It's not about caring, it's about having the option of using it (or not). In short, it's about freedom of choice.
Plus, you're pretty wrong if you think dual-wield has never been used in real life. E.g: Sword (ropera) + dagger was is fact pretty common in the XVII's here in Spain.
Yeah well uh, neener neener! I say thank god they finally came around to giving us dual wield....now if we can only get some info on chopping off some limbs.....
Unlike fast-travel, this is a thing to which I can say, if you don't like it, don't use it. Simply don't dualwield, use 2handed weapons, use a shield, dualwield spells (this is gonna be awesome)
It sounds interesting to me. The ability to put anything in either hand. Like if I'm a mage that does nothing but magic, why permanently assign a button to blocking with my weak fists? Might as well put another spell there.
Pretty much this, they shouldn't just remove it because one guy on the forums said he didn't like it...
There's a lot of guys on this forum that don't like it
But really it's not like they're shoving it down our throats. As far as I'm concerned I like the way that they're implementing it (especially dual wielding spells :drool: )
There's a lot of guys on this forum that don't like it
But really it's not like they're shoving it down our throats. As far as I'm concerned I like the way that they're implementing it (especially dual wielding spells :drool: )
I don't like dual-wielding spells. Please Bethesda remove them
I don't care too much about holding two melee weapons at the same time, but I do care a lot about the improved mechanics and controls that we'll get because of the two hands being treated seperately. A simple example is using a shield and spell. Normally it would require a melee weapon that would only be there as a filler.
It also gives some more interesting character choices. You can't wield a shield, sword and spell together anymore, so spellsword actually become more vulnerable than shield wearing sorcerers. It also frees up a button to add a shield bash. And it's nice that having both your hands free for spellcasting will give a proper advantage, which encourages mages to keep their hands free instead of using a dagger just for blocking attacks.
What I don't understand is that TES has always been about freedom to be the character you want to be. I don't much like stealth, I don't think it's very heroic. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be in there. People who think duel wielding is stupid do not have to attack with two swords at once.
Additionally, Oblivion is a game where you can become so powerful you jump 10 feet into the air and run significantly faster than a horse - and you're telling me that swinging two swords at once is unrealistic? Personally I'm imagining the spellsword possibilities as we type.
Or it is aimed at people who think it is cool. Dual wielding has been in RPGs since 1e D&D. And if you were a Drow from the fiend folio you could dual wield without penalty. Dual wielding has also been in reality, so maybe some people think sword and dagger is cool. They aren't into shields maybe, they don't want a big ass sword, and they don't want the off hand to be sitting there doing nothing. Since your go to response was to insult people, I think more is being said about your maturity than those who want dual wield.