Poll: Enough with this 2-weapon limit bullcrap

Recommended Videos

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Ninjamedic said:
Again you didn't address his points, you just said "everyone has their own preferences".
The problem is we start talking about inherent merits, it seems he was so sure he is right when I destroy his argument he feels the need to distort the argument as being about just sharing and respecting each others opinion.

Respect for others' opinion is NOT the same as being forced to concede they have a point.

He hasn't got any reasonable explanation for why DN:F should have a 2-weapon-limit or why such a hard and fast rule is so great when it is applied.

I think he is quite simply most familiar with the 2-weapon-limit from games like Halo and CoD and is conservative enough to be afraid and dismissive of anything that tries to be different. Oh course, you can easily back this up with "it's my opinion/preference".

But that's just the opinion of prejudice and bias.

There is no discussion relative to shared and agreed values.
 

Savber

New member
Feb 17, 2011
262
0
0
Depends on the point of the game.

If I'm playing a historical shooter or something of that sort I want to carry the average amount that a soldier can realistically carry into combat.

If it's about a dude killing aliens, I want to wield billions of guns and let loose on any bastards that come my way.
 

Fishyash

Elite Member
Dec 27, 2010
1,154
0
41
I think there should be more games with no weapon limit.

IMO the two weapon limit can add a bit of choice into the game, and if combined with good level design it can work fine.

However there are some instances where you just want to have a weapon for every situaton, as long as level design makes it work(lots of different enemies and formations), it's great.

So in conclusion, I think it's down to the case of level design. Having all weapons doesn't really feel special since you're likely going to be using the same one if all the enemies are similar and have the same weakness and same formations with similar terrain, and two weapon doesn't work well if there's too much variety with enemies without having to inexplicably add the convenient weapon just before that segment.
 

Ninjamedic

New member
Dec 8, 2009
2,569
0
0
Treblaine said:
Ninjamedic said:
Again you didn't address his points, you just said "everyone has their own preferences".
The problem is we start talking about inherent merits, it seems he was so sure he is right when I destroy his argument he feels the need to distort the argument as being about just sharing and respecting each others opinion.

Respect for others' opinion is NOT the same as being forced to concede they have a point.

He hasn't got any reasonable explanation for why DN:F should have a 2-weapon-limit or why such a hard and fast rule is so great when it is applied.

I think he is quite simply most familiar with the 2-weapon-limit from games like Halo and CoD and is conservative enough to be afraid and dismissive of anything that tries to be different. Oh course, you can easily back this up with "it's my opinion/preference".

But that's just the opinion of prejudice and bias.

There is no discussion relative to shared and agreed values.
I am just going to take this a minor victory given I didn't really get a valid reply beyond "I am not going to discuss your points, everyone has their opinions so that makes me right" And to think we are in a forum entitled "Gaming Discussion".

Off topic would you say the serious Sam games are any good?
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Ninjamedic said:
Off topic would you say the serious Sam games are any good?
Probably better than Duke Nukem. Seems to have more original weapons and enemies.

Though it lacks polish that can hold it back in places, not that it gets boring jsut a bit frustrating.

Overall I'd recommend it over 90% of the games that end up of annual Top-10 lists.
 

Ninjamedic

New member
Dec 8, 2009
2,569
0
0
Treblaine said:
Ninjamedic said:
Off topic would you say the serious Sam games are any good?
Probably better than Duke Nukem. Seems to have more original weapons and enemies.

Though it lacks polish that can hold it back in places, not that it gets boring jsut a bit frustrating.

Overall I'd recommend it over 90% of the games that end up of annual Top-10 lists.
Well then, TO STEAM. AWAAAAAAY!!
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Ninjamedic said:
Treblaine said:
Ninjamedic said:
Off topic would you say the serious Sam games are any good?
Probably better than Duke Nukem. Seems to have more original weapons and enemies.

Though it lacks polish that can hold it back in places, not that it gets boring jsut a bit frustrating.

Overall I'd recommend it over 90% of the games that end up of annual Top-10 lists.
Well then, TO STEAM. AWAAAAAAY!!
You know what I like about it? You really have to use strategy with each enemy.

See CoD you can play like Time Crisis. Just advance to cover as bullets, explosion fly everywhere and occasionally pop out of cover to shoot the enemies (also periodically popping from cover) with your good-for-every-job assault rifle till they are all dead. Advance, rinse, repeat.

Now in Serious Sam you don't have an assault rifle equivalent, you don't have that one gun that will do it. Think about it, an CoD assault rifle is a full-auto hitscan weapon, 30 round capacity, and kills 1n 1-2 shots. Yet it doesn't FEEL like a powerful weapon and your enemies never put much pressure on you as they rarely root you out from cover you can pick them off at your leisure.

Serious Sam is a game with many different types of guns each that stands of with its owns strengths yet each its own weaknesses.

You meet these skeletal horsemen that charge you, huge HP and FAST but they can't change direction quickly. You basically have to be a bullfighter, daring them to charge you and at the last moment darting to the side and spinning around giving them a full shotgun blast to their broad side. Now try doing that in an arena where 3 or 4 are circling you at the same time! It gets pretty intense.

Well you can use cover but not the usual "duck behind window, that's enough" of CoD, more running around like a rat in a maze as they will chase you down, you can run but you can't hide. Cover in Serious Sam is for flanking, not taking a rest.

The suicide bombers are the complete opposite, attacking in swarms you have to manage them from a distance as they try to pen you in. You can't stand your ground, you've got to move and give up ground to stay alive.

I've come to see how CoD can manage with 2-weapon limit, by equipping you with an assault rifle that is such an overpowered weapon you don't really need anything else. But is that really fun? A weapon that is OK at everything?

Personally I prefer the Serious Sam way. Shotgun, bolt rifle, submachine gun and so on, pushing each advantage for a particular engagement tactic.
 

franconbean

New member
Apr 30, 2011
251
0
0
The "realistic" games could base the number of weapons you carry based on their weight. Why has no one thought of this before? More to the point, is it worth thinking about?
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Donnyp said:
Until recently it hasn't been that big of an issue. And the only problem is the Minority of people who don't buy games with the 2 weapon limit,
Hang on a minute, I started this thread and my top played games are CoD4, TF2 and Left 4 Dead 1+2. ALL have a 2 weapon limit.

But it is appropriate for those games from their multiplayer focus.

It also somewhat works for CoD4 because you are armed with typically an assault rifle, a weapon that is:
-hitscan
-rapid fire to full auto
-low recoil
-1 to 2 hit kill
-high capacity/quick reload
-grenade launcher for groups/armoured enemies

It's not a very interesting weapon but it will do you for the entire game. This is a reflection of boring old real life, decades of arms development was for a rifle that could do it all: suppressive fire, aimed long range fire, medium burst, high capacity.

But that kind of realism should be niche, not standard across the Industry. Why would Turok follow that model? Or Bulletstorm and especially why Duke Nukem.

This is what people miss about these "old skool" shooters, is you had a load of weapons with great strengths yet great weaknesses, you couldn't just rely on one or two to fight. You had to vary between all of them for the many different enemies and circumstances because your enemies were so tough, numerous and AGGRESSIVE. They will charge at you and keep coming till you are dead or you kill them.
 

Lt. Vinciti

New member
Nov 5, 2009
1,285
0
0
Soulgaunt said:
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...
Bingo.

I love in Fallout 3/NV having an entire arsenal worth of weapons

SITUATION CALLS FOR!

open bag

fire gun

Good Job!

When the hell was Duke Nukem realistic? or even close

and how did Gearbox make it work in Borderlands but not DNF?
 

Hawks_Pride

New member
Oct 29, 2008
40
0
0
I'd prefer a modified Rainbow Six Vegas take on it:

Optional - melee weapon (Knife, sword, hittin' stick. Could be integrated into a separate Melee Attack action)

Sidearm (pistol, short SMG)

Two Primary weapons (Assault/Battle Rifle, Shotgun, Sniper Rifle, LMG)

Optional Heavy weapon (Standalone grenade launcher or somesuch)

The lattermost of those options is best reserved for an enhanced protagonist. A Nanosuit soldier in the Crysis series, for example (and this is pretty much the inventory system of the first game, now I look at it), or, better, Master Chief.
 

Eacaraxe_v1legacy

New member
Mar 28, 2010
1,028
0
0
I'ma just copypasta one of my responses from another thread. I'll just bullet-point it.

Eacaraxe said:
- Trends and standards in FPS games are changing. All I can really say is...well, get over it.

- It's a deliberate design choice made along current trends, and perhaps even a hint of making a game more efficient.

- Despite the existence of hyperspace arsenals players tended to develop a preference for two or three distinct weapons and stick to those, depending upon availability, power, applicability and ease of use

- As long as the player can get their hands on the weapons they prefer, a limited arsenal is sufficient.

- A wide range of choices is still nice. Having that clutch weapon that's of situational use at hand is nice. You still have that in a game with a limited carrying capacity, but it becomes a tactical choice to carry that weapon. This is especially true in a game that has a large selection of underpowered or too-situational-to-be-useful weapons that almost no one uses anyways for no reason other than to pad the arsenal.

- The hyperspace arsenal isn't depth of game play that's been lost to "dumbing down" the genre for a mass audience or for consoles. It's a vestige of early-generation shooters that's been exposed as excessive and unnecessary, dumped in favor of (nominally, anyways) streamlined weapon selections and tactical choice, and longing for those days or raging that it's no longer available is plain nostalgia.
I don't hear anyone pining for the halcyon days of mouse-move. That is yet another vestige of early-generation shooters that was of dubious use and necessity, and went away for very good reason...even if it did trigger me into realizing how bloody fantastic trackballs are for shooting games.
 

crudus

New member
Oct 20, 2008
4,415
0
0
Ok, the two weapon limit can be implemented really well. For example I liked the way it was done in Brute Force. A four person team could carry 8 weapons total. Each had their own specialty so it fit and it worked. Call of Duty wants a more "realistic" approach so it is fine there. Duke Nukem was meant to be silly. He is meant to be overly badass, have fourth-dimensional pockets, bullets dripping out of his pours, etc. What made the game great in the first place was it didn't follow anyone else's rules (barely its own if we go there). The character of Duke Nukem isn't one who would pick up two guns and say "yeah, this is enough". He would hold and fire one with his teeth if he had to.

Treblaine said:
it's everywhere, even in Duke Nukem.
...I don't want to live anymore.
 

ThisIsSnake

New member
Mar 3, 2011
551
0
0
A two weapon system only makes sense in Duke Nukem if one weapon is a standard non changing weapon. The second would be a submachine gun, instead of choosing whether to exchange it for say a shotgun, he duct tapes the shotgun to the smg and duct tapes all subsequent weapons to the smshotgun.
 

Madara XIII

New member
Sep 23, 2010
3,369
0
0
Ponce Master-General said:
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!!!!!!!!!!
My point exactly! I was a FREAKING BEAST with dual wielding Needlers in Halo 2.

Ever since Halo 3 and Reach made them single only, I went from PRO to just quitting halo online as a whole
 

Pyroguekenesis

New member
Jan 20, 2010
240
0
0
HAHAHA! You want many weapons?!

Try Goldeneye 64, there's all guns cheat and you are literally walking around with like 30 weapons, dual-wielding rocket launchers or moonrakers. Other than that even the game gives you so many, like the beginning, you get a PP7, mine, prox mine, Sniper, laser watch :D

If you think about it, its a stupid but reasonable concept.
If you end up carrying around a .50cal SNiper Rifle, Rocket Launcher, laser rifles...you would think it would be hard for your character to carry around, especially in games like CoD where they tend to go with 'realism'.

However, I still think its stupid in a way...I mean, look at the Matrix lobby shootout,
He has a weapons strap around his abdomen for 2 MP5Ks, thigh-holsters for pistols like Lara Croft, not to mention other stuff.

So I think you should be able to carry more but within reason.
Ankle,abdomen,thigh and back holsters make around....8 small arms? Maybe with one or two rifles.

Unless you're like Chow Yun-Fat and can basically storm a place with just a shotgun - Hard Boiled style :D