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

[Atmos Duality]

3. Having only two weapons forces you to think about what weapons to bring with you and encourage you to plan ahead!

Actually, it makes it sort of pointless to think about it. The usual loadout will be "An assault rifle, plus one other weapon that might be situationally useful". Lots of combinations are out of the question. You don't want to take a sniper rifle and a grenade launcher at the same time, because if you end up fighting in tight quarters you'll be completely helpless. Instead of making you think about what weapon to take with you, it encourages playing it safe, not taking chances, and not experimenting with different combinations of weapons.

I think that's a bit of an oversimplification, since weapon selection changes dynamically in many of those games.

However, that still doesn't mean two-weapon limitation inherently makes any game "more strategic" either.
Consider the interactions between short term and long consequences and creating ways to deal with them.

a) -Doom- "I have a rocket launcher with 12 rounds. That's more than enough to clear out this nasty room easily, but I want to hold onto it so I can deal with those three Barons of Hell next level."

b) -Halo- "I just need to reach the top of that hill, but it's entrenched. So I'm going to use the corner to melee that Jackal to take his beam-rifle and use that to snipe the Elite with the Fuel Rod Gun before he sees me."

In either case, what do you call that? "Strategy"
(One may call the latter "tactics", if they're a pedant)

Halo et al normalizes the game-state frequently (checkpoints), which means that while it's able to offer better individual encounters, there is no long-term strategy to consider, which I think a lot of gamers (myself included) miss because very few current games even bother with it.

I -LIKE- it when a game forces me to make a quiet, meaningful long-term decision.
(do I use my super weapon ammo on this big guy? or work around him?)

I -LIKE- level design where noting resources is useful, or where searching for secrets is a fun challenge in its own right (or at least those a bit more involved than "find dog-tag in brief unmarked detour from plot-hallway").

But you just don't see that in shooters all that often (if ever).

No strategy is about working within a confined box.

Strictly speaking, yes. But only in the manner that games by definition are confined to a set of rules.
Otherwise: "Calvinball"

One might define the necessity (or degree) of Strategy as "Challenge".
A.k.a. "How hard to I have to think/act in short/long term to win?"

In this regard, "Challenge" is defined by the test to see if the player will make the RIGHT choice through skill and reason (preferably); which you will note is -not- strictly defined by how many/few choices they have.

(Just as an aside: Look at something like Defense Grid. It offers the player GOBS of potential choices at nearly every stage of the game, with even more nearly every stage as you unlock new towers. And yet, acing the later maps can be BRUTAL despite all of those options.

There's plenty of room for creative strategy, and multiple ways to beat a map, but execution of those can get ridiculously difficult. Earning legitimate leaderboard scores requires almost zen-like abstraction of traffic flow and timing even when you have the strategy figured out.)

 

[sageoftruth]

The Resistance series of games was pretty good at bucking the two-weapon limit, and the game also gave you even more options with secondary fire abilities for most if not all of the weapons.

Very true. Back when it came out, despite initially coming across as a poor man's Halo, I strongly preferred this to the Halo franchise.

When the guys behind Ratchet and Clank are involved, you know it's going to have some pretty neat weapons.

 

[John Wedge]

I'm a fan of the limited-weapon model provided there's a reason for it. In Deus Ex the inventory system meant you could technically carry fiver or six weapons, but they all had mass and you needed somewhere for all the bullets. The Borderlands model of 1-4 as the game progressed was kinda cool and let you specialise as you progressed. Carrying a weapon to deal with pretty much every range and enemy-type.

Ultimately how many different weapons do you need? Most games where I carried the full 1-0 range of hotkeys of death I only actually used two or three.

I guess my position would be, as long as I can carry the tools to do the job, or the limit makes sense within the game world, then I am happy to carry a restricted weapons loadout.

Plus Rainbow Six was awesome, and you know, you got one primary and a pistol at best!

 

[RealRT]

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.

My point is, there is no real difference in strategy, unless you are being stupid and shooting walls for the hell of it and thus, no point to restrict my choice in weaponry.

 

[Kajin]

My point is, there is no real difference in strategy, unless you are being stupid and shooting walls for the hell of it and thus, no point to restrict my choice in weaponry.

Unless the devs think the restriction adds something to the gameplay or they just prefer it because of aforementioned personal taste. Like I said, I like both styles so I see no reason to suggest one is inherently superior over the other. It just comes down to what style of game they're going for when they design it. You don't like Two Weapon Systems because you think it's too restrictive. And that's your opinion. But I don't think it's restrictive. I think it's fun, just as I think the All Weapon System is fun, and that's my opinion. We can argue until the cows come home, but neither of us is wrong here because it's an entirely subjective experience.

 

[Areloch]

I -LIKE- it when a game forces me to make a quiet, meaningful long-term decision.
(do I use my super weapon ammo on this big guy? or work around him?)

I largely agree with you, however this point - bringing up super weapons - brings up an especially tricky aspect of the "all weapons" design.

It facilitates the "Rainy Day" effect. In that, you look at the giant mini-boss and go "Sure, I could use my super weapon on this guy, but what if I don't get any more ammo for it before the boss?" And that can continually loop to the point where some players will never use those limited-ammo super weapons for fear that they need it for the 'next big one'.

Limited weapons force a specific, manual decision on the part of the player. You can tote that rocket launcher for the entire level if you want, but it limits your options until you use it or lose it. This encourages players to actually use the weapons they have on hand.

That said, many players don't fall into the Rainy Day effect and will aptly apply their current arsenal, however it's a legitimate design consideration that is often overlooked. And one that's incredibly tricky to solve.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I largely agree with you, however this point - bringing up super weapons - brings up an especially tricky aspect of the "all weapons" design.

It facilitates the "Rainy Day" effect. In that, you look at the giant mini-boss and go "Sure, I could use my super weapon on this guy, but what if I don't get any more ammo for it before the boss?" And that can continually loop to the point where some players will never use those limited-ammo super weapons for fear that they need it for the 'next big one'.

Limited weapons force a specific, manual decision on the part of the player. You can tote that rocket launcher for the entire level if you want, but it limits your options until you use it or lose it. This encourages players to actually use the weapons they have on hand.

Well, yeah.
It's a matter of Opportunity Cost vs some Unknown; Is it worth it NOW, or LATER, or WHENEVER?

But the fact of the matter is: I rarely encounter that issue in action games. Though outside of the scope of this particular article, the Rainy Day effect is a much bigger pain in the arse in the Sandbox-survival or Roguelike genres (which are all about measuring opportunity cost against present need).

 

[Areloch]

I largely agree with you, however this point - bringing up super weapons - brings up an especially tricky aspect of the "all weapons" design.

It facilitates the "Rainy Day" effect. In that, you look at the giant mini-boss and go "Sure, I could use my super weapon on this guy, but what if I don't get any more ammo for it before the boss?" And that can continually loop to the point where some players will never use those limited-ammo super weapons for fear that they need it for the 'next big one'.

Limited weapons force a specific, manual decision on the part of the player. You can tote that rocket launcher for the entire level if you want, but it limits your options until you use it or lose it. This encourages players to actually use the weapons they have on hand.

Well, yeah.
It's a matter of Opportunity Cost vs some Unknown; Is it worth it NOW, or LATER, or WHENEVER?

But the fact of the matter is: I rarely encounter that issue in action games. Though outside of the scope of this particular article, the Rainy Day effect is a much bigger pain in the arse in the Sandbox-survival or Roguelike genres (which are all about measuring opportunity cost against present need).

Aye. But it's definitely a design consideration that doesn't get discussed much. If you have an array for 10 weapons for the player to use, but the level and enemy designs are such they feel like they have to artificially restrict themselves to 5 'just in case', it could be an indication of a problem in the game's design.

Not that it necessarily IS, but it's interesting that there's a lot of talk about '2 weapon limit' vs '10 weapon limit', but you see very little about other aspects of the game's design that heavily revolve around - and influence the usage of - inventory limits like that. Game design is an intricate, complicated beast, and articles like this over-simplify their intricacies.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Aye. But it's definitely a design consideration that doesn't get discussed much. If you have an array for 10 weapons for the player to use, but the level and enemy designs are such they feel like they have to artificially restrict themselves to 5 'just in case', it could be an indication of a problem in the game's design.

Not that it necessarily IS, but it's interesting that there's a lot of talk about '2 weapon limit' vs '10 weapon limit', but you see very little about other aspects of the game's design that heavily revolve around - and influence the usage of - inventory limits like that.

Believe it or not, I had originally written a longer initial response with comparisons to Deus Ex (its inventory system, ammo system, and how its levels were designed) but omitted it for brevity and readability.

Lets just say that 2-weapon limits are a big part of what makes "Hollywood Hallway" level design possible.
In order to eliminate backtracking they needed to eliminate much of the need to explore which would have been a huge problem for older shooters because of how enemy placements were arranged and scattered.

But when the player has the freedom to move around a bit (like say, in Halo), the level design runs into the opposite problem, where the levels are vast and look nice, but are otherwise empty and dead (typically, an increase in space is to facilitate or promote vehicle usage).

I could go on, but I think I'm already starting to ramble.

Game design is an intricate, complicated beast, and articles like this over-simplify their intricacies.

I know. I said as such in my initial post.
I think Sheamus is more peeved at the deadlock two weapon limitations have had on mainstream shooters for the past decade; and to be honest, I can't entirely blame him for that since I feel much the same way.

 

[Areloch]

Aye. But it's definitely a design consideration that doesn't get discussed much. If you have an array for 10 weapons for the player to use, but the level and enemy designs are such they feel like they have to artificially restrict themselves to 5 'just in case', it could be an indication of a problem in the game's design.

Not that it necessarily IS, but it's interesting that there's a lot of talk about '2 weapon limit' vs '10 weapon limit', but you see very little about other aspects of the game's design that heavily revolve around - and influence the usage of - inventory limits like that.

Believe it or not, I had originally written a longer initial response with comparisons to Deus Ex (its inventory system, ammo system, and how its levels were designed) but omitted it for brevity and readability.

Lets just say that 2-weapon limits are a big part of what makes "Hollywood Hallway" level design possible.
In order to eliminate backtracking they needed to eliminate much of the need to explore which would have been a huge problem for older shooters because of how enemy placements were arranged and scattered.

But when the player has the freedom to move around a bit (like say, in Halo), the level design runs into the opposite problem, where the levels are vast and look nice, but are otherwise empty and dead (typically, an increase in space is to facilitate or promote vehicle usage).

I could go on, but I think I'm already starting to ramble.

Yeah, that's a very easy trap to fall into. Honestly, my favorite level in the original Halo was Silent Cartographer. It was like a micro sandbox. Very little of the level was 'dead'(unless you killed everyone, of course), but you were free to approach the level in a variety of ways and angles. It encouraged you to wander around because you could find shortcuts or flanking paths on enemies, or items and boosts.

It was a well done middle ground of design that should probably be the target for that type of game. It's just a shame that the other levels didn't have the same feel.

Game design is an intricate, complicated beast, and articles like this over-simplify their intricacies.

I know. I said as such in my initial post.
I think Sheamus is more peeved at the deadlock two weapon limitations have had on mainstream shooters for the past decade; and to be honest, I can't entirely blame him for that since I feel much the same way.

Yeah, didn't mean to imply you said otherwise, just sort of restating the point.

And I'd agree, I don't mind 2 weapon limits or 10. But all-or-nothing of one or the other smothers out variety, and that definitely should be avoided if the only reason they're doing it is because "Halo did it". It just felt like the article was going "2 weapon designs are bad, don't use them" rather than "both options are valid, use whatever works for your game instead of simply aping Halo".

 

[Tiamat666]

I concur with his Shamus. FPS'sesses have become obsessed with 'realism'. I miss Doom like shooters; surreal levels, hostile environments to navigate, hordes of fantastic and diverse monsters to cleanse, an array of exotic weaponry to wield, fireballs to dodge... That was fun.
I probably have missed something, but as far as I know there hasn't been anything like it since Doom II was released many years ago.

 

[SecondPrize]

Kickstarter isn't the video game market. Kickstarter is the video game Kickstarter market. There's a pretty big difference.

 

[runic knight]

I have to agree, the 2-gun limit is not fun to me in the least. I understand why the concept flourishes, it encourages a sense of on the fly choice and the feeling of scrapping together weaponry. Good for gorilla tactics in a game and a slight bit of realism in conflict. That said, the use of it does seem to do all the negatives described as well.

I think games like Borderlands hit a nice balance. 4 gun type slots, plus grenades, physical melee and a specialty skill. Gives a good base amount of options with the class choice and the gun variety is so wide and so crazy that you can cover bases or just go all out in a single strategy and it works. You can get some guns that can multi-task as others (such as pistols that can be thrown to explode)

Games like Halo, I never really liked that much. 2 gun choices that are always the same, grenades and a melee. You run into either not having the right gun for the job so you chose the jack of all trades assault rifle, or the game itself is built around the limitation and the game is very hand-holding and obvious, such as finding sniper rifles right before the sniping field, or rockets before a boss. As a mechanic, it does seem to impact other mechanic designs.

I suppose the gun limit should be based around the sort of experience being made instead of seeming to be the other wy around as is usually the case. A tactical or slower game, especially with squads you can give different loadout to, is great for that. A run and gun collectathon game, less so, and a 90's era blastfest even less.

In the end, I think the reliance on the 2-gun limit is just a holdover from copying the formula of successful games and not included with reason outside of "well, halo did it" more often then not.

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.

I agree, but I think that is exactly the problem. The game is limiting the player because the developers want each encounter to be played a certain way. To me, that is a mark against the game, not one for it. I am sure people complain enough about many games being "on rails" as it is, the game further handicapping the player's ability to play it their way only makes that more obvious. And while yeah, I get the whole desire to make cinematic experience, I think it goes back into what I said about the sort of game being made in the first place and the value of such an arbitrary and restrictive limit like that towards the enjoyment and freedom of the player to play the game the way they want.

 

[False Nobility]

I think saying that Halo ruined FPS games is a bit like blaming the current mostly-bad state of DLC releases on the first company to embrace the method.

I can see what you mean, but sometimes I still hate certain bits of media for being influential in a repetitive way. I have a rough time going back an watching certain movies and anime because their influential ideas became overused over the years. Nothing against those, but I still think some influential stuff (even good stuff) was influential in a terrible way. Not their fault, but I still find myself hating them personally. This is why I'm not a critic.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

I'm also of the opinion that blaming Halo for it isn't really fair. In Halo the two weapon limit forced you to improvise on the fly. You couldn't just keep the one weapon that was in your comfort zone, you had to learn to use a variety. And on the rare occasions you couldn't find ammo, there were grenades, powerful melee attacks, and vehicles. Combined with the shield recharge, you could run and gun your way into a group of enemies, shoot until your weapons ran dry, beat someone down with a melee attack, then steal their gun and keep going.


That said, I do wish it would stop being the default for every shooter. A lot of games use it even when it doesn't gel so well with their other mechanics, eg. Bioshock Infinite gave you a limited ability to upgrade weapons, but you couldn't upgrade the fun things like the rocket launcher because you hardly ever got ammo for it.

 

[Anti-American Eagle]

The halo blame. People seem to think halo was the progenitor of everything that makes up "modern shooters." The weapon limit goes right back to rise of the triad. Three if I remember correctly and two of them couldn't be swapped out.

Okay while I kind of agree with you that it's entertaining to carry around everything, a weapons limit forces improvisation. If I could walk around with everything at once, what's the point in learning how to use one weapon in more than one way?

What felt right to me was the system in Star Wars Republic Commando. You couldn't carry around everything but your primary had three different firing modes and the secondaries you could swap your pistol out for felt worthwhile (some times). The primary had the basic assault mode that you start with, a sniper rifle modification, and a grenade launcher. Your pistol was a pistol, and if you felt like it you could swap it for anything you found on the ground.

You had variety but it kept you from carrying everything everywhere.

 

[Fritzn]

I guess this one's a little dated, but Star Wars Republic Commando didn't use 2 or 3 weapons, you had your assault rifle, sniper, grenade launcher, shotgun, pistol, and could pick up a local weapon (usually a variation on a shotgun or rocket launcher) and it was released in 2005 I think? Still one of my favorite shooters.

 

[Signa]

I think it's kinda odd how this conversation has gone. The pro 2-weapon limit posts are all using Halo as a positive example of the system. The problem is, it's starting to look like the only positive example of the system. I said before, something about how Halo was made, the system didn't seem to break anything. Bioshock Infinite just made me want to hold all the guns and I was denied it. Same goes with many other systems.

Borderlands keeps being brought up, and I do agree it was a great positive example of freedom. You don't need to fumble around with button assignments for more than 4 weapons, or it becomes cumbersome. Borderlands let you choose which four to cycle through, and then change it at will, provided you weren't playing multiplayer and opening the menu wouldn't pause the game for you. Even then, you'd have someone to back you up if you had to swap.

 

[Nukey]

It depends on the game; in a more realistic or grounded setting, it makes sense that Staff Sergeant Joe Schmo isn't going to be lugging around an entire arsenal in his back pocket. Also, for competitive balance in multiplayer it works quite well, to keep one person from hoarding all the equipment they want.

However, in a game series where a weapon wheel was always a feature, switching to a two weapon system for a sequel just seems like a desperate attempt to keep up with modern trends.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

The two weapon limit was popularised by Halo. The origin of game features and their influence and spread is always highly contested. For example, I don't know which game should be credited for the Weapon Wheel. Turok 2 comes to mind, but I can't say for certain.

The big problem with weapon/inventory selection is time. In Turok games, you could keep moving while selecting a weapon using the stick from the radial menu. (Weapons wheels are a very much a console-oriented feature.) One solution is to slow down time while using a weapon wheel. Another is to have a realtime weapon "wheel" but also allow the player to pause the game and select their weapon at their own pace. (Perfect Dark used this system. In fact, Perfect Dark supported three different methods for selecting a weapon.)

edit:
MP is a stick in the mud. Generally games avoiding having different gameplay in SP and MP. Inventory methods involving pausing or slow-motion can't be applied to MP.