Ban dual-wielding

[Zero]

why does everyone complain about realism in games? games are supposed to serve 2 purposes and they have nothing in compatibility with realism.

if ur pea brain is unable to work around "realism" because it affects gameplay strategy, then its ur prob.

and if ur pea brain cant tolerate fantasy aspect of the game then you perhaps you should go play something else.

go play something like flight simulators and go complain there about realism, since thats what simulators are supposed to do. emulate reality.

[Skanky Burns]

Thankyou for that insightful, well-thought-out post.
Truely, it brings the conversation to another level.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Shut up heathen!

Yeah? Maybe I should burn some D&D books and post the images here.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Zero
ur pea brain

That is an ad hominem against a moderator and will get you banned.

[Zero]

i always walk on that thin line...........

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Yeah? Maybe I should burn some D&D books and post the images here.

You have books with Donald & Duck?

Burn them!

[LDiCesare]

I dunno. If you look at the Western style of sword fights, it is bloody slow compared to martial arts. So you either adjust the speed accordingly, i.e. the martial arts person can at least attack 2-3 times before the knight could make a move, or combine several attacks as one big attack.

Western swords had to get past plate mail. Oriental armor never came close to the heavy plates used by European knights. The westerners also used more shields. Still, in the East, dual wielding swords was very unocmmon.
Modern fencing is certainly as fast as martial arts, and done one-naded (though swords were used with mains gauches in duels).

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Zero
why does everyone complain about realism in games? games are supposed to serve 2 purposes and they have nothing in compatibility with realism.

if ur pea brain is unable to work around "realism" because it affects gameplay strategy, then its ur prob.

and if ur pea brain cant tolerate fantasy aspect of the game then you perhaps you should go play something else.

go play something like flight simulators and go complain there about realism, since thats what simulators are supposed to do. emulate reality.

Ok he's a bit annoying Skanky, but that doesn't change the fact he is completely right.

Dual-wielding adds tactical possibilities. Most people play RPGs for the tactical elements of building and playing their characters as they progress. Ergo, dual wielding is good and the argument that it is historically not that prevalent is just silly. Granted it has to be implemented well (giving up other abilities so that you can dual wield), but if it is then all is well. Also granted that it's better to increase tactical possibilities in ways that fit with the game world (which helps for those that play for role playing reasons as well), but I don't see an example of when this was not the case in a game I've played.

For other genres realism is necessary as it's the point - this is not the case for RPGs.

So, sadly, Zero is right.

[Drogue]

I strongly dispute that "most" people play RPGs for the tactical elements. The storyline has always been the part that developers, reviewers and magazines decent upon. As any fantasy writer will say, the key to a good fantasy story is making the unbelieveable seem plausible. It's not about it being realistic, it's about it being plausible. RPGs, and fantasy films/books, give you an alternative universe to emerse yourself in. It doesn't have to be possible in our universe, but it does have to seem a plausible state of affairs. Star Wars is successful because people can identify with the characters.

RPGs are just that - role-playing games. You've got to be able to play your role. If something is implausible, you can't work that into your role, and it becomes a fantasy game, rather than an RPG. Role-playing is, by definition, key to a role-playing game.

Dual-wielding is unrealistic, in some ways. However it's not implausible. Years of training could make it feasible. Would it be a more useful skill? Probably not. But it isn't out of the realms of plausibility, and it's perfectly possible to roleplay a dual-wielding fighter-style character.

[DrSpike]

I was taking a more MP slant, where stories are weak. Of course the story is central for SP RPGs, but it's still not true that dual wielding is bad (in NWN for example) because of realism arguments. It's beside the point, as it adds tactical possibilities, and (as you say) isn't inconsistent with the game world.

Thus, dual wielding is good.

[LDiCesare]

I don't really mind if you can dual-wield, but very often, there is little advantage to dual-wield a main gauche rather than another short or long sword.
And shields are tactically interesting, yet the games don't reflect that. For instance, shields can be used to bash or keep people at a distance (put your shield horizontally very fast, the person in front of you will have to back or get bashed and probably fall), but they are not given the importance they should have.
My problem is dual-wielding is far more interesting in the games than it should be.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by DrSpike
I was taking a more MP slant, where stories are weak. Of course the story is central for SP RPGs, but it's still not true that dual wielding is bad (in NWN for example) because of realism arguments. It's beside the point, as it adds tactical possibilities, and (as you say) isn't inconsistent with the game world.

Thus, dual wielding is good.

I completely agree. However the argument that realism doesn't have a place in RPGs is completely false, IMHO, as that removes it from being a believeable role playing game, which is why Zero is rude and incorrect, as opposed to just the former.

In MP, you create your own stories, by the way your characters interact. I'd say the role playing element is even more important, with team interations added.

[DrSpike]

I'm not sure I get your position. The need for the feature to fit within the (already made up) game world I agree with. What is the distinction between that and your view?

It's more consistent non-realism than realism.

[duke o' york]

I think it would be fun to be able to dual-wield two small shields with spikes on.

Drogue, that's the realism-naturalism misunderstanding (yet) again.
If something fits into the world in which it is placed, then it is realistic. A wizard being able to conjure demons is fine if the world has been set up that way. Being able to call in an airstrike of B52s would not be.
Something is naturalistic if it fits into our world-view. So the Sims (I know this isn't really our world, but they've tried to make a fair approximation) can't use magic.

[DrSpike]

Quite. So I already covered his point when I said about the need to fit with the game world.