Poll: Enough with this 2-weapon limit bullcrap

[Macgyvercas]

Well, I know in Killing Floor, the amount of weapons you can carry is based on weight. My usual loadout is a shotgun, an M79, 2 pipe bombs, a katana, the knife and pistol they throw you and however many grenades a level 2 Support Specialist can carry.

Personally, I like the weight system.

 

[cynicalsaint1]

Two weapon limits suck about all of the time.
Why?
Because it kills the fun in having a variety of cool weapons to choose from.

In modern shooters I always find myself usually just sticking to whatever the game's Assault Rifle equivalent happens to be because it tends to be useful in all situations. There's no reason to carry a more situational weapon because unless you already know exactly whats coming its a lot smarter to take a weapon that will work well in most situations. At that point why bother having a bunch of cool weapons to choose from?

Yeah, there's the argument that it adds an element of choice, and makes you think about what you're doing, but its an empty choice. If you need a specific weapon for a specific situation chances are the game will give it to you when you need it, rather than screw you over because you haven't been lugging a useless rocket launcher around for two stages.

And I don't buy the "Its because tons of weapons doesnt work for consoles" - total BS. Why not take a look at the old Turok games on N64 - not only did you have a crap ton of completely badass weapons, but some even had multiple types of ammo you could use.

Honestly I've always thought having an arsenal of weapons to choose from added more depth, because you had to figure out which weapons worked best in which situations. In 'two-weapon' shooters, you just take whatever is the best all around weapon, or whatever the game gives you that happens to be tailored to the situation.

 

[dalek sec]

In FEAR you could only carry 4 weapons out of 8ish that existed. You could argue that because of that you need to make a more tactical choice as to which weapons you are gonna carry and trying to get the best mix for every situation. But it doesn't really make the game more tactical. It does make the game more realistic, but not in a way that actually improves the game.

I don't like it. I'm a loot whore, a pack rat. I wanna carry everything. In Fallout I had enough guns in my backpack to start World War III with.

Ditto. I like to carry atleast a few guns around to handle pretty much anything that comes at me.

Like 4RM3D I'm also a loot whore who pretty much nicks everything that isn't bolted down the ground. Weapons-wise you can never have enough dakka to bring to a fight. If anyone tells you otherwise they are lying to mess with you. D:

 

[ThatOneJewYouNo]

... 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%...

It would be 50%. Half of two is one, so it would be 50% of your weapon options. Just saying.

 

[Nuds1000]

I don't know if its about realism or if its just simply a balance thing, lots of shooters are online multilayer and its most likely easy to balance the game if you limit the player to a primary, secondary and, melee weapon. That being said I do like games with more the 2 weapons if it works, some games I just get weapons and never use them and I feel like that is a wasted mechanic in the game. Every weapon should have a purpose in a game.

 

[Sir Boss]

I like to carry around enough weapons to arm a small country, i however will make exceptions for the military shooters like COD, but still 2 is too few

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

I am not a huge fan of it.

But if a game with a 2 weapon limit is done well then it is done well.

Also...it forces you to think a bit more.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

yayyyyy halo hate!

oh how this never gets old! lets blame halo for everything! yayy!!!!


honestly instead of getting all angsty over something, why not do as so many of you stubborn pups always jam about, and say...not buy the game? show that developer who's boss?


meh. lost all energy to make any more statements on that for now, if you literally NEED more weapons then your either doing it wrong or well thats a bit of a "tough shit" moment, i'm not saying i agree that games should head that way but jesus when some people rage, the rage is troll worthy beyond belief.

 

[Smerf]

a big reason games have the 2 wep limit is multiplayer. people couldn't switch to the gun they needed fast enogh.

 

[shadisky]

I'd rather have to figure out how to survive a situation based on a limited supply of answers, rather than looking in my bag of holding and pulling out a cleric for that zombie invasion.

 

[Morgan Howe]

Duke Nukem should not have a 2 weapons system, thats obvious to anyone who actually liked the old Duke Nukem games
HOWEVER saying no games should have it makes you as open minded as Hitler
it worked for halo, it worked for gears of war, it does not work for the classical character of Duke

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.

and yo, if you played the demo you'd know, there is no having a weapon you'd like, the game isn't that nice. you will need the railgun for sniping(which is in itself an insult to Duke) a shotgun for close range, and about 50 rpgs for bosses/armored units. thats already more weapons then you can carry. guns like freeze ray and shrink ray are going to go largely unused.

 

[CarlsonAndPeeters]

It only ever frustrated me in the original Mercenaries. When the point is having random fun killing people, not being able to carry a rocket launcher, sniper rifle, and assault rifle always bothered than me.

Other than that, I don't really mind. Its a good limit for online multiplayer, and most of the FPS games I play are just for the multiplayer (seeing as the campaigns are so lacking nowadays).

 

[duchaked]

well first it's not "crap" or let's not start off by calling it that
but seeing how you did then I suppose I shouldn't say "deal with it" either
I would say "other" seeing how I'm not exactly wanting it to be the rock solid STANDARD for FPS games...but not exactly leaving a lot of options in the poll so idk what to say really.
I am perplexed why DNF is doing the 2-weapon limit tho...and I guess I can see why you're so upset!

 

[Elijah Ball]

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

Depends on the game, i guess. COD prolly wont go higher than 3, ever. But some super-solder of the future could have more thn 2 guns.

 

[latenightapplepie]

No.

I like the two-weapon limit. It works for most of the shooters I've played. 3 and 4 are good too. Any more than that is a little awkward, I think.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

2 slots for rifles + 1 for sidearm is fine for realism, in fact it's more realistic than only 2 slots.

Well, the point of the thread is a rant about DNF. Duke Nukem isn't about realism, it never was. In DN3D, when a player found a gun they carried it around for the rest of the game, it didn't matter how many guns the player picked up, the player could carry them all.

People were looking or a unrealistic non-serious shooter like Duke Nukem of old. Since finally a new Nukem game was coming out, people expected and rightly so, that the game would be just as unrealistic and non-serious a shooter as the old Nukem was. The left the non-serious sort of, but made it so that it is realistic when it comes to how many weapons Duke can hold.

If the game was made properly, Duke should have been able to hold at lest 10 guns, oh and kick instead of a bland arm melee.

I don't care what people say about how much time Gearbox had to work on the game(2 years from when they purchased the rights to work on it), they had plenty of time to change it into what it was suppose to be.

People claim that they got a game that was already 80% done, well "if" the two weapon limit wasn't Gearbox's fault, it is still Gearbox's fault that they didn't change it back to the holding 10 or more weapons system. If they had to rebuild the game from scratch to do it, they could have done that in 2 years.

Their excuse that a console button scheme wouldn't be able handle having so many weapons all at once is bullshit. Especially since the DN3D got straight ported to consoles and the having 10 weapons worked just fine.

Gearbox just got lazy and decided that instead of actually working to make the game proper for what it is suppose to be, they thought they would just tinker with it slightly and then release it on faith that the anticipation of people that have actually waited 12 years or so for it will just buy it expecting it to be right. They took it as a quick cash grab from loyal gamers that actually expected to get something that should have been a certain way.

They aren't going to care if sales plummet to next to nothing after launch because the launch pre-orders that go through will make all the money they were hoping for.

This is one of those moments I wish gamers would unify on and almost every single person in protest cancels their pre-order of DNF.

I would love to see the people's faces at Gearbox when the game launches and only one to two thousand copies sell instead of millions.

If they were smart, they would take the loss by canceling the gone gold for the game and go back and fix it so the game is proper where the player can carry every weapon. If not that, they better release free DLC that patches the game so that players can carry all the weapons.

Gearbox really screwed themselves over on this one. It would have been better if the game had said in permanent non-release, and gone the way of other games that didn't get made and released.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

Its the realism thing.
Realistically you can't carry an entire arsenal around, I remember seeing a RoosterTeeth video where they tried to.

If you want to make your game about soldiers running around some gritty warzone then they can't keep a BFG up their arse just incase they need to create a black hole or something.

Fair's fair if you want to make a big dumb game where your character has infinite pockets and carries enough weaponry to worry the entire united states, you shouldn't be kept to two weapons all the time. But in what we can call the standard or generic first person game of this age, infinite pocket space does not make sense.

I don't exactly like the two weapon restriction, don't get me wrong.
Personally I prefer Rainbow Six: Vegas 2's system of allowing you two primary weapons and a side-arm.

I'm with this. Probly biased since R6: Vegas2 is my fav game of all time, but it just seems more appropriate in a game that tries to emulate realism not to be able to carry an armory. I mean you have to think about every move you make sometimes. And always having a sidearm is also a must. Having to swap out your M1911 for an RPG just...doesn't make sense in games like Duke Nukem. Only thing Vegas2 is missing is a melee button, at least a rifle butt or something.

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.

I'll agree with this, except for the fact that you don't always "know" what you're coming up against. Some people get frustrated, if the checkpoints are spread out wrongly and you are stuck with the wrong gun at the wrong time. And I think the reason people are also upset is because they expected DNF to be the type of game where you "tank into a room", as you say.

 

[CplDustov]

I think in CoD 1 they had the 2 plus your sidearm; which I liked better as nowadays you pull the sidearm from nowhere when you go down if you don't have one. Farcry1 had 4 at least on PC. So yes.. 2 seems a bit restrictive. Though in games like Rainbow 6 and Ghost Recon it fits into the game mechanics well. I just don't think all games should do this.

 

[The Apothecarry]

I don't exactly like the two weapon restriction, don't get me wrong.
Personally I prefer Rainbow Six: Vegas 2's system of allowing you two primary weapons and a side-arm.

Right here. Vegas 2 had a nice way of making sure players weren't completely useless if they ran out of rounds. But if you ran out ammo on a Terrorist Hunt, one wonders what the hell you were shooting at.

As much as I'd like to be able to carry a DMR, Shotgun,and an Energy Sword, having only two weapons is much more convenient for players. Your wish for unlimited is fun but impractical. If you want one specific weapon, you'll have to sift through 12 weapons to find it. TimeSplitters: Future Perfect had a good way of addressing this by using the D-Pad to control opening the weapon bar and selecting something.

 

[gideonkain]

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

That's true - but the problem is that developers make a tight corridor and put a shotgun on an altar in front of it.