Your misconcepting game stopper and mere game design flaw. Not all game design flaw are game stopping.
usually game stopper are bugs or rushed out features.
A game design flaw could very well mean that the whole thing could have been better thought implemented but isn t much more than a annoyment.

Allrighty, that could work. The rest of my argument, however, I stand by lol.

Ralos I can't give you the answer you seek because I don't work for the company. If I had to guess, I would say it's because Todd and others wanted to create a bit of weakness for those who opt to wield both magic and a weapon at the same time, or myabe...just maybe Todd and the devs are trying to make good on their promise that the combat would feel more 'visceral'.

On a side note, unrelated to Ralos' comments.

With these restrictions, I'm guessing the combat system will be centered around the proper planning and effective use of your many preset slots in the game. My hopes are that if I decide that my main weapon will be a glass shortsword in my right hand, and I place it in that position for most of my preset slots, when I begin to switch between those slots to change what I have equipped in my left hand, the glass shortsword won't re-equip every time; whether it be visually or with some clanky noise, and instead will just remain silently in my hand. I could see it being a real annoyance if it didn't. Secondly it would be cool to see an animation of my character toss his sword between both hands. If say I change my loadout from glass shortsword in my right hand+fire spell in my left to a preset glass shortsword in my left hand+elven dagger in my right, then it would be fun to see my character toss the glass shortsword from one hand to the other, then reach across with his right hand and grab the elven dagger sheathed at his hip. :celebration:

and I say they already achieved balance by making spells being equipped in the first place.

I thought the perpetual argument to defend anything done by Beth is mods, and I am using it here. A mod will take care of this if it bothers you(I may use it myself).

I don't know anyone that can block, with one hand on a sword, another person with a two handed claymore using his full strength.........it just seem so contrived

watch a hollywood movie ^^

Anyone think that there will be any two handed magic spells like there will be two handed weapons? Will all magic be able to be cast with one hand?

I disagree... I think having two melee weapons is just that, melee weapons. You can block with them, but you can only do physical damage... what happens if you run into a very physically powerful enemy that isn't damaged very much in melee, and does a ton of damage(let's say a troll, for funsies)... now those two weapons aren't very powerful... but you can still defend... now substitute one weapon for a fire spell... now you can do melee damage, and fire damage, which makes you much more versatile in my eyes, and I think not being able to block balances that because you are so much more versatile offensively... the defense suffers for it... just like sword and shield. You give up that second weapon or spell for more defense. The give and take makes sense to me. You are able to do damage to any enemy, regardless of their strengths, so why should you be able to defend as well as someone who can only do physical damage, or someone who has a spell/shield equipped?

What I mean is that if I were blocking, spellcasting, and hitting during a fight, I am dividing up my activites, so each activity is rising at a slower rate.

You can equip the same spell in both hands to make it much more powerful :biggrin:
And yes, I believe all spells will be able to be cast one handed.

This.

I always try to take most of what magazines say with a grain of salt until it's confirmed by a developer for exactly this reason.

You can shield bash now so a sword and shield combo allows you to block and gives you an extra offensive move...

Shield bash won't do damage most likely. It's a tactic to get your foe off balance in order to be able to get a shot in, or to get a relentless enemy off your back for a moment... could be considered as defensive as offensive. Plus, that's just for shield wielders. I think they need a bit more added for the sake of the game. Sword and board in oblivion was just so monotonous. Shield bash helps give more complexity to combat

I thought maybe I heard wrong. I heard that in the podcast on GameInformer too

Probably most people trained in sword fighting could. It is not like when you parry a attack you are holding your sword perfectly perpendicular to the attack and using your strength to stop the blow. You are trying to deflect the attack away from you usually while moving a bit. Things take the path of least resistance, if you are holding your sword at an angle it will slide along the length of it not just push through it. This isn't saying there isn't a strength/mass component to it, but the idea a claymore was unblockable by a blade is not true. There is a reason the tiny little buckler was the primary shield used for defense for so many years.

Bethesda doesn't tell game magazines what to write. Bethesda tells them about the game and they take notes, including misinterpretations.

other indirect factors also adds to balance, like obviously to get the most out of a weapon/spell combo I be force to split my perks, so yes I can do both magic and melee, but not as hard as a pure mage or a pure warrior

every way you play it should give you a way to have offence and defence, there should just be a difference what you have the most

having no block= not having any defence

The information provided is based on a quick play by a magazine of an incomplete game and information that hasn't been confirmed. I think if the general block is taken away it is highly likely to be replaced with an alternative, like maybe a dodge or something. Or maybe parrying is based on timing? You wouldn't hold down block as such but more time a strike at their weapon as they strike in order to make a successful parry. There could be a number of different reasons so don't jump to conclusions everyone. Again....

:facepalm: I give up! :rolleyes: You're hopeless.

You don't want to see the truth of the matter and only want to complain about a combat element that you're unwilling to look at objectively. :slap:

I agree with indirect factors playing a role, as for the rest, again I must respectfully disagree.
Yes, specializing in one type of combat will indeed make you stronger... to start. There are fifty levels soft capped, and that means at least fifty perks... you cannot specialize THAT much. You will undoubtedly choose more than one combat type. It's very possible that you can max out destruction and one handed weapons, and specialize in fire magic and axes. That makes you very strong offensively. As far as not having any defense... use a defensive spell... wear armor... enchanted some items... you still have ways to defend yourself. You're not going to be helpless... you just can't use the specific tactics intended for defense by giving up a shield or second melee weapon (block, shield bash)

Defensive magic can work as good shields

my hope to play a spell sword hangs on that fact ^.^



it′s by being objective that I come to conclusion there is no logical, uncontrived reason why blocking don′t work for spell+weapon but it does for all other methods





if you get hit at all your defence has failed, armour is just to dampen your failure defending yourself, so we are still back to the two main ways that are defence, blocking or dodging, and if there ain′t no block then I′m left dodging, and then we come back to being a sword mage is useless since you might as well be a full blown mage and nuke stuff at range.

or instead of blocking, you can cast a heal spell.

WYATT: "Block this!!!!!" RALOS: "Ahhhhhhhhh!...It hurts...It's Hertz!...Ahhhhhhh!!!!"

:gun: :bolt: