Duke4.net Forums: Why did DNF have a weapon carrying limit? - Duke4.net Forums

Jump to content

Hide message Show message
Welcome to the Duke4.net Forums!

Register an account now to get access to all board features. After you've registered and logged in, you'll be able to create topics, post replies, send and receive private messages, disable the viewing of ads and more!

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Why did DNF have a weapon carrying limit?

User is offline   Kerr Avon 

  • 13

#1

I've read a lot on this forum about why DNF was delayed for so long, and why, when it was finally released, it was so mediocre. But one design decision I don't understand (and I utterly hate) is why Duke in DNF has a limit to the number of weapons he can carry. Why was that added to a game that was genuinely intended to be a sequel to Duke Nukem 3D, both in theme (Duke Nukem using a large and varied arsenal to save the Earth from an alien invasion), and in game-play.

I mean, has any first person shooter fan ever played a FPS and thought "I hate the fact that I'm now carrying five guns, I wish this game had a two gun limit?". I know it's more realistic to have a limit to the amount of weaponry you can carry, but

I can understand having a carrying limit in a FPS that simulates real life warfare (although I don't see how those games also give you rechargeable health (yeah, really realistic, that one) and the ability to swim despite also holding two very heavy weapons and tons of ammunition), but not for a game that aims for fun rather than realism. And being able to carry as many weapons as you can find is central to the Duke Nukem experience, if you ask me.

I hate it when, playing a game with a weapon carrying limit, I have to choose between two great weapons, having to drop one so I can pick up the other, or when I have to get rid of a great weapon because it's out of ammunition and I need to pick up a much worse weapon because at least it has ammunition. I really like the Halo games, except for this 'feature', and I don't agree with Halo fans who say it's a good idea. It wouldn't be so bad if it had only been the Halo series that did this, but since Halo 1 was released, more and more first person shooters have adopted the two or three weapon limit, and I hate it.

So why did the DNF team, who were aiming to create a game that would appeal to the same people and type of people who loved DN3D, think it would be a great idea to limit the weapons you could carry to two? I'm not a fan of DNF at all, not it's recharging health, not it's misjudged humour, not it's frequently tedious sections, not the way the writers mistook parody for blind worship, not it's lack of invention and imagination, and so on and so on. But to me it's biggest single fault is that it deliberately limits you to two weapons, a decision that very obviously has no place in a Duke Nukem type game.
0

User is online   Tea Monster 

  • Polymancer
  • 2,109

#2

Consolitis.
2

User is offline   Radar 

  • 976

#3

[/end thread]
0

User is offline   fuegerstef 

  • 661

#4

On some forum* or gaming news* site it was George Broussard who said that they couldn't make all weapons and selecting them with a controller on consoles fun.

*) Forgot which one and cannot be bothered to search.

A few free casual games by me: http://gamejolt.com/...uegerstef/2615/
0

User is offline   Futuretime23 

  • 70

#5

https://www.shacknew...anchor_26031903

George's quotes in responding the criticism the 2 weapon limit got:

"Except dnf uses the dpad for items like holoduke, duke vision, etc. There are only so many buttons. Add to that, that consoles represent 70% of game sales today, and that the two weapon scheme has worked and been STD since halo in 2001 and it's really not an issue.

The levels have weapons spread all over them. It's actually good gameplay to decide what to carry at any given time. Choices and consequence are good things in a game. I don't personally think it's good to carry 10 guns anymore, but that opinion is made irrelevant by the existence of consoles. It's not really worth the dev effort to support two different weapon switch schemes for pc vs controller, to say nothing of level and gameplay balance if one version of the game let's you carry 10 guns, and another, 2. The levels were all balanced with ample weapon drops and caches.

In the grand scheme of playing the full game it's really not a big deal.

Yes, the original game let you carry all weapons, but you do adapt to modern standards in some areas."

"In that level you have lots of rail guns because it's a large outdoor area. Other areas of the game will lean more toward indoor weapons like shotguns. Regardless, the effort was made to provide lots of weapon choices on every level so people could pick and choose.

There will definitely be areas where we stop giving you a specific gun for a while so you can't play the whole game with the rpg, for example, but again, there are lots of weapon drops and choice and variety was key to letting players pick and choose."
0

User is offline   Altered Reality 

  • 205

#6

View Postfuegerstef, on 18 February 2019 - 01:16 PM, said:

On some forum* or gaming news* site it was George Broussard who said that they couldn't make all weapons and selecting them with a controller on consoles fun.

*) Forgot which one and cannot be bothered to search.

George is full of shit (and now I expect people to say "Thank you Captain Obvious"). Prey and Quake 4 did it before DNF, and it was no big deal. DNF did it as well with the 4-weapon option, proving George wrong.

If your brain tells you one thing and your heart tells you another, get rid of those silly doubts and listen to your brain.
-
There is no darkness, only the absence of light.
There is no cold, only the absence of heat.
There is no faith, only the absence of logic.
-2

User is online   Tea Monster 

  • Polymancer
  • 2,109

#7

Posted Image
The parable of Duke Nukem Forever is a cautionary tale of how a peasant uprising, led by ursurary, will cause the destruction of all that is good and pure in the world and lead to the downfall of society in general. See also "Why we can't have nice things - because of fucking consoles".

This post has been edited by Tea Monster: 18 February 2019 - 03:22 PM

2

User is offline   Altered Reality 

  • 205

#8

View PostTea Monster, on 18 February 2019 - 03:20 PM, said:

See also "Why we can't have nice things - because of fucking consoles".


No, because of fucking George.

Prey (both games with that name) also came out for consoles, and they were good. Doom 3 BFG Edition and Doom 2016 also came out for consoles, and they were good.
If a software house knows what it's doing, the game is gonna be great, consoles or no consoles. Instead, if the project leader has no clue about planning, doesn't recognize feature creep and is so out of touch with reality his eyes glow when he announces they could go another 5 years without shipping a game, well...

If your brain tells you one thing and your heart tells you another, get rid of those silly doubts and listen to your brain.
-
There is no darkness, only the absence of light.
There is no cold, only the absence of heat.
There is no faith, only the absence of logic.
-3

User is online   Tea Monster 

  • Polymancer
  • 2,109

#9

Don't you dare pretend that there is not a long, and foetid history of the needs of consoles, and their Dark Masters, in defiling the temple of the PC Master Race.

Don't you DARE.

George didn't create consolitis. He was a victim of it, for sure, but he was a vector, not patient zero.
2

User is offline   Altered Reality 

  • 205

#10

Do you really think DNF would've been any different, had it been a PC exclusive? What does Dylan have to do with consoles? What does "You're fucked" have to do with consoles? What does half the main campaign being set in or around the Hoover Dam have to do with consoles?

If your brain tells you one thing and your heart tells you another, get rid of those silly doubts and listen to your brain.
-
There is no darkness, only the absence of light.
There is no cold, only the absence of heat.
There is no faith, only the absence of logic.
-2

User is online   Tea Monster 

  • Polymancer
  • 2,109

#11

Yes it would. Just for one instance, the expansive levels were chopped up and linearised because of loading times on consoles. That is just one, and it had a major effect on the end state of the game.

Another is the weapon limit. It was instigated due to consoles. Nobody knows just why, as there are games on consoles with lots of weapons, but it was stated that the weapon limit was due to the consoles.
2

User is offline   MusicallyInspired 

  • 3,245

#12

Doom 2016 handled it just fine.

Roland SC-55 Music Packs
Latest release: Heretic SC-55 Music Pack (12/12/18)
*new* Buy the Mage's Initiation Original Soundtrack on Bandcamp by me!
Buy the P&C Adventure/RPG game Mage's Initiation on Steam, GOG, and Humble
0

User is offline   Lunick 

  • Snazzy Ex Tazzy
  • 4,652

#13

It's definitely a thing of its time, there was a point in time when people hated the control scheme that the Alien Trilogy on PS1 introduced which quickly became almost the default for future FPS games on consoles.

LeoTCK - EDIT: Jimmy, Blow it out your ass!
http://duke3dmaps.tumblr.com/
Posted Image
0

User is offline   Kathy 

  • 1,238

#14

2-weapon limit was also inhibited by the amount of ammo you could carry. Boss fights were severely affected by this. Even if you could make an argument that 2-weapon limit was needed for the current market(it wasn't), realisation of this system was totally crap.

Windows incompatibility is a feature, not a bug.

This post has been edited by Kathy: 18 February 2019 - 05:39 PM

1

User is offline   Avoozl 

  • 18

#15

Weapon limits, regen health and cover systems, three of the things I hate about modern FPS games. I don't understand the hate of reloading though, I don't find a problem with it.

This post has been edited by Avoozl: 18 February 2019 - 06:13 PM

0

User is offline   Jimmy 100MPH 

  • Trooper
  • 4,328

#16

Dylan was a Gearbox/Triptych creation. George has his problems, but he never would have let DNF be released in the state it was in.

Also whenever someone in the game industry says the word "choice" they're just making shit up.

Coke costs a lot of money you know. - oasiz
5

User is offline   Fox 

  • Fraka kaka kaka kaka-kow!
  • 4,979

#17

George would not release it in any, except that of an impossible perfection.
3

User is online   Jblade 

  • 1,744

#18

View PostJimmy 100MPH, on 18 February 2019 - 08:26 PM, said:

Dylan was a Gearbox/Triptych creation. George has his problems, but he never would have let DNF be released in the state it was in.

Also whenever someone in the game industry says the word "choice" they're just making shit up.

I still don't understand why they cut Bombshell and then replaced her with him.
0

User is offline   Kathy 

  • 1,238

#19

View PostAvoozl, on 18 February 2019 - 06:12 PM, said:

I don't understand the hate of reloading though, I don't find a problem with it.

It's not about reloading. It's about pacing between cover and ammo crates in boss battles. It was awful. And 2 weapon limit made it worse. RPG had only 5 fucking rockets.
Though other weapons had a better ammo capacity, so maybe I just really bad memory about boss battles that required RPG.

Windows incompatibility is a feature, not a bug.
0

User is offline   Jimmy 100MPH 

  • Trooper
  • 4,328

#20

View PostJblade, on 19 February 2019 - 03:25 AM, said:

I still don't understand why they cut Bombshell and then replaced her with him.

3D Realms, for whatever reason, kept Bombshell as their own IP.

Coke costs a lot of money you know. - oasiz
1

User is online   Jblade 

  • 1,744

#21

View PostJimmy 100MPH, on 19 February 2019 - 07:59 AM, said:

3D Realms, for whatever reason, kept Bombshell as their own IP.

huh, didn't know that - for the best then since if GBX owned Bombshell as well we may never of got Ion Maiden.
0

User is offline   Lazy Dog 

  • 90

#22

because George saw it in another game, just like about everything else:

long intro with zero shooting - half-life
vehicle sections - half-life 2
turret sections - too many games (really, why did this became a thing? it's boring!)
2 weapon limit - halo, cod
health regen - halo, cod
physics "puzzles" - half-life 2

This post has been edited by Lazy Dog: 19 February 2019 - 10:26 AM

1

User is offline   Maisth 

  • 206

#23

If Duke Forever was released in 2013-14 instead of 2011, would you believe they would copy the excellent bike rides of Ride to Hell?

Repent and Follow Jesus!

Jesus said "I am the light of the world" John 8:12

This post has been edited by Maisth: 19 February 2019 - 10:41 AM

0

User is offline   Lazy Dog 

  • 90

#24

View PostMaisth, on 19 February 2019 - 10:41 AM, said:

If Duke Forever was released in 2013-14 instead of 2011, would you believe they would copy the excellent bike rides of Ride to Hell?


DNF now with 100% more falling through the ground.

shhh, don't give Gearbox ideas

This post has been edited by Lazy Dog: 19 February 2019 - 10:55 AM

0

User is offline   Kerr Avon 

  • 13

#25

View Postfuegerstef, on 18 February 2019 - 01:16 PM, said:

On some forum* or gaming news* site it was George Broussard who said that they couldn't make all weapons and selecting them with a controller on consoles fun.*) Forgot which one and cannot be bothered to search.


But that's ridiculous. Most first person shooters on console prior to DNF's release worked just fine with no weapon carrying limit. Duke Nukem 64 was just one of many that had no weapon carrying limit and yet was easy to select the weapon of your choice, and that was just with a previous/next weapon selection system. Other console games added other methods, such as a weapon-wheel, or pause the game and take as long as you like to select the weapon from an onscreen list, or use the D-Pad in one of several different ways.

Maybe George Brussard just doesn't like joypads, or something? That's fair enough, but millions of people do, or they wouldn't use them. And it's ironic that he mentions fun when he's talking about DNF :blink:

Even if they'd have allowed four weapons, then it wouldn't be so bad. They could have used the Left Shoulder Button (on the XBox 360) as a sort of "SHIFT" key, so that when you hold down the Left Shoulder Button and press UP on the D-Pad, then Duke switches to the first weapon, instead of performing the function that pressing D-Pad Up on it's own would perform (toggling Duke Vision), and if you hold down the LSB and press Right on the D-Pad then Duke switches to the second weapon, etc. This would stop the LSB from performing it's present function (throwing Trip Mines) but that could be remapped to you pressing Left Shoulder Button + Right Shoulder Button at the same time (and if you press the Right Shoulder Button by itself, then Duke Throws a pipe bomb.






View PostFuturetime23, on 18 February 2019 - 02:56 PM, said:

https://www.shacknews.com/chatty?id=26031903#itemanchor_26031903George's quotes in responding the criticism the 2 weapon limit got:"Except dnf uses the dpad for items like holoduke, duke vision, etc. There are only so many buttons. Add to that, that consoles represent 70% of game sales today, and that the two weapon scheme has worked and been STD since halo in 2001 and it's really not an issue.


If it wasn't an issue, then I wouldn't have brought it up, would I? And it's not like I'm on my own with my dissatisfaction with the current trend of modern FPS games often limiting the number of weapons you can carry, I see lots of people complaining.






Quote

The levels have weapons spread all over them. It's actually good gameplay to decide what to carry at any given time.


In your opinon, perhaps. But not in mine, or lots of other people. And if it was, then why did DNF's developers release a patch to allow the PC version to raise the limit from two to four weapons? They wouldn't have spent the time and money doing that if no one wanted it.






Quote

Choices and consequence are good things in a game.


Er, you say "Choices and consequence are good things in a game", yet you support the game taking away the players' choice about how many weapons they want to carry and use? That's like saying you're a strict vegan who lives on bacon :unsure:





Quote

I don't personally think it's good to carry 10 guns anymore, but that opinion is made irrelevant by the existence of consoles.


It REALLY REALLY is NOT irrelevant. As I've already said, countless first person shooters worked very well with no weapon carrying limits. Seriously, look online, go on.



Quote

It's not really worth the dev effort to support two different weapon switch schemes for pc vs controller, to say nothing of level and gameplay balance if one version of the game let's you carry 10 guns, and another, 2.


But they can just have no weapon carrying limits and do what's been done countless times before; have a good control scheme on the console's joypad. This was done for around fifteen years before DNF was released, so it would not somehow magically have become a problem for DNF.

Seriously, google about it. You'll see that lots of cross platform games with no weapon carrying limits worked fine on both the PC and consoles. Duke Nukem 3D/64, Turok, Doom, Half-Life 1 and 2, Bioshock 1 and 2, Deus Ex, Unreal Tournament, Quake 3, etc. That's because the developers aimed for quality, they didn't just make up arbitary excuses in an attempt to cover up a game's shortcomings. If George had actually asked anyone who played these games on console, he'd learn that they are lots of fun. But if he'd have actually asked about things, then presumably DNF would have been much better in other ways too.



Quote

The levels were all balanced with ample weapon drops and caches. In the grand scheme of playing the full game it's really not a big deal. Yes, the original game let you carry all weapons, but you do adapt to modern standards in some areas.""In that level you have lots of rail guns because it's a large outdoor area. Other areas of the game will lean more toward indoor weapons like shotguns. Regardless, the effort was made to provide lots of weapon choices on every level so people could pick and choose. There will definitely be areas where we stop giving you a specific gun for a while so you can't play the whole game with the rpg, for example, but again, there are lots of weapon drops and choice and variety was key to letting players pick and choose."


But it is a big deal. It rendered a massively flawed game even worse, and went against part of the enjoyment of the original game (well, Duke Nukem 3D, which for the purposes of DNF was the original game). If George had have made a poll before DNF's release, saying:

"What would you like in DNF?

1. No weapon carrying limit, just like in DN3D,

or

2. You can only carry two weapons at once."


I really think the number of people who would have voted for option one would have been in single figures.


But the truth is, it's a bad and unpopular decision, which was either made because of, or at least is blamed upon, a false premise (the demonstrable myth that console FPSs can't work without a weapon carrying limit). If the game had been released with
0

User is offline   Futuretime23 

  • 70

#26

View PostKerr Avon, on 19 February 2019 - 03:08 PM, said:

stuff


em dude, that's quotes from George Broussard himself on why the limit was implemented, not my opinion lmao, I hate the limit as much you do.

This post has been edited by Futuretime23: 19 February 2019 - 04:08 PM

0

User is offline   Jimmy 100MPH 

  • Trooper
  • 4,328

#27

Some of you really underestimate just how much George loved Halo on a conceptual level.

Coke costs a lot of money you know. - oasiz
1

User is offline   Avoozl 

  • 18

#28

View PostLazy Dog, on 19 February 2019 - 10:23 AM, said:

2 weapon limit - halo, cod
health regen - halo, cod
Regen health actually started with CoD 2 and Halo 2, Halo 1 had regen shields on top of non-regen health and had medikits, CoD1 had non-regen health and medikits.
Soldier of Fortune 2 which came out before CoD1 also did the weapon limit thing but as a choice instead of forced, but you always picked a starting loadout regardless of that setting being enabled or not, you could always pick up any additional weapons if the weapon limit isn't enabled and drop them whenever you liked to.

This post has been edited by Avoozl: 20 February 2019 - 01:58 AM

0

User is offline   Lazy Dog 

  • 90

#29

View PostAvoozl, on 20 February 2019 - 01:52 AM, said:

Regen health actually started with CoD 2 and Halo 2, Halo 1 had regen shields on top of non-regen health and had medikits, CoD1 had non-regen health and medikits.
Soldier of Fortune 2 which came out before CoD1 also did the weapon limit thing but as a choice instead of forced, but you always picked a starting loadout regardless of that setting being enabled or not, you could always pick up any additional weapons if the weapon limit isn't enabled and drop them whenever you liked to.


i was thinking more about the series in general than a specific game, but you're right

This post has been edited by Lazy Dog: 20 February 2019 - 09:14 AM

0

User is offline   Kerr Avon 

  • 13

#30

View PostFuturetime23, on 19 February 2019 - 03:58 PM, said:

em dude, that's quotes from George Broussard himself on why the limit was implemented, not my opinion lmao, I hate the limit as much you do.


Oh, sorry mate. Put it down to a combination of my stupidity and my posting whilst at work (monitoring a skeleton staff, the place is deserted, and time is dragging :( )
2

Share this topic:


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic


All copyrights and trademarks are property of their respective owners. Instead of reading this text, you could be playing Ion Maiden! ;) © 2018 Voidpoint, LLC

Enter your sign in name and password


Sign in options