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

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

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

When playing on a console, being forced to carry only two weapons in a shooter seems a bit archaic. Shamus looks at the issue and possible objections to getting rid of the limit.

Read Full Article

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.

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 think Unreal II: The Awakening got it right with its generous loadout and secondary-fire modes, as well as the ever-expanding variety of grenades for the launcher: fragmentation, incendiary, smoke, concussion, EMP and gas. That's six weapons in one already. I also agree with Wolfenstein: The New Order. What Battlefield 4 had -- judiciously-placed crates where you could equip yourself with any weapon you'd discovered before that point -- was an odd compromise that didn't make a great deal of sense contextually. Rage did a great job with things like bottle rockets for the shotgun - which, incidentally, is the most ravishing-looking boomstick I ever did see.

Gosh, I miss the cerebral bore and the laptop gun.

I think if designers are really going to insist on having this kind of a weapon limit they could at least take a leaf out of Metro's book and make it a 3 weapon limit.

Since shooters will want to be made on consoles, I think a weapon select wheel will be the best choice for controllers.

Play Shadow Warrior '13 Shamus. You won't be dissapointed.

Another solution might be what Hard Reset did (made by the same devs as Shadow Warrior '13, wich they are in fact ex-People Can Fly devs, they know their stuff), it has exactly 2 weapons... but with tons of different upgrades that basically turn them into the equivalent of 10 weapons.

Yes, just yes. As someone who loves video games with lots highly diffrent weapons I gotta agree with all this, why put all these guns here if I'm only gonna use two of them at any time?

One this that wasn't mentioned in this article is the fact that these systems lead to one of my most hated gaming sins: useless weapons. These are weapons that would be great to have and could be used for all sorts of fun things if you could only take them without crippling your firepower or even making a level impossible to beat.

"Hey I can take this grenade that deploys in mid air and shoots a beam of death below it for 30 seconds allowing for great traps in hallways! But darn it I need the shotgun for close quaters and I can't drop the assualt rifle because of that one single enemy on this map that is NOT POSSIBLE to kill at close range because it's on a inacessable balcony."

"Hey this gun shoots explosive discs onto the floor that roll forward towards the enemy like Jihad roombas! Well there's a section with 5 flying enemies coming up so you can't come."

"This gun has sub-par stats but holds lots of ammo so I can use it to save rocket launcher ammo until the boss!...Oh wait then I can't carry the launcher. Well then this gun may as well not even exist!"

The two weapon system makes it so that you can't take less conventinal weapons with you since your are always going to want the more general use stuff.

COMaestro:
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.

I was thinking the same thing; you had plenty of monsters that had optimum strategies, but most could also be handled with lots of bullets from something else.

OT: I was actually having this discussion recently regarding tabletop games and the value of Encumbrance rules. In a lot of games, like a "revolutionaries in the city" or "Big Damn Heroes saving the galaxy" encumbrance is nothing more that bean-counting that slows you down at best and messes with the game's flavour at worst ("Oh, sorry, Steve, your paladin isn't strong enough to carry both the sword of his father and the Magic Sword of the Gods"). On the other hand, in some games it can be vital; the key part of many dungeon crawls is trying to find out whether you need to bring cold iron, silver, or blessed weapons for different monsters, how many rations you should pack, ways to transport the loot or an injured comrade, etc. There, encumbrance adds depth to the sort of choices you make and ironically increasing the options in play by forcing you to abide by certain rules.

So I'd argue that 2 weapon limits aren't bad necessarily, just often misused. In CoD AW where every level has you deploying from a base with all your high tech gear? Load up on every kind of weapon and go nuts. In another game like Halo ODST, where you're supposed to be alone and isolated, two weapons creates a tension that comes from a lack of flexibility.

Hmm, no one else, yet?
Then I suggest checking out Myth Busters' 'Doom' / 'Video games' special!

It shows that a fit man *can* carry all ten of those weapons and not be slowed by them.
So it's not too far fetched! *I* would want to have all those options you mention, anyway!
Normally you have a UNIT with a dedicated sniper, a RPG guy, a heavy MG guy in it... when it's just you, you either lose the IRL needed diversity of options, or you... ya know, carry it all on your one person! :P

And others already pointed to the myriad of modern game options with lots of weapons you seem to be unaware off, Shamus...

What always annoyed me was that one of those two weapons could be a pistol. Seriously? A pistol? I can carry a ship-destroying rocket launcher, AND an enormous laser cannon gattling gun, but god forbid I try to pick up a pistol. Then all off a sudden my arms are full?

I can't remember what game it was, but they allowed you to carry one of each type. A melee weapon, a pistol, a shotgun (close quarters weapon category I guess?), a rifle (smg, assault or sniper), an explosive or exotic weapon, and I think 2 types of grenades. So you could customize your load to give you some flexibility in your approach to the mission, but still had some restrictions.

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 mean, Call of Duty and the like also have a melee attack, but it doesn't suit the playstyle. In Halo, you can defeat some crowds wholesale and very easily just by pistol-whipping, and then there's enemies that are outright invulnerable to it. Some will hit you back, and pretty hard too. Depending on the difficulty, enemies can usually take 2-4 hits, if you're on a higher difficulty fighter higher-tiered variant, it can take upwards of a dozen whacks. And then there's some enemies that you can't even really physically at all, like those little green flying buggers. There's enemy variety and there's weapon variety, making for different playstyles. Its not a last-resort like it is in, say, Half-Life because you have shields that can soak up damage, because its generally in the sweet spot of powerful but too powerful, different enemies react to it in different ways, and you can even kill them much easier with it if you hit them in the back, which directly rewards a mobile playstyle where you're constantly flanking. The only time you ever really stopped behind cover in Halo Combat Evolved was when there was an enemy vehicles or when there were hunters, and you couldn't stay behind cover for long with hunters on the prowl. You weren't always hiding behind cover, and Halo 2 actually improved upon the formula by including vehicle hijackings, allowing you to engage vehicles without ever having a rocket launcher on you at all times, scavenging the ground for twenty different Covenant weapons and firing each one of them to the point of battery exhaustion until the enemy vehicle submits (this absolutely murders pacing) or using your entire stock of grenades. Those instances weren't even entirely common in Combat Evolved anyways, you almost always have a rocket launcher around a enemy vehicle, and there's never a lack of weaponry. Grenades, might I add, were fantastic because they worked unlike most other games - they're primarily for flushing enemies out of cover. All of the enemies in the game can dodge grenades, which they generally do competently, but this makes them vulnerable, particularly to melee weapons. Hmmmm, its almost like they thought it through. But seriously, the best way to take out the Jackals (who carry shields) is to close in, toss a plasma grenade to the far side of them, and when they leap away from the grenade and towards you, you beat them over the head while they're vulnerable. So to recap, you have a large stock of various firearms available that mostly behave differently, plus your melee attacks, plus frag grenades, plus plasma grenades, plus shields, and in Halo 2, hijacking.

Personally my biggest gripe about the sequels is that they ditched the health bar. That was incredibly important. You had a permanent consequence for playing poorly while still having enough shields to play in a variety of ways. Integrating it all into one big health bar was absolutely the worst gameplay decision that the franchise made in its sequels, because it took that dimension out. This is why Halo Reach is probably my favourite to play - because even though armour abilities are often a game of rock-paper-scissors, you had a health bar separate from shields and the much needed ability to hijack.

Compare all of that to Call of Duty and its ilk. In Call of Duty, all of the guns are the same, all of the enemies are the same, and there's no meaningful difference between the grenades because they come down to instantaneously kill all of these dudes or incapacitate all of these dudes for a long window of time that allows you to knife each and every one of them with no difficulty. The enemies are all exactly the same, go down with two or three bullets, and have no strengths or weaknesses. Its a rinse-and-repeat of whack-a-mole. Every situation is the same as the last. I'm not going to say that Halo is perfect, and there's certainly games with more variety in its weaponry (hello Unreal Tournament) but it gave you a lot of variety in your encounters. Even with plain corridors, you'll approach a hallway with one elite and two jackals differently than you will approach a hallway with one elite and two grunts. There's tons of variety in enemies which means a variety in weapon combinations. Every other modern military shooter, its the same enemy with the same guns, everywhere it is in the game. The two-weapon system can destroy games that weren't built for it, like, as an example, Bioshock Infinite, but if the game is truly built for it, the result is lively gameplay that makes you think and isn't just a game of rock-paper-scissors.

Can't you just do the Half-Life thing but for consoles and say press the D-pad in any direction sequentially to cycle through weapons and the pressing the trigger to choose it. 2 weapons per direction and you have 8 weapons pretty easily available.

The Last of Us did a pretty neat thing if you want to aim for a more pseudo-not really actually but what do you want from me, you're never happy!-realistic weapon switching.

I do agree with you that 2 weapons really sucks the fun out of it.

captcha: hear hear
Hey look at that, captcha's doesn't like it either.

That or have the weapon switch button cycle through on tap switching to the highlighted weapon after a second of inactivity and being a switch to previous if held down. Thus you get access to your entire arsenal with one button.

I should add, some games, role warfare is important. Battlefront and Battlefield comes to mind. There's a reason you're not given everything in those games. Thats not a bad thing, but they generally do it properly where other games with a two weapon limit fail to because the emphasis is heavily on teamwork.

jabrwock:
I can't remember what game it was, but they allowed you to carry one of each type. A melee weapon, a pistol, a shotgun (close quarters weapon category I guess?), a rifle (smg, assault or sniper), an explosive or exotic weapon, and I think 2 types of grenades. So you could customize your load to give you some flexibility in your approach to the mission, but still had some restrictions.

Sounds like Far Cry 2, if I'm reading that correctly. Had a melee, secondary weapon (pistol, submachinegun, sawn-off shotgun, IEDs and an M79 nade launcher), a primary weapon (assault rifle, shotguns, sniper rifles) and a special weapons category (Rocket launchers, machine guns, flamethrower, dart rifle) as well as having room for explosive grenades in one category and molotov cocktails in another, and those molotovs were fantastic in the right situation, as the game had a forest fire mechanic that could easily envelop and enemy (or yourself, if you're not careful). Additionally, with the exception of two interchangable pistols (one is exactly the same as another, just silenced) every weapon is unique, none are truly a direct upgrade, none are really blatantly superior. Even the entry level weapons find a lot of love among the playerbase. For example, my favourite shotgun and sniper rifle in the game are both the entry level ones, and my favourite pistol is the mid tier one. The weapons also have different durability, and some fall apart faster than others, so you have to keep that in mind too while you're building a loadout. Machete was mostly broken, you couldn't use it silently and if you tried it'll give your exact position away where if you literally fire an RPG, it wouldn't give the enemies a perfect lock on you, but other than that, every weapon served its own unique purpose. Say whatever you will about the game, and there's a good chance its correct (incredibly divisive game, just check out the user scores on Metacritic) but the weapon system was really unique and generally gave you a lot of options for a lot of playstyles without insanely overpowering you or boring you.

MarsAtlas:
I should add, some games, role warfare is important. Battlefront and Battlefield comes to mind. There's a reason you're not given everything in those games. Thats not a bad thing, but they generally do it properly where other games with a two weapon limit fail to because the emphasis is heavily on teamwork

Yes, it makes sense in games like that, or in X-Com, where you have a squad or teammates who can carry the "other" weapons you cannot.

Co-op Halo was actually fun for that. One person would be the up close bruiser (usually a sword and shotgun, or sword and needler), and the other the long-range (sniper & assault, or sniper and rockets). Then the 2-weapon limit makes sense, because you are expecting a team of players. But when it's just you, with no team-mates, then the restriction makes no sense, as there is no-one else to be your X specialist.

captcha: follow me!

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.

ive also found that the weapon limit leads to game devs needing to signpost what is coming up enemy wise with what guns they leave laying around. yeah in the past a big pile of med kits was a sure sign that a boss fight was coming up, now a big pile of shotguns means its close quarter time.

Shamus Young:
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 like how the Ghostbusters kickstarter link actually links to the Hong Kong Shadowrun game...

I actually love having limited weapons. Improvising with mismatched weapons is just as fun and exciting as pulling out a giant menu with all the perfect weapons on it. It also makes you feel less invincible and more like a lone operative who has to scrounge for whatever they can get, which fits modern FPS design better.

The scenario you describe, where you take 2 long-range weapons into a story mission that's full of tight corridors, is a mistake I only made once. After that, I'd make sure to take notice of the weapons lying around at the start of the mission, and pick one of them up. Competent FPS designers always give you the tools you need, you just have to give up that precious sniper rifle.

I seem to remember FEAR having a 3 weapon limit, which translated into a one-weapon limit: The assault rifle and shotgun were basically mandatory, as both were lethal, practical, and most importantly, ammo was plentyful. The third slot was more or less picked from a rotating list of powerful weapons. By the time you ran out of ammo, you had hopefully found a new weapon pickup that you still had ammo for.

Yeah, not much strategy there.

Halo may have only let the player have two guns, but you were never limited to two weapons. From guns to vehicles to melee attacks to the easy access to grenade tossing by putting it on it's own button, in Halo the offensive options never felt limited to me.

Of course I'm an admitted Halo fanboy so my opinion will always skew in favor of those games (except MCC obviously).

The only "strategy" the two-weapon system ever introduced in single-player was carrying one medium/long range weapon (typically an assault rifle) and one medium/short range weapon (typically a submachine gun or shotgun) until you came upon a specialized weapon, picking it up for exactly long enough to use it in the one fight it's required for, then going back to get the weapon you dropped.

I will credit the original Halo for its health/shield system. The regenerating shield meant you weren't completely boned because of a single mistake, but careful players (or those with the patience to backtrack for health pickups) had a much more comfortable cushion for the next encounter.

Regarding 90s shooters, let us not forget level design. Level design, please! Also the importance of resource management.

Eh, having a lot of weapons to choose from wasn't all it's cracked up to be. It's easy to point at the huge arsenal and say it's a win but when you actually recount how those weapons were often used it was almost always nearly as limiting as having only 2 at a time. Some weapons were clearly better than others in older shooters, some were clearly more useful for the majority of situations you encountered and, perhaps most importantly, nearly all had their use governed by ammo availability anyway. Is being given barely any rocket launcher ammo before that really tough room in your old school shooter really all that different than the game giving you a rocket launcher to accompany your preferred main weapon before that really tough room? Is having half of your 10 weapon arsenal either be clearly outclassed by another choice or empty of ammo really that different than only being able to carry 2 weapons, a variety of grenades and a really useful melee attack?

I'm not saying that having a huge arsenal on you at all times is worse than having limited weapon carrying capacity (though I do personally prefer the limit even though I grew up in the 90s shooter hey day), I'm just saying that it's at best a situational choice. Neither should be the default. Oh, and the whole discussion gives me a very "grass is greener" vibe.

medv4380:

Shamus Young:
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".

medv4380:

Shamus Young:
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.

Okay... but Chess has 6 types of pieces, so clearly more than 2 is still better :P

burningdragoon:
Okay... but Chess has 6 types of pieces, so clearly more than 2 is still better :P

Humour aside, its essentially an accurate point - chess with a more limited number of options for playing pieces is essentially draughts/checkers, which is generally considered a less strategic game than chess.

I find the most annoying thing about the 2 weapon system is that whenever you get into a situation that needs one particular weapon it's always just lying there in front.

Edge of a cliff, oh good there's a sniper rifle there.

Area with lots of vehicles, handily there's an RPG right by the entrance.

What is the difference here, gameplay-wise, with putting the ammo for those guns in those areas whilst being scarce everywhere else? Limiting ammo for each individual weapon can force you to switch up your tactics and try different techniques with what you have available better than limiting weapons. It also means you don't have to walk past a whole bunch of useful ammo for other guns lying everywhere when they could be useful later on.

I'm totally on board with one of each weapon type. One shotgun, one pistol, one rapid fire, one long range, one explosive. Or maybe a Dark Souls style approach, one have no limit of number of weapons but can only switch quickly between two you have equipped.

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.

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

Clive Howlitzer:
Regarding 90s shooters, let us not forget level design. Level design, please! Also the importance of resource management.

This.

Take Doom for example. The level designers went to great lengths to design maps with hidden access corridors and spaces where powerups, health and ammo could be scavenged. If you ignored the loot hunt and just went in rocket launcher/minigun blazing on anything that moved, you would eventually run out of ammo and, by that extension, health.

Greater equippable weapon diversity encourages more interesting level design within which to manage resources. Two-weapon limit games destroy this aspect of FPS gameplay, consistently funneling you AT enemies or crates that have the same ammo/weapons you are using. It's brain-dead resource management and it is as boring as hell.

This was one of the things that annoyed me about Bioshock Infinite. I think it was intended to encourage the player to use Vigors, but frankly, that never worked very well. That the game started throwing largely superfluous and redundant weapons into the mix down the line didn't help. If you found out the new weapon you picked up just didn't work all that well, you'd just end up using whatever your opponents dropped, over and over. And marveling at the "coincidence" when a sniper rifle happened to show up when you were suddenly faced with approaching a building front chock-a-block with snipers.

All too often, the whole thing just emphasizes the "theme park ride" nature of many games, pulling the player out of any sense of immersion they might have. "You will blast your way through this fight with the sub-machine gun and the shotgun, just like every other player who comes before and after you. How dare you try to impose any sort of personal play-style on our finely honed experience."

I disagree with quite a few of the author's claims, particularly with regards to Halo and the deficiencies of a two weapon system.

Does Halo promote a hide, peek and shoot type of game rather than run and gun? Absolutely not. The fact that you have a recharging shield and can take considerable damage before dying promotes aggressive run and gun. You're not overly concerned with always getting first shot if you have confidence in your rifle. Compare this to Call of Duty or Battlefield where, if you get caught out, the engagement is over before you even have a chance to respond (~1 second), the end result being a timid style of gameplay if not outright camping.

I wager that the two weapon system was developed in the interest of simplicity. On a console, you need only press a button to switch guns quickly rather than navigating a 'weapon wheel' with the stick. This is useful in multiplayer where you don't have time to fart around. Consider also the possibility that not having a weapon for every season in your arsenal might actually be beneficial for gameplay. As an example, in Halo the specialized weapons such as rockets, sniper, and shotgun have known spawn time and locations - these are hotly contested by both teams which promotes map movement and map control. If you know every player on the map is already loaded to the gills, there's less incentive to move or establish control.

It's true that spawning with a water gun when everyone else has a bullet hose is poor balance. Think default Halo 2 when you spawned with an SMG. However, the settings for competitive Halo always featured spawning with a utility weapon (rifle or pistol) which is serviceable at close, medium and long range. You have reasonable chances even if power weapons are controlled by the other team.

Kajin:
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.

The best weapon for the job wasn't necessarily obvious. In Metal Gear Solid, for instance, a fight against Sniper Wolf is set up as a sniper duel, but it's actually a lot easier to hide in a corner and use the remote controlled Nikita missiles to kill her. And you are advised to use Nikita missiles against Vulcan Raven, but he tends to shoot them down, and it's actually a lot easier to use mines.

I don't think as a whole that it's much of a problem, unless there's games where the situation does not fit. Like in CoD, the enemies aren't too varied, and they wanted to keep some 'loose' sense of realism towards modern military combat, so the loadouts reflect as such. In games like Doom, or Painkiller, it's so far out set in a fantasy world that having the unlimited walking armory makes sense. Similarly with recent Far Cry games, the only reason you can carry more than two I think is because of the size of the maps, and being prepared is hard enough as it is.

Sometimes they do botch it up horribly, such as Duke Nukem Forever, where the 2 weapon limit simply does NOT MAKE SENSE. But in tactical shooters like Rainbow 6, and in spectacle/sci-fi shooters like Shadow Warrior, I think it's very applicable. Some games could do with just one extra weapon slot, such as Gears of War, because you can't really go anywhere without your assault rifle, you just wouldn't have enough ammo from the dead guys to cope otherwise. And they give you lots of toys to play with, and it's a shame that you always end up with AR/shottie or AR/Longshot combo.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.