Ban dual-wielding

[Drogue]

Yes, that's exactly the point I was making (but put much better by DoY). I wasn't arguing that dual-wielding is bad (I like it), I was arguing against these comment of Spikies:

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

As DoY said, RPGs have to be realistic for the world they're in. You have to be able to emerse yourself in that universe and take on that role. So Zero isn't completely right at all. Things have to seem realistic in the context of that world, else what you have is very bad fantasy, and not an RPG, as there's no role playing element. It's got to be believeable in the context of that universe. This means that realism does have a place - something completely silly would wreck a game, as it wouldn't fit into that world.

Most people play RPGs for the tactical elements

The hint's in the name - role playing games. That's why I dispute that most people play RPGs for the tactical elements, as opposed to the story and roleplaying elements. In order for role playing to work, and thus for the game to be an RPG, you have to be able to believe what's happening in the context of that world.

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

But you also said that Zero was "completely right", when he said that realism had *no* place in RPGs. That's the post I disagreed with.

[DrSpike]

Well I'm reading his post as disagreeing with the original post about the 'realism' (what DoY has helpfully termed naturalism given the misunderstandings) of the feature.

For me it's completely beside the point, so I agree with Zero. If the feature adds tactical possibilities and fits with the game world (for me in that order within reason, though others will disagree) then it's fine.

There is also a wider point Zero made I have a lot of sympathy with - that of realism arguments in games generally. Regular readers will know I often exasperately make similar points, albeit more politely than his.

Civ is a great example........during a debate about balancing a certain feature (yes, in a way that is broadly consistent with 'reality') you get 3 good posts, then the realism brigade turns up thinking they are showing off their knowledge of history. In fact, of course, they are just showing their ignorance of the game, and gameplay balance in general.

As for the point about tactical elements, I said that applied to MP already if you read above. Try logging in to GW (or any other online role playing game) and see how many players are roleplaying. See how many like the game for its tactical possibilities and how they progress with your character. 'Nuff said.

[Drogue]

Progress with your character - isn't that role playing as your character? I think we may have to agree to differ on that point though.

While I would put "fits in with the game world" above "adds tactical possibilities", the main point is that we both accept that both must be true for a new feature to be a good idea. Zero said that "realism" *never* comes into it, something you've just said you disagree with. However things must fit into the game world, something Zero seems to be suggesting isn't true, as it's "fantasy". That's the part I take issue with.

[Harovan]

A week ago, in Everquest II, my weaponsmith got an order of a guardian to forge a set of leafblades (dual wielders) out of rare materials. I spent fifteen minutes to talk him out that crazy idea. A guardian is a pure tank, without any hybrid influence (like healing for a paladin), and a tank's damage dealing doesn't matter shoot. He should be wielding a onehander along with a sturdy shield, which increases defensive abilities. I even offered to forge a onehander for free, without success. I finally forged him his leafblades, but I didn't feel compelled to give him a discount for his bulk order.

I'm not against dual wielding per se, I have forged scores of dual wielders for dirges, troubadurs, rangers, swashbucklers, brigands and assassins (all melee DPSers, perhaps except for the ranger), however it has to make sense in the context of the particular class.

[DrSpike]

The customer is always right.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
Western swords had to get past plate mail.

For one thing, we didn't have a nobility, i.e. a bunch of people who could sit on their collective arse and do nothing. We had a strong central government instead.

Originally posted by LDiCesare
The westerners also used more shields. Still, in the East, dual wielding swords was very unocmmon.

Um, we dual wield these instead



Check this out

[Panzeh]

The people in real life who carried multiple pistols didn't carry them to fire them at the same time. They carried them so they did not have to reload, whether it be flintlock pistols or revolvers.

[Harovan]

Do you want to say, that the numerous cowboy movies have it wrong?

[Traianvs]

Most cowboys I see firing in movies fire their pistols alternately.. It's pretty hard to aim with 2 weapons at the same time cause you have to imagine the trajectory of both bullets from a different angle, and in the heat of the fight I doubt most gunslingers can do that properly

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Do you want to say, that the numerous cowboy movies have it wrong?

Don't be silly. Would Hollywood permit factual innaccuracies in it's films?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Traianvs
Most cowboys I see firing in movies fire their pistols alternately.. It's pretty hard to aim with 2 weapons at the same time cause you have to imagine the trajectory of both bullets from a different angle, and in the heat of the fight I doubt most gunslingers can do that properly

Yes, but in dual-wielding you use the weapons alternately. You can just fire faster with two pistols than with one, even though you fire them alternately.

[Zero]

Originally posted by DrSpike


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.

hahaha, i MAKE my statements annoying because people who dont like listening to others will find it extra hard when its absolutely correct and rudely said at the same time...

[Zero]

Originally posted by Drogue

But you also said that Zero was "completely right", when he said that realism had *no* place in RPGs. That's the post I disagreed with.

whateva~.... if u wanna put me down for one comment that i generalized then here, let me elaborate it for you... i cant be on poly daily to explain all the time, and i think you guys have taken one small comment and debated and dissected it too far.

What I tried to point out is that complaining about dual wielding because it isnt realistic is just as absurd as complaining about goblins because that too isnt realistic.

games are not real world. So realism argument fails. No matter what kind.

for 'game world to fit' element you speak of.. im not downplaying it. I actually stated it in my very first post. Thats something everyone has a different opinion on. For their fantasy world to feel real and enjoy a good experience they may or may not need dual wield. they may want lasers instead of swords. people with mouth on top of eyes whatever. In that element game makers will try to appease most and majority of their audience. Nobody's preference is wrong, but to say its wrong because its incompatible with urs is.

[DrSpike]

Slow comeback.