's Creed and historical accuracy should never be placed in the same sentence together.

You are slightly incorrect with some of your statements about the TES universe being firmly based on real world "stuff". The physics in the TES universe are, in fact, largely the same as real world physics (discounting magic, of course); however, the races of Tamriel are NOT human, and do not have the same limitations. Yes, a Bosmer wielding one of Oblivions warhammers did look fairly ridiculous, but most of the races are physically far superior to a real world human, not to mention the one's using warhammers are typically very well trained warriors, and look as realistic (as far as the physics go, granted the limitations of the engine and technology in use at the time) as I think a fantasy game should. The warhammer's size did not seem at all unrealistic for an orc, nord, redguard or even a well trained imperial to use. Now, are they realistic compared to real world warhammers? Not in the slightest, but they weren't meant to look like real warhammers.

I do agree that the artistic style of Oblivion was quite different than previous entries, and I very much prefer the styles of previous games. As for "plastic" textures, that's largely due to the limitations of the technology of the time combined with the new art direction. It was just a bad combo, and came out a bit off. I do, however, think that comparing a video game to a movie series is very unfair. They are completely different mediums, and trying to judge one based on the other is just a fallacy. You are also comparing two completely different franchises. Yes, TES and LotR are both fantasy franchises. They both have magic, and even have orcs! But that's about all they have in common, and again judging one based on the other is again, a logical fallacy.

Did anyone see the trailer for that new game one of the designers on Oblivion is leading the disgn of? It was looking pretty good, nice, serious, and epic as I was expecting, then he pulls out a hammer and charges a giant demon thing. I couldnt stop laughing at how rediculous the whole thing looked! Thats an oversized weapon, ive always loved the Elder Scrolls for keeping their weapons low fantasy as with their games, especially this one. Grounded with realism, but still fantastical and interesting.

I didnt notice a plasticy look at all to the weapons, but then again, some people thought the dead mammoth was a tentacle bear so my eyes might just work better

I love whoen people talk about wanting more realistic things in ithei game people come in and throw back the ole "It's a fantasy game/lets take out all magic blah blah."

That's just a cheap come back with no context. People asking for realistic looking weapons aren't asking for anything more, not to take out the fantasy elements of TES or anything.

They are ismply asking for weapons that look more realistic in terms of size/texture. This doesn't mean you can't have glass swords or TES own unique fantasy weapons, it just means that swords/weapons meant to be based on our reality look likle they should.

The main problem with Oblivion's weapons were the width of them, it was too wide (especially at the hilt/sword area) and the steel looked less like steel and more like plastic.

I disagree with the "too big" statement, but wholehearthy agree with the textures. I've had to run into mods in order to find http://www.tesnexus.com/downloads/images/28437-1-1259345578.jpg that really looks like http://www.tesnexus.com/downloads/images/28437-4-1259345580.jpg, and not like condensed milk.

That's more like polished metal or chrome. Not all metal is so reflective. Especially after it's battered and weathered.

My sword is new, just out of the forge. Any problem with that? :biggrin: