What I don't get...

[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.).

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Buffalobiian]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.