What I don't get...

[Kraco]

You guys should probably stop to think for a moment why the designers limit the number of weapons. It's not because they were lazy and it somehow magically allowed them to get off with less work when building the missions. It's because out there in RL soldiers don't carry an assload of guns at the same time and then another truckload of ammunition for every one of them. They carry an assault rifle, a sniper rifle, or a light machine gun, possibly a sidearm and a few handgrenades. Some in the squad would then carry additionally an AT missile/rocket or an AA missile, some might carry mines of some sort, assuming they would need such on their mission. I don't know how many of your have marched kilometers carrying a soldier's full equipment, so I will enlighten you: Even a single assault rifle will start to get annoying before too long because it's heavy, gets always in your way, and it's generally cumbersome, yet you must protect it like it was your bride. If somebody had tried to make me carry a few weapons equal to it, I'd have jammed them down this somebody's throat. Not to mentions there's no way in hell you'd move like you should when under fire if you had a meter long metal sticks pointing in every direction from your back.

Like I said before: Different games have different goals. You can't try to build semi-realistic missions if you allow the soldier to carry ten men's worth of weapons and ammunition. Get a different game. Having made missions for both types, I can tell they require different kinds of thinking from the mission maker, but it's not like one would be for a lazy developer, one for a hard-working. They are just different. It's good both types are being made.

[Splash!]

Like I said before: Different games have different goals. You can't try to build semi-realistic missions if you allow the soldier to carry ten men's worth of weapons and ammunition. Get a different game. Having made missions for both types, I can tell they require different kinds of thinking from the mission maker, but it's not like one would be for a lazy developer, one for a hard-working. They are just different. It's good both types are being made.

That is not the point I or others are making. It's not about those FPS games that prioritize realistic combat above all else, where the natural thing would be to limit the number of weapons. It is about how most of the FPS games out there are converging to this model of carrying 2 weapons and some utility. Not every FPS needs to be that realistic, and often I find this argument to be an excuse for games that are otherwise perfectly willing to discard realism in other situations.

So yes, it is good to have both types and it should continue to be that way. One way isn't inherently better than the other and there should also be plenty of FPS games designed for players to carry lots of weapons. I just don't buy that limiting the number of weapons a player can carry makes a game more enjoyable or even that most players out there prefer this to be the case. It is just a matter of what is out there for them to consume.

[Animeniax]

Like I said before: Different games have different goals. You can't try to build semi-realistic missions if you allow the soldier to carry ten men's worth of weapons and ammunition. Get a different game. Having made missions for both types, I can tell they require different kinds of thinking from the mission maker, but it's not like one would be for a lazy developer, one for a hard-working. They are just different. It's good both types are being made.

What Splash! said, plus as mentioned there are plenty of games where it's you against the world (baby) and in that situation the realistic thing would be to carry more than two guns. A real life soldier doesn't carry more than two weapons because he's most likely not solo and not in a post-apocalyptic survival situation.

Realism is important, but like Splash! said, it's often ignored when your character, an average citizen with little experience in combat, suddenly can deadshot monsters and trained mercenaries who outnumber you 1000 to 1. I'd be happy if there were more games that allowed you to carry more than 2 weapons, but they seem fewer and fewer as more designers default to a 2 weapon inventory.

[Kraco]

I'd be happy if there were more games that allowed you to carry more than 2 weapons, but they seem fewer and fewer as more designers default to a 2 weapon inventory.

If that's true, then I stand corrected. Though it might be just temporal fluctuation in the game trends. If lots of people wanted the type of shooter where maps, missions, and gameplay are designed appropriately for looser weapon handling, then there eventually should be enough games like that, according to the laws of supply and demand. Game makers naturally want to try different things and I don't think they are immune to following (copying) general trends in the business either. Though there have always been more games than game engines, and if some popular engine supports better one type of gameplay, then the designers likely stick to it.