Made sense in Call of Duty 4, too
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!
Call of Duty 4 is exactly one of the recent FPS games I am complaining about. The game has loads of decent weapons, but you can't fucking use them at least not without constantly foraging around like a god damn squirrel. Sure it may not be very realistic to carry around a half-dozen guns or more, but only TWO?! The game limits you to two fucking guns and that includes a pistol. I play games for the escapism factor not to reenact reality. A game is also supposed to be FUN. Wielding six different guns is a hell of a lot more fun than being constrained to two especially when you need at least three different types of guns to get through any level in the game in a decent amount of time. Add that abomination to the infuriating checkpoint-only saves and a health system where you can't take more a bullet or two without having to run away and hide while you wait for your health to slowly regenerate, and you've got a potentially great game needlessly spoiled by boneheaded design decisions.
So I stick with the machine gun and shotgun, as per usual, only it guarantees I never experience anything else.
Which demonstrates my point that limiting the weapons carried by the player cripples gameplay diversity, and it renders all of that work put into creating those additional weapons pointless.
This is what I think Half Life did so well: forced me to use every weapon.
Just about all (if not all) of the old-school PC shooters made good use of their weapons, and the player got to carry them all at once. It's the more recent games made by design teams infatuated with Halo which have ruined PC shooters in that regard.
This comment was edited on May 7, 23:27.