Poll: Enough with this 2-weapon limit bullcrap

[Swifteye]

This must be a real issue with shooter fans cause as a casual shooter person I don't see this as an issue at all. Just look at it as a challenge I believe that's what it's supposed to be. After all don't people only use one or two weapons most of the time I mean who really uses five weapons?

 

[Vault Citizen]

I'm open to the idea that there are some games it belongs to but it definetly should not be in Duke Nukem Forever

 

[Pyro Paul]

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 10%.

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.

Play any game with a massive weapon list...

Odds are... you'll pick up 2-4 weapons and just play with Them.
Infact, the 4 weapons you'll use the Most are bound to 1, 2, 3 and 4.

This is an undeniable fact because of basic human psychology and design. our hands have difficulty hitting 5-0 with any real sense of control which is why we often don't do it. Developers and designers know this... that is why you'll always have the inventory weighted onto 1-4. If you really want to test this out... play any FPS game and rebind the keys so that your Primary weapon is 5...

The limited weapon selection load out is acctually intended to give weapons more milage as you are more inclined to Use your weapons when you only have 2.

I can tell you for a fact... I shot more Rockets with the Rocket Launcher in Halo then i did with the Rocket Launcher in Half-life 2... And Half-Life 2 Even gave us Endless boxes of Rockets!

Why?

Because when i Picked up an RL in Halo... i Used it because it was one of my only 2 weapons.

 

[ParkourMcGhee]

Yet today games publishers treat us like idiots

Ahh, welcome to the age of casual console gaming. PC gamers feel this doubly a extremely simplified menus and or commands from console ports.

I was going to make a joke about akimbo 3 weapons (again consoleyiish progression), but I think I'll be serious.

Deus ex was a great game, and the inventory (like System shock 2 etc) worked very well by my standards. I think, however, that publishers are A: afraid of over complicating their games and losing a portion of their potential audience (lowest common denominator), and B: See it as a way to cut corners, hell why not? "Everyone else is doing it".

As it stands I'm pretty disappointed with the direction the gaming market is going, but I rest safely in the knowledge that IF all games completely crapped out, and there was only gamers of the old days left, either the (gaming) world would die - or the gamers like me would rise to the challenge and make new ones. God knows I can code, do 3d models, and story myself if need be. I can even do half arsed 2D work. As for sounds and extras, I could improvise. Besides if it was just me, I'd either be hailed as a saviour and various randomers would pitch in, or I'd be the last one there, so again it wouldn't matter.

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

You don't get a sidearm most times, but you do get the odd occasion. Bayonets are almost never issue unless for infantry, and you'd have to be supremely lucky to get your hands on any ordnance - AND - unless you were an american, you'd practically never SEE some things like underslung grenade launchers and the ammo for them (as opposed to people noobtubing constantly).

More than that, the battles would be fought over very different terrain, and under different tactics. Some even more dickwadish than the ones found in current games. Imagine a round of Search and Destroy on COD4. The enemy is about 500m away bunkered in a building, you're on foot with a plain over you and a forest around... you get blown up either arriving at the scene or the claymores and IEDs scattered in the woods that you can't just "shoot down" and range from underground to on a tree, way above your head.

There's realism, and then there's fun. People often mistake the two.

Especially after grinding their senses to a fine powder in games like WoW or even JRPGs.

...


Wow, TWO rants, I'm on fire.

Better not look at other comments, I have revision *excaliburface*.

 

[Jumplion]

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

Because wanting to decide how you want to approach a situation is not a decision, whereas the developers arbitrarily deciding that in this section you need a sniper rifle is.

While I am not completely against the 2-weapon system, it is a heavily over-saturated system used when it does not need to be. The prime example I can think of is Resistance: Fall of Man compared to Resistance 2. In the first Resistance, there was a weapon wheel where you could carry all the available weapons at your disposal. Some weapons did not have plentiful ammo, so you kept them just in case shit hit the fan. This, coupled with a segmented regenerative health system that was a health bar divided into 4 bars that regenerated to the nearest bar, made the game feel much more tactical and slow, letting you decide how to approach a situation.

In Resistance 2, it was stripped to a two weapon system and it had regular regenerating health. This drastically limited your options and made the game much more fast paced and less tactical as its predecessor. Not only that, but it was painfully obvious what weapon would be best for an upcoming fight. Is there going to be a big tank enemy coming up? There's probably a rocket launcher nearby. Is there going to be a swarm of those tall, skinny Chimera things? There's probably going to be a shotgun. You were restricted to what the developers wanted you to do and it gave much much less freedom to approach the game the way you wanted to.

This is why I am really excited about Resistance 3. Not only are they bringing back the health bar, they're bringing back the weapon wheel along with upgradable weapons. You get to choose how to approach the situation, not whatever weapon happens to be lying about.

That said, I do sometimes enjoy the two-weapon system, but only if it is used right. A game like Duke Nukem has no reason to not include a weapon wheel or something to carry all sorts of weapons, and the absence of a health bar is completely the opposite of what it is supposed to be doing. It's a call back to the games of yore, why the hell should I need to take cover after a few measly alien bullets?

 

[Spencer Petersen]

I like having lots of weapons because it turns the combat into a resource based system instead of an easily replenished system. I like picking up enemy weapons and salvaging their ammunition for my own needs, but when you can only hold 2 weapons it means that you can never stock up on resources or prepare for tough fights, making all the fights the same and reducing the need for custom resource use. It saddens me when melee combat gets turned into a one-hit twitch-fest because the idea of actually equipping a knife before using it is apparently so absurd it got wiped from gaming forever. Oh well, at least Valve and Bethesda understand.

Something that should also go is the arbitrary ammunition limit in most games. Im ok if you limit my ammunition by something like weight or space, but not when its randomly set at a number just to make rounding easier. Bioshock, Singularity, all CoDs and Halos, and so many others are guilty of this.

 

[neurohazzard]

Honestly, I think it depends on the game. On the one hand, the limit worked for Halo, it made flicking between weapons quick and efficient. On the other hand, I am rather saddened to hear the Duke has imposed that limit on himself, it doesn't really suit him. (Hopefully someone mods him a proper inventory and health bar)

 

[theultimateend]

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.

 

[Alade]

How about we just kill the whole FPS genre? Pretty please?

 

[Assassin Xaero]

Creates strategy and easier to make the game that way. You don't have to worry about where the position the weapon or providing ammo for it...

 

[Clarkarius]

Weight and space should play a more important role in what weapons you can carry. But returning to a system of being a walking armoury would only diffuse the tactical elements in a lot of game situations in which the player has the perfect weapon for every enemy heading there way. In that sense dual weapon systems encourage you to think a little before picking up the 'four shot death cannon of doom' in an area that is infantry heavy.

 

[Clarkarius]

Weight and space should play a more important role in what weapons you can carry. But returning to a system of being a walking armoury would only diffuse the tactical elements in a lot of game situations in which the player has the perfect weapon for every enemy heading there way. In that sense dual weapon systems encourage you to think a little before picking up the 'four shot death cannon of doom' in an area that is infantry heavy.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

I'm not a fan of the limit, but I can deal with it. One question, though:

When can we go back to the Goldeneye 007 times where I could dual wield rocket launchers and blast the shit outta things?

 

[HandsomeZer0]

Why would i want my games to be realistic? Real life sucks! In real life i'd be lucky to survive a mugging, let alone enormous widespread destruction. I'd rather be neo in the matrix then some nobody soldier that dies in two shots.

 

[vrbtny]

Stop hatin' Halo for inventing the 2-weapon idea. It was bungie's idea for the Halo franchise, not any other franchise. It's not their fault that everyone else shamelessly copy-pasted it into their franchises.

Seriously, Halo hating is soo 2009

 

[Varanfan9]

I don't like it simply cause I hate realism in games. I play games for escapism so why try to force realism into it. Sides you could have a way around it and still make it realistic. Say maybe you could have the old weapon teleport away and a new one comes in its place. Still only carrying one gun at a time but you have access to an arsenal.

 

[Firetaffer]

I quite like Mass Effects way of weapons. You carry a rather large-ish assortment of weapons, yet you can see how they are all conveniently positioned on your back. Makes the game realistic while still maintaining a large array of weapons.

 

[ShatterPalm]

Why would i want my games to be realistic? Real life sucks! In real life i'd be lucky to survive a mugging, let alone enormous widespread destruction. I'd rather be neo in the matrix then some nobody soldier that dies in two shots.

FINALLY someone else who gets it. It's not just that games are trying to imitate life that pisses me off tho. It's the fact that they're doing it badly. Name one person you know that can jump two feet in the air straight from a crouching position like they do in call of duty. On top of that, I know a guy who's in the military, and a lot of his friends from training. They told me straight up that normal soldiers don't get access to the kinds of weapons that you get in some games. Realism DOES NOT FREAKING BELONG IN GAMES. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEADS, DEVELOPERS.

 

[Death Prophet]

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

Then go play a sim. GFTO with this 2 weapon garbage in shoot'em up shooters, I myself was also dissappointed with the Duke Nukem demo in that I could only carry two weapons. WTF happended to the massive inventory of kickass weapons? I hear this whiny crap about realism, yet I never see the people whining about it playing simulators.....HYPOCRISY much? I have to say I totally agree with the OP and say FUCK OFF halo clones go die.