What I don't get...

[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.

[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