Poll: Enough with this 2-weapon limit bullcrap

[Jacob Pearlz]

they do it for the realistic part... but you should be able to have a side arm +two main weapons. although even two main weapons is hard to carry in real life.

 

[Snotnarok]

It's a fine thing to use to keep balance but it's irritating how every game seems to incorporate these things. Variety would make these titles so much more amusing and would contrast games more instead of the same mechanics every game.

 

[Lunar Templar]

I'm for the old-school walking arsenal shenanigans of say Painkiller or Serious Sam.

word

i like being adaptable, 2 weapons dose not allow this

 

[similar.squirrel]

Realism nonsense aside, I prefer to take firearms from downed enemies to suit any given situation. Gives games a more tactical, improvisatory feel. Just more fun. Same with recharging health. Lends combat situations more flow.

 

[aakibar]

This is the reason why i like fallout new vegas so much vs games like cod and halo...I like being able to carry my mininuke launcher, Anti-material rifle, and hunting shotgun plus enough chems and food to sink a battleship. Its nice when you are trying to be realistic but most games are not really realistic so why bother.

I am really disappointed that the new Nukem does not allow you to carry all your weapons, that was so much fun in the old games

 

[Slimshad]

My ideal game would have weapon slots like Doom 3, where you have a melee, a pistol, a shotgun, a machine gun, a rocket launcher etc. You could carry all of these guns at any time and switch them out at any time. However, you would have other weapons/ enemy weapons that act slightly differently with visuals and stats, but if you wanted to pick it up you had to switch out whatever weapon was most like it. Say you had a machine gun, and your enemy has a cooler machine gun. You would then switch machine guns, but keep your BFG 9000 for later use.

This would mean weapons had various stats to attribute to. Maybe a shotgun that used explosive damage, or a rocket launcher that launched several low powered rockets. That way you could pick up the weapons you liked to "specialize" how you killed enemies, instead of specializing in one fricken gun. I absolutely HATE the 2 weapon limit. It isn't fun, and no one in their right mind should think it is fun. How can you say that walking around firing one or two guns all the fricken time doing the same fricken thing every fricken where? (My mom told me I swear too much). Only people who take comfort in repetition enjoy that, as far as I can see.

That's why I have ALWAYS loved doom 3, quake, unreal tournament and the duke nukem games more than I ever will than Call of Duty.

Now I am not saying call of Duty isn't fun, I think the gameplay mechanics make it quite a fun thing. But there is nothing fun about firing the same gun to kill everyone the same way each and every time until you find exactly the same looking gun on the ground that fires exactly the same thing except it does it slightly faster. No, that isn't fun. It's addictive and repetitive and it adds nothing to the game.

 

[northeast rower]

1) ***** more. It's not going away because you try to "JUSTICE!" it to death.

2) It enhances the gameplay by forcing less enemies upon you. You have to take the weapons that you think will be good for whatever situation. If you don't have that, the game just throws endless numbers of enemies at you, and personally I'd rather have the strategy than a never-ending onslaught (I like some games that do, like Doom, but it's just not my cup of tea).

 

[FalloutJack]

Who needs realism? I'm playing a GAME.

 

[spartan231490]

I like the two weapon system. It forces you to choose which weapons you want to carry. On the other hand, you can't use this in a game where there are enemies that can only be killed by the most powerful weapon in the game. If you want to have an enemy that requires rockets to kill, you can't have a 2 weapon limit. but in games like halo when you can take out even vehicles with normal weapons if you have the time and put in the effort, I think it should be standard. It makes you choose between the shotgun and the sniper rifle or the assault rifle. It makes the game a little more strategic and a little more customizable.

Yeah but they are NOT fun to kill without the specialised weapon for the job.

Especially the enemies with regenerating shields, you can't pick away their health slowly. You have to run up to them and pump bullets into their bullet sponge foreheads being a bullet sponge yourself, not tactics, no careful darting in and out of cover nor flanking.

Hey you know WHY the real life military (upon which most games here base their guns from) have such a variety of weapons? Because every infantryman works together as A TEAM. But that Teamwork takes months of hard work to build up in the military and is almost non-existent in games even when everyone involved actually want to work together.

The thing is if there is always the likelihood of being armed with a pea-shooter the game can never up the ante with newer tougher enemies as it can't depend on you having deadlier weapons, the stakes are kept low.

I see your point but I disagree. I never have any problem with regenerating shield enemies, as long as you don't stop hitting them for too long, their shields don't regen. I've never had much trouble with enemies in any game that allows just two weapons. I never found myself saying: "gee, if I only had X weapon, I would beat this section," the games are designed for you to use two weapons, and it's always possible to beat the section with the weapons in it and a couple of basic weapons you carry with you. It just requires strategy and skill. Heaven forbid! And I don't give a crap about the real life military. I enjoy games for the aspect of being better than the everyman, not in being another cog in the system.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

They want to make it realistic.

This begs the question: Why do games need to be realistic? I understand the leaning toward realism in games like CoD, but Halo is sci-fi and games like Duke Nukem fly in the face of realism. Why impose a realistic weapon limit there?

Also, just because a game is going for a more realistic approach doesn't mean that it needs a weapon limit. In as much as Half-Life had sci-fi alien craziness, it still had a certain streak of realism and grittiness, DESPITE the fact that you can carry enough weapons to be classified as a one-man army.

I'm not against the two-weapon rule in CoD or Battlefield, but I am against the two-weapon rule as a genre standard, hence the reason that voted option one.

Also, I'd argue that a game doesn't HAVE to have have the two-weapon rule to feel realistic.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Oh woop de fucking doo! Yet another 'BLAME HALO FOR EVERYTHING!1!' thread. You do realise, don't you, that it isn't actually Bungie's fault that everyone copied their idea? You don't like a 2 weapon limit? Fine, it's not for everybody, but can we please stop pointing the finger at a legitimate franchise that is enjoyed by millions of people worldwide because of other developers fear of failure and lack of creativity.

A 2 weapon limit has it's uses btw, not forcing your character to carry round every weapon in the game actually allows developers the freedom to put more weapons in the game and offer more choice without it being stupid. It also forces the player to think more tactically and gives a more realistic feel. And before anyone starts with 'REAL1SM IS BORING!1!', creating suspense through the immersion of realism is just as legitimate as all out action in the right games when done properly. It just is ok.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

As a CONSOLE GAMER I have to say I agree completely.

 

[kebab4you]

And while we're talking about gameplay mechanics that need to drink some lead based paint and retard themselves out of existance, DEATH TO REGENERATING HEALTH!!!!!!!!!!

This, if not in all FPS games at least in mutliplayer! Also bring back some way to tell how much HP I got...

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

This. This right here. Does it even matter? Pick one you like and one that'll save your ass if you need to use it.

Or, you could, I don't know, buy a different game. Christ, I was originally buying duke because I liked the special edition. Now i'm doing it out of SPITE.

Like someone said in the duke nukem thread, carrying two weapons won't create inspiring combat, you will just pick Weapon A and B that work for all situations instead of C that only works in some.

 

[Cabamacadaf]

It works for some games, like Halo and Call of Duty, but for games like Duke Nukem it's just wrong to have a two weapon limit.

 

[Raddra]

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

Then go play a sim. GFTO with this 2 weapon garbage in shoot'em up shooters, I myself was also dissappointed with the Duke Nukem demo in that I could only carry two weapons. WTF happended to the massive inventory of kickass weapons? I hear this whiny crap about realism, yet I never see the people whining about it playing simulators.....HYPOCRISY much? I have to say I totally agree with the OP and say FUCK OFF halo clones go die.

You do realize I was agreeing with the 'away with the limitation' thing right?

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Absolutely agree to this! The whole 2 gun thing is really frustrating. Yes yes realism, "noone could carry all that" FFS, I'm a supersoldier in a nanosuit shooting aliens and giant robots, it doesn't get more fictional! If I wanted realism, I'd play "Waiting for 20 minutes at the bus stop" or "My reception is really bad, let me more near the window".

How much more fun would Bulletstorm have been had we the ability to switch to different weapoons on the battlefield? It is fun to go between long, med and short range action with the cool tools of the trade. We have the 10 number keys, put them back to their intended purpose and two weapon limit be damned!

Saying that, I kinda liked Dead Space 1/2's way of doing things. 4 guns at least gives more tactical options, as well as the ability to have a favourite and not totally gimp yourself if it's not necessarily the best weapon. Resident Evil 4 style was also an interesting one (Chicago Typewriter, Broken Butterfly and Infinite Launcher barely fit!).

The only time I suppose it's excusable is in a Rainbow 6/L4D2 style coop/squad based shooter where everyone has a specific role, or where it's the overall team loadout, cooperation and skill that makes the challenge. But in non squad based or coop MP FPS, NO!

Our devs, hallowed be thy guns. Give us back our daily shotguns and assault rifles, return to us our dual pistols, our sniper and our rocket launcher. Forgive us our flak cannons as we instagib those who use their miniguns against us and lead us not into cover-based and regenerating health temptation. Amen.

 

[Duskflamer]

It's one of many displays of the recent fetish for FPS games to be ultra realistic. Slow movement speed (with perhaps a limited dash), gritty, grey and brown textures, and "realistically" only carrying 2 weapons around.

And you know, this is fine if you're trying to make an ultra realistic shooter. Games back in the day weren't meant to be so realistic because the visual detail needed for that was impossible. As such, they had no issue letting you carry every weapon on the game. And it fit those types of games well, Duke Nukem being one of those games. DNF following the two weapon limit just cements it as a realistic FPS, which is the opposite of what previous Duke Nukem games were.

fun fact: the whole "regenerating health" mechanic also seems to be a staple of realistic games despite being far less realistic than a health bar.

 

[Therumancer]

I think the idea is to increase replay value without having to do a lot more design work.
The weapon limit means people replaying the game with other weapon combos to see if they can make them work. The old "okay, so could I beat that room with these other weapons that didn't seem optimal for me instead?" schtick.

I don't care for it myself, but I can see why they do it.

Of course then again I'm not a big shooter player, and most ones that I do play seem to give you four weapons.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

Copy paste from my post in the DNF thread.


"What? Seriously? There have been hundreds of games on PS2 where you can carry more than two weapons. Off the top of my head I pull Red Faction 1+2, where you could carry as many weapons as you could find on the level at one time.

Hell! RF1 eventually let you carry every single weapon in the game because it was an awesome game and didn't have defined levels and so let you keep all your weapons and ammo so you reached the point where you were running through a space station on a time limit to get to the escape pods before it exploded and you had to take out enemies along the way by switching from anything to the Control Baton to a Fusion Rocket Lancher to a RailGun to 8/9 different other weapons at any time.

And as for the mighty boot/Bulletstorm type thing?

Bullshit Gearbox. Bullshit.
Now I'm annoyed and am going to play a proper old school FPS because the one game I thought could break from power armoured slow ass space marines with 2 weapons has crashed and burned at my feet."

don't forget unreal tournament 3, which let you carry every weapon in the game if you wanted

 

[Giantpanda602]

I think it should be based off either a weight or a spacial system (or both). Obviously, you can't carry several rocket launchers. They're too heavy and they weigh to much. You can, however, carry around 3 pistols and a rifle.

In games like Duke Nukem, screw that. I want to be a badass, dammit!