Time to put the Two-Weapon Limit Out of its Misery

[Therumancer]

I think it's a trend towards "realism" which does not mean they want things to be totally real, but feel like they could be. Right now you might have noticed that geekdom is taking a back seat in a lot of game development as the casuals want things that seem like they could be vaguely plausible. Rather than say a Space Marine fighting demons on Mars, they want to say play a modern soldier fighting enemies that can be sold with a bit of Tom Clancy type writing as remotely plausible. The Assassin's Creed games which sell really well are mostly historical reinactments, which keep the weird stuff to a minimal, indeed the whole science fiction aspect of the game seems to be getting downplayed with each installment, it seems your typical AC player can't make heads or tails of most of it anyway, mostly they just think it's cool to feel sort of like a pirate using "authentic" weapons or whatever. Faux-realism is a big deal, and games seem to strive to be convincing today.

This is not to say that all kinds of crazy fantasy and science fiction games don't get made constantly and don't sell pretty well in many cases, but they are niche generas. Right now "realistic" games either warfare, or sports, are largely king and are what outsell just about everything else. It seems like the more outrageously crazy you get, the more you limit your audience.

Even "Zombie Games" oftentimes sell on the conceit of being "realistic" in the sense of letting people step into the shoes of someone trying to survive the apocalypse everyone jokingly has an emergency plan for.

I'll also say that one problem I do have with allowing you to carry a weapon for every situation in shooters is that it makes it a relatively trivial matter to switch over to the ideal kind of weapon for the situation your facing. I'm not a huge shooter fan, but within my experiences in the genera one of the things that tends to stick in my mind is when I'm forced to confront an area with weapons that are hardly ideal for the situation and improvise. If you can always pull out the perfect boomstick, your just not going to have to face that. I admit two weapons can be pretty harsh seeming, but to be honest most people don't wind up carrying more than one long gun and a sidearm. That said I would personally consider 3 or 4 weapons to be optimal, which is the balance say Far Cry 3 used, you could carry a decent selection and address most problems, but you weren't going to have a gun for every occasion. What's more I don't really see much wrong with defaulting to an assault rifle or carbine, as that's what soldiers and such tend to really use by default for a reason. But then again for some odd reason in many shooters I oftentimes wind up trying to play through the whole thing with a handgun for whatever reason.

That said tastes come and go, and times change, everything that was popular once eventually comes around again. You already see a lot of people getting exasperated by "modern shooters" so I imagine we'll probably see a return to more over the top fun sooner, rather than later, however for things to really take off it's likely going to involve one of the big companies thinking outside the current box for about 15 minutes, succeeding, and then everyone playing follow the leader again.

 

[Delance]

Mass Effect 3 used used an interesting mechanic: you could choose the number of weapons, and each weapon had a weight. The heavier the total amount of weapons, the slower the power cooldown, and vice-versa. As a player, you could plan a good strategy: lots of weapons and slow cooldowns, which could work well for soldiers, or light weapons and fast cooldown, for power-based players.

 

[Seanchaidh]

2. Having only two weapons makes the game more strategic!

I would think that a situation where you have more options is the one where you have "more strategy". Strategy is about making decisions. With many options,

No strategy is about working within a confined box.

Lets take Chess as an example. If I said you can have 8 pawns, or 8 of any piece you want you'd pick 8 queens. Anyone who says otherwise isn't thinking clearly. What's the strategy in having the most advantages weapon for the situation? It's certainly a strategy, but one mostly employed by cheaters who like to give themselves unlimited rockets. It has less to do with strategy, and more to do with brute force.

If this is your first time through the game, then you don't know what challenges are ahead of you. So you have no information to guide your decision.

Yea the first time learning the strategy for anything can be a bit of a steep learning curve if not developed correctly. Still doesn't mean they should be just handed queens in favor of them never developing a strategy for knights.

Choosing a weapon for an unknown future engagement isn't a strategy game. It's a guessing game.

No it means you're new, and need to learn the maps, and your preferred strategies. It's a lot of trial and error. No one started playing chess at a masters level, and arguably that's the most strategic game there is.

The two weapon restriction has two ways of forcing strategy. First by limiting what weapons are available by restricting access, or limiting ammo. You can have a unlimited pawns, or you can have a couple of knights a la assault riffle, or sniper riffle. The second is by making it so that a choice can't be easily reversed forcing the player to develop a strategy for what they have, and not what they'd like to have. Oh my opponent changed up his strategy after he figured out I was a sniper, and now I'd just love to have that rocket because it'd make my strategy a whole lot simpler.

I'd like to point out that what you propose strongly implies that you'll have to play over and over until you develop a strategy already knowing the game. You mention maps, but it's not always multiplayer. Single games also have this two-weapon limit and I'm certainly not going to replay an entire campaign just to get to that level and choose the appropriate weapons for the encounters contained within it. In your suggestion most people will find the first (second, and probably third) playthrough frustrating and maybe unfair. That right there is, to me, terrible design. If that's the objective of the game (like Dark Souls), by all means, go ahead. If it wasn't, then your game has failed at being fun without "getting good".

I'd like to point out that a person doesn't necessarily need the optimal equipment to approach a problem in order to solve that problem. Choosing a weapon is often a much less interesting decision than how you use what weapon you chose. It is quite plausible that limiting the number of weapons someone can carry will often add strategic diversity. When I have suboptimal equipment for a difficult encounter, that often promotes quite a lot more strategic thinking than if I have all options available. Granted, some people will just load the auto-save and pick the optimal equipment.

 

[Areloch]

Man, this really became "Stop liking what I don't like" the thread.

There is NOTHING inherently wrong or incorrect about weapon limits. They may not be your cup of tea, but that doesn't mean they're a flawed design concept.

It's dependent on the game's design. It's absurd to imagine a more tactical/hardcore shooter allowing you to care 10 different forms of weapons on hand, and simultaneously arena-type shooters tend to suffer with a reduced arsenal.

Hating halo because they popularized a development trend is a foolish notion. Halo's designers looked at their gameplay and decided that having a limit to the number of weapons you could carry with you provided interesting gameplay challenges and considerations.

The fact that lots of other games jumped on it 'because Halo did it' doesn't magically invalidate the very real design considerations that went into Halo itself.

If you're going to get annoyed with devs for pushing in a flawed inventory management system for their game's design, be annoyed with their poor design philosophy, not because another game did it in the past.

 

[JemJar]

I'm playing Gears of War 3 atm and for most of the game so far I've just stuck with the Mk2 Lancer Assault and Torque Bow, I've used the Gnasher Shotgun and Long Shot Sniper in Gears 1&2 and prefer the Torque Bow for most situations. All the other weapons in Gears 3 I've used once and dropped straight away since they aren't as good or lack the ammo to give up a weapon slot.

See, in my experience Gears is one of the proverbial "good guys" - two weapons, a pistol and some grenades "works" visually and the relatively limited number of weapons have a different feel which leaves people picking the ones they prefer. I've played through all three of the "proper" GoW titles in co-op and my friends and I rarely find ourselves "competing" over weapon choices. Opinions were divided on using the Torque Bow vs the Sniper Rifle (my two cents: the former on low difficulties, the latter on Insane) and over the three GoW 3 assault rifles (I'll take the Hammerburst please) meaning that we'd rarely if ever have two players on the same loadout.

Man, this really became "Stop liking what I don't like" the thread.

There is NOTHING inherently wrong or incorrect about weapon limits. They may not be your cup of tea, but that doesn't mean they're a flawed design concept.

It's dependent on the game's design.

This person says things I agree with. Hearty congratulations to this person. My opinion is meaningful.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Game pausing (or slowing) weapon wheels are my preferred solution to this problem.

But are completely incompatible with multiplayer, which console games are based around. Weapon wheels are the way to go though, GTA:O uses a (non-time slowing) weapon wheel allowing players to use as many weapons as they want -my current character can choose from 5 pistols, 6 machine guns, 5 assault rifles, 3 sniper rifles, 5 melee weapons, 4 shotguns, 4 heavy weapons and 3 grenade types at the drop of a hat due to a very well designed wheel system.

 

[Paragon Fury]

I have to completely disagree with this article. The two-weapon system is far superior for both singleplayer and multiplayer, for one reason;

It forces you to improvise and use sub-optimal weapons, and makes sure you can never fully be prepared and therefore will have to face the unexpected. The 4/3 weapon slot system means you're never unprepared; you can never EVER be surprised or taken off guard because you can have the answer for literally every situation at all times.

In multiplayer this is especially important, because it prevents and discourages people from hogging power weapons (since having two power weapons actually puts you at a disadvantage in general combat) and still has that element of strategy because you have to come up with a way to overcome the fact that you can't have the perfect weapon at all times.

 

[Pseudonym]

I would think that a situation where you have more options is the one where you have "more strategy".Strategy is about making decisions. With many options, you're making constant decisions about what weapon you want to use in this particular venue against these particular foes.

lel. More options has nothing to do with more strategy. In fact, making the best of a difficult situation where you are underarmed might be fun and challenging. Strategy also isn't a 'constant decision' thing as strategy pertains exactly to the long term. This all sounds to me as 'I don't want to think ahead, just gimme the rocket launcer'.

And that's not even a strategic decision! If this is your first time through the game, then you don't know what challenges are ahead of you. So you have no information to guide your decision. You don't want to take a sniper rifle and find you're fighting in a tight maze, and you don't want to take a shotgun into a long-distance engagement. Which means you'll probably stick to boring old assault rifles because they're the "jack of all trades, master of none" of video game firearms. Choosing a weapon for an unknown future engagement isn't a strategy game. It's a guessing game.

That is only if the game is poorly designed or if you are being lazy. Most of the time when I play something it is quite clear what is to be expected around the next corner, except when it deliberately isn't. You don't have to have played the game before to figure out what to do next.

 

[josemlopes]

This was probably already said but first of all, Halo was no where near the game that could be called "The first FPS made with consoles in mind", by that point we already had Goldeneye and Perfect Dark. Also there is no reason to blame consoles and controllers since they are very capable of handling weapons switching with more then two weapons. If a game only lets you carry two weapons its because the devs wanted it to be like that (there are pros and cons for both systems and the ones in between), it isnt because the system they were developing for couldnt handle.

So yeah, there really is no point in finding who is to blame.

Some games have mini-maps, some dont, as long as the game is designed properly with that in mind, it will work.

 

[ryukage_sama]

WANTED for the murder of Fun:
John "Two Weapon Carry" Doe
$$60,000,000,000
Dead or Alive

 

[Toadfish1]

And as usual, Young manages to miss the point of why the system is there, never once adressing it.

Its not because consoles are somehow incapable of doing it, its so that a designer can make sure that they know exactly what the player is using at any one point so that they can not use a weapon that would break any one particular encounter. This, in turn, gives them a greater variety of weapons if they know that said weapons won't be used outside of the portion they were designed for and around.

 

[DrOswald]

I think Halo hit a sweet spot between the shooters of today and the shooters of yesteryear, and thats because the game was very aware of what makes both successful. One of the reasons why Halo pulls off the two-weapon system where most games don't is because you actually have more than two weapons, the third being a melee attack.

I would go further than that. At any given moment in halo you have access to 5 attacks: 2 guns, melee, and grenades, and a plasma pistol (because there is always a weakling with a plasma pistol around.) And the plasma pistol is capable of solving almost any problem in the game - it knocks out shields for taking out big guys, it rips through little guys, takes out the flying dudes with a single shot, and has a mildly guided shot for long range engagements. In Halo the AR is not the jack of all trades, it's the plasma pistol. And it is always available when you need it.

The only enemies it can't handle are the specialty enemies like vehicles or hunters, and it is pretty bad against the flood. But you will notice how it is no longer readily available against the flood - it's low ammo limit means it will need to be constantly replaced. If there is not a constant supply of grunts you wont be using it anymore, and when fighting the flood suddenly all the enemies are carrying AR's and Plasma Rifles, both good weapons general purpose weapons for dealing with the flood. It's almost like the developers realized the weaknesses of the two weapons system and designed their game to mitigate those weaknesses!

TL;DR - The 2 weapon limit works in Halo because you can choose a sniper rifle and a rocket launcher with confidence because you know you can just bean a grunt over the head and grab a plasma pistol if you ever need a general purpose weapon.

 

[Extragorey]

Well-written article, with some good points. I don't know what the specific reasons were for imposing a two-weapon limit in games in the first place, but I've always found it's more fun when you can switch to any weapon on the fly. Of course, with multiplayer games like CoD the decision is more about balance than fun.

All the same, the coming return of arena shooters has me excited. Toxikk in particular looks pretty awesome.

 

[Shjade]

point two really bit me in the arse while playing bioshock infinite. not knowing what was coming up entered the bank with a terrible setup of weapons for the task. wasnt too bad at the start but by the time i got to the end of that section i was in a terrible state ended up using basically all of my money i had got from the bank buying more ammo for my guns and getting revived. next time i played i knew what was coming up took the right weapons for the fight and didnt die once.

Was going to post something very similar to this. Bioshock Infinite was PAINFUL to play because of this, mainly because of arbitrary ammo caps + not knowing what ammo enemies would be dropping ahead. I was almost always right on the edge of being out of ammo because I never had the right guns for what enemies were giving me in bullets, and I couldn't afford to just constantly buy clips after every fight.

Even worse, nigh-unforgivable in my view? The "1999" difficulty unlockable in that game...doesn't let you have the number of guns a 90's shooter would. If that's not false advertising of the highest order I don't know what is. I didn't even bother playing further - I restarted in that difficulty for the sole purpose of seeing if it would let me hold more guns. No? K. *uninstall*

They did at least fix this in the DLC, but that's poor consolation.

 

[Vrach]

I agree to a point Shamus, but keep in mind that there's a difference between multiplayer and singleplayer shooters. In an online multiplayer, two weapon limit (along with a class selection) makes a lot more sense. In singleplayer... well yeah, I like the Far Cry style - 4 weapons seems just the right amount, you still need to make a choice of which weapons you want to take, while still being able to be prepared for most situations.

 

[AntiChri5]

I have to completely disagree with this article. The two-weapon system is far superior for both singleplayer and multiplayer, for one reason;

It forces you to improvise and use sub-optimal weapons, and makes sure you can never fully be prepared and therefore will have to face the unexpected. The 4/3 weapon slot system means you're never unprepared; you can never EVER be surprised or taken off guard because you can have the answer for literally every situation at all times.

In multiplayer this is especially important, because it prevents and discourages people from hogging power weapons (since having two power weapons actually puts you at a disadvantage in general combat) and still has that element of strategy because you have to come up with a way to overcome the fact that you can't have the perfect weapon at all times.

Some of the most fun i have ever had in games has been when i didn't have the right gun for the job and had to find a way to make do with sub-optimal weapons. Whether it's whittling down a tank with small arms and no grenades, dodging a sniper long enough to get into pistol range or any number of fun situations.

I love using the right weapon for the job, of course, but after a while it can feel more like a quiz then a test of skill. But having to improvise, man that can really test you.

 

[RealRT]

The two-weapons limit should have died a quick, messy and painful death ever since the weapon select wheel has first graced our sinful Earth. Fuck it right in the eye.

Can't say I agree. Having every weapon on your person doesn't make the game better, strategically. If you always have the weapon you need on hand, I think it actually limits your strategic capabilities. Cluster of enemies? Rocket launcher. Tight corridors? Shotgun. Enemies at long range? Sniper rifle. Why would I not use the best weapon for the job in front of me? No point in not doing it.

But you see, this strategic thinking almost never happens in two-weapon shooters. 90% of the time you are going to just stumble upon just the right gun you need for the job. Plus, in games like Serious Sam, the tactical thinking is where it's at: this decision making has to be very quick - what will you do first: do you shoot a rocket at the rocket-spewing biomech, chaingun a raging bull or shotgun a kleer jumping at ya (correct answer: shoot the kamikaze with the Tommy Gun). All those enemies have different attacks and moving speeds and you have to decide who you take out first and how. And you have to do it quick because if you see them, they already run straight to ya, no covers here.

 

[Kajin]

The two-weapons limit should have died a quick, messy and painful death ever since the weapon select wheel has first graced our sinful Earth. Fuck it right in the eye.

Can't say I agree. Having every weapon on your person doesn't make the game better, strategically. If you always have the weapon you need on hand, I think it actually limits your strategic capabilities. Cluster of enemies? Rocket launcher. Tight corridors? Shotgun. Enemies at long range? Sniper rifle. Why would I not use the best weapon for the job in front of me? No point in not doing it.

But you see, this strategic thinking almost never happens in two-weapon shooters. 90% of the time you are going to just stumble upon just the right gun you need for the job. Plus, in games like Serious Sam, the tactical thinking is where it's at: this decision making has to be very quick - what will you do first: do you shoot a rocket at the rocket-spewing biomech, chaingun a raging bull or shotgun a kleer jumping at ya (correct answer: shoot the kamikaze with the Tommy Gun). All those enemies have different attacks and moving speeds and you have to decide who you take out first and how. And you have to do it quick because if you see them, they already run straight to ya, no covers here.

I wouldn't call that good tactical thinking. Like I said previously, if you always have the best weapon on hand for any given job then you're not really actively thinking about what to do where. I played Serious Sam and loved it, but unless I was at a severe ammo shortage I always used the same weapons for the same situations. It's fun. It's cathartic. But is it strategic? I don't really think so.

I'd say both systems have uses. Serious Sam was a Seriously Fun game and I'd love to see more like it, but depending on what style of game you're going for I wouldn't really say it's the best one to use in all cases. Halo 1 and 2 were both favorites of mine and I never found the Two Weapon System detracted from the experience in any way. It's mostly just a matter of taste, I think, or how the game is designed. Halo is not Serious Sam, nor should it try to be. They're both good fun and if you don't like one or the other then that's on you.

Really, I think this whole "Two Weapon System is bad!" sentiment is coming from the fact that almost ALL games use it to the point of it over saturating the market. If there was more of a mix between Two Weapon System and All Weapon System style games then people wouldn't be complaining nearly so much because there'd be a greater amount of variety in the market to choose from. Or they'd be complaining just as much because people are assholes like that and arguing about it on the internet is a complete waste of time.

 

[RealRT]

The two-weapons limit should have died a quick, messy and painful death ever since the weapon select wheel has first graced our sinful Earth. Fuck it right in the eye.

Can't say I agree. Having every weapon on your person doesn't make the game better, strategically. If you always have the weapon you need on hand, I think it actually limits your strategic capabilities. Cluster of enemies? Rocket launcher. Tight corridors? Shotgun. Enemies at long range? Sniper rifle. Why would I not use the best weapon for the job in front of me? No point in not doing it.

But you see, this strategic thinking almost never happens in two-weapon shooters. 90% of the time you are going to just stumble upon just the right gun you need for the job. Plus, in games like Serious Sam, the tactical thinking is where it's at: this decision making has to be very quick - what will you do first: do you shoot a rocket at the rocket-spewing biomech, chaingun a raging bull or shotgun a kleer jumping at ya (correct answer: shoot the kamikaze with the Tommy Gun). All those enemies have different attacks and moving speeds and you have to decide who you take out first and how. And you have to do it quick because if you see them, they already run straight to ya, no covers here.

I wouldn't call that good tactical thinking. Like I said previously, if you always have the best weapon on hand for any given job then you're not really actively thinking about what to do where. I played Serious Sam and loved it, but unless I was at a severe ammo shortage I always used the same weapons for the same situations. It's fun. It's cathartic. But is it strategic? I don't really think so.

I'd say both systems have uses. Serious Sam was a Seriously Fun game and I'd love to see more like it, but depending on what style of game you're going for I wouldn't really say it's the best one to use in all cases. Halo 1 and 2 were both favorites of mine and I never found the Two Weapon System detracted from the experience in any way. It's mostly just a matter of taste, I think, or how the game is designed. Halo is not Serious Sam, nor should it try to be. They're both good fun and if you don't like one or the other then that's on you.

Really, I think this whole "Two Weapon System is bad!" sentiment is coming from the fact that almost ALL games use it to the point of it over saturating the market. If there was more of a mix between Two Weapon System and All Weapon System style games then people wouldn't be complaining nearly so much because there'd be a greater amount of variety in the market to choose from. Or they'd be complaining just as much because people are assholes like that and arguing about it on the internet is a complete waste of time.

Neither do I, that's why I said tactical.
Then again, as I said, what kind of strategy is this, when you always get the right gun at the right time? You'll never get fucked because you chose the wrong guns.

 

[Kajin]

Neither do I, that's why I said tactical.
Then again, as I said, what kind of strategy is this, when you always get the right gun at the right time? You'll never get fucked because you chose the wrong guns.

And in All Weapon Systems, you never get fucked because you'll always have ALL the guns. What's your point? If the game places weapons you might need, then that's just good game design. It's your choice to take the weapon and it's your fault if you overuse it and it runs out of ammo before you get a chance to get more. If you do run out before that point, then just drop it and find another weapon lying around. There's gonna be a few to choose from if you managed to kill any of your enemies. I don't see how that's so terrible.

Like I said, different game designs for different styles of game. I don't see how one is innately superior to the other except by personal taste. I like both systems so I see no problems.