Poll: Bioshock Infinite: Two Weapon Restriction

[VikingKing]

I would say it'd be fine, except for the fact that you can switch between any of the Tonics at any time, not just need to find particular Tonics sitting around the environment.

Of course, you can also carry as much ammunition for each weapon as possible without needing to actually possess the weapon and all the upgrades stack, so that part of the system is alright. But part of the problem is that the idea that you can pick which weapons will suit a particular encounter only works if you know what's coming. Given how the game doesn't always turn out as you expect, that argument falls flat on it's face.

Overall, this is still an amazingly fun game, and this is the only problem I've come across, with it being a boon to some and a flaw to others, so rather then the perfect scores people have been throwing out...I'd give it a 9 out of 10.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

You didn't have a companion constantly throwing you ammo though.

Meh. Good point. That doesn't necessarily mean that they couldn't find some way of allowing the characters to keep multiple weapons.

Hey, this is crazy! It's almost like we have very different, subjective opinions about this that exclusively live in our heads. Some might see this as a chance to acknowledge our differences and move on, but I think in the finest of Escapist traditions, we should have a fight about who is objectively right.

I see a logical flaw in a post you made in another thread. Therefore, all your opinions are wrong.

[/sarcasm]

Hey, don't get me wrong. I was a little taken aback as well when I realized I could only carry two guns. I didn't really feel right for a Bioshock game at first.

But I'm just saying, it's not as bad as it sounds. It's also kinda nifty to find different weapon combinations.

 

[Jimmy T. Malice]

I'm not that bothered by it, there's always weapons lying around if you need to switch, and Lizzie usually throws in some useful little things to help. Makes you think about the tactical use of Vigor's more though, noticing more situations to use them in recently.

One thing I'm not happy about is these damn George Washington Terminators. Now THEY are a pain in the arse.

Yeah, the motorised patriots are annoying, especially since they take more damage in the back but it's almost impossible to reach it. At least you can use Posession to turn them to your side for a bit.

 

[immortalfrieza]

I hope some clever modder will find a way to remove the restriction. It's a U3 engine game after all. I may try to do something when my game arrives.

I'd bet money that one of the first things that modders do is remove the 2 weapon limit. Personally, I don't mind the 2 weapon limit in games that much since there are really only 2 or 3 weapons tops that I end up using all the time in most shooters anyway, but I still don't care for it. The 2 weapon limit is just an arbitrary limit the developers put on weapons for no real reason, plenty of games from both previous generations and the current one have proven it's more than possible for the player to have half a dozen weapons or more at their disposal, and all others should be no different.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I don't really have a problem with the two weapon limit, because you're never actually limited to two weapons. Sure, you only have two "guns" but you also have your vigors, which are definitely weapons, and you have the hook, which gets upgraded with various effects, and is also a very usable weapon.

I do think it would be nice if there wasn't a weapon limit for 1999 mode, since it would be truer to the kinds of shooters that existed in 1999, but the fact that a weapon limit was included really doesn't upset me.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I hope some clever modder will find a way to remove the restriction. It's a U3 engine game after all. I may try to do something when my game arrives.

I'd bet money that one of the first things that modders do is remove the 2 weapon limit. Personally, I don't mind the 2 weapon limit in games that much since there are really only 2 or 3 weapons tops that I end up using all the time in most shooters anyway, but I still don't care for it. The 2 weapon limit is just an arbitrary limit the developers put on weapons for no real reason, plenty of games from both previous generations and the current one have proven it's more than possible for the player to have half a dozen weapons or more at their disposal, and all others should be no different.

Well most of the time developers do it for a sense of "realism" because in reality no one would be walking around with 10 different guns strapped to them. Then again, the more realistic a game is the less fun it tends to be a lot of the time, so who cares if having 2 pistols, a shotgun, a couple of rifles, and a rocket-launcher isn't a realistic amount of weapons for someone to carry, it's fun.

 

[Krantos]

I like the restriction. That mixed with the fact that you can stock up on ammo for guns you don't have encourages you to scrounge around the battlefield for replacement weapons in the middle of the fight. It makes you think more about the situational uses for each weapon.

That said, more options are always good, so if the option to increase the restriction was there, I wouldn't mind. I wouldn't use it, but I wouldn't begrudge others that do.

 

[sumanoskae]

I find it overly limiting, I already have to upgrade my weapon, so when one runs out of ammo and I have to switch to save my life, I lose the weapon I spent all my money on.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Well most of the time developers do it for a sense of "realism" because in reality no one would be walking around with 10 different guns strapped to them. Then again, the more realistic a game is the less fun it tends to be a lot of the time, so who cares if having 2 pistols, a shotgun, a couple of rifles, and a rocket-launcher isn't a realistic amount of weapons for someone to carry, it's fun.

Exactly. Realism isn't really that fun most of the time, and in games like Bioshock Infinite, which isn't a particularly realistic universe to begin with, it makes even less sense. Besides, I'm pretty out of shape and even I could carry more than a shotgun and a pistol around if I needed to, at least for a while. A detective like Booker should be able to carry at least somewhat more than I could.

 

[Christopher Fisher]

I dislike the two weapon limit, but removing it would make the game considerably easier.

 

[ZehMadScientist]

Should I keep the shotgun... or should I go for the revolver? Decisions decisions~

^ How I've spent a large portion of the game looting after combat.

Eeeh I thought it was pretty annoying at first, but I ended up using only the shotgun/revolver and sniper anyway. Volley gun is useless, Rpg isn't worth the small amounts of ammo (and isnt that good anyway), the Heater makes my blood boil because of one shot reloads etc etc.

Besides, Elizabeth kept throwing ammo at me all the way through so nah, I did'nt mind the two weapon restriction that much. That said, it would have been fun if I could just go gunblazing with three thousand weapons in my inventory.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Well most of the time developers do it for a sense of "realism" because in reality no one would be walking around with 10 different guns strapped to them. Then again, the more realistic a game is the less fun it tends to be a lot of the time, so who cares if having 2 pistols, a shotgun, a couple of rifles, and a rocket-launcher isn't a realistic amount of weapons for someone to carry, it's fun.

Exactly. Realism isn't really that fun most of the time, and in games like Bioshock Infinite, which isn't a particularly realistic universe to begin with, it makes even less sense. Besides, I'm pretty out of shape and even I could carry more than a shotgun and a pistol around if I needed to, at least for a while. A detective like Booker should be able to carry at least somewhat more than I could.

You're significantly undervaluing how much ammunition weighs and how much room it takes up. Also, it's not just about being about to carry the weight, it's also about carrying around a bunch of guns being clunky and uncomfortable. If you have 3 rifles and a shotgun strapped to your back it's hard to grab the right one when you need it.

 

[Amnesiac Pigeon]

I think the two weapon limit works perfectly for Infinite.

It really seems more important to get people to mix up the Vigors they're using instead of the guns they're using.

 

[Ishal]

Frankly I don't understand the hatred of two weapon limit. Is it in CoD and BF3? I don't play those so I don't know.

It seems people always want a challenge and difficult encounters, doesn't having two weapons increase difficulty? I tend to think it does. It adds a sense of urgency to if you really need and RPG and don't have one, maybe you have to improvise. Or, dash across the level and have liz open a tear to the crank gun or a RPG.

I'm fine with it. Though thinking about it, Bioshock had you able to carry around everything, so I guess I can see a reason there. Perhaps two weapon limit is a cheap way of increasing difficulty, or maybe people don't find it difficult to need to switch/find more weapons but find it tedious instead. Different strokes I guess.

 

[x EvilErmine x]

Well it didn't really bother me but I see how it can be an issue for some with the previous games not having the same limitation.

I was too bussey owning like a boss with the Carbine and Hand Cannon/Shotgun to notice much though. Seriously with them guns and with Rising Bloodlust and Overkill gear then you can basically stun lock everything in a fairly large radius.

 

[Grampy_bone]

The two weapon limit sucks. Personally I think that's the one legacy of Halo that has done the most damage to the FPS genre. All it does is ensure you never have the gun you need when you need it. It also encourages homogenization among the weapons and discourages using anything specialized; i.e. a weapon like a grenade launcher or sniper rifle might be really useful sometimes, but is it worth taking up one of your precious weapon slots?

I've only played the first hour or so of Bioshock Infinite so I can't say for sure how it affects the game, I just know I dislike most shooters with that mechanic. Two weapons is just too limiting, at least let me have say, four. Give me enough space to carry around that specialized gun for when I need it.

 

[NightmareExpress]

It seems people always want a challenge and difficult encounters, doesn't having two weapons increase difficulty? I tend to think it does. It adds a sense of urgency to if you really need and RPG and don't have one, maybe you have to improvise. Or, dash across the level and have liz open a tear to the crank gun or a RPG.

I'm fine with it. Though thinking about it, Bioshock had you able to carry around everything, so I guess I can see a reason there. Perhaps two weapon limit is a cheap way of increasing difficulty, or maybe people don't find it difficult to need to switch/find more weapons but find it tedious instead. Different strokes I guess.

In an artificial sort of way, it does.
If the game wasn't so bloody generous with ammunition for power weapons (or ammo in general) I imagine it wouldn't be necessary in the slightest.

The way that the game appears to be designed, is that a majority of the weapons will definitely work in most situations (especially so when combined with vigors). The carbine/sniper and machine gun/shotgun prove to be workhorses that decimate a majority of the foes that the game throws at you and are the weapons you can most easily acquire ammunition for (outside of the pistol or Elizabeth).

There are very few parts of the game that I can describe as "difficult" and those aren't because of the two-weapon limit.
The parts that I'm thinking of pretty much gave me access to every weapon in the game and a gratuitous amount of ammunition for the volley gun/RPG/crank gun...the fact of the matter is that they were difficult due to attrition of resource over time and a large amount of durable enemies being thrown in. Having every weapon at once wouldn't have made much of a difference at those points.

So after playing all the way through it on "hard", I'll have to side with the needless and tedious side.

captcha: little bird told me
Well, the sucker wasn't so little.

 

[Nazulu]

Yep, hate it. It's part of my gripe with the future introducing new technology but limiting everything else. Usually in a 2 weapon only game I find myself only using the weapons that would be effective to most enemies which just makes my selection less interesting. I reckon it's good to have a big variety of weapons for different strategy's, but since they've designed it just around 2 weapons now I wouldn't change it since it could possibly suck the challenge out of the game (unless they add in more enemies or something).

 

[Sonicron]

It's annoying, and I want it gone. There's no reason for it - the realism argument that serves as the principal justification for this kind of limitation doesn't hold water here; even if I were to forget the fact that we're dealing with a game that lets you summon murderous scavenger birds from the ether to aid you in combat, any and all pretense to realism dies of a massive aneurism the moment you realize there's no inventory system and your protagonist immediately consumes any and all food and drink items he finds, thus invoking the mental image of a Sarlacc on legs.