When did you can only carry two guns at any time become popular????

[Ninja_daemon117]

Guys please stop hating on halo every chance you get its not cool. That said on topic Halo made it popular (I know that it has been said already), and other games followed.

I think that it works for some games and not so much for others. It works well on consoles due to the lack of buttons.
Also people who are talking about GOW I liked its system expect for having to switch to grenades,.

^my $0.02

 

[TsunamiWombat]

halo seemed to be the start of it but not all games follow halo, Bioshock and UT3 let you carry every gun/plasmid or more recently Deadspace.

In Bioshock you can only equip a max of 5 plasmids/eng tonics/combat tonics/phys tonics each.

 

[zacaron]

halo seemed to be the start of it but not all games follow halo, Bioshock and UT3 let you carry every gun/plasmid or more recently Deadspace.

In Bioshock you can only equip a max of 5 plasmids/eng tonics/combat tonics/phys tonics each.

ya but
A: its more then 2.
B: I think having 20 customizable slots is enough.
C: tonics arn't guns

 

[Booze Zombie]

it gets to the point where we become so realistic that it's not fun anymore, ie far cry 2

Didn't Far Cry 2 let you carry a small-arm, a pistol and a special weapon as well as 4 molotovs and 4 grenades? If I remember it correctly...

 

[Wicky_42]

Basically, it forces you to make a decision about what weapons you take - specialise in a certain range of combat, or take a setup that works less well for most situations. Once you're familiar with a level then obviously you recognise that certain weapons are better for certain sections, and often the map designer will have placed relevant weapons in the right places to allow you to switch if you want.

That said, it also allows you in a way more versatility in play style: rather than always having the same huge weapon list, from which you'll mostly play with the same few no matter the situation, you can challenge yourself to play in different ways, use weapons unsuitable for the situation for instance, encouraging you to think about situations differently. For instance, the Library in Halo CE is undoubtedly a repetitive, long, slow level, and one where you obviously take the shotgun. Try playing it coop using only assault rifles and is suddenly becomes a fast, frantic bullet hell and a great laugh.

Obviously you could do this with an unlimited weapon list, but the temptation to use one of the other basillion weapons secreted in various body cavities takes away some of the fun of forcing the grav hammer to work against snipers in Halo 3.

Then there's the play style where you constantly switch weapons rather than reloading them, first learnt playing the Specialists mod for HL1, where instead of limited slots you had limited weight in a fast Matrix/Max Pain style game. In close quarters levels it keeps the pace up and forces you to keep changing your playstyle, as well as making you more aware of weapon drops as you plan on where to go next to not only avoid fire and kill enemies but also to grab the next weapon to avoid reloading.

Good laughs

 

[Snakktastic]

Halo Combat Evolved just make it stupidly popular.

 

[necromango]

I've personally never worried about being limited to two weapons, it only makes the game more fun. E.g. Do I get the "Fun" gun, or the more useful one?

Its something that keeps me up at night

 

[Pointsman]

I wanna choose my weapon when the battle is in front of me. Forcing me to make that choice and guess which weapon is the right one to pick up a few minutes before battle just pisses me off.

Also, if there's suddenly a sniper rifle or a hammer of dawn lying in front of me, they've pretty much spoiled the surprise of what's coming up.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Limiting the weapons you can carry adds an extra strategic element to the game. It can present plenty of new challenges and add replay value (what would it be like to play thru again with a different weapon choice?). For example, the shotgun is powerful, hits multiple foes but is close range and slow to fire/reload. The assault rifle is precisely the opposite. Now you have to cross a wide open space to get to an office building with narrow corridors...

With the two different weapons you'll play through that same scenario two very different ways. By giving them different strengths and weaknesses (range, scarcity of ammo, usefulness for *most* encounters) it makes you choose how you want to enjoy the action. I think for online FPS though (excepting for CoD/MoH where your weapon *is* the role you play) it's more enjoyable to have your pick of weapons but otherwise I quite like the choice element. I just wish they didn't force me to choose between the assault rifle and the shotgun :-( Like asking a man to choose between his kids (I'd choose the assault rifle).

 

[wgreer25]

killzone two was worse you could only really carry around one weapon you could not drop your pistle

And I really hate that.

 

[xxnightlawxx]

where do you put the guns
like in
vice city for instance he pulled the guns out of nowhere
where did he pull the guns out i mean cmon i think it is 100%
better to be able to carry 2 to 3 guns because i knw guns arent that heavy but then you got ammo to carry and if you got big guns like RPG then you not carrying much else

 

[tanfew]

I wanna choose my weapon when the battle is in front of me. Forcing me to make that choice and guess which weapon is the right one to pick up a few minutes before battle just pisses me off.

Also, if there's suddenly a sniper rifle or a hammer of dawn lying in front of me, they've pretty much spoiled the surprise of what's coming up.

Heh, since they allow you to quick menu your guns in real life. I don't see how having a truck full of guns, ammo, grenades, the grenade gun, grenades that explode into guns that shoot grenades and chainswords is A)subtle B)innovative C)More tactical (than the alternative) and D)Optional on a console game without a pause weapon swap menu (which would suck in Multiplayer).

I feel the games that play well on multiplayer (Ala CoD4) by suiting you up at the start, then not letting you change except to pick up the gore crusted remains of the enemies guns, allow for more variety and depth than the 9 billion guns and a yappy dog style will ever allow. And most of the time when i played games such as Halo, i run with the battle rifle and i kept it all the way through most missions. Why? they have ammo for it, so i don't get the whole "use what they are using" argument either, since the Battle Rifle ammo seemed to be stock standard three crates per person, and is, generally, everywhere.

Now, to not sound like a first posting presumptuous Wang-Cars motorist, i feel i have to say this-- I love Doom. Yeah, that's right, i love the side of it that it appears, probably to anyone wanting to troll my post, that i don't. I really love games with a bazillion options for guns, as long as they are all fun, and your not trying for realism, at least not combat realism.

And i like your second paragraph too, retrening to my original quoted dialogue as a conclusion.

$0.02 there people, enjoy.

 

[Straitjacketeering]

20-guns-at-a-time on Unreal Tournament anyone?

I'll get in on some of that action.

 

[Da_Schwartz]

I don't really think it matters. Cause it's a video game. You wanna talk realism then you shouldn't be trying to rationalize video games. Carry 800 weapons for all i care. Whatever works best for the overall gameplay.

 

[jh322]

tl;dr
Ok...this was not a feature for realism. That's bollocks. It was simply a way of having console shooters with a simple weapon system. You have no mouse. You have no numbers. It's the only way it can work without something like the MGS holding-r2-and-pausing-the-game thing. Which I did like. The gears system works really well too, with it just being the D-pad. I like that too.

 

[happyman333]

"Hey, this game is realistic! Why? Because you can only carry two guns! Oh, you got shot? Don't worry, your health regenerates."

roflmao

 

[MisterLillie]

HALO

 

[Zealot_Guy]

I like how the Tom Clancy games do it, along with Army of Two especially.
In army of 2, you got to carry a primary, a secondary, and a special (like a sniper or RPG). And ofcorse your standard grenades. I think Killzone could be greatly improved if it allowed you to carry 2 primary weapons along with a side-arm. Cuz I'd want to carry my assault rifle of course, but I'd also like a sniper too. Or maybe bring an RPG. Or a grenade launcher, or a Light Machine Gun. Or a shotgun.

Mercs 2 had the same issue. 2 big guns, plus a pistol. Like, I'd like to carry an assault rifle, an RPG, plus a sidearm (like blanco's nickel plated .50 hunting revolver).

 

[Ignatius87]

I'd like to say that I think the developers intended it as a tactical feature, to make you decide which guns to carry, and which combinations of guns work well together, as people have said here already. However, what I really think is that it's the result of dumbing down and simplification of games. Only carrying 2 guns at once is easier than having a whole arsenal. The same could be said of Oblivion reducing the number of skills you can take from 10 to 7.