Poll: Weapon Carrying Capacity

[razelas]

I prefer the two weapons at a time system. It allows for weapons to be more balanced against each other, with each having it's own use, rather than "This weapon is better than that weapon."

Not to mention that such a system fosters teamwork. Sure, people can argue that working alongside some people is shit (and that's definitely true sometimes) but when you're playing with people who know what they're doing and how to play alongside you... it's a fucking epic feeling.

 

[Shock and Awe]

Depends on the game. Halo would be far to easy if you were allowed to carry every weapon, since they are more balanced toward situations than one being better than the other, carrying all would be overkill. On the other hand, games like Mass Effect where some weapon types are completely useless in some situations it makes sense to let the player carry more, though that number is determined by what other abilities they have.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

In some games I can totally see why a character would be able to carry tons around at once, but on the flip-side it's more realistic(but it actually has to be realistic) to limit it somewhat. It also forces you to optimize and focus, whereas you could have a sniper rifle, shotgun, machine gun, rocket launcher and other stuff and "the peoples fall down" otherwise.

 

[Kataiser]

Depending on the game, I think that 2-3 is the most reasonable.
But I'd miss Half-Life if that was the only option...

 

[SilentCom]

I don't mind being able to carry a dozen different weapons if it is encouraged by the play style. For example Half Life or HL2, each weapon had it's own unique feel and situation in which it is useful. I also don't mind being limited to only 2 weapons if it's a modern shooter style fps like CoD. Frankly I wouldn't want to be juggling through a ton of different weapons when I only need 1 or 2 in that style of game. Overall, it really depends on the game style.

 

[linwolf]

I have never played a game that would be better with more weapons, the hole two weapons thing makes it way to boring.

 

[Vonnis]

Depends on the game, but I'd say anything that isn't trying to be a 'realistic' stealthy shooter shouldn't have a limit on weaponry. There's rarely a point in making the player choose between one weapon and another; all it does is add frustration and ensure certain weapons won't ever be used.

 

[SoranMBane]

All I'm going to say is that it depends on the game. If I were to go more in-depth on that point, I'd end up pretty much writing an essay on how weapons can provide the player with a great deal of choice in games, and I don't want to do that.

 

[norender]

I would say about three guns are good. 2 main weapons and one sidearm, and if necessary a special.

 

[JochemDude]

Carry Weight and items with weight. It works perfectly logical and perfect in any RPG and so why the bloody hell not in a FPS.

 

[DustyDrB]

I don't ask for much, just these:

-A bow
-a dagger
-a hookshot
-another hookshot
-a pistol (I always prefer pistols over other guns. Maybe it's because I prefer spies over soldiers)
-a dozen bomb flowers

 

[FalloutJack]

My pockets are bigger on the inside. They contain...handguns, shotguns, sniper rifles, laser guns, plasma guns, all kinds of grenades, a sledgehammer, a powerfist, a pair of rippers, machine guns, a rocket launcher, a katana, hooga-tons of ammunition, sunglasses, lockpicks, and a mutated freakin' TOE!

 

[Feralcentaur]

I prefer being able to hold 2 or 3 main guns and having some extra equipment like grenades or mines or what have you.

 

[Nietz]

I'm one for "the more the merrier" approach. I like to have options and it leaves more room for experimenting around. I'm usually having more fun when the game itself is letting me do it.

Sure, I get into "realistic" shooter every once in a while, but it's just not the same, not for me anyways. All I can think of is how cool it would be if they would let me carry around ALL the weapons in Rainbow Six: Vegas 2.