Poll: Enough with this 2-weapon limit bullcrap

[Treblaine]

Look, money talks, alright? You want weapon wheels and keeping every gun you find? Resistance 3 has you keeping every weapon you get - make that game sell more than Modern Warfare 3, and developers will listen.

Modern Warfare 3 will sell because of it's loyal multiplayer community. CoD style multiplayer is so fast paced and arranged that a dual-weapon system is far more suited for balance and pace. There is zero progress or variety, just head-to-head mano-e-mano combat in close quarters.

Resistance series has always sold itself on its single-player campaign, a ongoing adventure where you accumulate weapons for fighting highly varied enemies.

I would like to start a new poll:

"No more 2-weapon-limit for singleplayer games"

Would you agree with that? Bioshock would suck with a 2 weapon limit, same with the likes of Zelda and the GTA/Red-Dead games. Duke Nukem is ESPECIALLY one of those games that needs a full proper weapons inventory.

 

[Kipiru]

To all those of you who say that the 2 weapon system forces you to choose a more strategic aproach- that's right, it FORCES you! There is much more strategy and tactic to be found in aproaching a situation when you have a large and diverce arsenal to choose from and not just use a single weapon in a fight. Comparison: Quake 4- you are swarmed by incoming foes and you take the bulk out with a rocket, then you switch to rifle and pick off the remnants unitll the toughest bastard reaches you and you kill him with a shot gun. Gears of War: you are swarmed by incoming foes and you start shotting them at all range with the rifle, beacuse your other weapon is a sniper which you are saving for later. I'm sorry, but I don't think 2 weapons is the way to go, especially for games that already have enough unbelievable things in them.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I would like to start a new poll:

"No more 2-weapon-limit for singleplayer games"

Would you agree with that? Bioshock would suck with a 2 weapon limit, same with the likes of Zelda and the GTA/Red-Dead games. Duke Nukem is ESPECIALLY one of those games that needs a full proper weapons inventory.

But CoD or Battlefield would be silly with a crapton of weapons. The Duke's, BioShock's and GTA's don't need the 2-weapon limit, or worse would be hampered with it. But I can't imagine CoD with a sniper, SMG, shotgun and assault rifle all at once.

 

[Dr. HeatSync]

Have you not considered that this limit is a method of giving you advantages and disadvantages? For example in pretty much any COD, Battlefield, whatever, equipping the sub machinegun means you're ruthless in close quarters and have flexibility of automatic fire over the shotgun rival class, but at ranges of the assault rifle, LMG and sniper rifles you are less likely to earn a kill. You effectively set your role.

If the players got to equip all of these weapon types it detracts a lot from the depth in terms of taking advantage of the environment: In a two weapon situation, SMG against a sniper; for a SMG'er to win, he's got to avoid the open areas and sneak close enough for the shredding. The sniper would have to pay very close attention in order to cover for this weakness.

In the situation where they have all of the weapons at their disposal, although there is more choice it hampers some of the strategy: it could just turn into a sniper match of who locks on and clicks first. It also doesn't press the challenge for someone who might have an unsuitable weapon to tackle someone who has more advantages.

Just to cover all bases, obviously you can replace the two weapons with ones you can pick up from corpses. This allows someone to extend their range of talents, but they must earn it by killing someone. In contrast to the usual fair of racing to key locations in the map I have to say it's an improvement because it's a real optional reward as opposed to a mandatory necessity (due to the starting weapon usually being the most ineffective weapon).

Both systems however, work really well when implemented properly. Custom classes add personality and keep things tightly knit, the retro fair is very pick up and play with no attachments to realism.

TL;DR You call it bullshit, I call it brilliant design. Also, I didn't like DNF's demo.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Look can we really stop bringing this up if you don't like it don't buy the game to show them this is not what you want with a Duke. I have no problem with people complaining if it is an organised boycott but to my knowledge there is no such thing in place. It works in some games like CoD, Arma, Battlefield and Gears. Any game that is realistic or pseudo-realistic benefits from this.

That said yes I do completely agree that it has no place in games that are Arcadey like Duke Nuken, Serious Sam and Quake. Hell even Halo would probably benefit from having more weapons.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

think about what it adds to the genre. It isn't just realism, I'll tell you that.

No, it also adds tedium, frustration, artificial lengthening, trial-and-error gameplay, various levels of fake difficulty my friend!!

OT: This is just pathetic, 2-weapon limits unless for "teh uber-reelistic gamez" just won't work. Forget FPSes, imagine playing a Mega Man game where you can only have another weapon/utility in addition to the mega buster. We'd think that the designers would have lost their minds.

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

Hang on, I'm just gonna try and play UT2004 and limit myself to two guns and constantly doing a drop n swap.

........
........
........
........

Nope, sorry, that was shit on toast with a side of wank.

To qualify:

In my run and gun games that are meant to be fast paced, frantic and just balls to the fucking wall insane fun, the two weapon limit is pointless and frustrating. The game modes are often designed to encourage as much wanton destruction as possible and liberal application of gun. If that doesn't work, use more gun.

In a game like Battlefield or Call of Duty or better yet, Counter Strike, I wouldn't want it any other way. Their game modes are designed with this method in mind and should encourage a more tactical and team orientated experience. Your mileage will vary on the success of that however.

I'll also say what I said on the subject elsewhere;

On the application of this oddly 'realistic' limitation in Duke Nukem.

This is full blown, Rated M for Manly-Old School Arnie/Sly-One man Army-cigar chomping-badass silly buggers. The Duke's bread and butter is Refuge in Audacity; I know the Duke can carry all those guns on his back cos he's got balls of steel and the manliest chin on Earth. The sheer power of his awesomeness sustains him, and I the player.

 

[John the Gamer]

The weight system from Fallout 3/New Vegas

 

[SuperCombustion]

all I need to kick ass is an axe and a flame thrower, but it is nice to have a rocket launcher to fall back on if things dont work out...
2 weapon only deals might be more realistic, but I thought we wanted fun, not realism... yeah... FUN, remember that?

 

[SpAc3man]

Two weapon FPS mechanics have their place. Their place, however, is not with Duke Nukem.

 

[Mr Pantomime]

-snip-

It really matter what game it is. In a game like Serious Sam or even Half Life 2 where every gun is vastly different and unique, of course youd want to keep them all on you at all times and use whichever one you want. The insanity of the guns is really the main part of the game for Serious Sam.

But you couldn't say the same for Bad Company 2 or Call Of Duty 4. All the guns are pretty much the same, just have different feels to them (accuracy, rate of fire etc). Would you really play a game like Battlefield: Bad Company 2 if everytime you wanted to switch weapons, you had to sort through 10-15 different Assualt Rifles everytime you wanted to use one? Youre not talking about a simple mechanic change, the entire game's playstyle would change.

I do have to conceed that there really isnt enough of the former type of game, and when games that originally had that playstyle decide to change it, it does suck, but im afraid its one of the problems with being a niche market. 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. You could say the should make a PC exclusive FPS, but then youre cutting out a big chunk of potential market.

 

[Dense_Electric]

I'm sure this has been said a hundred times already, but it really depends on the game.

In Grand Theft Auto, Duke Nukem, Serious Sam, etc., I would find it utterly ridiculous if the player couldn't carry around fifteen different guns in his pocket. The whole thing is arcady and unrealistic to begin with, and having a hard limit would totally destroy my suspension of disbelief.

Likewise, if I'm playing Operation Flashpoint, Brothers in Arms, or some old-school Rainbow Six, I don't want to be able to carry more than two or three weapons at any given time, it totally breaks the realism and immersion of the game, which is the whole point of the game.

Different mechanics for different games, simple. Yes, the industry is leaning toward the "realistic" side right now (Call of Duty apparently being realistic), but there are certainly more over-the-top games out there.

 

[Knife-28]

Snip

That sums up what I was going to say. In some games, the more, lets say, realistic games, the 2 weapon limit works fine, (Halo, COD ect), and I'm happy with that. Some games, on the other hand, work infinitly better with a Hyperspace Arsenal, those are your Saints Rows, Red Factions, ect.

 

[El Jay]

So wait what's this about "oh god so many weapons how do I use them all"? I mean really. I'm fine with games having 2 weapons only. It felt WEIRD being limited to two in the DNF demo, I went to swap from my railgun to my pistol after picking a shotgun up, only to notice that I was instead swapping from shotgun to railgun. The look I gave my controller can't even be described.

But it REALLY is not that hard to use a big selection of guns. Oh boy there's 9/10 keys to press on a keyboard for weapon slots and so many to cycle through on a game pad. So? You memorize what each key has/how long it takes to get to your choice, duck around a corner when you need to switch, and do so, then commence with the ass kickery. Sure, keep the limit on your CoD, your Battlefield, and your other military shooters. Hell, make games that AREN'T war simulators that still have the 2-gun limit.

Just let me have my full arsenal in my non-serious, testosterone soaked blood-bath shooters. Which is what ,in my eyes, Duke is all about. Not "crap, aircraft, where the hell did I see that RPG at again, this shotgun does nothing." and other such nonsense.

 

[aarontg]

I wouldn't go ahead and say go back to the duke nukem logic of weapon storage but I would like something more versatile. I like games like gears of war and rainbow six vegas that allow you to carry two main weapons as well as a smaller side arm. I never understood how in cod you have to get rid of your pistol before you get that assault rifle you want. I can see why you would want to have a weapon for every situation but then again if you did wouldn't that take out some of the suspense of the game your playing?. For example: your being sniped at from a building across from you. If this was duke logic you would likely have a sniper and you might have already caped him and on your merry way. If this were more like cod logic you might not have a sniper and now you have to dodge his fire, stay out of sight, and flank him; Which to me sounds more exciting. I think both sides have their good and bad but I'm just stating the possible problems if we did go back to such a system.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

For some games its fine but sirously if an action game can have more than two weapons there is no reason why FPSs can not. Use the Dpad have 8 weapons in all plus melee attack and alt fire, alt fire would work as its own button or use+fire,melee is its own button, weaopns would be set out down for grenades,left for pistols right for machine guns up for shotguns, double press for the 2nd tier.

 

[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