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

[JimboUK]

 

I don't even know how they'll handle reloading with dual-wielding. Seriously, I don't think it's possible (unless they make it so the guns are just lowered beneath screen and the sounds play, CoD style).

 

With that in mind, perhaps they won't make dual wielding.

 

Serious question: Have you ever played (or are you familiar with) Hitman or Tomb Raider? In both games the protagonist dual wields pistols, and while it isn't the most accurate representation of either weapon handling or reloading (Tomb Raider probably is more convincing, since she has the "ammo backpack" thing (they did it in the movie too), whereas Hitman seems to just produce the magazines from thin air (even in the movie...)), they're videogames after all (and if you're going to suspend disbelief enough to accept the premise of either, the fact that Agent 47 and Lara Croft can handle a pair of .45s isn't that much of a leap).

 

Now whether or not Bethesda can/will pull it off just as well as IOI and Eidos have in the past, that's another story. But from a technical standpoint, I don't see why they couldn't if they really wanted to, given that it's been done before in a number of games (there are 5 Hitman games, and at least as many Tomb Raider games; both franchises have been around for a long while too).

 

Alternately - what's to say it has to be dual-wielded guns? Why can't my character pick up two knives? That's a legitimate fighting tactic in some parts of the world. Or two sticks? Or why can't I box with two power fists? :devil:

 

Finally - why should the game be a nanny and prevent my character from doing reckless things? I mean, I get that with something like Fallout 3 there are probably technical limits that prevent multi-weapon wielding, okay I can accept that. But if it could be done, why not? It lets you do all sorts of other reckless things, like consume massive quantities of addictive drugs and alcohol, pick fights with significantly stronger and better equipped enemies, climb around on rusty and unstable rubble piles, release dangerous and unknown viruses into a fragile ecosystem, etc. Is pulling out a pair of guns really that much worse? Also nuclear rocket RPGs (that the user survives at short range), drugs that instantly reverse the effects of radiation, and radioactive mutant soldiers are okay, but pulling out two guns and waving them around is too far? I guess I don't get it. :ohmy:

 

 

 

If you don't want to use it then don't use it simple as that.

 

No it's not, if the game is balanced in such a way that you end up at a disadvantage by not dual wielding then its inclusion has had a negative effect on anyone not wishing to run about like John McClane. If they must include dual wielding then there should be a significant accuracy penalty for using it, sadly I don't think Bethesda will go for that, all they care about it is things looking cool.

 

 

I honestly doubt this would be the case - Skyrim includes dual-wielding and it is not required to play the game, nor are characters who don't build the skill at any significant disadvantage; it does not have a negative effect by not using it. It does incur its own penalties (you can't block), and the game's little "helper hints" even encourage you to weigh the pros and cons of increased damage output relative to not being able to block. Whether or not you dual-wield is based on your personal preferences and playstyle, but it certainly isn't required. I really could not foresee Bethesda doing something that so dramatically reduces the ability of players to play the game their own way.

 

Also - what's the problem with things looking cool? It's a game after all - isn't that part of the point? (you know, to be fun) :blush:

 

I'm not arguing that in real life it's a bad thing to do with your pistols (there's even a MythBusters episode that tests it, so that you don't have to waste your own ammo trying it out), but if I wanted to shoot guns off with perfect realism, I could just go shoot guns off (I don't know if this true in all parts of the world, so I guess this might be an overly broad statement - but in my situation, going to a shooting range isn't an unreasonable proposition). It's all the other stuff that I can't do and reasonably expect to survive - like fighting a mutated bear with a sledgehammer or taking on an army of robots with a BB gun. Being able to have two guns out at the same time doesn't seem like that much of a leap.

 

 

 

I bet you a pound to a penny that you would have been able to block while dual wielding Skyrim if the 360 controller had had more buttons, there was a spare button with the bow so they let the player melee with it which was ridiculous. I agree you don't need to dual wield in Skyrim but you get one hell of an advantage if you do, you can't block but you don't need to, you attack so fast that the enemy hardly gets a chance to respond, there's not even an offhand penalty.

 

There's nothing wrong with things looking cool, there's plenty wrong when that's all the developer cares about. Skyrim has a stunningly detailed game world but absolutely everything is else is phoned in, for Bethesda content is an afterthought. They added killcams to the combat but didn't bother improving the combat itself, any other developer would have fixed the clunky combat before adding "cool" things like killcams and finishing moves. They gave us a UI that looks cool but is barely functional, being able to select what I want is obviously less important than it looking like an iPad app. After playing Skyrim I really fear for the future of Fallout, they were going in the right direction with Fallout 3, it's wasn't a great RPG but it was a massive improvement over Oblivion, Obsidian then came along and gave them a master class in making RPGs with New Vegas, but instead of building on that they went backwards, more interested in pandering to the mindless Call of Duty crowd than to those who want a game with actual depth.

[Xplode441]

Because it's impractical from a realism standpoint and because it's time and money spent on the game that could be put to better use somewhere else, like hiring Bethesda better writers.

[zetenrisiel]

For those poopoing the idea based on realism, think about two men standing in a field, one has a single gun and one is dual wielding. The dual wielder is at an advantage since he has a clear shot. An accuracy penalty And lacking the ability to "zoom in" would apply and they would run out of bullets twice as fast as well as lack the ability to reload quick/at all, but to deny its a realistic occurence and should be left out or made inferior to single hand is just having rose tinted glasses.

 

In skyrim the only npc that dual wields is an assassin, and an effective parry or block strategy negates this, but there are times when you need to hammer one opponent quickly that two weapons is effective. Same with guns. Rushing in to a raider camp with a gun in each hand is absolutly an effective strategy for mid-close range combat. You would then need to holster/drop one gun or risk a severe disadvantage once the clip is empty, and you woild run out of ammo fast, but having the option, going back to the OP's original point, in no way hampers the game. If an enemy is rushing at you dual wielding, you take him out before he can get close or you run like hell/hide until he has to reload, and since most enemies only carry a clip or two of ammo, chamce are he is done shooting things and easily killable.

 

It's simply another strategy that will only add to the fun of the game.

[Werne]

For those poopoing the idea based on realism, think about two men standing in a field, one has a single gun and one is dual wielding.

As an ex soldier, I can tell you the outcome - dual-wielder dies, he's shot because he can't hit jack s**t. Single-gun guy can take an accurate shot cause he can hold the pistol with both hands to counter the recoil and reduce hand shaking due to adrenaline rushing through his body, allowing for a precise shot (multiple rapid precise shots as well), dual-wielder doesn't have that luxury. 10-15m away and the dual-wielder may live if he fires enough rounds, 25m and beyond and he's definitely dead. Anything in 30-50m distance is considered mid-range, pistols are relatively effective up to 80m depending on the model and sights design, hitting anything over that is dumb luck. So a dual-wielder can only hit accurately on ranges that are considered close-up, where his opponent can beat him to death with a shovel before he even pulls his guns out.

 

Even if they both fire at the same time at a 20m distance, the dual-wielder would still have a 75% chance of dying without even hitting the opponent cause, and I repeat myself, he can't aim with two guns at the same time.

 

Twice the fire rate doesn't mean twice the amount of dead people, it means you have 1/4 the accuracy, 2x the bullets, 2x the fire rate and are unable to reload without dropping one of the guns (plus, reloading takes 2-3x longer, and you have to account for hand shaking due to adrenaline, fear, and nervousness). Also, he'd have hot casings from his left gun dropping on his right hand while firing both guns due to the way guns are designed, which would also be undesirable and can result in both accuracy penalty along with injury.

 

I did try dual-wielding, every guy that has a bunch of guns at his disposal has at least thought of that. That's why I'm not talking about this in theoretical terms I copied from some article on the interwebz, I'm talking from experience, and my experience says you die. Any game where you see dual-wielding has incredibly unrealistic representation of it, a guy with two guns dies if the distance is over 25m no matter how many bullets he has or how well he trained with his two guns, he can only hit the target through dumb luck.

 

It would make sense if the guy would raise one pistol, fire, lower it, raise the other, fire, lower it, rinse and repeat. Fire rate would be slower and the reload would still be damn near impossible with a gun in each hand, but he'd be a lot more precise and have 2x the amount of bullets. Even then he'd need to have a lot of experience firing single-handed weapons from his non-dominant hand or he wouldn't shoot a damn thing. Firing from your dominant hand and from your non-dominant hand are two different things, it makes a whole world of difference.

 

And seeing as how this is Bethesda we're talking about, if they do include dual-wielding in Fallout you can pretty much expect it to be done in a way that has a lot of advantages compared to a single gun. Sure, they may reduce the accuracy but I'm pretty sure they'll make it on-par with a single gun through perks, that combined with 2x the fire rate and 2x the loaded rounds and you have unrealistic crap. And I'm pretty sure there will be a bunch of NPCs dual-wielding as well cause it's "kewl" to make it that way, which would be a game-killer for me.

 

Another thing...

If an enemy is rushing at you dual wielding, you take him out before he can get close or you run like hell/hide until he has to reload, and since most enemies only carry a clip or two of ammo, chamce are he is done shooting things and easily killable.

I have a feeling you never played Bethesda's Fallout games. Enemies don't use ammo, they only carry it, they have 3 bullets in their inventory but those are there only so they equip the weapon and use it. Enemy's ammo supply is infinite, you can hide all you want but he'll never stop firing until you kill him. Two years of fiddling with GECK says enemies don't use ammo, the same thing goes for Skyrim and it's archers, they don't use ammo.

 

As for your comment on Skyrim's dual-wielding, it's not the same. Let me quote myself:

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.

A gun is not a blade, the difference is described above. Besides, Skyrim's dual-wielding is overcrapped as well, you can take a perk that allows up to 35% faster hits with dual-wielded weapons and power attacks become 50% stronger. So why do you even need a single blade? There is no block but you can deal over 3.5x the damage with a power attack, even more than you'd do with a two-handed blade power attack. And you don't need block, it can be alleviated with decent heavy armor (which is also overcrapped since it has 0 weight if you wear a full set, what's the use for light armor then?) to remove the need to block through high damage resistance.

 

Aside from all that, your opponent's AI tells him to block incoming attacks with his shield/weapon, and when you dual-wield he spends 95% of combat cowering behind a shield until you injure him enough to yield, then you just butcher him cause he lowers his shield. He gets maybe one or two hits before he starts going full-defensive, and then the combat turns into bashing his shield until he yields. My guess is the same will work in Fallout, enemy firing a few potshots and then cowering behind a wall for the rest of combat cause you unleash constant hellfire on him until he dies.

Edited February 8, 2014 by Werne

[zetenrisiel]

@Werne,

 

I'll have to defer to your experience in real life combat in that regard, though every police documentary I've seen suggests that even a single pistol is next to useless in any mid to long range gunfight because of the issues you mentioned. One thing I want to remove there is the adrenaline. Yes it happens in real life, but in videogames your hand is not shaking on the keyboard and we have to assume the protagonist is a stone cold hombre. In a power fantasy game I don't think nerves and panic can be factored in.

 

As far as Ammo, I realize that current games don't count down ammo ( I've been peppered with many daedric arrows from an enemy I failed to kill on the first shot) I was setting up how a gunfight set in a realistic future game would play out.

 

I do take a little issue with your classification of distance. While I'm sure in the real world you are 100% right, in FNV 25m is far, but an enemy can cover that distance to get into melee range probably before you empty your clip, depending largely on the gun. Using real world specs in that regard may be a little *too* realistic. Given the distance an inch ( sorry I'm american, the whole meter thing causes unneccessary math for me) actually covers on your monitor, the game would be frustrating indeed if you missed your enemy by a pixel.

 

Let's say 12ft(4m?). At 4-5m there is no way an enemy could hit me with a machete, yet if I had two pistols I could probably hit with 3/4 shots vs 2/2 with one gun. 5-10m I'm probably only hitting with my dominant hand, and beyond that I'm just providing cover fire. Now stretch that due to screen size being much smaller than real life (see above) and I still say it's viable, though extremely situational. You mention Skyrim, and yes there is no way I'd DW against a shielded opponent without the ability to counter his block with my own bash, but against an archer, or an enemy you ragdolled with a shout?

[Mikako]

Dual Wielding?

 

Personally it hurts Immersion. Ask any weapons specialist, only an idiot carries two guns one in each hand, it's next to impossible to aim, and next to impossible to reload. When cowboys carried two guns, often one was a backup so they didn't have to spend time reloading, which took a while, not so they could dual wield them like in the movies.

 

It's idiotic to think it's a good idea in short. I don't even Dual Wield in Skyrim, it just looks.. well wrong. Unless it's a spells/magic, sometimes I do use a spell in my left hand vs say carrying a shield.

 

The only time I can recall dual wielding being practical is when it's different types of weapons. American Officers during the American Civil War often carried a revolver in one hand and a sword in another, and often the pistol was in the left hand, as a backup more than anything. Being the Revolvers were very hard to reload at the time they could often only rely on firing 6 shots, making it not really a true dual wield either.

 

Samurai for example didn't carry two swords so they could dual wield, one was a back up, one was also shorter than the other. If they some how dropped their main sword they had a short sword as a back up, or if they were in a heavily wooded area or in doors they could pull out the much shorter sword, which was less likely to nick a tree and get stuck, etc.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Mikako

[Yoshh]

Knife on one hand, silenced handgun on the other. :armscrossed:

[Rennn]

 

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.

 

To be fair, turn based combat is even less realistic than dual wielding assault rifles.

[Rennn]

I wouldn't mind dual wielding in FO4, but I hope it comes with heavy, heavy penalties that give it a tactical niche for CQC. And if NPCs use it, I hope they deplete their own ammo instead of having infinite bullets, otherwise it'll be nigh impossible to balance.

 

The risk here isn't really "dual wielding suks becuz COD rawr", it's that the logistics of having two guns instead of one would be difficult to integrate into a serious game. Also, because to any weapons enthusiast two assault rifles looks just as realistic as a Final Fantasy buster sword. Let's put an 85 pound sword the length of an average adult into vanilla TES6, and have the NPCs tote them around... If you don't like it don't use it. Let's also put the ability to use machine guns and helicopters in TES6, because nobody is stopping you from not using them or modding them out. You can't just dismiss all immersion breakers with "well, don't use it if you don't like it" because it's not that simple. Everything in the game, affects the game. :s

 

Like the Dark Souls 2 "easy" mode, for example (which is still not happening as far as I know). The problem isn't so much that hardcore players want to keep their dominant alpha superiority intact. It's that an easy mode would break online play, and Dark Souls is pretty much always online. What happens if a guy on easy cooperates with someone on normal? Does the "normal" guy's world get easier? Does the "easy" player deal more damage? What happens if someone invades them both? Will the noobish "easy" player take down the invader faster than the "normal" player because of a damage multiplier? Will players on "easy" get all the rare loot faster than the loyal fanbase and have an unfair advantage in PvP?

Edited February 28, 2014 by Rennn