Poll: Enough with this 2-weapon limit bullcrap

[Eclectic Dreck]

Given that the reason for the limit is based on the simple fact that, as weapon counts increase, it becomes increasingly difficult to select the proper weapon using a gamepad, I am generally in favor of the idea. That is not to say that I support this move in all cases. Plenty of games trade largely on their abundance and variety of weapons and I tend to feel this key aspect is undermined by a low weapon limit.

 

[Treblaine]

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.

No need to go that far. In ANY game is the grenade-throw or melee-button on the D-pad?

I'm just saying 2 things basically:
(1) controllers are not so limited by their number of inputs
(2) games can have a lot more flexible controls/functions

Games like CoD take away a lot of choice. You begin the game with the grenades they set for you and you cannot willingly trade smoke-grenades for flash grenades. I have to wait for the game to do that for me.

The function of the Y-button remains crucial as "switch to previous gun" works perfectly with a large inventory mounted on say the 8-direction D-pad or brought up as an analogue Wheel when Y is held down.

We're coming up on the 10 year anniversary of Halo, but have the controls REALLY advanced with the times?

 

[Treblaine]

as weapon counts increase, it becomes increasingly difficult to select the proper weapon using a gamepad

D-pad = 8 directions = 8 guns

What's the problem? Interestingly 1-8 keys is about as far as you can stretch your fingers to reach on a keyboard without having to lift your hand and lose position on home keys.

Another pro-tip from PC gamers, a common function is "Q = select previous gun"

So you can select Rifle and then Rocket Launcher, tap Q to cycle between them quickly. Pressing the Y button on say a 360 controller would function the same. But if you need a submachine gun for clearing out a trench then just select it from the D-pad.

I REFUSE to believe that PC gamers are simply smarter and able to keep track of more weapons and guns, it's just console gamers need to dream BIG! Stop thinking about how things can't work and start thinking about how they COULD work.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

D-pad = 8 directions = 8 guns

That still requires a relatively precise selection. It is not impossible of course, which is why I never said it was; rather, I simply pointed out that as the number increases the ease of selection decreases. The maximum number of weapons that one can have before this maxim starts to hold true is 4. At 8 it becomes a hair difficult to properly select the proper weapon, especially when under stress. At 8+ serious problems can emerge.

But, in most games, there is no reason to offer such a selection of weapons at the ready. Adding additional options would add nothing to a game like Modern Warfare where any particular weapon is probably "good enough" for the job. By contrast, when a game like Bulletstorm only lets me carry a handful of weapons when the weapons are the stars of the show, I resent it.

 

[Ninjamedic]

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.

Again you didn't address his points, you just said "everyone has their own preferences".
And when you are willing to say:

I honorably disagree with just about everything and anything in your post.

You had better be able to back up what your saying.

 

[Chrissyluky]

What irks me is this looks like it will be a "feature" of duke nukem forever a game which previously let you carry as many weapons as you wanted. This happened with Bulletstorm too, if they feel this is so damn important add an option to let people play with their weapon limits. I don't get why single player fps's limit you like this. It's like somebody lined up some delicious cakes and then told you that you could only have two of them at a time. Why can't they just let us eat our cake?

 

[Treblaine]

D-pad = 8 directions = 8 guns

That still requires a relatively precise selection. It is not impossible of course, which is why I never said it was; rather, I simply pointed out that as the number increases the ease of selection decreases. The maximum number of weapons that one can have before this maxim starts to hold true is 4. At 8 it becomes a hair difficult to properly select the proper weapon, especially when under stress. At 8+ serious problems can emerge.

But, in most games, there is no reason to offer such a selection of weapons at the ready. Adding additional options would add nothing to a game like Modern Warfare where any particular weapon is probably "good enough" for the job. By contrast, when a game like Bulletstorm only lets me carry a handful of weapons when the weapons are the stars of the show, I resent it.

Hey, fighting games do pretty darn well depending on players getting diagonal inputs. The 360 controller was designed to make the diagonals as easy to get as horizontal/vertical directions. And still the "tap Y for previous weapon" would be for most combat scenarios.

The thing is COD4's arbitrary inflexibility. It puts 2x claymore mines in my loadout, that's 8lbs of equipment, that could be a sniper rifle with ammunition! Or an M72 LAW rocket Launcher. Why can't I trade my useless night-vision-goggles for a pistol?

I will agree with you on COD's vanilla weapons, this is a reflection of real life. The modern assault rifle (M4A1, AK47) is designed to be a general purpose, jack-of-all-trades kind of weapon for almost all circumstances:
-moderate power
-moderate capacity
-moderate range
-moderate mobility
-moderate firepower

But this military practicality makes for a boring game. A game filled with guns having no major strengths or weaknesses makes combat really repetitive and predictable, not much strategy manoeuvring to a position where your weapon would have the advantage. It plays too much like a rail-shooter.

 

[Dark Prophet]

I think Metro 2033 did it well, it was realistic in its nature and yet it had a knife throwing kives, revolver, assault rifel/sniper rifel, shotgun/pneumatic gun and 2 different types of pipebombs all at onece, so it's possible ot have more than 2 weapons and still be realstic.

 

[mageroel]

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.

Again you didn't address his points, you just said "everyone has their own preferences".
And when you are willing to say:

I honorably disagree with just about everything and anything in your post.

You had better be able to back up what your saying.

You seem to *utterly* and *totally* miss my point. I'm saying both sides of the argument have valid points and that I do not wish to further throw rocks against solid walls of castles built by either side of the argument... The whole POINT of me saying this is that I will not address further their arguments as all *I* can throw at them are my personal preferences.
I disagree, and doing so honourably by not condescending into calling names, so to speak. It'll be the abortion fight all over again: it's a black-and-white thing to most people, and seeing as this isn't improving or at least aiding the discussion, I did not address any further. As you keep pulling me into argument I have indeed shown my personal preferences, and leave it at that; it is the most valuable thing I can add to the discussion, keeping it healthy and not a flame war.

I think I made perfectly clear what I wanted to say, and if you do not see this; ignore. I shall not respond again, as it will not add anything of worth to the discussion.

 

[Ninjamedic]

You seem to *utterly* and *totally* miss my point. I'm saying both sides of the argument have valid points and that I do not wish to further throw rocks against solid walls of castles built by either side of the argument... The whole POINT of me saying this is that I will not address further their arguments as all *I* can throw at them are my personal preferences.
I disagree, and doing so honourably by not condescending into calling names, so to speak. It'll be the abortion fight all over again: it's a black-and-white thing to most people, and seeing as this isn't improving or at least aiding the discussion, I did not address any further. As you keep pulling me into argument I have indeed shown my personal preferences, and leave it at that; it is the most valuable thing I can add to the discussion, keeping it healthy and not a flame war.

I think I made perfectly clear what I wanted to say, and if you do not see this; ignore. I shall not respond again, as it will not add anything of worth to the discussion.

Well thanks for not actually adding anything of worth to your side of the discussion. Bye!

 

[Mr Pantomime]

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.

No need to go that far. In ANY game is the grenade-throw or melee-button on the D-pad?

In theory it works, but I always find it a lot easier to have dedicated buttons for melee and greanades. The worst part of Half-Life and Counterstrike was having to switch to the Grenade or Melee weapons quickly. Even on the PC it was finicky as hell.

I'm just saying 2 things basically:
(1) controllers are not so limited by their number of inputs
(2) games can have a lot more flexible controls/functions

Games like CoD take away a lot of choice. You begin the game with the grenades they set for you and you cannot willingly trade smoke-grenades for flash grenades. I have to wait for the game to do that for me.

This I agree with, though I do remember a certain TPS whose name escapses me where you could switch grenades using the D-Pad.

The function of the Y-button remains crucial as "switch to previous gun" works perfectly with a large inventory mounted on say the 8-direction D-pad or brought up as an analogue Wheel when Y is held down.

While it works, does it work better than current controls? The problem youre looking at is that these controls will have to be as smooth and easy as the current ones if theyre to be implemented.

We're coming up on the 10 year anniversary of Halo, but have the controls REALLY advanced with the times?

While I like youre ideas, I cant really think of any titles that would really benefit from using them. What games would use these systems?

 

[Treblaine]

Again you didn't address his points, you just said "everyone has their own preferences".

The problem is we start talking about inherent merits, it seems he was so sure he is right when I destroy his argument he feels the need to distort the argument as being about just sharing and respecting each others opinion.

Respect for others' opinion is NOT the same as being forced to concede they have a point.

He hasn't got any reasonable explanation for why DN:F should have a 2-weapon-limit or why such a hard and fast rule is so great when it is applied.

I think he is quite simply most familiar with the 2-weapon-limit from games like Halo and CoD and is conservative enough to be afraid and dismissive of anything that tries to be different. Oh course, you can easily back this up with "it's my opinion/preference".

But that's just the opinion of prejudice and bias.

There is no discussion relative to shared and agreed values.

 

[Savber]

Depends on the point of the game.

If I'm playing a historical shooter or something of that sort I want to carry the average amount that a soldier can realistically carry into combat.

If it's about a dude killing aliens, I want to wield billions of guns and let loose on any bastards that come my way.

 

[Fishyash]

I think there should be more games with no weapon limit.

IMO the two weapon limit can add a bit of choice into the game, and if combined with good level design it can work fine.

However there are some instances where you just want to have a weapon for every situaton, as long as level design makes it work(lots of different enemies and formations), it's great.

So in conclusion, I think it's down to the case of level design. Having all weapons doesn't really feel special since you're likely going to be using the same one if all the enemies are similar and have the same weakness and same formations with similar terrain, and two weapon doesn't work well if there's too much variety with enemies without having to inexplicably add the convenient weapon just before that segment.

 

[Ninjamedic]

Again you didn't address his points, you just said "everyone has their own preferences".

The problem is we start talking about inherent merits, it seems he was so sure he is right when I destroy his argument he feels the need to distort the argument as being about just sharing and respecting each others opinion.

Respect for others' opinion is NOT the same as being forced to concede they have a point.

He hasn't got any reasonable explanation for why DN:F should have a 2-weapon-limit or why such a hard and fast rule is so great when it is applied.

I think he is quite simply most familiar with the 2-weapon-limit from games like Halo and CoD and is conservative enough to be afraid and dismissive of anything that tries to be different. Oh course, you can easily back this up with "it's my opinion/preference".

But that's just the opinion of prejudice and bias.

There is no discussion relative to shared and agreed values.

I am just going to take this a minor victory given I didn't really get a valid reply beyond "I am not going to discuss your points, everyone has their opinions so that makes me right" And to think we are in a forum entitled "Gaming Discussion".

Off topic would you say the serious Sam games are any good?

 

[Treblaine]

Off topic would you say the serious Sam games are any good?

Probably better than Duke Nukem. Seems to have more original weapons and enemies.

Though it lacks polish that can hold it back in places, not that it gets boring jsut a bit frustrating.

Overall I'd recommend it over 90% of the games that end up of annual Top-10 lists.

 

[Ninjamedic]

Off topic would you say the serious Sam games are any good?

Probably better than Duke Nukem. Seems to have more original weapons and enemies.

Though it lacks polish that can hold it back in places, not that it gets boring jsut a bit frustrating.

Overall I'd recommend it over 90% of the games that end up of annual Top-10 lists.

Well then, TO STEAM. AWAAAAAAY!!

 

[Treblaine]

Off topic would you say the serious Sam games are any good?

Probably better than Duke Nukem. Seems to have more original weapons and enemies.

Though it lacks polish that can hold it back in places, not that it gets boring jsut a bit frustrating.

Overall I'd recommend it over 90% of the games that end up of annual Top-10 lists.

Well then, TO STEAM. AWAAAAAAY!!

You know what I like about it? You really have to use strategy with each enemy.

See CoD you can play like Time Crisis. Just advance to cover as bullets, explosion fly everywhere and occasionally pop out of cover to shoot the enemies (also periodically popping from cover) with your good-for-every-job assault rifle till they are all dead. Advance, rinse, repeat.

Now in Serious Sam you don't have an assault rifle equivalent, you don't have that one gun that will do it. Think about it, an CoD assault rifle is a full-auto hitscan weapon, 30 round capacity, and kills 1n 1-2 shots. Yet it doesn't FEEL like a powerful weapon and your enemies never put much pressure on you as they rarely root you out from cover you can pick them off at your leisure.

Serious Sam is a game with many different types of guns each that stands of with its owns strengths yet each its own weaknesses.

You meet these skeletal horsemen that charge you, huge HP and FAST but they can't change direction quickly. You basically have to be a bullfighter, daring them to charge you and at the last moment darting to the side and spinning around giving them a full shotgun blast to their broad side. Now try doing that in an arena where 3 or 4 are circling you at the same time! It gets pretty intense.

Well you can use cover but not the usual "duck behind window, that's enough" of CoD, more running around like a rat in a maze as they will chase you down, you can run but you can't hide. Cover in Serious Sam is for flanking, not taking a rest.

The suicide bombers are the complete opposite, attacking in swarms you have to manage them from a distance as they try to pen you in. You can't stand your ground, you've got to move and give up ground to stay alive.

I've come to see how CoD can manage with 2-weapon limit, by equipping you with an assault rifle that is such an overpowered weapon you don't really need anything else. But is that really fun? A weapon that is OK at everything?

Personally I prefer the Serious Sam way. Shotgun, bolt rifle, submachine gun and so on, pushing each advantage for a particular engagement tactic.

 

[franconbean]

The "realistic" games could base the number of weapons you carry based on their weight. Why has no one thought of this before? More to the point, is it worth thinking about?

 

[Treblaine]

Until recently it hasn't been that big of an issue. And the only problem is the Minority of people who don't buy games with the 2 weapon limit,

Hang on a minute, I started this thread and my top played games are CoD4, TF2 and Left 4 Dead 1+2. ALL have a 2 weapon limit.

But it is appropriate for those games from their multiplayer focus.

It also somewhat works for CoD4 because you are armed with typically an assault rifle, a weapon that is:
-hitscan
-rapid fire to full auto
-low recoil
-1 to 2 hit kill
-high capacity/quick reload
-grenade launcher for groups/armoured enemies

It's not a very interesting weapon but it will do you for the entire game. This is a reflection of boring old real life, decades of arms development was for a rifle that could do it all: suppressive fire, aimed long range fire, medium burst, high capacity.

But that kind of realism should be niche, not standard across the Industry. Why would Turok follow that model? Or Bulletstorm and especially why Duke Nukem.

This is what people miss about these "old skool" shooters, is you had a load of weapons with great strengths yet great weaknesses, you couldn't just rely on one or two to fight. You had to vary between all of them for the many different enemies and circumstances because your enemies were so tough, numerous and AGGRESSIVE. They will charge at you and keep coming till you are dead or you kill them.