Why do we have this system? (gun swapping)

[uchytjes]

Asides from "realism" (a thing that pretty much any game with this has yet to accomplish) I see no point in limiting a player in an shooter to two or three guns. There is no other reason that I can see that would be cause for limiting a person's choices for guns in the game.

"But sir," A console fan yells out, "Its incredibly awkward and encumbering to go to a weapon select screen every time I need to change a weapon". Well, as a counter-argument allow me to point to Metal gear solids 1-3. Each of those had similar, yet different ways to select weapons. You held down R2 and scrolled through a list. "But doing that whenever I need to change a weapon is time consuming and immersion breaking." Well, then use the option that says 'two weapon swap' or 'three weapon swap'. That way, you can have two or three heavily used weapons at a button's press away.

"But that takes away any and all tactics, a thing that is core to Modern shooters! Having only two weapons is key!" Well that statement alone may be false in more ways than one, but I'll focus on one thing here: Strategy and tactics in relation to gun-swapping. One feature in MGS3 that helped "simplify" the weapon selection process is that they limit the amount of guns you can have in your list. Sure you can go into your backpack during a battle and get any gun from there, but what if that wasn't the case? What if once you enter an area with enemies you are locked to three or four weapons until you are finished with the area? That is no excuse.

So anyway, why do you think we have this prevalence of two weapon swap games on the market? Hell, even Bioshock Infinite had it.

Captcha: Easy as cake. Yes, captcha, it is easy as cake to learn from past successful games about good mechanics.

 

[sextus the crazy]

1. Sure, games can never be totally realistic, but that doesn't mean we can't try in some cases.
2. For games like CoD and their ilk, carrying around more than a couple weapons is pretty unnecessary, in addition to being unrealistic in context. In singleplayer, most targets can be handled with the gun de jour and you'll have enough ammo in two guns to handle just about everything. In multiplayer, having more than one primary gun just causes all of the load outs to merge into one and defeats the choice of picking one gun over the other.

But I'll agree on this, It was total bullshit in bioshock, as canon had already shown that the game wasn't meant to be realistic and the characters in 1 & 2 carried tons of guns without help. Plus for bioshock, experimentation with the guns is half the fun, and you need all of them to take down the big bastards, unlike in say, CoD. Far Cry did it best, with just enough guns to have variety and strategy, but few enough that you had to plan out what to do.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Because having dozens of redundant guns is boring? When do you need all fifty machine guns? Also, it makes paying attention to your ammo more important because there aren't ten other machine guns to swap to. Also, the tactical limitations thing is kinda important. You shouldn't be running around with every weapon so that you can engage your enemies at any range. For one, it's crazy hard to design for and for two it just isn't quite as fun. Sure, this means that occasionally you'll be stuck with a shotgun while fighting at long range, but generally you can just go take some other guy's long range weapon afterwards. It is ultimately a very easily justified solution. Now, if the game had a limited number of weapons that all were quite different from each other and was more like older shooters in that they just threw waves of enemies at you, then sure it makes sense to carry every weapon. But not when there are ten different assault rifles and some levels are designed around you only having access to shotguns while others are designed around you just having access to sniper rifles.

And switching weapons in MGS is not that fast or easy. One of the main weaknesses of the series is the bad controls make for clunky combat, and the inventory management was kinda part of this, but not really for weapons. Honestly, the only reason to use anything other than the tranq pistol or the basic pistol is to screw around for a little while, and some bosses. You never really need access to more than one gun at a time, let alone the truly preposterous number of guns available in later entries in the series.

 

[Sack of Cheese]

"But sir," A console fan yells out, "Its incredibly awkward and encumbering to go to a weapon select screen every time I need to change a weapon". Well, as a counter-argument allow me to point to Metal gear solids 1-3. Each of those had similar, yet different ways to select weapons. You held down R2 and scrolled through a list.

Actually, you can select around 8 at the same time on console if you use Saints Row's mechanic, hold down the select button and go through the wheel with D-Pad. Oblivion on console has the same mechanic too, and a few others.
With Batman Arkham City wheel, you can select up to 12 tools.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

1. Sure, games can never be totally realistic, but that doesn't mean we can't try in some cases.
2. For games like CoD and their ilk, carrying around more than a couple weapons is pretty unnecessary, in addition to being unrealistic in context. In singleplayer, most targets can be handled with the gun de jour and you'll have enough ammo in two guns to handle just about everything. In multiplayer, having more than one primary gun just causes all of the load outs to merge into one and defeats the choice of picking one gun over the other.

But I'll agree on this, It was total bullshit in bioshock, as canon had already shown that the game wasn't meant to be realistic and the characters in 1 & 2 carried tons of guns without help. Plus for bioshock, experimentation with the guns is half the fun, and you need all of them to take down the big bastards, unlike in say, CoD. Far Cry did it best, with just enough guns to have variety and strategy, but few enough that you had to plan out what to do.

In Bioshock Infinite though it really encouraged the use of Vigors though, since you could have all of them on you at one time. It really emphasizes playing tactical and smart rather than "more dakka"

 

[Giver]

Bioshock Infinite definitely had good reason to give us a two-weapon limit.

1. Ammo conservation is actually a problem
2. Forces you to use vigors
3. **Spoilers** Having the dual Vox remake of every gun would make it a bit excessive
4. Just because it's the same franchise doesn't mean combat style doesn't have to be the same

The game was designed around having a two weapon limit. Asking for all the guns (13+skyhook) is asking for the entire game to be redesigned.

 

[Windcaler]

Gunswapping mechanics are dependant on the game. In the case like Bioshock or the older Duke Nukem titles having large weapon varities made the game better. For other games like Battlefield 3 or Cod, I guess, a two weapon system compliments the game best because of class design in multiplayer. In far cry 3 the 4 different guns made sense and fit for the game.

That said, I dont think there is a single correct way to handle weapon swapping. I think the mechanics of weapon swapping should fit the game youre playing. That means 2, 4, or 8+ weapons dependant on the game and what its trying to do.

For what its worth, I agree that a 2 weapon limit was a bad design choice for BI. They should have gone with Bioshocks system and everything would have fit wonderfully

 

[an annoyed writer]

Hey, I don't like being limited to two guns either, but I can tell you a couple good reasons why devs do it:

1: Have major weapon diversity. Let's face it, in games like Halo, there's a ton of weapons, and a ton of different moment-to-moment situations. Not every weapon fits every situation, so they make you think about the guns you want to bring into the next firefight. This adds a layer of strategy to an otherwise simple point-and click architecture: you can't bring every tool with you for the job, so you have to choose wisely. and when your tool runs out of ammo, you have to get your ass out there and find yourself a new tool for the job. So there you've got both strategy and exploration of the environs encouraged.

2: Encourage you to use other tools. Bioshock Infinite has the two-weapon limit because you've got another thing you can use for the job: vigors, which are superpowers in a bottle, so to speak. They designed the game to have you use these superpowers on a constant basis. Think about it: it's another weapon, another tool in the arsenal. The gameplay is not solely based around guns, and by limiting their usage they make you aware of that.

 

[Auron]

Realism... And I might be wrong, but making it easier for the console people at least it's safe to say they started the trend there. Other similar thing is the fact the menus in Elder Scrolls have become terrible(thankfully easily modded) since Oblivion.

I can kinda go with the fact it forced slightly more strategical decisions in Bioshock and it's kind of ridiculous to carry 15 large guns around these days but all in all it's not much better with all the ammo laying around, Elizabeth constantly finding caches of it and it just forces you to pick up a new weapon from time to time and even then it's usually not really necessary I spent most of the entire game with the Pistol and Sniper Rifle for example, the fact the harder difficulties had basically no difference sans the buffed enemy HP was rather disappointing by the way.

 

[Terminate421]

Asides from "realism" (a thing that pretty much any game with this has yet to accomplish) I see no point in limiting a player in an shooter to two or three guns. There is no other reason that I can see that would be cause for limiting a person's choices for guns in the game.

How about this, Gameplay wise.

If halo had the system to have more than two weapons I could completely fucking destroy a match, having the sniper, a DMR, a spartan laser, shotgun, and a fuel rod gun, not one person could touch me.

Sometimes games work with gun limitations. I thought it worked with Bioshock: Infinite, it had no negative impact on it because of that.

 

[uchytjes]

Asides from "realism" (a thing that pretty much any game with this has yet to accomplish) I see no point in limiting a player in an shooter to two or three guns. There is no other reason that I can see that would be cause for limiting a person's choices for guns in the game.

How about this, Gameplay wise.

If halo had the system to have more than two weapons I could completely fucking destroy a match, having the sniper, a DMR, a spartan laser, shotgun, and a fuel rod gun, not one person could touch me.

Sometimes games work with gun limitations. I thought it worked with Bioshock: Infinite, it had no negative impact on it because of that.

While I can see why having ALL THE GUNS in a multiplayer game of any type would be ridiculously unbalanced and horrible, what stops a single player game from having all the guns?

Also, Bioshock Infinite's gun system was most definitely not the right type for it. The main reason why the limitations to the guns is bad in that game is because of the upgrades you can get to them. Lets say I have a fully upgraded carbine, arguably one of the best guns in the game. Is it really cost effective to toss it away when I can get more ammo for it from elizabeth or a vendor later on after the fight? Sure the upgrades carry from carbine to carbine, but whos to say when I will come across another carbine? If the upgrades weren't there I wouldn't have any qualms switching between weapons, but since mine is upgraded with my hard-earned cash why would I even want to toss it?

 

[shrimpcel]

I think both systems are fun

*gasp* Infidel, heretic, burn him!

Deal with it.

 

[DoPo]

Umm, strategy and tactics is a valid argument. Go and play Counter-Strike and you should agree - equipment loadout is a very key element of gameplay. Well, not as much in just random pub games (where they play a glorified deathmatch) but if you do apply strategy it's obvious that it makes a difference. Get 5 peoples with snipers on a smallish/cramped map and they might get slaughtered. On a larger map, they still don't have inherent advantage, as the enemy team can counteract the overspecialisation with smoke grenades and flashbangs. Plus, there are always the ammo issues - if you're facing an enemy and your main weapon's clip runs out, you can either grit your teeth and reload, putting yourself at a disadvantage, or pull out the pistol and try to kill them before they kill you, possibly putting youself at a larger disadvantage if the pistol runs out, too.

Simply put, the games would offer a different experience if the limitation is not there.

Well, also, there is the console argument, too. It is easier to have a more limited selection of weapons.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Asides from "realism" (a thing that pretty much any game with this has yet to accomplish) I see no point in limiting a player in an shooter to two or three guns. There is no other reason that I can see that would be cause for limiting a person's choices for guns in the game.

How about this, Gameplay wise.

If halo had the system to have more than two weapons I could completely fucking destroy a match, having the sniper, a DMR, a spartan laser, shotgun, and a fuel rod gun, not one person could touch me.

Sometimes games work with gun limitations. I thought it worked with Bioshock: Infinite, it had no negative impact on it because of that.

While I can see why having ALL THE GUNS in a multiplayer game of any type would be ridiculously unbalanced and horrible, what stops a single player game from having all the guns?

Also, Bioshock Infinite's gun system was most definitely not the right type for it. The main reason why the limitations to the guns is bad in that game is because of the upgrades you can get to them. Lets say I have a fully upgraded carbine, arguably one of the best guns in the game. Is it really cost effective to toss it away when I can get more ammo for it from elizabeth or a vendor later on after the fight? Sure the upgrades carry from carbine to carbine, but whos to say when I will come across another carbine? If the upgrades weren't there I wouldn't have any qualms switching between weapons, but since mine is upgraded with my hard-earned cash why would I even want to toss it?

Why are you answering to him about infinite and not the people who presented a point (that it forces you to rely on the vigors)? He just said that it worked as a totally unexplained statement. If you actually want to debate about this you should probably address the points of others.

Also, as you pointed out yourself, the bonuses carry over. Now I haven't played infinite, but I'm just going to assume that at those places where you can buy more ammo that you can get guns too, and even if that isn't true, I severely doubt that with 13 weapons that finding any individual gun would be too hard. That being said, conceptually, Bioshock is one of the series that I would assume would have no gun limit due to it having guns that are very different from one another, however the wider range of types of engagement offered by the open environments may make limiting the type of guns available to you useful for design.

 

[LAGG]

In modern/realistic shooters, all guns are barely the same, so there's no reason to carry an Mp5, Ak47, M4a1, Scar, p90 all at once ans swap through them. Also, with everything dying in 2-3 bullets, there's no much point in carrying many different weapons. And for multiplayer, different guns kind of separate the players in classes.

In the case of Bioshock Infinite, it's not realistic (but guns are just a boring as if it were), it's not multiplayer, it has enemies that have a lot of health. But also, the game doesn't visual gun upgrades anymore, nor special ammo types, and wherever you go there's the weapon you need right in front of you on the floor anyway. So nothing you choose to do actually makes much of a difference in the game.

 

[uchytjes]

Why are you answering to him about infinite and not the people who presented a point (that it forces you to rely on the vigors)? He just said that it worked as a totally unexplained statement. If you actually want to debate about this you should probably address the points of others.

Also, as you pointed out yourself, the bonuses carry over. Now I haven't played infinite, but I'm just going to assume that at those places where you can buy more ammo that you can get guns too, and even if that isn't true, I severely doubt that with 13 weapons that finding any individual gun would be too hard. That being said, conceptually, Bioshock is one of the series that I would assume would have no gun limit due to it having guns that are very different from one another, however the wider range of types of engagement offered by the open environments may make limiting the type of guns available to you useful for design.

Unfortunately, no you cannot buy weapons at vendor locations. I could easily forgive the game if it had done so, but it leaves guns to be found through enemies and locations (tears and just lying around.) Also, the weapon that I mentioned, the carbine, is a fairly rare weapon to find among enemies (at least in my experience) and is also a really, really good weapon if you are accurate enough. In my case this left me with one weapon slot down and the other filled with a "heavy" weapon that I could use to quickly destroy any of the more dangerous bigger enemies (handymen and patriots). That is both slots taken up. Heck, a third weapon slot alone would have helped greatly with the game!

Also, on the topic of vigors, I have to say one thing: they either suck or they are far too limited. In the end I only ended up using two vigors exclusively: possession and crows. Possession to take over turrets and vendors (more on that in a bit) and crows to stun-lock giant groups of enemies to shoot. The crows was, arguably, over-powered on certain enemies when it was upgraded. Basically, there is an upgrade that when an enemy is killed using the crows, it spawns a crow trap. that can easily be exploited on certain groups to kill everyone if done correctly. As for possession, once you upgrade it to cost less you can easily take over several machines to take on groups of enemies. But you'd likely have a less-than full bar of salts during any battle for one reason: money. You see, by using possession on a vending machine you can gain money. Why would you ever pass this up? So I'm sitting there, possessing every vending machine to get money to buy more upgrades and using all my salts in the process. So now I'm in battle with little salts left to take care of enemies. What about Elizabeth? well luckily she will almost always give you more salts the first time you run out, but thats it. You burn through them too quickly to be of any real use is my problem with them.

Also, the reason as to why I only replied to him is that I'm doing some other stuff whilst taking little breaks here and there and he just so happened to have quoted me which notified me with a message on the site and because it seemed that his arguement was quite similar to others I replied to him.

 

[skywolfblue]

There are some games where having a horde of guns is counterproductive.

1) Military Shooters. Even though they're not "realistic", being able to carry 50 identical submachine guns at the same time would be a little bit overkill.

2) Mass Effect 3 and Gears of War 3. In Mass Effect 3 (multiplayer, you ~can~ use as many weapons as you want in the single player I think), you're using powers too often to make use of a third firearm, so having more then 2 is pretty much completely un-needed. I think the Weight mechanic worked pretty nicely to encourage a choice between casting spells faster vs. having a more powerful gun. In Gears of War 3, the game is pretty much balanced around how much ammo you have, so being able to carry more weapons would seriously mess things up (Also the two-weapon limit makes the "Flamethrower vs. Boomshot as my heavy weapon?" a real tactical choice at every pickup).

Some games benefit from the 2 weapon limit.
Others don't, Bioshock: Infinite being one.

 

[CorvusFerreum]

It really depends on the game. Games designed with many different weapons and an arcadier playstyle would suffer from a weapon limit. Half the fun in these games is dicking around with different weapons. Tactical shooters clearly benefit from forcing you to prepare your loadout to the situation (provided they are well designed).
MMS are kinda designed around the 2 weapon limit too (others in this thread said it better than I could already).

Theres also another alternative, which you see in many open world games. There you have weapon types like Pistol, SMG, Assault, Special (e.g. Rocket launcher) and the like and can only carry one weapon of each type. This might be for balancing reasons (I think). I think those games would benefit from having the complete arsenal all the time (especially goofier ones like Just Cause 2 or Saints Row) though.

I think what I try to say is this: Weapon swaping is a valid system if the game is designed in a way that the system makes sense. This applies especially to more tactical games. If they fail to give you a hint on what you will be facing or constantly throw unexpected stuff at you you might end up using a jack-of-all-trades loadout every time, which is kind of boring.

 

[Arfonious]

In Bioshock Infinite though it really encouraged the use of Vigors though, since you could have all of them on you at one time. It really emphasizes playing tactical and smart rather than "more dakka"

WHAT!?!? There is never enough dakka!


On a more serious note I feel that different games call for different number of guns.

A realistic shooter should limit the player to perhapps two guns and a pistol while games that don't focus that much on realism shouldn't.

 

[Robot Number V]

Asides from "realism" (a thing that pretty much any game with this has yet to accomplish) I see no point in limiting a player in an shooter to two or three guns. There is no other reason that I can see that would be cause for limiting a person's choices for guns in the game.

"But sir," A console fan yells out, "Its incredibly awkward and encumbering to go to a weapon select screen every time I need to change a weapon". Well, as a counter-argument allow me to point to Metal gear solids 1-3. Each of those had similar, yet different ways to select weapons. You held down R2 and scrolled through a list. "But doing that whenever I need to change a weapon is time consuming and immersion breaking." Well, then use the option that says 'two weapon swap' or 'three weapon swap'. That way, you can have two or three heavily used weapons at a button's press away.

"But that takes away any and all tactics, a thing that is core to Modern shooters! Having only two weapons is key!" Well that statement alone may be false in more ways than one, but I'll focus on one thing here: Strategy and tactics in relation to gun-swapping. One feature in MGS3 that helped "simplify" the weapon selection process is that they limit the amount of guns you can have in your list. Sure you can go into your backpack during a battle and get any gun from there, but what if that wasn't the case? What if once you enter an area with enemies you are locked to three or four weapons until you are finished with the area? That is no excuse.

So anyway, why do you think we have this prevalence of two weapon swap games on the market? Hell, even Bioshock Infinite had it.

Captcha: Easy as cake. Yes, captcha, it is easy as cake to learn from past successful games about good mechanics.

Why'd you have to make it about consoles? I play on consoles and I prefer weapon wheels to the "2 weapon limit" system.

Also, I think it makes the most sense in games with a huge amount of very similar guns, like Bioshock Infinite. Personally, I think the system works fine. It forces you to think a little more: If you run out of ammo, you can't just cycle through all your other guns until you're out of everything, you actually have to use whatever's lying around. Made for some pretty intense fights in my personal experience. Still, like I said, I do prefer to have a smaller, but more varied arsenal in my games.