Why is "dual wielding" so common in video games?
Nobody but larpers ever did it in real life.
Why is "dual wielding" so common in video games? Nobody but larpers ever did it in real life.
Why is "dual wielding" so common in video games?
Nobody but larpers ever did it in real life.
Swords in general were barely used in the middle-ages, as spears were far superior in every way.
I've seen this disinfo so often who the frick is paying these guys
It's not entirely untrue but period is important. After the fall of Roman Empire you will mostly see early medieval kingdoms fielding levies armed with shield + spear and perhaps a long knife or a club or what have you as a sidearm, that's most likely where this preconception comes from. Romans themselves used both spears and gladii extensively, and If we look at viking era, people used both swords and spears, granted swords were more expensive than something like an axe.
I don't know where this particular picture comes from, but we have evidence of people dual-wielding in judicious duels. It could've been nobles or their representatives, but those fights were real. You could still forfeit (unless you're accused of a crime where the penalty is death, then you're just executed) but the stakes could've been pretty high, like a piece of land or important property.
pointy stick is way more affordable
doubly so if you chop up and melt down the last block of metal you found and give it to tha boyz in the form of a couple helmets and metal pointy bits on their sticks, maybe a couple knives for the "cooks"
>pointy stick is way more affordable
By that logic, all knights would've been using hand axes.
how so
No, you give axes and spears to your peasant levies. Knights get the real gear.
The metal in a sword is both not the same composition nor the enough metal to make a helmet, let alone multiole. Swords typically wanted soft metal in the center to absorb the shock and a hardenable edge. You don't didn't want much of any soft metal in a helmet because the impact is being dispersed over the surface armor of the helmet and you don't want it to structurally give toward the wearer's skull if a soft spot is struck.
sorry did i say sword?
You said they're using the same billet for helmets and weapons. I'm telling you why middle age blacksmiths would not do thst.
block of metal is block of metal
you might think middle age blacksmiths took pride in their work but that just means i know you dont know anything about building homes
nah
back in the day IF the bloke knew how to check for those nuances he would charge for it, most people wouldnt go to someone who would charge extra
would you pay extra for "real" lime for your bricks for your house, youd pay for what got thejob done for now
If you're a nobleman you'd want the best. Do modern millionaires drive some cheap chink shit? They drive Ferrari and Lambos.
>They drive Ferrari and Lambos.
So, cheaply made wop shit
once again, are we talking about nobles? im talking about spears and you're blustering about billets (i know that isnt you) and noblemen wanting the best
blud, it exists now that people dismantle a hand bendable give way sign to make tools, people dont want good stuff, 9X% want what does the work for free if they can get it, who doesnt like free shit
sounds like spoils of war back then though
>block of metal is block of metal
>you might think middle age blacksmiths took pride in their work but that just means i know you dont know anything about building homes
We have literal smithing manuals from the period stating otherwise. Blacksmithing was a guild protected trade in many places that you had to apprentice at for years before the lord would consider your wares sellable.
>back in the day IF the bloke knew how to check for those nuances he would charge for it, most people wouldnt go to someone who would charge extra
Middle age hamlets and estates were not capitalist societies, they were feudal. The blacksmith in a given village by and large was contracted by the lord of the estate to arm his levies. A blacksmith risked either being expelled from his guild or capital punishment for producing cheap/faulty wears. You do not know what you're talking about.
are these manuals available online? any books on this you also suggest?
We don't have them in full. Fragments of manuscripts out there like
https://medievallondon.ace.fordham.edu/items/show/401
that we can piece together along with spectral analysis of smithed artifacts to determine composition. We do not have instances of plate and mail composition being the same as weaponry. Some scholars even segment blacksmiths from armorers in when specifying different craft guilds. I think that's a little too artificial of a distinction since smaller hamlets had people wearing multiple hats but it still demonstrates the distinction contemporaries put between the smithing processes for armor and weapons. There are digital manuscript libraries out there like these if you wanna browse.
https://dlmm.library.jhu.edu/en/digital-library-of-medieval-manuscripts/
Nice, thanks anon.
have a nice day immediately underage zoomBlack person
Cost wasn't an issue.
Because war-fighting was for people who could afford it.
People who couldn't afford weapons paid taxes and levies to those who could.
are you seriously implying people just did the thing with the Nottingham sheriff?
sword combat is too close and easy to die in. Spear and shield gave you range and protection. The ancient greeks used and threw their spears primarily and resorted to their sword as a last means. Often in the Iliad, Homer depicted two people facing off and exchanging spear throws at each other.
looks up any historical land battles from ancient times to now. the spear and all its variants has been the most widely used AND the most successful weapon that ever existed.
fun fact: the halberd and pike formations used by the Landsknechte were the most effective battle formations in human history and could not be countered by anything but other halberd and pike formations. it was so effective that not even cavalry could charge it, so every other nation started to copy it. it only got finally beaten by the mass production of gun powder weapons.
this is the power of the stick.
>the most successful weapon that ever existed
Hardcountered by the firearms DLC
It's just an upgraded rock
rocks will still frick you up even unupgraded
>tfw the most recent sling in a game was in fricking chivalry and it was a meme there
Saw a guy on insta using a sling recently and it gave me a new appreciation for them, and how devastating it would have been to take a rock to the face at that speed. Slings should be in more games, especially ones that already make you pick up rocks for various reasons.
Soulsshit should have that instead of grenades and magic rocks
nope
guy who sits there slinging rocks for hours is nothing to "bloke who is sent there in no armor slinging rocks to draw the cavalry charge"
you're claiming a usain bolt of slinging was every young, probably kid combatant
you Black folk need to actaully think about what youre saying
I'm talking about many men slinging stones at each other. Slings were around long before cavalry.
again, nope
ever wonder why homies had wide brimmed hats made out of metal
jk stones didnt do enough to make homiez make hats to stop them lmaoooo
It ended this bloke.
i mean its pretty sick to think all that separates us is "inhuman" attributes, today we can almost medically obliterate out bodys for it,
but more so we can pew a boolet
its so boring thinking of modern day fantasy
Huh?
Balearic slingers were no joke and good slingers armed with proper lead sling bullets were extraordinarily dangerous, arguably the deadliest missile troops in the classical world.
can't refute that. horse archers were some of the most successful units in history. I think the main problem with archers was that they couldn't fight for days like infantry, because they would run out of ammo fast. also, archers were much harder to train.
Horseback archers are extraordinarily powerful, but they also require shitloads of investment, both when it comes to the decade long training required to be effective and their upkeep in arrows and food for the horses.
Meanwhile you can just fashion any random farmer a knife tied to the end of a stick and an old door as shield and have him instantly be very effective.
>but they also require shitloads of investment, both when it comes to the decade long training required to be effective and their upkeep in arrows and food for the horses.
Well steppe nomads got this training for free.
Also european military had lifelong training of military horseman ("knights"). I have opinion that European knights would be more effective if they trained fought as horse arhcers (logistically they could afford it), but in Europe the had no horse archery tradition and overall European archery was very primitive so they could not choose this warfare type. They had no "know-how"
>muh advanced giga Mongol archery
Horse archers are the biggest memes in existence and bows are not the weapons you think they are. In places like the steppe with horrible logistics, next to no civilization, cheap gear and most troops being ad hoc volunteers and levies(exception being some of the later Mongol empire reforms). Most troops in Eurasia had next to no protection and bows retained some lethality. The large plains helped with their formations tactical and strategic mobility.
But in places like Europe, which has one the largest occurrences of inhospitable terrain(exception being European plains) and a shit ton of rivers dividing land everywhere. All in a relatively small continent with smaller concentrated states all fighting for strips of land. Also the long history of heavily using armor for the bulk of their forces.
Horse archers were always over glorified skirmishers in anything but piss fights. Archers in general were also mostly for harassment and not as lethal as you imagine. That wasn't until crossbows became a phenomenon.
are you referring to the steppe or the horse archer as the most successful weapon ever? because both would be wrong
The recurve bow. A steppe and a horse archer are not weapons.
Bodied by now and arrow
strangely enough, Landsknechte did not lose to archers, not a single time. no idea why tho, it's not like they wore lots of armor.
at time landsknech had guns.
landsknechs often had more great swords than halberds the black band inventory show as 3 times more Schlachtschwert than halberds
moron. the zweihänder was a failed invention, and the reason why so many of them exist to this day is because the majority of them were given to the guard to collect dust because they were completely ineffective on the battlefield.
>calls me a moron
>tries to pass his head canon as history
>used zweihander as a term
successful generals like Diogo Gomes de Figueyredo called the montante an excellent weapon
Careful though, montante technique and landsknecht zweihaender technique were quite different.
you can apply the rules or reglas of the montante to german battle swords
}
I practice the montante reglas with a 3kg spadone
>that trashcan
Look moron, if you are talking about Greatswords and Landsknechte, everyone will immmediately think of the failed weapon called the Zweihänder. Add to this that the Montante was used in the same way, as supplement for pike formations, and one has to ask what the frick your stupid point is. And yes, they were so hilarious bad and ineffective that they all quickly became reduced to ceremonial and guard weapon. You would know that if you ever visited an armory instead of spouting moronic lies on the internet.
https://www.museum-joanneum.at/landeszeughaus/entdecken/sammlung/blankwaffen/zweihaender
those weren't called zweihänder in the german speaking world when they were made they where called Schlachtschwert, zweihander is a neologism.
there many historical accounts of them used in battle and many fencing manuals depicting its use.
ceremonial use just means the archeologist doesn't know it's purpose.
across all europe you can find many examples of big battleswords meant not for decoration
Swords, spears, blah blah blah. Real warfare is getting a guy with dysentery to sneak into the enemy's town and shit in the well.
Its kinda like how modern warfare isnt about throwing your men in close quarters combat every chance you get when you can bombard your enemy positions from afar
Big spear. Follow the money.
swords were common just not on the battlefield, there things with range were mostly used
What about village raids and other small scale battles where you wouldn't have established frontlines?
any weapon would do for a village raid, and a spear is always an effective weapon. it's light, fast, versatile and gives you more range than most weapons.
Spears are for peasants and mass conscripted fodder designed to job to the cool knights in shining armor and shimmering words
knight barely ever used swords tho. the most common weapon for a night was the lance, which was just another form of the spear.
lmao get your shitty pop history outta here, knights used maces/warhammers and swords
*Mikiri counters (you)*
It was done it just wasn't common
by the high middle ages almost everyone that could afford it had a sword
Even just for self defense
which was still basically no one except the nobles and the men they equipped. they used the swords mainly against people who only had tools for weapons, if they were armed at all, but usually, this fact meant the sword wouldn't need to be used at all, as their chief function was obtaining compliance through intimidation - just as with guns today. commoners typically weren't allowed to carry such weapons even if they could have afforded them - just as with guns today, in most countries.
the reason that sword myths have persisted all the way into the modern age is precisely because they were a symbol of wealth and authority in the western world, and to a lesser extent in japan where most of the fixation on swords is a modern phenomenon borrowed from the west. it is the symbol, not the weapon, that has been kept through the ages.
Wrong, the urban middle class- merchants, artisans, burghers all would likely have swords for protection.
by the late middle ages and renaissance commoners often have swords.
the i.33 depicts commoners with swords.
in Spain by time of the catholic kings all spanish citizens that wheren't israelite or muslim where forced to own a sword and train in it's use.
in italian and german states you where often forced to own a sword to take part in the town watch.
it was mostly England and France where commoners where cuccked out swords.
swords weren't that expensive by that time you can find some medieval prices and find swords sold at 2 solidus that is like a week labor.
swords where kinda like cars prices varied depending on what you buy or if it's new
Everyone had swords and larger knives.
In Europe the status symbol all the way up until more modern times used to be rapiers, they were far harder to make, far more effective for self defense since they were far easier to use, and simply were far more lightweight, thus easier to keep on your person while traveling.
Rapiers are lightweight short spears
>spears
Black person Detected
Rollan
>Pimpknight
>10x mo magic rings
How is that not overpowered?
Pimpknight is just too OP
>invisible in snowstorm
kek, gets me every time.
frick
ROLL
please no white knight
>hold sword
>gets stabbed by speer
this post made by speer gang
Albert Speer is not a weapon
For me, it's the mace.
Ungabunga still kills more people than guns yearly.
Boomer nu fuddlore.
Pretty much all medieval records about how man joining military service swords that every soldier must have a sword. Sword wasn't primary weapon, horsemen had lances, infantry had bows and polearms as primary weapons. But sword was must have back up weapon for soldier doing military service.
Its true that in early medieval times swords were quite expensive but on the other hand numbers of military were very small. It was elite noble armies. Military was top 5% of the of the society by income, they had income to afford swords. Basically the feed themselves with a sword robbing in a "legal way" people around them.
Swords were handguns, spears were assault rifles. One performs better in battle, but the other is convenient to carry around.
>Swords were handguns, spears were assault rifles.
If we are talking about cavalry this assault rifles had 1 round the magazine, pistol had 100 hundred. It changes the balance of weapons.
get off Ganker lindybeige
same reason you get to load from a checkpoint instead of staying dead after one game over. it's more fun. now go back to /k/ you dumb autist
Because it's cool and nobody gives a frick about real "you die or get permanently crippled in one well placed strike with even a pencil" life outside of autismos
Because, while cutting and slicing your enemy with a single sword looks cool, cutting and slicing your enemy with two swords 2x faster looks 3x faster and 2.5x cooler.
Because it’s cool
Fire arrows are also like this
vidoe game dmamage more dps gotta go fast
Someone doesn't know what florentine is.
>two nobles prancing on a tiled floor because one of them got prissy and called a duel
Not real combat.
Yeah, in real combat this two nobles would be sitting far away, while "real combat fans" would be obliterated by cavalry. And when one of this "real combat" dudes, who only survived because he was sitting on one place with his pike in the place everyone forgot to look, would try to outdo any normal duelist (that is if he would be allowed to duel instead of being beaten down by guards), he would be impaled instantly because all he can do is to participate in "real combat" (a.k.a. sitting with his pike in one place and hoping, that everyone including that menacing group of archers would forget about him).
There are way more instances of 1v1 combat in video games than armyline battles, dueling styles reign supreme.
>shank two homies at the same time
>shank one homie twice
Nobody, you say?
Moesashi.
made for beating with blunt end of a spear then raping
Stop perpetuating this bullshit, for frick's sake. Musashi isn't known for video game dual-wielding. He merely stated that it can be used for training, parrying or most of all throwing. Frick you.
It's cool.
Rule of cool, homie.
Vikings did occasionally
Dual wielding in duels was thing during the Renaissance. You got a sword for stabbing and dagger for parrying.
>You got a sword for stabbing and dagger for parrying.
Literally the other way around, you mongoloid.
Now hold the frick up
These guys are parrying with their daggers though
You can parry and stab with both, morons. The only difference is gauches have blade entrapment
Unless you were fully armored bringing a shield was always more beneficial than dual-wielding, but in a pinch you could use a dagger or a sword in your left hand and parry a homie as you stab him.
>play game with dual wielding
>character just does random sweeping motions with both blades leaving house-size defensive gaps that won't be exploited by the braindead AI
>you can just slap whichever weapon in each hand because the moveset is set in stone and momentum does not exist
Real, practical two hand swordfighting game never. We wouldn't want the plebs to actually learn a thing or two about defending themselves.
Rule of cool.
Same reason why most battles have swords and not just gay pikes/spears.
What's so gay about spears to you? Impaling people is cool.
?
You can impale people with a sword.
Yeah but it looks cooler with long spear.
Nah. You get the dramatic withdrawal if you use a sword. Not so much if you use a spear.
>t. Vlad Tepes
People used dual wielding in real life, but in any real conflict where their life is on the line any person with a working brain would at least try to be a little practical and smart with their choices. So he wouldn't just walk out into flying arrows, or into combat against armored enemies with polearms in formation, to die a fool's death - just so he can hold two swords (and if he wore heavy armor and was a trained knight, then in MOST situations there are still other more practical ways to fight). Dual wielding might be more likely to be what a traveler defending himself would use, or a fighter in a duel, or what a murderous bandit would use.
least moronic person itt
>doesn't know about nitoryuu (四刀流)
ngmi
Which was still reserved for few actual swordMASTERS. Sword is already hard to use weapon compared to others.
It's for dueling, as the thread shows. In battle you'd opt for reach or protection. Hence why polearms and heavy armor were preferred in yurope while in glorious nippon the trve weapons of the samurai were his yari and bow. The katana was a sidearm, albeit an important one.
longswords and arming swords where the weapon of choice for dismounted knights if they didn't have a poleaxe available
>if they didn't have a poleaxe available
yeah, and also they only used the one
once a knight was dismounted, he was pretty much dead. a sword was more decoration than anything.
english knights where known to to dismount and did pretty well against the french for a while.
before or after they got conquered and were forced to speak french for a couple of centuries?
after.
anglos didn't have many knights when they where conquered
Idiotic pseudohistory, let me guess you think they needed cranes to mount their horses and couldn't get up if they fell down?
>One sword has 45 attack
>two swords has 90 attack
Why would I use only one sword I have two hands?
That's bullshit though. Strength of a swing doesn't just come from arms, most of it is from twisting your body together with the strike. And you can't twist your body in both directions at once.
>you can't twist your body in both directions at once
Skill issue.
You twist your body in one direction and swing both swords the same way idk what you are saying
And you can just stab with both at once since forward momentum isn’t limited in that way
>And you can't twist your body in both directions at once.
Maybe YOU can't, fatty.
So strike with the weapons alternatingly instead o simultaneously, or feint with them.
you use one for slash attacks and the other to "damage properly" the enemy
its common sense that rare in your family?
not really you can cut from the wrist, from the elbow, from the shoulder or use the whole body
It depends on the situation and what you want to cut
>And you can't twist your body in both directions at once.
Not with that attitude
Try spinning
This comes entirely from HP bar abstraction
>Hit an enemy with a weapon
>HP is reduced
>But what if there were... two weapons?
>That's cool, hit twice, more dps
There is no such thing IRL, one weapon is generally enough and other arm is better used for some other implement.
Bro, why does it matter? You've never even been in a serious fight. It's just electronic toys.
>have sword
>man with really long spear on horse runs by and kills you
How do you respond to this with your sword without seeming mad?
>deflect spear
Good luck with that.
>man with really long spear on horse runs by
>bang
Psssh... nothin personnel... kid...
Damn what a genius. I bet he implements crop rotation too.
I can't laugh at this when the parody is too close to real life and after over a decade of it.
Duh, videogames don't reflect real life. even more so fantasy ones.
It is really fun to do at LARPs though. I played an Alchemist that used a sword/dagger and then a Monk who used two dagger-sized "fists" flipped southpaw so I could do actual punching motions at people.
Dual-wielding is overrated. You know what we need more depictions of? Grappling. Fully-armored warriors grappling as they reach extremely close range and try to tackle one another while their weapons are ineffective. A lot of depictions in real historical manuscripts, art, and instructional manuals (left is dei Liberi for example), not a lot of depictions in games, mostly we have two dudes slashing each other with swords as blood splatters and hp drains despite both of them being fully armored and their armor being able to deflect any slashing weapon without problems. .
Grappling is for gays.
Striking is fine too
>t. dead closeted gay
not all warriors where fully armored and not all times you had to defend yourself were in war
I'm not disagreeing but what's your point?
dual wielding swords was taught by the Italian master Achile Marrozo and other italian masters.
and twin swords meant to fit a single scabbard where found in Italy so dual wielding was done Europe
You have to do nothing but grapple in Kingdom Come Deliverance because the combo attack system is fundamentally flawed and the AI will without fail parry any attempts to land 3 consecutive strikes on them, and you HAVE to connect with every swing to initiate a combo.
>is cited as evidence that dual wielding is good
>has won 0 famous historical duel with dual wielding
Too many people talking shit about dual-wielding. Let's see how shit it is when they go against my SWORDS TYPHOON secret technique...
Duel wielding gives you extra options for gameplay and actions in vidya.
This is the same for irl, loosely, but irl weapons all require a give on the wielders part, and they all have enough interest and complexity in their use that the draw to two weapons isn't great (unlike in vidya where it's just a matter of pushing a button to make a perfect attack).
Duel wielding can be fun, and you can do cool shit with it (force a high parry, cut low), but it requires you forsake a lot of your ability to do cool single weapon shit (take one hand off the sword, and turn your body and legs in a way that's not optimal for some techniques).
Also, while it's possible to get good with this, the benefits it provides are not significant, against training with a single weapon, which is easier to train, easier to wield, and requires less brainpower to manage.
>Nobody but larpers ever did it in real life
This is literally impossible to verify you dumb shit.
There are no combat manuals/tapestries that mention/depict it, outside of parrying daggers in renaissance dueling culture, and no artifacts indicating one-handed sword use without a shield such as ambidexterous scabbards and pummel-balanced one-handed swords. There's no way to verify spacejews didn't build the pyramids but we can infer due to the notable lack of evidence.
so Achille Marozzo and grassi didn't write manuals?
>IN RENAISSANCE DUELING CULTURE
>"Ha ha, I have two weapons! There's nothing you ca- ACK!"
Literally the world's best swordsman
>world's """best"""
>has never fought anyone outside of his country
frick off
It's the same with the world's best football team.
If he was the best he would have raped asiatics and chinks
Miyamoto Musashi would be disappointed that you believe he used two swords exclusively.
Because games, even "realistic" ones, are escapism and play into power fantasies.
frick all of that, horse, musket and a short sword is all that I need
>Nobody but larpers ever did it in real life.
Pirates dual wielded a sword and pistol, also reiters dual wielded 2 pistols sometimes, but they also used other twohanded firearms like arquebuses or a sword.
>dual guns
yeah because shitty front loaded flintlock pistols couldn't hit shit more than 20m away but left you wide open after shooting the first bullet
>dual wield swords
stop drawing reference from pirates of the carribean
oh maybe because dual wielding is fun and video games are supposed to be fun. can't be sure though...
Rule of Cool
As long as you're ambidexterous, confident and lightly armored, I see no reason why you wouldn't dualwield, other than potential archeres.
Dualwielding anything with an axe is the way to go.
The only thing the axe lacks is range, (provided it has the hammer or spike on the opposite or top side)
Sword for stabby, speed and range
Axe for mostly everything but range
Mace for turning your enemy in to that dented head wojak meme, regardless of their armor.
Sure, you can strike out alternately like boxers do. But you can't fricking strike with both weapons at once like the meme style.
Who said you need to? you can still perform some memey-dancelike attacks on daggers and swords, even if it's not optimal.
Having offensive capabilities on both hands seems useful enough, and you won't have a shield to block your vision.
If the user is some crazy-ass master, I'm sure they'd appreciate the field of view and versatility against many, so long as they're not some spear or bow guys
a shitty comparison
swords were more suitable to indoors than spears, unless you were defending op top of some stairs
tell me the reasons you might need to overpower someone with potential violence
the literal best move is to partially incapacitate with some bullshit, or if running doesn't make a difference to surrender
i actually have no reason to die unless maybe my siblings or mother are at risk and even then, dying for that doesnt guarantee them anything
Dual wielding is ackshually doable but not the double axe or double hammer or double greatsword kind of dual wielding, more like rapier + dagger dual wielding especially in fencing. But why would you want that when even a small shield is superior to a parrying dagger?
>more like rapier + dagger dual wielding especially in fencing
Shame that souls games don't award this kind of dual wielding outside of a meme parry dagger. It's all about powerstancing double greatswords and shit like that.
Just like real world variant I fail to see the practicality of it though. It looks cooler but a shield is better than a dagger as an offhand weapon. Shields can block swords and arrows, daggers can only parry swords if you are skilled in it.
>daggers can only parry swords
Stop thinking about it as a dedicated parry weapon and start thinking about it as an extra tool.
It might only work in VR games though, too complicated for traditional gamepad/kbm layouts.
That is also true though, it's hard to implement
It looks cool you moron.
Cool, a sword thread.
I have a question, what sort of stance is Ezio doing here? It looks really aesthetic but I don't know if it is based on something or if it is simply something the animators put together.
Famous "i'm not trained to swing huge metal sticks all day and don't want my arms to get tired too fast" stance.
pretty much
It could be a very shitty form of "plow."
I see. I thought it looked really similar to Nioh's low stance so I was wondering if it was meant to be some esoteric guard or what have you
that's gedan
porta di ferro mezana aka I'm too tired for breve or plow
Middle Iron Gate, isn't that the Italian version of Fool's Guard, where you look like you leave yourself open but can quickly transition to a rebuke?
yes pretty much gedan, porta di ferro and alber
are kind of the same guard just from different places in spanish swordsmanship is called angulo agudo (acute angle) and has the same use
>Nobody but larpers ever did it in real life.
Newfriends do not understand the pleasure of stabbing two homies once or one homie twice.
Too bad shields aren't actually for pussies
historically dual wielders used their blades to launch devastating energy attacks across the ground twice in a row this technique was once called "double croc de démon"