Does the trend of forcing dual wielding for one handed weapons in many RPGs annoy anyone else...

Does the trend of forcing dual wielding for one handed weapons in many RPGs annoy anyone else? I just want to play a rogue with a shortsword instead of LE DUAL DUEL DAGGERS. The only time it's not utterly retarded is with something like a rapier and parrying dagger, which is more like a shield that happens to also work as a stabby thing.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niten_Ichi-ryū
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyamoto_Musashi
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimachaerus
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatka
youtube.com/watch?v=0l3wOT9cSg4
youtube.com/watch?v=h1gQylJPFfM
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Yes actually. It's retarded.
"If I have two swords I do more damage!"
No you don't you fucking retard.

HEMAfag here. It's infuriating.

>HEMAfag
go away, you ruin everything.

Was duel wielding a good/optimal idea in Skyrim?

Fuck off with your rule of "cool" bullshit. You look like a fag and your shit's all retarded.

The only thing more infuriating than the prominence of dual wielding in games is that it almost always tends to be objectively superior to wielding a single weapon mechanically for the following reasons:

1) 2nd weapon increases total attacks or attack rate
2) 2nd weapon directly boosts attack power
3) Double misc equipment bonuses (Example: If weapons can give attribute modifies like +STR)

Dual wielding is basically fantasy cancer.

You know I'm right. Enjoy your spear games, homo.

it's okay, but there's no incentive to only use a single handed weapon alone
if you're not making a warrior sword and board type, and you're not using magic, there's no reason not to dual wield
more importantly, and annoyingly, is the backstab restriction to daggers

Different user -

Spears are the King of Weapons and irrelevant to this topic as the games that allow you to dual wield spears can be counted with a single hand.

so this is what runescape looks like in 2017 huh

>there's no incentive to only use a single handed weapon alone

i personally like carrying a torch. i feel it adds something comfy to exploring caves

TWO!?

>wielding two swords when you could be wielding one sword two handed

that's fair

This is some DnD rule lawyer shit.
>So what I'm reading here says monkey grip applies to falconry.

>Wielding a two handed swords with so many superior polearms to choose from
at least one handed swords can pretend to be useful as domestic dueling weapons for the type of idiot that picks bar fights and wants to settle it with a fight to the death

Two swords nigga, twice the slicin' an dicin'!
Stab two niggas at once!
Stab the same nigga twice!

dual wielding? please

+ Two swords, son
+ TWO FUCKING SWORDS
+ Shank two niggas at once
+ Shank one nigga twice
+ Shields are for pussies
+ Bitches be all over your wu-tang sword style
- Shields ain't actually for pussies

Dual wielding 1 handers is pretty trash tier. It requires so much work and provides very little offensive benefit but hinders your defense drastically so that you have to continue these "blade dances" to keep your opponent off guard.

1 hand and a shield offers much more protection and equivalent offense.

>not dual wielding 2 Maces of Molag Bal for double the rape

This is the problem right here. I'd love to play a game where wielding a single one handed weapon is viable, but it's never the case. If you're gonna have a short sword in one hand you might as well double up on stats/damage and put another one in your other hand or defense it up and put a shield on. Maybe give the single one handed sword an advantage like higher critical chance and hit chance or something.

"duel wielding" would be fucking useless irl and would be good way to get your ass killed

CURVED SWORDS!

Dual wielding was alright only on easy and normal, higher difficult and you would get shreded by any mage or dragon.

>dual wielding
>not quadrouple wielding
figures you fucking plebs cant understand more = better

Please.

KotOR did this, I don't remember how viable it ended up though.

Honestly though I mainly like games without dual wielding. It should be removed from most games, it looks dumb and rarely improves the combat.

I'd much rather the Bioshock/Dishonored system of having your right arm hold your primary weapon and your left use magic or a secondary weapon.

I guess the 14th century never happened.

*blocks ur path*

I did some fencing in college, and the thought of using two blades simultaneously is ridiculous on its face. It would be like using a pen in each hand to write two letters simultaneously. It's just not viable. Holding some kind of weapon in the hand you aren't using could be useful for the rare opportunistic strike or if you get disarmed, but you won't be using it like characters in rpg's do.

On top of being inherently stupid as a concept, it also sucks because of what said.

a man with a shield and a longsword would destroy any faggot using those

lol my zwei will trim the tips of your sticks, pikeman.

If done right it can be tons of fun, problem is that it's almost never done right

The games that handle Dual Wielding the best are those that give a massive accuracy penalty and treat the second weapon not as additional additive damage but as second, separate attack within the same time / turn as a normal one handed attack. This makes it a gamble (possibility of doing significantly more damage in one turn or missing partially / completely with both). If you're not the gambling type, you stick with the one handed for more reliable and consistent accuracy and damage.

So you're coming at it from like a D&D perspective eh?

I love that while in generic fantasy RPGs dual wielding has basically no downsides, but in D&D its mostly shit unless you have some way to stack a ton of damage on iterative attacks.

It would be cool if you could use a one handed weapon in one hand, then with the other you can punch and grab people and shit. Like they are busy watching the sword, then bam you sock them in the face.

sh-shut up! Th-that is how it works exactly!

dude, I want to play short sword / shield roman style and agressive but game tend to think I am defensive because I have a shield and a short sword.

Well it was actually used with a rapier which was the utter bane of anyone with a longsword. The idea was only another long, poking weapon could touch them because muh area denial poking range, and the trident allows them to control an incoming spear or other rapier better than a shield would.
The end result was mostly getting raped by arrows so arguably it worked well for what it was supposed to do, but you can't very well cut projectiles out of the air so shield wins hard there.

he still has two free hands for two more swords

>putting swords in your hands
How stupid can Sup Forums get?

he even uses his feet in the anime

but if he held swords with his hands, how will he throw up hip hand signs and flip people off?

>the anime
DIIIIIIIIISNEEEEEEEY

gee bill...

Dual wielding should only barely increase dps
It's main function imo should be applying on-hit effects faster, the trade-off being far weaker defense

I feel the same way even as someone who occasionally likes to dual wield
I often wish there was justification for a single weapon setup, something like needing a free hand cast spells / use items / grapple

You do understand that some people are perfectly ambidextrous right?
There are people that can write with both hands on different pieces of paper, there are people that can do that and have the things they are writing be the same except one hand is writing it upside down

Yeap. The game I most fondly remember Dual Wielding in is Baldur's Gate 2, with stuff like the Flail of Ages, Celestial Fury, Angurvadal, Blackrazor.... huge chance to miss, but the bonuses and potential make it worth while and much more interesting that simply adding extra damage with no downside.

Too bad none of those people pioneered irl dual wielding

[citation needed]

>You do understand that some people are perfectly ambidextrous right?

name some that became famous warriors for their dual wielding prowess. There's basically none in history.

Eh, sometimes, but it's better to either go one handed/spell, one handed/shield/, magic, or bow.

Two-Handers are for easy diff, and people who RP.

There really should be multiple mechanics, depending on your setup:

1. Two swords = huge accuracy penalty but potential to do say.. 1.5 damage (or more depending on str/dex stats)
2. Mainhand sword / off hand main gauche: slight increase in over all damage, but large chance to parry
3. Two blunt weapons: extra damage to enemies susceptible to that type of damage (i.e., skeletons, since hitting them in a vital area is not as important as just wildly bashing any of their brittle bones)

Theres probably a ton of other interesting set ups depending weapon type. Its a shame devs don't go into this kind of detail.

Miyamoto Musashi

Literally 1 second in google.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niten_Ichi-ryū
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyamoto_Musashi

>Wields two swords
>Cannot figure out how to put cheese and lettuce between two pieces of bread
>Fired from Starbucks for playing mind-games on customers

Silly Lloyd.

>Some people are capable of magic!
>Too bad none of them became wizards.
>UHH, CITATION NEEDED BRO.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimachaerus

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatka

Gladiators were the WWE wrestlers of their day. I wouldn't take their showmanship gimmicks as proof of viability in a real combat scenario.

I'm fairly sure that if the loser in a WWE match actually died most of the time they'd dedicate themselves to fighting well too

sup

Your minmaxed quadwielding dex build gets shit on by basic force cantrips, try again.

Why is it that Shields usually end up underpowered in most games?

I understand that most people want to have TWO weapons, or ONE BIG ONE, but goddamn a shield is both a defensive armament, and CAN be used to bash with, depending on size.

Moreover, good luck deflecting arrows with a sword outside of Wuxia-tier RPG's and shit.

Become a game Dev already

They want the Kirito audience.

Gladiator deaths were rare. It cost good money to train one and nobody would bother if the turnover rate was too high

too often Shields are "boring" if they're not underpowered,

this is because there simply aren't the right control systems for shields

though that is also true of duel wielding.

though duel wielding does sort of work in something like arkham asylum or shadow of mordor where it's mostly just flashy animations and QTE's and you're not directly controlling sword/dagger movement.

Instructions unclear, prease confirm.

true, they'd usually bulk-up and have a bit of fat so they could get cut and bleed a bit (think of when you bleed when shaving), they might've also had bloodpouch/bladder things they could use to help in this regard.

>think of when you bleed when shaving
Thanks for the input, Michael J Fox.

I don't feel so. If it's not trying to portray an authentic historical experience, then I don't see how it's a problem. Espicially in fucking Skyrim of all things, where combat is a M1 bore not mat what weapons you want to use. Honestly want to see it in more games and let devs get a little zany with it.

A better argument would be a one-handed weapon is a poor, underwhelming exeperience or a shield-play has bad mechanics (which it often does).

Because characters are limited to using traditional shields. They're not so bad when you can throw your shields.

youtube.com/watch?v=0l3wOT9cSg4

I think it can be really cool sometimes. In a world where there's no magic and no superhuman feats then I'd say no, but in something like the Forgotten Realms where people can become so strong that they can lift mountains then go right ahead.
Like, if someone's superhumanly strong and fast then there's 0 reason why they couldn't dual wield weapons as the normal rules wouldn't apply to them.

...

Sword in main hand and magic/catalyst in offhand is the best combination.

>dual wielding swords

retarded

>duel wielding maces, slamming together like fucking bellhammers to get psyched up for combat

awesome.

Because most fantasy fighting game mechanics revolve around entirely statics 'hits' being applied to a target.

In real life a sword+shield fight is as much an awkward wrestle while you attempt to get a lucky nick in than anything else.

What about dual-wielding axes.

Edgy.

Good for berserker types.

And there are some people who fought their way through history with a custom fight technique based around headbutting, doesn't mean headbutting should be the top means of dps playstyle in most/all rpgs.

>not dual wielding giant turkey legs

LOL

youtube.com/watch?v=h1gQylJPFfM

>doesn't mean headbutting should be the top means of dps playstyle in most/all rpgs.

SAYS YOU

gimme a game where you run around equipping spiky helmets and headbutting evil into submission. The final cutscene has you being hospitalized for brain damage.

I want a game that features full contact combat. I want shield bashes, headbutts, shoulder tackles, along with normal sword combat.

Name me some games where you can tri-wield
Potentially impossible mode: No One Piece

Yes. Everyone wants to do gun-kata but devs don't implement it because they are faggots.

Duel wielding ruins video games, realistically.

...

Off topic but it's weird that Skyrim looks nice in some ways but in others it looks complete ass.

Is that Fate Zero?

You can quad wield with a certain class in bravely second. More weapons instead of a helm/armor.

The fat guy with a beard looks like a youtuber that I can't remember the name of.

Like most things in TES you can practically physically see the time they put into some areas and the lack of time they put into others.

Emphasis gets put on one element and the rest suffers. Of course that focused element is what they put in all the advertising so by then you've already been duped.

No dumbass, it's Wolverine.

Read the fucking filename.

more games need spears and less retarded anime duel wielding shit

Good things gladiators rarely died