Well one hand fires one pistol, two hands can fire two pistols...so why not? But since I'm sure you're talking about Modern Warfare 2, I don't care about it in that case, but there's no downside to it being included so why not?
why do people get so hyped for dual weilding
- Thread starter tpizle
- Start date
Icingdeath was the name given to the dragon who had the sword before he took it. Twinkle.....something to do with elfs if i rememberWhiteTiger225 said:Tinkerbell? (honestly, who named his swords? XD)obex said:two swords one legend, Iceingdeath and Twinkle you all know who im talking about
the only time i use duel wielding is if i cant find any bigass rocket launcher's or some semi-automatic rifle with a good scope on. because if u cant have one powerfull weapon miles have two not so powerfull ones to make up for it
but duel wielding rocket launcher sign me up
but duel wielding rocket launcher sign me up
Thats the problem, you wouldn't get the same results. You would be worse off then someone wielding a two handed weapon such as a waraxe, or a greatsword (Fuck claymores, they were anti-cavalry, not anti person as they were to unwieldly) Not to mention anyone with a shield would mow you over (Shields were just as much a defensive tool as they were an offensive tool)Kajin said:
And you want evidence? first research cases of dual wielding in reality. You will find very few resources as such a thing was only ever done in desperation (The only written record I could uncover in my research were said norsemen who became enraged during battle, problem is, since they were enraged while doing such, they killed their own men as much as they killed the enemy) now, search up dual wielding in reality, on google, or ask jeeves, etc. What do you get? A tonne of gaming sites. Why? Because historically, no army used dual wielding men. The whole ideal of dual wielding was romanticized by many cultures (especially asian cultures) as an artform, which inspired pictures of glorious men wielding such an artistic use of weapons in victory, what really shot off Dual wielding's popularity was good ol' cowboy films, and soon pretty much every form of cinema. what people don't realize though is the good ol' cowboys would dual wield pistols for only one real reason. That reason was to both supress the opposition, and to fire off 12 - 18 rounds at a group of colonial era muzzleloading military in the time one man could fire 1 shot. Nowadays with assault rifles that can fire as accurately as the best of hunting rifles and carry more rounds then two pistols, dual wielding has no purpose at all except for supressing fire, and only because with the less accuracy no one can actually tell where your bullets will go, but then again, you can do that with an assault rifle by putting it on full automatic instead of burst fire and get the same, if not better an effect.
Damn panzy elves, breathing all the human mans air with their big ears and vegetation eating lips... Who needs em anyways?obex said:Icingdeath was the name given to the dragon who had the sword before he took it. Twinkle.....something to do with elfs if i rememberWhiteTiger225 said:Tinkerbell? (honestly, who named his swords? XD)obex said:two swords one legend, Iceingdeath and Twinkle you all know who im talking about
Because everyone's secret fantasy is to fire two guns whilst jumping through the air. Seriously video-games are just a way for people to safely do incredibly stupid but incredibly awesome looking things.
because two are better than one, and you can't wield three weapons at the same time now can you?
Because you need another Pistol to do awesome things like that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giPDBHEWUtc
YAY! An actual argument!WhiteTiger225 said:
I wasn't referring to medeival warfare with any of my arguments. If I'm going to be going into pitched battle on the open fields for the love of god it's gonna be the biggest sword and shield I can wield effectively. Situations vary, however. The biggest advantage of the knife is that it was small enought to be hidden easily and could be pulled out at a moments notice. There are numerous situations where a knife would be far more effective than the sword, the most common of which would be narrow spaces or heavily forested terrain. All of a sudden that range the sword is giving you that you were so proud of on the field of battle is practically useless because you have no room to swing whatsoever. Since my weapons are smaller, I do have room to swing while you yourself can only attempt to stab. The playing field is just about even because I have the terrain working for me in my favor now. My speed and ability to attack unrestrained are now my strength while your strength and ability to otherwise reach me from a distance have now become your weakness. It's still a matter of who lands the first blow, a feat that is now severely hampered for you.
As I keep saying time and time again, there are other factors to be considered other than the weapon and your skill with it. Environment, manuevarability, tactics, these factors vary by scenario and so should your weapon of choice.
Take for example the roman legionaires. Their use of weaponry as the ultimate defense made them so formidable that no man in his right mind would go up against such a force. Lured into forested terrain, their coordination was heavily disrupted by the terrain and taking them out could quite conceivably be childs play. Documents from that time period have testified to that.
Because instead of shooting things once, you can shoot them twice. And it's badass. And it looks cool. But no, i suppose it isn't the most effective.
For me, in WoW, it means I can usually hit twice as fast. No typically not for as much damage, but more often. which is for me more entertaining and seems more exciting. Thats just me though lol
