Poll: Enough with this 2-weapon limit bullcrap

[SL33TBL1ND]

Depends on the game really, but I was kinda pissed at the weapon limit in DNF.

 

[WilliamRLBaker]

""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.""

Compared to the implasuable carrying 10 rocket launchers, 4 or more grenades, smg, pistol, assault rifle, cross bow, another type of smg..etc?

Id rather have realism and then being able to take the tank down with something other then a rocket launcher or a team mate bringing one with him then being able to carrying around every weapon in the game...

 

[Dogstile]

Duke Nukem should not have a 2 weapons system, thats obvious to anyone who actually liked the old Duke Nukem games
HOWEVER saying no games should have it makes you as open minded as Hitler
it worked for halo, it worked for gears of war, it does not work for the classical character of Duke

This. This right here. Does it even matter? Pick one you like and one that'll save your ass if you need to use it.

Or, you could, I don't know, buy a different game. Christ, I was originally buying duke because I liked the special edition. Now i'm doing it out of SPITE.

and yo, if you played the demo you'd know, there is no having a weapon you'd like, the game isn't that nice. you will need the railgun for sniping(which is in itself an insult to Duke) a shotgun for close range, and about 50 rpgs for bosses/armored units. thats already more weapons then you can carry. guns like freeze ray and shrink ray are going to go largely unused.

As a point, i'll admit to have not played it, not had time to download.

That said, I watched the cynical brit play through the demo on hard, which is the next best thing and I stand by my point. You wanna play randomly with random weapons? Play on easy, it'll be the cakewalk you remember from the old dukes and it won't matter what weapons you use

 

[Rayne870]

Snip

You're on the right path with old game inventories being better, but the choice was wrong you picked the one that you have to pause the game flip through inventories set the item into a button and then use it.

When you could have just gone with the Turok 2 weapon system which had both a cycling system or if you preferred a 2 tier wheel selection similar to Mass Effect, but without the pausing.

 

[Evilsanta]

I really do miss the "Hammer space inventory" mechanic. I don't know how Max Payne would be with a 2 weapong limit but my guess is that it would suck.

Yes, the 2 weapong limit makes you "think tactically", but I call that bs. You only use the guns that the goons drop. Like in Crysis, you SCAR was more or less useless as you never found any goddamn ammo for it so had to settle for the AK's your enemies carrys. Tactical and adeption my ass.

Though I guess it depends on the game.

 

[Treblaine]

My only real input is that two weapon limits do not add any extra level of difficulty.

I can't recall a point since Halo when I thought "Crap, I've only got two guns."

2 Guns is boring, but it is easier to balance for PVP. That's the reason they do it, because single player stopped being a selling point for developers about 5 years ago.

Multiplayer takes less effort and less resources, but you still get the full price tag, it's good business.

As much as I hate to admit that you are probably right, about selling points at least.

The last two Call of Duty games have really had pants-on-head-retarded plots, but worse than that the gameplay is so short, linear and unchallenging. It just rushes through the whole thing with the conceit "lets get this over with and play the multiplayer". Single-player isn't even a preparation for multiplayer anymore, the controls are too different (particularly snap-to aim assist).

The thing about CoD multiplayer is each new annual iteration doesn't do anything more than tweak things a bit. Activision has convinced us to buy the SAME GAME multilayer game 4 times now; CoD4, WaW, MW2, Blops.

It's the same game with a few tweaks and new maps and weapons.

To be fair Team Fortress 2 has done essentially the same thing (like CoD4, released in 2007) only they haven't had the gall to charge $60 for year for the upgrade! They've actually gone the other way, every time they roll out new free content they put TF2 on sale for anyone new who wants to come to the party. And TF2 was originally sold as a bundle of 5 games!

I don't know why I should care about Modern Warfare 3's multiplayer, they will make a few changes here and there, some improvements but also many detriments. But really there won't be any major reason to move on from even CoD4. Anyone can build on that, it's more a question of not screwing up.

And you know what, the 2-weapon-limit actually makes sense in a multiplayer game where the match only lasts 10-minutes and you are only going to survive about 30 to 60 seconds on average. And of course you know EXACTLY what kind of enemies you will be encountering and in what kind of environment as the map doesn't swap mid-round.

But in an single-player FPS game with adventure and exploration you really cannot be so limited. You are NOT constantly dying and selecting new weapons every respawn. You are collecting loot and powering up.

Back in the good old days, multiplayer games and single-player games were not bundled together. Quake 3 was multiplayer only. As well as Unreal Tournament, Counter-strike and so on. Then there were single-player only games like Max Payne, Half life, System Shock 2 and so on that focused on being great adventures. They focused on what they were good at and didn't try to be both.

I don't get it, are publishers so afraid to charge $60 they think "well we better add another mode, even if it is so shit no one would actually buy it separately at least it looks good on paper".

Hmm, now that I think about it, it is inevitable that a load of mouthy hacks (journalists) will knock off 10% from the metascore with bullshit like:
"This may be the best multiplayer I have ever played, and even though I normally play the online 100x more than campaign - if even playing the campaign at all - I'm going to arbitrarily say that an online-only game for $60 is a rip-off! 7/10 They should have wasted a lot of time making a campaign mode, even if it was shitty and most people don't care about it."

If Activision wants Call of Duty to still be relevant it needs to admit that its campaign mode is bullshit and irrelevant. Put 100% effort into the mutliplayer and don't waste our time with a shitty single-player. This could apply for most franchises like Halo and Gears but isn't Battlefield 3 doing this already? An entirely multiplayer focused game? Because that Is what brings in a Billion Dollars every year, not the single player but the multiplayer community.

Uhh, this has gone kinda off topic.

I suppose my point is if CoD campaign and CoD multiplayer were trully treated as separate games then it would be far easier to have an inventory fit for multiplayer (i.e. a large one) while an online-only would have a more streamlined inventory.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

Every game I have ever played when there is no restricted weapon inventory has had horribly unbalanced weapons where you would just always use the rocket launcher/equivelant. maybe I've just missed the gold hidden in that shitpile, but I would rather stick to more balanced gameplay and weapons. also, If you can have a massive stack of weapons online, that means the weapons HAVE to be on map, and on map weapons where you can carry loads of them = one person hoarding them all and owning the map.

EDIT: on a seperate note, Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker has two seperate inventories which work brilliantly and are easy to manage, and you can even customise your management of them. You can choose between tapping to switch to next weapon, cycling through three, or simply unequipping, and just hold if you want to be more specific. and that's on the PSP, if they can manage it, so can consoles.

 

[Weealzabob]

It depends on the weapons system. When you have a Call of Duty "realistic" shooter style, where dozens of guns fit into a handful of classes. (assault rifle, shotguns, snipers) Than I don't mind, it's just your personnal preference.
But with games like Resistance 2, where the guns have a wide varity of individual concepts, then I absolutely loath it. It just feels like you're being forced to only sample the bizarre guns, against the unfortunately nearby allies of the gun's previous owner.

 

[Jack Cheal]

no, its useless, i can understand the ability to carry only a couple of weapons, but when a pistol counts as a weapon the same as a sniper rifle or shotgun, then something needs to change,I don't see why we cant go back to the fun days of duke and carry ten rocket launchers and use them all if we get bored.

 

[Charmi the ninja]

This wil never be a "standard" in gaming and neither is it a "trend". Developers that enforce this have definitely put careful thought into how this restriction would affect gameplay and the response of the gamer.
Most games that give you a two weapon limit, encourage tactical thinking and are designed to make the player think about a plan of action and enemy abilities before running in guns ablaze.
Now, I know this topic has most probably been created in response to the Duke game, and I have to agree, that for a duke game it doesn't make sense. But nonetheless, it is a rule of the game, and I will play by it. In situation like this I just think of it as a challenge rather than a restriction.
So instead of asking "whhhyyy?!!!" or whining about the developers decisions, I grab my controller and say...

Peace.

 

[Nikk Sixx]

For a single player campaign, 2 weapon limit's need to be abolished.
Multiplayer online modes however, should keep it

 

[Treblaine]

People are clamering for an old school shooter?

So why did NO ONE buy Painkiller until Yahtzee recommended it?

Why did PREY not sell very well (though thankfully well enough for a sequel).

Why is Half Life 2 Episode 3 so far down the priority list at Valve that it's not even on the radar?

Consumers talk with their wallets and their wallets are the reason that copy-cat games like Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Home front are even made. CODMW:Whatever is one of the hottest games on the market for a reason. Because people LIKE IT. If they didn't like it they wouldn't be buying it. If gamers are sick of that crap then QUIT BUYING IT.


And by the way I would hardly call Halo a "realistic shooter". 2-weapon limit or not, it's as cartoony as they come and it's one of the top sellers of this console generation so go figure.


I'll buy DNF when it comes out but I don't care whether I can carry 2 weapons or 10. What matters is the game play style and the 2 weapon limit is such an inconsequential part of that style. What's important is how the characters move, how it looks, how the story goes, etcetera. Two weapon limit is pure nitpicking and at the end of the day it's not going to mean crap all.

Well part of the problem is marketing, NO BODY knows about these games. Yahtzee's genuine love of the game was effective marketing, EARNED marketing by being such a good game. Rather than bought recognition like CoD TV-spots.

The publishers can only think in terms of derivation, they see the games that copy CoD and Halo as safe bets for putting their marketing muscle behind.

Prey had other problems, beyond the weapons loadout for why it didn't sell well. Mostly that most people had no idea what the game was about, interestingly when Prey went on Sale on steam the digital copy SOLD OUT! Yes, it was downloaded so many times it broke the system:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Prey-Pc-Game-Steam-Digital,9334.html

You also seem quick to dismiss the likes of:
-Half life 2 and Episodes (Episode 3 = Half Life 3, it's not ready yet)
-GTA 4
-Red Dead Redemption
-Batman: Arkham Asylum (OK, not guns but loads of different weapons)
-All those Zelda games
-Bioshock
-Borderlands
-STALKER (weight limit, no semantic limit)
-Resident Evil 4 & 5

Notice the theme here, all highly single-player focused. Bioshock 2 had an online, but that was shiiiit.

But you know what makes games sell REALLY well this generation? Multiplayer.

And for multiplayer a smaller inventory is ideal with small consistent maps, with consistent enemies and fast encounters you're lucky to survive more than 60 seconds per life in a 10 minute match.

Single-player is highly undervalued in sales as it can never get the critical mass that multiplayer games get, how millions of people buy a game RIGHT NOW because their friends are buying it as well. Activision didn't make over a Billion dollars from Black Ops from it's shitty single player.

The problem here is Duke Nukem Forever, and other highly single-player focused and dependant games, have gone for the 2 weapon limit that isn't suited for a single-player adventure. And Duke is on an adventure with progression and varying enemies and situation, you want to have a wider variety of weapons for every given encounter.

No single-player game will ever sell better this gen than a multiplayer-deathmatch focused online game. No matter how good it is, getting a critical mass of millions of people playing online for hours and hours is a huge appeal for people to get in on the action.

You have to admit, for a single-player more weapons IS better.

Artificially limited to only 2 may be "manageable" or "tolerable" but is not a beneficial.

 

[Jack Cheal]

This functions just the same as "Tap Y to change weapon" in combat, the difference is you keep a hold of all your guns in your inventory. So if some big mecha appears out of no where you can still pull a grenade launcher from your inventory rather than go on ANOTHER BLOODY FETCH QUEST looking for one.

And this applies perfectly for console:

Hold Y = bring up analogue wheel for weapon select
Tap Y = alternate between last 2 weapons selected

you know what i just realised, ratchet and clank used this system and its bloody awesome..
hold the button to bring up quick select, but with only limited spaces it gives you the necessity for tactical decisions while still allowing variety. thats what they need to do.

 

[Shio]

I am sick and tired of people making blanket statements about game mechanics.

I agree, the two-weapon limit does not belong in Duke Nukem. It's a game that would do best to play off its old-school heritage, and if there's a focus on really fun weapons it should not require you to trade a reliable weapon for one that might be fun to use. I agree on that.

But that simply does not translate to "two-weapon limit is bad." I know there were complaints back in the day about how impossible it was for the character to hold 20 different weapons at once. It just doesn't make sense. For the sake of realism (not that the cardinal goal of every shooter should be realism), and also because it makes you really consider your strategy and gameplay style before getting a new weapon, it is not a bad mechanic. It simply belongs in some games and not in others; that does not make it universally bad.

Game design is far too dynamic and artistic to paint any one mechanic as universally, objectively bad. Don't do it, it makes you look whiny.

Very well said.

Seriously, it's called strategy. If you don't want that, play Doom.

 

[tzimize]

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.

You hit the nail on the head with the last part of the last sentence.

Having a lot of weapons IS fun. Then you dont have to prioritize on most effective weapons, you can have them all. And if you want to blow up a sniper instead of countersnipe...you CAN. Man I wish more developers got this :|

 

[Ranorak]

A few pointers.

Anyone making the argument about realism. This is Duke Nukem we're talking about. He eats Realism for breakfast and doesn't afraid of anything!

Dumbed down for consoles?
Play Time Splitters 3, you'll see it works just fine there.

Tactics? Again, Duke Nukem. He doesn't do tactics he presses the trigger and stuff dies.

I wanted this game to be a fast, fun, arcade shooter. not a back-track-for-that-rocket-launcher-shooter.

Unless of course they make everything vulnerable to everything.
I suppose I can live with the idea that I just mighty-footed a tank.

 

[Ninjat_126]

This functions just the same as "Tap Y to change weapon" in combat, the difference is you keep a hold of all your guns in your inventory. So if some big mecha appears out of no where you can still pull a grenade launcher from your inventory rather than go on ANOTHER BLOODY FETCH QUEST looking for one.

And this applies perfectly for console:

Hold Y = bring up analogue wheel for weapon select
Tap Y = alternate between last 2 weapons selected

you know what i just realised, ratchet and clank used this system and its bloody awesome..
hold the button to bring up quick select, but with only limited spaces it gives you the necessity for tactical decisions while still allowing variety. thats what they need to do.

Ninja'd. Ratchet and Clank (1) had a quick select menu which you could assign guns and items to, as well as a menu in the pause menu where you could pick them all.


Resistance 2 removed the weapon wheel. That removed strategy.

Instead of looking at the incoming enemies and picking an appropriate weapon, I'd just pick up whatever I found on the floor.

I liked having to toss up between Bullseye and Carbine in firefights, or toss up whether or not to waste Fareye ammo on the Slipskulls...

 

[Ninjamedic]

It isn't fake difficulty. It is called learning through playing. As a ten year old I could grasp this concept when playing it for the first time. Apparently you can't which is actually quite pathetic. And the process you describe NEVER happened to me or any of the people who played games with two weapon limits, so wither you suck at such games or you're lying.

Did you even read my example? The reason you never have these problems in """realistic""" shooters is because you are always fighting people or vehicles. And when the weapon choice is so bland, there is little to no thought process in picking a weapon since all guns kill people and the devs ALWAYS conveniently spawn a rocket launcher whenever you need to fight a tank/helicopter (great choice there mate).

However in an arcade style shooter there's sometimes no telling what can appear for a boss and if he is weak to only one weapon, under the two weapon system you'd have to play the entire level again with a wasted weapon slot. Never mind the fact that unless your psychic or the Devs place a sign saying "USE THE FLAMETHROWER YOU STUPID ****" you WILL go to that boss without the right weapon forcing you to to re-do the level with a handicap. Would you honestly think that is fair?

 

[Treblaine]

i don't think they do it that way because they think we're too stupid, i'll use army of two as my example... they're hoping we'll have the common sense to pick the 2 weapons we think would be most effective for our campaign.

i'm not saying having a shit ton of weapons isn't awesome, but more and more gamers are calling for realism........ honestly i could go either way on this

But you don't know what is around the corner.

OR

The weapons, enemies and environment are so vanilla that it doesn't matter what you use.

No need to take an explosive weapon, you will only ever encounter the same infantry-type-enemy over and over and over again. Same range, same environment, same pace.

"but more and more gamers are calling for realism"

WHERE!?!? And is a semantic limit on "just 2 weapons" even realistic? A realistic system is an inventory grid and weight limit, do you really think people want that?