Again, like with two weapon limits, regenerating health makes the game easier to make and keeps it more balanced...Ponce Master-General said:
Poll: Enough with this 2-weapon limit bullcrap
- Thread starter Treblaine
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Realism can hang out in reality, i play games to escape reality. I'm happy jumping off of skyscrapers with rail drivers and surviving without two broken legs, don't mess with a good thing!ShatterPalm said:
having too many weapons get complicated. Also un-realistic. Also say bullshit, not bullcrap.
That is all.
That is all.
I hear ya man. The best part of Infamous and Prototype in my opinion was the ability to do just that.HandsomeZer0 said:
I'm perfectly happy with the two weapon limit. There's no point in carrying 15 weapons when you're only going to use one or two of them.
I love the people crying about "realistic games", though. "I play games to escape reality". So, when you feel like shooting someone in a war, you join the military, instead of playing a game, right? Or if you feel like winning the Superbowl, you simply join the NFL? No? Didn't think so.
Video games can be a substitute for a realistic situation that you wouldn't normally find yourself in, or that you will never find yourself in.
I love the people crying about "realistic games", though. "I play games to escape reality". So, when you feel like shooting someone in a war, you join the military, instead of playing a game, right? Or if you feel like winning the Superbowl, you simply join the NFL? No? Didn't think so.
Video games can be a substitute for a realistic situation that you wouldn't normally find yourself in, or that you will never find yourself in.
I like the "Halo method" much better than the old-school version to be honest. It makes you think tactically about what weapons you might need and having to scavenge around when you run out of ammo or need a better gun.
As compared to the good old days where you'd just switch from your pistol to your crowbar, then to the revolver, to an smg, to an assault rifle, to a crossbow, to your flamethrower, to the rocket launcher, to a crossbow, to your grenades, then to your laser gun... you get the idea.
It always felt weird to be lugging an armory around with you, not to mention annoying, having scrolling through them all to get to the 3rd assault rifle in your list of the 6 varieties you're carrying around.
As compared to the good old days where you'd just switch from your pistol to your crowbar, then to the revolver, to an smg, to an assault rifle, to a crossbow, to your flamethrower, to the rocket launcher, to a crossbow, to your grenades, then to your laser gun... you get the idea.
It always felt weird to be lugging an armory around with you, not to mention annoying, having scrolling through them all to get to the 3rd assault rifle in your list of the 6 varieties you're carrying around.
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
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
they do it for the realistic part... but you should be able to have a side arm +two main weapons. although even two main weapons is hard to carry in real life.
Realism nonsense aside, I prefer to take firearms from downed enemies to suit any given situation. Gives games a more tactical, improvisatory feel. Just more fun. Same with recharging health. Lends combat situations more flow.
This is the reason why i like fallout new vegas so much vs games like cod and halo...I like being able to carry my mininuke launcher, Anti-material rifle, and hunting shotgun plus enough chems and food to sink a battleship. Its nice when you are trying to be realistic but most games are not really realistic so why bother.
I am really disappointed that the new Nukem does not allow you to carry all your weapons, that was so much fun in the old games
I am really disappointed that the new Nukem does not allow you to carry all your weapons, that was so much fun in the old games
My ideal game would have weapon slots like Doom 3, where you have a melee, a pistol, a shotgun, a machine gun, a rocket launcher etc. You could carry all of these guns at any time and switch them out at any time. However, you would have other weapons/ enemy weapons that act slightly differently with visuals and stats, but if you wanted to pick it up you had to switch out whatever weapon was most like it. Say you had a machine gun, and your enemy has a cooler machine gun. You would then switch machine guns, but keep your BFG 9000 for later use.
This would mean weapons had various stats to attribute to. Maybe a shotgun that used explosive damage, or a rocket launcher that launched several low powered rockets. That way you could pick up the weapons you liked to "specialize" how you killed enemies, instead of specializing in one fricken gun. I absolutely HATE the 2 weapon limit. It isn't fun, and no one in their right mind should think it is fun. How can you say that walking around firing one or two guns all the fricken time doing the same fricken thing every fricken where? (My mom told me I swear too much). Only people who take comfort in repetition enjoy that, as far as I can see.
That's why I have ALWAYS loved doom 3, quake, unreal tournament and the duke nukem games more than I ever will than Call of Duty.
Now I am not saying call of Duty isn't fun, I think the gameplay mechanics make it quite a fun thing. But there is nothing fun about firing the same gun to kill everyone the same way each and every time until you find exactly the same looking gun on the ground that fires exactly the same thing except it does it slightly faster. No, that isn't fun. It's addictive and repetitive and it adds nothing to the game.
This would mean weapons had various stats to attribute to. Maybe a shotgun that used explosive damage, or a rocket launcher that launched several low powered rockets. That way you could pick up the weapons you liked to "specialize" how you killed enemies, instead of specializing in one fricken gun. I absolutely HATE the 2 weapon limit. It isn't fun, and no one in their right mind should think it is fun. How can you say that walking around firing one or two guns all the fricken time doing the same fricken thing every fricken where? (My mom told me I swear too much). Only people who take comfort in repetition enjoy that, as far as I can see.
That's why I have ALWAYS loved doom 3, quake, unreal tournament and the duke nukem games more than I ever will than Call of Duty.
Now I am not saying call of Duty isn't fun, I think the gameplay mechanics make it quite a fun thing. But there is nothing fun about firing the same gun to kill everyone the same way each and every time until you find exactly the same looking gun on the ground that fires exactly the same thing except it does it slightly faster. No, that isn't fun. It's addictive and repetitive and it adds nothing to the game.
1) ***** more. It's not going away because you try to "JUSTICE!" it to death.
2) It enhances the gameplay by forcing less enemies upon you. You have to take the weapons that you think will be good for whatever situation. If you don't have that, the game just throws endless numbers of enemies at you, and personally I'd rather have the strategy than a never-ending onslaught (I like some games that do, like Doom, but it's just not my cup of tea).
2) It enhances the gameplay by forcing less enemies upon you. You have to take the weapons that you think will be good for whatever situation. If you don't have that, the game just throws endless numbers of enemies at you, and personally I'd rather have the strategy than a never-ending onslaught (I like some games that do, like Doom, but it's just not my cup of tea).
I see your point but I disagree. I never have any problem with regenerating shield enemies, as long as you don't stop hitting them for too long, their shields don't regen. I've never had much trouble with enemies in any game that allows just two weapons. I never found myself saying: "gee, if I only had X weapon, I would beat this section," the games are designed for you to use two weapons, and it's always possible to beat the section with the weapons in it and a couple of basic weapons you carry with you. It just requires strategy and skill. Heaven forbid! And I don't give a crap about the real life military. I enjoy games for the aspect of being better than the everyman, not in being another cog in the system.Treblaine said:
This begs the question: Why do games need to be realistic? I understand the leaning toward realism in games like CoD, but Halo is sci-fi and games like Duke Nukem fly in the face of realism. Why impose a realistic weapon limit there?TheIronRuler said:
Also, just because a game is going for a more realistic approach doesn't mean that it needs a weapon limit. In as much as Half-Life had sci-fi alien craziness, it still had a certain streak of realism and grittiness, DESPITE the fact that you can carry enough weapons to be classified as a one-man army.
I'm not against the two-weapon rule in CoD or Battlefield, but I am against the two-weapon rule as a genre standard, hence the reason that voted option one.
Also, I'd argue that a game doesn't HAVE to have have the two-weapon rule to feel realistic.
Oh woop de fucking doo! Yet another 'BLAME HALO FOR EVERYTHING!1!' thread. You do realise, don't you, that it isn't actually Bungie's fault that everyone copied their idea? You don't like a 2 weapon limit? Fine, it's not for everybody, but can we please stop pointing the finger at a legitimate franchise that is enjoyed by millions of people worldwide because of other developers fear of failure and lack of creativity.
A 2 weapon limit has it's uses btw, not forcing your character to carry round every weapon in the game actually allows developers the freedom to put more weapons in the game and offer more choice without it being stupid. It also forces the player to think more tactically and gives a more realistic feel. And before anyone starts with 'REAL1SM IS BORING!1!', creating suspense through the immersion of realism is just as legitimate as all out action in the right games when done properly. It just is ok.
A 2 weapon limit has it's uses btw, not forcing your character to carry round every weapon in the game actually allows developers the freedom to put more weapons in the game and offer more choice without it being stupid. It also forces the player to think more tactically and gives a more realistic feel. And before anyone starts with 'REAL1SM IS BORING!1!', creating suspense through the immersion of realism is just as legitimate as all out action in the right games when done properly. It just is ok.
