Firearms in FPS: How many choices should there be?

#1 2. Seperate teams with unique guns chosen by player class (DoD style)?

Because in most cases, it's easier to balance than option 1/3/4

Edit: IMO, of course :)

#2 If all you want is easy balance, I'd say #1... everyone is automagically on an even footing.

#3 I say #2 also, tis more realistic, and when your on the field I don't think you should be worrying about money.

#4 I prefer style #2, and in terms of amount of weapons here are some thoughts:

Call of Duty (not UO expansion) had too few weapons.
The expansion, United Offensive, gave it enough weapons.

Red Orchestra, a Unreal Tournament 2004 mod, has plenty of weapons to make me happy.

Doom 3 did not have enough.

#5 Number one for me !!!

I hate it when someone else has the advantage.

Make an even playing field!!!

-Surge

#6 3. Seperate teams buying guns unique to their team

Command and Conquer Renegade comes to mind. Unique weapons on both sides.

A good FPS should have a balence of weapons and damage for each type. (Of course this would be in an ideal FPS game) The entertaining part is what weapon of terror you wish to use to get your opponent with. The fun factor is WOC. (weapon of choice)

Just my two cents....

#7 I remember playing a mod in tribes where everyone had just the blaster. I thought that that took the mortar kiddies out and everyone had to use skill, Currently the game we are working on uses this same principle.

Out of your choices though, I like number 2 the best.

#8 IMO number 2. Like Delta Force: Black Hawk Down.

EDIT: That's if you are after maximum realism...

#9 Odd, I would have thought #3 would have recieved more votes. Guess that shows one reason why DoD is so popular (though personally I hated it when I was stuck on the British side with so few choices).

The point on "mortar kiddies" is good. Reminds me of people grabbing the sniper rifle then camping their own spawn so they won't die .. gggrrrr.

To add to my initial question(s):

6. Do you think there hits a point where you have too many weapons options so it starts to feel redundant to the player and or overly confusing?

#10 The point isn't about number of weapons, but the effectiveness of weapons in different situations. The problem with most FPS's regardless of the number of weapons isn't one of "how many" but of usage. In single-player games where the difficulty is ramped according to weapon and ammo, the number of types is more relevant (as you have to see progression). When it comes to multiplayer, the weaker weapons get left in the dust unless they have some semblance of an advantage (the sight on the pistol in Halo, for example, which allows for something like sniping in areas without a sniper rifle or ammo).

For fast-action games, I prefer the UT style as the layout is easy to determine and knowing that your enemies can figure out the level layout as well gets the adrenaline pumping. For slower-paced levels or games, I prefer choosing the weapon [i]and then finding new weapons on enemies or in ammo locations (bunkers, rooms marked ammo) rather than in random places. I prefer even the most convoluted plot-device in SP games ("Ricky was playing with his BFG near the well...", go into sewers and find the BFG) than level design that makes no sense. Of course, I prefer balanced design on deathmatch and CFT style levels.

But to me it doesn't matter how many weapons there are in the game if there's only two useful ones. I'll use the two unless there's no other option, and if there's no other option, it's a good bet that that level won't be one of my favorites.

#11 Yep... i agree... a choice, and the ability to choose the wrong weapon for the wrong situation...

--Mike

#12

Quote:6. Do you think there hits a point where you have too many weapons options so it starts to feel redundant to the player and or overly confusing?

Yes, absolutely. There should be enough weapons where I don't feel constrained or like I didn't get my money's worth. On the same token, there shouldn't be a bunch of weapons that are all similiar or basically interchangable in usage.

In a WW2 game for instance, consider the following options for the german side:

Option 1 - Too few weapons
- Kar98k (Bolt-Action Rifle)
- MP40 (Sub-Machine Gun)
- Grenades

Option 2 - Too many weapons that seem redundant and interchangable
- Luger P09 (Pistol)
- P38 (Pistol)
- Mauser C98 (Pistol)
- Kar98k (Bolt-Action Rifle)
- G43 (Semi-Auto Rifle)
- MP40 (Sub-Machine Gun)
- MP41 (Sub-Machine Gun, basically a MP40 with different stock)
- MG42 (Machine Gun)
- MG34 (Machine Gun)
- Grenades

Option 3 - More weapons than Option 1, but varied enough to be interesting and useful to the player
- Luger P09 (Pistol)
- Kar98k (Bolt-Action Rifle)
- G43 (Semi-Auto Rifle)
- MP40 (Sub-Machine Gun)
- StG44 (Assault Rifle)
- MG42 (Machine Gun)
- Grenades

Now, you can even take an approach like Red Orchestra (the UT2004 mod) and have the sheer number of weapons like in Option 2 BUT not enable them in all maps. Depending on the scenario or supposed year a map takes place in, about half of the weapons may not be available.

#13 I appreciate all the answers. My buddy read them as well. I think if I take David, Michael, and Daniel's answers together it makes alot of sense. I definetly agree with each weapon serving an actual purpose and not being redundant while giving the player plenty of choices so as not to feel constrained, yet enough to make a mistake and "play through it".

I was also thinking of adding to the authentic feel of a game based in a certain era and whether or not it was possible to overkill the issue, not to mention cludging up the gamespace with unneeded items. Red Ochestra's approach seems really cool though the real contraint there would be not running out of time in the development process to make all the 3D models and scripts for the weapons.