Chinese big knife. Often called Chinese broadswords. There are many famous masters of the 2 weapon style. Though whether or not it is actually effective against a western 2 weapon sword style is debatable imo.

Fortunately, you can play as a Redguard in the game

And about having a shield = having the advantage, that is not true. It entirely depends of both fighters' abilities. having a shield makes you move slower by default, and hit slower. However, that also depends of the type of the shield: a rounded, small one certainly isn't going to bother you as much as a scutum.

In short, there have been literally thousands of weapon combinations in History, and all have in common that they're just as deadly as skilled in them is the person who wield them. Heck, there has been people who were deadly even with sickles and scythes.



They look like scimitars. Some muslims used to wield 2-handed scimitars as well...

But from that to being masters at them...dual wielding is DIFFICULT. More difficult than learning to write with your left hand (for us righties ).

I don't disagree, Benrahir. It's of course mostly user skill. Yet, shields have been a lot more common on medieval battlefields than parrying daggers for a reason, and I believe this reason is that outside of the controlled environment of a duel, dual wielding just wasn't very effective, and I think you agree there. That is not saying it should never be used, and some masters of their art might be able to perform well even in battles with two weapons; the point is, it should not be a default equipment for your average Nord fighter, but it looks like it might be. If I think Nord, I think round shield, throwing axes, spears.

I had no idea there were so many seasoned, sword fighting specialists on this forum :wink_smile:

I agree its gimmicky. I wish they would have focused on making a fantastic RPG, especially as there is a market for that, since RPG fans dont really have anything these days. Sure, developers call things an RPG, but when you play it you soon find out its not, its a platform fighting game where you can choose between two dialogue options and never ever affect the outcome of the story in any significant way. (fable for one, mass effect is also a good example)

Dual wielding against a pure mage would be very effective. It just depends on your target. Do not expect to do well against someone using large weapons with a reach advantage.

thats exactly the point, your either a mage spell caster or a quick theif or a strong warrior, no more love triangle of all three

yeah, because they spent all 4 years of production time focusing solely on duel weilding..>.>
of course skyrim is going to be awesome, TES games always are, and it wouldnt hurt for you to have a bit of faith. duel weilding is optional, and i think it fits the TES theme of "go anywhere, be anyone".
i for one am going to have my nord using two axes, or maby an altmer with drain health on one hand and fortify willpower (magika now?) on the other

I hope its going to be awesome, I really do.
If I keep my hopes low Ill be pleasantly surprised.

On the other hand, it is an alarming trend that, as I said, games are made for 5 yr. olds nowadays. Gone are the puzzles that require some actual thought, gone is the ' find out for yourself', people nowadays want their hands to be held throughout the game, they never want a challenge and Azura forbid there is one thing they dont immediately get.

I really hope TES V will be a game aimed at a mature audience, and at RPG fans.
My worst fear is that its going to be a fable clone.

Well it's nothing special in Tamriel then.

What does dual wielding have to do with any of that? I want dual wielding, yet I want to explore, I don't want my hand held, I want some puzzles that require thought.....are you implying that people that wanted dual wielding, do not want the aforementioned? And no, I'm not 5. Check my profile if you really want to know my age /shame.

It's funny, but I'm Pretty Sure I remember games like BG having duel wielding, and yeah, it totally ruined them. Made them like they were made for 5 year olds. Making a dumbed down game is just one decision, not a design direction.

I think dual wielding is cool.

I will be using it.

You have an opinion and I have an opinion.

Why did you make this thread? It makes no sense. Why not write this in one of the other million threads about the new features?

UUUUGH FABLE.
that said, it really pissed me off when my friend came over, and he started playing oblivion, and then complained he had no idea where to go/what to do.

the reason?
to me, he was the epitome of the people that bethesda aimed oblivion at, and even with its magic compass and ''hold your hand'' style quests, he still was clueless.
(and yes, he is the guy that plays fable and thinks he is an rpg pro because of it)

bethesda, you cant steal causal gamers from playing games like fable, they just craft their games around stupidity so well, so atleast cater for the more 'hardcoe' fans that actually play your games for more than a few hours

EDIT - duel wielding is awesome!

Again, this is a simple mechanic of "Don't like it, don't use it." I, for one, intend to stick to the tried and true method of longsword and shield, or longsword and magic.

Because other people have opinions too and they might like to express them - guess you and Madcat above you, seem to think that your opinions are the only ones that count or matter and that these forums exist solely for your benefit.

:rofl:

good stuff.

as i see it, it only adds depth to the combat, especially with the double spells and combining spells for mages, dual wield daggers for rogues, and dual wield whatever else for classic berserker style warriors. i myself will probably be using light/medium armor and a bow with an axe in my right and a short sword in my left. on my first character atleast :tops:



the only complaint someone could have is the fact that you cant cast without swapping out to a spell in whichever hand, but in the article, they made it sound like switching things ouch would be nice and seamless/fast via a quick swap list that you can assign whatever you want to from your inventory/spell menu. so don't worry, it'll be awesome :yes:

I haven't read the actual magazine, but when I was reading the " I got the magazine " thread yesterday I thought someone mentioned that DW was somehow capped so that it only applies to smaller weapons. If someone who owns the magazine can confirm? I personally can't wait to rip people up with an axe and dagger Mel Gibson in " The Patriot " style.

If dual wielding is so ineffective why should you care if your enemies use it? Surely a traditional sword and shield combination would make quick work of your opponents.

Faster due to being a game You can't expect anyone to control a game character with a "fire button" the same way you can control two arms and plenty of muscles in reality. Two swords can attack two different positions at the same time, or be twice as fast in a crossover maneuver since when one sword is back, the other one is in front. So yes, I think faster is good approximation for gaming. But maybe slightly weaker due being less accurate?

Now, the following is freestyle (showoff, often for speed, but not so good in actual combat - nobody would *fight* like this):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbTZ6kt7RUc
More practical application of dual wield, but for obvious reasons wouldn't be possible to actually control in an action based game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZBH9S_0VY4

Some "rules" that might apply, I don't know...
* If there is a fumble system (I doubt it), then I think dual wield should have a much higher chance of fumbling.
* Two handed weapons should have the greatest rebound in parries, to the point of a knockback.
* Single handed weapons should have normal rebound, depending on mass (more) and length (less).
* Dual wield should have no rebound at all, although a non special parry/deflect should still apply, but only in the defense.
* Shields against heavies causes a greater knockback (when you get them) than against smaller and dual wield.
* Shield bashing if successful doesn't cause damage, but a knockback.
* Shield will take almost all damage from a blunt weapon, armor will let a lot more through.
* Shield AC comes on top of Regular AC if "ignore armor" perk is used for blunts. So Shield AC 4 + Armor AC 6 = AC 4 against that perk.

Bah, getting carried away from dual wield...



Can't answer you that, you'll have to ask your gf. Word of advice, wear armor when you ask Sorry, couldn't resist



It wasn't exactly uncommon for samurais to have katana (long sword), wakisashi (short sword), and a tanto (dagger). And just look for youtube videos, there are plenty practicing this art today. And yes, they could be used simultaneously. Maybe not all that common in medieval european times, but doesn't seem too uncommon to not have it in a fantasy game. As long as everything has pros and cons I mean.

I don't see the problem with duel wielding enemies. Doesn't it just add variety to the game? And I don't see myself using it; it's either longsword/shield, 2h sword, or bow/shortsword (archers sword, or closest available).

As recently added, if it is only for smaller weapons, I won't cry over that either. I happen to agree that greater depth to the actual role playing part is more important than some rather fancy combat moves (if devs had to prioritize).

pointless flame removed

It allows for more freedom in combat. It means that I don't have to use a fireball spell OR a steel longsword. I can now use both, if I so wish. So I like it.