Your attitude to the number of weapons in games.
I suppose that depending on the genre, the answer may be different, and even so we vote.I am for the second point - I consider weapons in games as a separate category that can be assessed regardless of other indicators (such as graphics, music, voice acting ...). Weapon shops in IMHO games should be such that when you look at the window you immediately want to rob them ... There were a couple of cases when I continued to play a game I did not like just to see what kind of weapon there was (although it was enough for me for a maximum of a couple of hours).
I am indifferent to weapons. The main plot, graphics, music and voice acting. Although this is a matter of the genre. In Action games you need a lot of powerful weapons, in Survival Horror it is not necessary, etc.
[quote] Weapon shops in IMHO games should be such that when you look at the window you immediately want to rob them. [/ quote]
You may be surprised, but not all games have weapon shops. And this is good in my opinion.
And I voted for the first point.
For me personally, the quantitative factor does not matter, the main quality is design, "relevance", sound and visual accompaniment of shots, reloads, etc. The standard in this sense is the assault rifle from Unreal 2 - IMHO, just for the sake of it, it's worth playing it
Since the question is asked in a very narrowly focused way, I also answer it, without going into arguments about other advantages of games that attract me.
The bigger, the better. I'm a kind of weapon maniac, and if there are weapons in the game, then I dream that there are a lot of them. From popular and world famous specimens to rare species. Better yet, the weapon has all possible modifications. I often get a game in a game where you can change weapons, balancing with a different and limited number of external devices (Jagged Alliance 4ever).
[quote name = "Akcius"] For me personally, the quantitative factor does not matter, the main quality is design, "relevance", sound and visual accompaniment of shots, reloading, etc. [/ quote] Naturally, we assume that all this is done on the highest level.
The more, the better ... But on one condition - the weapon in terms of performance characteristics is as close to real as possible ... In this case, I don't even give a damn about the quality of the voice acting and textures ... although I would not refuse good textures: D
it is good if the balance of the game does not suffer in the pursuit of quantity, it is better to have a modest ten, but well-developed, and not a hundred names, which can be distinguished from each other only by name
[quote name = "Daenur"] it's good if, in pursuit of quantity, the balance of the game does not suffer, it is better to have a modest ten, but well-developed, and not a hundred names, which can only be distinguished from each other by name [/ quote]
As soon as the developers start to work out the balance of weapons, it ends in a huge disgrace from the point of view of realism. (We are talking about games where real-life prototypes are used naturally). : crazy:
Although while in the game will not be realized ballistic calculator, no about any realism speech all the same does not go.
And in my opinion a couple of dozen items should be enough. The main thing is that they are all useful in different situations, otherwise it happens that you have 4 machines, but you use only one, because all the rest - frank @ #%!
a couple dozen for action games and tons, tons for roleplayers ... BUT !! Each should be different and some have their own specifics, otherwise when you find a super-duper-mega-giga blaster, everything else ceases to be used ...
By the way, rarely what games can boast of a realistic weapon - well, what nonsense, when a Kalash piercing a rail cannot shoot a WOODEN railing or door !!!!! Rave!!!!
There should not be a lot of weapons (all the more so a lot), BUT it should be VERY qualitatively worked out. : clever: I understand, you can make 50 different pistols in some action, or in an RPG 100 types of swords or clubs, but I think no one will be interested, because they do not add anything new to the game.
[quote]
As soon as the developers begin to work out the balance of weapons, it ends in a huge disgrace in terms of realism. (We are talking about games where real-life prototypes are used naturally). : crazy:
Although while in the game the ballistic calculator will not be realized, about any realism it still does not go. [/ quote]
And what relation does balance have to realism? Balance - the weapon fits into the game, looks out of place there and is convenient to use. Why chase realism to the place and out of place, it is better to work on the gameplay and then the Kalash will delight, although it does not pierce the rail;)
[quote]
What does balance have to do with realism? Balance - the weapon fits into the game, looks out of place there and is convenient to use. Why chase realism to the place and out of place, it is better to work on the gameplay and then the Kalash will delight, although it does not break through the rail;) [/ quote]
Balance and realism are in direct proportion. As soon as the developers begin to play with the numbers to the best of their understanding, so that "this one shoots powerfully, but slowly, but that one quickly but sickly" all the realism sluggishly flows into the funnel. This is just an observation.
If you read my posts carefully, you will see that I am not advocating anywhere to make a "weapon encyclopedia" to the detriment of gameplay. In general, you have a strange setting either-or. Maybe you should make a game where both realism and gameplay will be harmoniously combined? : wink:
For an action game, there should be many types of weapons, but few cartridges for each type :)
It is better that all this is picked up from the enemies. Those. depended on enemies.
In this regard, the game Chaser is well done. The location and appearance of enemies greatly affect the weapon.
And for an RPG it is better that there is little, but changed by some spells or amulets, new bells and whistles are screwed on, etc.
To be able to combine, that's why she is an RPG.
[quote]
Balance and realism are in direct proportion. As soon as the developers begin to play with the numbers to the best of their understanding, so that "this one shoots powerfully, but slowly, but that one quickly but sickly" all the realism sluggishly flows into the funnel. This is just an observation.
If you read my posts carefully, you will see that I am not advocating anywhere to make a "weapon encyclopedia" to the detriment of gameplay. In general, you have a strange setting either-or. Maybe you should make a game where both realism and gameplay will be harmoniously combined? : wink: [/ quote]
Of course it's worth it! But, in my opinion, it is not worth sacrificing playability to realism, why do we need a game where all the barrels are adjusted to the millimeter and shoot exactly as it should, but which is simply boring to play because of this? Imagine Silent Storm, where the developers left real performance characteristics, it would just become boring to play it, but everything was adjusted to the specific conditions of the game and it turned out great. ;)
Weapons should be in games, where they can kill someone. The more potential victims, the more weapons there should be. The diversity of the arsenal must be supported by interest in its use. The worst example is the last ufo. I have never even fired from most of the barrels. The best is probably Jagged Aliance 2. The most unusual weapon, without pretensions on originality, is a stick with nails in the second Silent. How relishly James pulled her out of the fallen mannequins: twisted:.