Welcome to Gaming! Come chat with us in the GoatChat network (desktop users click here). We also have an Official Steam Group.
All sub rules are defined in detail here and open for feedback
-
Submissions must be related to gaming.
-
Titles must be clear and reflect content of the submission. Include game titles where necessary.
-
No Clickbait (defined).
-
No links to illegal torrents or other illegal downloads/content.
-
No link posts to merchandise and/or unrelated products (exceptions).
-
Mark all spoilers with: [](#s "Text goes here")
-
Mark all NSFW posts appropriately.
-
Submissions reposted within 6 months will be removed.
Content creators, please read our community Content Creator Guidelines
What you're encouraged to post:
Games! We should talk about games more than anything! New releases, old favorites, Speed Runs, Let's Play's, development news, what we love, what we hate and so on and so forth.
Try to post things that create discussion. We want people to feel engaged and feel their voices are heard, rather than to be a place of disposable content.
If you're not sure, ask!
If you wish to, you can archive your posts here.
Check out v/gaming's megathread of gaming-related subverses
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Zquareman 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
The argument for or against realistic carrying limitations in shooters is really dependent on the specific game. It worked fine in Halo and it works fine in other games, but it should not be the nearly universal standard that it is right now. There are many differences between early 'twitch' shooters and Halo but certainly one of the most obvious is pacing: Halo is a very slow game compared to, say, Doom or Quake or Serious Sam, and it makes sense to couple that slowness with resource management if only to give you something to do. For more fast paced games that emphasize 'fun' over realism, however, the weapon limitation is a boring, unnecessary nod to reality. Carrying limitations also change the overall dynamic of gameplay wherein the situations a weapon might be best used for are too distant to justify using one of your two or three slots and the player is reliant on the map/scenario designer to provide the weapon again at the appropriate time (which may or may not be unrealistic anyway). Too much of the game is spent suffering through using only two weapons (out of three) for fear of losing access to a powerful one like a rocket launcher or BFG that is only situationally appropriate, and when I start using the word 'suffer' I have to wonder why I am even playing games, if it is not to have fun?
As soon as I started up Duke Nukem Forever and saw that there was a weapon limitation I knew I was in for a bad time and I was not wrong. The concept has its place (specifically in military shooters, imo) but I will be pissed as all hell if Halflife 3 doesn't let me carry 14 weapons.
I honestly think part of the reason for weapon carrying limitations is the difficulty of effective weapon selection on consoles; even that 'hold one button and choose with the stick' thing is a thousand times slower than hitting 5, or 5 twice, or whatever. Realism is all well and good but let's fucking face it, you take enough damage in every FPS to die 6 million times over but you go back to full health after 10 seconds or rubbing against a medkit, we're already splitting hairs as soon as anyone uses the word 'realism' in conjunction to FPS games.
[–] [deleted] ago
[–] Zquareman ago
I agree, I wish there was something at the other end of the spectrum, most of the 'realistic' shooters now don't come anywhere close to those old Rainbow Six days.