why do people get so hyped for dual weilding

[rokkolpo]

i just dont see what its so great to be holding 2 guns now but hey thats why im asking you guys

why wield 1 weapon......when u can wield 2?
picture youreself with the most awesome dagger ever.

k now picture youreself that times 2, in an AWESOME pose.

 

[FluffX]

Because in the ideal audience, the following is law:

Gun = Cool.

Therefore,

2Gun = 2Cool

 

[That One Six]

Two guns makes everything better. Or two swords. Or two, ummm... bowls of ice cream!

Inside Joke: But Six beats them all!!!

 

[ZenMonkey47]

Dual wielding is passe.
Triple wielding is old hat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQUBLPFJLPo
Sextuple wielding is where it's at.

 

[rawlsku]

With practice dual wielding can be an effective combative form, but that's the thing... With Practice. Lots and Lots of practice. You will not get this overnight.

Still, though, it does have it's benefits. A good offense can sometimes also be an effective defence. Your attacks are coming twice as fast, which means your opponent has to work twice as hard to deflect your incoming blows and that offers greater chance to catch him off guard and finish him off. You trade the extra protection/precision for increased frequency in your strikes. They don't have to be perfectly placed so long as they still do their job.

Using a gun and a sword might be feasible but the gun itself would have to be puny. I'm talking the same size or smaller than the hand holding it. You need a good grip and that means a very thin clip. Five rounds per magazine maximum I'd say. Unless your carrying at least three of those suckers on your person at all times so you can reach for a new one every time a clip is depleted it isn't gonna happen.

Wrong. Any good swordsmen will tell you that your attacks will come slower as you have less strength to exert per sword, you are also left wide open for attack and can really do no more then flail. To test this, pick up a 5lb stick that is about 3ft in length, pick up another one, now try swinging them in turn, compare that to how fast you can slash with 1 5lb 3ft long stick using both hands. It comes down to a matter of balance, control, and body movement, which in the end, the limitations of the human body make dual wielding a move of desperation rather then a smart option.

A. I never claimed this style was perfect
B. The very first thing I said was this would take practice. Almost mind numbing amounts of it.

You can choose to fight anyway you want. Duel wielding is one of those things that most people don't do because it is incredibly unreliable and hard to train for, but those who put there mind to it can train to such an extent as to render themselves competent combatants at the very least. There are more factors that determine what wins a battle then just skill in your blade alone. Just because your ability to fight is hampered in some way doesn't mean you are destined to lose. It's just far more likely that you will XD

Sidenote:
I also believe I partially answered some of what you're trying to deny in my previous post where I mentioned your gun would have to be far smaller in order to accommodate the lack of support. Who says your sword needs to be three feet? Who says it needs to be a sword in the first place? I myself prefer very big knives.

It's no easier with swords either, proper swordsmanship depends on strength and accuracy with the blade. Doing so greatly depends on using the sword with both hands. Dividing your strength and attention between two doesn't help you very much. It does work somewhat well with special-designed light daggers, but that's about it

And why practice an inferior combat style for mind-numbing amounts of time, when you could practice the same time with one sword, making you way more efficient.

Dual-wielding is dumb, and anyone thinking that it's viable should look at the facts and reconsider their opinion.

 

[JaredXE]

I dual-wield swords.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Because you're holding two guns. Let me explain it simply.
You know what you do with one gun? You can do double that before reloading.

 

[Spinwhiz]

I think games should reduce the accuracy for dual wielding guns...if they want to make the game more real that is.

EDIT: Or you could dual wield shotguns like The Rock in The Rundown. Completely impossible. Your shoulders would just dislocate from the shock, probably break your wrist and elbow too.

 

[rawlsku]

Because you're holding two guns. Let me explain it simply.
You know what you do with one gun? You can do double that before reloading.

Quoting my previous post:

" No, handguns are usually designed to be used with both hands. They can usually be used one-handed in a pinch if your other hand is preoccupied holding a rock or jerking off or something, but they're still far better when controlled by both hands.

Guns in general have a lot more recoil than people tend to think. Blazing away with one can be a workout, shooting up a storm with two is near impossible. You can always fire slower, but then where is the advantage of getting two in the first place? One could argue that since you have two guns you have double the magazine capacity. But then why not just use one gun with both hands and use the other when the first runs out? Or failing that why not reload like a normal person. After all, two guns take more than twice as long to reload. The other problem with shooting two handguns at the same time is accuracy. Good marksmanship depends on being able to focus on your target and where your bullets are going, to do this you must use the iron sights on your gun. When you have two in your hands, you can only focus on one set of sights at a time, not both.

So now you're back with shooting one gun and having the other taking up your other hand for no reason. Alternatively you can just guess where the bullet is going to go and just shoot by feel. But only idiots do that. It's tough enough to guess approximately where one gun is going to shoot when you're not using the sights, but two guns as we all know can shoot into two totally different directions so you have to constantly be guessing where both of them will be shooting. Sounds easy enough, but it's near impossible to do beyond about 10 feet. You could put laser sights on your guns, but then you'd just constantly have to search for two different laser dots moving about independently of each other, both only remotely hinting at where the bullet can go. It's all just a huge headfuck. The most you could accomplish by shooting pistols akimbo is a whole lot of ammo wasted without hitting anything you want to hit and both your arms way too tired way too fast."

In before "Hurr itts a gaem!"

 

[funksobeefy]

Ask John Woo, he is to blame for my addiction to dual wielding.

haha yep! I loved Hard Boiled!

 

[Dorian6]

Let's look at it this way.

Imagine having a lightsaber. It's an extraordinarily powerful weapon, capable of cutting through just about anything. It's destructive power cannot be matched by any other hand-held weapon.

Now imagine having two

 

[Kajin]

And why practice an inferior combat style for mind-numbing amounts of time, when you could practice the same time with one sword, making you way more efficient.
Dual-wielding is dumb, and anyone thinking that it's viable should look at the facts and reconsider their opinion.

I'd do it because I'd want to. We all have our weapons of choice. The halberd is no less a respectable option then the naginata. I'm all about the efficiency but if I want to work three times as hard to achieve an identical result as you then by god I'm going to do it.

I'd also like to see these facts of yours that say dual-wielding is absolutely inconceivable no matter how hard or in what manner you try*. Like I said in my previous post, the outcome of the battle is not solely dependent on how skilled you are with your weapon.

*No, really, I'd like to see them. Could prove to be an interesting read. Link me!

 

[Magnikai]

I think games should reduce the accuracy for dual wielding guns...if they want to make the game more real that is.

EDIT: Or you could dual wield shotguns like The Rock in The Rundown. Completely impossible. Your shoulders would just dislocate from the shock, probably break your wrist and elbow too.

This is true...but WHY would we want to make games more realistic? Reality sucks, I play games to get out of it, not for more

 

[obex]

two swords one legend, Iceingdeath and Twinkle you all know who im talking about

 

[MR T3D]

Let's look at it this way.

Imagine having a lightsaber. It's an extraordinarily powerful weapon, capable of cutting through just about anything. It's destructive power cannot be matched by any other hand-held weapon.

Now imagine having two

"what's this?...boba's got himself a lightsaber now, wait,what this? make that TWO LIGHTSABERS!!
red, and blue, put them together and what dies that make? PURPELE RAGE!"
....

 

[UsefulPlayer 1]

I think the guy from Equilibrium would disagree with you.

 

[WhiteTiger225]

With practice dual wielding can be an effective combative form, but that's the thing... With Practice. Lots and Lots of practice. You will not get this overnight.

Still, though, it does have it's benefits. A good offense can sometimes also be an effective defence. Your attacks are coming twice as fast, which means your opponent has to work twice as hard to deflect your incoming blows and that offers greater chance to catch him off guard and finish him off. You trade the extra protection/precision for increased frequency in your strikes. They don't have to be perfectly placed so long as they still do their job.

Using a gun and a sword might be feasible but the gun itself would have to be puny. I'm talking the same size or smaller than the hand holding it. You need a good grip and that means a very thin clip. Five rounds per magazine maximum I'd say. Unless your carrying at least three of those suckers on your person at all times so you can reach for a new one every time a clip is depleted it isn't gonna happen.

Wrong. Any good swordsmen will tell you that your attacks will come slower as you have less strength to exert per sword, you are also left wide open for attack and can really do no more then flail. To test this, pick up a 5lb stick that is about 3ft in length, pick up another one, now try swinging them in turn, compare that to how fast you can slash with 1 5lb 3ft long stick using both hands. It comes down to a matter of balance, control, and body movement, which in the end, the limitations of the human body make dual wielding a move of desperation rather then a smart option.

A. I never claimed this style was perfect
B. The very first thing I said was this would take practice. Almost mind numbing amounts of it.

You can choose to fight anyway you want. Duel wielding is one of those things that most people don't do because it is incredibly unreliable and hard to train for, but those who put there mind to it can train to such an extent as to render themselves competent combatants at the very least. There are more factors that determine what wins a battle then just skill in your blade alone. Just because your ability to fight is hampered in some way doesn't mean you are destined to lose. It's just far more likely that you will XD

Sidenote:
I also believe I partially answered some of what you're trying to deny in my previous post where I mentioned your gun would have to be far smaller in order to accommodate the lack of support. Who says your sword needs to be three feet? Who says it needs to be a sword in the first place? I myself prefer very big knives.

Why do I say a sword, or a large axe? Because any nitwit who takes a look at medieval history will see what weapons left survivors on the battlefield.The sword is the most versatile of weapons (Namingly the european longsword for most makes) and only a peasent who couldn't afford a real weapon would take a knife into battle. Why? Because the enemy is most likely going to rain arrows on you first off (Shield comes in handy then) run over you with heavy cavalry (ever tried to stop a chain skirted horse with a 10inch blade?) or send in their own peasents. The 3 ft blade (Long sword) was the best weapon you could have next to a spear (Theres a reason why spears and lances were used in armies even into WW1 compared to swords which were more a decoration of rank) as it allowed you to keep your opponent at range, was made so that every surface was a kill area, and allowed you to parry weapon swings with much ease. Try parrying ANY weapon with two long knives. If you read up on your medieval history, you will see that one of the biggest advantages one could have, was killing their opponent before their opponent could get in range to kill them. And I am sorry to say, anyone conscripted into an army with any amount of denari would quickly invest in a longer weapon they could actually defend themselves with. The Pitch fork with all honesty was far more useful then a knife, as it could actually range an opponent compared to the knife that made you pretty much have to fuck your opponent just to be lcose enough to use it. Stop watching anime, or looking at assassin's creed, or lord of the rings, etc for how real battles went.

 

[WhiteTiger225]

two swords one legend, Iceingdeath and Twinkle you all know who im talking about

Tinkerbell? (honestly, who named his swords? XD)

 

[Neotericity]

my favourite thing to dual weild must be the silverballers, it just looks BA

 

[Caliostro]

One gun is good. Two are better! Twice the firepower AND rate of fire.

Half the accuracy!

Personally I find the whole thing to be extremely overcompensatory. I rather have one good and accurate gun. What good are 200 shots that don't hit?

Boom! Headshot. /sniper.