530 réponses à ce sujet

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

It isn't a problem in terms of how much it weighs, it's a problem in the fact that the small things count just as much as large things when counting to 120.

You could have 120 gems and still hit the limit, or 120 swords and hit the limit. It doesn't matter WHAT you're carrying, simply the fact the limit itself is annoying. Ditch the limit. The fact you can already cart that much around is unrealistic (and I don't want realism in this case!) so just remove the number..

I understand your point, just on the specific issue of weight and inventory I prefer realism.  I get the other side of the argument, however.  

Something close to Fallout 3 with a system that implements a limit on volume (either through a grid system or simply an abstract measurement of "item size" within a list) would basically be my ultimate preference.

Yet a 2 hander being swung at the speed of light is no problem for you.

[nightcobra]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

one thing i'd like changed however is how many items we choose, what i mean is, instead of a slider to do this management... i'd prefer if it manageable through digits, ugh how do i say this... i really don't like using this example but it's the closest one i got which is pokemon, in which you can go to the digit you want and change it like for example you want 30 potions and you got 10, you could just go to the digit marking 1 and change it 3 instead of pushing the slider until you get 30.

am i making any sense here?

I understand what you mean. On the PC that would be easy to do by just making it an edit box so you can type it. But you play on the PS3, right? How about a way to select a digit and that pops up a small list with other digits you can select from? That must be doable.

it doesn't have to be that difficult, if you want to increase 10 to 50  for example you could go to the digit with 1 and push the up button on the ps3 controller 4 times to get the desired effect .

[upsettingshorts]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Yet a 2 hander being swung at the speed of light is no problem for you.

Welcome to off-topic, population you.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 16 octobre 2010 - 09:44 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

one thing i'd like changed however is how many items we choose, what i mean is, instead of a slider to do this management... i'd prefer if it manageable through digits, ugh how do i say this... i really don't like using this example but it's the closest one i got which is pokemon, in which you can go to the digit you want and change it like for example you want 30 potions and you got 10, you could just go to the digit marking 1 and change it 3 instead of pushing the slider until you get 30.

am i making any sense here?

I understand what you mean. On the PC that would be easy to do by just making it an edit box so you can type it. But you play on the PS3, right? How about a way to select a digit and that pops up a small list with other digits you can select from? That must be doable.

it doesn't have to be that difficult, if you want to increase 10 to 50  for example you could go to the digit with 1 and push the up button on the ps3 controller 4 times to get the desired effect .

Deal!

[Paul E Dangerously]

The Hardest Thing In The World wrote...
Then a gem taking as much space a full set of armor shouldn't be a problem too if we're not after realism.

It's not the fact it takes as much space as a suit of armor, it's the fact that in terms of 1-120 it takes up an EQUAL ammount of space. My gripe with the system lies in the limit you've been set, not the item weight. I like collecting junk, I always have. Anything that's not nailed down, I'm taking it. A lot of the fun in a fantasy RPG is acquiring new stuff for your character, and I've always had that itch ever since I got my first +1 sword in D&D.

I just don't like the micromanagement involved in avoiding the cap. Just remove the cap, and let me collect as much crap as I want to. I can go sell/store later, I just don't like being forced to do so when I'm in the middle of the Deep Roads or the Brecilian Forest.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sopa de Gato wrote...

I just don't like the micromanagement involved in avoiding the cap.

Neither do I.  Let no one suggest I like micromanagement cimply because it is micromanagement.

But I liked managing my inventory in NWN.  Because arranging everything into a set pattern actually provided tangible benefits.  I could access inventoyr faster, and I never had to hunt for things - I knew where they were because I'd designed the filing system.

Managing inventory in DAO is annoying because I don't get anything out of it (aside from staying under the arbitrary item limit).

If DA2 isn't going to strive for inventory realism, and isn't going to bother giving us an inventory UI that's worth spending time with, I hope BioWare raises the item limit high enough that you're not going to hit it without trying.  It's not an ideal inventory, but it would at least be less irritating than DAO's.

[Daerog]

I did like the NWN inventory system for some reason. Maybe because it was a kind of microgame within the game, having all the things fit together with their different shapes.

[SirOccam]

Had an internet outage here for a few days, and I'm not going to drudge up the argument from 7 pages ago, so I'll just sum it up like this.

I played tons of ME2 over the last few days (I wanted my first, unspoiled LotSB playthrough to be on a character who romanced Liara), and have been thinking a lot about this discussion and, more generally, all the comparisons of DA2 and ME2. And I remembered someone implying that I'd be in favor of them making DA2's inventory like ME2's...and it was meant disparagingly. Well now, after playing LotSB...I have to say I would not mind that in the least.

LotSB was a brilliant story and experience, and I was more immersed than I was in probably any other part of ME2, and maybe even some parts of DAO. And not once did I have to stop, remove myself from that immersion, and start futzing around with the stuff in Shepard's 8 backpacks. Doing so would have significantly hampered the tension, the drama, and the sense of urgency.

tl;dr: stop reading here

In fact there's a lot they could copy from ME2 and I wouldn't mind. I've never been in favor of the QTE-style interrupts for DA, for example, but there was one near the end of LotSB I thought was perfectly done. It was awesome, and it would not have been the same as a dialogue choice. (I won't spoil it, but for those who have played it, it led to the following exchange:

Liara: Okay...okay.
Shepard: Okay.

)

I'd even say the paraphrases were better done than in the rest of ME1 and 2. I don't recall being surprised once, whereas it was a matter of course for the full games. Hell, I'd even say Mark Meer upped his game for this one. What little doubt I had before about the voiced protagonist and dialogue wheel are now gone. Anyway, getting pretty off-topic now, but I think comparisons now to Mass Effect are going to sound like compliments to me now.

[slumlord722]

I guess you didn't really have to search around for stuff in MA2 because, well, there is no stuff. There's literally no stuff. (Okay, so not literally, practically).



That's the problem. I like stuff.

[SirOccam]

slumlord722 wrote...

I guess you didn't really have to search around for stuff in MA2 because, well, there is no stuff. There's literally no stuff. (Okay, so not literally, practically).

That's the problem. I like stuff.

Indeed. And I don't.

Before, it was just "oh, have some stuff, just not tons" and now I realize I don't need any stuff. The level of "stuff" in ME2 is fine, I think. There's still looting, there's still weapon selection, there's still upgrading. But none of it is immersion- or story-breaking. Or momentum-breaking. That, to me, is a worse sin than simply being annoying or unrealistic.

[tmp7704]

I like the aspect of "stuff" that's ability to adjust the appearance of both the main character and the companions in way i see fit how i play their story and set up their builds. Thus ME2 deciding to send that down the drain in favour of "iconic artist-designed image that you can't alter just because" for anyone but Shepard didn't mesh well with me. At all.

Modifié par tmp7704, 17 octobre 2010 - 04:12 .

[AlanC9]

I wouldn't have minded that so much if it had made sense in the lore.

[asaiasai]

The lack of the inventory system in ME2 is one of the reason i think ME2 is a weak follow up to ME. Sure the ME system was flawed, but to go from a flawed system that allowed the player an additional level of customization options to the none of ME2 was seriously crap. I would preffer that there be some sort of workable economy in either DA2 or ME3. Alot of folks think forcing the player to choose one item over another is good but i would prefer if the choice offered was to work your butt in a workable economy rather than choosing between stuff i would like to buy. It is still a choice i made as to whether i want to buy all the good stuff working an economy to do so or picking only one or 2 items to buy as there is not enough money to be made in the game. Choice is good, no choice is bad, it is quite simple.



Asai

[Marbazoid]

I would like a KotOR style inventory. Slot based that has unlimited capacity.  I was pretty happy with the inventory in DAO, but I didn't like the dull and generic loot that filled your bags. The slot limit was just salt in the wound.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sir JK wrote...

That's unfortunantely one of the myths of fantasy (or just mediveal myths alltogether). Swords are very versatile weapons, yes. And they do require a lot of flexibility and dexterty to fight them. But so were maces and axes. It's just that less of their fighting styles are remembered or recorded. But the fighting style was just as flexible and dextrous. Different, yes. But still as complex (they were however, developed from tools and ths far less status weapons than swords).
I don't wish to go on a tangent with this though, but I'm willing to discuss it over pms if you're interested?

They weren't merely clubbing instruments - if that is what you meant - but they were simpler than swords to master, as they has a smaller range of "moves" and "stances". To my knowledge, there doesn't exist a single "fechtbuch" for them.

[Lotion Soronarr]

One thing baffles me - people want volume to matter and weight to matter. Some don't like grid inventories, as they don't want to play tetris...



So why not implement volume the same way you implement weight - as a number.

You have weight and volume as item properties, and a max weight and volume your character can carry. So tetris playing, just making sure you don't go over the limit.



And ideally, you'd want to be well below the max limit. Not even near it.

[Sir JK]

Lotion: There do exist Fechtbuchs for axes and maces, most have not been properly translated yet (though there is plenty poll-axe material as I understand). But most of these books are also printed and comes from the 16th or 15th century when books became cheap, prior to that (they heyday of axes and maces that is) books were expensive and the fighing styles also passed on orally (and it was never written down. That said, there are old norse books on axes... but they have not been translated properly yet.

Also, I recently saw a interpretation of mano-a-mano with haelberds. It was really graceful (considering they were wielding ~2 m long sticks). Definantely in the same range as swords in terms of finesse.



But your inventory suggestion do have merit. If pulled off properly I could see it work rather decently.

[upsettingshorts]

I proposed some kind of numbered measure for volume for a list inventory somewhere in the thread, but I kind of prefer the grid.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 17 octobre 2010 - 12:38 .

[slumlord722]

Any which way they organize the inventory system, getting rid of the stuff doesn't equal better inventory system

[Sylvius the Mad]

SirOccam wrote...

Before, it was just "oh, have some stuff, just not tons" and now I realize I don't need any stuff. The level of "stuff" in ME2 is fine, I think. There's still looting, there's still weapon selection, there's still upgrading. But none of it is immersion- or story-breaking. Or momentum-breaking. That, to me, is a worse sin than simply being annoying or unrealistic.

I don't think I need stuff either, except to the extent that the stuff allows me to outfit my character in a way that makes sense for that character (why couldn't Shepard carry more than one sniper rifle?), and to outfit the party members (seriously, having no armour for the ME2 squadmates was idiotic).

As long as the loot system makes sense within the lore (ME2's ammo system didn't - ME1's automatic loot collection didn't) I'm fine with them.

I'm much more concerned with inventory design, because that's an important UI issue (lists are slow to use) in addition to having lore concerns (shared inventories are nonsensical).

[ladydesire]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'm much more concerned with inventory design, because that's an important UI issue (lists are slow to use) in addition to having lore concerns (shared inventories are nonsensical).

Shared inventories actually make more sense in a single player only game; I hated having to give my companions/henchmen stuff in Neverwinter Nights, but I understood that it needed to be that way for multi-player, where sharing the inventory among the party might mean a party member grabbing something that you wanted to hold onto. Also, I feel that Bioware has abstracted a lot of the transporting of large amounts of loot to the point that we tend to not realize that we aren't actually carrying all those armors in our backpacks, but are leading a pack animal or three; the same with being able to change party members at just about any time.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ladydesire wrote...

Shared inventories actually make more sense in a single player only game; I hated having to give my companions/henchmen stuff in Neverwinter Nights, but I understood that it needed to be that way for multi-player, where sharing the inventory among the party might mean a party member grabbing something that you wanted to hold onto. Also, I feel that Bioware has abstracted a lot of the transporting of large amounts of loot to the point that we tend to not realize that we aren't actually carrying all those armors in our backpacks, but are leading a pack animal or three; the same with being able to change party members at just about any time.

The shared inventory being an abstraction of having pack animals would make sense if we were limited in how we could transfer gear between party members.

DAO already assumes we can't access the items currently equipped by characters who are back at camp (unless we're also back at camp), so that's clearly something BioWare cared about doing.

So what about equipment Sten is using, when Sten is 120 metres away fighting some bandits?  How is it he can unequip a dagger and have that dagger immediately be available to Alistair?

This abstraction you suggest (I love the idea) would work much better if there were restrictions against equipping or removing armour in battle (it would take too long, particularly if we're supposedly digging it out of a pack), plus require that the game not be paused while the inventory is open (to allow for the transfer time).

Unpausing the game when the inventory is opened is, I think, a terrific feature, and one we haven't seen in a BioWare game since BG.  Even BG2 automatically paused the game when you opened the inventory (which was annoying, since you could no longer multitask inventory management and walking).

[Sylvius the Mad]

Marbazoid wrote...

I would like a KotOR style inventory. Slot based that has unlimited capacity.

KotOR used a list inventory.

BG used a slot inventory.

NWN used a grid inventory.