Poll: Enough with this 2-weapon limit bullcrap
- Thread starter Treblaine
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think for long, fun, singleplayer campaigns carrying only two weapons is bullcrap.
It ends up forcing you to decide between the really fun, explosive, over the top weapons, and the safe, standard, all-around weapons you think you need and just prevents you having an ideal setup.
For example, in Borderlands, I got to carry around my badass electric pistol, my SMG, my Sniper and my Rocket Launcher. It was essentially perfect.
However, in a game like, say, Brink, I don't mind the two weapon thing. It keeps things neat and focussed with a heavy primary and a light secondary, and it's easy to get to a command post to switch out. In that case, it's a tactical decision you have to make, but if you make it wrong it's not going to make the whole game a tedious affair.
It ends up forcing you to decide between the really fun, explosive, over the top weapons, and the safe, standard, all-around weapons you think you need and just prevents you having an ideal setup.
For example, in Borderlands, I got to carry around my badass electric pistol, my SMG, my Sniper and my Rocket Launcher. It was essentially perfect.
However, in a game like, say, Brink, I don't mind the two weapon thing. It keeps things neat and focussed with a heavy primary and a light secondary, and it's easy to get to a command post to switch out. In that case, it's a tactical decision you have to make, but if you make it wrong it's not going to make the whole game a tedious affair.
I would like a FPS properly using a weight system to replace perks and specializations. That you have a standard uniform and equipment and have like 20 to 30 kg (40 to 60 lbs) depending on your class. (example: Body armor, Ammo, Weapons, Special equipment (C4, Mines, Medic equipment) and such)
Depends on the game. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. For example, something like COD would have it. Maybe two main guns and one sidearm, like Gears of War. But stuff like Duke and other over the top game should let you have a good amount of guns.
Yeah but they are NOT fun to kill without the specialised weapon for the job.spartan231490 said:
Especially the enemies with regenerating shields, you can't pick away their health slowly. You have to run up to them and pump bullets into their bullet sponge foreheads being a bullet sponge yourself, not tactics, no careful darting in and out of cover nor flanking.
Hey you know WHY the real life military (upon which most games here base their guns from) have such a variety of weapons? Because every infantryman works together as A TEAM. But that Teamwork takes months of hard work to build up in the military and is almost non-existent in games even when everyone involved actually want to work together.
The thing is if there is always the likelihood of being armed with a pea-shooter the game can never up the ante with newer tougher enemies as it can't depend on you having deadlier weapons, the stakes are kept low.
Sometimes it's useful, sometimes it's not.
If you're making a game that's going to be all about progressing tactically, then a 2 or 3 weapon cap would be useful. If the game is more about building a character, then a larger weapon limit (3-5) may be needed, including weapon slots or weights. If you want the game to be more of a "what tool of destruction do I want to use now", or you want the player to have a full arsenal and let them develop relationships with their weapons as they will, then 5+ weapons is good.
Just don't make one single thing the standard. Games need to stop following tropes and do what they legitimately need to do.
If you're making a game that's going to be all about progressing tactically, then a 2 or 3 weapon cap would be useful. If the game is more about building a character, then a larger weapon limit (3-5) may be needed, including weapon slots or weights. If you want the game to be more of a "what tool of destruction do I want to use now", or you want the player to have a full arsenal and let them develop relationships with their weapons as they will, then 5+ weapons is good.
Just don't make one single thing the standard. Games need to stop following tropes and do what they legitimately need to do.
No, it also adds tedium, frustration, artificial lengthening, trial-and-error gameplay, various levels of fake difficulty my friend!!ArBeater said:
OT: This is just pathetic, 2-weapon limits unless for "teh uber-reelistic gamez" just won't work. Forget FPSes, imagine playing a Mega Man game where you can only have another weapon/utility in addition to the mega buster. We'd think that the designers would have lost their minds.
It depends on the game really. However I don't want the 2 weapon limit and everything else that plagues FPS in every single FPS that comes out.
In games like Halo, you don't even need a rocket launcher to kill a tank. You could bypass it or hijack it. That's when the two-gun system works: when you don't need a certain gun for a certain situation.
Every time someone brings this up, and they say it's being realistic, I remember this vid.
Anyways, I think games are finally straying away from this bull, I've always preferred the Gears 4 weapon limit. Killzone 3 broke that habit and put in 3. Resistance 2 is reverting back to the weapon wheel. Call of Duty is main stream garbage now so who gives a fuck.
The only titles that disappointed me by continuing this limit bull was Bulletstorm, a supposed 90s era shooter.
Anyways, I think games are finally straying away from this bull, I've always preferred the Gears 4 weapon limit. Killzone 3 broke that habit and put in 3. Resistance 2 is reverting back to the weapon wheel. Call of Duty is main stream garbage now so who gives a fuck.
The only titles that disappointed me by continuing this limit bull was Bulletstorm, a supposed 90s era shooter.
I miss Golden Eye's inventory of guns, just spamming the button because I used to load up the All Guns Cheat and then I'm stuck running through 50ish guns(Some being Dual Wielded) and oddly launching Tank Rockets from my face...Good times. But on the point, 2 weapons makes sense in theory because by having 2 weapons you can have a long range/short range, though I'd prefer a Melee weapon that actually does something useful, maybe a short-mid range pistol(NOT the Halo 1-2 Pistol where you could headshot from across the field with it.) and an array of heavy/rapid fire/accurate weapon to mess around with(Ala Borderlands, that's really one of the only points in Borderlands Favor at this point after I'm done playing with it, the ability to carry a stockpile of decent weapons for almost any given situation...though admittedly if you don't mod a few weapons now and then it can get rather annoying.
It's not realism. It's not even about tactics. It's about immediacy and speed.
The massive numbers of weapons model was born on the PC, where the 1-9 keys immediately leapt out as good choices for choosing weapons. The end result is lightning quick, even when having multiple weapons.
Now shift to console. There's a tradeoff here (or so it seems) on the surface: Speed vs. Range. The two weapon model allows the whole thing to be controlled by a single button press, bringing back that sense of speed and immediacy. On the flipside, it loses the range of weapons. Alternatively, lots of weapons, but you have to cycle through them rather than just tap a button. Range preserved, loss of speed.
The problem is that I don't believe it HAS to be a trade-off. Why not have a large range of weapons, then allow the players to bind two of them to the left and right bumper? This would allow you to cycle through the whole set with the D pad for those specialist moments while putting your favourite long-arm and side-arm for quick retrieval.
The massive numbers of weapons model was born on the PC, where the 1-9 keys immediately leapt out as good choices for choosing weapons. The end result is lightning quick, even when having multiple weapons.
Now shift to console. There's a tradeoff here (or so it seems) on the surface: Speed vs. Range. The two weapon model allows the whole thing to be controlled by a single button press, bringing back that sense of speed and immediacy. On the flipside, it loses the range of weapons. Alternatively, lots of weapons, but you have to cycle through them rather than just tap a button. Range preserved, loss of speed.
The problem is that I don't believe it HAS to be a trade-off. Why not have a large range of weapons, then allow the players to bind two of them to the left and right bumper? This would allow you to cycle through the whole set with the D pad for those specialist moments while putting your favourite long-arm and side-arm for quick retrieval.
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)
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)
I understand a game like COD, where the idea is to make it more realistic, but effing Duke Nukem?!?! What were they thinking?!?
Is it hardwired into the Unreal 3 engine or something?
Why would you do that to Duke Nukem?!
Is it hardwired into the Unreal 3 engine or something?
Why would you do that to Duke Nukem?!