Why do so many people NOT want Dual Wielding in the next Fallout?

[OpheliaNeoma]

It's in Skyrim, so we know it's possible, but whenever someone suggests it the response is usually something against Call of Duty, not an actual argument as to why it shouldn't be in the game period. I don't dual wield in Skyrim, but it's there and I'm glad that we have the option to use it if we want, just like the rest of the game. I understand if it's not your style of gameplay, but you don't have to condemn it and attempt to prevent it from being in the game in the first place. Why not just play like you want? It's like when there are people that comment on a mod they don't intend on using and say something like "this is stupid/this shouldn't be in the game/etc", just let the people that want it alone, you don't have to use it if you don't want. I thought choices were a good thing in games?

[billyro]

I haven't seen any mentions of dual wielding, but I haven't researched much about the next Fallout either.

 

The crux of the matter is: people are idiots. People lack common sense. They think that optional things affect them simply because it was included in the game. It is in a similar position to Dark Souls 2 - some more casual gamers asked for an "easy mode" so that they could play it and enjoy it. The hardcore Dark Souls fans decided that this was an insult to their superiority and had a complete freak-out and raged over the internet that it shouldn't be included. I didn't understand that, since they should simply not go on the freaking easy mode, but that's not good enough for them.

 

Perhaps some people don't understand that dual wielding would actually be viable. As demonstrated by this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HhY2xQr0zw, the Myth Busters team decided to try it and it worked pretty well - and this was with target wide apart.

 

Maybe they are concerned that enemies will be running around dual wielding and looking awesome and they'll feel jealous. I honestly don't know.

 

I guess some people just feel entitled to their opinion and they simply don't like dual wielding. *Shrug*

[flamenx01]

Usually when someone suggests it in the request section of FNV or FO3 they get told it's not possible on the game engine and/or without a lot of animation edits.

The problem with adding it to fallout 4 etc is once dual weapons are added no one uses non dual weapons (why use 1 pistol when you can get twice the fire rate with 2). This could obviously be rectified by causing a severe accuracy reduction when dual wielding and increasing reload time.

[AceGoober]

I would love to be able to dual-wield two .44 Magnum revolvers in the next Fallout version. While it would be completely out of my sniper style of gameplay, rushing towards a Raider with dual .44 Magnums blazing would be a total adrenalin rush! :D

[MostlyMuggie]

Duel wielding is a very fun option that I think worked very successfully in Skyrim. It gave the players much more options for play styles, and made the combat A LOT more interesting. I hope they continue the trend for their future games.

 

If you don't want to duel wield, then don't. I've seen plenty of people refuse to use a feature or disable it with mods (Fast Travel for instance). It is much better to have it for greater mod possibilities.

Edited November 12, 2013 by MostlyMuggie

[Werne]

It is much better to have it for greater mod possibilities.

Yes, as a choice, but not as a generally accepted way of using weapons. They can just build it into the engine and let modders take care of it, would be much better.

 

Personally, I hate when people suggest it just because it's "cool" because it's a very useless thing. Everyone thinks about how good it looks, but nobody thinks about the fact that it's a pointless exercise. Sure, it looks cool, but in a post-apocalyptic world where ammunition is scarce (unless you let Bethesda make the game, then there's ammo anywhere) you're basically wasting ammunition and a single bullet can mean the difference between life and death.

 

In Skyrim that works because the weapons are melee, not ranged. It's easier to handle two blades than two guns, less thinking involved, no need for precise aiming, no wasted ammo, no recoil, no empty clips, ability to dodge hits, etc.

 

As someone who has extensive knowledge of handling firearms, I can agree it's possible to use two weapons at the same time. Firing pistols at the same time only works if firing at stationary targets that are wide apart, moving targets are very hard to hit when you have to account for target speed and aim with two weapons at the same time, and firing at a single stationary target is a mess. Automatic weapons are damn near impossible to dual-wield because you can barely hit anything with one automatic single-handed weapon unless the target is in the same room with you, you'd be lucky to hit anything with two of them.

 

Then you have to account for the fact that most people in this world are right-handed, most others are right-handed and a small percentage is capable of using both hands equally effectively. Problem is, right-handed people have problems firing weapons from their left hand, and left-handed people have trouble firing weapons from their right hand. So you actually have one weapon that will maybe hit the target since you can't aim right switching from one gun to the other, and a second weapon which will just spray bullets all over the damn place since you can't hold it right.

 

And then there's recoil. Pistols and sub-machineguns are hard to fire and you need training, it's not like FO3 where you get a pistol and know how to use it immediately because you used a BB gun, pistols are not rifles and they're much harder to use. Each time you fire you need to take a moment to realign your sights with the target, which is hard enough with a single weapon and near impossible with two of them, there's just not enough time to do it (which is why it's a mess to fire two guns at a single target). Why do you think a proper way to hold pistols is with two hands?

 

Also, reloading. Reloading a pistol while having another pistol in your other hand complicates things a lot, you have to take the magazine and push it into the pistol. Complicated? Nah, that's easy, complicated is when you have to do that while having a pistol in each hand, being fired at and running to cover in order to survive, all at the same time.

 

And finally, because Bethesda is making it. Seeing as how people yapped about dual-wielding for a long time, and seeing as how this is Bethesda we're talking about, I wouldn't be surprised to see dual-wielding Kalashnikovs. :rolleyes:

 

Bottom line is - it's not "fanboyism" or "being an idiot", it's the fact that anyone who knows about weapons will be staring at the screen thinking "what the f*** did I just saw". It's illogical and only seen in movies and emergency situations when you need covering fire (and that one is rare). I can see the option set there as optional that can be toggled on/off or player-only stuff, but if NPCs are going to use dual-wielding, I ain't getting the game. I'm not interested in "kewl lookz", I want to play a game that has some sort of sense, and dual-wielding doesn't. In a situation where there's plenty of ammo for someone to do something like that, like in today's state of things where you can literally find ammo in a bush, feel free. But in a place and situation where every shot counts and you pray to find any kind of ammunition? No.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Werne

[MostlyMuggie]

If you want to play a more realistic post apocalyptic game like you described, you should play Fallout 1 or 2. In that, you can't just pick up anything and be able to use it. Things work dynamically and the game is really realistic. If you don't have the strength or skills to use a mini gun for example, your character wont be able to lift and use it properly and hurt himself. Its like that with a lot of things in the game from repairing, to talking to people, to intelligence and strength.

 

That being said, if you really think about it, most of Bethesda's games today are really all about what "lookz kewl". Do you think half the stuff in Fallout 3 would happen in a real life situation like that?

 

I am not disputing you, I do agree with you a lot, its just Bethesda really skews up the realism aspect of their games in order to replace it with "cool stuff". Most companies today do the same.

Edited November 12, 2013 by MostlyMuggie

[Werne]

If you want to play a more realistic post apocalyptic game like you described, you should play Fallout 1 or 2. In that, you can't just pick up anything and be able to use it. Things work dynamically and the game is really realistic. If you don't have the strength or skills to use a mini gun for example, your character wont be able to lift and use it properly and hurt himself. Its like that with a lot of things in the game from repairing, to talking to people, to intelligence and strength.

I already have FO1 and 2, picked them up at GOG when they were free (I think there was a FO1+2 combo or something, not sure). Awesome games, I'm usually not a big fan of turn-based combat but those are bloody great. Combining those games, every aspect of them, with 3D graphics, real-time combat and modding tools with simplicity of FO3 and NV's GECK, would make a masterpiece. But not combining them with Bethesda's buggy engine of course.

 

That being said, if you really think about it, most of Bethesda's games today are really all about what "lookz kewl". Do you think half the stuff in Fallout 3 would happen in a real life situation like that?

FO3? There's plenty of unrealistic stuff there but it's a decent game, even though a lot of lore-mongers tend to say it's crap, at least it has good storyline. New Vegas was a waste of my money though, a big cowboy-shooter, horror movie thingy with a touch of Fallout and a storyline that was crap from the very beginning, it just... doesn't feel right.

 

I am not disputing you, I do agree with you a lot, its just Bethesda really skews up the realism aspect of their games in order to replace it with "cool stuff". Most companies today do the same.

And that's why I make and use mods, so I can get my game to work the way I want it.

 

Actually, that's why I even play games, to have the game feel right. If we take Skyrim for example, it has great graphical quality (with HD DLC and stuff) but it has little stuff that actually matters. Oblivion had excellent storyline and a lot of quests were bloody great, while in Skyrim it's fetch this and fetch that, there are not even fun puzzles you need to solve, they're all the same. And from what I've heard, Morrowind was even better than Oblivion, which kinda makes me crack open the plastic bag on my Morrowind disk and go play it (yes, well, I have Morrowind GOTY but I never opened it). Games are just getting more and more dumbed down.

 

*sigh* Gaming industry sucks, in a few years I won't have anything to play except LTris and nSnake.

[billyro]

Yeah, Morrowind was made in the era where you couldn't hide behind fancy graphics. As much as I like a pretty game, I wish more games would focus on the gameplay and story aspects and less on their pretty rocks and sky.

 

A lot of what you said was true, Werne. Also, I'd like to throw out there that reloading two guns at the same time in a combat situation would probably result in death. It would be very difficult to do and would be quite time consuming.

 

Know what would be amusing but ridiculous? Dual wielding Fat-Mans or miniguns. :P

 

I won't care if dual wielding is included or not - a mod will fix it.

[OpheliaNeoma]

For you guys that think dual wielding shouldn't be in the game, what if they have it in the game unless you're playing on Hardcore mode?