Poll: Enough with this 2-weapon limit bullcrap

[Major_Tom]

2 slots for rifles + 1 for sidearm is fine for realism, in fact it's more realistic than only 2 slots.

Spoiler: -Snip-

Well, the point of the thread is a rant about DNF. Duke Nukem isn't about realism, it never was. In DN3D, when a player found a gun they carried it around for the rest of the game, it didn't matter how many guns the player picked up, the player could carry them all.

People were looking or a unrealistic non-serious shooter like Duke Nukem of old. Since finally a new Nukem game was coming out, people expected and rightly so, that the game would be just as unrealistic and non-serious a shooter as the old Nukem was. The left the non-serious sort of, but made it so that it is realistic when it comes to how many weapons Duke can hold.

If the game was made properly, Duke should have been able to hold at lest 10 guns, oh and kick instead of a bland arm melee.

I don't care what people say about how much time Gearbox had to work on the game(2 years from when they purchased the rights to work on it), they had plenty of time to change it into what it was suppose to be.

People claim that they got a game that was already 80% done, well "if" the two weapon limit wasn't Gearbox's fault, it is still Gearbox's fault that they didn't change it back to the holding 10 or more weapons system. If they had to rebuild the game from scratch to do it, they could have done that in 2 years.

Their excuse that a console button scheme wouldn't be able handle having so many weapons all at once is bullshit. Especially since the DN3D got straight ported to consoles and the having 10 weapons worked just fine.

Gearbox just got lazy and decided that instead of actually working to make the game proper for what it is suppose to be, they thought they would just tinker with it slightly and then release it on faith that the anticipation of people that have actually waited 12 years or so for it will just buy it expecting it to be right. They took it as a quick cash grab from loyal gamers that actually expected to get something that should have been a certain way.

They aren't going to care if sales plummet to next to nothing after launch because the launch pre-orders that go through will make all the money they were hoping for.

This is one of those moments I wish gamers would unify on and almost every single person in protest cancels their pre-order of DNF.

I would love to see the people's faces at Gearbox when the game launches and only one to two thousand copies sell instead of millions.

If they were smart, they would take the loss by canceling the gone gold for the game and go back and fix it so the game is proper where the player can carry every weapon. If not that, they better release free DLC that patches the game so that players can carry all the weapons.

Gearbox really screwed themselves over on this one. It would have been better if the game had said in permanent non-release, and gone the way of other games that didn't get made and released.

My point was that even in a realistic game 2-slots are stupid. Of course that an unrealistic "fun" shooter should have unlimited slots, but I don't think Duke Nukem is going to suck only because of 2-slot limit and regenerative health, the demo footage really looks kinda... unimpressive. And boring. And not funny.

 

[Treblaine]

*snip*

To this day the most fun I've ever had in shooting game multiplayer was Perfect Dark.

At this point though the framerate is just too wonky for me to deal with :/.

Shame they haven't done a full HD remake, wouldn't need to add a thing and it would sell like slices of heaven.

I mention it only because you could carry an armada into combat.

Uhh, not joke, they already did that like... over a year ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_Dark_(Xbox_Live_Arcade)

Yeah, HD remake on Xbox Live Arcade. How did you miss that?

 

[Treblaine]

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.

I'm against the 2 weapon limit, but the only alternative is not a 20 weapon limit. See the middle ground. 4 proper weapons is a fairly good compromise like seen with FEAR 1 & 2. Or an uber-inventory (with weight limits) linking down to a smaller inventory, for example of how to improve the CoD single-player the pause menu is effectively a weapons create-a-class menu but limited by what guns you have in your uber inventory. So swap out what grenades/equipment you have on the bumpers, and what your two guns are.

In multiplayer you have essentially the same system except you can't change it mid-round (you can't pause the game anyway) but prepare before entering the map. Oh and you aren't limited by what weapons you have found but what you have unlocked.
____

"If you can carry one of every weapon in the game, an entire dimension of choice is eliminated."

How does leaving a load of weapons behind not eliminate a load of choice? What if I want to go in for close range combat when there doesn't happen to be shotgun lying nearby, I DO NOT HAVE THE CHOICE! 2 weapon limit doesn't give you more choices, it limits your choice making.

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.

(1) it's either Incredulous or Inconvenient. Either way is worse than giving me the ability to prepare for the inevitable battle though I may not know when it is.
"so you know to run back to that earlier spot"
Great, just postpone the epic showdown with a backtracking fetchquest for an item you COULD HAVE PICKED UP WHEN YOU SAW IT!

(2) Well the gravity gun is used like a gun (wait is is a gravity GUN) as in you aim it at particular things and press a trigger to make it have its effect on things. You even use it AS A weapon often enough. I wouldn't put items like night-vision-goggles in that slot (that's just a status changer) but if you have to aim it and "activate" it then it deserves its slot like a weapon.

(3) How would that even work in a Halo/CoD style system of scavenging items off the ground? If I wanted a grappling-hook+shotgun combo then it's no good finding an assault-rifle+grappling hook combo and a shotgun. The best games are ones that allow emergent gameplay beyond precisely what the developer prescribes.

Anyway, that is a bastardisation of what secondary functions are supposed to be, which is to complement the primary fire, not be a crutch for fears of overly restrictive. A good secondary fire would be something that simultaneously enhances its strength and makes up for its weakness.

Spoiler: Like double-blast for a shotgun...

...twice the firepower and twice the ammo cost for a fraction of a second at the cost of a longer time time to cycle the next round.
This makes up for how if a shotgun doesn't kill in one blast you are vulnerable to counter-fire, shotgun's strength is to kill them before they have a chance to respond. Double-blast raises the stakes, even longer to cycle the action but far more likely to kill with one blast.
I think the best secondary function for rifles is simply using the sights, that applies for Sniper rifles with scopes and full-auto assault rifles.

Tools like Gravity gun function best having BOTH primary and secondary function, not merely BEING a secondary function. That is; primary to repel, secondary to attract. Same goes for grappling hook, primary shoots the hook out, secondary winds it back in. The "solution" you propose just show how much this 2 weapon limit inhibits new and interesting weapons and items.

 

[Dastardly]

I'm against the 2 weapon limit, but the only alternative is not a 20 weapon limit. See the middle ground. 4 proper weapons is a fairly good compromise like seen with FEAR 1 & 2. Or an uber-inventory (with weight limits) linking down to a smaller inventory, for example of how to improve the CoD single-player the pause menu is effectively a weapons create-a-class menu but limited by what guns you have in your uber inventory. So swap out what grenades/equipment you have on the bumpers, and what your two guns are.

So then what we're talking about is a question of degrees. To you, two weapons isn't enough, but four is. For someone else, they may require at least five to feel comfortable. Or eight. Others may be just fine at three.

In order for limited inventory space to matter, the player has to feel that limit. The sting of not being about to "have it all" is an integral part of the experience, just as the sting of not being able to absorb infinite bullets is an important part of the health system experience.

At the core, though, this is an issue of personal preference, so there's no need to be so absolutist about it--as though it were a "right/wrong" issue. You've been offered perfectly serviceable middle grounds by several people in this thread, take them for what they are.

 

[Gazisultima]

Having 2 weapons at a time really changes the experience. You're more careful with the weapons you have for starters. If you have 10 odd weapons, you dont tend to care about ammo too much. It adds a nice layer to strategy, and also adds balance. Imagine all weapons in multiplayer games. Everyone would just pick a rocket launcher and nothing else would get used. Two weapons works better than people obviously think.

 

[SilentCom]

In games like Duke Nukem, no there should not be a two weapon system. In games like counter-strike or modern warfare style shooters, the two weapon system is fine.

 

[Ninjamedic]

I honorably disagree with just about everything and anything in your post. I have decided not to go into a pages-long battle between two people, one of which being me, that will only be a battle between two lords of their own castles, both lashing out and charging at the opposite castle, accomplishing just about NOTHING.

I have decided to indeed DO post this, as it certainly adds something to this thread: I am showing you that I do not resign, I refrain from falling into worthless clashing of opinions. The one likes this, the other likes that. It's as simple as that, and I for one *like* the idea of not having a bazillion weapons. Two or three at max. That is all.

Why an I reading this as "I don't feel I need to actually contribute to the discussion or defend my points, I'll just dismiss your arguments in the most pretentious and condescending manner possible"?

Look, if your not going to address the points of his counter-argument you could at least answer this one question: In an Arcade FPS like Duke Nukem what would you consider to be the ideal inventory system?

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

I'm trying to fix that a bit with realism by letting you carry 2 primary weapons and a smaller weapon in the game I'm making.

But it is realistic and fair. In games like Duke Nukem, there should be no limit, but for a normal shooter game, besides a couple of exceptions, it should. (Exceptions being games like HL2, where you are stressed for ammo at almost all points in the game)

 

[aba1]

Nope, because it all depends on what game the developers are trying to do.

Duke Nukem was supposed to be more arcade and fun so it made sense to have an unlimited amount of guns.

I dont want a game like Battlefield to have more then 2 guns because I want a more realistic experience.

I like both styles, I like Serious Sam and I like Arma 2, each style should follow each rules

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggggggggggggggggggrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeddddddddddddddddddddd good call I do miss the old perfect dark golden eye days tho

 

[Treblaine]

I'm against the 2 weapon limit, but the only alternative is not a 20 weapon limit. See the middle ground. 4 proper weapons is a fairly good compromise like seen with FEAR 1 & 2. Or an uber-inventory (with weight limits) linking down to a smaller inventory, for example of how to improve the CoD single-player the pause menu is effectively a weapons create-a-class menu but limited by what guns you have in your uber inventory. So swap out what grenades/equipment you have on the bumpers, and what your two guns are.

So then what we're talking about is a question of degrees. To you, two weapons isn't enough, but four is. For someone else, they may require at least five to feel comfortable. Or eight. Others may be just fine at three.

In order for limited inventory space to matter, the player has to feel that limit. The sting of not being about to "have it all" is an integral part of the experience, just as the sting of not being able to absorb infinite bullets is an important part of the health system experience.

At the core, though, this is an issue of personal preference, so there's no need to be so absolutist about it--as though it were a "right/wrong" issue. You've been offered perfectly serviceable middle grounds by several people in this thread, take them for what they are.

Hey I said 4-gun limit was "fairly good". I don't fork over $60 for "fairly good", it only works in a game with a relatively limited and redundant weapon variety. For example with FEAR some weapons were superior to another in so many ways you could completely replace it in a weapon slot. 8/4 is a better ratio than 10/2.

The point you seem to be missing with Duke Nukem is quite how wholly unsuited to such inventory limitations are. And how regardless of this unsuitably they have been foisted on other games - as the many developers admit - simply because "everyone else is doing it":
-Bulletstorm
-Singularity
-Resistance 2
-Turok
-Far Cry 2

This has got to end. This has gone too far, Duke Nukem Forever has been anticipated for THIRTEEN YEARS precisely for its old-skool form and in this game of all games they can't seem to recognise that shows how dysfunctional this industry is.

Gearbox is not an B-grade company. Neither is People Can Fly, yet look what they ended up doing with Bulletstorm and its own arbitrary and unsuited 2-weapon-limit. They'd only do this if the industry and audience have seriously got their priorities mixed up and holding some very poor ideas for FPS games.

We all need to be loud and clear that we do not want this. We are not so hopelessly dependant on the Halo/CoD weapon inventory that it should be the default.

This is more than a matter of personal taste as you try to paint this. This is objectively and fundamentally a bad BAD idea, but that this mistake has been made too many times to write it off as shit happening, you just wouldn't expect them to screw it up on Duke Nukem Forever. Of ALL GAMES, how could they screw it up on this one? Because it is the status quo.

The problem with the status quo is when million dollar games are on the line your publisher won't shout at you if a game flops because you did the same thing as everyone else.

 

[taciturnCandid]

I like the two weapon system. It forces me to make a decision and try to conserve ammo. It is another layer of strategy.

It also encourages using weapons you wouldn't normally use. The game tries to get you to master every weapon you come across, instead of sticking with your favorite.

 

[Brandon237]

Eh, I understand realism, but in all honesty I'm not playing games for the exact realism all of the time. I wanna carry my sixteen kinds of firearms, thank you very much.

This so many times.
The only cheat I normally use in Fallout 3 and New Vegas is to modify my carry weight to 10 000 just to carry around my small nuclear and high-tec stockpile. It is not actually useful, but hell is it FUN.

And I play games for... FUN.

If I want to kill the five NK soldiers in front of me with 5 different weapons, I should be able to do so (I love Crysis ). One must bleed, one must burn, one must be punctured, one must be blown to bits and the last one must be vaporised.

 

[Dastardly]

The point you seem to be missing with Duke Nukem is quite how wholly unsuited to such inventory limitations are.

No, I mentioned that in my first reply. It doesn't really fit in Duke Nukem, and I agree. I just disagree with the idea that this type of inventory system is fundamentally not good.

 

[theultimateend]

*snip*

To this day the most fun I've ever had in shooting game multiplayer was Perfect Dark.

At this point though the framerate is just too wonky for me to deal with :/.

Shame they haven't done a full HD remake, wouldn't need to add a thing and it would sell like slices of heaven.

I mention it only because you could carry an armada into combat.

Uhh, not joke, they already did that like... over a year ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_Dark_(Xbox_Live_Arcade)

Yeah, HD remake on Xbox Live Arcade. How did you miss that?

My 360 is pretty much a pile of dust. I haven't kept track of any news relating to it.

Looks like I'll be checking that out then, thanks .

 

[Jakub324]

I like it. It makes you chose your loadout carefully. If you can have fifty bazillion weapons then it takes all the tactics out of the game. One thing I am against, however, is dual wield. I know it's only a game, but I can't stand the way it's giving kids the they can load and fire 2 pistols with respectable accuracy. If there's a guy 5 meters away, use one gun and you will probably hit 13/15 times. Use 2 and you might hit 5/15. Also, you'd have to stop to reload and it would take ages, so by firing 2 at once, you're less accurate and slower on the move.

 

[mageroel]

I honorably disagree with just about everything and anything in your post. I have decided not to go into a pages-long battle between two people, one of which being me, that will only be a battle between two lords of their own castles, both lashing out and charging at the opposite castle, accomplishing just about NOTHING.

I have decided to indeed DO post this, as it certainly adds something to this thread: I am showing you that I do not resign, I refrain from falling into worthless clashing of opinions. The one likes this, the other likes that. It's as simple as that, and I for one *like* the idea of not having a bazillion weapons. Two or three at max. That is all.

Why an I reading this as "I don't feel I need to actually contribute to the discussion or defend my points, I'll just dismiss your arguments in the most pretentious and condescending manner possible"?

Look, if your not going to address the points of his counter-argument you could at least answer this one question: In an Arcade FPS like Duke Nukem what would you consider to be the ideal inventory system?

I think I particularly addressed your issue with my post in said post.. Since you apparently didn't get the message, that I was saying that *I* feel there is NOTHING wrong with the way they're doing the 2-gun only thing, or maybe add one extra for gameplay elements.

As I was saying, and I will repeat yet again: There are good arguments for both sides of the argument (Therefore doing the OPPOSITE of just throwing them aside), we *clearly* differ of opinion, I respected that, apparently - you didn't.

I shall state again, because it seems hard for you to understand what I'm trying to say: I was not being condescending, but the exact opposite... Hope the message came through this time.

 

[L33tMarvin]

i dont know why everyone saying to keep it realistic when the main games doing the 2 weapon limit are far from being realistic in any way, for example halo and bulletstorm.I wish i could name more but my mind is blank atm

 

[Z(ombie)fan]

I prefer it in multiplayer TBH

I would rather JUST use My weapon of choice than run aroud like a retard looking for it.

HOWEVER I find it un-excusably stupid, unentertaining, and annoying. I want to feel like im getting stronger, not staying the same the whole time.

hell, how about blood 2: there was, what? twenty+ guns?

you could only hold ten. that still annoyed me

the game wasn't very balanced, there, are weapons you want, except You would need a guide to know which and when. when

You never know whats useful, what isn't, and whats useful when, and may I point you have to constantly juggle your fucking weapon selection? heres a hint: for the final chapter, just have all the weapons bigger than you, the final boss won't rape you.

of course all THOSE weapons are incredibly dangerous to use beforehand, and are nowhere to be found in the FINAL levels! fuck!

 

[Meestor Pickle]

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.

*snip*

Yes but in almost every level in halo you do get access to most weapons, human weapons are found lying around the place most of the time and covenant ones you can just kill some and take them.

 

[Mr Pantomime]

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.

-snip-

You do have a good point, and I did overlook that. Its funny really, I had just been playing Fallout 3, which implements a similar system, yet I didnt even think about it. Ocarina of Time isnt a good example though, since its a RPG, and we are focusing on shooters, where the two weapon problem is rampant. But if you want to include it, Ratchet and Clank implemented a similar system. It works fine in story mode, but in Multiplayer it was a pain in the ass. IIRC, they dropped the entire multiplayer aspect in the PS3 versions. Sad really, it was flawed, but fun.

Most FPS games only have a dual weapon system in singleplayer. The multiplayer actually has some very good systems, whether it be the main, sidearm, grenades and perks system that Black Ops uses, or the Class system that Battlefiled uses. These arent dual weapon systems, but are rather used to limit what the player has, so players have certain advantages and disadvantages, rather than being jack of all trades. This has been in most multiplayer games since Team Fortress 2.

But were really overlooking the main point here. FPS Devs just arent paying attention to single player, period. I cant really think of a FPS thats been single player only in a long time. This is the real problem. Single player always seems like the same afterthought multiplayer used to be. It seems rough and unfinished. I honestly dont see why multiplayer focused games try to tack on a single player campaign. Why dont they just drop it (who really cares about it?), go the TF2 route and work on the multiplayer. Then they could use the money they save to build a decent single player FPS with no multiplayer aspect.

PS:I did really just focus on FPS's though, you do have some valid concerns with TPS games like Uncharted and Vanquish.

PPS: If youre suggesting that we take away a dedicated melee and grenade button, I would suggest you stick your head in a lake and ponder how stupid that is for a few hours.