I’m making an FPS game, and as far as game theory, which is better: having 2 guns or having 3 guns? (or more or less). Please explain.
If you’re talking about the total number of weapons in the game, than having more is generally better as weapons generally increases the variety of gameplay and gives players more stuff to have fun with.
If you’re talking about the number of weapons the player can carry at once, then there is no correct answer. It all depends on the decisions you make as the game designer and what works best in terms of gameplay for the experience you’re trying to create. While games like Halo and Quake both took entirely different routes in this regard, both are great games and the design choice the developers chose to go with worked well within their respective games. In other words, it’s up to you.
Ok, thanks! hopefully my decision is a good one
When you get something implemented, play and see if it is fun. If it is not fun then change it to something else and try again.
yes nice explain.
Well you have to think about what you want the player to be able to do and if it’s multiplayer, how you want players to be able to interact with each other. Weapons in an FPS are the players only way of interacting with the world usually, therefore they should be designed to complement the world. Take Portal for example, you only needed the portal gun because you only needed to interact with the world in one way. Half-life 2, however, had several guns to take advantage of the physics engine, the different kinds of enemies, and the preplanned world. In Call of Duty the average player really only ends up using one gun because weapons are only used to kill other players, and the world is designed around that. I can go on with examples, but you get the idea. Choose weapons, and weapon quantities that complement the world and the way the player will interact with it.