No, my argument is it was a good, sensable mechanic, so why drop it?

If this is accurate (and it sounds like it might not be), bad move.

Balance should not be achieved by artificially limiting options and tactics that should realistically be available to you.

Daggers would most likely offer such a low reduction in damage that blocking anything significantly weighty would be stupid.

That quote has been relevant to video games since the dawn of time

They should offer no reduction only broken bones in the hand.

If they had locational damage, absolutely. I don't think that's in, though.

Sir is digressing from the subject

This is how I gather it works; The only "styles" that prevent you from blocking are duel wield and weapon+spell. Because (for instance) when only using a one handed weapon the hand that has nothing in it will be used to block. I,e if sword is in your right hand, left trigger is block. I imagine the rational behind this, is now when blocking you hold the weapon with both hands. Which makes sense for a "block" since parrying doesn't exist in TES combat.

Here is how I think this entire problem could be solved:
When duel wielding or using weapon+spell: Pressing both triggers at the same time blocks. Though, I could still except not being able to block when you have a spell equipped.

Yeah thats strange, dual wield can block even better then 2 handed i guess,and one handed sword should be able to block some damage too,for example shield block 75% , 2 handed and dual wield 50%,one handed sword 25% of damage.

Can you actually parry a Battle Axe, swong by a Berserk Orc with a mere Short Sword or Dagger? How realistic would that be, if you think about it? Not very.

Instead, I believe dual wielding for example 2 short swords would allow you to break your opponents guard by attacking rapidly with both of them and then kill them once their guard is down. If you wouldn't do anything on the offensive side, or the opponent parries you with the shield, you wouldn't have any defence though.

Sounds like a Star Wars game mechanic. Not saying thats a bad thing, just an observation

Oh, I've never played star wars with dual wielding. But I'm not saying it should stay as simple as that, just the basic thought.

Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy had very good Dual Wield mechanics

In a good game, good gameplay> realism

Parring with just a 1h weapon in one hand gives much bigger freedom for people to play there style and have fun doing so

but if I want to play as the Orc berseker, I don't want the stupid dual dagger wielding puny wood elf to parry my mighty Battle axe swing, which means it limits my fun to play as an Orc berserker.

If Skyrim aims to be realistic in both combat and enviroment etc, they should do so. Either in or out. Well, the middle way exists too but that would mean we soon parry arrows with our hands, because it is fun.

It's the middle road most games should aim fore, it's the best road. Skyrim included.

While I agree that Skyrim should be fun to play, there has to be a line of what you include even though it is fun. I think ti would be fun to jump 30 meters into the air and survive, but it's not realistic, so should it be included? Where do you draw your line for these things, I'd like to know: Say what would be the most unrealistic thing you would accept to Skyrim as long as it would be fun and feel like Skyrim that tries to aim to be realistic.

I wonder if there's "parry" in Bethesda dictionary.

Well thats easy...

Being able to block with a 1h weapon in one hand ;p

Well as long as that line is not crossed I could live with it, but Parry and Block.. Do you mean they are the same thing? As I thought parry was like, mauvering the opponents weapon so that his guard goes down and blocking was to withstand the attack.

If blocking, as some has said, requires you to hit both trigger buttons, then the dual sword wielding could be fast paced and enjoyable, but not parrying Battle axes!

I was one of the first to criticize this, but I'd advice people to not get carried away. Battle can still be fun as a spellsword if they fixed it right. The main reason to worry is that elsewhere they've said that battle will be more strategic, involve more staggering etc so one may be afraid this way of fight will not be viable. Since they built combat this way, there are two main ways I can see that they may be expecting a spellsword to fight. One is if the close/touch range of the spell is enough to create some staggering and create openings for hits with the sword and evasive maneuvres (close fire working like a flamethrower, immolating opponents sounds like something that could do that), and the second is if they expect you to use the "seamless change" quickslots ie use magic from a distance, and put down the spell when the combat has gotten close enough.

I really hope they expect the former, because the latter doesn't let a spellsword build shine IMO, for two reasons. Firstly, because chances are in such a system it will not make sense to go for a sword/spell configuration. If you want to use magic from far and switch to sword when combat is close enough, you're better off dual weilding spells and switching to a two hander or two swords (or sword and shield if you prefer defensive, but I'd go for maximum reach and offense). In which case you are a mage/warrior, but not really a spellsword. Secondly, although the sceme as it has been laid for the consoles seems plausible, being a PC user I'm afraid that the PC controls won't be as intuitive to allow for such seamless change.

As a sidenote, I wouldn't say it's particularly realistic having your character change configurations all the time, inside battle, in fractions of a second, with huge weapons he just pulled out of his.. ehh.. you get the point. In previous games I'd mainly change weapons outside battle. Even if I was disarmed, most of the times I just finished it with spells. I'm not bashing the new mechanic. I appreciate it, and will use it gladly for some epic battles, but I'd prefer if I didn't have to do it all the time, so I hope not everything is centered around it.

The first system I described could work well enough though, even if I still believe not having blocking will feel a bit articifial. If it's done well, and allows you to fight utilizing the sword/spell configuration, I'll get used to it.

Aesthetics is the point. Who cares about balance in a singleplayer game? I certainly hope and cross my fingers that Bethesda do not copy Bioware and attempt to force me as player in to play in a certain manner. Using a singlehanded weapon or a two-hander should make me choose wether I block or attack. With a weapon in each hand, or sword shield, you should be able to parry and attack simultanously. Dualwielding should have the option to attack with both weapons, simultanously. That would make sense in RPG-mechanics.

In real life, it's somewhat different. :wink_smile:

Yeah parry= stopping a attack with a weapon

Block= stopping a attack with a shield

Thus block= parry

In that case, lol, we were talking about two different things, I was talking about parry as this:

Skip straight to 0:50, everything before it has nothing to do with parry or block.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br2_2riJYXA&feature=related

This'll be another case of something us PC players get to fix early on with mods, but that console gamers will get stuck with due to some dumb choice on their part. :sadvaultboy:

It was, I really wish magazines could get their [censored] together and either provide accurate information or none at all. Is it really so much to expect for people to be professional about this kind of thing?