530 réponses à ce sujet

[namedforthemoon]

SirOccam wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The problem with making money through tedious corpse looting ought to be solved by introducing more imaginative ways to make money, in my opinion. Or to provide a variety of paths to acquire goods.

Agreed. I really liked how in Fable 2 you could get an actual job and work at it. Even if the execution was somewhat flawed (it gets pretty old after a while), I like that the option was there. You can also gamble, buy and sell property, become a landlord, invest in businesses, or just do quests, or even just rob homes and businesses. And then of course you can sell loot as well.

Freedom is sort of Fable 2's "thing," though, and clearly a game like DA2 couldn't implement all of them. But it would definitely be nice to be able to do something outside the standard looting and selling or earning quest rewards.

Yeah. I kind of got tired of hearing "Hmm, that's a nice pint!" 5000 times over, though.

[Sidney]

SirOccam wrote...

What I'd like to see is for looting corpses not to be a matter of course. It's a staple of RPGs, traditionally, but if you think about it, what kind of story includes the heroes rifling through the pockets of every single foe they've defeated for any tiny thing of value they can find, then lugging it all to a merchant?

Big yes. Looting and inventory are, to a certain extent, 2 different things. Even if you eliminated vendor trash if the way around that was every corpse had 1 silver in his pocket it doesn't change things materailly for me as a player. It is a bad mechanism because: 1) it isn't "heroic" or "epic" it is the opposite of that 2) It bogs the game down into a hear pounding battle followied by an even longer period of not heart pounding playing point n' click on dead bodies.

[AtreiyaN7]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I liked the sense of weight and item prioritizing in Fallout 3's system. Combining items to repair them requires a certain amount of suspension of disbelief, but less than I require to imagine that I'm carrying a dozen swords and six suits of armor on my person, or my invisible pack mule.

As far as what DA2 is, have they said?

Agreed - I did like the encubmrance system in Fallout 3. If I had one quibble about it, it's that I could stuff a zillion rockets in my lockers without the floor of my house in Megaton giving way - haha. Just kidding - I did NOT mind the infinite storage space. You should see how much surgical tubing, crutches and other junk I have (including food items in the fridge!).

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 07 octobre 2010 - 10:37 .

[Kileyan]

Sidney wrote...

: 1) it isn't "heroic" or "epic" it is the opposite of that 2) It bogs the game down into a hear pounding battle followied by an even longer period of not heart pounding playing point n' click on dead bodies.

I am an old school rpg player. I like looting stuff, and clicking every body to maybe find something usefull or worth some gold.

That said, I think I posted this once. On Hawkes way north, it would be a cool play on the genre to have our Hawke standing on a hill, witnessing a group of people killing those bandits you meet right before entering Lothering. Show them in a full cutscene slaying them, going through their pockets and packs, stripping them of armor, weapons, wresting with taking their rings off their bloody fingers.

First thought would be wow, those are some slimy corpse robbers. The camera zooms in to show our Warden and crew, doing something they do every battle.

[Vaeliorin]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Gems are small and easy to carry. Greatswords not so much.

From
a design standpoint, the Witcher had a really solid inventory system.
With non-weapons it was effectively a list (thought the UI was that of a
grid), so there was a reasonable restriction on your carrying capacity
and your potions were capped at 10 per slot. Weapons were heavily
restricted, and you could only carry two extra weapons at most, even as
loot.

The only thing I would like Bioware to borrow from the
Witcher is their inventory grid. It strikes a good balance between
inventory tetris and agravating list.

Personally, I
hated The Witcher's inventory system.  I really hate
having to leave stuff behind.  The areas of DA where I couldn't have a
rogue (curse you, Witch Hunt!) and had to
leave locked chests/doors behind drove me crazy.  But, as previously
mentioned, I'm a packrat.  Picking up every little piece of junk that I
can find is almost a compulsion.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
First of all, Vael is probably the person on the forum with whom I most consistently agree about game design.  So it's no surprise I like this suggestion.

To replace the turn-based inventory access, Vael, why not steal from Baldur's Gate and prohibit pausing while the inventory is open.  So you an open your inventory during combat if you want, but while you're in there you might get killed.

That would work for me.  As long as I was still able to access things in my personal inventory through the quickbar, I'd be fine with that.  The only reason it bugged me in BG was because there weren't enough quickslots, and you couldn't have weapon/shield and a bow both slotted at the same time.

I'd also wouldn't object to prohibiting armour changes during combat.

Certainly.  It's not something I ever do, so it's not something that ever occurs to me.

The only important number for this discussion is the "Load" number (it's just to the right of the character portrait.) This number represents the weight of the items in the character's inventory plus their share of the party inventory, where weight is distributed among the party such that they each are carrying an equal percentage of their total load (unless their character inventory contains more weight than would be their share, in which case the weight of the party inventory is distributed among the other five characters.)

In this system, there are accumulating penalties for carrying too much weight (they occur at 50%, 70%, 90% and 100+% of a character's load.) Obviously, for optimum party performance, you're not going to want each character to have more than 50% load. This is easy to accomplish as any container in the game can be used for storage by the characters (you can also just drop stuff on the ground and it generally won't go away, but that's messy...unless you have an entire empty house devoted to piles of ammo like I usually end up doing...)

Yes, please bring back encumbrance.

Honestly, I really do like encumbrance, and I prefer something like I mentioned to something like NWN's where encumbrance was ignored until you hit your limit, and then it only effected movement speed.

Honestly, that game pretty much has my favorite inventory system ever, and I'd love to see some game replicate it.

I agree wholeheartedly.  The only way I could see to improve it would be to display more of the party inventory in the screen at once.

Well, being an older game, it didn't run at the resolutions that we have now, so I'm pretty certain we could fit more inventory running at 1920X1200 that we could at 1024X768.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Could you leave gaps in the grid (thus allowing you to place an item in a specific spot and always be able top find it there)?

Yes. I will try to find an image. Sadly I do not know how to show one like Vaeliorin did, but the link for it is here: kotaku.com/5040872/the-witcher-enhanced-edition-+-what-a-difference-a-year-makes . Just scroll down.

Vaeliorin wrote...
Personally, I hated The Witcher's
inventory system.  I really hate having to leave stuff behind. 
The areas of DA where I couldn't have a rogue (curse you, Witch
Hunt!) and had to leave locked chests/doors behind drove me crazy.  But,
as previously mentioned, I'm a packrat.  Picking up every little piece
of junk that I can find is almost a compulsion.

That only related to weapons, though. You could pick up a significant amount of fluff TW. You were just restricted with regard to how many weapons you can carry.

I thought it struck a good balance between gameplay and realism.

[Sidney]

Kileyan wrote...

I am an old school rpg player. I like looting stuff, and clicking every body to maybe find something usefull or worth some gold.

If you are old school then you know that no one without a name has anything useful or worthwhile. Generic mutant, orc or Darkspawn is just gonna drop trash. That knowledge is why this is so darn depressing. I'm making that click knowing it is something lame but knowing in the aggregation of looting tons of pockets I might be able to buy something cool from a merchant who should be killed and looted by every adventurer from Ferelden to Teviner because that is where all the good stuff is.

[SXOSXO]

I prefer the old school style of managing inventory, but honestly the most important thing to me is that they do not take the same path as ME2 did. I like having many different weapons and armor to choose from, some with pros and cons, which allow me to tailor a specific build for myself.

[Vaeliorin]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Could you leave gaps in the grid (thus allowing you to place an item in a specific spot and always be able top find it there)?

Yes. I will try to find an image. Sadly I do not know how to show one like Vaeliorin did, but the link for it is here: kotaku.com/5040872/the-witcher-enhanced-edition-+-what-a-difference-a-year-makes . Just scroll down.

It's just like quoting.  {img}linkgoeshere{/img} except with [ instead of {.

Vaeliorin wrote...
Personally, I hated The Witcher's inventory system.  I really hate having to leave stuff behind.  The areas of DA where I couldn't have a rogue (curse you, Witch Hunt!) and had to leave locked chests/doors behind drove me crazy.  But, as previously mentioned, I'm a packrat.  Picking up every little piece of junk that I can find is almost a compulsion.

That only related to weapons, though. You could pick up a significant amount of fluff TW. You were just restricted with regard to how many weapons you can carry.

I thought it struck a good balance between gameplay and realism.

It's actually armor, too, but that's much rarer to have to deal with.  I ended up just tossing my original armor when I played The Witcher because I hadn't sold it before buying a new one, and all the merchants were gone since it was night.

Anyway, I honestly thought it was kind of pointless they even had those extra weapons, as there was absolutely no reason to ever use them (other than possibly the torch.)  Instead of making us leave all those extra weapons on the ground, I'd have rather they just never dropped.  I know that's unrealistic, but it just absolutely drives me crazy to leave stuff just lying there.  I can't recall ever really having money issues in The Witcher, however, mostly because other than recipes, there wasn't really much interesting to buy (and I looted every herb I saw...drove me batty that they respawned.  I had to keep going around and collecting them all.)

[Sylvius the Mad]

SirOccam wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Fallout 3 and previous Fallout games did just that.  It made investing in Strength or perks like Strong Back potentially useful even for non-melee characters. 

It presents a roleplaying choice by adding realism to he inventory, isn't that what so many people ask for in the first place?

Perhaps, but for me, realism is only useful when it adds to the fun (by "fun" I mean fun for me). Realism for the sake of realism usually just adds tedium, I find.

BG did this too, of course.  Sure, you could min/max and leave your Mage's strength at 4, but he could carry more healing potions if his strength were 8.

I think it was a good feature.  I found it fun.

Apollo Starflare wrote...

Generally I like inventories to be kept apart from any form of realism and to just be designed to do their job in the best way possible etc.

By this standard I think BioWare's best inventory was in NWN.  That was by far the best GUI they've had on an inventory system, regardless of weight or item limits.

SirOccam wrote...

Honestly, for DA2, I'd be happy with less but more valuable loot. Even if nothing else changed at all.

I think DAO had far too much high-end equipment.  I'd suggest the vast majority of the loot found should be utter junk, and there only be occasional gear worth hoarding.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Yes. I will try to find an image. Sadly I do not know how to show one like Vaeliorin did, but the link for it is here: kotaku.com/5040872/the-witcher-enhanced-edition-+-what-a-difference-a-year-makes . Just scroll down.

You could leave gaps?  It doesn't look like it from those images.

I am planning to reinstall The Witcher at some point (people tell me it's worth it despite that dreadful combat system), so I suppose I can just check.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...
Yes. I will try to find an image. Sadly I do not know how to show one like Vaeliorin did, but the link for it is here: kotaku.com/5040872/the-witcher-enhanced-edition-+-what-a-difference-a-year-makes . Just scroll down.

You could leave gaps?  It doesn't look like it from those images.

I am planning to reinstall The Witcher at some point (people tell me it's worth it despite that dreadful combat system), so I suppose I can just check.

I'm almost positive you can.  I really need to finish The Witcher myself, but, as you say, the dreadful combat system makes it difficult.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You could leave gaps?  It doesn't look like it from those images.

I am planning to reinstall The Witcher at some point (people tell me it's worth it despite that dreadful combat system), so I suppose I can just check.

I would have to replay the game to be sure, but I recall that you were allowed to sort your inventory however you liked, and do not recall being restricted from using a particular slot simply because an item was or was not there.

[errant_knight]

hangmans tree wrote...

Missing a point here I see.
Its not about interface. Its about loot. And money. You didnt see the absurd to travel on foot with so many sets of armour to begin with and on tens of bombs of 4 or so types each? The game had little monetary recompensation when it came to quests. If not for selling goods in crazy amounts I wouldnt be able to buy the really good and practical (for my gamestyle) items.
not to mention that only my warden and maybe 2-3 (constant) party members had good to excellent gear. The rest? Whatever leftovers were available.

Aye, and switching armour in an instant during battle, or weapon from the backpack is a good thing? Not for me...This is not tactic and planning.

Not to you, but it doesn't mean everyone plays the same way. The more choices, the more open it is to different styles of gameplay. If you don't want the small stuff, don't take it, or sell it straight away. Me, I picked up and sold just about everything, and needed every penny, since I play a 'good' character, and that ruled out quite a few side quests, in my way of looking at it. And I outfit all the companions well, since they all get used at least occasionally. And since, from a roleplaying perspective, it's what my character would do.

Modifié par errant_knight, 08 octobre 2010 - 06:35 .

[hangmans tree]

Kileyan wrote...
On Hawkes way north, it would be a cool play on the genre to have our Hawke standing on a hill, witnessing a group of people killing those bandits you meet right before entering Lothering. Show them in a full cutscene slaying them, going through their pockets and packs, stripping them of armor, weapons, wresting with taking their rings off their bloody fingers.

First thought would be wow, those are some slimy corpse robbers. The camera zooms in to show our Warden and crew, doing something they do every battle.

Heh, yes, that would be funny
They could do more of those little crossing paths with what/where our warden was at that time...see the fallout of his actions...or his actions from afar

On topic. As some mentioned above - yes, that what I had in mind, to provide other viable way to obtain goods. Simply put, excessive looting is tedious and boring. Not to mention its a miserable thing to do - wonder how much am I able to stuff in my pockets and how many errands I have to make to earn enough to buy upper class gear.

[hangmans tree]

errant_knight wrote...

hangmans tree wrote...

Missing a point here I see.
Its not about interface. Its about loot. And money. You didnt see the absurd to travel on foot with so many sets of armour to begin with and on tens of bombs of 4 or so types each? The game had little monetary recompensation when it came to quests. If not for selling goods in crazy amounts I wouldnt be able to buy the really good and practical (for my gamestyle) items.
not to mention that only my warden and maybe 2-3 (constant) party members had good to excellent gear. The rest? Whatever leftovers were available.

Aye, and switching armour in an instant during battle, or weapon from the backpack is a good thing? Not for me...This is not tactic and planning.

Not to you, but it doesn't mean everyone plays the same way. The more choices, the more open it is to different styles of gameplay. If you don't want the small stuff, don't take it, or sell it straight away. Me, I picked up and sold just about everything, and needed every penny, since I play a 'good' character, and that ruled out quite a few side quests, in my way of looking at it. And I outfit all the companions well, since they all get used at least occasionally. And since, from a roleplaying perspective, it's what my character would do.

Grrrr...that's the POINT. There was no other way but to loot everything. Otherwise I wouldnt be able to buy...well, anything.

[SirOccam]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Honestly, for DA2, I'd be happy with less but more valuable loot. Even if nothing else changed at all.

I think DAO had far too much high-end equipment.  I'd suggest the vast majority of the loot found should be utter junk, and there only be occasional gear worth hoarding.

I was mainly referring to resale value here. I don't think hardly any of the loot should be utter junk. If it is, then why include it as loot in the first place? I don't mean that everything needs to have uber stats, but if you loot a sword, have it sell for 5g instead of having to loot twenty of them to make up that same amount. Then just put in one twentieth the amount of swords to loot.

My point is that looting and selling junk is boring as hell. I'd gladly skip it, but that's one of your main sources of income, so the alternative is not to be able to buy things.

[errant_knight]

I quite likes it that money wasn't hanging off trees and you had to work hard for it, picking what you bought carefully. It made purchases part of your over all game strategy that could vary from playthrough to playthrough. Not only was it a challenge, but it also was more realistic than most games, where dead peasants animals have pocket fulls of gold.

[SirOccam]

errant_knight wrote...

I quite likes it that money wasn't hanging off trees and you had to work hard for it, picking what you bought carefully. It made purchases part of your over all game strategy that could vary from playthrough to playthrough. Not only was it a challenge, but it also was more realistic than most games, where dead peasants animals have pocket fulls of gold.

I suppose I can see why someone would enjoy that, but if it doesn't figure into the story somehow, then it feels like more of a burden on me than on my character. If being poor were recognized and could affect the storyline, then, as I said before, I'd gladly see where poverty led me. But the game plays out exactly the same whether you have 2 gold or 2 million gold.

The only times I can think of where your money can affect the plot is that sometimes you can give people more than they ask for and they will respond to it accordingly. Those are very minor effects, and there's no converse for if you're too poor to give them even what small amount they want. You just have to tell them no.

And BTW, the system I proposed wouldn't result in money coming easier. If there is 1/20th the amount of loot but the loot is worth 20x as much, then you come out even. The only difference being you didn't have to loot a bazillion Darkspawn Daggers and Small Round Shields to do it.

Modifié par SirOccam, 08 octobre 2010 - 07:09 .

[errant_knight]

SirOccam wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

I quite likes it that money wasn't hanging off trees and you had to work hard for it, picking what you bought carefully. It made purchases part of your over all game strategy that could vary from playthrough to playthrough. Not only was it a challenge, but it also was more realistic than most games, where dead peasants animals have pocket fulls of gold.

I suppose I can see why someone would enjoy that, but if it doesn't figure into the story somehow, then it feels like more of a burden on me than on my character. If being poor were recognized and could affect the storyline, then, as I said before, I'd gladly see where poverty led me. But the game plays out exactly the same whether you have 2 gold or 2 million gold.

The only times I can think of where your money can affect the plot is that sometimes you can give people more than they ask for and they will respond to it accordingly. Those are very minor effects, and there's no converse for if you're too poor to give them even what small amount they want. You just have to tell them no.

And BTW, the system I proposed wouldn't result in money coming easier. If there is 1/20th the amount of loot but the loot is worth 20x as much, then you come out even. The only difference being you didn't have to loot a bazillion Darkspawn Daggers and Small Round Shields to do it.

How much money you have does figure into the plot at Goldana's and at Redcliffe. And it fits in as part of the overall strategy. Do you forgo potions in order to spend the cash on other things? This affects your potential party make up. Do you upgrade skills, directly affecting gameplay, or buy powerful items? Limited money and choices have a big effect on the game, and can make a big difference in different games where different choices are made. Anything that changes the game on replay is a good thing, in my books.

Modifié par errant_knight, 08 octobre 2010 - 07:15 .

[Sidney]

SirOccam wrote...

And BTW, the system I proposed wouldn't result in money coming easier. If there is 1/20th the amount of loot but the loot is worth 20x as much, then you come out even. The only difference being you didn't have to loot a bazillion Darkspawn Daggers and Small Round Shields to do it.

I'd like to see something more along the lines of you assault Jarvia's den. The base line guards functionally have nothing of value . The officers and then Jarvia have stuff and then there is her vault that has the payroll for all the dead baseline guards.

As you said the effect is the same. 50 dead guards each with 1 silver or cash or goods or a payroll chest with 50 silver = same payout but only one "looting" moment  (and go ahead and lock that chest and make the rogues valuable) and a lot more dignity for our heroes.:happy:

[Sylvius the Mad]

SirOccam wrote...

I was mainly referring to resale value here. I don't think hardly any of the loot should be utter junk. If it is, then why include it as loot in the first place?

Because it fleshes out the setting.

In Ferelden, there are a lot of iron swords.  After a battle, there may well be a lot of them lying about.

I don't mean that everything needs to have uber stats, but if you loot a sword, have it sell for 5g instead of having to loot twenty of them to make up that same amount. Then just put in one twentieth the amount of swords to loot.

My point is that looting and selling junk is boring as hell. I'd gladly skip it, but that's one of your main sources of income, so the alternative is not to be able to buy things.

Rather than break the setting's economics, I'd suggest the game simply leave us poor.

[SirOccam]

errant_knight wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

I quite likes it that money wasn't hanging off trees and you had to work hard for it, picking what you bought carefully. It made purchases part of your over all game strategy that could vary from playthrough to playthrough. Not only was it a challenge, but it also was more realistic than most games, where dead peasants animals have pocket fulls of gold.

I suppose I can see why someone would enjoy that, but if it doesn't figure into the story somehow, then it feels like more of a burden on me than on my character. If being poor were recognized and could affect the storyline, then, as I said before, I'd gladly see where poverty led me. But the game plays out exactly the same whether you have 2 gold or 2 million gold.

The only times I can think of where your money can affect the plot is that sometimes you can give people more than they ask for and they will respond to it accordingly. Those are very minor effects, and there's no converse for if you're too poor to give them even what small amount they want. You just have to tell them no.

And BTW, the system I proposed wouldn't result in money coming easier. If there is 1/20th the amount of loot but the loot is worth 20x as much, then you come out even. The only difference being you didn't have to loot a bazillion Darkspawn Daggers and Small Round Shields to do it.

How much money you have does figure into the plot at Goldana's and at Redcliffe. And it fits in as part of the overall strategy. Do you forgo potions in order to spend the cash on other things? This affects your potential party make up. Do you upgrade skills, directly affecting gameplay, or buy powerful items? Limited money and choices have a big effect on the game, and can make a big difference in different games where different choices are made. Anything that changes the game on replay is a good thing, in my books.

Hmm. That's just where my tastes differ I guess. If the story goes "the hero was beset by a band of Darkspawn, but defeated them," then to me, playing that fight on Nightmare is no more interesting than on Easy. Either way the hero defeats the Darkspawn, and the story continues. That's why I always play on Easy, and I guess why I don't find saving up for things compelling. History won't remember the color of the tunic you wore when you defeated the Archdemon. I just like thinking about the more momentous events and decisions, not so much the minutiae.

You're right about Goldanna and Bella and Kaitlyn, but if you don't have the money to give them to change the story in that way, then it plays out the same as if you had it and just didn't give it to them. Being poor doesn't really figure into it. It's a case of "did you do it or not?;" the "why" isn't part of the equation.

But regardless, again, the system I proposed wouldn't make money come in any easier. It would even out. It would just cut down on the sheer amount of junk.

[SirOccam]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

I was mainly referring to resale value here. I don't think hardly any of the loot should be utter junk. If it is, then why include it as loot in the first place?

Because it fleshes out the setting.

In Ferelden, there are a lot of iron swords.  After a battle, there may well be a lot of them lying about.

There should also be a full set of armor for every combatant, plus personal effects. And yet sometimes there is nothing on a corpse. They already don't reflect everything that should theoretically be there, so I just say include some of the more useless stuff in the stuff that's not reflected.

I don't mean that everything needs to have uber stats, but if you loot a sword, have it sell for 5g instead of having to loot twenty of them to make up that same amount. Then just put in one twentieth the amount of swords to loot.

My point is that looting and selling junk is boring as hell. I'd gladly skip it, but that's one of your main sources of income, so the alternative is not to be able to buy things.

Rather than break the setting's economics, I'd suggest the game simply leave us poor.

I don't see how it would break the economics. Less loot, but more valuable loot. It's not exactly a groundbreaking innovation. And really, why do heroes always have to be poor anyway?

Edit: and also, why do heroes always have to be scavengers in these games? If you're desperate it's one thing, but in RPGs it's standard procedure.

Modifié par SirOccam, 08 octobre 2010 - 07:31 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

SirOccam wrote...

Hmm. That's just where my tastes differ I guess. If the story goes "the hero was beset by a band of Darkspawn, but defeated them," then to me, playing that fight on Nightmare is no more interesting than on Easy. Either way the hero defeats the Darkspawn, and the story continues. That's why I always play on Easy, and I guess why I don't find saving up for things compelling. History won't remember the color of the tunic you wore when you defeated the Archdemon. I just like thinking about the more momentous events and decisions, not so much the minutiae.

You're right about Goldanna and Bella and Kaitlyn, but if you don't have the money to give them to change the story in that way, then it plays out the same as if you had it and just didn't give it to them. Being poor doesn't really figure into it. It's a case of "did you do it or not?;" the "why" isn't part of the equation.

But regardless, again, the system I proposed wouldn't make money come in any easier. It would even out. It would just cut down on the sheer amount of junk.

Why not just adopt ME's inventory )or lack thereof) at that point and have everything handed to you? Since it sounds like thats how you want to play, playing on easy, no interest in saving for decent gear. etc.