Poll: Enough with this 2-weapon limit bullcrap

[Ninjamedic]

Play Arma 2 and you'll realize how stupid you saying "realistic mechanics" dumb down FPSs. Also, you may not be psychic, but everyone learns through the mistakes they make. The process of learning gives off a rewarding feeling to a player. Also, all weapons are able to deal death, they may not be as efficent as another weapon but you can still kill with it, so picking the wrong weapon is not a death sentence. Play Halo, it illustrates my point very well.

Not every weapon can counter every threat, and in most ""realistic"" shooters, unless you need absolutely need a sniper you will always go with an assault rifle or SMG since they are the best at mid range combat (and unless its a sniper level, that's all you will be doing). And we're not talking about ARMA, we're talking about Duke Nukem, a game where realism and logic will at times not apply.

PS ArBeater: 2-weapon limit leads far more to tedium than strategy. In practice the developers use this as an excuse to magically provide the weapon they need at implausibly right moment... though more often than not you are left stranded with woefully unsuited weapons.


You can't be strategic as you have zero overview, you have no way of anticipating who or what you will encounter.

Example of this: in Warhammer 40,000: Fire Warrior, the final boss can only be killed by one weapon, the chain gun. A few notes:
-The game gives you no indication of what gun to use.
-Your primary weapon is fixed forcing you to rely on it for ALL of your opponents. (and it has a LOW ammo capacity)
-The Chain gun was established earlier on in the game as being useless except for dealing with only the weakest of mooks (which cease to appear in the last quarter of the game.)

End Result? Tearing your hair out in frustration thinking the boss is glitched and is invulnerable until you read online what its weakness is, forcing you to haul a wasted weapon slot across an entire level fighting god knows what.

2-weapon systems only work for few games. They aren't an evolution in the genre.

 

[Jungy 365]

To be honest, I don't lean either way. If I want to switch out my style of play, I'll swap for a new weapon, with little hassle. However, I see your point that far too many people use it. I think that different games should adopt different limits, depending on what works for them. If you find that you'll never really need more than two weapons, then by all means, keep the 2-weapon limit. If the player finds they need more weapons for a game where the course of battle can change at moments notice, then don't compensate for the sake of familiarity, and increase the limit. It's logic, people.

 

[Ham Blitz]

I wouldn't say I have a problem with the system, it just depends on the game type and weapons available.
Duke Nukem Forever I kind of see as not being as good for the system, or at least for my imagination of what the game will be like. The main reason I say this is that, assuming it keeps all of the guns from Duke Nukem 3d, sume of the guns are not that effective but fun to carry around and occasionally use, like the shrink ray for example. I enjoyed using that gun, but looking at the demo, you will have to be sure to rapidly shrink and stomp every one in the room (assuming it's close quarters) or look like a raging durp as you get mowed down by bullets.
The game may still be fun, and I am still planning on waiting for reviews before buying it (That was my plan since I heard of it coming out).

 

[Marik2]

It all depends on the game really.

 

[Palademon]

I'm not against the idea. I'm against it being everywhere.

It shouldn't have been in Duke Nukem. And Duke Nukem shouldn't play like I need to be in cover every three seconds.

I was hoping Duke Nukem could defy this so people see joy in how it was before, then hopefully Crytek UK would be able to make TimeSplitters 4 to begin to rekindle this classic idea, so both the realistic and arcadey FPS can live in harmony.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Honestly, I feel like most games should let you carry at least 4 weapons with you, and let you switch between them with the D-pad, since the vast majority of shooters DON'T EVEN USE THE D-PAD.

 

[zehydra]

Why does it need to be resigned? Why can't you have some of both?

 

[Chiasm]

They really need to make a "bullet hell" first person shooter; where all you do is shoot one gun till it runs out of ammo, drop it, and pick up a nearby random gun from a enemy.

Giving the game a John Wu action feeling of fire,drop, pick up, fire; all while in the middle of huge shootouts. Plus it makes guns feel expendable and at the same time forces players to fire more accurately with limited ammo in each gun they grab.

 

[DustyDrB]

If Turok 2 had only allowed you to hold two weapons, you'd never have been able to carry around the cerebral bore, the PM layer, the thing that shot sawblades or the Nuke, simply because you wouldn't be able to carry find enough ammo for your other, practical gun.

Or the ricochet gun! I didn't like that game, but man it had some awesome guns.

OP: I only like two or three FPS games, but even I'm against the weapon limit. What I'm even more against is developers blaming consoles for such a limitation. How can you know so little about games when you're a freaking developer. The list of console games that allow you to carry far more than two weapons could fill a book. Don't try to make consoles into a scapegoat when you're just really trying to cut corners and do a half-assed job.

And realism? Really? I thought we'd gotten over that ridiculous pursuit.

 

[nifedj]

Obviously the two weapon system doesn't work well in every game. However, I think it's a brilliant mechanic in the right context.

For example, in Halo, if you carried a rocket launcher everywhere then fights with enemy vehicles would end up being very boring. EMPing, highjacking and vehicle-on-vehicle combat might not be the most efficient way to deal with them but IMO it's more fun than just shooting them all with a Spartan Laser from as far away as possible.

 

[Grabbin Keelz]

They want to make it realistic.
You carry a weapon into combat, because you're a specialist(most of the time).
You're either a rifleman, or a specialist. A specialist can be a sniper, a specialist can be an anti-tank soldier walking around with a rocket lancher on his shoulder, a specialist can be a machine gun crew operating.... a machine gun.
The secondary weapons are usually personal and reflect your tast, just like in the army and poilce here you have a secondary pistol that is usually hidden, to defend yourself when the weapon jams, runs out of ammunition or other bad situations happen.
But this doesn't happen. You always have ammunition in these games, the weapons never jam or break. Therefore you do have a point, but in the other hand the more weapons you have the less time you will use each of the individualy.
Most importantly, in todays multiplayer games you simulate the military - each has its own speciality, whether you are carrying a sniper rifle, a machine gun (do they still do this?), a medical kit, a rocket lancher and so on.
In addition to that, you don't have training in every single f**king gun there is on the planet.
You might know how to handle a rifle and a sub-machine gun, but perhaps your hands are too shakey and you haven't gone through the necessary training to hit an apple 800 meters away.

That's the kindof thing that would work in a team playing game like CoD or TF2, but in Duke Nukem you ARE the team. In games like Fallout 3, Half Life, and Bioshock, you're a one man army. You don't have a 'rifle' guy and a 'machine gun' guy, there's just you. Since I'm on my own, I want all the equipment that's fit for any job I have to do. However, having so many weapons in a sense has it's own responsibility, which is managing ammo and stock and making sure that you don't run out at a crucial moment. This system also allows me to use different weapons for a variety of different kills when I want to, which to me is fun. As for training, there are rp elements like in Borderlands that make you better with specific weapons, but if you use different ones you can get better at using those too, that's the kind of realism I like.

 

[Waaghpowa]

Why does it need to be resigned? Why can't you have some of both?

This, but it probably wont happen. As stated previously by others, some games, i.e. Battlefield, should have 2-3 weapons max since it's what real soldiers would do. When it comes to sci fi games, i.e. Crysis, Duke, you shouldn't be hindered to simply 2 weapons. Hell, Crysis 1 let you carry 2 primary weapons, pistol, rocket launcher and various grenades and had the option of putting your guns away and pummeling a guys face in with your fists like he was Justin Beiber.

 

[chromewarriorXIII]

Honestly, I like to keep things realistic, but you can carry more than just a single long weapon and sidearm.

Exactly. I like how it was handled in Siphon Filter: The Omega Strain. The game let you carry more than 2 weapons but it showed you exactly where all the weapons were.

It had:
Back: On your back - Shotgun, assault rifle, sniper rifle, ect.
Sidearm: At your hip - Pistol
Auxiliary: Hanging from the front of you - SMGs usually
Grenade
Melee

That's at least one more weapon than most games. You could always add another option and have non-lethal grenades if you want too (that game made you choose which you were going to use).

I think that this system would work much better while still being realistic.

Of course, I wouldn't mind if they just ditched the limit altogether and let you carry as much guns as you wanted.

 

[Swifteye]

This must be a real issue with shooter fans cause as a casual shooter person I don't see this as an issue at all. Just look at it as a challenge I believe that's what it's supposed to be. After all don't people only use one or two weapons most of the time I mean who really uses five weapons?

 

[Vault Citizen]

I'm open to the idea that there are some games it belongs to but it definetly should not be in Duke Nukem Forever

 

[Pyro Paul]

This 2 weapon stifles innovation so much. If Half Life had felt it had to bent to the will of the status quo and enforce a 2-weapon limit then it's very likely the Gravity gun would never have made the final cut as one item would reduce your weapons options by 10%.

My problem is I believe developers have come to see the Halo-weapon system as the status quo and are too afraid to change it. Afraid that "people won't get it" that is will be something for the critics to ding their game for in an age when critics won't knock of anything for being derivative and lazy. The fact that Gearbox has caved on this just shows how bad it has gotten, a game that is ALL ABOUT old-skool charm compromising in this way... I don't know.

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.

Play any game with a massive weapon list...

Odds are... you'll pick up 2-4 weapons and just play with Them.
Infact, the 4 weapons you'll use the Most are bound to 1, 2, 3 and 4.

This is an undeniable fact because of basic human psychology and design. our hands have difficulty hitting 5-0 with any real sense of control which is why we often don't do it. Developers and designers know this... that is why you'll always have the inventory weighted onto 1-4. If you really want to test this out... play any FPS game and rebind the keys so that your Primary weapon is 5...

The limited weapon selection load out is acctually intended to give weapons more milage as you are more inclined to Use your weapons when you only have 2.

I can tell you for a fact... I shot more Rockets with the Rocket Launcher in Halo then i did with the Rocket Launcher in Half-life 2... And Half-Life 2 Even gave us Endless boxes of Rockets!

Why?

Because when i Picked up an RL in Halo... i Used it because it was one of my only 2 weapons.

 

[ParkourMcGhee]

Yet today games publishers treat us like idiots

Ahh, welcome to the age of casual console gaming. PC gamers feel this doubly a extremely simplified menus and or commands from console ports.

I was going to make a joke about akimbo 3 weapons (again consoleyiish progression), but I think I'll be serious.

Deus ex was a great game, and the inventory (like System shock 2 etc) worked very well by my standards. I think, however, that publishers are A: afraid of over complicating their games and losing a portion of their potential audience (lowest common denominator), and B: See it as a way to cut corners, hell why not? "Everyone else is doing it".

As it stands I'm pretty disappointed with the direction the gaming market is going, but I rest safely in the knowledge that IF all games completely crapped out, and there was only gamers of the old days left, either the (gaming) world would die - or the gamers like me would rise to the challenge and make new ones. God knows I can code, do 3d models, and story myself if need be. I can even do half arsed 2D work. As for sounds and extras, I could improvise. Besides if it was just me, I'd either be hailed as a saviour and various randomers would pitch in, or I'd be the last one there, so again it wouldn't matter.

Honestly, I like to keep things realistic, but you can carry more than just a single long weapon and sidearm.

You don't get a sidearm most times, but you do get the odd occasion. Bayonets are almost never issue unless for infantry, and you'd have to be supremely lucky to get your hands on any ordnance - AND - unless you were an american, you'd practically never SEE some things like underslung grenade launchers and the ammo for them (as opposed to people noobtubing constantly).

More than that, the battles would be fought over very different terrain, and under different tactics. Some even more dickwadish than the ones found in current games. Imagine a round of Search and Destroy on COD4. The enemy is about 500m away bunkered in a building, you're on foot with a plain over you and a forest around... you get blown up either arriving at the scene or the claymores and IEDs scattered in the woods that you can't just "shoot down" and range from underground to on a tree, way above your head.

There's realism, and then there's fun. People often mistake the two.

Especially after grinding their senses to a fine powder in games like WoW or even JRPGs.

...


Wow, TWO rants, I'm on fire.

Better not look at other comments, I have revision *excaliburface*.

 

[Jumplion]

Boo hoo, you want all your weapons with you so you don't have to make any decisions.

Because wanting to decide how you want to approach a situation is not a decision, whereas the developers arbitrarily deciding that in this section you need a sniper rifle is.

While I am not completely against the 2-weapon system, it is a heavily over-saturated system used when it does not need to be. The prime example I can think of is Resistance: Fall of Man compared to Resistance 2. In the first Resistance, there was a weapon wheel where you could carry all the available weapons at your disposal. Some weapons did not have plentiful ammo, so you kept them just in case shit hit the fan. This, coupled with a segmented regenerative health system that was a health bar divided into 4 bars that regenerated to the nearest bar, made the game feel much more tactical and slow, letting you decide how to approach a situation.

In Resistance 2, it was stripped to a two weapon system and it had regular regenerating health. This drastically limited your options and made the game much more fast paced and less tactical as its predecessor. Not only that, but it was painfully obvious what weapon would be best for an upcoming fight. Is there going to be a big tank enemy coming up? There's probably a rocket launcher nearby. Is there going to be a swarm of those tall, skinny Chimera things? There's probably going to be a shotgun. You were restricted to what the developers wanted you to do and it gave much much less freedom to approach the game the way you wanted to.

This is why I am really excited about Resistance 3. Not only are they bringing back the health bar, they're bringing back the weapon wheel along with upgradable weapons. You get to choose how to approach the situation, not whatever weapon happens to be lying about.

That said, I do sometimes enjoy the two-weapon system, but only if it is used right. A game like Duke Nukem has no reason to not include a weapon wheel or something to carry all sorts of weapons, and the absence of a health bar is completely the opposite of what it is supposed to be doing. It's a call back to the games of yore, why the hell should I need to take cover after a few measly alien bullets?

 

[Spencer Petersen]

I like having lots of weapons because it turns the combat into a resource based system instead of an easily replenished system. I like picking up enemy weapons and salvaging their ammunition for my own needs, but when you can only hold 2 weapons it means that you can never stock up on resources or prepare for tough fights, making all the fights the same and reducing the need for custom resource use. It saddens me when melee combat gets turned into a one-hit twitch-fest because the idea of actually equipping a knife before using it is apparently so absurd it got wiped from gaming forever. Oh well, at least Valve and Bethesda understand.

Something that should also go is the arbitrary ammunition limit in most games. Im ok if you limit my ammunition by something like weight or space, but not when its randomly set at a number just to make rounding easier. Bioshock, Singularity, all CoDs and Halos, and so many others are guilty of this.

 

[neurohazzard]

Honestly, I think it depends on the game. On the one hand, the limit worked for Halo, it made flicking between weapons quick and efficient. On the other hand, I am rather saddened to hear the Duke has imposed that limit on himself, it doesn't really suit him. (Hopefully someone mods him a proper inventory and health bar)