Bungie had a two weapon limit because they wanted to force the player to carry weapons that they would need for different combat encounters. Granted, it wasn't well implemented in the first game because you would find a rocket launcher and carry it hoping that you would use it on a strong enemy but that never happened. Also, because they thought 2 weapons would be more realistic (funny).
Do you believe everything the devs tell you?
Oh wait, don't answer that.
There's realistic and then there's "realistic". Like I said, there are games that genuinely strive for realism, and some of those games are god-tier classics. With most games, though, "realism" is mostly just an excuse for creative bankruptcy or terrible mechanics. Why is you game dull and brown? Well, because real life is like that. Why can you only carry a couple of guns? Because of realism. Why does your game have a cover system and regenerating health? Well, obviously because you wouldn't want to be running around in the open in real life, and because healing yourself with health packs is so damn
unrealistic!
Of course, the real explanation is that those mechanics tend to be a very good fit for modern console shooters. Weapon limits and regenerating health make it much easier to balance a linear game with checkpoint saving: otherwise the player might easily run into a situation where reaches a checkpoint low on health, with all of his ammo gone, possibly fucking himself over right then and there. When the gameplay is designed around the facts that
1) health is something you do not need to manage, and
2) you'll be constantly switching weapons, throwing away old ones and picking up new ones,
this problem goes away rather nicely. Sure, a weapon limit may add another layer of decision-making to the game, like a good inventory system can, but it's hardly the only reason developers prefer it to a more old school system. Cover systems and less mobile combat in general make aiming easier with a controller. Games are dull and brown because weird doesn't sell, and probably because there aren't that many creative people working with all these yearly franchises anyway. Going for realism never actually entered the equation with these developers.
Half-Life was even slower
Hmm, you
may be right there, if ignoring bunny hopping speed. I haven't touched Halo 1 in years, but played some reach the other day.
Then again, movement speed is just one factor. There's also stuff like the movement speed of
the enemies, enemy reaction times, enemy positioning, the number of enemies, the overall margin of error relating to the combat... Rogue Spear is a very slow-paced game, but combat in it is fucking lethal: when you spot an enemy, within a couple of seconds one of you will most likely be lying dead on the ground with a bullet in his skull. Half-Life also has some enemies that either move very quickly or just have rather quick reflexes, and enemies are often positioned above you or have some kind of other positional advantage compared to you. From what I remember, Halo's enemies generally aren't very fast, most of them only have melee attacks or very slow projectile attacks, locational damage is not very important (don't have to hit them in the head, just hit them
somewhere), and combat scenarios usually play out on a flat plane so that you don't need to worry about that sniper on the balcony behind you or anything like that. I admit that I might be wrong about some of that stuff as it's been ages since I played it.
Just imagine playing something like Aliens vs. Predator from 1999 with a controller, with those quick fuckers running on the ceiling or the walls, always rushing towards you at full speed and usually trying to attack you from behind or from above, with the occasional barely noticeable facehugger running about the level ready to jump at your face and instantly kill you unless you manage to take it out right away, possibly mid-air... It wouldn't really matter whether your character moved slow or fast, it'd be a total nightmare either way.
