Game only allows you to carry 2-3 weapons for the sake of "realism"

>game only allows you to carry 2-3 weapons for the sake of "realism".
>has giant glowing icons telling you "go here dumb fuck!"
>bullet sounds can be healed by crouching behind a rock for 2 seconds.
>a high caliber bullet can't penetrate sheet metal.
>shooting an enemy that just came out of a doorway is immediately followed by another enemy coming out of the same doorway.

Can shooters that don't fully embrace a hardcore mil-sim style please fucking stop with the 2 weapon limit? This is the single largest detriment to FPS games in the last 20 years and it's all thanks to the degenerate casual zoomers that embraced Halo and made every dev feel a need to copy it. Fuck off zoomers. You've ruined the creative potential of an entire genre.

Attached: 2mmfa5.jpg (1600x1288, 221K)

it's one of the worst trends of the last gen desu
>played bulletstorm recently
>3 weapon limit when the goal is to be as creative as fuck with killed
>have to refill ammo constantly because enemies don't always drop the guns you're using

strategize, boomer

Shouldn't you be trying your luck on some loot boxes zoomer?

Jesus Christ why is resource management such a turn off for you guys? I don't think there is a single design choice a developer can make in a game that is as overcriticized as this one

Bullet starvation is resource management. Making you arbitrarily choose between a shotgun or sniper rifle is just arbitrary limitation. Some games (I.e. escape from Tarkov, Stalker, ARMA) warrant having limited weapon loadouts. Having it as an industry standard is just fucking retarded and guys creativity. The reason we don't see almost anything in the likes of Duke3D, classic DOOM, Serious Sam is because of having weapon limits as an industry standard. If you think it's somehow essential to having a good FPS then Half Life 2 needs a word with you faggot.

I played both Half Lifes and I loved them. I like both styles of gameplay for different reasons. Limited weapon carry, when done well and paired with some other design choices (open world or large enough levels with well placed obstacles and corridors so a choice between a sniper rifle or a shotgun is essential, different enemies with different weaknesses, the power of weapons and the economy of the game world balanced so that bullets for more powerful weapons are scarce etc.) can force the player to take a more tactical approach than in games that let you carry all weapons at once, which I like very much.
I partly agree with your sentiment though, because it sure seems like the market for such games is saturated while there are little new games with oldschool gameplay. That sucks. But hey, people say that new Doom is great (I haven't played it myself) and it's exactly the kind of shooter you're looking for.

Not a fan of new DOOM, but that's for other reasons. But like you've even said, it's market saturation. It's become so much of an industry standard that devs are essentially forced through the process of answering to shareholders (Did xx game that was successful last holiday have a weapon limit? Yes? Then you will too.). Is a serious fucking problem. It delegates any other style into the indie realm (such as the fantastic recent game DUSK), which ensures that it gets limited funding and will never be allowed to compete at AAA levels.

how much does he weigh with all of this gear?

>For the sake of realism
Name one game that actually claimed this

I just came with an idea for a game that I think might have a potential. Imagine a shooter where you can change some mechanics at any point. For example you can switch between automatic weapon/ammo picking and having to manually pick them up and load into weapons. Or betwern limited and unlimited weapon carry. Or automatic healing and medkits. The thing is it would work on both you and enemies, so you could change the rules of engagement at any point to adapt to the situation. For example you can play with unlimited weapon carry but then you have an enemy who is placed in a hard to reach place so you limit weapon carry, both of you lose a sniper rifle but now you can run up to him and shoit him.
Kinda like Baba is You, but done through menus or quick buttons, and in a shooter.

>Have to keep one heavy duty gun for when you get overwhelmed or fight a boss (Replace this with a sniper for faux realistic military games)
>Have to keep one general purpose mid range weapon for all other duties
>Can't get to play around with pistols, shot guns or any unique weapons the game might have without potentially gimping yourself
It's a shit idea.

Any idea for an FPS is one that has merit. The problem is that the Halo/COD style is now so prolific that investors won't touch anything else. That's kind of my entire gripe. I don't care that games with limited loadouts exists. I care that they're the only ones that get money thrown at them. It just butchers the ability to be creative.

If it's not for the sake of faux realism, then what is it for? You can't claim balance, because you could still be carrying that rocket launcher/shotgun/sniper when they don't want you to.

I alsp think that it's more profitable to make those games. Certain design choices (unlimited carry, automatic ammo pickup etc.) work best in fast paced arena shooters which you can potentially play for the rest of your life and never buy another game, while other choices (limited carry, scarce ammo, slower gameplay) work best in single player campaigns that you will finish and never play again.

Sales aren't tied to single player/multiplayer though. Look at Half Life 2 once again. One of the best selling games of all time and fucking nobody bothered with any multiplayer. A single player game with unlimited loadouts can still outsell even the most successful Battlefield/COD/Halo, but not when nobody will invest in it and instead take the easy bet of lowest common denominator.

I didn't mean a singular game's sales, rather the potential to sell a whole series of games of a given type. It's harder for companies to compete on an arena shooter market because those games attract people for longer periods of time than single player campaigns. People will always want another Call of Duty, but once you have a really good Doom, a large portion of players will stick to that game for a longer period of time.

But why are they competing in an arena shooter market? Because it's fucking lazy and an easy buck. People need to start rejecting it or it's literally all they'll have to represent the genre.

Think of how much fun you can squeeze out of a realistic shooter where you can sprint for max 30 seconds and your choice is limited to a bunch of real life guns vs. an arena shooter where you have a lot of crazy weapons, movement is incredibly fast, you can fucking rocket jump and accidentally send your entire team into the air with a misplaced explosive and have a lot of laughs. One will get boring fast and create a demand for another entry of the same type of game which people will buy anyway as the sales of series that spit out the same exact game every two years have proven. The other people will play for a long period of time and still have fun.

And?

Are you actually advocating that people support a product that you yourself is admitting is less fun over one that's more fun? If you think I don't understand why developers favor limited loadout games, you're wrong. It's because it's easy money. I know why they choose to make them. But why would you as a consumer choose to defend them?

you forget about worst sins of nu-console games

>game is a shitty cover shooter with regenerative hp
>game is full of scripts breaking you from immersion and gameplay
>press x to see enemies through walls (wallhack)
>ai is so braindead that you want to turn off the game
>shoots at enemy and he doesn't even flinch
>enemies take multiple hits to the chest and head with shotgun (bullet sponges) in non loot shooter

I had a conversation with a friend last week about my hatred for halo and his response to the 2 weapon limit was where would you put the other guns

Replace that friend.

I'm not defending it, I'm just explaining why developers prefer this kind of games. I guess I dun' goofed tho, since you already know it

the more "realistic" a shooter game is the longer the load time is what the fuck is up with that bro huh tell me that!

To be fair the small handful of games that have complex ballistic modeling such as ARMA which, while not fully realistic, does a great simulation of bullet mass, velocity, material density, and windage adjustments to determine penetration potential and trajectory is a fuck load of physics systems to load into the engine.

weapon limit was good for halos multiplayer