The PC actually doesn't have any more workable controls for actions as a Console if you think about it. Blocking could be relegated to an awkward keystroke of course, but then it sort of defies the point. If you look at what's truly intuitive, you have to discount everything that isn't within an immediate striking distance of the Index, Middle finger and thumb. Surprisingly few people actually can control the last two completely independent of any other motion.

Also, what's up with people saying "omg we cant dodge now", which is utter BS, as we can see even lolTodd dodge a few strikes in the demo, and he svcks!

they do this for balancing issues, I mean why chose a sheild and sword if 2 swords can do the same thing but twice the damage

How... what...

Pete said so himself on twitter. If you don't want to or can't block due to your choice of weapon arrangement, it is perfectly easy to sidestep. It takes as much timing as the blocking would anyway. It's up to the player.

yes there is a magical sheild spell

I thought Dragonshouts could only be used once and then there was a long wait time until you could use another.

@ArcanePulse-

If that holds true, I can stay as a dual wielding thief, but if it's just talk, I'll need a more reliable method to block incoming damage.

This is no doubt at least partially true.

Still, you can attack simultaneously and it is faster then a 2-hand, and has a dual-power attack.

Dual-wielding is going to be most viable for stealth characters it seems, as they will use sneak-crits to make their kills. I mean think about the 16x crit you could get in oblivion. Two of those is going to send your enemies straight to (and excuse the pun) oblivion.

Personally i'm going to be using illusion spell/sword and shield/sword for my stealth character. I know the shield is weird but thats why i love this game. You can do anything.

Start what, occifer? I ain't God, by drunk! :disguise:

resprectfully, it's not for balance. Balancing it would be making each sword swipe do slightly less with dual wielding, and make blocking negate less damage. That way you can still block and attack with both styles but one is slightly better at offense, and the other is better at defense.

Because...

1. It's a single-player RPG. Balance is irrelevant, since it is (or should be) assumed that you'll choose the character and playstyle you actually want to choose, and not just the one you'll be able to /beast_mode through the game in a day with.
2. You should be allowed to play how you want. Isn't that what Todd has been saying for the past year now?
3. Well, just because.

so the level scaling in Oblivion was absolutely fine

I don't see where you're coming from with that.

Level scaling is a forced mechanic that ruined Oblivion (for the most part), while being able to block is completely optional and up to the player. Level scaling wasn't even part of your character's playstyle (though it did dictate it to a degree), nor was it something that even helped the game. Instead, it brought out the OCD in people who had to have the best possible items in game and forced them to play the game in a way that wasn't enjoyable at all.

It's not because of lack of buttons, it would be extremely easy to implement. Beth just doesn't want to because, like the person you quoted said, it would be imbalancing. Every combo needs a weakness. If duel-wielding had block, it would be faster, stronger, and just as defensive as any other melee combo, and would be the most viable one.

However, since it can't block, it is now the most viable for offense, but least viable for defense. So it's balanced.

Except TES V: Skyrim is an RPG. It doesn't make sense for every playstyle to be viable when the player is supposed to be role-playing a playstyle that he or she genuinely likes.

If you wanted to play sword/shield for the months leading up to the release of Skyrim, but found out that dual wielding two weapons is a far better option, would you really change your mind? Are you really that shallow? Actually, that doesn't even matter, because regardless of whether you choose sword/shield (because that's what you genuinely wanted to use) or dual sword (because you simply cannot help yourself), you're still doing it right. You're still playing the game how you wish to play it. How can you accept that Bethesda is instead saying, "No, we must protect others from their own stupidity and force them to play in a way we deem acceptable, else they can't thoroughly enjoy the game"? Because that's what balance is. It's a shield for idiocy. A firewall for the dumb.

First of all, I'm not shallow :sadvaultboy:

Second of all, there's been balance in every ES game, to some extent. In Oblivion claymores are more powerful than longswords, have more reach, but are slower. Longswords leave you less encumbered, are faster, but deal less damage with less reach. Using a shield makes you more encumbered, but gives you better blocking. Daggers have lower reach and damage, but are MUCH faster.

Now in Skyrim, Duel wield will be faster, and deal a large amount of damage, but will have few defensive capabilities. Claymores will have more reach, are slower, deal equivalent damage, and have better STATIONARY defensive capabilities (you won't be able to dodge as easily). Longswords will be faster than claymores, but deal less damage with less reach, while having better defensive capabilities. Adding a shield will make you slower, but give you even more defensive capabilities. Daggers are faster, but deal less damage with fewer defensive capabilities, but deal HEAVY damage if used from stealth.

The system works well. All of them are balanced, while staying true to their core mechanics. You can dodge and avoid enemies with duel wield. So if you play it cautiously and think on your feet, you'll be untouchable and be able to tear people apart.

I'm probably using Duel-Wield as well as Archery on my first character. Just because it can't block doesn't deter me. It sounds like it DOES deter you, though.

Edit: To the part you added after I quoted: No, balance is to keep the game working so that every playstyle is enjoyable and can compete with the others. People playing on Very Hard don't want to get trashed by a bandit with duel-wield, just because the player wanted to use a single sword. If they die when balance is implemented, it isn't because Bethesda made on playstyle superior.

Just because you don't get deterred because something is weaker, you automatically condemn those who want balance as idiot who can't choose their playstyle, not as people who want the game to be based on skill with their playstyle.

The problem with that is claymores are slower than regular swords, which are also slower than daggers, but have a longer reach. It all made sense, because that's how each of the weapons were designed. If I were to buy one of each of those weapons, go into my backyard, and start slashing and stabbing at a tree, all three would perform similar to how they did in-game. How you use them doesn't change between the real world and in-game, because the designs are the same for both.

If I were to buy a second sword and wield two at once, however, I'd still certainly be able to block incoming blows. Taking up a second sword rather than a shield doesn't leave you completely defenseless, as you're still able to parry incoming blows. You may not be able to block as you would with a shield, but the ability to defend yourself is still there.. but apparently not in-game. I'm just having a very difficult time imagining a Redguard being unable to protect himself with a second sword, even though I (someone who has never once touched a real sword) would be able to.

It's senseless, is what I'm saying, as well as irrelevant. Like I said before, the need for fine-tuned balance (at the cost of logic and realism) in a single-player game is non-existent, especially when that game is an RPG. The developers shouldn't have to give you a reason to do anything.


If the latter part were true, you'd think they would welcome a challenge where their choice is weaponry is inferior to their opponents'.

It's really dumb that you can't block while dual wielding. I don't really see balancing as a valid excuse as they could just crank stamina cost to do that. This is obviously a Xbox controller bottleneck and it sad that they did not come up with a solution. I would have gladly traded simultaneous RH/LH blows for a cross block when both triggers were pressed together for example.

Yes, but you can bash with your weapons to throw enemies off balance, AND you have the "double combo power attack", the so called "meat grinder". Won't all of the perks for dual wielding be under one handed by the way? So being that the skill trees are in fact linear it sounds to me like one handed is the most efficient skill tree, being that it can be paired with all the magic skills, and be used by itself to maximum offensive melee effectiveness by dual wielding one handers. I sense room for exploitation...

The large part is so true it hurts.

Bethesda removed block. http://www.google.com/imgres?q=deal+with+it&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1024&bih=677&tbm=isch&tbnid=b5FUy5LZrgAGgM:&imgrefurl=http://www.buzzfeed.com/cinemablend/gandalf-the-wizard-wearing-3d-glasses-s4a&docid=f2y7H1JfVgzBIM&w=425&h=354&ei=CYFlTs3cLoudgQfWzICLCg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=737&vpy=175&dur=18&hovh=205&hovw=246&tx=127&ty=122&page=1&tbnh=149&tbnw=169&start=0&ndsp=12&ved=1t:429,r:11,s:0

They didn't remove block. They added choices, but nerfed them to the point where strategy and tact no longer apply.

Balance IS strategy! Balance IS tactics.

If you can beat one combination of weapons, BECAUSE YOU ARE BETTER THAN THE PERSON YOU FOUGHT then you have strategy and skill in gameplay.

If you beat them because you weapon combination is better in every way, you DO NOT HAVE BALANCE OR STRATEGY!

You now HAVE strategy when using duel-wielding. Since it can't block, you have to strategize and out-think your opponent, instead of being better in every way no matter what. Basically your spewing nonsense, Greed.

You're looking at it wrong. If all of my abilities and weapons are on par with my opponents', I'm going to win simply because of who and what I am. I can (and will) use Dragon Shouts. I can (and most likely will) have better gear than my opponents. I can (and will) supplement my main "class" with any skill I'd like. Just because every single weapon is now on an equal playing field doesn't mean you and your opponents are.

On the other hand, if you're a warrior using a sword and shield and you're ambushed by a bunch of bandits wielding massive battle axes or dual swords, you're at a slight disadvantage and you will need strategy and tact in order to win (or opposable thumbs and a difficulty slider). Sure, it could be exactly the opposite -- you're dual wielding battle axes and they have daggers, swords and shields -- but that's all part of how you choose to play. If you and I are playing the game in the same room with different weapons and skills, we both shouldn't be progressing through the game at the same rate or ease. It should be different, depending on our playstyles and choices.

where did you read that performing a parry its possible with two weapons on each hand???

If its a balancing issue, you might fix it by making the 2nd weapon do less damage until you reach a certain proficiency or have a perk that reduces the penalty. Blocking with 2nd weapon is less effective and you are more likely to be staggered/disarmed. Something along that line instead of totally no blocking...

This is not a controller or lack of buttons issue. If they say it's balance, then we'll have to assume that it's a balance / design issue.

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1219868-you-know-this-no-blocking-id-take-parrying-thing-just-wont-stop-bothering-me/page__view__findpost__p__18349762