/vr/ - Retro Games

[Anonymous No.9631000]

I liked it more when you could hold as many guns as you wanted in FPS. The switch to only 2 guns at a time ruined it for me

[Anonymous No.9631018]

>>9631000
I'm not sure posting an N64 game is a good example of that. I don't remember weapon wheel being used there.
Around those times they worked mainly on PC games given the keybindings, but even there are sometimes too many weapons(many of them similar) and actions you can't remap everything up to 6 and below buttons.
>The switch to only 2 guns at a time ruined it for me
I think that was great overall. You aggressively change weapons for given scenario. I used to hoard shit in the past so it made me change my gaming habits overall.

[Anonymous No.9631048]

>>9631000
Even though I grew up on Doom I never understood why people got twisted over some games only letting them hold a couple of weapons. It's an odd thing to hone in on as your key critique and just sounds like you don't know what kind of game you're playing. No, Halo wouldn't be better if you could switch between a needler and a rocket launcher at any time. Did you even play the game? Much of the fun is finding those weapons again in the future, smartly using their limited ammo and scrapping yourself through fights with lesser ones. Sort of like how you always have workhorse weapons in doom and quake, so you can't bitch about wanting to use different guns because you don't even do that in duke nukem, you use 1 or 2 weapons most of the time and situationally power weapons.

[Anonymous No.9631049]

>>9631018
>I'm not sure posting an N64 game is a good example
uhh every N64 shooter has no weapon limit so yeah, it's a good example
>muh weapon wheel
OP never mentioned anything about a weapon wheel and this has nothing to do with a weapon limit. why are you so retarded? just shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.9631053]

Why can't you just a more sensible number of guns instead of choosing between "a keyboard piano of esoteric guns most of which are useless unless you're desperate for ammo" and "constantly savaging for weapons to role play as an idiot who doesn't know how to pack"? Why not 4? 4 is a reasonable number of guns.

[Anonymous No.9631059]

>>9631053
Gears of War 1 is the only game that ever did this right. 2 primary weapons, a side arm and grenades, and your weapons were realistically displayed on your character.

[Anonymous No.9631060]

I like FPSes where your gun just turns into every gun.

[Anonymous No.9631103]

>>9631049
>OP never mentioned anything about a weapon wheel and this has nothing to do with a weapon limit. why are you so retarded? just shut the fuck up.
Says the retard who can't understand point being made. How the fuck do you change guns on N64? By pressing a button again and again until you get there. There isn't a reason to be nostalgic about it. It doesn't work. You stand there pressing the button. Weapon wheel or limited weapon system fixes that.
>>9631053
Special guns should all be treated as the same. Older FPS games were terrible on that. You had a special key for a weapon you get only at single place at the game and shit like that.

[Anonymous No.9631113]

>>9631018
>but even there are sometimes too many weapons(many of them similar) and actions you can't remap everything up to 6 and below buttons.
Half-Life already fixed this problem, and their solution was already a thing in Doom II with the super shotgun

[Anonymous No.9631117]

>>9631103
>Says the retard who can't understand point being made
the "point" is that most older shooters let you carry as many weapons as possible versus a hard 2 weapon limit, that is the purpose of the thread. nobody ever said anything about a weapon wheel or how you access the weapons. you are an autistic who can't read and you should kill yourself, seriously.

[Anonymous No.9631120]

>>9631103
You pull up your watch menu and select your gun you zoomer retard

[Anonymous No.9631121]

>>9631103
You just memorize where in weapon placement a weapon is and tap the weapon button X amount of times. Should take an hour to memorize the cycle.

[Anonymous No.9631128]

>>9631103
>it just doesn't WORK on a console that's almost 30 years old!

So? It worked fine on PC (and obviously still does) and it works fine on modern controllers with weapon wheels or dpad selection.

There's a benefit to both systems for different reasons. Same thing with regenerating health vs med kits. Theyre different stylistic choices.

[Anonymous No.9631141]

>>9631120
lol no one did that. it leaves you vulnerable to attack. you only do that to select gadgets which cant be equipped any other way

[Anonymous No.9631158]

>>9631120
>zoomer
Says the revisionist. Many didn't take console FPS games seriously before Halo anon.
>>9631113
I still don't think stuff you use only at a single section should take HUD place.
I'm also not a fan of HL like approach. If a weapon becomes obsolete at a certain point maybe it's better to upgrade it with another one I guess.
You could argue it's better to give you the choice but you can't use your favorite weapon past that point because it feels useless. It ends up making the gun feel cheaper overall.
It also leads to GTA 5 like implementation where you learn 1 or 2 gun and just use rest of them randomly. It has so many guns that even piano keybind approach can't map all the weapons.
Still I don't think it's a bad idea.
Doom's solution (between 2 guns) works great.
>>9631128
Yeah, I agree.

[Anonymous No.9631161]

>>9631141
>pausing the game leaves you vulnerable to attack
??????????

[Anonymous No.9631162]

Why does /vr/ pretend 2 gun limit is some Retro phenomena? The Last of Us lets you carry eight weapons at once (not including grenades) lol

[Anonymous No.9631167]

>>9631161
it takes time to raise the watch up, leaving you immobile and able to be shot. try playing the game you actual fucking tard.

[Anonymous No.9631170]

>>9631167
Why are you switching weapons in the line of fire in the first place?

[Anonymous No.9631172]

>>9631162
It was during 7th gen. There were many complaints about retro shooters with many guns. I guess the idea of retro shooters having many guns stick at that point.

[Anonymous No.9631176]

>>9631170
You're being contrarian for the sake of it. Anyone who has played that next weapon previous weapon bullshit knows that.

[Anonymous No.9631183]

>>9631176
I'm not being contrarian, you're saying that no one ever did something that I did and I'm saying you're wrong because I did it. If I wanted a specific weapon for something I would get it from the pause menu, but fucking obviously you don't fumble with changing weapons while actively being shot.

[Anonymous No.9631198]

>>9631183
I'm not the anon you responded. Didn't you ever wanted to change to shotgun and running towards while you are actively being shot at? If so you're playing them slowly. Not everybody likes playing FPS slowly.

[Anonymous No.9631203]

>>9631198
>Didn't you ever wanted to change to shotgun and running towards while you are actively being shot at?
Sure, and that works in a game with controls designed for that, but Goldeneye is designed to bee played more slowly and methodically in general. You have to adapt your playstyle to the game. It's still cool to not have to pick and choose which weapons you carry.

[Anonymous No.9631208]

>>9631053
Dog they were space marines… if we’re specifically talking about Halo, that makes total sense. The military isn’t going to issue you a rifle pistol and then give u a ton of other weapons and guns. Even the Spartans have specialty weapon training. It wouldn’t make any sense to see marines carrying around a plethora of weapons, just made sense for the game.

[Anonymous No.9631225]

>>9631208
It makes sense for a lot of games. You can carry a rifle. Maybe carry a sniper on your back but thats it.

[Anonymous No.9631237]

>>9631060
check out hard reset

[Anonymous No.9631281]

>>9631158
Everyone took GoldenEye seriously, retard. It sold millions and critically did extremely well. Its success during its place and time in history was extremely surprising, and it sold more legal copies and Doom and Quake. It was such an innovative and breakout game that PC and console developers have constantly acknowledged its influence and approach to design. Don't try and pretend that Halo somehow added more to the lexicon of FPS, it did not. Halo was an extremely safe game for its place and time, borrowing completely from the success of Unreal, Quake and Half-Life. GoldenEye outsold Halo 1, without a huge budget, and when a lot less people knew what FPS was. Even the Dreamcast version of Quake 3 beat Halo to having online multiplayer on console by 4 years.

[Anonymous No.9631308]

>>9631281
Zoomers really like to brush off Goldeneye as just some cheap licensed game that people only like because of nostalgia and/or the limited N64 library because they're so used to playing FPS from a post-Goldeneye world that to them it just feels like a primitive version of what became the standard. There's little respect for historical context among zoomers, they always look at old media through a modern lens rather than in the context of its time.

[Anonymous No.9631327]

>>9631237
NTA it was so boring that I didn't finish it. It's like a 4 hour game from what I've heard. But in the first 2 hours every area looks exactly the same and shooting is very boring. Gun feels terrible.
I've played remastered or enhanced version don't remember the name.

[Anonymous No.9631341]

>>9631308
What you're missing is PC FPS players were even more elitists in that era and before 360 most people laughed at playing FPS with a controller. Only with 360 vast majority gave a chance to playing FPS games on consoles.(that and Resident Evil 4 but that's and TPS). PS2 era FPS dead zone and shit like that have a lot of issues. N64 is dpad. One of complaints about MGS Peace Walker HD is that it's too easy. It's too easy because it was made for dpad aiming. (and small PSP screen)

[Anonymous No.9631345]

>>9631281
agreed. im not the hugest nintendo fan (my last nintendo product was the gamecube) but denying goldeneye's significance is just dumb.

[Anonymous No.9631354]

>>9631018
>I'm not sure posting an N64 game is a good example of that. I don't remember weapon wheel being used there.
Turok 2 and Perfect Dark had them and the switch speed was okay, it’s more that Goldeneye wasn’t the best example.

[Anonymous No.9631360]

>>9631000
Doesn't it just depend on the kind of game? Unlimited weapons make sense in an old-school shooter like Doom, where there isn't an attempt at realism or "tactical" combat. In a games like the newer Far Crys (not retro, Ubishit, I know), combat is meant to be semi-realistic and more tactical than a game like Doom, so having a weapon limit makes more sense in those games. If you think that every single shooter needs to have the exact same design for carrying and switching weapons then you need to take your autism pills.

[Anonymous No.9631381]

>>9631360
4 Weapons isn't realistic at all. Also that nearly covers entire arsenal. Primary, secondary, close, long range
2 Weapon or 2 Weapon+side arm is more realistic. If we are talking about actual realism that would be a single gun.

[Anonymous No.9631424]

>>9631360
If you're going to make a "realistic" game, make something like Deus Ex, where I have a proper inventory, and a hand gun doesn't take up exactly the same space as a rocket launcher, and I can choose to sacrifice a med kit for more ammo if I want. That's real tactical thinking.
If you're making a big dumb dudebro shooter, let me carry an entire armoury. It's more fun that way.

[Anonymous No.9631436]

>>9631424
>If you're making a big dumb dudebro shooter, let me carry an entire armoury. It's more fun that way.
I disagree.
see >>9631018
>>The switch to only 2 guns at a time ruined it for me
>I think that was great overall. You aggressively change weapons for given scenario. I used to hoard shit in the past so it made me change my gaming habits overall.
You act on depending on the situation. That's more fun. It's also sorta realistic.
Given Gears of War, 2 Weapon is basically a part of dude bro shooters at this point.

[Anonymous No.9631450]

>>9631436
I don't like it. I don't like having to throw a gun I like away, because the game decided to stop giving me ammo, to bait me into picking up the sniper rifle for the dedicated sniper section of the level. It's railroading, and it's not fun to me.

[Anonymous No.9631465]

>>9631162
i think it's the other way around, that the 2 gun limit is a newer phenomena. Maybe it was just easier to program it back then that you could hold all the guns at once, but a lot of people agree it made it more fun too. And you get remakes like Duke Nukem Forever which sucked and one of the main reasons was the 2 gun limit which wasn't in the original

[Anonymous No.9631485]

>>9631465
There was a perception that players were stupid and couldn't handle complex ideas like holding more than two guns, even though we had all been playing Half Life 2 not so long ago. The 7th gen was by far the worst era for treating players like absolute babies.

[Anonymous No.9631505]

>>9631059
It was one thing Max Payne 3 did very well, with all the cool animations for carrying, switching, and reloading weapons.

[Anonymous No.9631512]

>>9631450
>I don't like having to throw a gun I like away, because the game decided to stop giving me ammo
This is something I think Goldeneye got right by making most guns use the same two ammo types. You're free to use any rifle you have as long as you have rifle ammo, and there's no such thing as starving you of AK47 ammo just to force you into the sniper rifle or whatever else since giving you ammo for one means you have ammo for the other.

[Anonymous No.9631516]

>>9631360
>Doesn't it just depend on the kind of game?
Exactly, finally someone that gets it. I feel like the two gun limit in shooters got a bad reputation because a lot of games just mindlessly copied Halo / Call of Duty instead of coming up with their own balance. This trendchasing hurt a great number of games including Duke Nukem Forever. I'm not a fan of the two weapon limit, but it can "work" in a game balanced and planned around it.

>If you think that every single shooter needs to have the exact same design for carrying and switching weapons then you need to take your autism pills.

Also this. It feels like it should be just... clear to everyone that hey, each game can kinda do their own thing depending on what kind of gameplay balance / tone they are aiming for.
Preach. Variety is the spice of life in pretty much every aspect, especially entertainment.

[Anonymous No.9631519]

>>9631450
If we are talking specifically about Gears those have universal ammo bags. In other games other ammo types generally fill similar weapons as well.
>>9631485
Sometimes less is more. I would be more sympathetic more with your comments but at this point shooters generally have more than 2 weapons. Gears, Halo, CoD are the only ones I think still has 2 weapon carry.
Borderlands, Far Cry have 4 weapon.
There Doom like games.
>>9631505
I think Max Payne 2 had too many similar guns. It had Half Life like weapon select. It felt slow to switch weapons as a result. It works fine in HL, just not in Max Payne.

[Anonymous No.9631530]

>>9631485
>There was a perception that players were stupid and couldn't handle complex ideas like holding more than two guns
No, I think it was because people like >>9631103 found switching weapons to be too much of a hassle on controller due to so few buttons and no one had thought of other methods like weapon wheels. So I think the thought process went, "If we have only one button available for weapon switching, it should toggle between only two so you can swap quickly and confidently as needed."

[Anonymous No.9631536]

>>9631530
Turok established the weapon wheel in like 1996.

[Anonymous No.9631541]

>>9631516
Yeah they are supposed to be different games and it adds variety.
Games that worked great with 2 weapons are the standouts of that generation.
Games that did it just because it was the standards is another thing. I didn't play Duke Nukem Forever but I guess the issue there is devs didn't thought what kind of game they were creating and just wanted to follow the standard.
>>9631530
That's not the reason. My example there still applies to PC controls as well. Also on console it worked as a different equipment button so there were past examples and >>9631536

[Anonymous No.9631547]

>>9631176
No he's right.
The level design is such in Goldeneye that if you're using the watch to switch weapons mid-combat you are clearly doing it wrong.

[Anonymous No.9631558]

>>9631547
I guess that argument could be made specifically for Goldeneye, but it's still not the ideal solution to changing weapons. It still would benefit from weapon wheel modded in.

[Anonymous No.9631583]

>>9631519
>Sometimes less is more.
Above all else, it's easier to balance. You can end up with something crazily balanced like Doom 2 through continuous saves, the game's easy enough to plow through with just the super shotgun and rocket launcher yet you get the BFG within the first 10 levels.
You don't have to worry about that as much with limited weapon slots because you don't often have a choice: If you're out of ammo for a gun, there's rarely a reason to not switch it out. Some games like FEAR allow you to stick with a few for a playthrough, and even then a lot of the weapons are fairly samey hitscanners that wouldn't be too interesting in a full roster anyways.
>>9631530
Rising popularity of multiplayer through console was another one.

[Anonymous No.9631660]

>>9631541
Well Duke Nukem Forever was hard done by decisions other than the 2 weapon limit (which they later in a patch changed to 4 thankfully) but it was one of the reasons it was reviled.

But it's an example of a shooter that changed it's format to suit the then-modern style in an effort to chaser Halo's success.

One "compromise" I often like is having dedicated slots for sidearm / long gun 1 long gun 2 / heavy / special / explosive , that kind of thing. So you can carry a number of weapons but you make a choice between that weapon group. Because I think it's ridiculous when you have to make a choice between a cool pistol and a flamethrower / minigun.

I just think that it's ridiculous to try to apply only one standard across all the different shooter games because that just limits what the developers can do to fit into their own gameplay dynamic.

[Anonymous No.9631662]

>>9631530
Turok 1 and 2 had a keybinding for the last weapon you get on the game. There was also flare another useless weapon.
These take unnecessary space on keybindings.I only played them on PC but hated that implementation.
You only use that weapon to beat last boss. Nowadays they use something like that as unchangeable weapon for that part.
I also remember you had to bind flashlight to a key to beat Vietcong. It didn't had one for some reason. Considering how many useless weapons/equipment were available at that time it wouldn't cross most players mind to try something like that.
None of these are good implementations.

[Anonymous No.9631706]

>>9631660
Generally if you can carry an extra sidearm they make it useless or reload only situation things like that. Otherwise it's a magnum.
With 3 weapons you wouldn't necessarily ever need another weapon. So if devs aim to make you change weapons more it doesn't make more sense on that. Primary Weapon, Close quarter, long range. 4 weapon selection just throws another extra there. I don't think there is much of a difference between say 3 and 4. Difference between 2 and 3 is much bigger.
As another anon said I think it's nice to have different implementations for different kinds of shooters. It's not that one version is better than the other.

[Anonymous No.9631864]

>>9631176
>>9631167
>>9631141
Anon, that's fucking retarded, cycling through your weapons manually when you're being shot at it is a time wasting fumble, especially in a level where you have a bunch of them. If you can fall back into any kind of cover (however small and temporary it may be) or at least move out of the way enough while peering down into the watch, you are now free to select whatever weapon in your inventory at your leisure, maybe catch your breath for as second and crack your knuckles before getting back into it.

There's the small window where going in and out of the watch leaves you immobile and still able to take fire, but if you planned just half decently enough, you can avoid shots, or in a more tense situation, at least minimize them.

[Anonymous No.9631893]

>>9631000
Gaylo implemented it because it fit its style of gameplay well, but the morons that just followed it blindly like 3D Realms did out of trendiness and not careful consideration.

[Anonymous No.9631898]

>>9631018
>6 and below buttons.
Try 10 at the very least. But having more than 10 weapons in FPS is absolutely retarded and there's no way all of them are useful.

[Anonymous No.9631907]

>>9631864
It's fine that it was used for goldeneye back then, but any re-release of any game that used button cycling would include a wheel weapon select. It's simply a better solution. There is no reason to be nostalgic about it.
As for having a lot of weapons instead of 2. Many modern shooters have a lot of buttons. Some 90s shooters felt a bit overwhelming with A LOT of guns. I'm not sure many would call removing useless weapons a bad thing. Turok 2 had a weapon that ate brains of enemies, people liked the idea, but as a weapon it was completely useless. Nowadays people would call out bullshit like that.

[Anonymous No.9631913]

>>9631120
Good luck doing that on multiplayer, you donut.

[Anonymous No.9631947]

>>9631898
Oh sorry for my English. I meant remapping weapons to below numbered keys between 1-6. Specifically
Q, E, R, T
F, G
Z, X, C, V, B
If a game has a lot of actions and like 12 weapons at that point its very hard to use some of those weapons. I map them on F1-4 keys sometimes but some games don't allow you to remap F keys.
I use mouse wheel at that point but with mouse wheel I don't change weapons a lot.
7 is also manageable (for a gun you don't use a lot) but after 7 I have no idea which button I'm pressing.

[Anonymous No.9631998]

>>9631485
That's not it at all, they just want it to make it easier to switch with a controller, and it didn't occur to them adding a weapon wheel, which still doesn't solve the problem in multiplayer.

[Anonymous No.9632052]

>>9631998
>it didn't occur to them adding a weapon wheel
It didn't occur Insomniac to add weapon wheel to Resistance? That's a PS3 launch title. Have you played Ratchet and Clank?

[Anonymous No.9632053]

FPS fans are extremely autistic in the way that they want games to be exactly the same. Who cares if there are some games have a 2 weapon limit?

[Anonymous No.9632085]

>>9632052
We're talkimg about Halo CE, Resistance isn't even retro. Stop arguing for the sake of arguing, it's revolting.

[Anonymous No.9632092]

>>9632053
I want every game to play like Deus Ex, it's a reasonable expectation.

[Anonymous No.9632109]

>>9632085
2 weapon limit was mainly a thing for the 7th gen. We already talked about Turok. Resistance is a better example to show you that people knew weapon wheel existed.
Halo was the most playable FPS game on controller. You think they didn't research other FPS games?
People didn't like playing FPS with a controller more back then. N64 was hardly the best selling console. Turok Golden Eye being master pieces revisionist history. Sure they are great games, but Turok was available on PC. It's not considered a masterpiece by PC FPS crowd.
Dirge of Cerberus a Japanese PS2 shooter had mouse support. Most likely because of the idea that shooter on controllers being unplayable back then. This idea only changed with 360.

[Anonymous No.9632230]

>>9632109
>2 weapon limit was mainly a thing for the 7th gen
Popularized by Halo CE, released in 2001, and the trend was prevalent all throughout that generation (6th). Refer to the previous comment about your behavior.

[Anonymous No.9632247]

>>9631049
Shut the Frick up.

[Anonymous No.9632267]

>>9632230
We already said Turok had weapon wheel. Bungie thought of that and decided not to use it on purpose.
2 Weapon limit didn't overtook FPS genre like that for 6th gen. Sure you can name games as time goes people started using 2 weapon limit especially towards the end, but people started talking against it mainly during 7th gen. Those people were mainly PC gamers.The same point OP is making.
8th gen has a lot of games with many weapon selection. In fact on top of my head nothing comes to my mind other than Halo, Cod and Battlefield from 8th gen with 2 weapon limit. That's why OP's point doesn't make any sense. This was mainly a 7th gen thing being made into an issue about modern games when modern games hardly follow this. Those franchises are also not as popular as they used to be.

[Anonymous No.9632535]

>>9632053
>Who cares if there are some games have a 2 weapon limit?
A lot of people are embittered from the period in time where EVERY game had that limit because it was just the fashionable thing to do thanks to the rising popularity of console FPS. What you see as a desire for every FPS to be the same is actually just a scar of backlash against every FPS becoming the same throughout the mid to late 2000s.

[Anonymous No.9632828]

>>9632092
>reloading
>inventory management
>have to stand still for 10 seconds to make an accurate shot

No, you don't.

[Anonymous No.9633324]

>>9631907
This guy clearly never played turok 2 multiplayer and felt the fear from the sound of the cerebral bore. More guns is better.

[Anonymous No.9633463]

>>9632053
It's limiting PC games to console limitations like gamepads having less input options than a keyboard/mouse. It's objectively a downgrade, but this board is mostly console and handheld nintendo fanboys so there's not much point in explaining further

[Anonymous No.9633479]

>>9632092
>I want every game to play like Deus Ex, it's a reasonable expectation.