You have to draw the line some where. I didn't see you complaining in Morrowind that throwing weapons was the same skill as using a bow and arrow which obviously requires different techniques. Or for that matter fighting with a two handed claymore is not the same as fighting with a one handed long blade. Or what about when Morrowind tells you that fighting with a short sword is the same as fighting with a dagger?

I disagree and if you read my post you'd understand why. Weight and grip length is what decides your proficentcy with a weapon, shape and form are only an after thought.

edit: In agree with post below.

It doesn't make as much sense as, say, one skill per individual weapon type, such as a single skill for mace, axe, flail, 2h axe, sword, dagger, claymore, etc.
However I can guarantee you this makes more sense than knowing how to use an axe the size of a human and a small hatchet. No matter what, one handed weapons are more similar to other one handed weapons compared to their enormous counterparts, no matter how similarly shaped the two are.

Short sword and daggers are both primarily thrusting weapons, so that makes sense.
Throwind weapons and bows, good point.
Longsword and claymore, good point.

Either way, in my eyes, the solution isn't less skills, its more. At least some that make more sense.

I like the idea of a skill with sub skills, blade would have sub schools of, short blade, long blade, [insert claymore skill here]
And each of these sub skills would raise the skill of blade, and the overall level of blade affects the other sub skills inherited level

So if my short sword level were 100 and my long sword skill was 5 from not using it, in combat my long sword skill would be inherited as 30-40. It was raised slightly because of my expertise with a bladed weapon, but not as effective because of the different techniques involved.

This thing is, I've trained with swords. mostly one handed, but in doing that it is very easy to switch to two handed. the priciples are the same with using a sword one handed or two handed, the main difference I find is how you position yourself.

However, the first time I used an axe to cut down an annoying tree.... well, I svcked at it. I know that I need to hit the axe head against the base of the tree, but I didn't always hit with the centre, and I also didn't know how to angle the axe blade properly. It took me time to work out how to use the axe to it's best.

On that same note, training with a knife is freaking hard for me. It works very different from a sword.

I liked the morrowind skill division, it felt appropriate. What i didn't like in morrowind was the random missing. being unskilled in a weapon doesn't mean your going to miss (unless you are fighting someone who moves realy realy fast and can read your movments) but skill and experiance does determine if you can use the weapon to it's full potential.

I think it should affect things like weapon speed, critical chance, recovery speed after swinging, and how well and fast you can block with said weapon.

Having said that, I can live with Skyrim's simplified weapon skills as long as it does have a degree of specialisation through perks; hopefuly with 'short blade, long blade, blunt, axe, polearm' trees.

Hmm... I sympathise with the OP, but am warming up to the idea of 1/2 handed weapon skills. It would suit the new using-each-hand-for-something-different approach, and hopefully the perk system would really make it work properly to avoid the dear diary situation above
Switching from a longsword/shield to claymore (traditional system) seems much more unrealistic than the transition from shield/axe to shield/knife. It seems as many pointed out that unless the system is ridiculously detailed it's going to be somewhat illogical. A one/two handed system is generalised, but with perks, or special training that gives permanent enhancements, or learnt special moves specific to weapon types, such a system could end up being more flexible and detailed than before.

I like how people are forgetting the GI issue mentioned a perk that allowes Maces to ignore armor.

"All hail the mighty mace"
:bowdown:

Wait I hate blunt weapons...

They already said perks is where the specialization truly lies. Depending if you pick axe oriented perks and two handed/one handed, things like that.

Why panic when really you haven't seen any of it...

I will withhold judgment till I play the game, and although I don't like to see the number of skills decreased, I think in this case they have done so for a good reason, while still keeping the skills unique.

If you've ever tried to design a Skill-set for a video game (I'm sure at least 2 dozen people on this forum have) it becomes hard to keep the skills unique without totally isolating them. An experienced warrior who is the most skilled swordsman will not be useless with an axe. He won't be as good as someone trained with that weapon, but he can certainly use it.

That's why I liked the perks system. Let's say I have a 1-handed skill of 50, and a couple sword perks, like a chance to do double damage or ignore armor. If I'm fighting in a cave and my sword breaks, I can pick up a mace from a dead enemy and still have a skill of 50 with it. But, the first chance I get, I'm either going to pick up another sword or fix my own, because I'm not "good enough" with a mace to justify using it over a sword -even if the mace I picked up is of higher quality than the sword I have.

What I have trouble with is that if I have a skill of 100 with one handed weapons, and a dozen sword based perks, and then pick up a two-handed sword and be useless. Maybe there is a perk such as "use two-handed variants of _____ with same skill level as one-handed."