Poll: Enough with this 2-weapon limit bullcrap

[teqrevisited]

Limit them in "realistic" shooters, for everything else give me arcade one-man-army. Why? It's more fun. And in my opinion realism has a very limited place in any game where you can jetpack around shooting alien pigcops, and certainly no say in weapon management.

 

[LogicNProportion]

Personally, I like having a very limited selection of weapons, especially for games where co-op is prominent (GoW, Halo, etc). That way, each of your friends get to specialize, and once it's sorted out, no one bickers over "You took my ammo!"

But seriously, I really do enjoy a limited arsenal. Keeps me on my toes. As is, I feel awkward when my guy is carrying a rifle AND a rocket launcher. I picture the poor guy dragging it across the bullet-strewn battlefield.

 

[ryo02]

why not create a hybrid carry alot but be reasonable say crysis 2 you had 2 weapons plus c4 grenades and rockets aswell as atachments.

resistance had a hybrid regenerating health system aswell you had a few bars and each would regenerate so long as they were not depleted otherwise youd need to find something cant remember if it was health or armour. halo odst and reach (even the first halo) had health that could be depleted and partially regen although the shields would allways fully regen.

I like both methods of have a ton of weapons plus recoving health with items aswell as limited weapons plus rengerating health(though I lean toward the latter myself.

a hybrid system has its place too.

 

[Treaos Serrare]

I hate this in games, be it a realistic shooter or a fun-time splatterfest
At MINIMUM you should be able to carry four firearms into combat, unless all the games weapons are massive holy-shit-how-can-i-lift-this size

 

[goldendriger]

They want it realistic, duh...Yet you have regenerate health, lose an arm and sit down for a mo and you're good to go, also you can carry a Rocket Launcher and an LMG with the same difficulty as an SMG and a pistol...screw realism, i dont play games for realism.
I can understand a weapon limit, but seriously why 2? why not 4? Close range, medium range, long range and anti-tank/vechicle

 

[WanderingFool]

I made a thread about this awhile back. I said myself I prefer the weapon limit to fit with the game. Something like COD should keep the two weapons for balance (mainly MP). Games like Bulletstorm or DNF should let you carry every mother-fucken weapon you find.

Side note, I think COD should go with a slightly different setup. You should be able to care two primary type weapons and a sidearm. Also, launcher should be made into equipment, instead of being a secondary weapon with pistols.

*Edit*

Another thing, I would like to point out Borderlands, if it hasnt already. Borderlands lets you cary four weapons (once you get to a point in the game), and up to 42 weapons or other items on your person. I like the explanation, basically a storage device that digitizes your loot and gear, so it doesnt take up space or wiegh you down. This could allow a COD type game to allow the massive armory, as you simply warp weapons out of a hyperdemnsinal arsenal (This is a TV trope, but im feeling generous, so I wont link to it.)

 

[Prof. Monkeypox]

I'm annoyed by this becoming the norm. It works in some games, but there's no reason for it to be in every game, especially not in a game like Duke Nukem which bases its entire charm on being far removed from reality.

 

[Pierce Graham]

Down with the two weapon limit, seriously. Why do games have to be perfectly realistic? In reality, you would go into battle, get shot in the first five seconds, either die right there or spend months healing in a hospital, go back to battle and then get shot again. Yeah, that sounds like fun. I WANT to carry around ten different weapons, charge headlong into the horde of slobbering aliens and clear out the room with my BFG. Especially if I'm playing Duke Nukem! Curse you developers for ruining it!
This era of realism is getting really old, really fast.

 

[bificommander]

I'm with Other. Designers need to look at the game they're making, and decide if a weapon limit is needed, and how high it should be. Duke Nukem Forever, IMO, doesn't need one. A shooter that wants to feel realistic or want to mix in some strategy by choosing guns should have a high cap (Crysis had 3 plus rocket launcher, plus grenades, plus demopacks). Highly realistic shooters like Amra or teambased shooters like battlefield should have a low one.

Especially the latter case is important to me, more so than realism. For shooters with CPU teammates or multiplayer games, it wouldn't be as much fun if every teammember could carry every weapon so you won't need anyone's help. Even if you're alone, I find a limit can still be fun if it makes you having to decide what weapons you want to take with you. As long as they don't throw in enemies that can only be killed by one specific weapon that's useless in all other cases of course (like the original tank-rocket launcher example).

But like I said, there's still plenty of room for FPS games without limits. Painkiller, Serious Sam, and yes, Duke Nukem for starters.

Now that I think about it: The original FEAR also was bad with it's limit. You could carry three weapons, but if 1 and 2 weren't the shotgun and assault rifle you were really making it harder for yourself, since they were the only weapons that did good damage while still having plenty of ammo available. A higher limit, or more balance between the weapons, would have been better.

 

[Treblaine]

Stop. Judging. A. Game. That. Isn't. Out. Yet. It's not out yet and you haven't played it yet. So hold 'yer horses and play the fucking game first... Who's to say it doesn't have genius puzzles in it that the 2-weapon loadout will further enhance, or even make possible? Arguably, it could be total shit, but we don't know, now do we?

This isn't just Duke Nukem. It's Bulletstorm, Singularity, Crysis 2, Red Faction, this trend has gone too far and has been applied to games where it is so wholly inappropriate. And I also think people are fed up of this limitation where it is well established on CoD and Halo, even though it works in multiplayer, it is not suitable in campaign.

Duke Nukem marks the last straw for me, and from the polls its clear from a 3:1 ratio the people favour ending this over-represented trend. We've had enough!

DN:F may be a good game, but from what has been revealed it will only be a good HALO CLONE!

That's not what people are digging out decade old pre-order slips for. Duke is about far MORE than machismo and lechery.

 

[Mad1Cow]

If Health Packs suddenly came in vast quantities of dominating the video game industry the same amount of people would be complaining. Games need to keep variety so there needs to be equal amounts of everything to keep everyone happy. I don't agree that rechargeable health and 2 weapons should be the national standard BUT I don't think we need to get rid of it entirely. In fact, rechargeable health helps get straight to the action, and only having 2 weapons helps give a sense of strategy to the games if done right (since the weapons are more "only useful in close/medium/long range"). We're just bored because it's the national standard.

Health packs and different weapons are also useful because they encourage exploration but for a game that wants to be fast paced and not have so much exploration (ie Mirrors Edge) then rechargeable health is a must since health packs would just slow the game down. However like I said, different games suit different play methods, it depends entirely on the feel you're going for.

What I'd like to see maybe is a return to the old style video game health system...ya know like Mario or Sonic. Lose all your rings or lose the mushroom and BOOP game over. Wouldn't work in classic shooters but in other games maybe, I dunno...

 

[imnot]

I actually quite like it, adds a bit of strategy ( at least to some of them) Now stop your moneing and go play Half Life or something.

 

[Treblaine]

Halo started it? I know cs 1.6 did it long before halo and im sure there were others before that.

I quite like it though, especially in multiplayer games.

I suppose they did use it before Halo.

As I have said before, this is excusable in a multiplayer game where each round can last only a couple of minutes (or even less than 60 seconds) while each round you carefully chose your loadout. Also you knew what type of enemy you were facing - not tanks or helicopters or swarms of weak enemies - and were very familiar with the map and what range of engagement to expect.

And that was NOT done due to controls limitations on PC but game balance in human-vs-human multiplayer.

My problem is Halo applying this 2-weapon-limit to long single player campaign and how everyone else tried to copy this regardless of practicality.

And really it's not Halo's fault. Halo was successful because of its multiplayer and all the developers seem to assume everything it did it did perfectly, so like the idiots who stick feathers to their arms and leap off buildings flapping their wings, they try to copy success (flying birds) without understanding HOW they did it (physics of flight). It's the fallacy of the Birdman.

2 weapon load-outs work for short-round online deathmatch modes. Not for a prolonged single-player campaign.

 

[Ashcrexl]

i just want 3 weapons. my standard assault weapon, a sniper, and a blow shit up weapon. that's all i need. why can't you give me a 3 weapon limit modern FPSes? just one more weapon.

actually far cry 2 pretty much does this. kind of.

 

[Kotep]

There's no physical reason you can't have more than two weapons. The button you use to swap weapons? Have it open a radial menu from which you can pick out of 8 weapons at a time. Why stop there, you can have multiple rings of the menu you can swap between.

Ratchet and Clank did that on the PS2 in 2002. Hell, the PSP R&C game did a 3D shooter with a large arsenal on a system that's basically a SNES controller with an analog stick glued onto it. Saying that you can't do it because of hardware limitations is stupid.

 

[Treblaine]

There also the fact that having 10 weapons to switch between at any time would be a pain in the ass with a console controller.

Ocarina of Time came out in 1997, it easily handled several dozen different items to spite having a controller with only 9 buttons, only 8 of which that were actually within reach.

Now I know FPS games NEED far more buttons but the same inventory principal applies:

-Main Inventory
-Quick inventory

Zelda used 3 of the C-buttons for 3 items but this could apply just as well: Hold down Y for a weapon wheel and select from one of 8 weapons. Tap Y to alternate between previous selected weapon.

So the game can play exactly the same, just tap Y to go to previous weapon. Tap again to go back to previous weapon you were holding (the one you started with). But if you need a weapon that neither of your primaries are suited for - Hold Y to find the one you need.

PS: PC games may have a 1-9 number row, but console have a 8-direction d-pad which is plenty. Both have the same limit of forcing you to either relinquish control of looking (hand off mouse or right-stick) or of movement (fingers off WASD keys or thumb off left-stick).

Q, E, R, F are even analogous to the Face Buttons
Mouse 1, Mouse 2, Space and Shift analogous to the shoulder buttons
Mouse 3 analogous to R-stick down
Caps analogous to Left-Stick down
Back/Start matched with Escape and Tab keys.

So you see button shortage is NOT a problem. You are just as capable as with PC control, all those buttons to the right of R and F keys re way too far out of reach to be practically used. So quit blaming the controller, blame the conservative industry and gamers who are obsessed with "simplicity" of the 2-weapon-limit.

Uncharted has a two weapon limit and is greatly strengthened for it. So its not as simple as "two weapon limits only work for single player.

Of all the good things to say about Uncharted, the weapons options were the least to get excited about. It didn't strengthen jack.

I was so happy to unlock the weapons cheats as it effectively have me a proper inventory so if I want a magnum instead of a pistol I could get it when it would have been handy to have! But there is no reason for this cheat, just give Nate a backpack to chuck in all the nice guns he finds and fish em out later when needed.

 

[Dastardly]

I think the issue is what people are looking for in a game. There's realism to consider. It's not realistic that I'm going to run around with the entire Doom arsenal on me without serious injury or death. Or at least moving reeeeally slow. There's also the notion of choices having impact.

If you can carry one of every weapon in the game, an entire dimension of choice is eliminated. Instead of having to choose the two or three weapons that best fit your style, or that you feel best fit the situation at hand, you essentially have one weapon with ten models. You're carrying the ultra-Swiss-army-gun. Sure, you have to "choose" whether to fire bullets or rockets at the target, but that choice is a simple matter of pushing a button.

When you're given a limited inventory of weapons, you have to make decisions and then live with those decisions. I like the close-ranged punch of shotguns, and I like the reach of my sniper rifle... but both weapons mean I've got to deal with lengthy reload times or pauses between shots. If I take both, I have to live with that downside. If I choose a weapon with a higher rate of fire in place of one of them, I'm making a trade in something else (reach or close-range power).

There are reasons for limiting inventory, that's the take-away here. In some situations, it's not as big a deal. I'd argue that, for Duke Nukem, it's an inconvenience that isn't necessary in a zany, farcical blast-fest. At the very least, a two-weapon limit is hilariously low for Duke. But in games that are survival-oriented, squad-oriented, or just focusing a bit more on realism? Yeah, it's a great fit.

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.

This is the best point you make, but it's incomplete. This is a problem of overall game design, not just the weapon inventory system they choose. If every problem has the same basic answer (throw bullets at target until it stops), then even the most "unique" of weapons will be the same thing with different animations. There are many solutions to these problems, while still maintaining the limited inventory:

1. Situational weapons don't have to pop up in incredulous ways. Maybe you have the chance to get the weapon you need from the enemies you're fighting on the way there. You get to a boss and realize you need a missile launcher, so you know to run back to that earlier spot where you downed a guard that had one. Maybe you pass a squad of other would-be heroes that got wasted on the way in, and you pilfer some of their still-working equipment. Plenty of ways to get you the weapon without breaking immersion.

2. Separate "weapons" from "tools." The gravity gun doesn't need to be thought of as a "weapon." It's mostly a tool. Not every item a person picks up in a game has to be designed specifically to kill things--that's another problem in game design. So, perhaps you can only carry two weapons, but you can also carry two tools. They aren't directly useful in killing things, but they can help you turn a situation to your favor or solve a puzzle.

3. Secondary fire options. Instead of making each weapon separate, you can have a standard function (pistol, SMG, shotgun, rifle, etc.) and make the "unique" thing a secondary function (flamethrower, grenade launcher, shrink ray, grappling hook, whatever). Lots of games do this, but it could be improved upon. This could allow each weapon to be functional in all circumstances, but it would also have a more situational and "flavorful" use based on your personal preference.

Just a few ways that better design in the whole game can fix the issues that you're assigning to the limited weapon inventory.

 

[Killertje]

In FEAR you could only carry 4 weapons out of 8ish that existed. You could argue that because of that you need to make a more tactical choice as to which weapons you are gonna carry and trying to get the best mix for every situation. But it doesn't really make the game more tactical. It does make the game more realistic, but not in a way that actually improves the game.

I don't like it. I'm a loot whore, a pack rat. I wanna carry everything. In Fallout I had enough guns in my backpack to start World War III with.

In Fallout world war 3 already happened.