"It worked for thousands of years and it's only recently..."
Let me stop you right there. The nuclear family is a largely modern invention, too. For thousands of years you've had people marrying off their children for dowries or political power, often never to see them again. Single parents aren't some brand new thing that never existed before 1950. Homosexuals are able to be who they are more openly, but they've existed for thousands of years, too, had children, raised children. The world keeps on turning. The world is better now than it has ever been. In most of the world there's demonstrably less disease, less hunger, less crime, and supposedly more happiness. Shit is only "going wrong" in the eyes of hatemongers who are being criticized for shitting on people they don't like.

There's people practicing virtually every religion who are adapting to the times, and at the same time there are people practicing virtually every religion that uses that religion as an excuse for barbarism. The Dalai Lama and his fellow monks used Buddhism to excuse a theocratic dictatorship in Tibet for many years. They weren't exactly adapting to modern times. Any religion can do this. Christians did it for a long time, and there are still Christian fundamentalist groups that resort to violence out there to this day.

The post is from /pol/ and says chivalry, so yes chivalry. That's their own words. But, the idea that there was ever some universal sense of honor in the world that magically vanished recently is laughable. People got into fights, beat each other up or killed each other, and their families feuded for decades. There has been violence and broken promises since the beginning of human history. Seeking a future where honor is widespread is a noble goal, but /pol/ imagines that such a time once existed and is now gone because people exist who disagree them. They also imagine they're the only ones who possess these qualities of honor and loyalty. They're, quite plainly, wrong.

Expressing pride in your tradition and heritage is fine. The problem with /pol/ is that they do so with a hefty dose of shitting all over traditions and heritage that is different from their own. If you're brown and wear a turban, you're a shitskin. if you hold different values, even if they don't actually harm anyone, you're a nigger or an SJW, or otherwise a degenerate. /pol/ threads are filled with comments like how at least they're not niggers or how Obama is an uppity nigger. That's not expressing pride, that's expressing hate.

The thing is, I'm not being a dick. My problem with /pol/ and their assorted horeshit is that they're the ones being dicks about it, like all the fucking time. They're not racists because they're proud of their heritage, they're racists because they spend an indorinate amount of time talking about how inferior and awful other races are.

You can be factually wrong and still win an argument on /pol/ because their rhetoric is nothing but "cuck", "JIDF" and lookatthisgraph.webm

In no way shape or form do i ever condone what goes on in /pol/...... The place is a pit of ignorance and stupidity.

What would they blow me the fuck out with, screaming about the supposed Zionist conspiracy while demonstrating no proof of its existence? Holy shit, you're right, they got me.

I'd still probably rule that your average goblin or orc cannot read. Even if their languages have written forms, that doesn't mean elders necessarily teach them. Parenting for races like orcs, goblins, and gnolls is often described as a callous, negligent affair. And, even if they can read, a creature with 3-11 Int is only going to know its base languages. For Minotaurs, that's Giant, not Common.

It's not really lazy DMing, especially if the DM has a design for how the characters are introduced or how they know each other. And, in most settings, a lot of races hang out in cosmopolitan cities, so a character's race is indeed often unimportant in determining where they are or what they do.

It also may be a more casual game/group, or one where the group expects that their characters to come about purely through roleplay and not from where they arre recruited.

A fun one is in Player's Handbook 2 for 3.5, there's a feat called Telling Blow. Anytime a class with the skirmish or sneak attack ability confirms a critical attack, they get to add their sneak attack or skirmish damage to the roll, even if the sneak attack requirements haven't been met. It's fucking awesome.

"You put the dangerous end into the bad guy."
Except you are overly simplifying a weapon. Each weapon has it's own uses. Trying to stab someone with an ax is very ineffective. Trying to chop with a spear is very ineffective. Even different swords have different ways to be effective. Not all swords are good at slicing. Not all swords are good with stabbing. My point is that a staff is used very differently than a lightsaber. You cannot use a staff the same way you would use a saber. If you tried, you would likely die because you wouldn't be using the weapon the way it needs to be used. A staff can land some pretty heavy blows because you have to put emphasis on your swings, but if you swing it like a sword you are not going to have the same effect. You go get a staff, grab it only by the middle, and try to use it as a sword. See how limited it would be. Then go grab a sword and try to use it as a staff. You would be limiting what you can do with the sword.

The thing with the staff is it's held different than a sword. That and both ends are dangerous which means you can't do everything with it as you can with a sword. A sword is much more versatile and you can be more fluid with it. A staff is somewhat limited in what you can do. You cannot do the same things with them. Each have their own uses, strengths, and weaknesses. They don't share the same style.

A saber can be held with one hand and you can move your body around to dodge. You can also put both your hands over the small hand and swing harder. A staff is very different. You can't grab it in the dead center(which the dead center would be the size of the saber handle) and use it the same way. A staff needs to be held with both hands at both ends of the extended handle. That's why the handle is so long. Because your hands need to be spread apart so you can put more force into your blows. You also can't use a staff with one hand. I mean, you can try, but you would be dead very quickly.

I don't need to be an expert on melee weapons to understand how one works best. It's mostly common sense. If you pick up a scimitar you can very easily figure out it's best for hacking and slashing rather than stabbing. If you pick up a katana you can very easily figure out it's a fairly balanced weapon in terms of stabbing/slashing. If you pick up a claymore you can very easily figure out it's best used for big heavy swings rather than stabbing. It doesn't take a genius to understand how to use a weapon properly. Every weapon is generally good in one field, but worse in another. Why are you bringing up lightsaber forms? Rey didn't even know any so it's pointless to bring it up. The force doesn't make you a great swordsman. It helps you feel where the other person is going to swing so you can try to defend yourself. It's not some magic spirit that takes over your body's motions where you are left out of control. It guides you by telling you where the next blow will be. Look at the fight with Maul. Obi-wan was sensing what would happen. You could see it on his face. Can you name one movie fight where the force magically makes the person a great duelist without any sort of training?

"Luke had no fucking clue how to use a lightsaber, but once he quieted his thoughts and let it in, he blocked the remote droid's attacks quite easily"

Deflecting a training droid is extremely different than a duel. Like I said above, the force tells you what will happen before hand so you can use your skills to prevent it. Remember in Ep I how Qui-gon was talking to Anakin's mom saying he could see things before they happen? Then that part where he effortlessly grabbed Jar-Jar's tongue? The force didn't make him do that. It told him what was going to happen and he acted on it. Luke had little to no skill with his saber. His whole fight with Vader on Bespin went horribly. The only reason he was holding his own was because Vader was trying to capture him. After he failed, Luke got his ass handed to him.
(cont)

Kylo was weakened, but the force can make you endure a lot. Especially if your on the dark side where you often are in a lot of pain. That's no excuse.

I'm not trying to sound like a dick right here, but do you even really know anything about weapons? Like, it really doesn't take a lot to know a staff and a sword have to be used differently.

You don't whack somebody with a spear, except you totally do. Side-to-side movements and attacks are used with spears all the time. Obviously, the main thrust of killing somebody with a spear is to stab them, but whacking an opponent upside the head with it when stabbing isn't otherwise an option is perfectly valid.

That's where we differ, I guess. I think it's a perfectly valid excuse. The Dark Side itself doesn't put you in pain. The Force can help you endure pain, and the Dark Side helps you use pain to your advantage, but there's only so much you can do if your body itself is critically injured. It's a distraction, it introduces doubt. Again, we're talking about a wound that should be taking him out of the fight or killing him. It's only through the Force that he's likely able to stand at all. It's a perfect excuse, in my mind.

Yes, I know about weapons, at least enough about their history and use to understand the mechanics, but I am not classically trained in their use myself. I watch and read fiction, I know people who fence, I play games that more or less try to emulate how fighting with a sword or other melee weapon works. I know how to swing a sword, I know how to swing a baton, I know how to swing a staff. I know what each of those things looked like when performed by other people. I write fiction myself and pantomime the movements of attack and defense as I work out how to describe them. But, I think you're really hung up on me saying a lightsaber and a staff are similar and are misconstruing that as saying they're the same. I've pointed to qualities they share, and understand that they do differ in many ways, while all you've done to attempt to refute me is say no without actually providing any explanation as to why it's a no. You're reducing my argument to make yours seem more sound.

Yes, I said something that was largely facetious, but again I think you're missing what I'm actually saying. What I've been arguing the whole time is that a lot of the kinesiology of hitting somebody with something has similar foundations. You're right, it's tough to stab a guy with an axe, but axes made for combat sometimes have spikes you can stab people with, and poking an opponent in a vulnerable spot with a blunt part of an axe can open them up or disorient them. It happens all the time in these sorts of fights. If the weapon is at an awkward angle where you can't actually swing properly or bring the deadly part of it to bear, you hit them with the non-deadly parts or with your hands, elbows, feet, maybe even your shield if you have one. The act of attacking somebody is pretty simple when they can't raise their arms very easily to defend themselves because their ribs got shrekt by a superblaster. The act of using one thing to hit somebody is, at its core, always going to be similar to hitting somebody with another thing. You're not going to show yourself the master of armed combat, but it's certainly possible to murder people without knowing how to murder people. Even trained people can be vulnerable.

Rey displayed no actual mastery of anything. She applied what she knew about self defense to keep herself from being cut apart, then she later found her center and let the Force guide her actions and beat a severely handicapped opponent. Nothing that happened in the movie really violated any unwritten rules you're talking about. She gracelessly defeated a handicapped opponent with magic powers. It's not like they showed her out-dueling Yoda.

Deflecting a training droid when you're blind and gaining basic competence in a field you already have experience in are not all that different. Luke's a pretty good pilot. The Force makes him better. Rey's a pretty good pilot. The Force makes her better. Luke knows how to use a lightsaber. The Force makes him better. And, even when he had no clue how to use a lightsaber, the Force made him better at its use. Rey knows how to defend herself with a weapon, and she was able to do pretty much nothing else against Ren. Then, she used the Force, and got better, just barely good enough to beat a more experienced, but crippled opponent.

Kylo was damaged, but that does not excuse his ass being handed to him when he had the upperhand through most of the fight and then suddenly started to lose. That kind of transition would happen gradually, but instead it happened when she closed her eyes.

My whole point was that just because she is good with her staff does not mean she is automatically good with a lightsaber(something she has never held before). They are entirely different weapons that require entirely different tactics to use them. Do you not see that? You don't automatically become good with a sword just because you used a staff. You are used to the staff and never touched the sword so you don't know how to use it properly or effectively. Her skill revolved around her abilities with her staff. Her staff is different than a lightsaber. You can't use your skills with a staff on a sword. They are too different. We both agree that they are different weapons. You can't use them the same way with the same effect. You can't swing a staff the same way you would a sword. You would cut yourself(in half if it was a lightsaber). The ways you use each weapon are very different. Go watch Maul fight. He fights how you fight with a staff and Obi-wan and Qui-gon fight how you would with a sword. Now try picturing that whole fight if they had swapped weapons. It couldn't be done. A sword is more versatile with how you can swing it. How am I not providing any explanation? I've been telling you exactly how they can't be used the same ways so skills with one can't transition to the other.

Trained people can be vulnerable, but it's usually not while in combat. He had the upperhand. He was winning and then she closed her eyes and instantly turned the battle around. You also just agreed with me that weapons have different ways they need to be used to be the most effective. What I'm saying is that skills with a weapon that is used differently than a sword are not magically transferred. If you are good with a staff then you are good with staff like weapons. A sword is not like a staff. The sword would not be familiar so your skills with the staff could not be transferred. All your skills are with the motions and abilities of the staff. The sword can't be used like a staff so those skills are useless.

I never said Rey was a master with her staff. I said she was familiar with her staff and never used a lightsaber prior to that battle, but she somehow knew how to use one effectively against someone trained in dueling? Most people can pick up a sword and know how to use it, but against someone who actually is skilled in it? You'd get your ass handed to you. You go pick up a stick and go to some guy who is some fancy kung fu sword guy and ask for a sparring match. You will be beaten pretty quickly.

The force doesn't "make you a better ___" exactly. The force lets you know more from your surroundings and will even tell you what is about to happen next. It doesn't give you the skills. It guides you. It doesn't take control of your movements. Rey knows how to defend herself with her staff. Like we both said, a staff is a very different weapon than a sword. It has very different ways of using it. She is used to defending/fighting with a staff, not a sword. That does not mean you automatically know how to defend/fight effectively with other weapons. If you master using a certain type of sword, those skills won't transfer to something like a spear. They are just too different to use the same skills.

She closed her eyes and summoned the Force to her aid. A powerful ally, the Force is. It can do the impossible, give the underdog the guidance they need to defeat a superior opponent. It happens time and again in the franchise.

I acknowledged the weapons are different and are used differently. All I ever said was that the basic mechanics of melee combat have some universality. The anatomy of the weapon you're using can obviously affect how you attack or block, but the basics of that, swinging your weapon at an opening and move a weapon in the path of your own openings, the kinesiology has some universality to it than anybody familiar with melee combat could more or less figure out. They wouldn't necessarily be pulling anything complex or masterful, but they might be passable enough to not die immediately. That's all I was saying, and that's exactly what happened in the movie.

The Force does make you better. It helps you, guides your actions. A novice can do things that they shouldn't be able to do by letting the Force flow through them. Luke and Rey have both achieved similar feats, as I've described.

Anyway, let's just drop this. We're obviously not getting anywhere, here.

Like you said. It gives guidance. It doesn't make you better. It guides you to be better, but the amount of skill she gained was far fetched. Can you name any part in the other movies where something like that happened?

The thing is they aren't universal. The simple fact is that the same tactics can't be used in every weapon. That's my whole point. Her skill with her staff is completely irrelevant to her skills with a lightsaber. The only universal thing they share is that they are weapons and you swing them and that's boiling it down a lot. You still can't use them the same way so again, skills with the staff would not affect her skills with the lightsaber. She is used to swinging with a staff. She is not used to swinging with a lightsaber. fighting effectively is not the same as just swinging whatever weapon you have.

Like I said above, the force doesn't make you better by boosting your abilities(except for things like jumping and running). It guides you so you can do them better. It's an aid, not a magic thing that magically boosts all your abilities/skills. It doesn't take control of you to make you better. It just guides you. That's why saber duels last as long as they do. Both duelists can use the force to predict where the next blow will be so they can block it. Remember in Ep I when Obi-wan was watching Maul and Qui-gon fight? He knew what was going to happen and was getting worried. You could plainly see it on his face. What similar feats have Luke and Rey achieved? Luke was always a great pilot and the force helped him do more. It didn't give him the skill to be a pilot. He was already one to begin with. Luke never gained some ability magically in a matter of seconds. The closest he came was with the training droid and that isn't even comparable to what Rey did.

It totally does make you better. I've already pointed out several instances where characters either did things they had no training in doing, or were able to do things that were otherwise impossible. Rey was able to pull her Falcon maneuver to give Finn a clear shot without any knowledge of Finn's line of fire. She knew exactly when to cut the engine and flip the ship so that the turret would be able to shoot a moving target. How does that not make her a better pilot? How does being able to block attacks Luke could not block before not make him a better swordsman? It is in fact an aid that magically boosts your abilities. It lets you run faster, jump higher, react to danger you didn't know was even there, lets you hit things harder, see things your naked eye can't see, communicate telepathically with animals and convince them to help you, makes you shoot more accurately, swing a sword more quickly and more precisely. The entire premise of the Juyo form is to let the Force control your muscle memory almost completely, and as a result your attacks become blindingly fast, your footwork so quick you can take opponents unaware as though you were flanking them, and your blade can hit hard enough to shatter every bone in their body in addition to having their shoulder sliced. A Dark Side warrior can literally become stronger and tougher by summoning a magical Force rage.

There's even mechanics in Star Wars tabletop RPGs for using the Force to roll skills you're not normally good at, use your Force skill in place of other skills (such as using Use the Force for Pilot checks instead of the Pilot skill), and get bonuses to rolls that might be low and result in total failure. It's a longstanding aspect of the franchise, such that multiple rules sets have been written to emulate it mechanically.

And, in regards to the weapon point, I understand what you're saying, and agree that, yes, not everything you learn with a staff applies to using a sword. But, what I'm saying is that not all of what you learn with a staff is entirely irrelevant. You even see in the movie that she's clumsy and unpracticed when fighting Kylo. She almost always goes for a lunging stab when attacking as though she were prodding at his defenses with a spear or staff, and tries to make sweeping parries that would work better with the extra leverage of a staff. The Force guides her and gives a limited amount of competence when she summons it, and allows her to defeat a crippled opponent. That's all. She didn't do anything particularly spectacular.

You're saying that if you are good with one then you are good with all. That's what you said.
"A lightsaber and a staff are very similar, in fact so similar that a saberstaff (Darth Maul) is basically just a quarterstaff comprised of like 40-50% lightsaber"

You keep saying it's similar when it's not. They are very different. You can't use them the same so being good with one does not automatically make you good at other melee weapons.

"You can use a staff vaguely like you can use a sword. Gripping it towards the center and using that as a fulcrum on which to swing one end toward your opponent is basically what you do with a sword. "

Who in their right mind uses a staff by gripping the middle with both hands and swinging it like a sword? That is horribly stupid. Especially if the staff was her electro staff or a double bladed lightsaber. She'd be hitting her legs with the other half. You go grab a staff and show me how you can use it like a sword without touching anything other than the center. Don't give me a Bo staff because she wasn't using a Bo staff. A Bo staff doesn't have dangerous parts on the ends. A Bo staff can be held in many ways.

>She uses it poorly
She starts out bad, but she still holds her own more than she should have against a guy trained with saber dueling. She then magically gains the upper hand in a matter of seconds and nearly kills Kylo. The force doesn't make you a good swordsman. It can help you predict the enemy's movements, but it doesn't magically out of no where give you the skills she had when she was fighting. When has the force ever shown to have done that?

I said they're very similar. They're melee weapons. I never said they were the same. You put the dangerous end into the bad guy. The basic principles are the same, and that's all I've ever said is the same. The basics, the fundamentals. The anatomy of the weapons is vaguely similar, enough that not all of your technique goes out the window when you're using the other, at least enough to defend yourself and not immediately die when fighting an exhausted, wounded opponent with more training than you.

Holding the middle grip and swinging one end or the other towards your opponent is 90% of Darth Maul's attacks. A single lightsaber in both hands just removes the opposite end from the equation. The balance would be different, naturally, but the movements would be similar to simply using one side of the staff.

Whether or not you agree with my assessment of how this would apply in a real fight is immaterial. Neither of us have been in a life or death sword fight against an injured, tired, pissed off psychopath. I've argued my point, and you yours. Unless you're going to prove you're an expert in melee weapons, in which case I'd have to concede the point, let's just assume we're going with our guts and anecdotal experience on this one and leave it at that.

Anyway, she didn't really show off much skill. She was able to predict Kylo's moves, defend herself, and counterattack at the right time. That's hallmark Force use in a lightsaber duel. She was following her instincts and letting the Force guide her more than anything. Two lightsaber forms, Shii-Cho and Juyo, espouse this as a major principle, that you almost completely let the Force take the reins. Shii-Cho's method tends to make your attacks wild and unpredictable, while Juyo has you fighting very aggressively to keep your opponent on their toes. Yes, people who employ those schools of thought are also classically trained with the lightsaber, but that's why she doesn't fight like a super-Jedi. She ends up fighting just well enough to get nearly killed fighting a wounded, exhausted opponent and then win. Not exactly a display of Luke or Vader-level martial prowess.

The Force has displayed the ability to give competence and allow you to do the impossible. Luke had no fucking clue how to use a lightsaber, but once he quieted his thoughts and let it in, he blocked the remote droid's attacks quite easily. It allowed him to make a shot with proton torpedoes that normally would have been virtually impossible without his targeting computer. Rey performs a similar feat with the Falcon. without any concrete knowledge of the position of the broken blaster turret, she cuts the engines at the right time and maneuvered the Falcon so Finn had a perfect shot, and didn't even know how she managed it. That's classic Force flowing through you type shit. When has the Force shown to have magically given you crazy skills? Pretty much in every movie.

And, remember, everybody else who gets shot with a bowcaster simply dies or is at least knocked out. Kylo Ren took a direct hit. The Force and adrenaline were probably the only things keeping him standing. She beats a guy who was on his last legs to begin with. I'm sure if the situation had been different, Finn and Rey would have been soundly defeated. But, that's not what happened. The movie doesn't portray Rey as anything

"You put the dangerous end into the bad guy."
Except you are overly simplifying a weapon. Each weapon has it's own uses. Trying to stab someone with an ax is very ineffective. Trying to chop with a spear is very ineffective. Even different swords have different ways to be effective. Not all swords are good at slicing. Not all swords are good with stabbing. My point is that a staff is used very differently than a lightsaber. You cannot use a staff the same way you would use a saber. If you tried, you would likely die because you wouldn't be using the weapon the way it needs to be used. A staff can land some pretty heavy blows because you have to put emphasis on your swings, but if you swing it like a sword you are not going to have the same effect. You go get a staff, grab it only by the middle, and try to use it as a sword. See how limited it would be. Then go grab a sword and try to use it as a staff. You would be limiting what you can do with the sword.

The thing with the staff is it's held different than a sword. That and both ends are dangerous which means you can't do everything with it as you can with a sword. A sword is much more versatile and you can be more fluid with it. A staff is somewhat limited in what you can do. You cannot do the same things with them. Each have their own uses, strengths, and weaknesses. They don't share the same style.

A saber can be held with one hand and you can move your body around to dodge. You can also put both your hands over the small hand and swing harder. A staff is very different. You can't grab it in the dead center(which the dead center would be the size of the saber handle) and use it the same way. A staff needs to be held with both hands at both ends of the extended handle. That's why the handle is so long. Because your hands need to be spread apart so you can put more force into your blows. You also can't use a staff with one hand. I mean, you can try, but you would be dead very quickly.

I don't need to be an expert on melee weapons to understand how one works best. It's mostly common sense. If you pick up a scimitar you can very easily figure out it's best for hacking and slashing rather than stabbing. If you pick up a katana you can very easily figure out it's a fairly balanced weapon in terms of stabbing/slashing. If you pick up a claymore you can very easily figure out it's best used for big heavy swings rather than stabbing. It doesn't take a genius to understand how to use a weapon properly. Every weapon is generally good in one field, but worse in another. Why are you bringing up lightsaber forms? Rey didn't even know any so it's pointless to bring it up. The force doesn't make you a great swordsman. It helps you feel where the other person is going to swing so you can try to defend yourself. It's not some magic spirit that takes over your body's motions where you are left out of control. It guides you by telling you where the next blow will be. Look at the fight with Maul. Obi-wan was sensing what would happen. You could see it on his face. Can you name one movie fight where the force magically makes the person a great duelist without any sort of training?

"Luke had no fucking clue how to use a lightsaber, but once he quieted his thoughts and let it in, he blocked the remote droid's attacks quite easily"

Deflecting a training droid is extremely different than a duel. Like I said above, the force tells you what will happen before hand so you can use your skills to prevent it. Remember in Ep I how Qui-gon was talking to Anakin's mom saying he could see things before they happen? Then that part where he effortlessly grabbed Jar-Jar's tongue? The force didn't make him do that. It told him what was going to happen and he acted on it. Luke had little to no skill with his saber. His whole fight with Vader on Bespin went horribly. The only reason he was holding his own was because Vader was trying to capture him. After he failed, Luke got his ass handed to him.
(cont)

Kylo was weakened, but the force can make you endure a lot. Especially if your on the dark side where you often are in a lot of pain. That's no excuse.

I'm not trying to sound like a dick right here, but do you even really know anything about weapons? Like, it really doesn't take a lot to know a staff and a sword have to be used differently.

You don't whack somebody with a spear, except you totally do. Side-to-side movements and attacks are used with spears all the time. Obviously, the main thrust of killing somebody with a spear is to stab them, but whacking an opponent upside the head with it when stabbing isn't otherwise an option is perfectly valid.

That's where we differ, I guess. I think it's a perfectly valid excuse. The Dark Side itself doesn't put you in pain. The Force can help you endure pain, and the Dark Side helps you use pain to your advantage, but there's only so much you can do if your body itself is critically injured. It's a distraction, it introduces doubt. Again, we're talking about a wound that should be taking him out of the fight or killing him. It's only through the Force that he's likely able to stand at all. It's a perfect excuse, in my mind.

Yes, I know about weapons, at least enough about their history and use to understand the mechanics, but I am not classically trained in their use myself. I watch and read fiction, I know people who fence, I play games that more or less try to emulate how fighting with a sword or other melee weapon works. I know how to swing a sword, I know how to swing a baton, I know how to swing a staff. I know what each of those things looked like when performed by other people. I write fiction myself and pantomime the movements of attack and defense as I work out how to describe them. But, I think you're really hung up on me saying a lightsaber and a staff are similar and are misconstruing that as saying they're the same. I've pointed to qualities they share, and understand that they do differ in many ways, while all you've done to attempt to refute me is say no without actually providing any explanation as to why it's a no. You're reducing my argument to make yours seem more sound.

Yes, I said something that was largely facetious, but again I think you're missing what I'm actually saying. What I've been arguing the whole time is that a lot of the kinesiology of hitting somebody with something has similar foundations. You're right, it's tough to stab a guy with an axe, but axes made for combat sometimes have spikes you can stab people with, and poking an opponent in a vulnerable spot with a blunt part of an axe can open them up or disorient them. It happens all the time in these sorts of fights. If the weapon is at an awkward angle where you can't actually swing properly or bring the deadly part of it to bear, you hit them with the non-deadly parts or with your hands, elbows, feet, maybe even your shield if you have one. The act of attacking somebody is pretty simple when they can't raise their arms very easily to defend themselves because their ribs got shrekt by a superblaster. The act of using one thing to hit somebody is, at its core, always going to be similar to hitting somebody with another thing. You're not going to show yourself the master of armed combat, but it's certainly possible to murder people without knowing how to murder people. Even trained people can be vulnerable.

Rey displayed no actual mastery of anything. She applied what she knew about self defense to keep herself from being cut apart, then she later found her center and let the Force guide her actions and beat a severely handicapped opponent. Nothing that happened in the movie really violated any unwritten rules you're talking about. She gracelessly defeated a handicapped opponent with magic powers. It's not like they showed her out-dueling Yoda.

Deflecting a training droid when you're blind and gaining basic competence in a field you already have experience in are not all that different. Luke's a pretty good pilot. The Force makes him better. Rey's a pretty good pilot. The Force makes her better. Luke knows how to use a lightsaber. The Force makes him better. And, even when he had no clue how to use a lightsaber, the Force made him better at its use. Rey knows how to defend herself with a weapon, and she was able to do pretty much nothing else against Ren. Then, she used the Force, and got better, just barely good enough to beat a more experienced, but crippled opponent.

Kylo was damaged, but that does not excuse his ass being handed to him when he had the upperhand through most of the fight and then suddenly started to lose. That kind of transition would happen gradually, but instead it happened when she closed her eyes.

My whole point was that just because she is good with her staff does not mean she is automatically good with a lightsaber(something she has never held before). They are entirely different weapons that require entirely different tactics to use them. Do you not see that? You don't automatically become good with a sword just because you used a staff. You are used to the staff and never touched the sword so you don't know how to use it properly or effectively. Her skill revolved around her abilities with her staff. Her staff is different than a lightsaber. You can't use your skills with a staff on a sword. They are too different. We both agree that they are different weapons. You can't use them the same way with the same effect. You can't swing a staff the same way you would a sword. You would cut yourself(in half if it was a lightsaber). The ways you use each weapon are very different. Go watch Maul fight. He fights how you fight with a staff and Obi-wan and Qui-gon fight how you would with a sword. Now try picturing that whole fight if they had swapped weapons. It couldn't be done. A sword is more versatile with how you can swing it. How am I not providing any explanation? I've been telling you exactly how they can't be used the same ways so skills with one can't transition to the other.

Trained people can be vulnerable, but it's usually not while in combat. He had the upperhand. He was winning and then she closed her eyes and instantly turned the battle around. You also just agreed with me that weapons have different ways they need to be used to be the most effective. What I'm saying is that skills with a weapon that is used differently than a sword are not magically transferred. If you are good with a staff then you are good with staff like weapons. A sword is not like a staff. The sword would not be familiar so your skills with the staff could not be transferred. All your skills are with the motions and abilities of the staff. The sword can't be used like a staff so those skills are useless.

I never said Rey was a master with her staff. I said she was familiar with her staff and never used a lightsaber prior to that battle, but she somehow knew how to use one effectively against someone trained in dueling? Most people can pick up a sword and know how to use it, but against someone who actually is skilled in it? You'd get your ass handed to you. You go pick up a stick and go to some guy who is some fancy kung fu sword guy and ask for a sparring match. You will be beaten pretty quickly.

The force doesn't "make you a better ___" exactly. The force lets you know more from your surroundings and will even tell you what is about to happen next. It doesn't give you the skills. It guides you. It doesn't take control of your movements. Rey knows how to defend herself with her staff. Like we both said, a staff is a very different weapon than a sword. It has very different ways of using it. She is used to defending/fighting with a staff, not a sword. That does not mean you automatically know how to defend/fight effectively with other weapons. If you master using a certain type of sword, those skills won't transfer to something like a spear. They are just too different to use the same skills.

She closed her eyes and summoned the Force to her aid. A powerful ally, the Force is. It can do the impossible, give the underdog the guidance they need to defeat a superior opponent. It happens time and again in the franchise.

I acknowledged the weapons are different and are used differently. All I ever said was that the basic mechanics of melee combat have some universality. The anatomy of the weapon you're using can obviously affect how you attack or block, but the basics of that, swinging your weapon at an opening and move a weapon in the path of your own openings, the kinesiology has some universality to it than anybody familiar with melee combat could more or less figure out. They wouldn't necessarily be pulling anything complex or masterful, but they might be passable enough to not die immediately. That's all I was saying, and that's exactly what happened in the movie.

The Force does make you better. It helps you, guides your actions. A novice can do things that they shouldn't be able to do by letting the Force flow through them. Luke and Rey have both achieved similar feats, as I've described.

Anyway, let's just drop this. We're obviously not getting anywhere, here.

Like you said. It gives guidance. It doesn't make you better. It guides you to be better, but the amount of skill she gained was far fetched. Can you name any part in the other movies where something like that happened?

The thing is they aren't universal. The simple fact is that the same tactics can't be used in every weapon. That's my whole point. Her skill with her staff is completely irrelevant to her skills with a lightsaber. The only universal thing they share is that they are weapons and you swing them and that's boiling it down a lot. You still can't use them the same way so again, skills with the staff would not affect her skills with the lightsaber. She is used to swinging with a staff. She is not used to swinging with a lightsaber. fighting effectively is not the same as just swinging whatever weapon you have.

Like I said above, the force doesn't make you better by boosting your abilities(except for things like jumping and running). It guides you so you can do them better. It's an aid, not a magic thing that magically boosts all your abilities/skills. It doesn't take control of you to make you better. It just guides you. That's why saber duels last as long as they do. Both duelists can use the force to predict where the next blow will be so they can block it. Remember in Ep I when Obi-wan was watching Maul and Qui-gon fight? He knew what was going to happen and was getting worried. You could plainly see it on his face. What similar feats have Luke and Rey achieved? Luke was always a great pilot and the force helped him do more. It didn't give him the skill to be a pilot. He was already one to begin with. Luke never gained some ability magically in a matter of seconds. The closest he came was with the training droid and that isn't even comparable to what Rey did.

It totally does make you better. I've already pointed out several instances where characters either did things they had no training in doing, or were able to do things that were otherwise impossible. Rey was able to pull her Falcon maneuver to give Finn a clear shot without any knowledge of Finn's line of fire. She knew exactly when to cut the engine and flip the ship so that the turret would be able to shoot a moving target. How does that not make her a better pilot? How does being able to block attacks Luke could not block before not make him a better swordsman? It is in fact an aid that magically boosts your abilities. It lets you run faster, jump higher, react to danger you didn't know was even there, lets you hit things harder, see things your naked eye can't see, communicate telepathically with animals and convince them to help you, makes you shoot more accurately, swing a sword more quickly and more precisely. The entire premise of the Juyo form is to let the Force control your muscle memory almost completely, and as a result your attacks become blindingly fast, your footwork so quick you can take opponents unaware as though you were flanking them, and your blade can hit hard enough to shatter every bone in their body in addition to having their shoulder sliced. A Dark Side warrior can literally become stronger and tougher by summoning a magical Force rage.

There's even mechanics in Star Wars tabletop RPGs for using the Force to roll skills you're not normally good at, use your Force skill in place of other skills (such as using Use the Force for Pilot checks instead of the Pilot skill), and get bonuses to rolls that might be low and result in total failure. It's a longstanding aspect of the franchise, such that multiple rules sets have been written to emulate it mechanically.

And, in regards to the weapon point, I understand what you're saying, and agree that, yes, not everything you learn with a staff applies to using a sword. But, what I'm saying is that not all of what you learn with a staff is entirely irrelevant. You even see in the movie that she's clumsy and unpracticed when fighting Kylo. She almost always goes for a lunging stab when attacking as though she were prodding at his defenses with a spear or staff, and tries to make sweeping parries that would work better with the extra leverage of a staff. The Force guides her and gives a limited amount of competence when she summons it, and allows her to defeat a crippled opponent. That's all. She didn't do anything particularly spectacular.

They dont play it like that in the comic
I mean, i could excuse anything if i stretched far enough for a reason
But as the comic is they are acting totally out of character

Seems perfectly in character from what ive seen.

Her worrying about people is already out of character
Basically only person she would ever worry about is the old jokester himself

Harleys alot more reasonable and, well, human, when the ol' Jokester isnt nearby. The Joker is like a contact high for her, like shes trying to impress him or make him happy.

I disagree. I can't think of a specific instance of it because it's been years since I watched it, but Harley did stuff like that all the time when flying solo or teaming with Ivy in the cartoon.

There is also no reason to care
Not like them interfering would be funny either

Well, that's what Ivy was initially so frustrated about. But, put this weird neckbeard who hurts kids in front of anybody and they'll probably want to punch his stupid face in.

And, it could be really funny. Guy who hurts little girls, maimed for life by a woman with a childlike disposition.

They dont play it like that in the comic
I mean, i could excuse anything if i stretched far enough for a reason
But as the comic is they are acting totally out of character

Seems perfectly in character from what ive seen.

Her worrying about people is already out of character
Basically only person she would ever worry about is the old jokester himself

Harleys alot more reasonable and, well, human, when the ol' Jokester isnt nearby. The Joker is like a contact high for her, like shes trying to impress him or make him happy.

I disagree. I can't think of a specific instance of it because it's been years since I watched it, but Harley did stuff like that all the time when flying solo or teaming with Ivy in the cartoon.

What im saying is that Harley doesnt give a shit when kids get killed when Joker does it, she even finds it funny
So why would she suddenly grow a conscience here?
Its just stupid and the author imposing how he wants her to be over the actual character

Well, she didn't suddenly grow a conscience. She's always had one. It's just weird and broken, and doesn't always manifest because she's damaged.
But, she's also obsessed with the Joker and thinks he's amazingly insightful and hilarious. So, yeah, she's totally cool with Joker's antics, because his antics make sense in their warped version of reality. This guy isn't the Joker. He's just some random slob beating up kids. That shit isn't funny. He didn't put any thought into that. There's no play on words, no amusing setup, and no punchline.

There is also no reason to care
Not like them interfering would be funny either

Well, that's what Ivy was initially so frustrated about. But, put this weird neckbeard who hurts kids in front of anybody and they'll probably want to punch his stupid face in.

And, it could be really funny. Guy who hurts little girls, maimed for life by a woman with a childlike disposition.

They dont play it like that in the comic
I mean, i could excuse anything if i stretched far enough for a reason
But as the comic is they are acting totally out of character

Seems perfectly in character from what ive seen.

Her worrying about people is already out of character
Basically only person she would ever worry about is the old jokester himself

Harleys alot more reasonable and, well, human, when the ol' Jokester isnt nearby. The Joker is like a contact high for her, like shes trying to impress him or make him happy.

I disagree. I can't think of a specific instance of it because it's been years since I watched it, but Harley did stuff like that all the time when flying solo or teaming with Ivy in the cartoon.

They beat them since that makes them feel justified and that their own crimes werent that serious
And killing a person is worse than molesting them, no matter what tumblr wants you to think
And the Joker doesnt give a fuck if its a little girl, besides, what about all the fucking orphans hes made by slaughtering people en masse
They dont give a fuck about people and the author trying to push some kind of morality on them is just embarrassing, its like that stupid shit when Joker attacks red skull since hes a nazi

You survived, you got better, the dead dont get better
Its the comparison of no chance vs some chance
Not to belittle you or your struggle, but when you die thats it, if you survive there are infinite possibilities, the least of them at least being the chance to put the fucker that did it to you in the ground

You're not privy to this "fate worse than death" concept...are you? When you see death as the ultimate punisher, its real useful for survival, but the first real torture you experience will hit you like a truck.

Torture followed by garaunteed death? Yeahhavefun
..

Since when is molestation followed by guaranteed death?
And the point i was making is that the torture and bad feeling will fade and you will be able to be happy again, if you condensed the happy feeling from the rest of the life you wouldve had chances are they would far eclipse the horror you felt when it happened

It's called a hypothetical, guy. 2 completely different scenarios. You look at things in black and white between life and death, which is really irresponsible.

Not really im saying that as long as you are alive and not fucked up beyond repair theres always a chance you will get yourself together and live a good life
If death is forced upon you then it ends there and in this guys case, if he got killed instead of molested he wouldve lost out on about 70 years of potential happiness
Death doesnt have to be horrible, but getting it forced upon you is worse than getting something that wont last forced upon you

"And not fucked up beyond repair"

Which entitles...?

Getting paralyzed from the neck down is one

But you're still alive...is that not all that counts?

I said if theres chances you will get a long happy life its definitely preferable to dying
If youre paralyzed from the neck down youre kinda fucked with that and if youre not a saint chances are youre gonna be pretty miserable
Time will make the hurting fade for the most part when you are molested, so you have the chance to live a long and potentially happy life

That still doesn't downplay the subjective feeling the pain has on you, nor the timing of losing out on your life to the event. It sticks with you. It helps define who you are as a person.

Maybe so, but pain in your memories you have the chance to overcome and get stronger, there is no overcoming getting crippled from the neck down or dying

If we're arguing the severity of a wounding, then yes, clearly, but you're making it sound like since things "could be worse" things aren't allowed to be considered negative in any fashion.

Thats retarded
Im saying that murdering someone is worse than raping someone, that doesnt mean its not bad
Its like those retards that go "yeah but the children in afrika are starving youre not allowed to whine about your thing"
Ofcourse getting raped or molested is really negative, its one of the worst things that can happen to you
Doesnt change that getting murdered is worse though

Even that's a matter of philosophy, though, given the purely unknown nature of what death even entitles.

Even by my philosophy which is that you simply stop existing i think its worse
The inherent unknowing of what happens after death just makes the crime of murder even worse though

Funny thing, chances...they're not garaunteed. You can make all the presumptions you want, but they don't automatically make them true. I'm apathetic over my own death, but I still realize that forcing my philosophies on others is congruent with them forcing theirs on me. I'll have conversations and arguments on it, by to force it is much.

It's more selfish than that, I only care about my own consciousness to that extent when it comes to death, as its the only consciousness I can even be certain of. Besides, even if we go full psychopath in having apathy over the presumed consciousness of others, its hilariously irresponsible to assume that just because you're apathetic over death, that killing others would then be morally OK.

If youre apathetic over death, then chances are you find other peoples morality a silly thing in the first place

If its ending quickly, there's none of that. There's just sudden death. And even then, upon the transitioning between life and death, that sorrow floats away, as it can't exist in a system designed for nonexistence. It still supports the idea that being alive, and in pain, is still worse that what the actual nonexistence of death would be.

By that logic you might as well just go full on Seymour and kill everyone to end suffering

"Even worse" and "inexcusable" for who, though? If there's nothing but nonexistence on the other side of life, there's no feeling of sorrow for things being bad or regret for something "inexcusable" having happened.

How about the sorrow before you die then
All the little things you wanted to do, all the little things you enjoy, all the people you love, all of it is never gonna happen again to you
Just because he ended the suffering quickly doesnt mean there wasnt any, and that the future hasnt been negatively affected because of it

But wheres the justification for that, that "the robbing of the rest of your life" is considered so tragic? It can't be what you feel if you're trust into nonexistence, because feeling sorrow requires the existence of a perceiving mind, AKA you. If its founded in everyone else but you, then it breaks down entirely, because we're considering the subjectivity of the perciever, not the surrounding people.

It just seems to me that so long as the "afterlife" doesn't suck, there's not that much real concern over death.

For me its more about the what ifs, sure they wont be around to be sad they didnt get the chance, but thats even worse though
Life might be inherently pointless, but that also means that you should enjoy it fully, if some cunt robs you of 50 years of potential happiness that shit is inexcusable
Just cause i wont be suffering for long doesnt mean the thing they did was any less horrible

People who haven't been raped can still have rape described to them using words and emotions they would be able to have a subjective experience for. The difference between existence and nonexistence is significantly more existential an issue to compare it to rape. We have absolutely no concept of nonexistence. No one has. By definition, to have a concept of anything requires your existence to perceive it. Even a dreamless sleep is defined by the moments of consciousness surrounding it. You don't perceive a dreamless sleep, you perceive the before and after. That's not a report on a perception of something. It's like asking someone to describe a memory they don't have. By definition of what it means to not have a memory of something, they can't. They'd have to fabricate it. That's the issue I'm getting at. A dreamless sleep is neither gold nor bad in itself, its neutral. So using that, how do we call it negative compared to suffering in life?

Its more on the line of getting robbed of the rest of your lifetime and the actual death experience
Getting molested might color the rest of your years and shape your life, but murder just takes it all away
Death can be preferable to living, depending on your situation, but with molestation you have the rest of your life left and can overcome
Id say maybe for slaves getting horribly mistreated death might be preferable since there is no escape usually

You don't know, though, that's the problem. You're finding confidence for something you don't know for certain. More importantly, you admitted your own beliefs to be towards "nonexistence", which we don't even have a concept for since everything that literally is is founded in existence. What is nonexistence? What's it feel like? Does it feel? We have a concept for what pain, suffering, and happiness are, but how do you make a value judgment between that and an unknown?

If youre gonna go that far you might as well say that anyone that hasnt been raped should never talk about the issue since they cant know what its like
But i think nonexistence would be like the dreamless sleep you dont remember
Its not bad, its not good, it aint anything
But i also think that the amount of pain and despair you feel while dying probably far wins out to when youre getting raped or molested, one is a matter of your pride and power getting taken away, while the other is literally terror

Where do you find the confidence, though? How do you know that nonexistence will be an unpleasant experience? By definition, you need to exist in order to experience anything negative. So where does the confidence that it'll be bad come from?

If its merely non existence then its because you robbed them of any chance of future happiness, the chance to follow their dreams and more
If you get hurt, but have the chance to get back up again you can have more dreams, have more joy
And another part of it is of course since one cant be sure what happens after death it might be one of those hell like situations, like a literal hell, or maybe your conscious being stuck in your dead body for eternity without being able to do anything

"They beat them since that makes them feel justified and that their own crimes werent that serious"
And a crazy clown chick would be somehow above this sort of behavior?

And, again, the Joker doesn't just kill anybody for no reason. He kills people as part of his elaborate joke-schemes. You're right, he doesn't give a shit if his latest gas-based rampage makes some kids laugh themselves to death, but he isn't exactly going out of his way to kill them, either. Joker isn't the one being depicted here, and the little girl isn't a Robin, so what's your point? Maybe Harley didn't give a shit about Jason Todd because he was an enemy trying to put a stop to her fun.

Anyway, Harley's been shown to have a heart since the cartoon show from whence she originated. She's crazy, and she'd kill you in a heartbeat if she could make a pun on it afterwards, but she's not a completely amoral monster, either.

Some crooks don't like the things other crooks do. That's just a fact of criminality. Poison Ivy might be looking to take out her frustration and disgust with humans on that one guy. Harley's got her moments of actually being a decent person mixed in with her homicidal shenanigans. It's all perfectly in-character. Calm the fuck down.

What im saying is that Harley doesnt give a shit when kids get killed when Joker does it, she even finds it funny
So why would she suddenly grow a conscience here?
Its just stupid and the author imposing how he wants her to be over the actual character

Well, she didn't suddenly grow a conscience. She's always had one. It's just weird and broken, and doesn't always manifest because she's damaged.
But, she's also obsessed with the Joker and thinks he's amazingly insightful and hilarious. So, yeah, she's totally cool with Joker's antics, because his antics make sense in their warped version of reality. This guy isn't the Joker. He's just some random slob beating up kids. That shit isn't funny. He didn't put any thought into that. There's no play on words, no amusing setup, and no punchline.

There is also no reason to care
Not like them interfering would be funny either

Well, that's what Ivy was initially so frustrated about. But, put this weird neckbeard who hurts kids in front of anybody and they'll probably want to punch his stupid face in.

And, it could be really funny. Guy who hurts little girls, maimed for life by a woman with a childlike disposition.

They dont play it like that in the comic
I mean, i could excuse anything if i stretched far enough for a reason
But as the comic is they are acting totally out of character

Seems perfectly in character from what ive seen.

Her worrying about people is already out of character
Basically only person she would ever worry about is the old jokester himself

Harleys alot more reasonable and, well, human, when the ol' Jokester isnt nearby. The Joker is like a contact high for her, like shes trying to impress him or make him happy.

I disagree. I can't think of a specific instance of it because it's been years since I watched it, but Harley did stuff like that all the time when flying solo or teaming with Ivy in the cartoon.

(Cont.) Now, I'd like to highlight where I think that kind of mechanical progression would be natural to the ME universe's style of play.

If you could pick up a lot of different weapons within the gameplay then the ME universe would arguably have more ways to access them than the Halo universe does. Using Biotic powers to pull weapons from hard-to-reach locations or perhaps even out of the hands of weakened enemies, using the meaty soldier style to pull guns out of the enemy's hands or maybe they can move faster whilst carrying larger weaponry.

By putting elements that change up the gameplay into the levels themselves rather than just having it be something that is selected through the progression system outside of the combat, the game would open up new styles of play for each class.

If the ability to jump was added and the game moved away from being cover-based it would allow more environmental hazards whilst playing into the more physical aspect of the Soldier or perhaps the more magical aspect of the Biotics. Imagine being able to accidentally jump off of ledges to your death, but also being able to perhaps shoulder-barge people off of those same ledges instead of the world being surrounded by invisible, but certainly tangible walls.

I'm not saying I want the game to play like Halo, more that I want to see the game play more like it does in the cutscenes.

Well that's a decent example of games design. The cryo effects are transformative to the environment, allowing the player more freedom to dictate the flow of combat. It makes the puts more depths into the one variable element of the environment (the enemies). It also ties into one of the defining physical mechanic of the basic gameplay, namely the cover mechanic.

A similar example of the same principle in context would be the physical presence of enemies in the Halo games. They have collision effects in the same manner that the scenery does so occasionally you will find a situation where jumping on their heads is really valuable to you as a player, or how you can bounce grenades off of them to reach hidden enemies. The same can be said of the explosives in the game as they provide a shockwave and, used properly, they allow players greater mobility within the game through techniques like the grenade/rocket jump, and can be used to deflect certain projectiles or kill enemies via flying debris.

Those are clear examples of using the style of gameplay to add depth to the experience.

However, returning to the notion of level design that was brought up before. That room in ME2 is a fairly decent room design-wise. It doesn't really encourage all that much mechanical exploration but it doesn't hinder it either. The trouble with this is ultimately the trouble with the gameplay in ME2 as a whole. There is little to no discovery in the gameplay, and little to no variety either. Variety comes in the form of playing different classes on different playthroughs, or a few classes like the warrior have one or two ways to enjoy them so a re-play with a different spec can work.

However, the trouble with this is that it punishes experimentation quite harshly if things don't work out for the player. Compared to a similar system of classes like that of Diablo III the ME system is strict and punishing. Gameplay changes occur in minimal increments unlike in the Diablo system where each new level will unlock a new ability, or a new style on an existing ability, that leads to the player experiencing and experimenting with a lot of different play-styles and ability combinations, that can freely be swapped out if the encounter calls for something different.

Now, in fairness Diablo III doesn't really give the level of challenge I'd like (similar to Mass Effect) but that element of the character-building is solid.

However, to bring this back to the Halo comparison, whilst Mass Effect locks its gameplay variety behind a class and progression system (not a bad thing, btw) Halo's gameplay variety is always evident within the levels and players are free to change their styles on the go due to the gameplay being locked into the variety of different weapons, and how those weapons are obtained (usually from the corpses of enemies you have killed). It allows for a more free-flowing run & gun style of gameplay, and combined with the movement physics it encourages the player to usually be moving around the map, up and down drastic elevations, trying different techniques, picking up different weapons.

Whilst I will concede that that room in ME2 certainly does allow you to go around it in a different style every time you play through the game, the levels in Halo allow that for every sub-section of the game, and each one is built to play differently from the last.

That's why I want Mass Effect to mess about with its gameplay mechanics. Instead of multiple variations on 3 weapons (+ the more variable Heavy Weapon options) I would appreciate if there was a lot more variety in the sort of weapons you could get. I'd love to have more movement options in the gameplay and more variety in how I defeat my enemies.

I'm really not a fan of the ground-bound, 3rd-Person, Gears of War style of cover combat. The tab-targeting of the powerups and companions does add to the flavour of the combat but never enough to make encounters feel different from the last.

You can also fling objects, or even enemies, around using the physics of certain powers in Mass Effect. It does the same sort of thing. Grenade/rocket jumping is a little silly, and the game isn't about jumping, so while that would add a layer to the gameplay it would take away from its presentation. You're getting into TF2 territory there, which is a great shooter but has a certain aesthetic which is not Mass Effect's aesthetic.

There's quite a bit to discover in ME2 and beyond's gameplay. Like any other game, you can discover its logic and systems. Power combos, physics, reload canceling, the use of the different unlockable powers Shepard can get from their squadmates, how enemies differ in defenses and attack strategies. Variety comes in the form of how you approach the encounter, just like in Halo. The same class can use different powers and different weapons, or move through the room in a different way, play aggressively or stick to cover, use different strategies like the Cryoguard's improvised ice statue cover, take advantage of environmental factors like barrels and crates that can be shot or flung at enemies.There's a lot of tools in your toolbox. Meanwhile, in Halo, you've got your different weapons, the explosion physics, and moving through rooms in different ways. You're being reductive of Mass Effect's attributes while exaggerating the variables Halo presents. The way I see it, ME gives you more to play with overall.

In ME2 and ME3 you can respec. There's not really any punishing, since virtually any build can run through any difficulty with varying levels of success based on execution by the player. You can unlock new abilities you didn't have before in ME games, too. That's not unique to Diablo. You haven't described anything that isn't present in ME.

Again, this is why this argument is largely pointless, because we both have our biases. You're kind of just projecting this simplistic, reductive view onto ME2 and 3, whie I see there being even more variables to work with than Halo provides. Aside from jumping, Mass Effect has everything that Halo brings to the table and more. There isn't just the one room in ME2 that presents multiple encounter solutions, the vast majority are like that.

There's 5 main weapon categories in Mass Effect, not 3. And, especially in ME3, you have a lot of variety in those categories, easily as much as Halo. In shotguns you've got the Graal spike thrower, which can be charged for greater damage and fires a spray of spikes into the enemy that continually damage them. In that same category there's the more typical shotguns, like the semi-auto Scimitar and the one-shot blunderbuss that is the Claymore, as well as other unique weapons like the Reegar Carbine that basically functions as a flamethrower.

They are different. You can't use a staff like a sword. I really don't know how you can say they are the same. Maul was using a staff effectively because he was trained to fight with it. Reys staff wasn't even a lightsaber. It was more bulky and heavy. You can't even swing that thing as fast as a lightsaber staff. Yes, they're both weapons. Nobody is saying they aren't. Yes the blades are the dangerous parts. The thing with a lightsaber is that it's more flexible with how you use it. A lightsaber staff is limited. You cannot do the same things you can with a sword with a staff. Being proficient with a staff does not mean you are automatically proficient with a sword. By saying you are you are also saying you are also proficient with an ax or a spear.

The only similarity the two weapons have is that they are weapons and it doesn't matter what part of the "blade" you hit them with, but that does not mean you know how to effectively use both if you only trained with one. They require entirely different ways of using them. You can't use a staff like you would a sword. It would be incredibly ineffective. Especially if it was Rey's staff or a lightsaber staff.

I never said they were the same. I said they had similar properties, and that some of the principles were the same. You can use a staff vaguely like you can use a sword. Gripping it towards the center and using that as a fulcrum on which to swing one end toward your opponent is basically what you do with a sword.

She uses it poorly. Exactly what you're saying would happen, it being difficult to use, happens. You got what you wanted, she sucks with swords, so what's the problem? Up until she actually summons the aid of the Force, she doesn't fight nearly as well as she does with the staff.

You're saying that if you are good with one then you are good with all. That's what you said.
"A lightsaber and a staff are very similar, in fact so similar that a saberstaff (Darth Maul) is basically just a quarterstaff comprised of like 40-50% lightsaber"

You keep saying it's similar when it's not. They are very different. You can't use them the same so being good with one does not automatically make you good at other melee weapons.

"You can use a staff vaguely like you can use a sword. Gripping it towards the center and using that as a fulcrum on which to swing one end toward your opponent is basically what you do with a sword. "

Who in their right mind uses a staff by gripping the middle with both hands and swinging it like a sword? That is horribly stupid. Especially if the staff was her electro staff or a double bladed lightsaber. She'd be hitting her legs with the other half. You go grab a staff and show me how you can use it like a sword without touching anything other than the center. Don't give me a Bo staff because she wasn't using a Bo staff. A Bo staff doesn't have dangerous parts on the ends. A Bo staff can be held in many ways.

>She uses it poorly
She starts out bad, but she still holds her own more than she should have against a guy trained with saber dueling. She then magically gains the upper hand in a matter of seconds and nearly kills Kylo. The force doesn't make you a good swordsman. It can help you predict the enemy's movements, but it doesn't magically out of no where give you the skills she had when she was fighting. When has the force ever shown to have done that?

I said they're very similar. They're melee weapons. I never said they were the same. You put the dangerous end into the bad guy. The basic principles are the same, and that's all I've ever said is the same. The basics, the fundamentals. The anatomy of the weapons is vaguely similar, enough that not all of your technique goes out the window when you're using the other, at least enough to defend yourself and not immediately die when fighting an exhausted, wounded opponent with more training than you.

Holding the middle grip and swinging one end or the other towards your opponent is 90% of Darth Maul's attacks. A single lightsaber in both hands just removes the opposite end from the equation. The balance would be different, naturally, but the movements would be similar to simply using one side of the staff.

Whether or not you agree with my assessment of how this would apply in a real fight is immaterial. Neither of us have been in a life or death sword fight against an injured, tired, pissed off psychopath. I've argued my point, and you yours. Unless you're going to prove you're an expert in melee weapons, in which case I'd have to concede the point, let's just assume we're going with our guts and anecdotal experience on this one and leave it at that.

Anyway, she didn't really show off much skill. She was able to predict Kylo's moves, defend herself, and counterattack at the right time. That's hallmark Force use in a lightsaber duel. She was following her instincts and letting the Force guide her more than anything. Two lightsaber forms, Shii-Cho and Juyo, espouse this as a major principle, that you almost completely let the Force take the reins. Shii-Cho's method tends to make your attacks wild and unpredictable, while Juyo has you fighting very aggressively to keep your opponent on their toes. Yes, people who employ those schools of thought are also classically trained with the lightsaber, but that's why she doesn't fight like a super-Jedi. She ends up fighting just well enough to get nearly killed fighting a wounded, exhausted opponent and then win. Not exactly a display of Luke or Vader-level martial prowess.

The Force has displayed the ability to give competence and allow you to do the impossible. Luke had no fucking clue how to use a lightsaber, but once he quieted his thoughts and let it in, he blocked the remote droid's attacks quite easily. It allowed him to make a shot with proton torpedoes that normally would have been virtually impossible without his targeting computer. Rey performs a similar feat with the Falcon. without any concrete knowledge of the position of the broken blaster turret, she cuts the engines at the right time and maneuvered the Falcon so Finn had a perfect shot, and didn't even know how she managed it. That's classic Force flowing through you type shit. When has the Force shown to have magically given you crazy skills? Pretty much in every movie.

And, remember, everybody else who gets shot with a bowcaster simply dies or is at least knocked out. Kylo Ren took a direct hit. The Force and adrenaline were probably the only things keeping him standing. She beats a guy who was on his last legs to begin with. I'm sure if the situation had been different, Finn and Rey would have been soundly defeated. But, that's not what happened. The movie doesn't portray Rey as anything

"You put the dangerous end into the bad guy."
Except you are overly simplifying a weapon. Each weapon has it's own uses. Trying to stab someone with an ax is very ineffective. Trying to chop with a spear is very ineffective. Even different swords have different ways to be effective. Not all swords are good at slicing. Not all swords are good with stabbing. My point is that a staff is used very differently than a lightsaber. You cannot use a staff the same way you would use a saber. If you tried, you would likely die because you wouldn't be using the weapon the way it needs to be used. A staff can land some pretty heavy blows because you have to put emphasis on your swings, but if you swing it like a sword you are not going to have the same effect. You go get a staff, grab it only by the middle, and try to use it as a sword. See how limited it would be. Then go grab a sword and try to use it as a staff. You would be limiting what you can do with the sword.

The thing with the staff is it's held different than a sword. That and both ends are dangerous which means you can't do everything with it as you can with a sword. A sword is much more versatile and you can be more fluid with it. A staff is somewhat limited in what you can do. You cannot do the same things with them. Each have their own uses, strengths, and weaknesses. They don't share the same style.

A saber can be held with one hand and you can move your body around to dodge. You can also put both your hands over the small hand and swing harder. A staff is very different. You can't grab it in the dead center(which the dead center would be the size of the saber handle) and use it the same way. A staff needs to be held with both hands at both ends of the extended handle. That's why the handle is so long. Because your hands need to be spread apart so you can put more force into your blows. You also can't use a staff with one hand. I mean, you can try, but you would be dead very quickly.

I don't need to be an expert on melee weapons to understand how one works best. It's mostly common sense. If you pick up a scimitar you can very easily figure out it's best for hacking and slashing rather than stabbing. If you pick up a katana you can very easily figure out it's a fairly balanced weapon in terms of stabbing/slashing. If you pick up a claymore you can very easily figure out it's best used for big heavy swings rather than stabbing. It doesn't take a genius to understand how to use a weapon properly. Every weapon is generally good in one field, but worse in another. Why are you bringing up lightsaber forms? Rey didn't even know any so it's pointless to bring it up. The force doesn't make you a great swordsman. It helps you feel where the other person is going to swing so you can try to defend yourself. It's not some magic spirit that takes over your body's motions where you are left out of control. It guides you by telling you where the next blow will be. Look at the fight with Maul. Obi-wan was sensing what would happen. You could see it on his face. Can you name one movie fight where the force magically makes the person a great duelist without any sort of training?

"Luke had no fucking clue how to use a lightsaber, but once he quieted his thoughts and let it in, he blocked the remote droid's attacks quite easily"

Deflecting a training droid is extremely different than a duel. Like I said above, the force tells you what will happen before hand so you can use your skills to prevent it. Remember in Ep I how Qui-gon was talking to Anakin's mom saying he could see things before they happen? Then that part where he effortlessly grabbed Jar-Jar's tongue? The force didn't make him do that. It told him what was going to happen and he acted on it. Luke had little to no skill with his saber. His whole fight with Vader on Bespin went horribly. The only reason he was holding his own was because Vader was trying to capture him. After he failed, Luke got his ass handed to him.
(cont)

Kylo was weakened, but the force can make you endure a lot. Especially if your on the dark side where you often are in a lot of pain. That's no excuse.

I'm not trying to sound like a dick right here, but do you even really know anything about weapons? Like, it really doesn't take a lot to know a staff and a sword have to be used differently.

You don't whack somebody with a spear, except you totally do. Side-to-side movements and attacks are used with spears all the time. Obviously, the main thrust of killing somebody with a spear is to stab them, but whacking an opponent upside the head with it when stabbing isn't otherwise an option is perfectly valid.

That's where we differ, I guess. I think it's a perfectly valid excuse. The Dark Side itself doesn't put you in pain. The Force can help you endure pain, and the Dark Side helps you use pain to your advantage, but there's only so much you can do if your body itself is critically injured. It's a distraction, it introduces doubt. Again, we're talking about a wound that should be taking him out of the fight or killing him. It's only through the Force that he's likely able to stand at all. It's a perfect excuse, in my mind.

Yes, I know about weapons, at least enough about their history and use to understand the mechanics, but I am not classically trained in their use myself. I watch and read fiction, I know people who fence, I play games that more or less try to emulate how fighting with a sword or other melee weapon works. I know how to swing a sword, I know how to swing a baton, I know how to swing a staff. I know what each of those things looked like when performed by other people. I write fiction myself and pantomime the movements of attack and defense as I work out how to describe them. But, I think you're really hung up on me saying a lightsaber and a staff are similar and are misconstruing that as saying they're the same. I've pointed to qualities they share, and understand that they do differ in many ways, while all you've done to attempt to refute me is say no without actually providing any explanation as to why it's a no. You're reducing my argument to make yours seem more sound.

Yes, I said something that was largely facetious, but again I think you're missing what I'm actually saying. What I've been arguing the whole time is that a lot of the kinesiology of hitting somebody with something has similar foundations. You're right, it's tough to stab a guy with an axe, but axes made for combat sometimes have spikes you can stab people with, and poking an opponent in a vulnerable spot with a blunt part of an axe can open them up or disorient them. It happens all the time in these sorts of fights. If the weapon is at an awkward angle where you can't actually swing properly or bring the deadly part of it to bear, you hit them with the non-deadly parts or with your hands, elbows, feet, maybe even your shield if you have one. The act of attacking somebody is pretty simple when they can't raise their arms very easily to defend themselves because their ribs got shrekt by a superblaster. The act of using one thing to hit somebody is, at its core, always going to be similar to hitting somebody with another thing. You're not going to show yourself the master of armed combat, but it's certainly possible to murder people without knowing how to murder people. Even trained people can be vulnerable.

Rey displayed no actual mastery of anything. She applied what she knew about self defense to keep herself from being cut apart, then she later found her center and let the Force guide her actions and beat a severely handicapped opponent. Nothing that happened in the movie really violated any unwritten rules you're talking about. She gracelessly defeated a handicapped opponent with magic powers. It's not like they showed her out-dueling Yoda.

Deflecting a training droid when you're blind and gaining basic competence in a field you already have experience in are not all that different. Luke's a pretty good pilot. The Force makes him better. Rey's a pretty good pilot. The Force makes her better. Luke knows how to use a lightsaber. The Force makes him better. And, even when he had no clue how to use a lightsaber, the Force made him better at its use. Rey knows how to defend herself with a weapon, and she was able to do pretty much nothing else against Ren. Then, she used the Force, and got better, just barely good enough to beat a more experienced, but crippled opponent.

Kylo was damaged, but that does not excuse his ass being handed to him when he had the upperhand through most of the fight and then suddenly started to lose. That kind of transition would happen gradually, but instead it happened when she closed her eyes.

My whole point was that just because she is good with her staff does not mean she is automatically good with a lightsaber(something she has never held before). They are entirely different weapons that require entirely different tactics to use them. Do you not see that? You don't automatically become good with a sword just because you used a staff. You are used to the staff and never touched the sword so you don't know how to use it properly or effectively. Her skill revolved around her abilities with her staff. Her staff is different than a lightsaber. You can't use your skills with a staff on a sword. They are too different. We both agree that they are different weapons. You can't use them the same way with the same effect. You can't swing a staff the same way you would a sword. You would cut yourself(in half if it was a lightsaber). The ways you use each weapon are very different. Go watch Maul fight. He fights how you fight with a staff and Obi-wan and Qui-gon fight how you would with a sword. Now try picturing that whole fight if they had swapped weapons. It couldn't be done. A sword is more versatile with how you can swing it. How am I not providing any explanation? I've been telling you exactly how they can't be used the same ways so skills with one can't transition to the other.

Trained people can be vulnerable, but it's usually not while in combat. He had the upperhand. He was winning and then she closed her eyes and instantly turned the battle around. You also just agreed with me that weapons have different ways they need to be used to be the most effective. What I'm saying is that skills with a weapon that is used differently than a sword are not magically transferred. If you are good with a staff then you are good with staff like weapons. A sword is not like a staff. The sword would not be familiar so your skills with the staff could not be transferred. All your skills are with the motions and abilities of the staff. The sword can't be used like a staff so those skills are useless.

I never said Rey was a master with her staff. I said she was familiar with her staff and never used a lightsaber prior to that battle, but she somehow knew how to use one effectively against someone trained in dueling? Most people can pick up a sword and know how to use it, but against someone who actually is skilled in it? You'd get your ass handed to you. You go pick up a stick and go to some guy who is some fancy kung fu sword guy and ask for a sparring match. You will be beaten pretty quickly.

The force doesn't "make you a better ___" exactly. The force lets you know more from your surroundings and will even tell you what is about to happen next. It doesn't give you the skills. It guides you. It doesn't take control of your movements. Rey knows how to defend herself with her staff. Like we both said, a staff is a very different weapon than a sword. It has very different ways of using it. She is used to defending/fighting with a staff, not a sword. That does not mean you automatically know how to defend/fight effectively with other weapons. If you master using a certain type of sword, those skills won't transfer to something like a spear. They are just too different to use the same skills.

She closed her eyes and summoned the Force to her aid. A powerful ally, the Force is. It can do the impossible, give the underdog the guidance they need to defeat a superior opponent. It happens time and again in the franchise.

I acknowledged the weapons are different and are used differently. All I ever said was that the basic mechanics of melee combat have some universality. The anatomy of the weapon you're using can obviously affect how you attack or block, but the basics of that, swinging your weapon at an opening and move a weapon in the path of your own openings, the kinesiology has some universality to it than anybody familiar with melee combat could more or less figure out. They wouldn't necessarily be pulling anything complex or masterful, but they might be passable enough to not die immediately. That's all I was saying, and that's exactly what happened in the movie.

The Force does make you better. It helps you, guides your actions. A novice can do things that they shouldn't be able to do by letting the Force flow through them. Luke and Rey have both achieved similar feats, as I've described.

Anyway, let's just drop this. We're obviously not getting anywhere, here.

Like you said. It gives guidance. It doesn't make you better. It guides you to be better, but the amount of skill she gained was far fetched. Can you name any part in the other movies where something like that happened?

The thing is they aren't universal. The simple fact is that the same tactics can't be used in every weapon. That's my whole point. Her skill with her staff is completely irrelevant to her skills with a lightsaber. The only universal thing they share is that they are weapons and you swing them and that's boiling it down a lot. You still can't use them the same way so again, skills with the staff would not affect her skills with the lightsaber. She is used to swinging with a staff. She is not used to swinging with a lightsaber. fighting effectively is not the same as just swinging whatever weapon you have.

Like I said above, the force doesn't make you better by boosting your abilities(except for things like jumping and running). It guides you so you can do them better. It's an aid, not a magic thing that magically boosts all your abilities/skills. It doesn't take control of you to make you better. It just guides you. That's why saber duels last as long as they do. Both duelists can use the force to predict where the next blow will be so they can block it. Remember in Ep I when Obi-wan was watching Maul and Qui-gon fight? He knew what was going to happen and was getting worried. You could plainly see it on his face. What similar feats have Luke and Rey achieved? Luke was always a great pilot and the force helped him do more. It didn't give him the skill to be a pilot. He was already one to begin with. Luke never gained some ability magically in a matter of seconds. The closest he came was with the training droid and that isn't even comparable to what Rey did.

It totally does make you better. I've already pointed out several instances where characters either did things they had no training in doing, or were able to do things that were otherwise impossible. Rey was able to pull her Falcon maneuver to give Finn a clear shot without any knowledge of Finn's line of fire. She knew exactly when to cut the engine and flip the ship so that the turret would be able to shoot a moving target. How does that not make her a better pilot? How does being able to block attacks Luke could not block before not make him a better swordsman? It is in fact an aid that magically boosts your abilities. It lets you run faster, jump higher, react to danger you didn't know was even there, lets you hit things harder, see things your naked eye can't see, communicate telepathically with animals and convince them to help you, makes you shoot more accurately, swing a sword more quickly and more precisely. The entire premise of the Juyo form is to let the Force control your muscle memory almost completely, and as a result your attacks become blindingly fast, your footwork so quick you can take opponents unaware as though you were flanking them, and your blade can hit hard enough to shatter every bone in their body in addition to having their shoulder sliced. A Dark Side warrior can literally become stronger and tougher by summoning a magical Force rage.

There's even mechanics in Star Wars tabletop RPGs for using the Force to roll skills you're not normally good at, use your Force skill in place of other skills (such as using Use the Force for Pilot checks instead of the Pilot skill), and get bonuses to rolls that might be low and result in total failure. It's a longstanding aspect of the franchise, such that multiple rules sets have been written to emulate it mechanically.

And, in regards to the weapon point, I understand what you're saying, and agree that, yes, not everything you learn with a staff applies to using a sword. But, what I'm saying is that not all of what you learn with a staff is entirely irrelevant. You even see in the movie that she's clumsy and unpracticed when fighting Kylo. She almost always goes for a lunging stab when attacking as though she were prodding at his defenses with a spear or staff, and tries to make sweeping parries that would work better with the extra leverage of a staff. The Force guides her and gives a limited amount of competence when she summons it, and allows her to defeat a crippled opponent. That's all. She didn't do anything particularly spectacular.

To clarify, if she was using a lightsaber staff instead of a lightsaber sword, it would have actually made sense since she is used to fighting with staffs. She was not used to fighting with a lightsaber sword. She very obviously preffered using a staff as a weapon since it was her weapon of choice. Again, if you are good with a staff it does NOT mean you are automatically good with a sword.

Her staff and a lightsaber are not comparable at all. Her staff is likely heavy and not even that lethal. A lightsaber is very light and very fast. Not to mention that the two weapons require entirely different fight techniques. That's like saying that if you can effectively use a spear then you can effectively use an ax. You don't swing a staff like you would a sword.

A lightsaber and a staff are very similar, in fact so similar that a saberstaff (Darth Maul) is basically just a quarterstaff comprised of like 40-50% lightsaber. His fighting style looks almost exactly like how you use a staff in a fight. They're also both weapons that don't need to worry about hitting you with the edge of a blade, as I mentioned before. Shii-cho, the first form of lightsaber combat, is almost entirely comprised of identifying points of contact on the body and taking advantage of the lightsaber's 360 degree contact surface, in other words all that matters when swinging a lightsaber is that you make contact. You just have to strike them, which is basically exactly how something like a staff or baton works. Granted, a baton doesn't melt a motherfucker or burn his limbs off, but a telescoping baton is also light, doesn't require a lot of force behind it to deal damage, and doesn't have an edge you need to hit somebody with to deal proper damage. You can break bones with a telescoping baton with just a simple whack. Rey's staff is basically a baton with two ends she wields with both hands. A lightsaber is, essentially, just a big baton with a grip long enough for both of your hands.

They are different. You can't use a staff like a sword. I really don't know how you can say they are the same. Maul was using a staff effectively because he was trained to fight with it. Reys staff wasn't even a lightsaber. It was more bulky and heavy. You can't even swing that thing as fast as a lightsaber staff. Yes, they're both weapons. Nobody is saying they aren't. Yes the blades are the dangerous parts. The thing with a lightsaber is that it's more flexible with how you use it. A lightsaber staff is limited. You cannot do the same things you can with a sword with a staff. Being proficient with a staff does not mean you are automatically proficient with a sword. By saying you are you are also saying you are also proficient with an ax or a spear.

The only similarity the two weapons have is that they are weapons and it doesn't matter what part of the "blade" you hit them with, but that does not mean you know how to effectively use both if you only trained with one. They require entirely different ways of using them. You can't use a staff like you would a sword. It would be incredibly ineffective. Especially if it was Rey's staff or a lightsaber staff.

I never said they were the same. I said they had similar properties, and that some of the principles were the same. You can use a staff vaguely like you can use a sword. Gripping it towards the center and using that as a fulcrum on which to swing one end toward your opponent is basically what you do with a sword.

She uses it poorly. Exactly what you're saying would happen, it being difficult to use, happens. You got what you wanted, she sucks with swords, so what's the problem? Up until she actually summons the aid of the Force, she doesn't fight nearly as well as she does with the staff.

You're saying that if you are good with one then you are good with all. That's what you said.
"A lightsaber and a staff are very similar, in fact so similar that a saberstaff (Darth Maul) is basically just a quarterstaff comprised of like 40-50% lightsaber"

You keep saying it's similar when it's not. They are very different. You can't use them the same so being good with one does not automatically make you good at other melee weapons.

"You can use a staff vaguely like you can use a sword. Gripping it towards the center and using that as a fulcrum on which to swing one end toward your opponent is basically what you do with a sword. "

Who in their right mind uses a staff by gripping the middle with both hands and swinging it like a sword? That is horribly stupid. Especially if the staff was her electro staff or a double bladed lightsaber. She'd be hitting her legs with the other half. You go grab a staff and show me how you can use it like a sword without touching anything other than the center. Don't give me a Bo staff because she wasn't using a Bo staff. A Bo staff doesn't have dangerous parts on the ends. A Bo staff can be held in many ways.

>She uses it poorly
She starts out bad, but she still holds her own more than she should have against a guy trained with saber dueling. She then magically gains the upper hand in a matter of seconds and nearly kills Kylo. The force doesn't make you a good swordsman. It can help you predict the enemy's movements, but it doesn't magically out of no where give you the skills she had when she was fighting. When has the force ever shown to have done that?

I said they're very similar. They're melee weapons. I never said they were the same. You put the dangerous end into the bad guy. The basic principles are the same, and that's all I've ever said is the same. The basics, the fundamentals. The anatomy of the weapons is vaguely similar, enough that not all of your technique goes out the window when you're using the other, at least enough to defend yourself and not immediately die when fighting an exhausted, wounded opponent with more training than you.

Holding the middle grip and swinging one end or the other towards your opponent is 90% of Darth Maul's attacks. A single lightsaber in both hands just removes the opposite end from the equation. The balance would be different, naturally, but the movements would be similar to simply using one side of the staff.

Whether or not you agree with my assessment of how this would apply in a real fight is immaterial. Neither of us have been in a life or death sword fight against an injured, tired, pissed off psychopath. I've argued my point, and you yours. Unless you're going to prove you're an expert in melee weapons, in which case I'd have to concede the point, let's just assume we're going with our guts and anecdotal experience on this one and leave it at that.

Anyway, she didn't really show off much skill. She was able to predict Kylo's moves, defend herself, and counterattack at the right time. That's hallmark Force use in a lightsaber duel. She was following her instincts and letting the Force guide her more than anything. Two lightsaber forms, Shii-Cho and Juyo, espouse this as a major principle, that you almost completely let the Force take the reins. Shii-Cho's method tends to make your attacks wild and unpredictable, while Juyo has you fighting very aggressively to keep your opponent on their toes. Yes, people who employ those schools of thought are also classically trained with the lightsaber, but that's why she doesn't fight like a super-Jedi. She ends up fighting just well enough to get nearly killed fighting a wounded, exhausted opponent and then win. Not exactly a display of Luke or Vader-level martial prowess.

The Force has displayed the ability to give competence and allow you to do the impossible. Luke had no fucking clue how to use a lightsaber, but once he quieted his thoughts and let it in, he blocked the remote droid's attacks quite easily. It allowed him to make a shot with proton torpedoes that normally would have been virtually impossible without his targeting computer. Rey performs a similar feat with the Falcon. without any concrete knowledge of the position of the broken blaster turret, she cuts the engines at the right time and maneuvered the Falcon so Finn had a perfect shot, and didn't even know how she managed it. That's classic Force flowing through you type shit. When has the Force shown to have magically given you crazy skills? Pretty much in every movie.

And, remember, everybody else who gets shot with a bowcaster simply dies or is at least knocked out. Kylo Ren took a direct hit. The Force and adrenaline were probably the only things keeping him standing. She beats a guy who was on his last legs to begin with. I'm sure if the situation had been different, Finn and Rey would have been soundly defeated. But, that's not what happened. The movie doesn't portray Rey as anything

"You put the dangerous end into the bad guy."
Except you are overly simplifying a weapon. Each weapon has it's own uses. Trying to stab someone with an ax is very ineffective. Trying to chop with a spear is very ineffective. Even different swords have different ways to be effective. Not all swords are good at slicing. Not all swords are good with stabbing. My point is that a staff is used very differently than a lightsaber. You cannot use a staff the same way you would use a saber. If you tried, you would likely die because you wouldn't be using the weapon the way it needs to be used. A staff can land some pretty heavy blows because you have to put emphasis on your swings, but if you swing it like a sword you are not going to have the same effect. You go get a staff, grab it only by the middle, and try to use it as a sword. See how limited it would be. Then go grab a sword and try to use it as a staff. You would be limiting what you can do with the sword.

The thing with the staff is it's held different than a sword. That and both ends are dangerous which means you can't do everything with it as you can with a sword. A sword is much more versatile and you can be more fluid with it. A staff is somewhat limited in what you can do. You cannot do the same things with them. Each have their own uses, strengths, and weaknesses. They don't share the same style.

A saber can be held with one hand and you can move your body around to dodge. You can also put both your hands over the small hand and swing harder. A staff is very different. You can't grab it in the dead center(which the dead center would be the size of the saber handle) and use it the same way. A staff needs to be held with both hands at both ends of the extended handle. That's why the handle is so long. Because your hands need to be spread apart so you can put more force into your blows. You also can't use a staff with one hand. I mean, you can try, but you would be dead very quickly.

I don't need to be an expert on melee weapons to understand how one works best. It's mostly common sense. If you pick up a scimitar you can very easily figure out it's best for hacking and slashing rather than stabbing. If you pick up a katana you can very easily figure out it's a fairly balanced weapon in terms of stabbing/slashing. If you pick up a claymore you can very easily figure out it's best used for big heavy swings rather than stabbing. It doesn't take a genius to understand how to use a weapon properly. Every weapon is generally good in one field, but worse in another. Why are you bringing up lightsaber forms? Rey didn't even know any so it's pointless to bring it up. The force doesn't make you a great swordsman. It helps you feel where the other person is going to swing so you can try to defend yourself. It's not some magic spirit that takes over your body's motions where you are left out of control. It guides you by telling you where the next blow will be. Look at the fight with Maul. Obi-wan was sensing what would happen. You could see it on his face. Can you name one movie fight where the force magically makes the person a great duelist without any sort of training?

"Luke had no fucking clue how to use a lightsaber, but once he quieted his thoughts and let it in, he blocked the remote droid's attacks quite easily"

Deflecting a training droid is extremely different than a duel. Like I said above, the force tells you what will happen before hand so you can use your skills to prevent it. Remember in Ep I how Qui-gon was talking to Anakin's mom saying he could see things before they happen? Then that part where he effortlessly grabbed Jar-Jar's tongue? The force didn't make him do that. It told him what was going to happen and he acted on it. Luke had little to no skill with his saber. His whole fight with Vader on Bespin went horribly. The only reason he was holding his own was because Vader was trying to capture him. After he failed, Luke got his ass handed to him.
(cont)

Kylo was weakened, but the force can make you endure a lot. Especially if your on the dark side where you often are in a lot of pain. That's no excuse.

I'm not trying to sound like a dick right here, but do you even really know anything about weapons? Like, it really doesn't take a lot to know a staff and a sword have to be used differently.

You don't whack somebody with a spear, except you totally do. Side-to-side movements and attacks are used with spears all the time. Obviously, the main thrust of killing somebody with a spear is to stab them, but whacking an opponent upside the head with it when stabbing isn't otherwise an option is perfectly valid.

That's where we differ, I guess. I think it's a perfectly valid excuse. The Dark Side itself doesn't put you in pain. The Force can help you endure pain, and the Dark Side helps you use pain to your advantage, but there's only so much you can do if your body itself is critically injured. It's a distraction, it introduces doubt. Again, we're talking about a wound that should be taking him out of the fight or killing him. It's only through the Force that he's likely able to stand at all. It's a perfect excuse, in my mind.

Yes, I know about weapons, at least enough about their history and use to understand the mechanics, but I am not classically trained in their use myself. I watch and read fiction, I know people who fence, I play games that more or less try to emulate how fighting with a sword or other melee weapon works. I know how to swing a sword, I know how to swing a baton, I know how to swing a staff. I know what each of those things looked like when performed by other people. I write fiction myself and pantomime the movements of attack and defense as I work out how to describe them. But, I think you're really hung up on me saying a lightsaber and a staff are similar and are misconstruing that as saying they're the same. I've pointed to qualities they share, and understand that they do differ in many ways, while all you've done to attempt to refute me is say no without actually providing any explanation as to why it's a no. You're reducing my argument to make yours seem more sound.

Yes, I said something that was largely facetious, but again I think you're missing what I'm actually saying. What I've been arguing the whole time is that a lot of the kinesiology of hitting somebody with something has similar foundations. You're right, it's tough to stab a guy with an axe, but axes made for combat sometimes have spikes you can stab people with, and poking an opponent in a vulnerable spot with a blunt part of an axe can open them up or disorient them. It happens all the time in these sorts of fights. If the weapon is at an awkward angle where you can't actually swing properly or bring the deadly part of it to bear, you hit them with the non-deadly parts or with your hands, elbows, feet, maybe even your shield if you have one. The act of attacking somebody is pretty simple when they can't raise their arms very easily to defend themselves because their ribs got shrekt by a superblaster. The act of using one thing to hit somebody is, at its core, always going to be similar to hitting somebody with another thing. You're not going to show yourself the master of armed combat, but it's certainly possible to murder people without knowing how to murder people. Even trained people can be vulnerable.

Rey displayed no actual mastery of anything. She applied what she knew about self defense to keep herself from being cut apart, then she later found her center and let the Force guide her actions and beat a severely handicapped opponent. Nothing that happened in the movie really violated any unwritten rules you're talking about. She gracelessly defeated a handicapped opponent with magic powers. It's not like they showed her out-dueling Yoda.

Deflecting a training droid when you're blind and gaining basic competence in a field you already have experience in are not all that different. Luke's a pretty good pilot. The Force makes him better. Rey's a pretty good pilot. The Force makes her better. Luke knows how to use a lightsaber. The Force makes him better. And, even when he had no clue how to use a lightsaber, the Force made him better at its use. Rey knows how to defend herself with a weapon, and she was able to do pretty much nothing else against Ren. Then, she used the Force, and got better, just barely good enough to beat a more experienced, but crippled opponent.

Kylo was damaged, but that does not excuse his ass being handed to him when he had the upperhand through most of the fight and then suddenly started to lose. That kind of transition would happen gradually, but instead it happened when she closed her eyes.

My whole point was that just because she is good with her staff does not mean she is automatically good with a lightsaber(something she has never held before). They are entirely different weapons that require entirely different tactics to use them. Do you not see that? You don't automatically become good with a sword just because you used a staff. You are used to the staff and never touched the sword so you don't know how to use it properly or effectively. Her skill revolved around her abilities with her staff. Her staff is different than a lightsaber. You can't use your skills with a staff on a sword. They are too different. We both agree that they are different weapons. You can't use them the same way with the same effect. You can't swing a staff the same way you would a sword. You would cut yourself(in half if it was a lightsaber). The ways you use each weapon are very different. Go watch Maul fight. He fights how you fight with a staff and Obi-wan and Qui-gon fight how you would with a sword. Now try picturing that whole fight if they had swapped weapons. It couldn't be done. A sword is more versatile with how you can swing it. How am I not providing any explanation? I've been telling you exactly how they can't be used the same ways so skills with one can't transition to the other.

Trained people can be vulnerable, but it's usually not while in combat. He had the upperhand. He was winning and then she closed her eyes and instantly turned the battle around. You also just agreed with me that weapons have different ways they need to be used to be the most effective. What I'm saying is that skills with a weapon that is used differently than a sword are not magically transferred. If you are good with a staff then you are good with staff like weapons. A sword is not like a staff. The sword would not be familiar so your skills with the staff could not be transferred. All your skills are with the motions and abilities of the staff. The sword can't be used like a staff so those skills are useless.

I never said Rey was a master with her staff. I said she was familiar with her staff and never used a lightsaber prior to that battle, but she somehow knew how to use one effectively against someone trained in dueling? Most people can pick up a sword and know how to use it, but against someone who actually is skilled in it? You'd get your ass handed to you. You go pick up a stick and go to some guy who is some fancy kung fu sword guy and ask for a sparring match. You will be beaten pretty quickly.

The force doesn't "make you a better ___" exactly. The force lets you know more from your surroundings and will even tell you what is about to happen next. It doesn't give you the skills. It guides you. It doesn't take control of your movements. Rey knows how to defend herself with her staff. Like we both said, a staff is a very different weapon than a sword. It has very different ways of using it. She is used to defending/fighting with a staff, not a sword. That does not mean you automatically know how to defend/fight effectively with other weapons. If you master using a certain type of sword, those skills won't transfer to something like a spear. They are just too different to use the same skills.

She closed her eyes and summoned the Force to her aid. A powerful ally, the Force is. It can do the impossible, give the underdog the guidance they need to defeat a superior opponent. It happens time and again in the franchise.

I acknowledged the weapons are different and are used differently. All I ever said was that the basic mechanics of melee combat have some universality. The anatomy of the weapon you're using can obviously affect how you attack or block, but the basics of that, swinging your weapon at an opening and move a weapon in the path of your own openings, the kinesiology has some universality to it than anybody familiar with melee combat could more or less figure out. They wouldn't necessarily be pulling anything complex or masterful, but they might be passable enough to not die immediately. That's all I was saying, and that's exactly what happened in the movie.

The Force does make you better. It helps you, guides your actions. A novice can do things that they shouldn't be able to do by letting the Force flow through them. Luke and Rey have both achieved similar feats, as I've described.

Anyway, let's just drop this. We're obviously not getting anywhere, here.

Like you said. It gives guidance. It doesn't make you better. It guides you to be better, but the amount of skill she gained was far fetched. Can you name any part in the other movies where something like that happened?

The thing is they aren't universal. The simple fact is that the same tactics can't be used in every weapon. That's my whole point. Her skill with her staff is completely irrelevant to her skills with a lightsaber. The only universal thing they share is that they are weapons and you swing them and that's boiling it down a lot. You still can't use them the same way so again, skills with the staff would not affect her skills with the lightsaber. She is used to swinging with a staff. She is not used to swinging with a lightsaber. fighting effectively is not the same as just swinging whatever weapon you have.

Like I said above, the force doesn't make you better by boosting your abilities(except for things like jumping and running). It guides you so you can do them better. It's an aid, not a magic thing that magically boosts all your abilities/skills. It doesn't take control of you to make you better. It just guides you. That's why saber duels last as long as they do. Both duelists can use the force to predict where the next blow will be so they can block it. Remember in Ep I when Obi-wan was watching Maul and Qui-gon fight? He knew what was going to happen and was getting worried. You could plainly see it on his face. What similar feats have Luke and Rey achieved? Luke was always a great pilot and the force helped him do more. It didn't give him the skill to be a pilot. He was already one to begin with. Luke never gained some ability magically in a matter of seconds. The closest he came was with the training droid and that isn't even comparable to what Rey did.

It totally does make you better. I've already pointed out several instances where characters either did things they had no training in doing, or were able to do things that were otherwise impossible. Rey was able to pull her Falcon maneuver to give Finn a clear shot without any knowledge of Finn's line of fire. She knew exactly when to cut the engine and flip the ship so that the turret would be able to shoot a moving target. How does that not make her a better pilot? How does being able to block attacks Luke could not block before not make him a better swordsman? It is in fact an aid that magically boosts your abilities. It lets you run faster, jump higher, react to danger you didn't know was even there, lets you hit things harder, see things your naked eye can't see, communicate telepathically with animals and convince them to help you, makes you shoot more accurately, swing a sword more quickly and more precisely. The entire premise of the Juyo form is to let the Force control your muscle memory almost completely, and as a result your attacks become blindingly fast, your footwork so quick you can take opponents unaware as though you were flanking them, and your blade can hit hard enough to shatter every bone in their body in addition to having their shoulder sliced. A Dark Side warrior can literally become stronger and tougher by summoning a magical Force rage.

There's even mechanics in Star Wars tabletop RPGs for using the Force to roll skills you're not normally good at, use your Force skill in place of other skills (such as using Use the Force for Pilot checks instead of the Pilot skill), and get bonuses to rolls that might be low and result in total failure. It's a longstanding aspect of the franchise, such that multiple rules sets have been written to emulate it mechanically.

And, in regards to the weapon point, I understand what you're saying, and agree that, yes, not everything you learn with a staff applies to using a sword. But, what I'm saying is that not all of what you learn with a staff is entirely irrelevant. You even see in the movie that she's clumsy and unpracticed when fighting Kylo. She almost always goes for a lunging stab when attacking as though she were prodding at his defenses with a spear or staff, and tries to make sweeping parries that would work better with the extra leverage of a staff. The Force guides her and gives a limited amount of competence when she summons it, and allows her to defeat a crippled opponent. That's all. She didn't do anything particularly spectacular.

To clarify, if she was using a lightsaber staff instead of a lightsaber sword, it would have actually made sense since she is used to fighting with staffs. She was not used to fighting with a lightsaber sword. She very obviously preffered using a staff as a weapon since it was her weapon of choice. Again, if you are good with a staff it does NOT mean you are automatically good with a sword.

Right, and I guess that explains why Rey, who had literally never held the lightsaber before in her life beat the ever living crap out of Kylo, who had trained for years.

Also he had just gotten shot moments earlier.

Kylo was reckless and emotional. Remember when anakin (Who also had numerous years of training) got his shit kicked in on mustafar?

To be fair, Obi-wan was one of the greatest duelists ever and even taught Anakin everything he knew so it makes perfect sense he lost. Look at the skill chart. Obi-wan killed Maul who killed his master. Obi-wan was beaten by Dooku, but Dooku was one of the greatest duelists too. Obi-wan also beat Grievous who could single handedly take out numerous Jedi at once. It makes perfect sense that Obi-wan could beat Anakin. Being reckless and emotional is no excuse. Kylo had years of training with both the force and saber dueling and then lost to someone who never held a lightsaber and had just magically became adept at the force. Rey did have combat experience with her staff, but an electric staff is fairly different than a lightsaber. A lightsaber is more deadly, lighter, and faster. It would be very hard to transition from a heavy staff to a very lightweight deadly weapon.

As for Rey...You got me there. I felt like she was more or less using it to defend herself for most of the duel, which she really didn't have to do any work unlike Kylo, or Finn, who just kept whacking the damn things around as if they're baseball bats.

Kylo also seemed to be mimicking Vader's style a bit. Vader tended to whack things with his lightsaber. Vader's robotic limbs restricted his agility and mobility so he relied on brute force to win most fights. Have you seen Vader fight? He really does tend to whack things.

In the beginning of the fight on Bespin he is going lightly since he only wants to trap Luke. After that fails, he starts fighting seriously and starts whacking his lightsaber. Kylo is obsessed with Vader and desperately wants to be him so it makes sense he would adopt his fighting style.

That's true and i didn't think about that actually, so it might make sense why his technique was...in my opinion, sloppy.

I do love me some Vader though. You happen to know any games where you can be Vader and just fuck shit up? Something kind of like the first level of The Force Unleashed where you are Vader and just slaughter wookies. I play Battlefront II a lot, but not a whole lot of levels feature Vader so I can't enjoy him to the max. You know any good Vader games?

Never underestimate the power of whacking. That's pretty much how Luke won the fight in Return of the Jedi. He gave into his anger and started wailing on him. Repetitive whacking may seem "sloppy", but if you do it right like hitting hard and just fast enough to where your foe can't counter it then you can eventually overpower them. If you put too much power into a swing, it usually ends up slower. Vader puts just enough power into his whacks that they aren't slowed that much. Plus, having robotic limbs didn't hurt.

Kylo was no master duelist, but he definitely knew how to use the thing. Rey magically knew how to use a lightsaber effectively despite likely only using her staff for most of her life. A staff and a lightsaber are two entirely different weapons so you can't say that just because she was proficient with her staff that she is automatically good with a saber. That's like saying that if you can effectively use a spear in combat then you automatically know how to effectively use an ax in combat even if you've never used one.

Obi wan sliced his limbs off as soon as he jumped. like...there was no real reason to jump...he made a poor decision and suffered for it. You know why he made that decision? It's because he was fueled by rage and hatred and thought he could kill his master (Which he did 19 years later) so he took the risk and again suffered for it.

Obi-wan still had the upper hand throughout most of the fight. They were nearly even, but Obi-wan had the advantage of a tactful mind, clear thinking, and better skills. That was a risky move that Anakin did and he suffered for it, but things like that did actually win him some fights. Remember when he killed Dooku? He went full on rage there and completely turned the tides of the fight.

The whole Obi-wan vs Anakin fight was a fight between two very skilled force users and duelists. The fight between Kylo and Ren was a fight between a Sith(albeit a shitty one) who was fairly knowledgable with the force and saber dueling(yes, I know he wasn't a master, but he very obviously knew quite a bit) and Rey who magically learned how to use the force in a ridiculously short time and gained the upper hand out of nowhere.

I....wouldn't call kylo a sith. he's more like a dark jedi, like Ventress, he has the potential to be a sith though, if he gets his shit together. hell, he's quite obviously trying to fight the light within him even after he kills han.

As for Rey and Kylo's fight, I really have no explanation, Personally my theory is that luke's her dad and that luke taught her some stuff before he left her on jakku. I really do hope they explain it eventually, because the only explanation (which in all reality is probably a shoddy explanation) i could possibly see is if the force decided to...intervene against Kylo and favor Rey, which in the old canon happened when plagueis and palpatine attempted to create a sith'ari, and the force basically went "Fuck that" and created Anakin in response.

True, he is closer to a dark Jedi, but that still doesn't change anything. He was still skilled enough to win, but Rey magically became more power. Like some kind of deus ex machina thing.

I highly doubt they will go the route of Luke being her father. That would be extremely cliche and would just be lazy writing. Also, Rey was left as an infant so I doubt Luke(if he was her father) could or would have taught her how to fight with a lightsaber. It doesn't add up. I also highly doubt Luke would leave a child on a place like Jakku. That place was worse than Tatooine. She was left to fend for herself.

I don't buy for a second that the force magically gave her the abilities. I think the force itself strives for balance. That's why the whole prophecy thing came to be. I highly doubt it would put favor into Rey. Even if it did give her more power, it really doesn't explain how she automatically knew how to do it. That stuff isn't something you just learn on the spot.

Like i said, i really don't have an explanation for it. but, like i said, the force has been known to do...weird shit like that, case in point the explanation for anakin's conception in the old canon.

My point is that it's just a crappy writing point. They have no explanation as to why it happens and any thinkable reason is "just because".

Then I'd argue what's the point of training in the first place, I mean fuck.

The training is so you don't make the same mistakes as those two and end up getting your shit kicked in because you're too stupid and/or emotional to make a good judgment call and end up losing a limb or two.

Well having hands is just a disadvantage at this point.

Kylo hasn't completed his training, either as a Sith, or a Jedi. He's just a Dark Side marauder with a lightsaber at this point. Also, he took a shot to the ribs from a bowcaster earlier. Instead of flying off that bridge and dying like a bitch due to severe bowcaster injuries, like TR-8R, he proceeded to tank that shit and keep fighting at a limited capacity. Then, Finn landed a hit, weakening Ren even further.

Rey isn't a stranger to melee combat, and a staff is similar to a lightsaber in that it largely doesn't matter what part of it you whack somebody with, so she had some foundation to work with. And, again, the Force is intuitive. Training to use the Force is mostly to retrain your brain to understand that you are capable of doing the impossible, because doubt hinders your ability to use it. It makes it easier to call upon it and direct it, but letting it flow through you and guide your actions is fairly basic. Luke learned to do that within minutes of Obi-Wan giving him minimal instruction.

So, yes, Rey channeled the Force in a fairly simple way, and was able to beat a wounded, emotionally and physically exhausted failed apprentice.

Her staff and a lightsaber are not comparable at all. Her staff is likely heavy and not even that lethal. A lightsaber is very light and very fast. Not to mention that the two weapons require entirely different fight techniques. That's like saying that if you can effectively use a spear then you can effectively use an ax. You don't swing a staff like you would a sword.

A lightsaber and a staff are very similar, in fact so similar that a saberstaff (Darth Maul) is basically just a quarterstaff comprised of like 40-50% lightsaber. His fighting style looks almost exactly like how you use a staff in a fight. They're also both weapons that don't need to worry about hitting you with the edge of a blade, as I mentioned before. Shii-cho, the first form of lightsaber combat, is almost entirely comprised of identifying points of contact on the body and taking advantage of the lightsaber's 360 degree contact surface, in other words all that matters when swinging a lightsaber is that you make contact. You just have to strike them, which is basically exactly how something like a staff or baton works. Granted, a baton doesn't melt a motherfucker or burn his limbs off, but a telescoping baton is also light, doesn't require a lot of force behind it to deal damage, and doesn't have an edge you need to hit somebody with to deal proper damage. You can break bones with a telescoping baton with just a simple whack. Rey's staff is basically a baton with two ends she wields with both hands. A lightsaber is, essentially, just a big baton with a grip long enough for both of your hands.

They are different. You can't use a staff like a sword. I really don't know how you can say they are the same. Maul was using a staff effectively because he was trained to fight with it. Reys staff wasn't even a lightsaber. It was more bulky and heavy. You can't even swing that thing as fast as a lightsaber staff. Yes, they're both weapons. Nobody is saying they aren't. Yes the blades are the dangerous parts. The thing with a lightsaber is that it's more flexible with how you use it. A lightsaber staff is limited. You cannot do the same things you can with a sword with a staff. Being proficient with a staff does not mean you are automatically proficient with a sword. By saying you are you are also saying you are also proficient with an ax or a spear.

The only similarity the two weapons have is that they are weapons and it doesn't matter what part of the "blade" you hit them with, but that does not mean you know how to effectively use both if you only trained with one. They require entirely different ways of using them. You can't use a staff like you would a sword. It would be incredibly ineffective. Especially if it was Rey's staff or a lightsaber staff.

I never said they were the same. I said they had similar properties, and that some of the principles were the same. You can use a staff vaguely like you can use a sword. Gripping it towards the center and using that as a fulcrum on which to swing one end toward your opponent is basically what you do with a sword.

She uses it poorly. Exactly what you're saying would happen, it being difficult to use, happens. You got what you wanted, she sucks with swords, so what's the problem? Up until she actually summons the aid of the Force, she doesn't fight nearly as well as she does with the staff.

You're saying that if you are good with one then you are good with all. That's what you said.
"A lightsaber and a staff are very similar, in fact so similar that a saberstaff (Darth Maul) is basically just a quarterstaff comprised of like 40-50% lightsaber"

You keep saying it's similar when it's not. They are very different. You can't use them the same so being good with one does not automatically make you good at other melee weapons.

"You can use a staff vaguely like you can use a sword. Gripping it towards the center and using that as a fulcrum on which to swing one end toward your opponent is basically what you do with a sword. "

Who in their right mind uses a staff by gripping the middle with both hands and swinging it like a sword? That is horribly stupid. Especially if the staff was her electro staff or a double bladed lightsaber. She'd be hitting her legs with the other half. You go grab a staff and show me how you can use it like a sword without touching anything other than the center. Don't give me a Bo staff because she wasn't using a Bo staff. A Bo staff doesn't have dangerous parts on the ends. A Bo staff can be held in many ways.

>She uses it poorly
She starts out bad, but she still holds her own more than she should have against a guy trained with saber dueling. She then magically gains the upper hand in a matter of seconds and nearly kills Kylo. The force doesn't make you a good swordsman. It can help you predict the enemy's movements, but it doesn't magically out of no where give you the skills she had when she was fighting. When has the force ever shown to have done that?

I said they're very similar. They're melee weapons. I never said they were the same. You put the dangerous end into the bad guy. The basic principles are the same, and that's all I've ever said is the same. The basics, the fundamentals. The anatomy of the weapons is vaguely similar, enough that not all of your technique goes out the window when you're using the other, at least enough to defend yourself and not immediately die when fighting an exhausted, wounded opponent with more training than you.

Holding the middle grip and swinging one end or the other towards your opponent is 90% of Darth Maul's attacks. A single lightsaber in both hands just removes the opposite end from the equation. The balance would be different, naturally, but the movements would be similar to simply using one side of the staff.

Whether or not you agree with my assessment of how this would apply in a real fight is immaterial. Neither of us have been in a life or death sword fight against an injured, tired, pissed off psychopath. I've argued my point, and you yours. Unless you're going to prove you're an expert in melee weapons, in which case I'd have to concede the point, let's just assume we're going with our guts and anecdotal experience on this one and leave it at that.

Anyway, she didn't really show off much skill. She was able to predict Kylo's moves, defend herself, and counterattack at the right time. That's hallmark Force use in a lightsaber duel. She was following her instincts and letting the Force guide her more than anything. Two lightsaber forms, Shii-Cho and Juyo, espouse this as a major principle, that you almost completely let the Force take the reins. Shii-Cho's method tends to make your attacks wild and unpredictable, while Juyo has you fighting very aggressively to keep your opponent on their toes. Yes, people who employ those schools of thought are also classically trained with the lightsaber, but that's why she doesn't fight like a super-Jedi. She ends up fighting just well enough to get nearly killed fighting a wounded, exhausted opponent and then win. Not exactly a display of Luke or Vader-level martial prowess.

The Force has displayed the ability to give competence and allow you to do the impossible. Luke had no fucking clue how to use a lightsaber, but once he quieted his thoughts and let it in, he blocked the remote droid's attacks quite easily. It allowed him to make a shot with proton torpedoes that normally would have been virtually impossible without his targeting computer. Rey performs a similar feat with the Falcon. without any concrete knowledge of the position of the broken blaster turret, she cuts the engines at the right time and maneuvered the Falcon so Finn had a perfect shot, and didn't even know how she managed it. That's classic Force flowing through you type shit. When has the Force shown to have magically given you crazy skills? Pretty much in every movie.

And, remember, everybody else who gets shot with a bowcaster simply dies or is at least knocked out. Kylo Ren took a direct hit. The Force and adrenaline were probably the only things keeping him standing. She beats a guy who was on his last legs to begin with. I'm sure if the situation had been different, Finn and Rey would have been soundly defeated. But, that's not what happened. The movie doesn't portray Rey as anything

"You put the dangerous end into the bad guy."
Except you are overly simplifying a weapon. Each weapon has it's own uses. Trying to stab someone with an ax is very ineffective. Trying to chop with a spear is very ineffective. Even different swords have different ways to be effective. Not all swords are good at slicing. Not all swords are good with stabbing. My point is that a staff is used very differently than a lightsaber. You cannot use a staff the same way you would use a saber. If you tried, you would likely die because you wouldn't be using the weapon the way it needs to be used. A staff can land some pretty heavy blows because you have to put emphasis on your swings, but if you swing it like a sword you are not going to have the same effect. You go get a staff, grab it only by the middle, and try to use it as a sword. See how limited it would be. Then go grab a sword and try to use it as a staff. You would be limiting what you can do with the sword.

The thing with the staff is it's held different than a sword. That and both ends are dangerous which means you can't do everything with it as you can with a sword. A sword is much more versatile and you can be more fluid with it. A staff is somewhat limited in what you can do. You cannot do the same things with them. Each have their own uses, strengths, and weaknesses. They don't share the same style.

A saber can be held with one hand and you can move your body around to dodge. You can also put both your hands over the small hand and swing harder. A staff is very different. You can't grab it in the dead center(which the dead center would be the size of the saber handle) and use it the same way. A staff needs to be held with both hands at both ends of the extended handle. That's why the handle is so long. Because your hands need to be spread apart so you can put more force into your blows. You also can't use a staff with one hand. I mean, you can try, but you would be dead very quickly.

I don't need to be an expert on melee weapons to understand how one works best. It's mostly common sense. If you pick up a scimitar you can very easily figure out it's best for hacking and slashing rather than stabbing. If you pick up a katana you can very easily figure out it's a fairly balanced weapon in terms of stabbing/slashing. If you pick up a claymore you can very easily figure out it's best used for big heavy swings rather than stabbing. It doesn't take a genius to understand how to use a weapon properly. Every weapon is generally good in one field, but worse in another. Why are you bringing up lightsaber forms? Rey didn't even know any so it's pointless to bring it up. The force doesn't make you a great swordsman. It helps you feel where the other person is going to swing so you can try to defend yourself. It's not some magic spirit that takes over your body's motions where you are left out of control. It guides you by telling you where the next blow will be. Look at the fight with Maul. Obi-wan was sensing what would happen. You could see it on his face. Can you name one movie fight where the force magically makes the person a great duelist without any sort of training?

"Luke had no fucking clue how to use a lightsaber, but once he quieted his thoughts and let it in, he blocked the remote droid's attacks quite easily"

Deflecting a training droid is extremely different than a duel. Like I said above, the force tells you what will happen before hand so you can use your skills to prevent it. Remember in Ep I how Qui-gon was talking to Anakin's mom saying he could see things before they happen? Then that part where he effortlessly grabbed Jar-Jar's tongue? The force didn't make him do that. It told him what was going to happen and he acted on it. Luke had little to no skill with his saber. His whole fight with Vader on Bespin went horribly. The only reason he was holding his own was because Vader was trying to capture him. After he failed, Luke got his ass handed to him.
(cont)

Kylo was weakened, but the force can make you endure a lot. Especially if your on the dark side where you often are in a lot of pain. That's no excuse.

I'm not trying to sound like a dick right here, but do you even really know anything about weapons? Like, it really doesn't take a lot to know a staff and a sword have to be used differently.

You don't whack somebody with a spear, except you totally do. Side-to-side movements and attacks are used with spears all the time. Obviously, the main thrust of killing somebody with a spear is to stab them, but whacking an opponent upside the head with it when stabbing isn't otherwise an option is perfectly valid.

That's where we differ, I guess. I think it's a perfectly valid excuse. The Dark Side itself doesn't put you in pain. The Force can help you endure pain, and the Dark Side helps you use pain to your advantage, but there's only so much you can do if your body itself is critically injured. It's a distraction, it introduces doubt. Again, we're talking about a wound that should be taking him out of the fight or killing him. It's only through the Force that he's likely able to stand at all. It's a perfect excuse, in my mind.

Yes, I know about weapons, at least enough about their history and use to understand the mechanics, but I am not classically trained in their use myself. I watch and read fiction, I know people who fence, I play games that more or less try to emulate how fighting with a sword or other melee weapon works. I know how to swing a sword, I know how to swing a baton, I know how to swing a staff. I know what each of those things looked like when performed by other people. I write fiction myself and pantomime the movements of attack and defense as I work out how to describe them. But, I think you're really hung up on me saying a lightsaber and a staff are similar and are misconstruing that as saying they're the same. I've pointed to qualities they share, and understand that they do differ in many ways, while all you've done to attempt to refute me is say no without actually providing any explanation as to why it's a no. You're reducing my argument to make yours seem more sound.

Yes, I said something that was largely facetious, but again I think you're missing what I'm actually saying. What I've been arguing the whole time is that a lot of the kinesiology of hitting somebody with something has similar foundations. You're right, it's tough to stab a guy with an axe, but axes made for combat sometimes have spikes you can stab people with, and poking an opponent in a vulnerable spot with a blunt part of an axe can open them up or disorient them. It happens all the time in these sorts of fights. If the weapon is at an awkward angle where you can't actually swing properly or bring the deadly part of it to bear, you hit them with the non-deadly parts or with your hands, elbows, feet, maybe even your shield if you have one. The act of attacking somebody is pretty simple when they can't raise their arms very easily to defend themselves because their ribs got shrekt by a superblaster. The act of using one thing to hit somebody is, at its core, always going to be similar to hitting somebody with another thing. You're not going to show yourself the master of armed combat, but it's certainly possible to murder people without knowing how to murder people. Even trained people can be vulnerable.

Rey displayed no actual mastery of anything. She applied what she knew about self defense to keep herself from being cut apart, then she later found her center and let the Force guide her actions and beat a severely handicapped opponent. Nothing that happened in the movie really violated any unwritten rules you're talking about. She gracelessly defeated a handicapped opponent with magic powers. It's not like they showed her out-dueling Yoda.

Deflecting a training droid when you're blind and gaining basic competence in a field you already have experience in are not all that different. Luke's a pretty good pilot. The Force makes him better. Rey's a pretty good pilot. The Force makes her better. Luke knows how to use a lightsaber. The Force makes him better. And, even when he had no clue how to use a lightsaber, the Force made him better at its use. Rey knows how to defend herself with a weapon, and she was able to do pretty much nothing else against Ren. Then, she used the Force, and got better, just barely good enough to beat a more experienced, but crippled opponent.

Kylo was damaged, but that does not excuse his ass being handed to him when he had the upperhand through most of the fight and then suddenly started to lose. That kind of transition would happen gradually, but instead it happened when she closed her eyes.

My whole point was that just because she is good with her staff does not mean she is automatically good with a lightsaber(something she has never held before). They are entirely different weapons that require entirely different tactics to use them. Do you not see that? You don't automatically become good with a sword just because you used a staff. You are used to the staff and never touched the sword so you don't know how to use it properly or effectively. Her skill revolved around her abilities with her staff. Her staff is different than a lightsaber. You can't use your skills with a staff on a sword. They are too different. We both agree that they are different weapons. You can't use them the same way with the same effect. You can't swing a staff the same way you would a sword. You would cut yourself(in half if it was a lightsaber). The ways you use each weapon are very different. Go watch Maul fight. He fights how you fight with a staff and Obi-wan and Qui-gon fight how you would with a sword. Now try picturing that whole fight if they had swapped weapons. It couldn't be done. A sword is more versatile with how you can swing it. How am I not providing any explanation? I've been telling you exactly how they can't be used the same ways so skills with one can't transition to the other.

Trained people can be vulnerable, but it's usually not while in combat. He had the upperhand. He was winning and then she closed her eyes and instantly turned the battle around. You also just agreed with me that weapons have different ways they need to be used to be the most effective. What I'm saying is that skills with a weapon that is used differently than a sword are not magically transferred. If you are good with a staff then you are good with staff like weapons. A sword is not like a staff. The sword would not be familiar so your skills with the staff could not be transferred. All your skills are with the motions and abilities of the staff. The sword can't be used like a staff so those skills are useless.

I never said Rey was a master with her staff. I said she was familiar with her staff and never used a lightsaber prior to that battle, but she somehow knew how to use one effectively against someone trained in dueling? Most people can pick up a sword and know how to use it, but against someone who actually is skilled in it? You'd get your ass handed to you. You go pick up a stick and go to some guy who is some fancy kung fu sword guy and ask for a sparring match. You will be beaten pretty quickly.

The force doesn't "make you a better ___" exactly. The force lets you know more from your surroundings and will even tell you what is about to happen next. It doesn't give you the skills. It guides you. It doesn't take control of your movements. Rey knows how to defend herself with her staff. Like we both said, a staff is a very different weapon than a sword. It has very different ways of using it. She is used to defending/fighting with a staff, not a sword. That does not mean you automatically know how to defend/fight effectively with other weapons. If you master using a certain type of sword, those skills won't transfer to something like a spear. They are just too different to use the same skills.

She closed her eyes and summoned the Force to her aid. A powerful ally, the Force is. It can do the impossible, give the underdog the guidance they need to defeat a superior opponent. It happens time and again in the franchise.

I acknowledged the weapons are different and are used differently. All I ever said was that the basic mechanics of melee combat have some universality. The anatomy of the weapon you're using can obviously affect how you attack or block, but the basics of that, swinging your weapon at an opening and move a weapon in the path of your own openings, the kinesiology has some universality to it than anybody familiar with melee combat could more or less figure out. They wouldn't necessarily be pulling anything complex or masterful, but they might be passable enough to not die immediately. That's all I was saying, and that's exactly what happened in the movie.

The Force does make you better. It helps you, guides your actions. A novice can do things that they shouldn't be able to do by letting the Force flow through them. Luke and Rey have both achieved similar feats, as I've described.

Anyway, let's just drop this. We're obviously not getting anywhere, here.

Like you said. It gives guidance. It doesn't make you better. It guides you to be better, but the amount of skill she gained was far fetched. Can you name any part in the other movies where something like that happened?

The thing is they aren't universal. The simple fact is that the same tactics can't be used in every weapon. That's my whole point. Her skill with her staff is completely irrelevant to her skills with a lightsaber. The only universal thing they share is that they are weapons and you swing them and that's boiling it down a lot. You still can't use them the same way so again, skills with the staff would not affect her skills with the lightsaber. She is used to swinging with a staff. She is not used to swinging with a lightsaber. fighting effectively is not the same as just swinging whatever weapon you have.

Like I said above, the force doesn't make you better by boosting your abilities(except for things like jumping and running). It guides you so you can do them better. It's an aid, not a magic thing that magically boosts all your abilities/skills. It doesn't take control of you to make you better. It just guides you. That's why saber duels last as long as they do. Both duelists can use the force to predict where the next blow will be so they can block it. Remember in Ep I when Obi-wan was watching Maul and Qui-gon fight? He knew what was going to happen and was getting worried. You could plainly see it on his face. What similar feats have Luke and Rey achieved? Luke was always a great pilot and the force helped him do more. It didn't give him the skill to be a pilot. He was already one to begin with. Luke never gained some ability magically in a matter of seconds. The closest he came was with the training droid and that isn't even comparable to what Rey did.

It totally does make you better. I've already pointed out several instances where characters either did things they had no training in doing, or were able to do things that were otherwise impossible. Rey was able to pull her Falcon maneuver to give Finn a clear shot without any knowledge of Finn's line of fire. She knew exactly when to cut the engine and flip the ship so that the turret would be able to shoot a moving target. How does that not make her a better pilot? How does being able to block attacks Luke could not block before not make him a better swordsman? It is in fact an aid that magically boosts your abilities. It lets you run faster, jump higher, react to danger you didn't know was even there, lets you hit things harder, see things your naked eye can't see, communicate telepathically with animals and convince them to help you, makes you shoot more accurately, swing a sword more quickly and more precisely. The entire premise of the Juyo form is to let the Force control your muscle memory almost completely, and as a result your attacks become blindingly fast, your footwork so quick you can take opponents unaware as though you were flanking them, and your blade can hit hard enough to shatter every bone in their body in addition to having their shoulder sliced. A Dark Side warrior can literally become stronger and tougher by summoning a magical Force rage.

There's even mechanics in Star Wars tabletop RPGs for using the Force to roll skills you're not normally good at, use your Force skill in place of other skills (such as using Use the Force for Pilot checks instead of the Pilot skill), and get bonuses to rolls that might be low and result in total failure. It's a longstanding aspect of the franchise, such that multiple rules sets have been written to emulate it mechanically.

And, in regards to the weapon point, I understand what you're saying, and agree that, yes, not everything you learn with a staff applies to using a sword. But, what I'm saying is that not all of what you learn with a staff is entirely irrelevant. You even see in the movie that she's clumsy and unpracticed when fighting Kylo. She almost always goes for a lunging stab when attacking as though she were prodding at his defenses with a spear or staff, and tries to make sweeping parries that would work better with the extra leverage of a staff. The Force guides her and gives a limited amount of competence when she summons it, and allows her to defeat a crippled opponent. That's all. She didn't do anything particularly spectacular.

To clarify, if she was using a lightsaber staff instead of a lightsaber sword, it would have actually made sense since she is used to fighting with staffs. She was not used to fighting with a lightsaber sword. She very obviously preffered using a staff as a weapon since it was her weapon of choice. Again, if you are good with a staff it does NOT mean you are automatically good with a sword.

She was pretty handy with that staff of her's. Doesn't seem unreasonable for her to understand the basics of CQC

Being proficient with a staff is very different than a lightsaber. Her staff was bulky and likely heavy. A lightsaber is very light and very fast to swing. They also require different techniques to be used properly. You don't swing a staff like a sword. That'd be moronic. A staff and a saber are entirely different weapons with entirely different fighting techniques. That's like saying that if you're proficient with a spear then you can effectively use an ax in combat. Kylo was wounded, but he was still far more skilled in both force use and saber skills.

Definitely not just to give a cool fight scene... Someone trained in combat should easily win. Spin to win, traitor!

damn... it must suck to being such a big sissy like you...

Because you say things that cause me to cringe.

damn... it must suck to being such a big sissy like you...

Wow, that felt pretty passive-aggressive.

But you seem to assume that I'm incapable of changing a viewpoint before we even start a debate so maybe this isn't a good idea.

It'd be more accurate to say I'm being realistic about the prospect of anybody changing their viewpoint. I've been in these sorts of debates before, they're exhausting, and usually pointless back and forth. We experienced the same products differently. There's not much to argue there.

But, as a for instance, you've got perhaps my favorite ME gameplay video, the Cryoguard. The player actually uses her frozen enemies as a sort of soft cover. It's a beautiful thing to behold: youtu.be/SjT15-mrwDo

I wish I had video of me doing similar shenanigans with my Soldier in ME2. I went through Lair of the Shadow Broker with Squad Cryo Ammo and used Adrenaline Rush to get into close quarters so I could melee stun and freeze enemies into being my human shields. Unfortunately, not many people on Youtube seem to play Soldier as aggressively as I do.

(Cont.) Now, I'd like to highlight where I think that kind of mechanical progression would be natural to the ME universe's style of play.

If you could pick up a lot of different weapons within the gameplay then the ME universe would arguably have more ways to access them than the Halo universe does. Using Biotic powers to pull weapons from hard-to-reach locations or perhaps even out of the hands of weakened enemies, using the meaty soldier style to pull guns out of the enemy's hands or maybe they can move faster whilst carrying larger weaponry.

By putting elements that change up the gameplay into the levels themselves rather than just having it be something that is selected through the progression system outside of the combat, the game would open up new styles of play for each class.

If the ability to jump was added and the game moved away from being cover-based it would allow more environmental hazards whilst playing into the more physical aspect of the Soldier or perhaps the more magical aspect of the Biotics. Imagine being able to accidentally jump off of ledges to your death, but also being able to perhaps shoulder-barge people off of those same ledges instead of the world being surrounded by invisible, but certainly tangible walls.

I'm not saying I want the game to play like Halo, more that I want to see the game play more like it does in the cutscenes.

Well that's a decent example of games design. The cryo effects are transformative to the environment, allowing the player more freedom to dictate the flow of combat. It makes the puts more depths into the one variable element of the environment (the enemies). It also ties into one of the defining physical mechanic of the basic gameplay, namely the cover mechanic.

A similar example of the same principle in context would be the physical presence of enemies in the Halo games. They have collision effects in the same manner that the scenery does so occasionally you will find a situation where jumping on their heads is really valuable to you as a player, or how you can bounce grenades off of them to reach hidden enemies. The same can be said of the explosives in the game as they provide a shockwave and, used properly, they allow players greater mobility within the game through techniques like the grenade/rocket jump, and can be used to deflect certain projectiles or kill enemies via flying debris.

Those are clear examples of using the style of gameplay to add depth to the experience.

However, returning to the notion of level design that was brought up before. That room in ME2 is a fairly decent room design-wise. It doesn't really encourage all that much mechanical exploration but it doesn't hinder it either. The trouble with this is ultimately the trouble with the gameplay in ME2 as a whole. There is little to no discovery in the gameplay, and little to no variety either. Variety comes in the form of playing different classes on different playthroughs, or a few classes like the warrior have one or two ways to enjoy them so a re-play with a different spec can work.

However, the trouble with this is that it punishes experimentation quite harshly if things don't work out for the player. Compared to a similar system of classes like that of Diablo III the ME system is strict and punishing. Gameplay changes occur in minimal increments unlike in the Diablo system where each new level will unlock a new ability, or a new style on an existing ability, that leads to the player experiencing and experimenting with a lot of different play-styles and ability combinations, that can freely be swapped out if the encounter calls for something different.

Now, in fairness Diablo III doesn't really give the level of challenge I'd like (similar to Mass Effect) but that element of the character-building is solid.

However, to bring this back to the Halo comparison, whilst Mass Effect locks its gameplay variety behind a class and progression system (not a bad thing, btw) Halo's gameplay variety is always evident within the levels and players are free to change their styles on the go due to the gameplay being locked into the variety of different weapons, and how those weapons are obtained (usually from the corpses of enemies you have killed). It allows for a more free-flowing run & gun style of gameplay, and combined with the movement physics it encourages the player to usually be moving around the map, up and down drastic elevations, trying different techniques, picking up different weapons.

Whilst I will concede that that room in ME2 certainly does allow you to go around it in a different style every time you play through the game, the levels in Halo allow that for every sub-section of the game, and each one is built to play differently from the last.

That's why I want Mass Effect to mess about with its gameplay mechanics. Instead of multiple variations on 3 weapons (+ the more variable Heavy Weapon options) I would appreciate if there was a lot more variety in the sort of weapons you could get. I'd love to have more movement options in the gameplay and more variety in how I defeat my enemies.

I'm really not a fan of the ground-bound, 3rd-Person, Gears of War style of cover combat. The tab-targeting of the powerups and companions does add to the flavour of the combat but never enough to make encounters feel different from the last.

You can also fling objects, or even enemies, around using the physics of certain powers in Mass Effect. It does the same sort of thing. Grenade/rocket jumping is a little silly, and the game isn't about jumping, so while that would add a layer to the gameplay it would take away from its presentation. You're getting into TF2 territory there, which is a great shooter but has a certain aesthetic which is not Mass Effect's aesthetic.

There's quite a bit to discover in ME2 and beyond's gameplay. Like any other game, you can discover its logic and systems. Power combos, physics, reload canceling, the use of the different unlockable powers Shepard can get from their squadmates, how enemies differ in defenses and attack strategies. Variety comes in the form of how you approach the encounter, just like in Halo. The same class can use different powers and different weapons, or move through the room in a different way, play aggressively or stick to cover, use different strategies like the Cryoguard's improvised ice statue cover, take advantage of environmental factors like barrels and crates that can be shot or flung at enemies.There's a lot of tools in your toolbox. Meanwhile, in Halo, you've got your different weapons, the explosion physics, and moving through rooms in different ways. You're being reductive of Mass Effect's attributes while exaggerating the variables Halo presents. The way I see it, ME gives you more to play with overall.

In ME2 and ME3 you can respec. There's not really any punishing, since virtually any build can run through any difficulty with varying levels of success based on execution by the player. You can unlock new abilities you didn't have before in ME games, too. That's not unique to Diablo. You haven't described anything that isn't present in ME.

Again, this is why this argument is largely pointless, because we both have our biases. You're kind of just projecting this simplistic, reductive view onto ME2 and 3, whie I see there being even more variables to work with than Halo provides. Aside from jumping, Mass Effect has everything that Halo brings to the table and more. There isn't just the one room in ME2 that presents multiple encounter solutions, the vast majority are like that.

There's 5 main weapon categories in Mass Effect, not 3. And, especially in ME3, you have a lot of variety in those categories, easily as much as Halo. In shotguns you've got the Graal spike thrower, which can be charged for greater damage and fires a spray of spikes into the enemy that continually damage them. In that same category there's the more typical shotguns, like the semi-auto Scimitar and the one-shot blunderbuss that is the Claymore, as well as other unique weapons like the Reegar Carbine that basically functions as a flamethrower.