I would like to ask to the people considering that not being able to block while dual wielding is a good balancing, if they had even consider the option of dual wielding. I can't see how could maiming totally an option could be balancing. Dodging will be way harder than in Oblivion (no backpedalling) and the idea of having a sword on both hands and yet being unable to block only let two options, two handers or shield. This is not balancing.

I can't see how could be beneficial for your playing experience seeing other's playing experience hindered.

Besides, 'more attacks per second' is not a real advantage, when you have only a little time window to make your attacks before your foe blocks and stagger you (daggers in Oblivion).

A good balance for dual wielding, single wielding and two hander wielding, would be to make blocking with them as effective as with shield, but without the armor bonus or the arrow blocking capability.

Oh, and they have said already, that you could bash with two handers (and shields). So, dual wielding won't overshadow two handed wielding.

Then you are nerfing yourself, however wasnt this already the case in Oblivion and Morrowind? Was there any penalties for using a shield or torch in the other hand?

The way I always thought dual wielding would work in Skyrim is that it was more for character flavor and diddnt really have any bonuses kind of like Demon's Souls, will you be able to swing both weapons simultaneously, will you be able to swing one weapon while the other is in mid swing or will you have to wait for the weapon to finish before you swing the other? Of course you might be able to attack a little bit faster but unless you are using 2 different effects on the weapons for a one two punch (such as one weapon casts weakness to fire while the other does fire damage) I cant really see any real advantages over a sword and shield, at least that is how I imagine it might work.

The benefit for players that want to use only one weapon is that they can have a spell equipped in the off hand.

2hand weapon--slower, high level of damage
Dual wield--faster, lower damage
Sword+Shield--lower damage, strong defense
Sword + Spell---lower damage, secondary magic effect
Shield + Shield---no damage, strongest defense
Spell + Spell--lots of options

I believe the confusion about the blocking mechanics is just that...confusion. We will be able to block with all weapon combos. I really don't see anything wrong with the system as set up. Each weapon combo has advantages and disadvantages.

i didnt read all the responses, but in one of the videos didnt they mention that a magic power took up a hand? so you have s spell in one hand and a sword in the other? i dont nkow this for sure but i think this means you cant have 2 weapons and a spell at the same time.. what this means is if you are dual wielding you dont have a spell to use but if you are using a 2 handed weapon perhaps you can still have a spell equipped?? (in oblivion if you used a two handed weapon your character would let go with one hand an you would do the spell) so perhaps thats one benefit of using a 2 handed weapon instead of dual wielding... this is just total speculation and could be completely wrong

No.
Bethesda knows what they're doing.

True enough, I just think with a free hand I'll either be like this:

A: Ability to block with sword
B: I'll have a grab or some kind of attack with my off hand
C: Bet has already thought about this and have some sweet bonuses/perks for one wielding one handers. That may increase attack and draw speed or some other thing.
D: My off hand can have a torch. Yay.

I don't remember any penalty to using a shield or torch. I think if your dual wielding or have a torch or shield in the other hand your crit chance with your weapons goes down by like 1% and attack speed is decreased by a smidge.
But mostly it will be either A or B.

I think the answer lies within the weapons you use here. We all know that certain weapons do certain things via perks (maces ignoring armor and axes causing dot) but I think two handed weapons will do things like that also, on top of the damage increase being A TON more than in past games. I really do believe wielding a warhammer is going to do a bunch more damage than any one handed blunt weapon, and if you consider it could ignore armor, it wouldn't be useless. It would be a way stronger version of a one handed weapon. Imo the upside to dual wielding isn't going to necessarily be dps, but rather versatility. You can hold a mace for armored opponents, and a blade for fleshy opponents. Two handed weapons will lack that flexibility but make up for it with a much higher damage output.

I'm pretty sure having a two handed weapon prevents you from wielding magic also. Magic will take up an entire hand. You cannot have a warhammer and a spell equipped. You cannot have two weapons and a spell equipped. And you more than likely cant have a bow and spell equipped. But you can however equip two spells now

If beth doesn't do it to your liking I'm sure someone could mod in an shield that uses the mesh and texture from an armored bracer or gauntlet, that you can wear in your off hand. That way you'd still only have your one handed weapon to attack but would still be able to black if you needed to and maybe "shield bash" which would just be you using your forearm to take a swing at them to knock them back. Hmm may have to try and do this one either way it sounds like it'd be a good addition to the game no matter how they do it...

I think the option for dual wield will most likely not overshadow two handed weapons, as always two handed weapons will do massive damage with a slower strike/attack rate. Dual wield will likely cut down your defense, you'll be able to attack more rapidly but not deal as much damage. Seems more like a lighter/faster type of character's option, really I think it just adds to the *cool* factor as well as RP'ing capabilities.

For Two-Handers to stand any chance whatsoever they will need to be offensively superior to One-Handers, especially since they are now governed by a skill of their own and both hands are used in wielding one of them. One-handed weapons do not suffer that limitation. With only one required skill (presumably with Perks to specialize in Shields, or Dual Wielding) you may wield a weapon alongside magic, switch to carry your sword and shield, or whip out an extra sword to improve your damage output. Obviously, one-handers have a tremendous amount of versatility that two-handers cannot hope to ever match, so in order to have their place they will need to do their job extremely well. They will need to break through enemy blocks, smash their frail bodies into the ground and crush their skulls unto the snow below.

For there to be any point in selecting Two-Handers above One-Handed (Dual Wielding) they quite simply need to have the greatest DPS, provided that they don't have special abilities that the One-Handers lack that somehow justifies them. Dual-Wielding might come close to two-handed DPS, but must ultimately lose this battle simply because of One-Handed weapons' versatility. If they matched each other or Dual Wielding was actually more powerful, there would be no reasons but flavour ones to pick Two-Handed and that'd be a bloody shame.

Realistically, I'd bet that both the Two-Hander and Dual-Wielder would lose to the Shielded Fighter though. I'd be willing to conveniently forget that for the sake of gameplay though.

Also to add to this, two handed weapons should have a higher enchantment ability. That way wielding one weapon isn't nerfed just because enchanting two would kill it.

It would be cool to see some bonus or perk that made using just a one handed weapon beneficial like the skill in KotOR that gave you a bonus if you just had one melee weapon equipped.