Poll: Bioshock Infinite: Two Weapon Restriction

Asset Rose

New member
Jul 30, 2013
2
0
0
Asset Rose said:
I really hate the limit, its just not as fun, and I don't get to use or enjoy all the weapons because I want to survive. And a really lame excuse is that, "I don't want to change it because its the game design" Really now why does the design matter? Your changing one feature that really sucks, and its optionally. If its broke fix it. And this is defiantly broke. COD in zombie's now has a perk that lets you hold THREE guns, and if I really wanted a limit I would play Halo again. And I don't mind a limit as it doesn't matter in Halo because you run out of ammo and you find the same weapons over and over again. These you don't as much, (I've only played 30 mins so I'm guessing.) or ever find again. And why do I want to depend on birds to help me fight? And this game has taken all the great unique things that made Bioshock Bioshock. Its not as creepy, not as surprising, and not to hard to thing about, like in Halo, it really requires just to shot people in the face. No real strategy any more. To say the least, I'm very disappointed. Hopefully there is no Sequel to this place in the sky and they fix these issues. Majority rules.
I mean no offence by this comment
 

Genocidicles

New member
Sep 13, 2012
1,747
0
0
I didn't like it, but it wasn't a massive deal breaker.

Most of the weapons felt kind of samey and bland, so I'm not fussed.
 

Lennie Briscoe

New member
Jan 18, 2011
47
0
0
The game, first and foremost, is made with storytelling in mind. Most first-person shooters nowadays simplify the weapon limits (among other things) in an attempt to keep the game's pace flowing. To allow you to switch weapons in the blink of an eye without the use of something visually intrusive, like a weapon wheel. Given the more cinematic nature of Infinite, it makes mechanical sense.

The original Bioshock wasn't so much a cinematic game, but one of survival. Carrying every weapon made sense given the setting and mechanics present. It also helped that there were, what, five, six weapons in the game? Infinite has something like eleven or twelve; carrying all of them would be a big hassle.

So no, I guess I don't mind it because what works for one Bioshock won't necessarily work for all of them.
 

RaikuFA

New member
Jun 12, 2009
4,370
0
0
Hated it. It made the game so boring because I needed to run and hide while I look for more ammo for my machine gun, pistol and salts while in other games I could switch to a shotgun or any other weapon as well and take down the guys annoying me.

Ken fucked up big time, just so he could appease to that frat house he visited. He's nothing more than a tool in my book. Though he's still good as a storyteller.
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
I actually found myself getting frustrated with all the weapons in the original Bioshock. There were just too many and too many damned types of ammo to keep track of, and I would often waste precious seconds in battle just fumbling around for the right weapon. Between that and choosing all the damned plasmids I sometimes felt like I was playing wheel of fortune more often than a FPS.

So while I sometimes was frustrated with having to choose in Infinite[footnote]Though over time the decision-making became easier as I favored certain weapons when upgrading. And when I got the hand cannon that became my default sidearm for the rest of the game, so from that point on it was just a matter of stocking the secondary weapon with more kick, like the RPG or machine gun.[/footnote], I liked it during battle because it was one choice made easier. Plus, as others have pointed out, it forces you to think about and rely upon the vigors more. You couldn't just unload all your special ammo in all your weapons to take down a big baddie like in Bioshock--you really had to think about what you were fighting, what its weaknesses were, and what plasmids AND attacks best suit the situation.

As for why they did it, I really don't think the "realism" argument holds water, considering you can run around eating everything you find like a madman and never suffer any consequences for it (except maybe if you ate something rotten). I think they did it to balance the battle system, again so that you're forced to think about the plasmids vigors more and use them all to your advantage.
 

Dryk

New member
Dec 4, 2011
981
0
0
Lilani said:
As for why they did it, I really don't think the "realism" argument holds water, considering you can run around eating everything you find like a madman and never suffer any consequences for it (except maybe if you ate something rotten). I think they did it to balance the battle system, again so that you're forced to think about the plasmids more and use them all to your advantage.
The example that always sticks out to me is right at the beginning where you walk into someone's store and eat a giant cake.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
Behold the power of thread necromancy! *checks the previous page* Looks like a new member brought this back from the dead from...wow, almost 4 months ago. Oh well, we're here anyways.

I think it had its pros and cons like pretty much anything. It makes the game more realistic in that you're not a walking arsenal pulling weapons from random bodily orifices, so that's nice in that it makes it a touch more "realistic". On the downside, it strongly encourages you to just find a pair of weapons "that works" for the way you play the game, making it more likely that you'll utterly neglect the rest of the weapons when you decide "shotgun for close up and sniper rifle for down range" is your favorite combo. Not saying that's the best combo, that's just what worked for me. My point is that people will find the combo that works for them and stick to it.