Poll: Enough with this 2-weapon limit bullcrap

[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.

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.

Fair point, neither one is realistic, but at least touching (with the implication of somehow using) a health kit implies that the player is not Wolverine and just healing-factoring the wounds away.

Also, people playing pre-halo FPS' never had a problem having fun with those health bars. Developers back then would know that the player enters the level with X amount of health and can plan accordingly, balancing the encounters in the context of the entire level as opposed to balancing each individual encounter within a level.

To those arguing that the 2-weapon system encourages thought and tactics, note that the health bar system also encourages thought and tactics, as the player has to be aware of how much health they have and plan their movements to make sure to hold on to as much health as possible, as opposed to just being able to hide in a corner for a few seconds to make all their bullet wounds magically disappear.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

I really dont mind the limit to be honest. It forces me to think about which weapons would work out for me best in the level, and if i get to a part where its difficult with the weapons i chose, then i just suck it up and deal with it. Games with a two weapon limit never give you an impossible situation, if you need that rocket launcher, there will be a rocket launcher around your area.

 

[drosalion]

There are many games where a 2-weapon system is quite suitable, and many games where it isnt. There is no golden rule (or shouldnt be) when it comes to this imo

 

[Bravo 21]

Well, I was thinking about this for a while, and I think that it would be interesting if a game had a weapon slot system, where you could have a holster for a pistol then a sheath for a knife, and a weapon slung over the shoulder, and one in your hands. Then if you want to pick up a new weapon, you have to give up one similar weapon in order to carry it, for instance, you can't carry 3 rocket launchers, but you could carry 1 rocket launcher, a handgun and then something that you are carrying at that moment

 

[KILGAZOR]

I would like to see a system where how many weapons you could carry at once depended on the weight of the weapons and what equipment you had available to carry them with.

 

[CrystalShadow]

It made sense in context of realism, because how many weapons can one soldier really carry anyway?

Although I've been playing Crysis recently, (The original - It was cheap, and I finally have a PC that can run it.), and they seem to have created a bizarre variant...
(OK, so the suit makes you a supersoldier presumably capable of carrying more weapons than average, but it's still weird.)

So... I don't get how they worked this one out:

So far, I've noticed:

You can carry 2 pistols (dual-wielding. Don't know yet if there's multiple types)

Two rifles. This includes shotguns, and anything like a sub-machine gun or the like.
This is altered a little by the number of attachments which you can use on most of the guns as soon as you find them. (Laser pointer, flashlight. Iron Sights, reflex scope, optical (sniper) scope - It's actually quite amusing to put a laser pointer and a sniper scope... On a shotgun. XD - Aside from that there's also a 'tactical' attachment, which fires some kind of dart, and a grenade launcher attachment.)

Now, on top of this, you can carry satchel charges, and a rocket launcher. But, only one rocket launcher.

Oh, and grenades. Of at least 3 different types.

now, considering, fully loaded, that means I'm carrying 2 rifles, 2 pistols, a rocket launcher, 36 grenades (with an arbitrary limit of 12 of each kind), 3 rockets (for the rocket launcher), about 10 explosive charges, 330 rounds of rifle ammunition (or about 100 shotgun shells) for each type of rifle I'm carrying, and maybe 200 rounds of pistol ammo...
(As well as a handful of weapon attachments...)

Well, clearly, realism wasn't the aim here. Because regardless of how strong the nano-suit makes you, I'd have a hard time seeing where you'd even put all of that stuff, especially all the grenades, rockets, and ammo.
(Although interestingly, I can see the rifles and grenade launcher strapped to my back in the shadow of the character you play as.)

But, given that realism wasn't the issue, the limits seem kind of arbitrary?

Why can I only carry 1 rocket launcher? Why exactly 2 rifles? If I want a third, I have to drop one of the other two. Why, for that matter, can't I drop a rocket launcher and carry a third rifle?

Why can I carry 12 of each type of grenade, instead of some combination of 36 of any kind? After all, while a frag grenade and a smoke grenade have different functions, they're about the same size...

On the whole, from a realism perspective, none of it makes much sense. But, from a gameplay perspective, it does I guess alleviate the need to actively manage your ammo inventory.

But despite this weird and arbitrary arrangement, You still find that if a tank or helicopter shows up, there just happens to be a rocket launcher nearby...
How... Convenient.

Look, in the real world, this problem is, to my knowledge solved by the existence of combat squads.
Different people in the squad carry different weapons, so that collectively, you have the right tool for the situation.

But, this brings us to the problem this has created in games;

Very few shooters are squad-based. You're usually a lone fighter. One man army.
But... To be a one man army in any practical sense, you have to carry the tools to be able to take on any situation.
Or... The game has to contrive a way to give you certain tools as and when you need them.

What this all comes to of course, is how did we end up in a situation where even games that don't give a damn about any kind of realism still feel the need to adhere to the 2 weapon system?

Why does Duke Nukem do it, when that doesn't even fit with the mentality of the game?

Oh well. Hopefully we'll get past this particular design quirk eventually...

 

[SteewpidZombie]

I'd say it's because I'd rather feel the realism of carrying 2 guns...vs trying to waddle around as my 50 rifles, 70 bazookas, 18 machineguns, and MILLION GRENADES, clunk around on my back.

 

[spiritslayr]

Personally I think the more linear the game, the more restrictive it should be. RPGs should let you carry as many weapons as you want but in Halo I'm quite happy to be stuck with two weapons since I'll probably only need those two.

 

[Luthir Fontaine]

it was bull duke only has 2 weapons yeah i understand the cod or halo but come on...

 

[Weaver]

Why the fuck are people saying "It's unrealistic".
It's god damn DUKE NUKEM, there's not a single iota of realism in the bloody game.

 

[Waaghpowa]

-

Maybe he has a suit mode called "Maximum pockets"?, regardless of the arbitrary weapon limits in that game, I still play it even 4 years later and feel that it does it better than the HL system.

 

[Aqua Trenoble]

Obviously having only two weapons is asinine and unrealistic for the reasons that you gave, but it does have a purpose.

I personally would have loved it if Unreal Tournament (for example) only allowed two weapons but, in the style of "realistic" shooters, let you tweak those two weapons to your heart's desire. In UT you didn't really need more than two weapons, because the weapons and levels were designed so that players would pick a preferred weapon and use that exclusively save another weapon or two for special situations. I never have seen or fought another player (or even a bot, really) who used more that three or four weapons. This is because they designed the game well enough that only a few weapons were necessary for each person's playing style, no matter what situation they faced.

My point is that the problem is not dual-weapon gameplay, it is that most developers use the style without designing anything else to make it work well. Either let players customize their guns or design guns and levels so that dual-weapon gameplay is viable.

Don't sacrifice a valuable design asset simply because no-one has figured out how to make it work.

 

[viking97]

its appropriate in some cases, and when designed properly it can be pretty cool. i recall in halo 3 desperately trying to figure out which weapon set i'm best with (needler assault rifle combo, actually) and in hyper-realistic games such as COD a weapon limit is what people want (although i think you could carry more than that, and master chief definitely could. isn't he supposed to have 20 different magnetic spots on his armor to carry shit with?)

TL;DR: some games do better with it, but your half life's and doom's shouldn't.

 

[Netrigan]

I'm cool with it in realistic shooters (or fairly realistic shooters). If you're just shooting the bog-standard weaponry, then you should know which guns you like. In such games, sniper rifles and rocket launchers are pretty situational, and get dropped after the ammo dries up.

But I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate it in sci-fi shooters, because you're not always sure what a gun does. Too often, I ditch alien gear in favor of comfort weapons.

Perhaps a compromise is in order. A two weapon load out, but with all the extra weapons kept in inventory. Swapping out a load-out would be a simple menu away. Lets you have depth of weaponry, while giving the consoles the practical weapon changing ability. I

On the PC, give them button mapping.

And any game that feels the need to limit the player to two weapons as a genuine game play decision, then by all means, use the standard two gun load out. Crytech (prior to Crysis 2) always limited weapons and they were PC exclusives.

 

[Flac00]

A two weapon limit is fine. Sure, it is fun to have a huge amount of guns lying around, but in the end you really only use 2-3 of those in any game. So no, there is not problem. However, a 3 gun limit would be fine with me, allowing for 2 primarys and 1 pistol, or something along those lines. Having a reduced number also adds strategy, do you want an assault rifle and a sniper, or and shotgun and a grenade launcher? This can allow you to specialize, which especially helps for multiplayer.

 

[mikespoff]

Having a weapon limit in Duke Nukem seems entirely counter to the point of the franchise, which has pretty much always been: "Don't make me think too hard, just show me some tits and let me blow stuff up with lotsa big guns".

Outside of DN-type games, I like having some form of credible weapon limit. Forcing you to specialise in to some degree makes the game more fun in my experience: if I take a shotgun and assault rifle I have to play one style, if I take a sniper rifle and a heavy pistol I need to adopt a very different strategy.

It was exactly this degree of specialisation that made me enjoy the multiplayer in Rainbow Six: Vegas (1 & 2) and Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter (1 & 2). Playing the same map with a different weapon loadout was a very different experience, and coordinating complementary weapon sets with your squad-mates made for some really great co-op play.

It doesn't need to be two weapons: R6:Vegas allowed two large and one sidearm, which seems about the plausible maximum to lug around the battlefield, whereas Mass Effect 2 allows two primaries, one small and one special (which is again plausible in the future-tech, lightweight options of its setting). But unless you're going for an arcade-y explosion-fest, I think weapon limits improve the enjoyment of a game.

 

[foolish snails]

I think that for a silly, screw-around-and-shoot-stuff game like halo, the two gun system works just fine. There are so many overpowered weapons that if someone could just stockpile them there would be less of a challenge. In halo, and a few games like it, part of the main strategy is choosing a weapon that you think will suit you in your next skirmish best.
However, in more realistic-type games such as COD and Battlefield, the two-weapon system is outdated and just lazy. I think that there are much better systems, such as carrying a certain weight in guns (i.e. 4 or 5 pistols that could be switched between quickly so one wouldn't have to reload as opposed to one large, heavy LMG that needs some serious toting around but offers devastating firepower and long clips).
This is what I wish they had done in Brink. A fast, light-type character able to sprint around and dodge while unleashing torrents of bullets from machine-pistols, switching between them whenever they run out then disappearing would have been perfect!

 

[Versuvius]

Since when was Duke Nukem even trying to aim for realism? Thats my question.

 

[ninetails593]

It's terrible that you can only hold two weapons in Duke, but for all we know, it could be for the better. Maybe there was some game-breaking problem with carrying all the weapons.

 

[Zeema]

John Marston could carry bout 25 weapons all at once and no one bitched bout that ......just saying

but yeh i rekon there should be at least a 8 weapon spots assigned to the D Pad