What I don't get...

[Buffalobiian]

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.

Then that's a balancing issue. The weapons ideally should have their available ammo balanced such that a high-output weapon has low ammo around, while a low-damage gun has plenty of ammo to go around.

[Splash!]

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.

I have never found lack of ammo to be much of an issue for modern FPS single player campaigns. If anything, there is usually more ammo lying around than in older games. Also, I am not sure how forcing players to use a particular weapon in certain areas makes them actually think about what they are doing. As you pointed out, it is made blatantly obvious to players by scattering ammo of a specific type. I don't think the designers actually want players to think about the pros and cons of sticking with their preferred weapon. More like they want to encourage players to switch as much as possible without having to automatically reset their inventories at checkpoints (which would be quite bizarre).

Again, I am hard pressed to find any valid arguments for why severely limiting the amount of guns one can carry is actually 'better'. It is just different, and in cases where combat realism is desired above all else, it would be more appropriate. But that isn't always the case.

Also, I would like to point out that shying away from design complexity (when possible) isn't the same thing as laziness, but I don't really want to get into that discussion.

[Kraco]

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.

If that's true, then I stand corrected. Though it might be just temporal fluctuation in the game trends. If lots of people wanted the type of shooter where maps, missions, and gameplay are designed appropriately for looser weapon handling, then there eventually should be enough games like that, according to the laws of supply and demand. Game makers naturally want to try different things and I don't think they are immune to following (copying) general trends in the business either. Though there have always been more games than game engines, and if some popular engine supports better one type of gameplay, then the designers likely stick to it.

[Xelbair]

1) Limiting the amount of actions that player can undertake simplifies design of the level(no 3-weapon combos or n-weapon combos)
2) simplified controls - mind you that most games need to be available on consoles - and players need to have fast access to each weapon.. and cycling through inventory midfight destroys immersion, which is a BAD thing.
3) direct ability to control which weapons will be available on stage without forcefully removing them from player(no one likes it when someone takes away their toys) - they can easily limit you to lets say 3 weapons from pool of 12 by providing ammo for quite some time for just those select weapons and/or making enemies drop just those weapons -> this leads to #1 - simpler and more precise design.
4) 'realism' effect - as someone said in here you wouldn't be able to run with whole inventory of heavy weaponry on you.

also by limiting player to few weapons lets them pick weapons that suit their playstyle, while giving them as many slots as there are weapons forces them to utilize everything(and some players might hate that), plus there will be always a weapon that would feel useless in such case - and by removing ability to compare all weapons at the same time(doable only by hardcore maniacs tbh) you trick players into not noticing it.


you are giving a player set of actions that he/she can do, and you are designing a challenges that are overcome by utilizing set of actions. Increase in available actions might lead to some unforeseen ways to bypass the challenge - a design bug.

[Splash!]

1) Limiting the amount of actions that player can undertake simplifies design of the level(no 3-weapon combos or n-weapon combos)
2) simplified controls - mind you that most games need to be available on consoles - and players need to have fast access to each weapon.. and cycling through inventory midfight destroys immersion, which is a BAD thing.
3) direct ability to control which weapons will be available on stage without forcefully removing them from player(no one likes it when someone takes away their toys) - they can easily limit you to lets say 3 weapons from pool of 12 by providing ammo for quite some time for just those select weapons and/or making enemies drop just those weapons -> this leads to #1 - simpler and more precise design.
4) 'realism' effect - as someone said in here you wouldn't be able to run with whole inventory of heavy weaponry on you.

also by limiting player to few weapons lets them pick weapons that suit their play style, while giving them as many slots as there are weapons forces them to utilize everything(and some players might hate that), plus there will be always a weapon that would feel useless in such case - and by removing ability to compare all weapons at the same time(doable only by hardcore maniacs tbh) you trick players into not noticing it.

The points here are about how it makes it easier to design such games (except for #4 which is the only valid reason for certain types of game). Also, the control thing isn't that big of a deal. Even earlier FPS games had quick switching to alternate between two specific weapons. It shouldn't be that hard to come up with a seamless interface to speed up the access of weapons without having to restrict the player to just two. Again, it is fine for designers to do things that make their job easier but they shouldn't be dressing it as something that is fundamentally better, because it doesn't actually improve the player experience and in many ways limits it.

[Xelbair]

The points here are about how it makes it easier to design such games (except for #4 which is the only valid reason for certain types of game). Also, the control thing isn't that big of a deal. Even earlier FPS games had quick switching to alternate between two specific weapons. It shouldn't be that hard to come up with a seamless interface to speed up the access of weapons without having to restrict the player to just two. Again, it is fine for designers to do things that make their job easier but they shouldn't be dressing it as something that is fundamentally better, because it doesn't actually improve the player experience and in many ways limits it.

Well, overcoming the limits/challanges is what makes the games fun. Restricting number of weapons makes designing easier and allows for more precise control of difficulty level. Same as with regenerating hp - designers had to design a level in such way that it wouldn't be too easy for someone with full hp, and that it would be passable for someone with 10hp left.

remember that most fps games are made for multiplayer too - you can't have bigass windows with 10 weapons to chose from in form of big circle menu.

try designing control scheme that fits gamepad and allows for most fps actions and lets player chose more than 4 weapons, seamlessly without any additional interface. And remember that most games aren't just run'n'gun - player has some special abilities at his disposal. Good luck.

[Splash!]

Well, overcoming the limits/challanges is what makes the games fun. Restricting number of weapons makes designing easier and allows for more precise control of difficulty level. Same as with regenerating hp - designers had to design a level in such way that it wouldn't be too easy for someone with full hp, and that it would be passable for someone with 10hp left.

I don't get why this is being reiterated over and over again when it is the very basis of my point (stated several posts back). Sure it makes it easier to design levels but there is no hard and fast rule that makes it impossible to design good levels with more weapons. It is just 'harder', and I don't find this a good enough reason to preclude the approach. With more guns on hand, I can imagine a player being put into a lot more high octane situations where the have to face a multitude of different enemies in a single stint before they need to get more ammo. Secondly, I vehemently disagree with the notion that the difficulty level is the only thing that makes games fun (games can overly simplistic but extremely difficult and I wouldn't derive much enjoyment out of them). The experience, the degree of the control the player has over game outcomes, and the choices one can make all play an important part. That being said, there is NO REASON why having more weapons makes it impossible to design levels with decent levels of difficulty.

remember that most fps games are made for multiplayer too - you can't have bigass windows with 10 weapons to chose from in form of big circle menu. try designing control scheme that fits gamepad and allows for most fps actions and lets player chose more than 4 weapons, seamlessly without any additional interface. And remember that most games aren't just run'n'gun - player has some special abilities at his disposal. Good luck.

My whole argument is focused squarely on single player campaigns. There is no reason there can't be subtle differences in rules for multi-player maps (again I use Starcraft 2 as an example where certain units introduced in the campaign need not necessarily be part of the multi-player experience). In a multi-player situation, there is the matter of fairness and players that stay alive longer are able to hoard more become exceedingly difficulty to kill.

As for the controls, again 10-11 weapons can be managed reasonably using a combination of different strategies. And remember, it should always be possible for players to short list a handful of weapons to toggle through quicker. With some thought, I am sure I could come up with a decent design (and no doubt those in the industry that are willing could do even better).


This will be my last post on the topic, since I find that I am repeating myself a lot which is usually a good indication that we are at an impasse.

[Xelbair]

Is interface vastly different in stacraft(1 or 2, dosen't matter) in sp and mp? comparing units to UI is like comparing Cars to fruits(for example both can be the same colour).

[Splash!]

Is interface vastly different in stacraft(1 or 2, dosen't matter) in sp and mp? comparing units to UI is like comparing Cars to fruits(for example both can be the same colour).

Huh, ok? My comment was about only how there can be differences in the multiplayer and single player versions. It wouldn't be a big deal to allow fewer weapons to be carried in a multiplayer version but allow more in the story mode.

[Kraco]

I don't get why this is being reiterated over and over again when it is the very basis of my point (stated several posts back). Sure it makes it easier to design levels but there is no hard and fast rule that makes it impossible to design good levels with more weapons. It is just 'harder', and I don't find this a good enough reason to preclude the approach.

Since reiteration is the word of the day, I'll join the chorus. It's not harder. It's not easier. It's just different. Of course for a shitty game that has 20 copy-paste levels it might be easier, but I doubt anybody here in this discussion was thinking of such games. As long as you have the models and the engine support, even a beginner mission developer can build missions that can allow or even encourage various types of weapons. Who knows, it might actually be easier since different weapons assume different enemies or conditions, and those could be easier to add than to make a more monotonous environment, bestiary, and objectives interesting.

[Splash!]

Since reiteration is the word of the day, I'll join the chorus. It's not harder. It's not easier. It's just different.

That may very well be the case. At a cursory glance, it seems to me that incorporating more weapon choices and enemies may be harder but who knows (at the very least it is not impossible to do well). By that same line of reasoning, limiting the number of weapons to be carried to 2 is not better, or worse, but just different

[Animeniax]

In defense of some game designers, BL allowed 4 weapons so you could carry 1 each of 4 of the 5 primary weapon types. I found myself mostly resorting to the assault rifle because it worked well for close and long range kills, and coupled with acid damage it killed pretty much everything. Occasionally the rocket launcher came in handy against tougher enemies, but the pistol and even the shotgun and sniper rifle saw limited use. This is most likely a limitation of the game itself that you could pretty much play with just one weapon even though the arsenal in the game was highly varied.

Other games that limit you to 2 weapons force you to drop your trusty assault rifle and switch to carrying a sniper rifle or rocket launcher for certain stages.

[Buffalobiian]

I found myself mostly resorting to the assault rifle because it worked well for close and long range kills, and coupled with acid damage it killed pretty much everything.

/shakes head.

Explosive assault rifle's where it's at.

BL2 was the immediate game I thought of when you guys mentioned multiple weapons. I'm assuming you guys are talking about your backpack inventory instead of your quick-cycle? 4 weapons in quick-cycle and up to 24(?) in inventory is pretty large. That game worked for a few reasons:

1) You keep picking up stronger and newer weapons that are not necessarily of your preferred type. That is, even if you liked assault rifles you may use a pistol today because your assault rifle was acquired 10 levels ago and is now useless.

2) Ammo - you run out, and so you kinda HAVE to have a few different guns just in case.

To me, BL2 worked since it was kinda a lolwut-overthetop-wholethingsajoke kind of game. Any game in a military setting, I'd opt for a limited weapon approach - whether it's touted to be a military-simulator or just a Sci-fi shooter - it fits the atmosphere IMO.

So Splash, on that note, what are some games that had 2-weapon limitations that you would have liked to include unlimited carrying?

[Splash!]

I am not much of an FPS gamer (but I do have strong opinions about the design of things), so I can't claim to a good sense of the different types of games out there. Mostly, I was responding to Ryllharu's comment about games with 10 or so weapons becoming less and less common.

That being said, I was comparing Half Life 2 and the Halo games in my head. HL2 seemed to have worked quite well for me with the large number of weapons you could carry. As much as I liked many of the Halo games, I didn't quite see the need for the two weapon limit in single player. Also, I was thinking of COD and other modern warfare games as examples where the 2 weapon model actually made sense.

[Animeniax]

/shakes head.

Explosive assault rifle's where it's at.

I liked how acid continued to do damage which also helped you see where the enemy was as the damage was tallied.

[fahoumh]

With the original Borderlands, I started with the Shotgun as my choice weapon, then the Sniper Rifle, then a 4x Fire SMG that wasn't powerful but had very fast fire and reload rates, then I moved to a non-elemental pistol...then I went back to the Shotgun.

[Buffalobiian]

I don't get why some counterfeit items have such poor labelling on their packaging. Incorrect spelling or down right contradictory information on the box just screams "I'm fake!!" I'm sure there are people out there who buy counterfeit items knowingly, but their motivation is that the items are cheap - not because the items are knockoffs in themselves.

So is the horrible labelling:

1) A sign that the makers are poor at English, or can't get the labels right even if they wanted to (mental deficiency or otherwise)
2) Simply don't give a fuck (cheap products sell anyway without effort, careless consumers etc)
3) A deliberate act to avoid legal trouble ("It says Abble, not Apple.. clearly this shows we're not trying to "copy" someone, Mr Judge" defence)

[Death BOO Z]

I think it's mostly the 3rd one. as long as it's not infringing on the copyrights of a product, it's not a knock-off. it's a different brand.

[Ryllharu]

[HorribleSubs] Fate Kaleid Liner PRISMA ILYA - 06 [720p] : 322.46MB
(Much larger than a few years ago, but not unexpected)

[UTW] Fate Kaleid Liner Prisma Ilya - 06 [h264-720p] : 749.62MB!!!

What the fuck?! Did groups completely forget how to encode?
That's the size of 1080p episodes...but still just 720p. No wonder I keep running out of hard drive space.

Someone please justify why the file size is insane on the second file. UTW is far beyond any other release week group in average file size. Even gg manages to only have 500 meg files.

[Death BOO Z]

I remember ten years agi, when I was archiving on cd-roms. if a file was above 180MB, I just wouldn't download it. or mannualy cut away the ED to make four episodes fit into one cd-rom.