530 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

errant_knight wrote...

*Facepalm*
This thread really went to hell overnight, didn't it?

It inevitably happens when one side begins to insult the other. I think there is a very productive debate to be had over justifiable inventory choices, and to what extent can we create functioanlly equivalent systems (with a different UI) before we've lost what makes something an RPG.

But no one seems interested in that debate, and instead we have clearly drawn lines in the sand like ME2 is nothing like ME1 (though functionally it is), and the absence of loot is theft of the inventory system.

[hangmans tree]

That is what I've been talking about. The looting, shifting through the inventory what to take and what to discard in order to make some gain is a waste of my time but at the same time I have to do it to affort better gear. It was at the Deep Roads when I realized, considering a trip back to Orzommar to sell the loot and return back for the stuff I left, I'm a raving loonatic. With the loong ass time loading screens I said F! it.

I think it was about 10 levels that I was running around with the same stuff, non of the dropped loot was interesting, not even worthwile - just a different coin. The next thing I bought was some stuff for Morrigan at the end just

before she f****g left me with said robe and winter staff...../../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png

Myself padded with medium drake skin armour...and executioners helmet. So you see I wasnt even wasting any money on myself, just the party. And only could afford top gear (but not all and not most expensive) before taking back the city and archdemon fight.

[hangmans tree]

And PLEASE STOP with the ME1-ME2-MINIGAMES-Whatever dumbing down arguments. It brings nothing to the discussion.



To mak it clear. There is a need of variety, alternative way to gain money. The way it was done in DAO is insufficient (I mean the mechanics).



God I'm tired,end of work for this week....

[AngryFrozenWater]

hangmans tree wrote...

And PLEASE STOP with the ME1-ME2-MINIGAMES-Whatever dumbing down arguments. It brings nothing to the discussion.

To mak it clear. There is a need of variety, alternative way to gain money. The way it was done in DAO is insufficient (I mean the mechanics).

God I'm tired,end of work for this week....

You really need to relax, man. Bad for your health. It seems you don't want to discuss. You want to win a discussion instead. That's not a good idea. Like I said before, if you start a thread then be prepared that people do not agree with you.

[SirOccam]

AngryFrozenWater 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.

I am sorry, but this is nonsense. The game plays out differently if you want a lot of gold to get good gear and it does matter how much gold you have. If you have a lot than you can buy better gear which results in easier combat. To obtain that money you have to collect stuff to sell. You will not only find it in crates, or loot it from bodies, you will also need to invest in the stealing skill, the deft hands talent and the dexterity attribute. That also indirectly affects combat. It also affects how you experience locations (where is the loot?). "Hey look! An Elfroot!" can lead to additional combat or a side quest. Obtaining money can even determine the order of the main quests if you want to obtain gold as fast or effectively as possible (do the Circle first, then do part of Orzammar to get a quest to obtain more money involving the Circle). You also need to visit merchants, which gives you access to rumors and sometimes additional side quests. Do I save the smithy's daughter or not to be able to buy that great bow? That in turn can lead to additional experience points which affect your stats. To do this properly I have to plan things from the start. And all this because you have to collect a lot of stuff to be able to buy some good gear.

Sure. If I don't do anything like the above then I can still play the main story. But to me it will be less fun that way. I'll miss out a lot of the gameplay I've described above. As I said before, I highly appreciate what BioWare did with all this. It's much like a game within the game itself. They did a great job on that and I wouldn't want to have such an experience wasted away by some meaningless rationalization.

That's fine; you're welcome to play the way you like. And you don't have to play in my apparently nonsensical way if you don't want to.

I didn't say trying to earn money wasn't a part of the game, or that it didn't affect gameplay; what I said was that being poor didn't affect the story, not in a meaningful enough way anyway. Upgrading gear might make the gameplay easier (although if you play on the easier difficulty levels, the differences are small enough to be negligible most of the time), but it doesn't change the story. Either you win the battle or you lose and keep reloading until you win. In the story, you just win.

You can choose to visit the Mage Circle first for any of a million reasons. It has nothing to do with being poor, unless you choose to imagine that it does. And if you don't, you can still complete the game just fine. That's just a choice you can make if you want to earn that extra money right off the bat, but my point is you're not being compelled to do so by being poor, and nothing turns out differently whether you do or don't.

Choosing to rescue the Smith's daughter plays out the same way whether your reasons for doing so are to earn money or just because you're a decent person. If you use the options to wheedle more money out of quest-givers, they react the same whether you do so because your Warden is greedy or because he or she is needy.

[Sylvius the Mad]

SirOccam wrote...

Even down to their socks and smallclothes?

If the PC wore those and needed to equip them, yes.

In DAO, that's not true, so including them among the loot would be silly.

Well the sword you just looted was free, so if you sell it for 5 gp, then it stands to reason you could then afford to buy a sword that costs 5 gp.

I mean ordinary non-adventurers.  Half the people in the world seem to have weapons.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

hangmans tree wrote...

That is what I've been talking about. The looting, shifting through the inventory what to take and what to discard in order to make some gain is a waste of my time but at the same time I have to do it to affort better gear. It was at the Deep Roads when I realized, considering a trip back to Orzommar to sell the loot and return back for the stuff I left, I'm a raving loonatic. With the loong ass time loading screens I said F! it.
I think it was about 10 levels that I was running around with the same stuff, non of the dropped loot was interesting, not even worthwile - just a different coin. The next thing I bought was some stuff for Morrigan at the end just
before she f****g left me with said robe and winter staff...../../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png
Myself padded with medium drake skin armour...and executioners helmet. So you see I wasnt even wasting any money on myself, just the party. And only could afford top gear (but not all and not most expensive) before taking back the city and archdemon fight.

In your case, and in most cases, the inventory slowed the game down.  How many people actually bought gear from vendors?  You could almost always get something better for free from drops off mobs and bosses. 

Picture this though:  no more gold and no more junk items off of mobs.  That means less junk in the inventory and less junk to vendor.  Instead, you'd get gold from killing bosses or a stipend from who ever you were helping at that time.  Or even better, all the inventory blech would happen off screen.  You'd have an armorer following you around like Sandal and his dad and as the game went on you'd get new armor options unlocked so you could mix and match like in ME2.

That would rule. 

[SirOccam]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

The thing is, most corpses in the game drop coin more than anything else to begin with. I'm currently playing through Awakening right now from an imported Origins character and I at one point had over 300 gold that I spent a good chunk (100 or so) on tracings and runes for imbuing gear.

I happen to like looting and actually in some way, shape or form, actually working to afford the better gear/upgrades in the game. I guess to me, being such a huge fan of the more classic trappings of the genre, any idea of dumbing the game down just automatically generally doesn't sit well with me.

A hero still has to make money, usually by selling spoils of his/her adventures, be it by quest rewards, or finding gear in dungeons, or off of enemies felled by her blade. I like that, I hate to see it go away just because there's such a huge mainstream group that due to titles like God of War and Mass Effect 2 being successful, wants an easy button ala the lets streamline everything to the point of stripping the genre down to nothing more than an action game mantra.

Its seriously going to get to the point where much like space sims, classic rpg's will end up extinct since the industry really only plays it safe these days due to over blown big budgets and the "me too" where developers just try and copy the latest 10 million seller to get a piece of the profit. Which in a way I understand, Publishers and developers are in it to make money, but at some point you'd think there would still be room for creativity and artistic vision.

Are you incapable of responding to my actual points, or do you just choose not to?

It is not going to turn the game into an action game to have a little bit less junk loot. How you associate looting junk to "difficulty," "creativity," and "artistic vision" is beyond me. I never said making money should go away, I just suggested it could come from more varied sources than scavenging corpses. I don't see how that turns into "dumbing down the game." If anything, it's the opposite, giving players more choice and roleplaying freedom.

[Sylvius the Mad]

SirOccam wrote...

It is not going to turn the game into an action game to have a little bit less junk loot. How you associate looting junk to "difficulty," "creativity," and "artistic vision" is beyond me. I never said making money should go away, I just suggested it could come from more varied sources than scavenging corpses. I don't see how that turns into "dumbing down the game." If anything, it's the opposite, giving players more choice and roleplaying freedom.

I'm inclined to agree with you on this, but I think it's important that money not become any easier to find.  If anything I'd like money to be harder to find than it was in DAO.

[Sylvius the Mad]

slimgrin wrote...

I agree. Fallout 3 nailed this aspect. But remember, DA:O has a party inventory.

So?  As Vael explained earlier in the thread, a party inventory can still include weight restrictions.  Wizardry 8 did that very thing.

[Giggles_Manically]

We are still getting one I thought?

Didnt the devs say they were just cutting out the junk loot?

[Sidney]

slimgrin wrote...


But what is junk loot? If I don't want to gather junk loot in DA, I don't have to. Selling loot is fun for some players like myself who don''t need a distilled version of realism. 

Maybe in one playthrough I want to hoard and sell, in another I don't - It's entirely optional. In DA and in many of my favorite rpg's, you can sell loot or you can choose not to: TW1, Oblivion, Fallout 3, ME1.

Sadly this is not true, The economics of the game are messed up to the degree where in order to keep yourself balanced vs difficult you have to buy and sell because so much of the higher end equipment is not earned but inexplicably bought from merchants who are more well stocked than any dragon hoard.

If it was truely optional - like the facial scar remover in ME2 - then you'd be right but DAO is light years from that since other than the best sword in the game the best equpiment is bought not earned. That means it isn't an optional aspect. If they want to have a room like in FO3 where you can do stupid stuff and redecorate and such and that is what money gets used for then you'd be correct.

[nhsk]

I like loot, yes the locked chests should contain something more than an elfroot and 25 xp but nonetheless I would like all the crap drops to remain.

[SirOccam]

slimgrin wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

We are still getting one I thought?
Didnt the devs say they were just cutting out the junk loot?

But what is junk loot? If I don't want to gather junk loot in DA, I don't have to. Selling loot is fun for some players like myself who don''t need a distilled version of realism. 

Maybe in one playthrough I want to hoard and sell, in another I don't - It's entirely optional. In DA and in many of my favorite rpg's, you can sell loot or you can choose not to: TW1, Oblivion, Fallout 3, ME1.

People complain about managing too much stuff in these games when they don't have to do it in the first place.

But it's one of the main ways (if not THE main way) to make money in DAO. If you don't want to do it then you are pretty much stuck going off what you earn from quests. I don't want options removed, I want them added. I want to play a character who doesn't have to scrounge off corpses for income for once.

I don't need a "distilled version of realism" either...I just find it boring and annoying. I'm glad you like it, but that alone doesn't make it right, proper, or superior to anything else.

[hangmans tree]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

hangmans tree wrote...

And PLEASE STOP with the ME1-ME2-MINIGAMES-Whatever dumbing down arguments. It brings nothing to the discussion.

To mak it clear. There is a need of variety, alternative way to gain money. The way it was done in DAO is insufficient (I mean the mechanics).

God I'm tired,end of work for this week....

You really need to relax, man. Bad for your health. It seems you don't want to discuss. You want to win a discussion instead. That's not a good idea. Like I said before, if you start a thread then be prepared that people do not agree with you.

You are impossible you know?
Where do you draw all those misconceptions I do not know. They spawn in your own mind, coz certainly you didnt find'em in my posts...

I want this topic free from fighting and bickering "which game does what better and is superior to...". Clear?
I want discuss things on a different level.

I DO NOT WANT TO THE OPTION OF LOOTING TO BE TAKEN AWAY!
But for now this (looting mind you) is the main income to PC therefore to acquire better gear from vendors (which have better loot than any artifact that you can find along the way) you are forced to loot heavily.
All I stand for is to introduce an alternative way to earn money. By, lets say, difficult tasks even - this would bring a feel of accomplishment. Being restricted to looting all the ****ing corpses is tedious and boring after a while, not to mention there is/was no auto loot, I had to bear a pop up window every time.

Not to mention it endangered the mission, I could cut myself during looting and catch something contagious, grave rot for example.

If this is not clear enough and you people will still post nonsenses about dumbing down the game I'll begin to question your reasoning abilities and critical thinking. Language barrier aside I think I'm more or less understandable and coherent in my posts. I even use punctation, which is rare on forums I noticed.

Picture this though:  no more gold and no more junk items off of mobs. 
That means less junk in the inventory and less junk to vendor.  Instead,
you'd get gold from killing bosses or a stipend from who ever you were
helping at that time.  Or even better, all the inventory blech would
happen off screen.  You'd have an armorer following you around like
Sandal and his dad and as the game went on you'd get new armor options
unlocked so you could mix and match like in ME2.

Maybe, but I think diversity would fall victim to that concept.

[DivusJackyl]

Loot and sell is pretty standard RPG fare.  I wouldn't do away with it in DA.  I felt the DA:O system worked fine because there was no space management.  Not that it is unbearable (space management) but just for ease and simplification.  An item count (or even weight) just makes things easier.  Alternately, the two concepts can be combined (heavier/bulkier items take up more "item count" as compared to say a gem as previously mentioned).  

If we are dealing with inventory space management, for some reason I always have to suspend disbelief for the healing potion shuffle.  Y'know, someone is wounded and doesn't have any healing potions on them so they just magically move from one pack to another .  Group inventory is good for this.  Perhaps more mental leaping is needed to make the initial disbelief jump but once it's made, out of sight/out of mind.  Space management for more than one character becomes annoying and time consuming IMHO. 

Personally, I'd like to see scroll bars in inventory go away.  When dealing with a large amount of items (i.e. potions, crafting, etc) scrolls bars make me not want to deal with my inventory.  It's honestly why I LIKED the radial menu (sue me, I play on console).  However, when managing inventory something like radial becomes as clumsy as scroll bars.  I'd rather have as much as possible laid out in front of me.  Easier to contend with. 

Personally, I'll try anything that is simplified enough for ease of management yet sophisticated enough to carry the feel for what I am playing.     

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Sidney wrote...

slimgrin wrote...


But what is junk loot? If I don't want to gather junk loot in DA, I don't have to. Selling loot is fun for some players like myself who don''t need a distilled version of realism. 

Maybe in one playthrough I want to hoard and sell, in another I don't - It's entirely optional. In DA and in many of my favorite rpg's, you can sell loot or you can choose not to: TW1, Oblivion, Fallout 3, ME1.

Sadly this is not true, The economics of the game are messed up to the degree where in order to keep yourself balanced vs difficult you have to buy and sell because so much of the higher end equipment is not earned but inexplicably bought from merchants who are more well stocked than any dragon hoard.

If it was truely optional - like the facial scar remover in ME2 - then you'd be right but DAO is light years from that since other than the best sword in the game the best equpiment is bought not earned. That means it isn't an optional aspect. If they want to have a room like in FO3 where you can do stupid stuff and redecorate and such and that is what money gets used for then you'd be correct.

I call bull****. Aside from starfang, there's plenty of good equipment to be earned. Any of Wade's crafted armors, the DLC rewards (yes I realize its not part of the base game) Theres quite a few weapon rewards from various quests or pickup during just regular encounters that are actually far better than anything you can buy.

[AngryFrozenWater]

SirOccam wrote...

AngryFrozenWater 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.

I am sorry, but this is nonsense. The game plays out differently if you want a lot of gold to get good gear and it does matter how much gold you have. If you have a lot than you can buy better gear which results in easier combat. To obtain that money you have to collect stuff to sell. You will not only find it in crates, or loot it from bodies, you will also need to invest in the stealing skill, the deft hands talent and the dexterity attribute. That also indirectly affects combat. It also affects how you experience locations (where is the loot?). "Hey look! An Elfroot!" can lead to additional combat or a side quest. Obtaining money can even determine the order of the main quests if you want to obtain gold as fast or effectively as possible (do the Circle first, then do part of Orzammar to get a quest to obtain more money involving the Circle). You also need to visit merchants, which gives you access to rumors and sometimes additional side quests. Do I save the smithy's daughter or not to be able to buy that great bow? That in turn can lead to additional experience points which affect your stats. To do this properly I have to plan things from the start. And all this because you have to collect a lot of stuff to be able to buy some good gear.

Sure. If I don't do anything like the above then I can still play the main story. But to me it will be less fun that way. I'll miss out a lot of the gameplay I've described above. As I said before, I highly appreciate what BioWare did with all this. It's much like a game within the game itself. They did a great job on that and I wouldn't want to have such an experience wasted away by some meaningless rationalization.

That's fine; you're welcome to play the way you like. And you don't have to play in my apparently nonsensical way if you don't want to.

I didn't say trying to earn money wasn't a part of the game, or that it didn't affect gameplay; what I said was that being poor didn't affect the story, not in a meaningful enough way anyway. Upgrading gear might make the gameplay easier (although if you play on the easier difficulty levels, the differences are small enough to be negligible most of the time), but it doesn't change the story. Either you win the battle or you lose and keep reloading until you win. In the story, you just win.

You can choose to visit the Mage Circle first for any of a million reasons. It has nothing to do with being poor, unless you choose to imagine that it does. And if you don't, you can still complete the game just fine. That's just a choice you can make if you want to earn that extra money right off the bat, but my point is you're not being compelled to do so by being poor, and nothing turns out differently whether you do or don't.

Choosing to rescue the Smith's daughter plays out the same way whether your reasons for doing so are to earn money or just because you're a decent person. If you use the options to wheedle more money out of quest-givers, they react the same whether you do so because your Warden is greedy or because he or she is needy.

Being poor may allow you to make the same choices in the main story only, but not all people play it just to do that. People like me also play the side quests. The game has lots of those and obviously BioWare intended these to be played, so why according to you only the main story is important is beyond me. I have given lots of examples how it effects gameplay. You don't deny them, but you wave it away like it is not important, because of some irrational thought that only completing the main story is relevant.

About the Circle. There are a number of ways you can complete Rogek's quest. It's fun to figure out how to make the most money from him and the mage, to blackmail the mage or steal money from Rogek. So, if you don't want to be poor you have additional stories like this one.

About the smithy. It's not about money this time. If you don't save his daughter he'll commits suicide,and he'll be replaced by another merchant which can sell you the best bow in the game which is not available otherwise. Again it does not change the main story, but does change how side stories unfold, how it affect morals and the choices you make.

You are telling me that I can play the game as I see fit, but yet you want to nerf my gameplay experience anyway, because it serves your purpose. I can tell you the same. If you don't want a cluttered inventory and only carry a realistic number of items then you are free to do so. Nobody is putting a gun to your head to force you to play like a mule. And it doesn't matter to you anyway, right? After all, the main story plays out the same way, whether you are rich or not.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 09 octobre 2010 - 03:24 .

[SirOccam]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Being poor may allow you to make the same choices in the main story only, but not all people play it just to do that. People like me also play the side quests. The game has lots of those and obviously BioWare intended these to be played, so why according to you only the main story is important is beyond me. I have given lots of examples how it effects gameplay. You don't deny them, but you wave it away like it is not important, because of some irrational thought that only completing the main story is relevant.

When did I say only the main story was important? I don't skip side quests either. All I said was that being poor doesn't figure into the story (not "the main story," just "the story").

And I know you gave examples of how it affects gameplay. Then I explained that gameplay and the story are two entirely separate things. I agree that it affects gameplay. It doesn't affect the *story* though.

About the Circle. There are a number of ways you can complete Rogek's quest. It's fun to figure out how to make the most money from him and the mage, to blackmail the mage or steal money from Rogek. So, if you don't want to be poor you have additional stories like this one.

You can also do those same stories if you're filthy rich but just happen to be incredibly greedy. There's no difference there, as far as the game is concerned. You can make up whatever you want in your head, but as I've explained here and elsewhere, I am more interested in the stuff that has tangible effects in the game.

About the smithy. It's not about money this time. If you don't save his daughter he'll commits suicide,and he'll be replaced by another merchant which can sell you the best bow in the game which is not available otherwise. Again it does not change the main story, but does change how side stories unfold, how it affect morals and the choices you make.

Same as above. Being poor doesn't affect any of that. And I never argued that you can't do things for money. You can choose whether or not to save his daughter whether you're rich or poor. It doesn't play out any differently if you're poor.

You are telling me that I can play the game as I see fit, but yet you want to nerf my gameplay experience anyway, because it serves your purpose. I can tell you the same. If you don't want a cluttered inventory and only carry a realistic number of items then you are free to do so. Nobody is putting a gun to your head to force you to play like a mule. And it doesn't matter to you anyway, right? After all, the main story plays out the same way, whether you are rich or not.

How would it be nerfing your gameplay experience? If anyone's experience is being nerfed, it's mine, because I have to either put up with a cluttered inventory or be poor. With my suggestion, you'd still loot corpses, just not quite so often. Like that would be such a huge hurdle for you.

It matters to me because I find it incredibly boring, yet I need money the same as everyone else. The fact that it doesn't affect the story is precisely why I find it so annoying. If I didn't need the money, I would gladly skip it. But buying things is part of the game.

Note that there's a difference between having an effect on the story and having an effect on me as a player. I need to make money somewhere so I can buy things like backpacks and runes and whatever else...that's part of the game. Not being able to do that is an obstacle for ME as a player, not my character. I can complete the game with just looted gear, sure, but it's not as fun to do so. Now what I've been saying is that if playing a poor character had some kind of significant influence on the story, then it would be worth the hassle. But it doesn't, so it's not.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

SirOccam wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Being poor may allow you to make the same choices in the main story only, but not all people play it just to do that. People like me also play the side quests. The game has lots of those and obviously BioWare intended these to be played, so why according to you only the main story is important is beyond me. I have given lots of examples how it effects gameplay. You don't deny them, but you wave it away like it is not important, because of some irrational thought that only completing the main story is relevant.

When did I say only the main story was important? I don't skip side quests either. All I said was that being poor doesn't figure into the story (not "the main story," just "the story").

And I know you gave examples of how it affects gameplay. Then I explained that gameplay and the story are two entirely separate things. I agree that it affects gameplay. It doesn't affect the *story* though.

About the Circle. There are a number of ways you can complete Rogek's quest. It's fun to figure out how to make the most money from him and the mage, to blackmail the mage or steal money from Rogek. So, if you don't want to be poor you have additional stories like this one.

You can also do those same stories if you're filthy rich but just happen to be incredibly greedy. There's no difference there, as far as the game is concerned. You can make up whatever you want in your head, but as I've explained here and elsewhere, I am more interested in the stuff that has tangible effects in the game.

About the smithy. It's not about money this time. If you don't save his daughter he'll commits suicide,and he'll be replaced by another merchant which can sell you the best bow in the game which is not available otherwise. Again it does not change the main story, but does change how side stories unfold, how it affect morals and the choices you make.

Same as above. Being poor doesn't affect any of that. And I never argued that you can't do things for money. You can choose whether or not to save his daughter whether you're rich or poor. It doesn't play out any differently if you're poor.

You are telling me that I can play the game as I see fit, but yet you want to nerf my gameplay experience anyway, because it serves your purpose. I can tell you the same. If you don't want a cluttered inventory and only carry a realistic number of items then you are free to do so. Nobody is putting a gun to your head to force you to play like a mule. And it doesn't matter to you anyway, right? After all, the main story plays out the same way, whether you are rich or not.

How would it be nerfing your gameplay experience? If anyone's experience is being nerfed, it's mine, because I have to either put up with a cluttered inventory or be poor. With my suggestion, you'd still loot corpses, just not quite so often. Like that would be such a huge hurdle for you.

It matters to me because I find it incredibly boring, yet I need money the same as everyone else. The fact that it doesn't affect the story is precisely why I find it so annoying. If I didn't need the money, I would gladly skip it. But buying things is part of the game.

Note that there's a difference between having an effect on the story and having an effect on me as a player. I need to make money somewhere so I can buy things like backpacks and runes and whatever else...that's part of the game. Not being able to do that is an obstacle for ME as a player, not my character. I can complete the game with just looted gear, sure, but it's not as fun to do so. Now what I've been saying is that if playing a poor character had some kind of significant influence on the story, then it would be worth the hassle. But it doesn't, so it's not.

Why would looting creatures you kill have an effect on the story in the first place? You're reaching a bit there. Its really that boring to click on a body you just killed for some silver pieces? Really?

Its funny that you're saying you don't want to see the game nerfed in that instance, but thats essentially what you're asking for because you can't be bothered to take 2 minutes every so often to manage your inventory because you know its such a huge hassle and all. Then you wonder why I suggested why not just strip inventory all together and go the ME route. Thats essentially kinda what you're looking for it seems.

[SirOccam]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Why would looting creatures you kill have an effect on the story in the first place? You're reaching a bit there. Its really that boring to click on a body you just killed for some silver pieces? Really?

To click on "a" body? No. To click on "hundreds and hundreds" of bodies? Yes. And would that they did only drop coin. Then I wouldn't have to clutter up my inventory with useless crap.

God forbid I don't get excited over the prospect of being a scavenger. Something is clearly wrong with me. Rifling through dead people's clothing is all the rage! I'm such a square!

Its funny that you're saying you don't want to see the game nerfed in that instance, but thats essentially what you're asking for because you can't be bothered to take 2 minutes every so often to manage your inventory because you know its such a huge hassle and all. Then you wonder why I suggested why not just strip inventory all together and go the ME route. Thats essentially kinda what you're looking for it seems.

I find it hilarious that you think it would be a "nerf." Like it would actually be taking something fun away. You "purists" don't fool me; none of you actually find it amusing or entertaining. You are just saying you do because some troublemaker dared to propose some minor aspect of your precious, precious traditional RPG gameplay be tweaked. You are used to it, and you like the familiarity. And that's fine. You are welcome to your opinion.

What I am getting sick and tired of, though, is this constant fallacious "slippery slope" crap. "OMG you want less loot?!?! THEN WHY NOT JUST TAKE INVENTORY AWAY ALTOGETHER BAWWWWWWW!" Oh, wait, before that it was "WHY NOT JUST HAVE AN EASY BUTTON BAWWWWWW!" and before that, "YOU JUST WANT TO BE GIVEN INFINITE AMOUNTS OF CASH, DON'T DUMB DOWN THE GAME BAWWWWWW!"



All I said was why not tone it down a little bit? NOT remove it altogether, NOT change how much coin you earn from looting, and NOT make the game "dumber" (as if looting corpses is some kind of academic exercise anyway).

[AngryFrozenWater]

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Being poor may allow you to make the same choices in the main story only, but not all people play it just to do that. People like me also play the side quests. The game has lots of those and obviously BioWare intended these to be played, so why according to you only the main story is important is beyond me. I have given lots of examples how it effects gameplay. You don't deny them, but you wave it away like it is not important, because of some irrational thought that only completing the main story is relevant.[/quote]
When did I say only the main story was important? I don't skip side quests either. All I said was that being poor doesn't figure into the story (not "the main story," just "the story").[/quote]
You are correct. Sometimes I was maybe under illusion that you meant main story when you mentioned "the story". Still, it does not affect much of my post.

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

And I know you gave examples of how it affects gameplay. Then I explained that gameplay and the story are two entirely separate things. I agree that it affects gameplay. It doesn't affect the *story* though.[/quote]
How does blackmailing the mage or persuating Rogek not affect the story or it's outcome? How does not saving the smithy's daughter not affect the story when he commits suicide because of that choice and how does it not affect the outcome of being able to buy the best bow in the game from his replacement?

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...

About the Circle. There are a number of ways you can complete Rogek's quest. It's fun to figure out how to make the most money from him and the mage, to blackmail the mage or steal money from Rogek. So, if you don't want to be poor you have additional stories like this one.[/quote]
You can also do those same stories if you're filthy rich but just happen to be incredibly greedy. There's no difference there, as far as the game is concerned. You can make up whatever you want in your head, but as I've explained here and elsewhere, I am more interested in the stuff that has tangible effects in the game.[/quote]
Blackmail, stealing or persuassion are real gameplay mechanics which do have an affect on the outcome of that little story and the way that story unfolds. You are not marginalizing RPG gameplay, are you? Nah. You wouldn't do that. You love RPGSs. Grin. One if its outcomes can be a monetary reward. To me having more money for better gear to make the game easier and more effective to play is a tangible effect. My survival rate increases so that's tangible enough for me. It also means less potions before and after a fight. Hehe. If you feel you are filthy rich then don't feel pressed to do the quest. I on the other hand love the extra coin.

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...

About the smithy. It's not about money this time. If you don't save his daughter he'll commits suicide,and he'll be replaced by another merchant which can sell you the best bow in the game which is not available otherwise. Again it does not change the main story, but does change how side stories unfold, how it affect morals and the choices you make.[/quote]
Same as above. Being poor doesn't affect any of that. And I never argued that you can't do things for money. You can choose whether or not to save his daughter whether you're rich or poor. It doesn't play out any differently if you're poor.[/quote]
Ah. So this time it doesn't matter if you are rich or poor for it to play out differently. Interesting, but where did that come from? Whatever. If so, then why bother about the whole inventory discussion in the first place. Don't collect anything would be my advice. You won't have any clutter, no weight problems to solve, no silly side quests to do to obtain more money and no merchants to visit. In this case don't save the daughter in the castle. If you later change your mind you can always buy the bow.

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...

You are telling me that I can play the game as I see fit, but yet you want to nerf my gameplay experience anyway, because it serves your purpose. I can tell you the same. If you don't want a cluttered inventory and only carry a realistic number of items then you are free to do so. Nobody is putting a gun to your head to force you to play like a mule. And it doesn't matter to you anyway, right? After all, the main story plays out the same way, whether you are rich or not.[/quote]
How would it be nerfing your gameplay experience? If anyone's experience is being nerfed, it's mine, because I have to either put up with a cluttered inventory or be poor. With my suggestion, you'd still loot corpses, just not quite so often. Like that would be such a huge hurdle for you.[/quote]
No. Your suggestion results in a method to obtain more money with less effort. To me the "effort" is a large part of the gameplay which I think is fun. I don't view it as a problem that needs to be solved. If I thought it was a problem then maybe I could be convinced to give up part of the gameplay I love. I think it was very well designed by BioWare. I've said it before, they did a great job on that. Thumbs up.

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

It matters to me because I find it incredibly boring, yet I need money the same as everyone else. The fact that it doesn't affect the story is precisely why I find it so annoying. If I didn't need the money, I would gladly skip it. But buying things is part of the game.[/quote]
That's odd. I thought that a guy like you obviously doesn't need any money. Didn't you say that being rich or poor does not play out differently? Just reload if you get killed and you win in the end anyway. But this is really about more money for less effort, isn't it? But cutting that part of the game destroys the fun that others like me have with the earlier praised game mechanics that BioWare provided.

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

Note that there's a difference between having an effect on the story and having an effect on me as a player. I need to make money somewhere so I can buy things like backpacks and runes and whatever else...that's part of the game. Not being able to do that is an obstacle for ME as a player, not my character. I can complete the game with just looted gear, sure, but it's not as fun to do so. Now what I've been saying is that if playing a poor character had some kind of significant influence on the story, then it would be worth the hassle. But it doesn't, so it's not.[/quote]
You only start the game being poor. There are a lot of ways to obtain money. Some of these things require investments in skills, talents, and attributes. You don't need money to get good gear, but there is great gear that costs money. It's an extra. But an extra at a cost of some effort. Nothing is for free. I am not willing to give up the fun I have just because you are not willing to put in the effort.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

SirOccam wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Why would looting creatures you kill have an effect on the story in the first place? You're reaching a bit there. Its really that boring to click on a body you just killed for some silver pieces? Really?

To click on "a" body? No. To click on "hundreds and hundreds" of bodies? Yes. And would that they did only drop coin. Then I wouldn't have to clutter up my inventory with useless crap.

God forbid I don't get excited over the prospect of being a scavenger. Something is clearly wrong with me. Rifling through dead people's clothing is all the rage! I'm such a square!

Its funny that you're saying you don't want to see the game nerfed in that instance, but thats essentially what you're asking for because you can't be bothered to take 2 minutes every so often to manage your inventory because you know its such a huge hassle and all. Then you wonder why I suggested why not just strip inventory all together and go the ME route. Thats essentially kinda what you're looking for it seems.

I find it hilarious that you think it would be a "nerf." Like it would actually be taking something fun away. You "purists" don't fool me; none of you actually find it amusing or entertaining. You are just saying you do because some troublemaker dared to propose some minor aspect of your precious, precious traditional RPG gameplay be tweaked. You are used to it, and you like the familiarity. And that's fine. You are welcome to your opinion.

What I am getting sick and tired of, though, is this constant fallacious "slippery slope" crap. "OMG you want less loot?!?! THEN WHY NOT JUST TAKE INVENTORY AWAY ALTOGETHER BAWWWWWWW!" Oh, wait, before that it was "WHY NOT JUST HAVE AN EASY BUTTON BAWWWWWW!" and before that, "YOU JUST WANT TO BE GIVEN INFINITE AMOUNTS OF CASH, DON'T DUMB DOWN THE GAME BAWWWWWW!"



All I said was why not tone it down a little bit? NOT remove it altogether, NOT change how much coin you earn from looting, and NOT make the game "dumber" (as if looting corpses is some kind of academic exercise anyway).

They call them genre's for a reason, I'm sure theres a god of war or devil may cry that you might enjoy more. I'm sorry if I'm against the whole streamlining the rpg genre to suit the mainstream audience just so they can sell another 500k copies or what not.