Why Can't I Carry More Than Two Guns?

Call of Duty was the third first-person shooter I owned back when it came out in 2003. The game was a big shift from previous FPS games in that you fought alongside other soldiers instead of being a lone wolf the entire time. The Russian campaign was particularly exciting as the developers didn't seem to care if dozens of them were slaughtered next to you. The first portion was based off the film Enemy At the Gates-crossing the river into Stalingrad while boats were being sunk and strafed by the German Luftwaffe all around you. Then you were issued five rounds for a rifle that you were supposed to take off one of your comrades after they were slaughtered by entrenched German MG-42s.


At least you finally got a weapon by the second level.

Anyway, it was an exciting game and I didn't resent a restriction in the series that continues to this day-you can only carry two weapons at a time.

Medal of Honor: Allied Assault was the second FPS I owned back in 2001 and part of its appeal was that you could switch between sub-machine guns, shotguns, sniper rifles, the BAR, and the rest of the World War II arsenal. The campaign wasn't quite as exciting, but it was fun to be able to switch weapons based on the circumstances. You could grab a sniper rifle for some situations, whip out a shotgun if you had to enter a house, or pull out whatever you wanted for when you had to hide from the MG-42s in Normandy.


Obligatory D-Day level. It's mandated to be in every WWII game.

Multiplayer for Allied Assault was similarly varied. You could pick whatever weapon you wanted and keep picking them up off the corpses of your enemies until you died.


You could also choose to play as a mad scientist, among other ridiculous costume choices.

Unfortunately, most games chose to follow Call of Duty's example in order to be more "realistic" instead of opting for the fun of being able to carry around a backpack full of assorted weapons. I can understand why restrictions exist in multiplayer, as it may affect game balance if one player is able to have every weapon at once. But why does this limitation exist in the single player game? Part of the fun is switching between different weapons.

This was particularly infuriating in the British campaign in Call of Duty 2. The first problem was that instead of giving you a Sten SMG or a Bren LMG, the unique British weapons, you were given the same Thompson that you were issued for all of the American missions.


Get used to looking at this for 75% of Call of Duty 2's single player campaign.

The second problem that occurred in both the first and second Call of Duty games was that it was easy to run out of ammunition for your starting weapons. This meant that you could either try and get through the game by using melee attacks or you had to pick up the German weapons. The first option is ridiculous and the latter option means that you're stuck using nothing but the MP40 and Kar-98K rifle for the entire goddamn game whether you're playing as Russia, America, or Britain. This was a significant factor behind why I never finished Call of Duty 2's campaign.

In 2007, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare came out. Surely the huge variety of weapons in the game means that the campaign will be diverse now, right? After all, you have American weapons, European weapons, Soviet bloc weapons, surely they'll let you use all of that? Well, no. You're still limited to just two guns. Usually you get issued an American weapon with more attachments than you're allowed to use in multiplayer and a pistol or SMG as your second weapon.


If you want to pick a gun up off the enemy, it's just a question of which AK-47 variant you want to use.

Although the graphical improvements were enough to get me to the end of Modern Warfare, along with the one really fun level in Pripyat where you got to sneak around in a ghillie suit, it's not a game that's worth playing twice because of the weapon limitation. Even worse, there are some parts of the game where you have to pick up a Javelin or other anti-tank or anti-aircraft weapon. This necessitates swapping one of your two weapons with the missile launcher. I always end up accidentally swapping the weapon I want to keep so I have to stand there for ten seconds or so until I can get to the right gun. This will end with me getting killed because they never place them behind cover; they're always set out where all the enemies are shooting.


Fortunately it locks on automatically so I don't have to figure out how to use that complicated sight.

Even games that shouldn't have to worry about seeming realistic have decided to limit the player to two guns. Army of Two, for instance, limits the player to either two or three weapons, (I forget which). This is despite the fact that they could easily haul around a few more if they just ditched some of their extraneous body armor.


Or if they put a backpack on...

Duke Nukem Forever, which tries to poke fun at current games, decides to follow the same convention for some bizarre reason. I've never actually played any games in the series, but I thought that part of its appeal was that it was just trying to be fun with no pretensions of seriousness. Why would you limit Duke's arsenal?


I guess the advertisements for previous games in the series were prophetic.

Why is this Problematic?
Let's go back to the first FPS I owned, Chex Quest. This was easily the best prize to come with a box of cereal ever. It was a modified version of Doom where you zorch green Flemoids with a wide variety of weapons.

You could:

Shoot them at long range with the Zorch Propulsor, although this risked causing damage to you if you were too close.


Wade into melee with the Super Bootspork!


Use the Rapid Zorcher for intense firefights.

All these different weapons led to a lot of strategy. If ammo for a staple weapon like the Rapid Zorcher was running low, you could use the Super Bootspork to save a few rounds. It also allows for more specialization of weapons, with some being useful for long range, some for short range, and some that you should only use against large groups or in desperate situations, like the Zorch Propulsor that also hurts you a significant amount. In comparison, if you only have two weapons the game can't fairly limit your ammunition supply as you don't have a lot of backup choices.

Bioshock was another game that gained a lot from allowing the player to hold an entire arsenal in their inventory. In addition to different guns you could also use different types of ammunition, each of which makes the weapon more effective against different enemies.


For example, antipersonnel rounds are great for blowing holes in splicers.

Max Payne also had a lot of different weapons to pick from, ranging from handguns to assault rifles. In many cases, this would require the player to decide whether they should stick to handguns and shotguns for single encounters early on to save more powerful ammunition for larger fights later in the level.


Fortunately the game was also much better than the movie.

Conclusion
I don't care if it's not realistic for the main character to have two handguns, three assault rifles, two sub-machine guns, a sniper rifle, and four different kinds of grenades. It's fun and that's what games are supposed to be about.


Max Payne doesn't like it when his weapon choices are restricted.