530 réponses à ce sujet

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Sidney wrote...
Well the really clever economic system would reflect that you are essentially dumping goods on the market by decreasing the relative value of those goods for each unit sold.

Didn't Oblivion do that?  I'm sure I've played a game that did.

BG did it, kind of.  It wasn't for each unit sold, but the price went down on items after you'd sold an identical item.

[yuncas]

hangmans tree wrote...

My latest concern...maybe.
I have to say I was kind of put off with DAO inventory. Hoarding all that junk in the inventory was nothing more than source of income. I began to question who is my warden by proffesion? Most time consuming was playing with vast inventory, checking what was useful and what I could sell. Always stuck with insufficient funds for those special items I wanted to buy. Where's the point in that kind of item selection which in 80-90% cases is just space consuming currency?

I always liked a personal, finite space that is enough for significant items, things that you have to choose wisely, plan on ahead what you need for the mission even.

Weapons. A constant ache - how many weapons do I carry with me? Man, at least implement a donkey or a mule to give an illusion you aint carrying all this crap by yoursef (and companions)...in a backpack.

That doesnt mean I want ME2 solution either. Inventory is important, a wide range of useful items is good, make them an actual choice which one to take and which to leave behind.

Monetizing your inventory is a bad logic in my opinion. If I wanted to play a vendor I'd choose another game. Make other options to earn money. I'm not against selling items per se, selling real artifacts and collector items is a good thing. But to look for someone who will buy from me 3 sacks of potatoes and 8kg of apples in a wooden case when I'm on an important errand? This system is flawed because when I dont participate in looting I miss out on all the extra money (well, large lump of it to be fair) to spend it on something worth buying.

 Where is DA2 in that regard I ask?

It is a little unrealistic. I like the idea of a of the pack mule or something along those lines. But with all the ideas floating around definitely BEWARE of the above bolded, italicized, and underlined. The Devs for ME2 messily shat the bed with that one. I think it was listening to all the QQ and not listening to themselves.

[Sidney]

yuncas wrote...

It is a little unrealistic. I like the idea of a of the pack mule or something along those lines. But with all the ideas floating around definitely BEWARE of the above bolded, italicized, and underlined. The Devs for ME2 messily shat the bed with that one. I think it was listening to all the QQ and not listening to themselves.

There is no realistic solution to inventory/looting - I mean even a mule can't carry the amount of junk your party has in a typical DAO mission. All the crying about immersion but people are willing to have something this non-immersive smack them in the face after every single fight and not blink.

The problem with inventory/looting has been around for 20+ years and there is no good solution - I see people cite the Witcher but the screenies of it look like every other inventory system known to man. It is still mostly junk, mostly unused items and always wildly out of scope for what you can carry. Even systems with weight don't work because while you might be able to carry 80 lbs you can't carry (in FO3 for example) 6 assault rifles just because they don't neatly fit into a rucksack.

Sadly the best of the inventory systems remains the old XCOM screens where you had slots "sized" to spots on your body and some slots (on your waistband) wouldn't fit a rocket launcher but might fit a pistol. Functionally you'd have a weapon and a sidearm or a weapon and some grenades. You couldn't carry extra armor. You looted the whole battlefield in one fell swoops after the battle so you had inventory but didn't have on the spot looting. It had a load of problems but the theory is better than anything rolling around in anything I've seen since.

[Sidney]

hangmans tree wrote...

That doesnt mean I want ME2 solution either. Inventory is important, a wide range of useful items is good, make them an actual choice which one to take and which to leave behind..

Except that ME2 makes you make a choice. DAO makes you make no choices. I can take it all basically. People talk about all the planning inventory forces them to do but unless you limit it then there is no choice and no planning and thus no real value.

[upsettingshorts]

Comparisons between ME2s system and other CRPGs are troublesome to the point of being nearly invalid because they have wildly different objectives.

ME2 has twitch combat, so making the weapons distinct from one another is important, arguably more important than the concept of item progression in RPGs with abstracted, attribute-based combat.

Just to restate it again, because it's important: ME2 has twitch combat. DA:2 does and will not. This makes them fundamentally different on a core level, a level that ought to be reflected through changes to how inventory is managed.

A game like DA:O can have a much wider variety of gear because as far as the player concerned a scimitar that hits for X damage is interchangeable with a gladius that hits for X damage as they're both one handed edged weapons*. There's very little difference between them in terms of utility or even how they feel to use, because we aren't given the ability to feel what it's like to use them.

In ME2, while I of course wouldn't say no to more options as long as they were distinct, handles it differently because its gameplay mechanics borrow a lot from shooters and as such ought to be judged on a different set of merits. ME1's clusmy hodgepodge of RPG and TPS wasn't nearly as effective.

* Piercing vs. slashing damage excepted, even then, it's an abstraction and it doesn't require you the player to change their approach, just which item to equip versus a particular enemy, whereas one's gameplay - provided they're using the weapons correctly - will change quite a bit if they equip a Mattock vs. a Revenant.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 12 octobre 2010 - 02:10 .

[Sneelonz]

All your companions should have their individual inventories and they should have a limit of 2 weapons/shields, 1 set of armor, a necklace, 2 rings, 3 runes, 15 potions, and 5-15 (depending on class/level) other items. Then, there should be a storage at your home. (Quest items would not take up space in your inventory).

Equipment should not have any tiers. There should be a standard form and 3-4 unique versions with different skins. Besides other gear, there should be "artifacts" that you find on your adventures. These could be sold or collected. Gifts also should make a reappearance, though each should mean something to the person you're giving it too (Sten's sword for example).

Modifié par Sneelonz, 12 octobre 2010 - 02:16 .

[SirOccam]

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...

You promised to explain...

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

... the way story and making money are related in my argument...[/quote]
You came up with six points which didn't make the relation between the story and making money clear. They are preferences to how you like the play the game. That's fine, but they are unrelated to the promised explanation. If I point that out then you get angry. And frankly, because of that I am losing interest in that explanation.[/quote]
As am I, because I have provided it repeatedly. And yet you keep telling me I haven't. At this point I'm not sure what you're looking for anymore. Anyway, I haven't "promised" anything, but here it is, YET AGAIN:

In my argument, story and money are related thusly: I like story. I like money. I don't like dealing with junk loot. I feel like I need to deal with that junk loot in order to have money. I wouldn't care so much about money IF it were reflected in the story, because, again, I like story. So much so that it would make being poor fun. Alternatively, if there were more varied ways to make money, that would also solve (or at least help) the problem.

So there it is, yet again. I honestly don't see what is so hard to understand about it. See how many times I use the words "money" and "story"? Together? In the same paragraph? Contained in that paragraph is how money and story are related in my argument. If you read it and still don't get it, read it again. The answer is there. I'm not going to give it again.

[quote]Somehow your annoyance with looting seems to be related with a requirement to fit poor into the story. Like in

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

If being poor were reflected in the story, then I would no longer mind it.[/quote]
If I ask you why this rule needs to be applied then you refuse:

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

Why the hell should I have to come up with anything better? I'm not trying to prove Fermat's Last Theorem here, I'm just stating my opinion like anyone else on these boards.[/quote]
If you cannot explain that simple question then don't require that being poor has to be reflected in the story or stories.[/quote]
It's not a requirement that being poor be reflected by the story. Sure would be nice though. Like I said above...I like story. If something doesn't affect the story (e.g. being poor), then I am not likely to care much for it one way or the other (this is also the reason I play on the easiest difficulty level). That is only a personal preference, as you enjoy reminding me, and therefore I don't see how I'm supposed to prove it like it's some kind of universal axiom. If you like different parts of the game than I do then good for you.

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...

I think the amount of junk loot in the game was a bit overdone, and therefore I think it would be nice if it were dialed back a little. That's it. Not removed. Unless you can tell me objectively why the drop rate in Origins was perfect, then I don't understand why this is such an earth-shattering suggestion. What if it were as little as 5% less? Would that be so bad?[/quote]
What you call junk may not be junk for someone else. This is an example: If you are into making poisons then Demonic Ichor may be an ingredient you would like to have. Finding it saves you from buying it. But if you don't then yes, it will be junk to you. However, if the chance to find it was decreased by 5% than people who want that ingredient have to buy those absent 5%.[/quote]
Actually I would much rather loot Demonic Ichor or other crafting materials because they stack so high, which leads to less clutter.

For the record, what I regard as junk loot includes things like the carpets and chalices and gems that have no use except to sell (not including things you collect for a quest, obviously). Also, most Darkspawn weapons. Also, most "generic" gear and weapons, at least after the point at which you start to get gear with skill modifiers and such on it. Also, most shields. I don't think I've ever used a small round shield before.

I also rarely used balms or salves aside from warmth balms for fighting dragons, because I don't really enjoy that level of micromanagement. With dragons you know you're going to be facing a lot of fire, but I never thought any of the others were worth it. I did use poison occasionally, but even then it was just whatever happened to be lying in my bags, and I must admit having space freed up in my bags was more of a motivation to use them than their actual effects.

Might someone disagree on one or more of these things? Sure. That's fine. In fact I'm sure balms/salves/poisons/traps are much more useful on harder difficulty levels, which is why I never found them compelling. I never set out to point out specifics; it's the whole picture that I'm concerned with. It's just a lot of stuff.

[quote]And here is your problem: The fact you feel there is too much junk in loot somehow justifies that others who don't feel the same way have to spend more money. You see, what you don't understand is that your wish negatively impacts my game. So yes, it would really be bad.[/quote]
Actually my wish has no impact whatsoever on your game. In case you weren't aware, BioWare doesn't do what I tell them to do. Anyway, like I said, I'm not married to that idea, but I don't think it has to have the consequences you claim it does. BioWare has full control of the economy...they can make it do what they want. They're not stuck at a certain drop rate.

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Then all of a sudden we get this...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...

Of course it has something to do with you. You're trying to tell me why my preferences are wrong. You are the other person in this discussion. How could it not have something to do with you?[/quote]
Your preferences were not the issue. They were not related to your promised explanation. That's all. Your idea that solves your annoyance problem would directly affect my game. And I am not the one annoyed by looting. You are. Don't try to switch things around. It doesn't work on me.[/quote]
I'm not "switching things around," though. I'm asking you questions about why you believe what you believe. It's not a new thing.

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Here is how your idea to change things affects my game...

Your idea to reduce lootable bodies by a factor of 20 (you mentioned that as an example - I know) and replace that by lootable bodies that have loot increased by a factor of 20 has some serious flaws. In most quests there aren't even that many enemies.[/quote]
"That many enemies?" How many? If we're talking in percentages, it doesn't matter what the actual number of enemies is.

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...

The list of side quests proves that. And not all enemies drop loot. The average quest only requires you a couple of clicks to loot bodies. And if junk is the problem then skip the junk. In exceptional situations there are more enemies, but again, not all drop loot. Your idea sounds great, but for people who like loot to be found in the normal distribution it reduces the number of events loot can be found. Each event is a little "dang - crap loot" or "cool - Demonic Ichor" moment. Because you cannot understand that mechanism (that's not attack - just an observation which might be wrong), it is easy for you to come up with your factor 20 idea. For those of us who like loot, it reduces the fun. Again, you want a change that you like, but others don't. That's not acceptable for me.[/quote]
Why should there be ANY "dang - crap loot" moments? Answer me that.

And I'll say one more time that this idea of adjusting drop rate and resale value is not my life's work. It came to me on a whim, and if it has flaws (and apparently it does, as pointed out by Vaeliorin), then fine. It can be altered or scrapped altogether; I don't care. But I refuse to believe that BioWare are powerless to adjust the economy however they see fit. That particular idea may not be the solution, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a solution out there somewhere.

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]SirOccam wrote...

I'll say once more (and hopefully for the last time) that clicking has never been a factor in my arguments.[/quote]
Of course clicking lootable bodies has something to do with it. If it it wasn't there then there would be no looting.[/quote]
Nonsense. That's like saying that because I don't like a certain actor and therefore a certain movie he's in, then I must dislike a different actor in the same film. Or that if I say I dislike tuna fish and therefore tuna fish sandwiches, then I must hate bread, because without bread there would be no tuna fish sandwich.

The act of clicking is indirectly related, but that doesn't mean it has to be an actual factor in my opinion.

Modifié par SirOccam, 12 octobre 2010 - 02:41 .

[The Hardest Thing In The World]

In Fallout 3, I only carry my main weapon(that special Chinese assault rifle) and Lincoln's repeater. My inventory is actually empty. I picked up those assault rifles from the dead only for repairs. Same with my armor, I loot the dead's armor for repair. Ammo, too. I pick them up for reload, the extra I just leave them there. I carry no more than 5 stimpaks. It was fun playing like that.



I'm still hoping for a system where you can only carry what equipments that you'll be using and backpack's only for crafting items and also a maximum of 10 potions allowed for each person in your party.

[upsettingshorts]

The Hardest Thing In The World check out the hardcore mode for New Vegas if you haven't.



Not sure all elements of it would be any fun in a game that wasn't based in an apocalyptic wasteland, but since Fallout is I think having to worry about basic survival adds an interesting element to gameplay.

[The Hardest Thing In The World]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The Hardest Thing In The World check out the hardcore mode for New Vegas if you haven't.

Not sure all elements of it would be any fun in a game that wasn't based in an apocalyptic wasteland, but since Fallout is I think having to worry about basic survival adds an interesting element to gameplay.

Yes, I've read about it. Just another week before the game comes out!

[Sidney]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The Hardest Thing In The World check out the hardcore mode for New Vegas if you haven't.

Not sure all elements of it would be any fun in a game that wasn't based in an apocalyptic wasteland, but since Fallout is I think having to worry about basic survival adds an interesting element to gameplay.

I think this is over the top "The PC must drink, eat, and have proper sleep cycles to stay alive.
" I'm not that into micromanaging my character - heck I barely manage that with me and I don't fight Super Mutants every day.

The rest of the stuff actually looks really good.

[SirOccam]

Sir JK wrote...

As a tangent, I find myself curious about Sir Occam's idea as how a fantasy game that uses poverty as a plotpoint would be. Holding onto every penny, carefully trying to scrounge enough for the day's single meal. Occasionally plundeirng a body to find something valuable to sell (or better yet, warm clothes for the winter). I find the premise interesting, but not sure how well it could be represented...

I mentioned it early on in this thread, but one great example is in the book The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss. The main protagonist, Kvothe, is attending this academy, but he is not from a rich family, and he must pay his own tuition. There is a plot point regarding his ability to affect how much that tuition is. Once the amount is settled, he has to earn that money. He goes to a loan shark and takes out a loan, but must give up a very significant piece of collateral, which is in itself a plot point. The loan shark character also becomes a pretty significant character in her own right. Another way he earns money is to go to a certain inn and play an instrument...there's a lot more to it than that but suffice it to say that a lot of story points revolve around this inn.

Anyway, perhaps we could be faced with similar things upon arriving at Kirkwall. Even if the Amells prove to be hospitable. Maybe there could be a need to hire or bribe people, maybe we might need to visit a loan shark who could turn out to be an interesting character. Maybe Varric's introduction could be related to money, seeing as how his family are merchants.

As to a more practical sense...the only alternative to having extremely strict control over the player's money (which probably wouldn't be a good thing) that I can think of would be to make certain plot-related things cost a HUGE sum of money, more than we could reasonably expect to make via normal gameplay means. Like something in Origins costing 10,000 gold. This would necessitate seeking out some way to get that money. Maybe through a rich family, maybe through stealing something of immense value, maybe taking out a loan. Something of that nature.

[AlanC9]

Sidney wrote...
Sadly the best of the inventory systems remains the old XCOM screens where you had slots "sized" to spots on your body and some slots (on your waistband) wouldn't fit a rocket launcher but might fit a pistol. Functionally you'd have a weapon and a sidearm or a weapon and some grenades. You couldn't carry extra armor. You looted the whole battlefield in one fell swoops after the battle so you had inventory but didn't have on the spot looting. It had a load of problems but the theory is better than anything rolling around in anything I've seen since.

Of course, that worked because the aliens didn't wear armor so there wasn't any to loot, and in X-COM you don't need to pick up all that much stuff from the ground anyway because everything gets put into your base's General Stores at the conclusion of a mission. This system would fail horribly if used in a game where the player routinely has to loot corpses. 

Which I guess is kind of the point.

Modifié par AlanC9, 12 octobre 2010 - 03:12 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Sidney wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The Hardest Thing In The World check out the hardcore mode for New Vegas if you haven't.

Not sure all elements of it would be any fun in a game that wasn't based in an apocalyptic wasteland, but since Fallout is I think having to worry about basic survival adds an interesting element to gameplay.

I think this is over the top "The PC must drink, eat, and have proper sleep cycles to stay alive.
" I'm not that into micromanaging my character - heck I barely manage that with me and I don't fight Super Mutants every day.

The rest of the stuff actually looks really good.

Some people like "over the top" though, I mean some people actually think Lady Hawke swinging a 2 hander larger than herself at the speed of light was "cool" looking.

Off topic actually preordering New Vegas tomorrow, hopefully its actually finished and polished, which would be a pleasant change when it comes to Obsidian titles the last couple releases.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

SirOccam wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

As a tangent, I find myself curious about Sir Occam's idea as how a fantasy game that uses poverty as a plotpoint would be. Holding onto every penny, carefully trying to scrounge enough for the day's single meal. Occasionally plundeirng a body to find something valuable to sell (or better yet, warm clothes for the winter). I find the premise interesting, but not sure how well it could be represented...

I mentioned it early on in this thread, but one great example is in the book The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss. The main protagonist, Kvothe, is attending this academy, but he is not from a rich family, and he must pay his own tuition. There is a plot point regarding his ability to affect how much that tuition is. Once the amount is settled, he has to earn that money. He goes to a loan shark and takes out a loan, but must give up a very significant piece of collateral, which is in itself a plot point. The loan shark character also becomes a pretty significant character in her own right. Another way he earns money is to go to a certain inn and play an instrument...there's a lot more to it than that but suffice it to say that a lot of story points revolve around this inn.

Anyway, perhaps we could be faced with similar things upon arriving at Kirkwall. Even if the Amells prove to be hospitable. Maybe there could be a need to hire or bribe people, maybe we might need to visit a loan shark who could turn out to be an interesting character. Maybe Varric's introduction could be related to money, seeing as how his family are merchants.

As to a more practical sense...the only alternative to having extremely strict control over the player's money (which probably wouldn't be a good thing) that I can think of would be to make certain plot-related things cost a HUGE sum of money, more than we could reasonably expect to make via normal gameplay means. Like something in Origins costing 10,000 gold. This would necessitate seeking out some way to get that money. Maybe through a rich family, maybe through stealing something of immense value, maybe taking out a loan. Something of that nature.

How bout we don't over complicate the economy portion of the game to make like 2 people happy. Thanks.

[SirOccam]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

As a tangent, I find myself curious about Sir Occam's idea as how a fantasy game that uses poverty as a plotpoint would be. Holding onto every penny, carefully trying to scrounge enough for the day's single meal. Occasionally plundeirng a body to find something valuable to sell (or better yet, warm clothes for the winter). I find the premise interesting, but not sure how well it could be represented...

I mentioned it early on in this thread, but one great example is in the book The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss. The main protagonist, Kvothe, is attending this academy, but he is not from a rich family, and he must pay his own tuition. There is a plot point regarding his ability to affect how much that tuition is. Once the amount is settled, he has to earn that money. He goes to a loan shark and takes out a loan, but must give up a very significant piece of collateral, which is in itself a plot point. The loan shark character also becomes a pretty significant character in her own right. Another way he earns money is to go to a certain inn and play an instrument...there's a lot more to it than that but suffice it to say that a lot of story points revolve around this inn.

Anyway, perhaps we could be faced with similar things upon arriving at Kirkwall. Even if the Amells prove to be hospitable. Maybe there could be a need to hire or bribe people, maybe we might need to visit a loan shark who could turn out to be an interesting character. Maybe Varric's introduction could be related to money, seeing as how his family are merchants.

As to a more practical sense...the only alternative to having extremely strict control over the player's money (which probably wouldn't be a good thing) that I can think of would be to make certain plot-related things cost a HUGE sum of money, more than we could reasonably expect to make via normal gameplay means. Like something in Origins costing 10,000 gold. This would necessitate seeking out some way to get that money. Maybe through a rich family, maybe through stealing something of immense value, maybe taking out a loan. Something of that nature.

How bout we don't over complicate the economy portion of the game to make like 2 people happy. Thanks.

By putting in something really expensive? How does that overcomplicate the economy portion of the game?

You know what, never mind. If you have something constructive to add, feel free; otherwise just take it for granted that we already know you hate the idea of anything different or unorthodox. We are not dictating changes to DA2; we are simply brainstorming and keeping our minds open. So I wouldn't expect you to understand.

[AngryFrozenWater]

SirOccam, there is a difference between your proposal and the ones others have given in this thread. You proposal is only intended to nerf the game. It does not add anything to the game and it does not try to solve problems that your proposed changes would cause. And all that because it would remove your annoyance of clicking some bodies. When I point out that your proposal would negatively impact my gameplay then all I get from you are rationalizations. Other proposals in this thread may be radical, but at least they are constructive and creative in trying to improve looting, the inventory, trading or a combination of those. If you want to play more word games, then go ahead. Don't be surprised when I don't reply, though.

[AngryFrozenWater]

slimgrin wrote...

As far as inventories go, Fallout 3 and The Witcher (enhanced edition) are my favorite.

I haven't finished DA yet, but so far I like the inventory. You have to pick what is important and jettison the rest.

I played DA a lot. The inventory itself is OK. It would be nice to have more categories, like: Potions and herbalism, poisons and poison making, bows and arrows, etc., in addition to the current ones. Not all of those are helpfull for all players, but it would help those with certain specializations and would "hide" them from others who think these items are junk. It would also allow you to get rid of them more easily. Maybe an option to tag each item you don't want and "Tagg all", "Sell tagged items" or "Drop tagged items" buttons to get rid of them at once without those little windows that ask you how many to handle?

Edit: Thinking about it some more: A list in a category like "potions and herbalism" could be subdivided vertically by adding separators to allow potions, ingredients and recipes to be grouped. Something like that?

Edit 2: The buttons and tagging would be in addition to what we already have, so you could still use the old interface features like before.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 12 octobre 2010 - 08:03 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sidney wrote...

Except that ME2 makes you make a choice. DAO makes you make no choices. I can take it all basically. People talk about all the planning inventory forces them to do but unless you limit it then there is no choice and no planning and thus no real value.

How does ME2 make you make choices?  You can still pick up every weapon you find, and all of the weapons you have are available to you even in the middle of a mission.

I agree that choices are good.  Individual inventories with volume and weight limits would do this nicely.  ME2 does nothing of the sort.

[upsettingshorts]

I wouldn't describe ME2 as even having an inventory. It has a variety of weapon choices with different performance characteristics unlike its predecessor, but no inventory in the proper CRPG sense.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 12 octobre 2010 - 07:42 .

[Riona45]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

How does ME2 make you make choices?  You can still pick up every weapon you find, and all of the weapons you have are available to you even in the middle of a mission.

Well, there are still upgrades that you have to buy. 

[upsettingshorts]

Riona45 wrote...
Well, there are still upgrades that you have to buy. 

I've defended ME2's system of weapons as an improvement over ME1 a number of times, but those upgrades were very poorly implemented and in my opinion an exception to said preference, especially in terms of player feedback.  I think Bioware's acknowledged as such.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 12 octobre 2010 - 07:47 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sidney wrote...

The problem with inventory/looting has been around for 20+ years and there is no good solution - I see people cite the Witcher but the screenies of it look like every other inventory system known to man. It is still mostly junk, mostly unused items and always wildly out of scope for what you can carry. Even systems with weight don't work because while you might be able to carry 80 lbs you can't carry (in FO3 for example) 6 assault rifles just because they don't neatly fit into a rucksack.

Actually, the Witcher did it nicely..you could carry small items, like crafting ingredients. On bigger items, you were restricted. You couldn't carry a extra piece of armor, and you could only carry 2 main and 2 extra (small) weapons...and all were visiblly on you:
www.ngohq.com/attachments/games/1131d1221854342-the-witcher-enhanced-edition-release-mid-september-witcher-2008-09-19-15-55-52-74.jpg

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 12 octobre 2010 - 07:50 .

[Riona45]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I've defended ME2's system of weapons as an improvement over ME1 a number of times, but those upgrades were very poorly implemented and in my opinion an exception to said preference, especially in terms of player feedback.  I think Bioware's acknowledged as such.

All I was pointing out was that not everything was handed to you, there was still stuff that had to be purchased and therefore you had to choose what to buy whenever you had enough money.  It might be true that they were poorly implemented but that has nothing to do with my point.