EvoMaldonado
Banned
I hate being stuck with just two guns.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Anyone else think 2-weapon limits can be good?
- Thread starter DocSeuss
- Start date
Comfort Jones
Banned
See I don't get this, because to me Halo is a perfect example of the limitations of the system.
You absolutely can "main" the plasma pistol and magnum for basically 80% of the game and there's not a whole lot of reasons to do anything else unless the game gives you a power weapon, and even then it's often still better to go with plasma pistol and magnum lmao.
That other 20% is for the Flood, at which point you prob go with a shotgun and...probably still the magnum pistol because those two guns are effective and dropped often by the flood.
I think very little about ammo management in those games. I think oh my plasma pistol is out of ammo, time to grab another one from one of the 300 grunts that drop them. I really think people like Halo (and heck I like it too) and are now retroactively trying to tell themselves that weapon system is good for SP design rather than objectively looking at it tbh.
Devilgunman
Member
Absolutely hate it and it is the main reason I couldn't get into Halo. I don't like not having options. Give me ton of arsenals and I will decide which two I would use.
You can switch them with new ones during the levels in most 2-gun FPS's.
This is spot on right here.
And why I *highly, highly* recommend anybody playing Far Cry 3 or 4 to *not* unlock the last weapon slot, and keep themselves limited to just 3 weapons like in Far Cry 2. Makes a whole world of a difference.
As for the topic as a whole, I don't think any one way is inherently better. Just depends on the type of experience you want players to have.
Monocle
Member
Yeah, I definitely think weapon limits have a place. The OP's examples are good.
The two weapon limit works brilliantly in the Halo series, better than in any other FPSs I've played, in fact. A big factor there is the human vs Covenant weapon balance that adds an extra tactical element to choosing your weapon combos. This obviously extends to the enemy design, where different types have very different vulnerabilities.
There's also the ease of swapping weapons on the go, a necessity with the many Covenant weapons that don't use ammo. (Halo 4 messed up this whole dynamic by making dropped weapons despawn when you leave the immediate area). The limit just fits the mechanics and rhythm of Halo's gameplay really well. That's the key I think. A weapon limit has to make sense for the game, or else it become an annoying constraint.
The two weapon limit works brilliantly in the Halo series, better than in any other FPSs I've played, in fact. A big factor there is the human vs Covenant weapon balance that adds an extra tactical element to choosing your weapon combos. This obviously extends to the enemy design, where different types have very different vulnerabilities.
There's also the ease of swapping weapons on the go, a necessity with the many Covenant weapons that don't use ammo. (Halo 4 messed up this whole dynamic by making dropped weapons despawn when you leave the immediate area). The limit just fits the mechanics and rhythm of Halo's gameplay really well. That's the key I think. A weapon limit has to make sense for the game, or else it become an annoying constraint.
This. We don't even need to discuss this really, different games have proven to use both effectively.
I'm not a huge fan of only having two guns, but it can turn into something amazing when done right.
In Max Payne 3, for instance, it was worth it just to see those amazing switching animations and having Max carry the second weapon in his hands while you were shooting with something else.
In Max Payne 3, for instance, it was worth it just to see those amazing switching animations and having Max carry the second weapon in his hands while you were shooting with something else.
ChasingComets
Member
No.
Auto-Reply
Member
Depends on the game, every game we play is about limitations of a lot of things. If it serves a purpose then of course, a two weapon limitation can add to the gameplay rather than take away from it. The same with regenerating health, all those things aren't inherently bad design decisions, quite the opposite really. It's all about implementation.
Dictator93
Member
It depends highly on the game and the level of "realism" it is trying to achieve as well as how the guns are balanced against the enemies and enivornmental conditions.
Basically, it depends.
Though the 2 weapon mechanic has invaded games that should probably never have had it in the first place.
Basically, it depends.
Though the 2 weapon mechanic has invaded games that should probably never have had it in the first place.
pants
Member
never thought i'd see this day.
It's just as tactical having a weapon wheel with the game designed around such empowerment like the Ratchet and Clank and Resistance 1... Goddamnit R2, why take away your uniqueness from every COD clone out there.
That said MGS peace Walker was far better having a 3 weapon slot loadout than 2, that pissed me off more than it should have.
Q
Queen of Hunting
Unconfirmed Member
worked wonders for duke nukem forever lol
depends on the game. something linear like bioshock infinite benefits from it as you have to think ahead about where your upgrades and ammo buys go, and midway through the game you'll have a grip on how to handle certain situations. and that benefits replays when you experiment with different weapons for a different experience. the exception of this is a linear shooter like wolfenstein, where the game requires pretty much every type of weapon for every section
something like far cry however a weapon limit would just be frustrating. i haven't played far cry 2 however... i guess that could work if the emphasis was purely on "rationing and survival". which maybe FC2 did, i dunno
something like far cry however a weapon limit would just be frustrating. i haven't played far cry 2 however... i guess that could work if the emphasis was purely on "rationing and survival". which maybe FC2 did, i dunno
I'm not a big Halo fan, but this is one thing that Halo did very well. The weapon placement and encounter design has always been such that the two weapon limit makes things more interesting.
The problem is that many other games copied this system without doing such a good job of implementing it.
The problem is that many other games copied this system without doing such a good job of implementing it.
I'd prefer 4 over 2 if they have to limit it. With 2 limits I rarely find myself bothering with more unique gear because it's only got limited uses. With 4 I will often use that 4th slot for something like a flamethrower or rocket launcher that only gets brought out a few times.
I don't particularly think an a game where you suggest intentionally dying so you can be resurrected is an interesting tactic. Especially in Far Cry 2 when everything repopulates so quickly. If the game had a static world you affected, I would appreciate the "carefully choose your loadout" method more. Knowing I could retreat, rearm and come back is an interesting tactic. Retreating and everyone's back and doesn't remember you is less so.
It also feels like a lot of games with this limit sort of sheperd you to a couple weapons they want you to use by making ammo for something you "chose" before scarce so you barely have a choice in the matter anyway.
I don't particularly think an a game where you suggest intentionally dying so you can be resurrected is an interesting tactic. Especially in Far Cry 2 when everything repopulates so quickly. If the game had a static world you affected, I would appreciate the "carefully choose your loadout" method more. Knowing I could retreat, rearm and come back is an interesting tactic. Retreating and everyone's back and doesn't remember you is less so.
It also feels like a lot of games with this limit sort of sheperd you to a couple weapons they want you to use by making ammo for something you "chose" before scarce so you barely have a choice in the matter anyway.
On a basic level, I totally disagree. Limiting "infinite" options creates meaningful choice in the right context, especially when it comes to weapon loadouts in some games. Take some basic Battlefield classes for example, did they not have limitations, especially in amount of weapons carried, you would completely lose a big part in strategic choice.
That certainly doesn't mean that 2-weapon limit is the way to go in all situations; it didn't work at all for Duke Nukem Forever, as it hardly created meaningful choice and it didn't fit the context of the series and world and it severely limited choice in action. It also wouldn't have worked well for Far Cry 3/4 because of the amount of choices and things the player would need to react to is so massive, that it wouldn't feel good to the player. There should be risk and reward, but if you feel limited in options or "wish you had more loadout slots" in most encounters then the design isn't working. It also doesn't work if the choice isn't "visible" enough in a way that makes the player feel that they made a great choice and that it really was their choice. 2-weapon limit should still feel engaging despite limiting the player.
Overall, I very much agree with you Doc, as long as the context is right. It's a system that creates meaningful choice, risk and reward, variety and excitement when used correctly, but it's not certainly something that should be forced or even tried out for every game.
……forgetit
Member
Depends on the game. A game with tons of varied and insane weapons like Resistance shouldn't have a limit, but Halo really makes it work.
It depends on the game.
I like the weapon limit in MGS Peace Walker and Ground Zeroes (The Phantom Pain will also have it) and I think it fits the mission based nature of those games better than system used in the other games.
I really liked having to select my loadout before playing missions in Peace Walker. I would adjust the weapons, suit and items I would bring along depending on the mission objective (infiltration, silent elimination, sniping, boss battle, vehicle battle, "eliminate all enemies", etc.) the type of enemies in the level (light armour vs heavy armour), the layout of the level (close quarters vs open areas), and how strict the time requirement was.
This leads to interesting choices and compromises that wouldn't be possible if you had access to the whole arsenal at once. Furthermore, it limits the amount of ammo you can carry with you.
I am really looking forward to TPP because of that. All those options and dilemmas in a full blown MGS game... I can't wait.
I like the weapon limit in MGS Peace Walker and Ground Zeroes (The Phantom Pain will also have it) and I think it fits the mission based nature of those games better than system used in the other games.
I really liked having to select my loadout before playing missions in Peace Walker. I would adjust the weapons, suit and items I would bring along depending on the mission objective (infiltration, silent elimination, sniping, boss battle, vehicle battle, "eliminate all enemies", etc.) the type of enemies in the level (light armour vs heavy armour), the layout of the level (close quarters vs open areas), and how strict the time requirement was.
This leads to interesting choices and compromises that wouldn't be possible if you had access to the whole arsenal at once. Furthermore, it limits the amount of ammo you can carry with you.
I am really looking forward to TPP because of that. All those options and dilemmas in a full blown MGS game... I can't wait.
NipplesAndToes23
Member
I'm fine with either. Two out of the three shooters I liked the most have the 2-gun limit: Halo 2 and Uncharted 2.
Hibiki Kurosawa
Member
If you are feeling forced to pick the two "statistically best" weapons, then I'd say the games you're playing are either poorly balanced or poorly designed.
Yeah, if you have a two-weapon limit all the weapons need to have strengths and weaknesses and be balanced.
If you put a weapon limit in a game designed like Wolfenstein/Doom/Half-Life where you gradually get better weapons as the single-player game goes on, it's gonna suck.
KatamariOnTheRocks
Member
Any game that enforces a 2 weapon limit is poorly balanced and poorly designed.
The very nature of having 2 slots means you'll usually go with the best close range and best long range weapons to be equipped for any situation, meaning the gameplay will basically consist of 2 types of encounters, long and close range with no variation at all in weapon choice.
PreFire
Member
Depends. A game like gta deserves no limits to weapons.
A game like RDR should, but I get why not.
A playable character should be able to carry whatever they can carry comfortably and realistically in realistic-type games. Even if it gets clunky. I think Splinter Cell did a good job representing items a character had. I can't stand it when realistic games have characters pulling weapons out of nowhere.
The witcher 3 has a saddle bag that goes on the horse, although I never noticed it getting filled. But it's pretty funny when you pass the weight limit and become "overburdened" and can barely move.. Even though your character has the same amount of weapons visible on his person.
A 2 weapon limit works in a game like Counter Strike, Call of Duty.. But if I'm playing Splinter Cell or any other stealth game, I would be annoyed.
I like how they had a backpack in TLOU
A game like RDR should, but I get why not.
A playable character should be able to carry whatever they can carry comfortably and realistically in realistic-type games. Even if it gets clunky. I think Splinter Cell did a good job representing items a character had. I can't stand it when realistic games have characters pulling weapons out of nowhere.
The witcher 3 has a saddle bag that goes on the horse, although I never noticed it getting filled. But it's pretty funny when you pass the weight limit and become "overburdened" and can barely move.. Even though your character has the same amount of weapons visible on his person.
A 2 weapon limit works in a game like Counter Strike, Call of Duty.. But if I'm playing Splinter Cell or any other stealth game, I would be annoyed.
I like how they had a backpack in TLOU
I wasn't just talking about RPGs though- hunting games have specific roles too and often mix melee and shooting, a lance user, a bow and an insect glaive user in monster hunter attack the same monster very differently, and with far more depth per weapon and just as much difference in approach than any individual choices in most shooters. I'm only opposing your assertion that shooters are 'unlike any other genre' in this sense of assigned roles and tactics, which is clearly untrue.
Hibiki Kurosawa
Member
Why the hell are you assuming the game will have a best close and long range weapon? That's not a requirement, that's an assumption. A well designed and balanced game could have a more unique variety of weapons that makes you pick and chose rather than default to the "best" ones.
User 479360
Banned
This
I like that about it, because you have to pick your two best weapons, or two favourites. It creates parity.
KatamariOnTheRocks
Member
And those unique weapons will have one with the highest dps at close range and one with the highest dps at long range, so those are the ones to stick with.
If I had the ability to carry all my weapons then I'd be switching off based on what's most fun to use, but I won't waste a weapon slot on a weak weapon for the sake of variety.
Hibiki Kurosawa
Member
I'm afraid my point is completely over your head.
PensivePen
Member
It's usually only interesting if the weapons are diverse enough and the game requires enough strategy that your weapon loudout actually has a big impact on play. If for example in a game being equipped for a long range battle, and then suddenly thrust into close quarters combat was actually a very different scenario that required you to think creatively or quickly scramble for a new weapon, then it could be interesting.
Not many games pull this off effectively, very few games also actually make you feel like you have limited resources when they limit your gun count. I'm generally in favor of just giving the player more diverse combat options. I think 2-gun limits are probably too restricting anyway, but a 3-4 gun limit is more manageable.
Not many games pull this off effectively, very few games also actually make you feel like you have limited resources when they limit your gun count. I'm generally in favor of just giving the player more diverse combat options. I think 2-gun limits are probably too restricting anyway, but a 3-4 gun limit is more manageable.
KatamariOnTheRocks
Member
It's not, you're just incorrect and won't accept it despite the fact that I've just explained why you're wrong.
I like two-weapon limits, it feels more realistic than being able to carry everything. If a player does want to carry half a dozen huge weapons, why not give them encumbrance to worry about too, there's a reason real soldiers don't each have a pistol, a shotgun, an assault rifle, sniper rifle, rocket launcher, half a dozen mines and grenades on top of everything else. They might be able to carry it but they couldn't fight and move with the degree of dexterity that computer game players demand.
Without two weapons limits, it's a no-brainer to have an all-purpose rifle, plus a shotgun for increased damage up close and a sniper rifle at range, all the time in virtually every game. With limits, you are always having to improvise around what you have and what you can find, trading off damage vs range and ammo capacity.
I get the 'I want to use the whole arsenal!' Argument, but find that even then I settle on what are the obvious better choices for short/medium/long range pretty quickly. By only being able to engage effectively at two out of three at a time, it makes it a bit more interesting for me.
I prefer it if guns don't just disappear as soon as you drop them though.
Hibiki Kurosawa
Member
But you keep saying long and short range. Stretch your imagination. You could have wide shot weapons, weapons that place traps, weapons that maybe has a radar tied to them while others don't so it becomes more handy in that sense etc. Picking what you think would work best for a scenario from that and startegizing with that limit is the appeal.
KatamariOnTheRocks
Member
I can see weapon limits making narrative sense in a game that's grounded in realism like a GTA style game, but I don't see why people choose to draw the line of what is and isn't realistic at how much weight the player can hold in a game with aliens or monsters or whatever.
I also believe a similar limiting effect could be achieved with limited ammo, so you're still forced to use what weapons are at hand, but you ultimately can save your ammo and play how you'd like.
My dislike for 2 weapon limits can be easily explained by the trope of entering a new area, finding a rocket launcher on the ground and immediately knowing there's a boss just up ahead.
It kills the spontaneity of choosing how you want to handle the situation when there's a sniper rifle on the floor right before you encounter some long range enemies.
If I had all my weapons then I could choose how to approach the situation rather than swapping everytime a new encounter is about to occur, instead of the surprise being ruined by seeing how they want me to handle the situation that's about to happen with conveniently placed weapons.
Even in the case of a better designed game that avoids that trope by placing weapons without giving away what's up next, I always end up min/maxing in games that have 2 weapon limits because I can only use 2 so they may as well be the best possible.
I don't min/max in games with choice because I want to exercise that choice by using all the weapons at my disposal.
KatamariOnTheRocks
Member
Those diverse weapons that you're describing would only work the way you describe in a game with no limits.
With no weapon limits you could have any weapon on hand at all times, meaning when you need it, you have it.
It does you no good to have proximity mines in a game when the last time you encountered them you decided to go for a sniper rifle which has now occupied the slot that should have had the mines that you need at this moment.
Deified Data
Banned
Definitely. Even in games that allow you to carry hundreds of pounds of crap like Fallout, I tend to limit myself to a rifle, a sidearm, and a few grenades. If for some reason I need a Fatman to blow up a city block, I hoof it back to my house and grab it. Why would you carry something like that around without a purpose?
IISANDERII
Member
I've been saying for years that the 2 weapons limit has been the worst design decision the fps genre has taken up. I think it's done, in large part, to hide lazy design because creating encounters which permit so many different tactics and options would be too much work.
Bazookas, sniper rifles, grenade launchers and tons of other game specific weapons go unused or underused because you need your staple assault rifle and that takes up half your loadout already so you're left with only one other choice.
I almost never take a rocket launcher because it has such limited use and low ammunition but fuck it's enjoyable to use and so i miss out on that enjoyment.
One of the best fps campaigns I've played in the last 5-10yrs was Resistance 3, thanks in large part to saying fuck off to the 2 weapon limit.
I think Halo may have been the first game to employ the 2 weapons limit. Oh it's more realistic, yeah that was cute for 2min.
Yeah it's a compromise, wonderful; like i don't have enough compromises to make in real life. Don't give me stupid, arbitrary decisions, give me freedom of choice. Let me have fun before overwhelming yourself with your self important BS. Arm your players with an arsenal of fun.
Bazookas, sniper rifles, grenade launchers and tons of other game specific weapons go unused or underused because you need your staple assault rifle and that takes up half your loadout already so you're left with only one other choice.
I almost never take a rocket launcher because it has such limited use and low ammunition but fuck it's enjoyable to use and so i miss out on that enjoyment.
One of the best fps campaigns I've played in the last 5-10yrs was Resistance 3, thanks in large part to saying fuck off to the 2 weapon limit.
I think Halo may have been the first game to employ the 2 weapons limit. Oh it's more realistic, yeah that was cute for 2min.
Yeah it's a compromise, wonderful; like i don't have enough compromises to make in real life. Don't give me stupid, arbitrary decisions, give me freedom of choice. Let me have fun before overwhelming yourself with your self important BS. Arm your players with an arsenal of fun.
Hibiki Kurosawa
Member
The ones I described were purely examples. People get creative with weapon use when limited. It's fun.
I also dislike 'you must use this rocket launcher on this boss' approach, but then I dislike forced sniper and forced gun turret sections too. Maybe the answer is better encounter design that allows for multiple solutions rather than demanding the only one the developer can think of.
Dick Justice
Banned
Max Payne 3 is probably the only game where I've enjoyed its inclusion.
