Poll: Enough with this 2-weapon limit bullcrap

[little.09]

I actually like the system. I hink it makes things harder and more strategic. "Hmm, I know I'm going into a tight spaced area so I better have a shotgun or SMG handy because the sniper I've been using won't be even marginally useful" and that kind of thing. I like how it forces players to adapt their inventory and combat syle to fit different situations and forces them to budget ammo and always have different scenarios in mind.

That said, I also like the other style where you can tank into a room with you're array of super powered weapons and blast the shit out of everything in a display of crazy over the top fun. I just don't think it's fair to call the system bullcrap just because you prefer the other one. I prefer pepsi, but I still enjoy coke.

this although pepsi tastes like dish water

 

[The Random One]

Like regenerating ammo, it's something that changes the balance of gameplay, but that devs are doing just because the big 'uns are doing it. Which is horrible.

I don't think it should go forever, because it works well on certain games, mostly those with a realistic/tactical emphasis. Definitively shouldn't be in DNF though.

 

[GloatingSwine]

You know what, I can't even think of the last time I wanted more than two weapons at a time. Even in games where you can have umpteen squillion of the things you'll always find that there are one or two that work in 90% of situations, and the only time you'll switch away from them is because they're out of ammo.

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.

Tell you what, before you make that argument again, walk out in the street and ask the first person you meet to kick you really hard in the balls, then come back and tell us how much your health bar went down.

 

[Katana314]

I am sick and tired of people making blanket statements about game mechanics.

I agree, the two-weapon limit does not belong in Duke Nukem. It's a game that would do best to play off its old-school heritage, and if there's a focus on really fun weapons it should not require you to trade a reliable weapon for one that might be fun to use. I agree on that.

But that simply does not translate to "two-weapon limit is bad." I know there were complaints back in the day about how impossible it was for the character to hold 20 different weapons at once. It just doesn't make sense. For the sake of realism (not that the cardinal goal of every shooter should be realism), and also because it makes you really consider your strategy and gameplay style before getting a new weapon, it is not a bad mechanic. It simply belongs in some games and not in others; that does not make it universally bad.

Game design is far too dynamic and artistic to paint any one mechanic as universally, objectively bad. Don't do it, it makes you look whiny.

Thanks for saving my typing fingers.

I'd never bother with more than 2 weapons in CoD: You have your automatic assault rifle or smg, and some long-ranged, specialized gun for occasional use. For Duke Nukem, I think they'd only have the 2-weapon limit so it's simpler for consoles.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I don't mind two weapon system ... if only because it forces you to make choices about which weapons to pick up as you approach a specific combat scene.

Though what I'd kinda like to see in more fps is clip counts instead of bullet counts.

Less spray and hope, and more conservation and purposeful shooting ... would add a little more tactics to the situation rather than 'spray everything' mode.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

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

Yes but no Mister Crow :-( 1,000 guns will not make up for that loss.

 

[Arduras]

2 weapons seem very arbitrary, it's not realistic, but hey, we are playing games aren't we?

Being a Military man myself, if you wanted realistic equipment amounts it would be based on heaps of factors including: personal strength, training, weapon weight, are you wearing a backpack, do you have space on your shoulder for a RPG or MLAWS, etc etc.
And there is no way I'd want to simulate my job in a game (even though I do play arma )

 

[CrustyOatmeal]

i like the 2 weapon system because it forces players to think tactically about their weapon load-out. if a player is allowed to carry every single weapon in the game then they have a weapon for every possible fight they can encounter. part of the fun for me is when you go into a fight totally unprepared and somehow still achieving a victory

the only way i can see a game having a system that allows you to carry more than 2 weapons is by having a weight system (fallout) which doesnt force you to choose two but rather to utilize the best load-out you can have while still keeping a little room for salvaged gear to sell

i understand the urge to be able to hold every weapon in the game, why would you want to play a shooter if you only got to use 2 weapons in the game. what i think developers need to do is more evenly distribute the necessity for each weapon they implement throughout their entire game; have an area where you need a rocket launcher and a rifle, a place where a melee weapon and a shotgun are needed, or have an area where its a sniper battle with some CQC...

 

[Duskflamer]

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.

Tell you what, before you make that argument again, walk out in the street and ask the first person you meet to kick you really hard in the balls, then come back and tell us how much your health bar went down.

A kick to the balls hurts but it's superficial damage. If three bullet wounds in a row is going to kill you, then one bullet wound, then a second 10 minutes later, then a third an hour later, with no medical treatment between them *cough*medkits*cough* is still going to kill you.

 

[Xman490]

In Just Cause 2, I have to leave so many shotguns on the ground since I stuck with the assault rifle and can't have two big weapons. Then I get a dropped rocket launcher and have to buy another assault rifle.
It's a good thing Ni-, I mean Rico, gets $100000s from missions.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

I preferred being able to carry 100s of weapons myself. Although in multiplayer, I actually really miss starting with a simple weapon and having to run around and get weapon pick ups. Thats what I miss more.

 

[God's Clown]

If anything it should be 3 guns. Assault Rifle, Pistol + one other. Pistol is something you strap to your waist, it barely takes room, and doesn't weigh a lot. It shouldn't take up a slot that can be used for other guns, it should have its own separate slot, just like a knife does.

 

[GloatingSwine]

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.

Tell you what, before you make that argument again, walk out in the street and ask the first person you meet to kick you really hard in the balls, then come back and tell us how much your health bar went down.

A kick to the balls hurts but it's superficial damage. If three bullet wounds in a row is going to kill you, then one bullet wound, then a second 10 minutes later, then a third an hour later, with no medical treatment between them *cough*medkits*cough* is still going to kill you.

Well, actually no, real life does not work that way it depends where the bullets hit and how your body reacts. You might survive all three, you might die from one, you might die all but instantly, you might bleed out for minutes, or you might last for hours, the physical trauma itself might not kill you, going into shock might kill you. Health bars are just as unrealistic as regenerating health, but it turns out that they're also a good deal less fun, because they mean that the designer never knows even a ballpark of how much health the player has unless, like pretty much the last holdout of the Old Ways Half-Life 2 they shower the player in medkits every three seconds.

Regenerating health means that the designer always knows how much health the player has when they enter a given encounter, so the challenge level of the encounters can be finely balanced to match the progression of the game.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

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.

Tell you what, before you make that argument again, walk out in the street and ask the first person you meet to kick you really hard in the balls, then come back and tell us how much your health bar went down.

A kick to the balls hurts but it's superficial damage. If three bullet wounds in a row is going to kill you, then one bullet wound, then a second 10 minutes later, then a third an hour later, with no medical treatment between them *cough*medkits*cough* is still going to kill you.

I loathe regenerating health. I think it's the worst new staple of the FPS genre. Its so frustrating to have a protracted gunfight with someone and everytime they hide and cry to themselves for a few seconds, they are back to full life.

 

[Waaghpowa]

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!

As much as I agree with the OP, I had a thought. Some Sci fi shooters could actually be portraying a reasonably realistic future. I use Killzone as an example because despite being a sci, it looks and feels real to a certain degree and the absence of energy based weapons coincides with the realism behind such a concept. Being that an enormous amount of energy is required to fire them making them impracticable to the conventional projectile based weapon i.e. bullets. Basically the reason why I like sci fi so much, you can't say for certain it wont happen 100 years from now.

Kinda off topic, but that's what I was thinking.

 

[SilentVirus]

I think the purpose is for it to balance out the game for other players. I guess it promotes checks and balances like "Kill guy with sniper at long range, he comes to kill you with SMG at short range"

 

[ikoian]

This makes me think of Jak 3's approach on controlling 12 different guns. It was genious, allowed a variety of different shooting styles, and was still simple to understand.

 

[ReaperzXIII]

Considering that I mostly stick to two weapons anyway (Sniper and an automatic weapon/shotgun, or an automatic and a side-arm/shotgun or in those really rare situations a BFG and an automatic weapon), I rarely use more than 1 gun even when given the choice so I prefer the 2 weapons saves me inventory wading. In Half Life the only time I would use a gun other than the assault rifle or the shotgun was because I ran out of bullets, in Borderlands the only reason I used other guns was because there are achievements for using other guns and sometimes I got bored.

I don't see the problem, normally in games if you are in a situation when you need a specific gun they give it to you, only problem I find is when sniper/BFG ammo is in such short supply

Some games benefit from them some don't, but either way I don't see a big problem

 

[Zantos]

I far prefer the two weapon system in Battlefield (oppertunity to change at various points in the level) to systems where you carry everything (I'm looking at you Half Life 2). I at least get to think about the tactics I'm going to use to make an attack rather than just throw everything at them. Also with multiplayer focus to modern FPS it would make carrying more than one shit hard to balance. Look at the effort that's had to go into Gears of War just to balence a three gun with map pickups system.

 

[Anchupom]

I like how Ratchet and Clank do it... Foldy-outy techno weapons. Keeps space for about 30 guns in your back pocket all the time.
But Vanquish went for only a few weapons, didn't it? And that did the foldy-outy techno weapon trick too... (Played the demo a fair few times, but don't remember the weapons much)

I guess it's to try and encourage more skillful gaming by the player? But if that's the case, why don't they put that as an increased difficulty and leave me and my arsenal to blow apart the entire planet?