Stop with the stupid range argument. A two handed sword is just as long as a spear AND held at the END, not near the center. It might even outrange a spear because of the way it is held.
Also, we have two handed swords and daggers in the game. Should we take the former out because they out-range the latter?
Range isn't the issue here. If this combat system is worth anything, it surely can't be lacking a good way of gaining distance and getting closer, depending on character skill and such. With the massive budget Bethesda have and their obvious focus on combat, it'd be very disappointing if they wouldn't already account for different weapon length. The spear would not be an exception in any form.
The thrust animation [censored] isn't an acceptable argument either imo. It looks just as silly to slash THROUGH someone with a dagger as it would to stab through someone with a spear. Either the weapons interact with their target, in which case neither thrust nor slash will look weird, or they don't, in which case both will look equally weird.
"Spears aren't that important" is a silly argument, too. They're much much more important than swords, ESPECIALLY in a nordic-inspired setting. For both technological as well as cultural reasons.
"They didn't have time to add it" is, too, not a valid point. They had time to add silly dual wielding - they could've left that absolutely useless feature out (you can't even block in that mode ffs) and could've used that time to add in spears.
The only reason spears aren't in is because Bethesda don't give a damn and just add the most typical Hollywood-esque weapons; read axes and swords. And maybe a mace if we're lucky, though likely one that looks like an axe.
Spears were not held in the center but rather 4/5 of the way down and under the arm rather than on top in head-height (that was only throwing spears). They did have better range than most other melee weapons, but they weren't very effective in close combat against swords and shield or even 2-handers. Mostly used against cavalry, as soon as a spearman would get into close range they'd switch to a sword or mace. Spears would be effective against dragons, but I'd still rather have a big sword or a bow...
Beth didn't feel they could make spears work, simple as that. They could make dual-wielding work, so that's in...not spears. It's not that they said "We can't be bothered with spears, we want dual-wieldling instead"...that's not how it works.
Time is a VERY valid point...just because they didn't spend time on a feature you really like, doesn't make it any less valid.
Nords, namely vikings didn't use spears all that much. Swords and shields, sometimes axes with very small heads (not like the fantasy ones). Let me point out that spears are one of the most Hollywood-ish types of weapon and are among the few types that experts can't quite figure out. They are used in many Hollywood movies like Troy, LoTR, 300 etc. I live in Denmark, a Viking country, and we have this historical reenactment group of which I'm a member. We have access to all sorts of historical records and nowhere does it suggest that vikings used spears all that much.
Your point about daggers...erhm...you do know that most daggers are slash/thrust weapons right? It's not just a thrust weapon...why use a weapon that only has one type of attack?
All your points and reasons for wanting spears are really very personal to you and therefor not really good arguments in this kind of discussion. It doesn't help that you state facts that are just not true...
» Tue Sep 06, 2011 6:35 pm 
An Argonian needs a spear.
