Two Weapons in First Person Shooters

[EBHughsThe1st]

So, all the drama over Duke Nukem Forever has got me thinking about the whole two-weapon loadouts thing. What do you think about the design choice to have only two weapons as opposed to a slowly building arsenal like in the Half Life games or a large interchangeable load out like in the Fallout games. What's your opinion?

 

[Frost27]

I think the weapon loadout options can work just fine depending on the particular game. limited weapon loadouts like DNF and CoD are ok if the style of the game fits.
In a CoD style which tries hard to convey an immersive "realism" feel, the two weapon limitation works well enough.
In a Duke style game where over the top is the order of the day, two weapon limitations feel restrictive. Duke style over the top shooters trade flashy fun for realism and they are great at what they do. But for a game that is a spectacle more than an immersive "realism" driven story, having limited weapons breaks the fun and flow just as surely as a rainbow farting unicorn breaks the feel of a serious story driven game. (I'm looking at you Red Faction)

 

[Durananrananrananran]

It worked in Halo. It made sense in Halo. because it made sense in the context of the level design. In other games, I'm not so sure. If you have specialist weapons in a game, and you can only carry two, finding on on the ground signposts what gameplay lies ahead. Shotgun = flood coming. Rocket launcher = vehicles ahead, and so on.

This seems clearly wrong in DNF. In D3D, you never actually needed to use the shrink gun, it was just there for fun. In most games I prefer a slowly building arsenal. For one thing, it gives you a sense of progress ("I've got gun number 7 so I'm likely to be four fifths in"). It's just more fun for me, most of the time.

Also, melée attacks should be fist or boot based.

 

[jakko12345]

In my opinion, the '2 weapon' rule belongs only in gritty current-gen 1st person shooters. Anything else shouldn't be tied down by it. Actually on second thoughts, BFBC2 allowed 3 or 4ish weapons online, so fuck that idea. Millions of guns for all!

 

[Samurai Goomba]

It worked in Halo. It made sense in Halo. because it made sense in the context of the level design. In other games, I'm not so sure. If you have specialist weapons in a game, and you can only carry two, finding on on the ground signposts what gameplay lies ahead. Shotgun = flood coming. Rocket launcher = vehicles ahead, and so on.

This seems clearly wrong in DNF. In D3D, you never actually needed to use the shrink gun, it was just there for fun. In most games I prefer a slowly building arsenal. For one thing, it gives you a sense of progress ("I've got gun number 7 so I'm likely to be four fifths in"). It's just more fun for me, most of the time.

Also, melée attacks should be fist or boot based.

This is my problem with DNF. Developers need to understand not every movie needs shakey-cam, because not every movie is Saving Private Ryan. Same with games. Just because something is new and innovative in the game it was in does not mean it will be good in any game. Halo was carefully designed, and the small number of wildly-different weapons played into the 2-weapon limit.

DNF isn't Halo. It shouldn't be trying to be. Why would Duke be hiding under a table, waiting for his shields to come back online? Why would he be limited to real-world weapon limitations (and really, most humans can carry more than 2 guns, especially if they're pistols, so it's not even really realistic to a muscle slab like Duke and his carrying capacity.)

 

[Hyper-space]

I think the weapon loadout options can work just fine depending on the particular game. limited weapon loadouts like DNF and CoD are ok if the style of the game fits.
In a CoD style which tries hard to convey an immersive "realism" feel, the two weapon limitation works well enough.
In a Duke style game where over the top is the order of the day, two weapon limitations feel restrictive. Duke style over the top shooters trade flashy fun for realism and they are great at what they do. But for a game that is a spectacle more than an immersive "realism" driven story, having limited weapons breaks the fun and flow just as surely as a rainbow farting unicorn breaks the feel of a serious story driven game. (I'm looking at you Red Faction)

This.

Games shouldn't base their design-choices on whether or not its considered "old school" or popular enough, it should base it on whether it suits the gameplay.

 

[dark-mortality]

It totally depends on this... Is weapons hard to find, or does every monster leave a million weapons that you can ram up their @$$es and still have several thousand left? If it is nr.2, then it will be a DAMN sweet game XD

Edit: I live in Norway and haven't got it yet. Haven't read the other comments, but PLEASE... if you quote/reply/message this one, Do not spoil please :3

 

[Dissolve]

I disagree completely, the only time a two weapon load out will feel restrictive is if each weapon isn't satisfying on its own. Excepting a three-step combo, it's very fun to pair two weapons specifically for their interaction. This is why it's so satisfying to finish players with the pistol in Halo: Reach.

There are really only two effective solutions for weapon selection on consoles. One is by list, presented linearly or using a rotary system; the other is by quick swap (using one button to switch between weapons). Sometimes the two can be combined, which is best for an open environment without a strict chapter-based plot (I'm looking at Fallout, here). In a game like DNF, you will undoubtedly have a very short chapter-driven plot. Breaking the flow of any of these chapters to nit-pick and select weapons from a list - even if presented nicely - would detract from the intensity of the environment.

As an aside, I'd like to say I really dislike mouse-wheel weapon selection because its imprecise. I'd rather have a quick swap button to the side of my mouse.

 

[SoranMBane]

It does depend on the context of the game and what kind of weapons the game gives you. In CoD4, two weapons works because of the way the game progresses, where you could be a completely different person from mission-to-mission, plus none of the weapons are really all that special anyway, being geared more towards real life practicality and dependability, so there's no sense of experimentation being lost there. But in a more linear sci-fi shooter with tons of crazy new weapons to experiment with, you are going to want to do some experimenting. But, if you can only carry two weapons, you're also going to want your arsenal to be as practical and flexible as possible most of the time, and any experimentation is usually too risky. This, of course, cuts into the immense fun I should be having in that kind of setting.

If developers absolutely have to limit your arsenal like that, I'd prefer they allow you to carry at least four weapons instead of just two, like what Fear 2 and Dead Space did, where my weapons usually include three practical weapons (something short-range, something medium-range, and something long-range), with the fourth slot being devoted to some sort of crazy-awesome "fuck you" weapon to use when I feel my enemies deserve it. It's the best possible compromise between forcing the player to carefully consider what weapons they want to have going forward and allowing the player to go nuts and feel like a badass, though it's still not quite as fun as carrying about a hundred laser canons on your back.

 

[Adam Galli]

I don't really care about how many weapons I can carry but hell, the more the merrier. What I wanna see in FPSs like CoD is the ability to choose what weapons I wanna carry and the attachments on them because I LOVE IRON SIGHTS. I absoutly love them. I don't want a ACOG I don't want a red dot. I want irons.