features are features, i dont get why people dont like it?
it could be balanced.. no blocking, really slow attacking speed and need to reach a very high strength lvl and 2handed weapon skill to be able to wear it.. i could live with it




edit : spelling

Speak for yourself.

Uh.. the article says the average claymore is 55 inches.

Because it's not all about adding random gameplay elements and balancing? Stuff actually has to fit in the world. You could say the same about dual wielding bows with your feet, why not? I'll tell you why, because it's silly, not in line with the TES world's physics(which are pretty much our own in most cases) and would look extremely odd

I went through the whole process of logging in to vote no.

The article also says the average weight of a claymore is 5-6 lbs. Have you ever held 5-6 lbs? That's NOTHING.

For me, its not an issue of what is possible or not, since even though the elder scrolls is grounded in realism, it is still in fantasy. (Just not epic warcraft fantasy.)

Rather dual wielding two 2-handed weapons would sort of make dual wielding just about every other type of weapon utterly pointless. This was sort of a problem with Oblivion in that why would you bother using a dagger when a longsword is tied to the same skill, much stronger, and does the same amount of sneak attack damage. So lets pretend you can wield two claymores in Skyrim. What then would be the point of using two regular sized weapons? A guy wielding two daggers would be horribly unbalanced compared to the guy wielding two claymores. The reason I don't want dual wielding claymores is not because any experienced swordsman could easily take off my hand if I tried to do it in real life. Instead, its the gameplay mechanics. Unless there was something hindering your ability to do so, then what would be the point of not doing it?

Also, I'm not trying to pick anything apart, but isn't Conan's Atlantean sword considered a bastard sword? Bastard Swords are designed for horseback, and thus can be wielded with a single hand as well as two. (Hence why its called a hand in a half sword). Though even those I would not recommend using two at the same time. Just because you can wield it with one hand (Which would make more sense if you were on horseback or had a shield drawn) doesn't mean it makes sense equipping your hand with a second.

Bottom line, it's not happening. End of story, moving on to other things. Cheers.

dude you need to get under control man. This is a thread where you proposed a yes or no answer. Do not get upset when people disagree with you because its not realistic. In my opinion its not and an over the top movie such as Conan with hollywood props that are not real cannot serve as a valid example. In fact its just a movie. Calm down this is not a big deal and you have to understand most aren't going to agree with this and there is probably a reason behind it. the size of elder scrollsa re just gigantic they are unrealistic enough to even have in teh size they already come. Just let it go man. Others did not want it if you don't like the feed back i suggest maybe not making a post next time or keeping it a discussion between you and friends.

How can people measure one handed claymore usability from a movie? That's a prop.Made of light material,fit for an actor to use,not a tool for killing.
It's clearly impossible in the real life.

BUT,it doesn't have to be possible in real life to have it in a video game.It's just the opposite,too much realism makes it boring.I'd rather shoot arrows like Legolas instead of having to do archery in real life to be able to hit a target in a game.

Uh huh? And I suppose you've tried 5-6 pounds when it stretches out to 40 something inches beyond your single hand? Since it seems we're ignoring the fact that your defense was flat out wrong, you are still yet to provide a historical example of a claymore being used in combat dual wielded or even in one hand. You have no argument.

Can you stop being a [censored]? Ever since this discussion started you have made bad arguments and are being rude to everyone that disargree with you. The best examples is when you comparred a claymore to a kitchen-knife, no wait it's when you compare it to a steering-wheel.
If you can't stay serius I will report this to the Moderators. No, I don't say this because we disagree, but the way you response.

There is very little difference, just a change in weight distribution.

No.


As much as I dislike all the "realism" threads and that rabidly anti-anime "anime fighting styles" thread, I've got to say that the idea of dual-wielding oversized weapons is unrealistic and cartoonish. It just doesn't fit this style of game.


(It'd be fine in, say, Diablo 3. Or World of Warcraft. But not ES.)

Which just happens to make all the difference in the world.

Then you completely missed the point of those comparisons. They were not bad arguments. The best examples you could come up with is... nothing.

Very little difference? Really?

Okay take a broom, now hold it in one hand gripping it by the mid section.

Now try holding the same broom by holding it at the very tip of the handle.

Two-handed weapons (similarly to baseball bats and golf clubs) are all about the additional control, strength, and leverage that you can get from the fact you've got two hands on the grip.


So, yes..... it'd be possible for you to swing a claymore around with one hand - with no strength, flailing all over because of lack of control, and with very little damage assuming you even did hit.


I invite you to go up to bat swinging your baseball bat with one hand. On the off chance you do actually connect with the ball, you won't be getting it out of the infield.

A kitchen knife and a steering wheel are good arguments? In which case I should point out that it's also impossible to dual wield an elephant. There, that argument is just as good. Can't do it with an elephant, can't do it with a claymore.

And the 'nothing' you speak of must be the complete lack of evidence that such a thing is possible.

NO ONE in the history of mankind would have been able to dual-wield two claymores. A Nord, even if he is the stongest guy in the world, woulnd't be able to do it. Because strenght is not the most important factor here... and two handed swords have a purpose, that cannot be fulfilled if you wield one in each hand.

Now, if nobody in history have dual-wielded claymores... don't you think there's a reason?

How can they be good arguments? They were far from serius and my arguments are based on the fact that it is unrealistic.

*facepalm*

Isaac Newton is rolling in his grave

If i had a character that was capable of wielding two claymores, i wouldnt even bother with swords id rather just grab my enemys and tear them in half, as his arms would be the size of wood elfs.

Hey guys, why don't we all just dualwield swords that have the length of an average tween? It's really cool.

For those who are interested, this is the closest I could find to dual wielding of large-ish weapons in history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyoho_Niten_Ichi-ryu It involves the use of a katana, a blad usually between 24 and 30 inches and a wazikashi, a blade generally between 12 and 24 inches. Quite far from a claymore.