- Awkward_Zombie
- |
- Noble Member
The point of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his.- Gen. George S. Patton.
____________(˜˜˜||˜˜˜˜||˜˜˜˜˜)_∏______
l | --------____.`=====.-.~:________\___|================[oo]
|_|||___/___/_/~```|_|_|_|``(o)----------<)
Okay, the concept of two swords is completely ridiculous. Let's take a few normal circumstances that you might encounter online:
You have duel-wielded swords, and spy an enemy within slashing range. You slash him with one sword, he dies. The end. What would having two accomplish?
You have duel-wielded swords. You spy a guy, but he also spots you. He backpedals whilst firing, you die. How did that second sword help? Exactly.
Next, you have a spiker/magnum/smg/whatever in your right hand, and a sword in your off-hand. You spy another player and advance on him while firing. You manage to get his shields down, then slash him. Now, you didn't die, but you could have just bashed him, and the animation would be shorter, leaving you less open to attack.
I could go on, but let's just examine for a minute, the shape of the swords. They have a very -blam!- shape, and are thick at the base. This would make it rather hard to swing around, the other sword would simply get in the way.
Basically, as an idea, it's cool, but in reality, it sucks. Thats the cold,hard truth.