Poll: Enough with this 2-weapon limit bullcrap
- Thread starter Treblaine
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Obviously having only two weapons is asinine and unrealistic for the reasons that you gave, but it does have a purpose.
I personally would have loved it if Unreal Tournament (for example) only allowed two weapons but, in the style of "realistic" shooters, let you tweak those two weapons to your heart's desire. In UT you didn't really need more than two weapons, because the weapons and levels were designed so that players would pick a preferred weapon and use that exclusively save another weapon or two for special situations. I never have seen or fought another player (or even a bot, really) who used more that three or four weapons. This is because they designed the game well enough that only a few weapons were necessary for each person's playing style, no matter what situation they faced.
My point is that the problem is not dual-weapon gameplay, it is that most developers use the style without designing anything else to make it work well. Either let players customize their guns or design guns and levels so that dual-weapon gameplay is viable.
Don't sacrifice a valuable design asset simply because no-one has figured out how to make it work.
I personally would have loved it if Unreal Tournament (for example) only allowed two weapons but, in the style of "realistic" shooters, let you tweak those two weapons to your heart's desire. In UT you didn't really need more than two weapons, because the weapons and levels were designed so that players would pick a preferred weapon and use that exclusively save another weapon or two for special situations. I never have seen or fought another player (or even a bot, really) who used more that three or four weapons. This is because they designed the game well enough that only a few weapons were necessary for each person's playing style, no matter what situation they faced.
My point is that the problem is not dual-weapon gameplay, it is that most developers use the style without designing anything else to make it work well. Either let players customize their guns or design guns and levels so that dual-weapon gameplay is viable.
Don't sacrifice a valuable design asset simply because no-one has figured out how to make it work.
its appropriate in some cases, and when designed properly it can be pretty cool. i recall in halo 3 desperately trying to figure out which weapon set i'm best with (needler assault rifle combo, actually) and in hyper-realistic games such as COD a weapon limit is what people want (although i think you could carry more than that, and master chief definitely could. isn't he supposed to have 20 different magnetic spots on his armor to carry shit with?)
TL;DR: some games do better with it, but your half life's and doom's shouldn't.
TL;DR: some games do better with it, but your half life's and doom's shouldn't.
I'm cool with it in realistic shooters (or fairly realistic shooters). If you're just shooting the bog-standard weaponry, then you should know which guns you like. In such games, sniper rifles and rocket launchers are pretty situational, and get dropped after the ammo dries up.
But I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate it in sci-fi shooters, because you're not always sure what a gun does. Too often, I ditch alien gear in favor of comfort weapons.
Perhaps a compromise is in order. A two weapon load out, but with all the extra weapons kept in inventory. Swapping out a load-out would be a simple menu away. Lets you have depth of weaponry, while giving the consoles the practical weapon changing ability. I
On the PC, give them button mapping.
And any game that feels the need to limit the player to two weapons as a genuine game play decision, then by all means, use the standard two gun load out. Crytech (prior to Crysis 2) always limited weapons and they were PC exclusives.
But I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate it in sci-fi shooters, because you're not always sure what a gun does. Too often, I ditch alien gear in favor of comfort weapons.
Perhaps a compromise is in order. A two weapon load out, but with all the extra weapons kept in inventory. Swapping out a load-out would be a simple menu away. Lets you have depth of weaponry, while giving the consoles the practical weapon changing ability. I
On the PC, give them button mapping.
And any game that feels the need to limit the player to two weapons as a genuine game play decision, then by all means, use the standard two gun load out. Crytech (prior to Crysis 2) always limited weapons and they were PC exclusives.
A two weapon limit is fine. Sure, it is fun to have a huge amount of guns lying around, but in the end you really only use 2-3 of those in any game. So no, there is not problem. However, a 3 gun limit would be fine with me, allowing for 2 primarys and 1 pistol, or something along those lines. Having a reduced number also adds strategy, do you want an assault rifle and a sniper, or and shotgun and a grenade launcher? This can allow you to specialize, which especially helps for multiplayer.
Having a weapon limit in Duke Nukem seems entirely counter to the point of the franchise, which has pretty much always been: "Don't make me think too hard, just show me some tits and let me blow stuff up with lotsa big guns".
Outside of DN-type games, I like having some form of credible weapon limit. Forcing you to specialise in to some degree makes the game more fun in my experience: if I take a shotgun and assault rifle I have to play one style, if I take a sniper rifle and a heavy pistol I need to adopt a very different strategy.
It was exactly this degree of specialisation that made me enjoy the multiplayer in Rainbow Six: Vegas (1 & 2) and Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter (1 & 2). Playing the same map with a different weapon loadout was a very different experience, and coordinating complementary weapon sets with your squad-mates made for some really great co-op play.
It doesn't need to be two weapons: R6:Vegas allowed two large and one sidearm, which seems about the plausible maximum to lug around the battlefield, whereas Mass Effect 2 allows two primaries, one small and one special (which is again plausible in the future-tech, lightweight options of its setting). But unless you're going for an arcade-y explosion-fest, I think weapon limits improve the enjoyment of a game.
Outside of DN-type games, I like having some form of credible weapon limit. Forcing you to specialise in to some degree makes the game more fun in my experience: if I take a shotgun and assault rifle I have to play one style, if I take a sniper rifle and a heavy pistol I need to adopt a very different strategy.
It was exactly this degree of specialisation that made me enjoy the multiplayer in Rainbow Six: Vegas (1 & 2) and Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter (1 & 2). Playing the same map with a different weapon loadout was a very different experience, and coordinating complementary weapon sets with your squad-mates made for some really great co-op play.
It doesn't need to be two weapons: R6:Vegas allowed two large and one sidearm, which seems about the plausible maximum to lug around the battlefield, whereas Mass Effect 2 allows two primaries, one small and one special (which is again plausible in the future-tech, lightweight options of its setting). But unless you're going for an arcade-y explosion-fest, I think weapon limits improve the enjoyment of a game.
I think that for a silly, screw-around-and-shoot-stuff game like halo, the two gun system works just fine. There are so many overpowered weapons that if someone could just stockpile them there would be less of a challenge. In halo, and a few games like it, part of the main strategy is choosing a weapon that you think will suit you in your next skirmish best.
However, in more realistic-type games such as COD and Battlefield, the two-weapon system is outdated and just lazy. I think that there are much better systems, such as carrying a certain weight in guns (i.e. 4 or 5 pistols that could be switched between quickly so one wouldn't have to reload as opposed to one large, heavy LMG that needs some serious toting around but offers devastating firepower and long clips).
This is what I wish they had done in Brink. A fast, light-type character able to sprint around and dodge while unleashing torrents of bullets from machine-pistols, switching between them whenever they run out then disappearing would have been perfect!
However, in more realistic-type games such as COD and Battlefield, the two-weapon system is outdated and just lazy. I think that there are much better systems, such as carrying a certain weight in guns (i.e. 4 or 5 pistols that could be switched between quickly so one wouldn't have to reload as opposed to one large, heavy LMG that needs some serious toting around but offers devastating firepower and long clips).
This is what I wish they had done in Brink. A fast, light-type character able to sprint around and dodge while unleashing torrents of bullets from machine-pistols, switching between them whenever they run out then disappearing would have been perfect!
It's terrible that you can only hold two weapons in Duke, but for all we know, it could be for the better. Maybe there was some game-breaking problem with carrying all the weapons.
I reckon an inventory weight load managed behind the scene's would be better.
Got a bazooka, then you can only have a pistol.
Got a pistol, then you can have a rifle and a shotgun.
Got a shotgun, then you can have a combat knife and 2 pistols.
Its because of multiplayer that this standard has arisen, as it's easier to impose immediate balance on the game. Wanna see it return? Play more single player
Got a bazooka, then you can only have a pistol.
Got a pistol, then you can have a rifle and a shotgun.
Got a shotgun, then you can have a combat knife and 2 pistols.
Its because of multiplayer that this standard has arisen, as it's easier to impose immediate balance on the game. Wanna see it return? Play more single player
I think realism needs to fuck right off in video games. I miss my three tonnes or ammo and weapons, and my health packs and my ability to take five rockets to the face before I died. Now I get hit by a single bullet, I die two bullets later because the screen was covered in strawberry jam.
What I thought was ridiculous was _Transformers: War for Cybertron_. You're a giant robot, and your weapons fold into and out of your arms...is there any reason that the weapons ought to be limited to just two? The two-weapon limit even hurt the flow of the game...the level designers pretty much had to telegraph the strategy for the next room by dumping the necessary weapons right by the entrance.
You are assuming far too much, and it seems like you want to say something but know that if you did, you'd start a shitstorm.Treblaine said:
The reason for the two weapon limit, which I am certain that Halo did not 'invent' (see Counter Strike and SWAT4) was a move towards realism. It's a fact that carrying more that one large weapon would be difficult and cumbersome. Carrying the Doom arsenal at once would be impossible. Additionally, the Primary-Seconday weapon arsenal limitation demanded that players consider the road ahead and swap out weapons based on that, rather than allow players to unbalance the gameplay with a vast collection of weopons.
Usually, game designers inexplicibly strip your weapons away between levels. Is that any more preferable to having a Primary-Seconday limit?
Additionally, many games with that limit, include grenades and tertiary weapons as extra. Thus, weapons can be three or more. Adding them to their own button was also a great idea. I am not sure if you have had a hand in the Gearbox thread of exactly the same goal, but in there negativity against melee and grenade buttons rears its illogical head as well.
All you can argue right now is whether DNF is the KIND OF GAME in which a Primary-Secondary-Tertiary weapon system is appropriate. You can fairly argue that it is not, and I agree. Duke should have a sack of huge guns on his back. However, I am not down with blanket disapproval of the system simply because it doesn't work in a handful of outlandish games.
The system was intended to take gamers away from the walking war machine gameplay you described, and I applaud it. Your argument should be whether DNF requires another gameplay metaphor.
It has its place in realistic this-world military shooters like CoD, and makes sense in a lot of other games. But now and then I like a good Doom or Jedi Knight-style shooter with more guns than a police armory. So it all depends on what kind of game you're going for.
Let me keep all guns I find without exception. Part of the fun in FPS games is picking the right gun for the right fight, if I have all of them then I can keep changing between them based on the need. This way you can build a room that needs a rocket launcher, mine layer and a shotgun without having the player waste play time STARING AT THE GROUND. Maybe my biggest problem is that you have to press a button and that takes time out of the action. If there was a better mechanic to swap out the weapons, then I want to hear about it.
it fits well in most instances. personally i have no desire to scroll through at least 6 weapons and possibly skip over it, thus taking longer. Never had an issue with the main weapon/backup weapon setup. Also, the inventory system works well. It all depends on the game really.