What I don't get...

[Dark Dragon]

I don't think this is just about Ryllharu overgeneralizing, it probably has to do with you more than anything. You also technically call him a racist, what with the whole "You racist" part.

It doesn't bother me, but you are very good at pissing people off for some reason or other.There's a very general willingness from several member of this board to jump on anything you say.

But anyhow, I am not a part of whatever this is, nor do i want to be.

The only reason i even responded is because of my obsessive compulsiveness for fact checking.

[Animeniax]

If anyone took any of that talk about racism seriously, I don't know what to say. If you can't see the purposeful absurdity in going from generalizations about Texans to being called a racist, then you should learn not to take things so black and white. I'm just messing around. Thanks for the laughs.

[Kraco]

Alright, that's enough bickering.

[Ryllharu]

What I don't get:

That people frequently criticize the design decision in FPS games to limit players to 2 weapons at a time. It was common to have 10 weapons in the FPSs of yesteryear, but it has become less and less common with games today. People say it "limits" players. I say it adds realism and a bit of strategic tradeoffs to consider. Do you take the gun that has more ammo, or the one that hits harder but is more difficult to hit with in a pinch?

Try dashing about with more than two weapons in real life, particularly larger ones like a SAW, rocket launcher, or large caliber sniper rifle. Just imagine Gordon Freeman running around the countryside with 10 weapons attached to his back.

I get that concessions are made in order to make the game actually fun or enjoyable to play (since getting hit and killed with a single bullet is no fun for most...except in Goldeneye), but bemoaning that the game won't let you carry an entire armory on your back is silly.

[Buffalobiian]

I don't get it either. Overcoming limits is basically what makes games fun (and any pursuits, really). It's the same as reloading in that it adds both realism and tension.

I remember a story where a king went to a village and saw a bunch of kids fighting over one ball. He gave each of them a ball so they didn't have to fight. The kids went back to playing soccer.

[Xelbair]

I don't get why ppl complain about that too - limiting the amount of weapons that you can carry was one of greatest inventions in FPS history.
I dislike regenerating health, but it is easier for game devs to design the game and gives them much more freedom.

[Death BOO Z]

I don't play FPS, but I can understand the criticism, I guess people don't like having their options blocked. especially in games that are "one man Vs EVERYTHING!!!!".
I want the ability to mow down enemies with a SMG after throwing 300 grenades on them and shooting them from afar with a sniper rifle. why take that away from me?

some weapons are fun to use but not necessarily practical (like a reflecting beam, or a freeze ray that lets you break your enemies afterwards), and if I have to go with only 2 weapons, I'm not going to get the chance to use them.

it's especially relevant in single player game, if I would want to make it more "challenging", I'll do it myself.

[enkoujin]

Couldn't video game developers resolve this by having a cheat mode function in single player? Players can toggle on/off this feature, but there'll have to be some sort of trade-off (e.g., not advancing forward in the story, not being able to share scores or get achievements, etc.).

[Buffalobiian]

it's especially relevant in single player game, if I would want to make it more "challenging", I'll do it myself.

It's not that simple. The options that a player would be taken into account in level design and confrontations etc. Picking weapons is a tactical choice and designers would use that to perhaps design "hard" and "easy" parts in the levels. It's also a lot easier to code difficulty based on available health, ammo, damage, enemy numbers etc instead of adding weapon slots. In fact, adding more weapons doesn't inherently make things any harder or easier. Not as directly as the above modifiers anyway. You'd also have to code a different UI/menu, which makes it a poor choice as far as difficulty modification is concerned. It's more a variety/experience thing more than an "waaah, this game is good hard" thing.

[Animeniax]

Couldn't video game developers resolve this by having a cheat mode function in single player? Players can toggle on/off this feature, but there'll have to be some sort of trade-off (e.g., not advancing forward in the story, not being able to share scores or get achievements, etc.).

They should just add a "burden" or weight feature so you can carry as many weapons as you can, but suffer a penalty for it. They could either add a movement/speed penalty, make you tire faster, or add inventory slots that you can fill up. I like the system in Fallout 3 (I think it's from here) where you could expand your inventory as you leveled up and got stronger.

Realistically, if I was a one-man-army like DBZ said, I'd carry 2 pistols, an assault rilfe or range weapon, and a heavy damage weapon like an RPG/bazooka/grenade launcher. It'd be easy enough, one on each shoulder and your side arms on each hip or on a shoulder/chest holster.

I don't like that the game designers restrict what you can use to "make it more challenging". They should just make the enemies smarter or greater in number, not limit what the player can do to kill them.

[Buffalobiian]

They should just add a "burden" or weight feature so you can carry as many weapons as you can, but suffer a penalty for it. They could either add a movement/speed penalty, make you tire faster, or add inventory slots that you can fill up. I like the system in Fallout 3 (I think it's from here) where you could expand your inventory as you leveled up and got stronger.

"Getting stronger" is more of an RPG thing, though there are perks and such that FPS games can let you unlock.

In the end, I think it comes down to game design though. If I made a game where you could carry 10 weapons, but also coded enemies to be stronger, smarter, more numerous and just downright invincible to the point where your ability to succeed is essentially tied to your ability to score headshots (because anything less would lead to your prompt death), you'd have other more stupid things to complain about.

I don't like that the game designers restrict what you can use to "make it more challenging". They should just make the enemies smarter or greater in number, not limit what the player can do to kill them.

See my previous comment about designers taking into account user capacity when designing the experience. Making the player into a God would make the game ridiculously easy, or make the enemies ridiculously hard to kill in order to compensate.

Instead of "I've chosen a sniper so I'll have to make sure the enemy can't get close", it's "I have to make sure I put 4 headshots into him, or 25 body shots.. or else he'll kill me". It becomes monotonous and quite boring.

Again, it's more about the experience and less about the challenge.

[Kraco]

It's more of a problem of some kids getting used to an infinite armoury in brainless shooters where you run around a very limited map shooting everything that moves, which is usually other players in PvP or bots appearing in great numbers. Or SP games where you have to run through long maps full of enemies alone. Then these kids try to play a game that attempts to simulate real combat a bit better for those who like some degree of realism, but not having any idea it's a different type of a game, they complain because they can't hoard everything they see. It's like buying SimCity and then lamenting they can't build troops to conquer neighbouring towns like in an RTS.

Having created maps and missions for both a fast-paced shooter with unlimited carry capacity and a realistic combat simulator, I can say the requirements to reach decent gameplay are vastly different, and all fun would be ruined if that difference was removed with some cheat or whatnot. Well, except for some lousy cheater trolls, but nobody develops anything for such sad people.

[Animeniax]

"Getting stronger" is more of an RPG thing, though there are perks and such that FPS games can let you unlock.

In the end, I think it comes down to game design though. If I made a game where you could carry 10 weapons, but also coded enemies to be stronger, smarter, more numerous and just downright invincible to the point where your ability to succeed is essentially tied to your ability to score headshots (because anything less would lead to your prompt death), you'd have other more stupid things to complain about.

See my previous comment about designers taking into account user capacity when designing the experience. Making the player into a God would make the game ridiculously easy, or make the enemies ridiculously hard to kill in order to compensate.

Instead of "I've chosen a sniper so I'll have to make sure the enemy can't get close", it's "I have to make sure I put 4 headshots into him, or 25 body shots.. or else he'll kill me". It becomes monotonous and quite boring.

Again, it's more about the experience and less about the challenge.

It is a poor game design to limit players' ability to carry what eq they want, same as invisible walls and other cheap ways to increase game difficulty. Only allowing limited inventory slots is still the best way to force a player to balance what weapons he carries. The inventory also holds other items and potions, so the player has to choose between carrying several weapons or just one or two because they also have to carry other eq.

[Splash!]

In the end, I think it comes down to game design though. If I made a game where you could carry 10 weapons, but also coded enemies to be stronger, smarter, more numerous and just downright invincible to the point where your ability to succeed is essentially tied to your ability to score headshots (because anything less would lead to your prompt death), you'd have other more stupid things to complain about.

See my previous comment about designers taking into account user capacity when designing the experience. Making the player into a God would make the game ridiculously easy, or make the enemies ridiculously hard to kill in order to compensate.

I don't really get this point and can sympathize with the views of DBZ and Animeniax(within the context of single player campaigns). Giving the players more room to carry doesn't make them a god and doesn't automatically require enemies that are impossible to kill.

Limiting the carrying capacity is one of the easiest ways to modulate difficulty and that is what makes it so desirable (also a bit of a cop out). It makes it easier to design levels by focusing on the 'recommended' weapons that the player is likely to have. In contrast, what Animeniax is suggesting is harder to do well. In any given portion of a map, you have to account for a player having a large variety of weapons and design accordingly. You would want to place more enemies, but be careful about their placement so as to not put the player in impossible situations. You may also need to offer a larger variety of enemies and consider weapon-to-enemy/weapon-to-situation rules (thinking of Starcraft and how certain units counter others). Finally, making enemies 'smarter' is easier said then done and more often developers often resort to cheap mechanisms to make things more difficult.

The point I am making is that limiting weapon choices doesn't necessarily make for better game experiences, it just makes it easier to design them. Frankly, I would enjoy it alot more if I was given a larger selection of weapons that I could play with at any given time, so long as there were sufficient challenges on the map. Of course, it is alot harder to design a game that does this well, but that doesn't necessarily mean game designers should discard the approach altogether because of that.

[Kraco]

You guys should probably stop to think for a moment why the designers limit the number of weapons. It's not because they were lazy and it somehow magically allowed them to get off with less work when building the missions. It's because out there in RL soldiers don't carry an assload of guns at the same time and then another truckload of ammunition for every one of them. They carry an assault rifle, a sniper rifle, or a light machine gun, possibly a sidearm and a few handgrenades. Some in the squad would then carry additionally an AT missile/rocket or an AA missile, some might carry mines of some sort, assuming they would need such on their mission. I don't know how many of your have marched kilometers carrying a soldier's full equipment, so I will enlighten you: Even a single assault rifle will start to get annoying before too long because it's heavy, gets always in your way, and it's generally cumbersome, yet you must protect it like it was your bride. If somebody had tried to make me carry a few weapons equal to it, I'd have jammed them down this somebody's throat. Not to mentions there's no way in hell you'd move like you should when under fire if you had a meter long metal sticks pointing in every direction from your back.

Like I said before: Different games have different goals. You can't try to build semi-realistic missions if you allow the soldier to carry ten men's worth of weapons and ammunition. Get a different game. Having made missions for both types, I can tell they require different kinds of thinking from the mission maker, but it's not like one would be for a lazy developer, one for a hard-working. They are just different. It's good both types are being made.

[Splash!]

Like I said before: Different games have different goals. You can't try to build semi-realistic missions if you allow the soldier to carry ten men's worth of weapons and ammunition. Get a different game. Having made missions for both types, I can tell they require different kinds of thinking from the mission maker, but it's not like one would be for a lazy developer, one for a hard-working. They are just different. It's good both types are being made.

That is not the point I or others are making. It's not about those FPS games that prioritize realistic combat above all else, where the natural thing would be to limit the number of weapons. It is about how most of the FPS games out there are converging to this model of carrying 2 weapons and some utility. Not every FPS needs to be that realistic, and often I find this argument to be an excuse for games that are otherwise perfectly willing to discard realism in other situations.

So yes, it is good to have both types and it should continue to be that way. One way isn't inherently better than the other and there should also be plenty of FPS games designed for players to carry lots of weapons. I just don't buy that limiting the number of weapons a player can carry makes a game more enjoyable or even that most players out there prefer this to be the case. It is just a matter of what is out there for them to consume.

[Animeniax]

Like I said before: Different games have different goals. You can't try to build semi-realistic missions if you allow the soldier to carry ten men's worth of weapons and ammunition. Get a different game. Having made missions for both types, I can tell they require different kinds of thinking from the mission maker, but it's not like one would be for a lazy developer, one for a hard-working. They are just different. It's good both types are being made.

What Splash! said, plus as mentioned there are plenty of games where it's you against the world (baby) and in that situation the realistic thing would be to carry more than two guns. A real life soldier doesn't carry more than two weapons because he's most likely not solo and not in a post-apocalyptic survival situation.

Realism is important, but like Splash! said, it's often ignored when your character, an average citizen with little experience in combat, suddenly can deadshot monsters and trained mercenaries who outnumber you 1000 to 1. I'd be happy if there were more games that allowed you to carry more than 2 weapons, but they seem fewer and fewer as more designers default to a 2 weapon inventory.

[Buffalobiian]

Hold on, is the complaint specific to two weapons, or the fact that there is a limit on weapons?

[Ryllharu]

I mentioned that I don't find it to be a legitimate complaint to begin with.

It doesn't "limit" players in any way. It just means that they suddenly have to think about what they're doing in an FPS, and this is probably the real reason they're complaining. I get the feeling that some people dislike that they can't just run a weapon down to empty then switch to the next and so on.

Their side of the argument frequently is that the developers use this tactic because, "they don't trust players to be able to handle more than two weapons at a time" and follow it up by saying that there's all sorts of ammo scattered around, but not the type for my chosen weapons. They call the developers "lazy" or accuse them of poor level design.

...that's kind of the whole point of scattering around the "wrong" type of ammo. To force you to switch, or make the decision whether it is worth it to keep your preferred weapons. They're distinctly not treating players like idiots. They have an expectation that the players are intelligent enough to make decisions under pressure.

If they were really lazy, there wouldn't be ammo strewn about to begin with. There would either be no reloading at all, or infinite reserve ammo.

There are plenty of run and gun FPS games out there. They have their own place, but not every game needs to be the same.

edit:
Clarification: None of this post (or the initial one) refers directly to anyone on this forum.

[Animeniax]

Hold on, is the complaint specific to two weapons, or the fact that there is a limit on weapons?

No, but most limits end up at 2 weapons. I get bored using the same weapon but you pretty much have to when there's a limit, as it's too risky to use some weapons in a lot of situations. Typically an assault rifle is best for both close range and distance shooting. Sniper rifles are only for long distance, shotguns and pistols are only good for short range. I find that it really reduces the use of certain weapons and that dulls the experience.

@Ryllharu: seriously though most FPSes don't require that much thought or pressure even on hard difficulty, so the restriction on weapons is just an annoyance. Some games have it set up so whatever weapon is best for a level is readily available upon entrance to that stage (sniper rifle for long range levels).

People were really upset with Dead Space 3's use of universal ammo, but the alternative was the very limited ammo for certain weapons in the first two games so people just used the same few guns that had plentiful ammo.