Poll: Enough with this 2-weapon limit bullcrap

[Moronical]

It's general crap that they're trying to make an arcade game 'realistic'. Finally pisses me off that Duke Nukem can only carry 2 now.
Might as well make the next Serious Sam be able to only carry 2 weapons.

Unless we're talking about Battlefield, Call of Duty, or other 'realistic' human war themed FPS. I'm fine with that.

 

[Kapol]

Eh, I'm one of the ones who thinks that having too many weapons is stupid. In the end I don't think it's about 'realism' so much as balance. If you can keep every gun, then you can (going by the old school shooters as an example) have every gun full of ammo. That leaves you holding so much ammo that it's nearly impossible to run out. Now, that makes it hard to make things actually challenging without bumping up the health of enemies to compensate for having so much ammo to spend.

It also makes it so you don't have to make any meaningful choices in terms of weaponry. Do I keep this close-range weapon, this machine gun, this nearly insta-kill weapon with two shots, or this sniper? Why can't I just take them all? Because that removes some of the challenge from the game, and the last thing we really need right now is that. Games, in my opinion, are getting too easy, and allowing every weapon to be used would take a lot of the challenge from it. Allowing you access to every weapon prepares you to be perfectly ready for any circumstance. Of course, I'm not saying that you should only have access to a shotgun in a sniper fight or anything, but have the option available at the cost of one of the weapon's you're carrying.

A lot of people I've seen have used fallout 3/New Vegas as an example, and I think that's one of the better ways to handle it for an open world game. You do have a limit on what you can carry, and there's always the question if you should leave this weapon behind so you can hold more loot, or if you might need it and should take it. That's also why I liked hardcore mode. Adding weight to ammo, making choices even harder, made the experience more interesting. The game would have been boring as hell if I could just carry every gun or melee weapon and ammo for all of them, as well as collect whatever I wanted.

I'm also not trying to say that multi-gun games don't have their place. When done well, they can be fun for games like Duke Nukem (which I think should have kept the multiple guns aspect). Games that focus on being more silly and not meant to have much of a challenge are fine, but they would be boring too if that's all that came out.

So I think the standard should stay the same, but I do agree there should be more that allow for more weapon choices. I'd rather see an expanded version of Fallout's system, where guns weigh X or Y and you can only hold Z pounds of them. I think that Resident Evil 4 nailed that with it's inventory system. But that's just me, and I have a right to have my own opinion.

 

[ArtanisCreed]

has anyone stopped to consider the reason behind the 2-weapon limit on halo/CoD as maybe being graphical? since ur second gun rests on ur back? I for one would like primary/secondary/pistol. in a more realistic setting it seems easy enough to do. primary/secondary on the back an pistol on a leg holster. Knives are an almost omni-present (halo lacks one but has melee with all guns so its slightly better in some regards)weapon.

Vanquish and Borderlands were able to give u higher limits on guns because of the weapons for all intent being blueprints and the players had a nanotech assembly device to construct the gun being switched to. This i highly approve of. No reason to say that using this method u cant carry around every gun u find but still keep two and designate them as primaries that u can switch with a button/key press. Also all the guns would run on the same ammo type, almost like mass effect 2's ammo system.

Section 8 deserves a mention in this thread because changing weapons is as easy as finding the nearest supply depot.

 

[Paragon Fury]

Because it creates a decision, and is a limiting factor that is used to make games more difficult, in addition to letting players define their own playstyle. It some cases it makes sense it terms of the setting (CoD, Gears, Battlefield etc.), and most of the time it is used because it is extraordinarily difficult and annoying to try and create interesting, fun yet challenging scenarios when the player can carry the solution to every conceivable issue you can throw at them around with them in Hammerspace.

 

[Treblaine]

It adds strategy, by limiting a gamer, the designers force the gamer to think carefully about what weapons they'll be needing. Gamers will be forced to use their heads and have to make calculated decisions about what weapons they should use.

And what should the consequences be for picking the wrong weapon to use since I am not psychic and aren't able to predict what they can throw at me?

In a genre that can be as brain-dead as the FPS this is not a bad thing.

Given that the genre is brain dead due to most weapons and forms of combat being over simplified and dumbed down as consequences of "realistic" mechanics such as the 2-weapon system.

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.

I have played Halo. I know what you are talking about and it is called fake difficulty.

So I have to:
-advance with an unsuited weapon
-die
-load-save
-backtrack to find suitable weapon
-advance again

And rinse and repeat. Because absolutely nothing about that helps me anticipate what is around the next corner, I just have to memorise in a cycle of death-reload or retreat-rearm.

The only "mistake" is ever choosing an interesting weapon, but to only ever choose the "vanilla" weapons, those that can do everything OK, but nothing well. Jack of all trades, master of none.

See this is why people go so fucking crazy for Painkiller, there is no pointless grinding rooting around for that weapon you faintly remember seeing. Every weapon and item you find in Half Life 2 is a JOY because it means no compromise, just more LOOT!

For every encounter you must select the best tool for the job.

 

[TacticalAssassin1]

Bad Company 2 lets you have a sidearm, a primary, and if you're an engineer, a rocket launcher, if you're an assault, a grenade launcher, if you're a recon, a mortar thingy. It works fine there.

 

[SammiYin]

Also anybody even remotely competent on a shooter should be able to hold their own long enough with an unsuitable weapon, or long enough for them to find a better one at least.

 

[Squilookle]

I'd say for the most part, yes. 2 weapon inventories need to die. There are a few exceptions where it has worked well though. I can't imagine Mercenaries being as fun with a hyperspace arsenal to be honest.

That said though, walking around in Perfect dark with thirty five weapons clinking around on my body was... awesome. Yet another reason why that game still hasn't really ever been topped.

 

[Treblaine]

it's simply a design decision influenced by more recent trends in FPSes.

But the whole marketed appeal of DN:F is as an old-skool throwback.

People DO NOT WANT another Halo with just some bimbos wandering around in miniskirts.

Do you even know WHY people have been clamouring for Duke Nukem over all these years? Because they are fed up of the pseudo-realistic compromised games that have come out since, constantly limiting and constraining you. Bullshit like 2-weapon-limit. Duke Nukem was supposed to announce a triumphant return of good old fun over-the-top FPS gameplay.

Why do you think Yahtzee goes so crazy for the likes of Painkiller?

Yeah people joked about lugging 20 weapons and ammo BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN ANYONE THOUGHT IT A DETRIMENT!!! It was a joke that the industry seems to have taken seriously. It was a well loved trope now replaced by a far more annoying semantic limitation. It doesn't matter if you have a rocket launcher paired with a heavy-machine gun or a handgun paired with a machine-pistol, 2 weapons is the semantic limit and that - is - that.

 

[Treblaine]

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.

But almost every PC FPS game on PC for the last 10 years has had a "select previous weapon" function key. Normally bound to Q.

This means if you select the shotgun from inventory, then select the sniper rifle, press Q and you switch back to shotgun, press Q again and back to sniper.

Shotgun
Q
Sniper
Q
Shotgun

This functions just the same as "Tap Y to change weapon" in combat, the difference is you keep a hold of all your guns in your inventory. So if some big mecha appears out of no where you can still pull a grenade launcher from your inventory rather than go on ANOTHER BLOODY FETCH QUEST looking for one.

And this applies perfectly for console:

Hold Y = bring up analogue wheel for weapon select
Tap Y = alternate between last 2 weapons selected

This is not unprecedented after the likes of CoD use every other face button with varying functions depending on tapping or holding-down

X: tap=reload, hold=interact
B: tap=crouch, hold=prone
A: tap=jump, hold=Mantle

Ultimately we NEED to break out of this hegemony of keeping our inventory management dumbed down to a single button tap. Gamers and developers are caught in a trap neither one wanting to make a move and risk a $10'000'000 project or for the player a $60 investment. Everyone is playing it safe and copying everyone else.

CoD herself is trying to break this principal with many "gun like" weapons accessible from the D-pad such as missile launchers and flame-throwers. But can't quite bring themselves to do more than that.

I see the value of having a single button to quickly switch between 2 weapons, but that is no reason to limit your whole inventory to only 2 guns!

While we are at it, CoD needs far more options on the quick-grenade bumpers, why do they have to be fixed grenades? Why even grenades, the idea seem to be a small weapon you pull out with one hand and use. Couldn't that equally apply for a small pistol? So if surprised mid -reload, you snatch RB to pull out a pistol for at least a fighting chance.

So the Bumpers are for quickly deploying small-items like:
-grenades (from fragmentation to smoke variety)
-molotov cocktail
-knife (this is the proper place for 1 hit kill melee weapon)
-Compact Pistol
-torch
-bludgeon

And most of all, give us the option to change this IN GAME, don't saddle me with pre-set grenades throughout an entire level. If I've been hulking useless smoke-grenades and find a box of flashbangs, I should be able to pick them up without discarding anything.

 

[Custard_Angel]

By all means, keep the dual weapon system in games, but also bring back the other kind.

The shooters that existed with 50 weapons, no ironsight aiming and no rpg elements.

I miss those days.

 

[MAUSZX]

The 2/3 weapons are maked for one thing specially, Realistic.
There is also others reasons.... like challenge and strategy.
why would the developers wanted that?? I don't know lets just remember this game was saled t0 other companym that might change things

 

[Ogargd]

It's good in some games and bad in others, that's that... Bullet storm shouldn't of had it but Halo was right too.

 

[Awexsome]

How about each game developer design their game in the manner that best suits them?

The Halo two-weapon scheme and melee system was brilliant. Don't blame it for other games that use that system when it shouldn't be. Put that on the dev's. If the dev's can't do anything but only copy-paste mechanics from other games without bringing anything to make it stand out who's at fault? The great game they copied? Or the developers themselves?

 

[Killclaw Kilrathi]

Or, you could, I don't know, buy a different game. Christ, I was originally buying duke because I liked the special edition. Now i'm doing it out of SPITE.

That would be nice if there actually WERE any games with more than two weapons...

 

[Vykrel]

well... it is more realistic, you shouldnt fucking blame Halo for other developers liking its game mechanics. personally, i would like to have at least 2 medium-large weapons WITH a sidearm, but its not a big deal.

and youre out of your mind if you think fixed-cameras in FPS games is a bad idea.