Poll: Enough with this 2-weapon limit bullcrap

[Jabberwock xeno]

Depends on game.

Duke Nukem shouldn't have the limit, some games should.

Also:

- Halo wasn't the first FPS to have the two weapon limit.

- And in case anbody has or plans to bring it up, Halo didn't even have regenerating health. You had shields, but your actually health was a non healing bar under that. (Which i think is better than just regen or bar)

Well yeah, but you DID die within 2-4 Grunt shots when your shields were down. Halo gave you fuck-all health.

Depends on what weapon they were using and diffculty.

 

[ameemo]

i understand the realism thing but in all honesty i play games to escape from realism, it's supposed to be a game after all. and if game developers say carrying only 2 guns at a time is realistic and want their games to be realistic and then at the same time say only one man can save the world as realistic. Let's face it in real life you cannot be a one man army and save the entire planet from destruction. So if all that can be achieved, why do they have to tie some things down with concepts of realism when everything else is just implausible from realistic view point.

 

[Ih8pkmn]

I thought we played games to escape from reality, not to experience it. So why only 2 weapons? I mean, the original Half-Life let you carry around no less than 14 weapons. Not very realistic, but fun as hell!

 

[Haelium]

I favour a new advanced system where you can hypothetically carry as many weapons(and ammo, equipment etc) as you like, but the more weapons you carry the more your movement is impaired. So you could be a walking armoury but can barely move, or a light-weight recon guy with nothing more than a battle rifle, a pistol and a few mags. I for one would play most games with pistols and nothing else(Like I did in MW2 where duel M9s could stand up to most ARs in CQB)

 

[rokkolpo]

I don't hate the 2 weapons thing.

But the duke should not ever be bound to less than 8.
EVER!
I'd sooner give him 42 weapons (Borderlands) than take one from him.

 

[Pyro Paul]

I wish people would stop bringing this 'Realism' thing into this argument... the 2 weapon set up has absolutely nothing to do with realism and everything to do with game fluidity. Simply said, if you give the player more then 2 guns at any given time you're making the game a lot more difficult.

When you have 3 types of melee weapons or 8 types of hand guns getting to that one specific which would be the best for this situation is a trial in and of itself, exspecially when in the throes of heated combat.

In games like Half-Life, Doom, and Quake you'll often get 'item confused' as you try to quick switch to a specific gun and pull up something completely diffrent. You'll throw Grenades when you wanted to shoot rockets... Pull up a pea shooter pistol instead of a magnum... or worst of all, pull out High Damage AoE weapons in close combat.

this effect can be seen in any game that has a selection that has more then 2 primary tools...
Deus Ex, Terraria, MineCraft, Garry's Mod, Red Dead Redemption, Resident Evil 5, just to name a few.

This is so well known an effect that it has long since been a factor in fast paced competative First Person Shooting games from the Orginal Team Fortress to Counter Strike.


you want players to be shooting...
not juggling weapons...

 

[Kair]

But they just want to make the game a bit more plausible!

- It's the DUKE. His very existence is implausible.

 

[Ninjamedic]

Play Arma 2 and you'll realize how stupid you saying "realistic mechanics" dumb down FPSs. Also, you may not be psychic, but everyone learns through the mistakes they make. The process of learning gives off a rewarding feeling to a player. Also, all weapons are able to deal death, they may not be as efficent as another weapon but you can still kill with it, so picking the wrong weapon is not a death sentence. Play Halo, it illustrates my point very well.

Not every weapon can counter every threat, and in most ""realistic"" shooters, unless you need absolutely need a sniper you will always go with an assault rifle or SMG since they are the best at mid range combat (and unless its a sniper level, that's all you will be doing). And we're not talking about ARMA, we're talking about Duke Nukem, a game where realism and logic will at times not apply.

PS ArBeater: 2-weapon limit leads far more to tedium than strategy. In practice the developers use this as an excuse to magically provide the weapon they need at implausibly right moment... though more often than not you are left stranded with woefully unsuited weapons.


You can't be strategic as you have zero overview, you have no way of anticipating who or what you will encounter.

Example of this: in Warhammer 40,000: Fire Warrior, the final boss can only be killed by one weapon, the chain gun. A few notes:
-The game gives you no indication of what gun to use.
-Your primary weapon is fixed forcing you to rely on it for ALL of your opponents. (and it has a LOW ammo capacity)
-The Chain gun was established earlier on in the game as being useless except for dealing with only the weakest of mooks (which cease to appear in the last quarter of the game.)

End Result? Tearing your hair out in frustration thinking the boss is glitched and is invulnerable until you read online what its weakness is, forcing you to haul a wasted weapon slot across an entire level fighting god knows what.

2-weapon systems only work for few games. They aren't an evolution in the genre.

 

[Jungy 365]

To be honest, I don't lean either way. If I want to switch out my style of play, I'll swap for a new weapon, with little hassle. However, I see your point that far too many people use it. I think that different games should adopt different limits, depending on what works for them. If you find that you'll never really need more than two weapons, then by all means, keep the 2-weapon limit. If the player finds they need more weapons for a game where the course of battle can change at moments notice, then don't compensate for the sake of familiarity, and increase the limit. It's logic, people.

 

[Ham Blitz]

I wouldn't say I have a problem with the system, it just depends on the game type and weapons available.
Duke Nukem Forever I kind of see as not being as good for the system, or at least for my imagination of what the game will be like. The main reason I say this is that, assuming it keeps all of the guns from Duke Nukem 3d, sume of the guns are not that effective but fun to carry around and occasionally use, like the shrink ray for example. I enjoyed using that gun, but looking at the demo, you will have to be sure to rapidly shrink and stomp every one in the room (assuming it's close quarters) or look like a raging durp as you get mowed down by bullets.
The game may still be fun, and I am still planning on waiting for reviews before buying it (That was my plan since I heard of it coming out).

 

[Marik2]

It all depends on the game really.

 

[Palademon]

I'm not against the idea. I'm against it being everywhere.

It shouldn't have been in Duke Nukem. And Duke Nukem shouldn't play like I need to be in cover every three seconds.

I was hoping Duke Nukem could defy this so people see joy in how it was before, then hopefully Crytek UK would be able to make TimeSplitters 4 to begin to rekindle this classic idea, so both the realistic and arcadey FPS can live in harmony.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Honestly, I feel like most games should let you carry at least 4 weapons with you, and let you switch between them with the D-pad, since the vast majority of shooters DON'T EVEN USE THE D-PAD.

 

[zehydra]

Why does it need to be resigned? Why can't you have some of both?

 

[Chiasm]

They really need to make a "bullet hell" first person shooter; where all you do is shoot one gun till it runs out of ammo, drop it, and pick up a nearby random gun from a enemy.

Giving the game a John Wu action feeling of fire,drop, pick up, fire; all while in the middle of huge shootouts. Plus it makes guns feel expendable and at the same time forces players to fire more accurately with limited ammo in each gun they grab.

 

[DustyDrB]

If Turok 2 had only allowed you to hold two weapons, you'd never have been able to carry around the cerebral bore, the PM layer, the thing that shot sawblades or the Nuke, simply because you wouldn't be able to carry find enough ammo for your other, practical gun.

Or the ricochet gun! I didn't like that game, but man it had some awesome guns.

OP: I only like two or three FPS games, but even I'm against the weapon limit. What I'm even more against is developers blaming consoles for such a limitation. How can you know so little about games when you're a freaking developer. The list of console games that allow you to carry far more than two weapons could fill a book. Don't try to make consoles into a scapegoat when you're just really trying to cut corners and do a half-assed job.

And realism? Really? I thought we'd gotten over that ridiculous pursuit.

 

[nifedj]

Obviously the two weapon system doesn't work well in every game. However, I think it's a brilliant mechanic in the right context.

For example, in Halo, if you carried a rocket launcher everywhere then fights with enemy vehicles would end up being very boring. EMPing, highjacking and vehicle-on-vehicle combat might not be the most efficient way to deal with them but IMO it's more fun than just shooting them all with a Spartan Laser from as far away as possible.

 

[Grabbin Keelz]

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.

That's the kindof thing that would work in a team playing game like CoD or TF2, but in Duke Nukem you ARE the team. In games like Fallout 3, Half Life, and Bioshock, you're a one man army. You don't have a 'rifle' guy and a 'machine gun' guy, there's just you. Since I'm on my own, I want all the equipment that's fit for any job I have to do. However, having so many weapons in a sense has it's own responsibility, which is managing ammo and stock and making sure that you don't run out at a crucial moment. This system also allows me to use different weapons for a variety of different kills when I want to, which to me is fun. As for training, there are rp elements like in Borderlands that make you better with specific weapons, but if you use different ones you can get better at using those too, that's the kind of realism I like.

 

[Waaghpowa]

Why does it need to be resigned? Why can't you have some of both?

This, but it probably wont happen. As stated previously by others, some games, i.e. Battlefield, should have 2-3 weapons max since it's what real soldiers would do. When it comes to sci fi games, i.e. Crysis, Duke, you shouldn't be hindered to simply 2 weapons. Hell, Crysis 1 let you carry 2 primary weapons, pistol, rocket launcher and various grenades and had the option of putting your guns away and pummeling a guys face in with your fists like he was Justin Beiber.

 

[chromewarriorXIII]

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

Exactly. I like how it was handled in Siphon Filter: The Omega Strain. The game let you carry more than 2 weapons but it showed you exactly where all the weapons were.

It had:
Back: On your back - Shotgun, assault rifle, sniper rifle, ect.
Sidearm: At your hip - Pistol
Auxiliary: Hanging from the front of you - SMGs usually
Grenade
Melee

That's at least one more weapon than most games. You could always add another option and have non-lethal grenades if you want too (that game made you choose which you were going to use).

I think that this system would work much better while still being realistic.

Of course, I wouldn't mind if they just ditched the limit altogether and let you carry as much guns as you wanted.