Poll: Enough with this 2-weapon limit bullcrap

[Treblaine]

I've had it with this crap, Halo started this "genius idea" back in 2001 now it's everywhere, even in Duke Nukem.

Duke Nukem.

What is it with this obsession? Games back in the 90's with far fewer buttons on each controller had HUGE weapon inventories and functioned absolutely fine, Ocarina of Time being most notable it worked damn near perfect.

Yet today games publishers treat us like idiots, seemingly incapable of keeping track of more than 2 weapons at a time. When we encounter a tank that needs a rocket launcher we basically have to depend on the god-like game designer to save us by implausibly placing a rocket launcher lying around for us to pick up.

Why can't I carry more than 2 guns at a time? Adding grenades as well to their own button is not enough to balance this out as there are more than just 2 weapons for 2 scenarios:

-melee weapon: silent, insta-kill, favours the bold flanking and closing to kill
-close quarters: shotgun or machine pistol would be best
-General purpose close-medium-long: assault rifle, SMG, bow (jack of all trades, master of none)
-Shit-hit-the-fan weapon: heavy machine-gun, flame thrower, BFG-9000 area effect for enemy swarms
-Long range: sniper rifle, crossbow,
-Heavy boss gun: rocket launcher, grenade launcher, super-laser

-Special: gravity gun, portal gun, grappling hook, shield, laser-designator, freeze ray, etc

This 2 weapon stifles innovation so much. If Half Life had felt it had to bent to the will of the status quo and enforce a 2-weapon limit then it's very likely the Gravity gun would never have made the final cut as one item would reduce your weapons options by 50%.

My problem is I believe developers have come to see the Halo-weapon system as the status quo and are too afraid to change it. Afraid that "people won't get it" that is will be something for the critics to ding their game for in an age when critics won't knock of anything for being derivative and lazy. The fact that Gearbox has caved on this just shows how bad it has gotten, a game that is ALL ABOUT old-skool charm compromising in this way... I don't know.

My point is when you have such a limited inventory you can't make any of your weapons too unique, every one of them must function "well enough" in all circumstances as you only ever have one alternative.

 

[Raddra]

Honestly, I like to keep things realistic, but you can carry more than just a single long weapon and sidearm.

 

[josemlopes]

Nope, because it all depends on what game the developers are trying to do.

Duke Nukem was supposed to be more arcade and fun so it made sense to have an unlimited amount of guns.

I dont want a game like Battlefield to have more then 2 guns because I want a more realistic experience.

I like both styles, I like Serious Sam and I like Arma 2, each style should follow each rules

 

[Aulleas123]

Eh, I understand realism, but in all honesty I'm not playing games for the exact realism all of the time. I wanna carry my sixteen kinds of firearms, thank you very much.

 

[TheIronRuler]

They want to make it realistic.
You carry a weapon into combat, because you're a specialist(most of the time).
You're either a rifleman, or a specialist. A specialist can be a sniper, a specialist can be an anti-tank soldier walking around with a rocket lancher on his shoulder, a specialist can be a machine gun crew operating.... a machine gun.
The secondary weapons are usually personal and reflect your tast, just like in the army and poilce here you have a secondary pistol that is usually hidden, to defend yourself when the weapon jams, runs out of ammunition or other bad situations happen.
But this doesn't happen. You always have ammunition in these games, the weapons never jam or break. Therefore you do have a point, but in the other hand the more weapons you have the less time you will use each of the individualy.
Most importantly, in todays multiplayer games you simulate the military - each has its own speciality, whether you are carrying a sniper rifle, a machine gun (do they still do this?), a medical kit, a rocket lancher and so on.
In addition to that, you don't have training in every single f**king gun there is on the planet.
You might know how to handle a rifle and a sub-machine gun, but perhaps your hands are too shakey and you haven't gone through the necessary training to hit an apple 800 meters away.

 

[Soulgaunt]

Yeah, I get what you mean. Although in some cases it does fit, in others it would be downright annoying. I don't think I'd be able to play Borderlands or Fallout if you could only carry two weapons...

 

[AmrasCalmacil]

Its the realism thing.
Realistically you can't carry an entire arsenal around, I remember seeing a RoosterTeeth video where they tried to.

If you want to make your game about soldiers running around some gritty warzone then they can't keep a BFG up their arse just incase they need to create a black hole or something.

Fair's fair if you want to make a big dumb game where your character has infinite pockets and carries enough weaponry to worry the entire united states, you shouldn't be kept to two weapons all the time. But in what we can call the standard or generic first person game of this age, infinite pocket space does not make sense.

I don't exactly like the two weapon restriction, don't get me wrong.
Personally I prefer Rainbow Six: Vegas 2's system of allowing you two primary weapons and a side-arm.

 

[TimeLord]

Copy paste from my post in the DNF thread.


"What? Seriously? There have been hundreds of games on PS2 where you can carry more than two weapons. Off the top of my head I pull Red Faction 1+2, where you could carry as many weapons as you could find on the level at one time.

Hell! RF1 eventually let you carry every single weapon in the game because it was an awesome game and didn't have defined levels and so let you keep all your weapons and ammo so you reached the point where you were running through a space station on a time limit to get to the escape pods before it exploded and you had to take out enemies along the way by switching from anything to the Control Baton to a Fusion Rocket Lancher to a RailGun to 8/9 different other weapons at any time.

And as for the mighty boot/Bulletstorm type thing?

Bullshit Gearbox. Bullshit.
Now I'm annoyed and am going to play a proper old school FPS because the one game I thought could break from power armoured slow ass space marines with 2 weapons has crashed and burned at my feet."

 

[Ponce Master-General]

DEATH TO THE 2 WEAPON LIMIT!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, it was kind of cool in Halo, but it's kind of starting to get ridiculous, with games that downright parody modern realistic shooters (Bulletstorm, Duke Nukem etc.) having this bullshit fucking limit in them.

And while we're talking about gameplay mechanics that need to drink some lead based paint and retard themselves out of existance, DEATH TO REGENERATING HEALTH!!!!!!!!!!

 

[4RM3D]

In FEAR you could only carry 4 weapons out of 8ish that existed. You could argue that because of that you need to make a more tactical choice as to which weapons you are gonna carry and trying to get the best mix for every situation. But it doesn't really make the game more tactical. It does make the game more realistic, but not in a way that actually improves the game.

I don't like it. I'm a loot whore, a pack rat. I wanna carry everything. In Fallout I had enough guns in my backpack to start World War III with.

 

[Treblaine]

Honestly, I like to keep things realistic, but you can carry more than just a single long weapon and sidearm.

What do you mean by "realistic" do you mean ARMA levels of realism or do you mean "BLOODY SCREEN! So real!" kind of superficial realism?

The kind that says you can't carry more than 2 guns at once regardless of their size or weight also can survive being shot 3 times in the chest and all you have to do to completely recover is duck behind a bush for 10 seconds.

I can see the benefit of 2-weapon-switch, it is a focused system ideal for fast-paced multiplayer but in a single player game with structure and progression you need more flexibility and variety.

At the very least an options menu to swap guns in an out like Ocarina of Time, where you'd have 3 items in your C-pad selected from inventory screen. So if you find a new gun on the ground you can just pick it up and if you need it much later, look in your inventory. Then for multiplayer just eliminate that inventory with the pause menu (can't pause a multiplayer game anyway).

Instead for multiplayer, have recreate the pause-item-menu in the create-a-class style preparation menu with items unlocked by accomplishments in multiplayer.

 

[Kuchinawa212]

Well Crisis 2 allows two weapons, a rocketlauncher, and c4
it's a step in the right direction
(except this one weird part of the game where I had 3 guns )

 

[MoNKeyYy]

I actually like the system. I hink it makes things harder and more strategic. "Hmm, I know I'm going into a tight spaced area so I better have a shotgun or SMG handy because the sniper I've been using won't be even marginally useful" and that kind of thing. I like how it forces players to adapt their inventory and combat syle to fit different situations and forces them to budget ammo and always have different scenarios in mind.

That said, I also like the other style where you can tank into a room with you're array of super powered weapons and blast the shit out of everything in a display of crazy over the top fun. I just don't think it's fair to call the system bullcrap just because you prefer the other one. I prefer pepsi, but I still enjoy coke.

 

[manythings]

Boo hoo, you want all your weapons with you so you don't have to make any decisions.

Well it's fine so long as there aren't any bullshit moments where you took weapons X and Y but for this boss/situation you need weapon Z.

OT: On the whole I don't care in the slightest. Depends on the game and if I'm not playing it with friends chances are I'm not playing that shooter.

 

[sluggyfreelancer]

While I agree that certain games would be better off with more than 2 guns it's going to be annoying how many threads pop up because of DNF all complaining about this.

 

[Mike Laserbeam]

It's not that bad, is it? I mean, it's not like good games are suffering because of it. It just so happens that the games with this 2 weapon system often happen to be games I could do without playing, or sometimes I simply don't mind it because it fits the game.
I can't think of any games that this has ruined (or at least ones I've cared about).
So let it go on...

 

[TimeLord]

Boo hoo, you want all your weapons with you so you don't have to make any decisions.

I'd argue that having 15 different weapons means you a have a decision on the best and most fun way to insert bullets into the enemy torso.

 

[Jegsimmons]

it really depends on the game,
Half life can have more than two because of its content and the rarity of some weapons
Halo can stay with two because thats all you need, i dont to fight with groups of peope with sniper/shotgun/rocket launcher/assault rifle combo. it would ruin the game.
Battlefield is realistic in its load out because its based on realism, one main gun and a side arm. (also carrying more than one pain weapons with side arms and attachments is cumbersome and would get soldiers killed in real life)

so it really depends on the game. But the makers of DNF were just being lazy.

 

[blackfrancis567]

They are just games weapon limits are the thing now nothing we can do about it

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

Some people think having an entire armory in your back pocket can make a game too easy. So, introduce only carrying X amount of weapons.

Don't care for it either way: I like it, it forces me to think of the pros and cons of the weapon and it's so easy to pull the next one out; but having a lot of weapons is fun.