Poll: Bioshock Infinite: Two Weapon Restriction

[Joccaren]

I dislike it, but its part of the game's design so I'll accept it.

Why I dislike it is largely because I enjoyed having a gun for every situation. Rather than playing guess-who as to which enemy was coming up next, and picking my weapons according to that, being wrong, and getting my ass handed to me [Ok, Infinite's not that hard. Other than the graveyard fight I haven't had many problems playing on hard for my first runthrough. Liz keeps you so stocked up its not funny so... W/E], I get to carry all the weapons I could need to a battle, flick out the one that best suits the situation, and use it.
Also got to say I rather dislike the Infinite weapons TBH. Handcannon I love because its actually a hand held cannon, everything else is meh. The Rocket Launcher styled weapons seem to do LESS damage than the hand cannon, a bloody pistol, and outside of the carbine all your weapons run out of ammo way too fast. A crank gun lasts you 5 enemies, and when you've got 20 coming at you... You're fucked. And then ammo for the Carbine is rather rare so... Fun times. The weapons largely feel the same IMO, outside of a couple of instances. Probably because I'm playing on hard but the game would be ridiculously easy otherwise so its a double edged sword. My shotgun feels like the handcannon to use, 'cause at point blank they both do about as much damage - or at least seem to. 3 shots will kill a normal guy. Yes, I have the shotgun fully upgraded. I haven't touched the hand cannon upgrades yet. The machine gun has damage to it, but feels like every other rapid fire gun in the game - except the Burst Gun 'cause the Burst gun feels like a water pistol its that weak. All the grenade launchers feel like a weak version of the hand cannon. I want some weight to my shots. I don't care that I'm playing on hard, a shotgun headshot at point blank should kill a normal enemy, not 2, or 3 if I hit their body. I used the Carbine 90% of the time until ammo ran dry 'cause it had some kick to it - 5-6 shots would kill a normal enemy at any range, headshots it would take 2-4 - and I could fire quickly and ramp up some mean DPS with good aim.
The Vigors are good, but I'm not entirely convinced there's enough Salts around to justify their use as often as you need to be using them. Liz is good in this department, but giving me salts normally leaves me low on ammo and health - as in 0 ammo and 1 pixel of health. Thankfully I've got the clothes that when I kill someone on low health I get healed, so I just throw a Devil's Kiss out and watch someone burn and I'm all good, but that's less effective when I've got a motorized patriot, handyman and 5-6 normal enemies coming at me. Thank god for Skyrails, and even then the Handymen make that a pain.

Ideally the rocket launchers would have about as much kick as they did in Bioshock 2, and I could carry all my weapons around. I'd get to a motorized Patriot fight, and I'd be able to use a rocket launcher to 3-4 shot him on normal, 5-6 shots on hard [As opposed to the current 20+ it seems to take ATM]. I'd then be able to grab out my carbine and hunt down all the crows, firemen and normal enemies that the game throws, and pull out a sniper when there's an RPG enemy of some kind that I want dead fast. Would be nice to be able to do it, shame I can't, but W/E.

 

[Joccaren]

Frankly I don't understand the hatred of two weapon limit. Is it in CoD and BF3? I don't play those so I don't know.

Can't speak for CoD, BF3 gives you, as the engineer, a knife, pistol, rifle and Rocket Launcher, as well as a welding torch for repairs that can be used as a weapon. Total of 4 slots per character not including the knife in BF3 from memory, 1 pistol, 1 primary, 2 for class-specific gear [I.E: Assault gets medkits and Defibs or a Grenade launcher and Defibs]. Dependent on your playstyle you can have 3 weapons. In older Battlefields you got them all.

It seems people always want a challenge and difficult encounters, doesn't having two weapons increase difficulty? I tend to think it does. It adds a sense of urgency to if you really need and RPG and don't have one, maybe you have to improvise. Or, dash across the level and have liz open a tear to the crank gun or a RPG.

It increases difficulty by making you guess what's coming up as an enemy, leaving everything to chance, or to carry weapons that are effective all the time, but aren't as effective in a circumstance as a more specialised weapon. Basically, it turns it into a game of homogenisation or luck.
Ammo isn't an issue. Playing on hard, I'm at near the end of the game [I think] and I just had my first battle where I ran out of ammo, and I just blaze away in all battles.
Theoretically improvisation and having you run around the level to get your weapons is a good idea, in practice it doesn't quite work when you've got 8 people with guns and a Handyman chasing you. You don't have time to open up a tear and grab the gun, especially since about half the time the gun is way out in the open [Or in cover, but really shit cover], where you will die if you go for it.

 

[kasperbbs]

It annoyed me a couple of times when i ran out of ammo for both in dangerous situations, but that gave me a reason to try out new weapons and try to experiment with vigors so i don't really mind the limit.

 

[Tomaius]

It works, mainly because you have access and ability to change all your gear or Vigors at one time. The weapon constraints are their to force you to use other options for combat, like using a vigor combination, or abusing the near by Skyline.

 

[Frotality]

it really doesnt work for an RPG-hybrid where you upgrade your weapons if you can only carry two of them. the moment you put that first upgrade on a weapon it suddenly has priority over anything you find simply because it is now an investment, and players are going to probably never or very rarely experience other weapons because it just isnt economic. i find that weapons like the volley/crank gun and RPG see very little use because im always thinking "well i might need this, but my upgraded sniper can probably handle any heavy hitters and i dont want to lose it, so..." strategically, the weapons are situational, but you are not a fortune teller and dont know whats ahead, so ever weapon swap is a gamble and due to the upgrade system one not in your favor. i loved switching to situational weapons like the flamethrower in bioshock because you rarely got to use them and there was often some interesting quirk to them, but now that i have to choose between "quirky and occasionally useful" and "practical and always useful" a lot of weapons go unused.
unless you find yourself in one of those big fights were you can always pick your main weapon back up after toying around with the RPG or whatever for awhile, its never worth it. terrible design choice IMO.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

I don't like being restricted to only two weapons, that's such a Halo'esque thing to do.

I wanted to use Shotgun/Hand Cannon/Sniper combo but I couldn't so I had to ditch the Sniper which made the fights more annoying slightly.

The game is still fantastic, but I wish they wouldn't of implemented such a system.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Ehh I mean I think its a case of "THEYRE MAKIN OUR GAMES WORSE TO ACCOMODATE PEOPLE USING A CONTROLLER!" PC elitism things. Which is true to some extent, since pressing lb and cycling through weapons until you find the one you want takes a lot more time than knowing exactly what you have in the second slot and pressing "y." That was still a choice and there are ways to get around that issue (they used a pretty convenient menu for the vigors that could have easily been done with weapons.)

Controls aside, I think it has more pros than cons from a game design perspective honestly. Having all your weapons on you all the time sounds more fun but realistically if the player can at any point whip out the BFG9000 and decimate everything without putting up with the burden of storing it in their second weapon slot it's much harder to balance, even with ammo scarcity, because you have no clue where the player is going to use it. If you put rocket launchers in a certain part of the game, a player is going to pick it up and have no reservations about firing off everything in it. To me that's better than having to cautiously hoard ammo and put up with "but i might need it later" syndrome.

 

[therandombear]

Depends, if the game has a 2 weapon limit and very limited ammo/weapon resources then it is annoying, but I didn't find it to be like that in Infinite for 2 reasons.

1. Elizabeth tosses you ammo pretty often when you need it, or she tosses you salt so you can "spam" more vigors.

2. If you don't find ammo for your current weapon, enemies drop their weapons all the time, so even if you run out of ammo for your shotgun, the enemy might just've dropped an SMG, Crank Gun, or something else which you can use in the meantime.

 

[bigfatcarp93]

I never mind it. Bioshock doesn't really have enough unique weapons that I really lement not having any. I mean, what am I going to do, lug around the Carbine, Repeater, Machine Gun AND Burstgun?

 

[Techno Squidgy]

Frankly I don't understand the hatred of two weapon limit. Is it in CoD and BF3? I don't play those so I don't know.

It seems people always want a challenge and difficult encounters, doesn't having two weapons increase difficulty? I tend to think it does. It adds a sense of urgency to if you really need and RPG and don't have one, maybe you have to improvise. Or, dash across the level and have liz open a tear to the crank gun or a RPG.

I'm fine with it. Though thinking about it, Bioshock had you able to carry around everything, so I guess I can see a reason there. Perhaps two weapon limit is a cheap way of increasing difficulty, or maybe people don't find it difficult to need to switch/find more weapons but find it tedious instead. Different strokes I guess.

Well, yes and no. Both use versions of the standard 2 weapon set-up. 2 weapons (usually main and side arm) plus other grenades, gadgets and gizmos.

Some people just prefer the old school set-up of being able to keep amd use every gun and piece of ammo you pick up.

 

[Daniel Mortley]

i think i used the sniper rifle non stop since i first found one
some bits i had to change to whatever the enemy had dropped for abit until my ammo reserve was full again i did the whole last 3 hours sniping and rpging everything that came at me

those complaining about the limit dont understand the excitement of having no ammo for the weapons you like to use and having to use what ever so happens to be lying on the floor
the intense panic when i had no sniper ammo and had to grab a shotgun and start taking out foes close range will stay with me even when memories of the ending fade away


in the end 2 guns just makes things more exciting and strategic for me

 

[WanderingFool]

Are you a fan of this change? Personally I am kinda upset, one of the things I really liked about Bioshock 1 & 2 is that you had all your weapons with you, upgraded over time, each weapon had special meaning and uses that you developed with experience. I would really like to see an option for the full arsenal, especially for the 1999 mode, considering doom, and duke nukem, never had a pansy weapon limit either

We ignore DNF shitty two weapon limit, correct?

Anyways, I chose option three, as while I hate two weapon limits in most games, here it was especially annoying. Yet at the same time you really could carry all the weapons with you, as there was quite a few. But than again, most of those extra guns were actually slightly modified versions of the same weapon (the Trip-R/Repeater and China Broom/Heater), which could have been cut in my opinion, or the result of modifying the base weapon.

in short, while I agree it works, it still sucked in comparison to the arsenal the previous Bioshock PC could carry.

 

[Hezz]

I like it. There's always a replacement weapon or ammo to collect, there are Vigors to use, not to mention you can be highly mobile and use the environment to your advantage (making proper use of skyrails for example), and there is never a time when your weapon is 100% useless for the situation. Yeah, sure, a shotgun at long range is poor, but it can still kill if required, and there's likely a carbine or a sniper rifle or even a pistol somewhere nearby.

Since every weapon is effective in its own way, and there's always vigors to use, and Elizabeth often finds ammo and salts for you, I don't mind the limit. It makes me think more about what guns I should be carrying right now. It also means I have absolutely no problem with picking up and using the powerful weapons like the Crank Gun right away despite limited ammo, since I know I can always replace it with another still effective weapon.

Duke Nukem Forever is a prime example of weapon limits done wrong. I'd be ok with limits in that as well if not for the fact that half the weapons in the game were simply fun gimmicky weapons and weren't really effective at all. Why use the Shrink Ray? It's unreliable, it doesn't kill, and it has very limited ammo. Weapon limits means I can't carry it around and use on occasion just for fun, because its dead weight 90% of the time and I could use a better weapon. Despite requiring explosives for boss fights, it was never good to carry around an RPG or Devestator either, since they had very limited ammo, and boss fights always had these weapons and ammo for them strewn about everywhere. So why carry it when after like 4 shots its dead weight, and I'll be handed it on a silver platter just before a boss fight anyway?

With Infinite, I could kill a Handyman with a pistol, so it doesn't matter as much if I use up all my RPG ammo on a bunch of random soldiers. More room for fun, while also making you think more about your weapons, and getting you to use a larger variety of weapons.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

I have yet to play Bioshock: Infinite, but after hearing this maybe I won't want to. I hate 2-weapon systems with a passion as they heavily discourage experimentation and encourage sticking almost entirely to the same two generalised weapons unless it's a boss battle, in which they'll give you ammo for an alternative for only as long as the boss battle lasts then it's back to the same two generalised weapons again. Adding an upgrade system to the guns while keeping the 2-weapon limit would only make things worse.

 

[Jiefu]

The weapon limit really sucked and I kept running out of ammo. It sucked.

 

[Extra-Ordinary]

I like it.
Don't really have a good reason I just like it.
Give me the whole arsenal, give me just two weapons, I'm fine either way.

 

[Austin Manning]

Hm, don't really care much to be honest. I always found the small weapon limits to require you to think of what you need to carry for the possible situation ahead. Then again, I may be the only one who thinks that much about a damned shooter, but oh well.

Both options have their own tactical merits. Personally I prefer multiple weapons as they require you to manage multiple ammo types while allowing you to decide which weapon and approach is best for your current situation, instead of leaving a rocket launcher or sniper rifle on the ground with a big neon sign saying "Use this for the next section!"

 

[Hezz]

I have yet to play Bioshock: Infinite, but after hearing this maybe I won't want to. I hate 2-weapon systems with a passion as they heavily discourage experimentation and encourage sticking almost entirely to the same two generalised weapons unless it's a boss battle, in which they'll give you ammo for an alternative for only as long as the boss battle lasts then it's back to the same two generalised weapons again. Adding an upgrade system to the guns while keeping the 2-weapon limit would only make things worse.

It's not that bad in this game. While I do use the machine gun, carbine and sniper rifle more than other weapons, that's just my style. I've still been forced to use other weapons due to a lack of ammo, or simply put because there's a powerful weapon that isn't necessary but still useful. The Crank Gun, for example, is essentially a highly accurate minigun. You usually only get these when you kill a Patriot, a strong and durable mechanical soldier, and you typically only get ~200 bullets for it, which goes very fast, but does a lot of damage. I've also used shotguns, RPGs, volley guns, pistols etc to great effect.

As for the weapon upgrade system, they're pretty cheap, and they're mostly only minor bonuses.

 

[Gage Kent]

Wa wa wa wa wa. What a bunch of cry babies. The two weapon limit was the best thing to happen to Bioshock. The limit is more realistic and more challenging and more fluid. Sure, a city in the sky isn't completely realistic. Sure, shooting fireballs from your hands isn't completely realistic. But we are talking about magical realism here, where the whole point is to treat these fantastical elements realistically. Bioshock 1 and 2 were too easy because you had 5+ weapons at your disposal. You always had the right weapon for the job. In Infinite, you aren't always going to have the right weapon for a job, which keeps you on your toes and forces you to be smarter with your vigors.

However, all of that being said, I would have liked to have had 3 weapon slots... no more no less. I think 3 is realistic but still suitable.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

It works, it certainly works, but it isn't that fun, and it isn't that Bioshock-y. You pretty much rock the same two weapons the entire game, which wasn't what the original was about, the original was more about using upgrades for your favorites and then using the rest for good situations.

If they did three or four weapons at once, I wouldn't mind as much. The entire game for was pretty much grounded to swapping one weapon because I had to stay true to the Handcannon.