You would want to carry those rocket launchers or shrink rays or whatever if you think you might need it, maybe against an bigger enemy or a vehicle that can't be brought down easily by other means. This is the choice and consequence part of it, you might come against an enemy that requires extra fire-power or a long-range weapon, meaning that assault rifle/shotgun (if that combo is possible) could still not effectively hit target from long-range (something that could be vital) OR deal enough damage against an bigger enemy. Its not enough to be able to hit everyone from any range (a combo that's often impossible to pull off efficiently), you have to think of damage output and the utility of each weapon.9_6 said:Right. Thought. Sure.
Thoughts like "why would I ever want to carry the rocketlauncher/shrink ray/whatever exotic, situational weapon there is if the assault rifle/shotgun, sniper rifle/pistol, whatever the hell kind of combo it will be can deal with anything at any range?" perhaps.
Not limiting at all, it's "intelligent decision making".
As for "u so blind from them nostalgias", I have not played the old duke games and I find that decision awful for what is supposedly just about some dude who shoots stuff.
Being able to carry every weapon eliminates ANY thought there is to be had when it comes to combat (and any need to use those exotic weapons you mentioned), which means that even the worst possible outcome (what you mentioned) of this two-weapon system is still better than being able to carry EVERY weapon there is.
But as i have seen from many a discussions, people's problem with regenerative health, two-weapon limit and other modern systems is not one of whether its the right choice (design-wise), but whether its "old-school" enough.