173 réponses à ce sujet

[Exzander1]

egervari wrote...

That's not true though. If the game did not give the player an oppurtunity to ever go back to town, then I would agree with you. But the truth is, in most areas of the game, you have a chance to spend however much time as you would like to go in and out of a dungeon/location to sell off all of your junk. Since the player has this option, they would essentially be stupid to throw any of the junk away, as selling it is the superior choice - it has a + benefit to the player all the time.

Since this choice is actually a non-choice, it should either be automated, or designed in such a way to make the choice non-existant, or designed to make it more interesting.

In this case, they could remove junk items, and then make the costs of the uber-gear to be a lot cheaper. Problem solved.

Or, they could increase the inventory space.

Or, they could make it so you could not go back to town. I would hate this, but then hopefully they would balance the game so that you didn't have to sell your junk as much as you do in the current build of the game.

Or, you could devise a totally different system of economics. Like in etrian odyssey, you pick up lots of crap, but it's all stuff you can use to craft your gear. Maybe letting the player craft in a dungeon isn't such a bad thing either. There are lots of ways to make things more interesting.

Remember in old final fantasy games? We never had inventory problems. All the loot you wanted was either in shops, or located in specifically-located chests. Maybe that design was too simple, but you know what? It works.

I understand that you get these points, but I hope I'm getting through that this choice, as it is currently built, is actually not a good mechanic. It presents 1 superior choice and lots of horrible choices. It's not a real choice.

The thing is, though, there is the penalty for running back - a very long, boring, irritating walk back, that most (this is an assumption) people don't do. The game gives you an option to run back, if you wish to do so, however, if you want to push on instead, you must manage your inventory, that's why the system works. By "works", I mean, that's why I never feel the need to run back all the way through the level to hit a store, cause I know for a fact it is too boring/long for me to do so, so I pretty much completely ignore that I can go back, and simply focus on inventory management - I enjoy it, obviosuly, so in my view it's not a problem, it is something I enjoy.

I think the penatly of walking back is the very thing that makes people manage their inventory. People don't like to walk back/hardly ever do, thus you must do the tactical thing of inventory management. However, those who do make the choice of going back, can eventually sell all the tiems/make more gold/make that choice to get the most out of the dungeon - but it will take longer.

The balance is:

1. Continue on without going back = less gold, having to manage your items better, yet you will get through the dungeon faster, smoother, no back-tracking and no long, boring walks.

2. Walk back to sell, takes a long time, is boring, irritating, however you get the most bang for your buck out of the dungeon, and can rack up more gold at the end of the day.

I think it is a designer's choice of a trade-off, which would you want to do? I think that's the question/decision they chose.

At the end of the day, I just wish it could appeal to both of us (all of us), and things like toggle switches were implemented to keep it good for both parties.

[HyperLimited]

Sorry, no magical bottomless backpacks for you. 

[egervari]

It is truly a problem. It's a problem I've ran into at least 3 times in a playthrough, and I hated it every time I ran into it. It's so much of a problem that I would put crappy sql server on my computer just to solve it. So yeah, it's a problem.

Also, as I already discussed above: The time saved of not travelling back to town is not a game consequence, it is a human consequence. The only good decision is to go back to town as it offers a + benefit to the player all the time. Every other option puts the player at a loss. If time was not a factor, you'd sell it. End of story.

Modifié par egervari, 07 mars 2011 - 07:37 .

[Zousug]

I dont see why there is a problem with having a limited backpack..

I would rather be limited to 200 slots then open my backpack and find 10,000 items in there and having to sort through THAT list..

Also I never had any of these issues with running out of space.. I collected what I wanted and needed and sold crap regulary when I was in a town / location that had a shop.

I always sold stuff as soon as I got into the location.. kept only what I needed (HP and Mana pots crunch for my dog etc)

I did run out of room once, but I was at a dealer that had a backpack I forgot to buy.. apart from that there wasnt any issue..

[Exzander1]

egervari wrote...

It is truly a problem. It's a problem I've ran into at least 3 times in a playthrough, and I hated it every time I ran into it. It's so much of a problem that I would put crappy sql server on my computer just to solve it. So yeah, it's a problem.

Also, as I already discussed above: The time saved of not travelling back to town is not a game consequence, it is a human consequence. The only good decision is to go back to town as it offers a + benefit to the player all the time. Every other option puts the player at a loss. If time was not a factor, you'd sell it. End of story.

You'd definitely sell it if you didn't have to go back and waste time/go through the boring walk, I agree. However... you do have to do that, and judging from this thread, many feel that the penalty of less gold is easier to get hit with than the penalty of walking all the way back.

Many of us don't walk back, we just continue on and mange our inventory, so it's not an "end of story" kind of thing.. there is a choice, and a lot of use choose to not go back.

I'm sorry you don't like it, I feel your frustration (I am the exact same on not being able to put armor on your party, I hate it!), but it is what it is.

Cheers.

[Kail Ashton]

Ahh inventory management, the true bane of thadas clearly, though kudos for finding sumth'n new to whine abot, that takes more effort than the usual degenerates who whine bout stuff they were too slow to notice the first time months ago

Also ishmaeltheforsaken what in furry faping sickitude is that twisted abomination of an avatar/profile/whatever they call em picture??

[egervari]

Exzander1 wrote...

egervari wrote...

It is truly a problem. It's a problem I've ran into at least 3 times in a playthrough, and I hated it every time I ran into it. It's so much of a problem that I would put crappy sql server on my computer just to solve it. So yeah, it's a problem.

Also, as I already discussed above: The time saved of not travelling back to town is not a game consequence, it is a human consequence. The only good decision is to go back to town as it offers a + benefit to the player all the time. Every other option puts the player at a loss. If time was not a factor, you'd sell it. End of story.

You'd definitely sell it if you didn't have to go back and waste time/go through the boring walk, I agree. However... you do have to do that, and judging from this thread, many feel that the penalty of less gold is easier to get hit with than the penalty of walking all the way back.

Many of us don't walk back, we just continue on and mange our inventory, so it's not an "end of story" kind of thing.. there is a choice, and a lot of use choose to not go back.

I'm sorry you don't like it, I feel your frustration (I am the exact same on not being able to put armor on your party, I hate it!), but it is what it is.

Cheers.

I don't think you understand. After it's all said and done, one player is up and the other is down. It wasn't a real choice. You didn't get anything for your "sacrifices". You got nothing for them. You just lost.

In starcraft, if you decide to not build something, you might not have enough units or maybe you didn't tech hard enough, but at least you are compensated in some fashion by what the extra money could do for you later on in the game - perhaps to build a command center/nexus/hatchery instead of a unit for example.

In this example, you just lose. There is no compensatation in the game for your sacrifice.

[egervari]

Zousug wrote...

I dont see why there is a problem with having a limited backpack..

I would rather be limited to 200 slots then open my backpack and find 10,000 items in there and having to sort through THAT list..

Also I never had any of these issues with running out of space.. I collected what I wanted and needed and sold crap regulary when I was in a town / location that had a shop.

I always sold stuff as soon as I got into the location.. kept only what I needed (HP and Mana pots crunch for my dog etc)

I did run out of room once, but I was at a dealer that had a backpack I forgot to buy.. apart from that there wasnt any issue..

We don't have 200 slots - we have like 90-110 for the most part. 200 would have been enough actually. 250 would have been great. 90 is awful.

The whole point of having a big inventory is not to have 10,000 items in it - that's not the point. It's to allieviate the annoyance of having to sell your crap and being punished because you forgot to sell your crap. In some cases, you are punished even if you sold your crap, because there was so much stuff to loot in one place.

If someone has 10,000 items and can't find anything... well... it's their own damn fault. 

I know from experience though that bumping the cap to 999 in my own game, I never really got to 250 at any point in time. Having that buffer made my game infinitely more enjoyable.

Modifié par egervari, 07 mars 2011 - 07:59 .

[Exzander1]

egervari wrote...

Exzander1 wrote...

egervari wrote...

It is truly a problem. It's a problem I've ran into at least 3 times in a playthrough, and I hated it every time I ran into it. It's so much of a problem that I would put crappy sql server on my computer just to solve it. So yeah, it's a problem.

Also, as I already discussed above: The time saved of not travelling back to town is not a game consequence, it is a human consequence. The only good decision is to go back to town as it offers a + benefit to the player all the time. Every other option puts the player at a loss. If time was not a factor, you'd sell it. End of story.

You'd definitely sell it if you didn't have to go back and waste time/go through the boring walk, I agree. However... you do have to do that, and judging from this thread, many feel that the penalty of less gold is easier to get hit with than the penalty of walking all the way back.

Many of us don't walk back, we just continue on and mange our inventory, so it's not an "end of story" kind of thing.. there is a choice, and a lot of use choose to not go back.

I'm sorry you don't like it, I feel your frustration (I am the exact same on not being able to put armor on your party, I hate it!), but it is what it is.

Cheers.

I don't think you understand. After it's all said and done, one player is up and the other is down. It wasn't a real choice. You didn't get anything for your "sacrifices". You got nothing for them. You just lost.

In starcraft, if you decide to not build something, you might not have enough units or maybe you didn't tech hard enough, but at least you are compensated in some fashion by what the extra money could do for you later on in the game - perhaps to build a command center/nexus/hatchery instead of a unit for example.

In this example, you just lose. There is no compensatation in the game for your sacrifice.

You don't lose, though.

I save myself 20 minutes of running back and going through the hassle and irritation of the back-tracking, the running back, then the 20 minutes of running all the way back through the level to get back to my original position. I'm saving literally up to 30-40 minutes of running back and forth each time I get full on inventory space.

I'm "gaining" an enjoyable experience. I'm "gaining" not running back and all the stuff i just posted in the above paragraph.

I'm not  "just losing", because I made a choice to have a more enjoyable game experience for a cut in "pay", if you will.

The thing is, at the end of the day, I can and do earn enough gold in my way (not running back to sell) to get the end game weapons. I still make that amount. It's harder, but the pace never slows for me, it never dies down - I'm always enjoying the game (since I love inventory management), and always moving forward at a solid pace.

The only thing I "lose" is getting those items faster, which is a compensation I am more than willing to make in able to keep the pace fluid and enjoyable.

Modifié par Exzander1, 07 mars 2011 - 08:01 .

[astranger_90]

I have honestly never had an issue with this, I think I hit the cap a single time, and that was when I just fooling around and crafting with too many novice runes.

Just sell everything every chance you get.

[egervari]

Exzander1 wrote...

egervari wrote...

Exzander1 wrote...

egervari wrote...

It is truly a problem. It's a problem I've ran into at least 3 times in a playthrough, and I hated it every time I ran into it. It's so much of a problem that I would put crappy sql server on my computer just to solve it. So yeah, it's a problem.

Also, as I already discussed above: The time saved of not travelling back to town is not a game consequence, it is a human consequence. The only good decision is to go back to town as it offers a + benefit to the player all the time. Every other option puts the player at a loss. If time was not a factor, you'd sell it. End of story.

You'd definitely sell it if you didn't have to go back and waste time/go through the boring walk, I agree. However... you do have to do that, and judging from this thread, many feel that the penalty of less gold is easier to get hit with than the penalty of walking all the way back.

Many of us don't walk back, we just continue on and mange our inventory, so it's not an "end of story" kind of thing.. there is a choice, and a lot of use choose to not go back.

I'm sorry you don't like it, I feel your frustration (I am the exact same on not being able to put armor on your party, I hate it!), but it is what it is.

Cheers.

I don't think you understand. After it's all said and done, one player is up and the other is down. It wasn't a real choice. You didn't get anything for your "sacrifices". You got nothing for them. You just lost.

In starcraft, if you decide to not build something, you might not have enough units or maybe you didn't tech hard enough, but at least you are compensated in some fashion by what the extra money could do for you later on in the game - perhaps to build a command center/nexus/hatchery instead of a unit for example.

In this example, you just lose. There is no compensatation in the game for your sacrifice.

You don't lose, though.

I save myself 20 minutes of running back and going through the hassle and irritation of the back-tracking, the running back, then the 20 minutes of running all the way back through the level to get back to my original position. I'm saving literally up to 30-40 minutes of running back and forth each time I get full on inventory space.

I'm "gaining" an enjoyable experience. I'm "gaining" not running back and all the stuff i just posted in the above paragraph.

I'm not  "just losing", because I made a choice to have a more enjoyable game experience for a cut in "pay", if you will.

The thing is, at the end of the day, I can and do earn enough gold in my way (not running back to sell) to get the end game weapons. I still make that amount. It's harder, but the pace never slows for me, it never dies down - I'm always enjoying the game (since I love inventory management), and always moving forward at a solid pace.

The only thing I "lose" is getting those items faster, which is a compensation I am more than willing to make in able to keep the pace fluid and enjoyable.

You are losing though. The game doesn't care how much personal time you saved yourself. In your save, you will have less money than me, and at the end of the day, you will have received no compensation for your sacrifice.

Now if we had a bigger inventory, we'd have fluid pace AND we would both be compensated fairly for doing the same actions in the game.

[Savantz]

The best choice in the game is any choice that gives the player the most enjoyment. Just because the character becomes a little richer by picking everything up doesn't make that the best choice. Do you store every item in the warden chest untill it hits tier 7 before you sell it? because according to you that would be the only choice since the warden ends up richer at the end.

I tend to be OCD too and backtrack to pick stuff up, so I know where you're comming from, but it's boring as hell and I tend to enjoy games more when I don't do that.

[Exzander1]

egervari wrote...

Exzander1 wrote...

egervari wrote...

Exzander1 wrote...

egervari wrote...

It is truly a problem. It's a problem I've ran into at least 3 times in a playthrough, and I hated it every time I ran into it. It's so much of a problem that I would put crappy sql server on my computer just to solve it. So yeah, it's a problem.

Also, as I already discussed above: The time saved of not travelling back to town is not a game consequence, it is a human consequence. The only good decision is to go back to town as it offers a + benefit to the player all the time. Every other option puts the player at a loss. If time was not a factor, you'd sell it. End of story.

You'd definitely sell it if you didn't have to go back and waste time/go through the boring walk, I agree. However... you do have to do that, and judging from this thread, many feel that the penalty of less gold is easier to get hit with than the penalty of walking all the way back.

Many of us don't walk back, we just continue on and mange our inventory, so it's not an "end of story" kind of thing.. there is a choice, and a lot of use choose to not go back.

I'm sorry you don't like it, I feel your frustration (I am the exact same on not being able to put armor on your party, I hate it!), but it is what it is.

Cheers.

I don't think you understand. After it's all said and done, one player is up and the other is down. It wasn't a real choice. You didn't get anything for your "sacrifices". You got nothing for them. You just lost.

In starcraft, if you decide to not build something, you might not have enough units or maybe you didn't tech hard enough, but at least you are compensated in some fashion by what the extra money could do for you later on in the game - perhaps to build a command center/nexus/hatchery instead of a unit for example.

In this example, you just lose. There is no compensatation in the game for your sacrifice.

You don't lose, though.

I save myself 20 minutes of running back and going through the hassle and irritation of the back-tracking, the running back, then the 20 minutes of running all the way back through the level to get back to my original position. I'm saving literally up to 30-40 minutes of running back and forth each time I get full on inventory space.

I'm "gaining" an enjoyable experience. I'm "gaining" not running back and all the stuff i just posted in the above paragraph.

I'm not  "just losing", because I made a choice to have a more enjoyable game experience for a cut in "pay", if you will.

The thing is, at the end of the day, I can and do earn enough gold in my way (not running back to sell) to get the end game weapons. I still make that amount. It's harder, but the pace never slows for me, it never dies down - I'm always enjoying the game (since I love inventory management), and always moving forward at a solid pace.

The only thing I "lose" is getting those items faster, which is a compensation I am more than willing to make in able to keep the pace fluid and enjoyable.

You are losing though. The game doesn't care how much personal time you saved yourself. In your save, you will have less money than me, and at the end of the day, you will have received no compensation for your sacrifice.

Now if we had a bigger inventory, we'd have fluid pace AND we would both be compensated fairly for doing the same actions in the game.

That personal time = more important than gaining gold faster for me. See, at the end of the game, you and I will both have the end game weapons, we will both use that fancy dagger/staff/whatever that cost 150 gold, we'll both fight the final battle fully geared out with high quality weapons. The difference is, while you were spending 40 minutes at a time running back, I will be spending 10-15 seconds at a time managing my inventory.

You will get yours before I get mine, but we'll both get it, and I will have enjoyed my experience more - because where as I enjoy the inventory management fully and do not feel as if I'm losing out on anything, you feel you are losing out on time and are not liking the 40 minute hike back and forth - therefore, my game experience will be more enjoyable - that is what is important, is it not?

Keep in mind, I fully understand where you are coming from, but I can only debate this on my view point (obviously), and my view point is that the game runs near perfect for me using the current system.

[Zousug]

egervari wrote...

Zousug wrote...

I dont see why there is a problem with having a limited backpack..

I would rather be limited to 200 slots then open my backpack and find 10,000 items in there and having to sort through THAT list..

Also I never had any of these issues with running out of space.. I collected what I wanted and needed and sold crap regulary when I was in a town / location that had a shop.

I always sold stuff as soon as I got into the location.. kept only what I needed (HP and Mana pots crunch for my dog etc)

I did run out of room once, but I was at a dealer that had a backpack I forgot to buy.. apart from that there wasnt any issue..

We don't have 200 slots - we have like 90-110 for the most part. 200 would have been enough actually. 250 would have been great. 90 is awful.

The whole point of having a big inventory is not to have 10,000 items in it - that's not the point. It's to allieviate the annoyance of having to sell your crap and being punished because you forgot to sell your crap. In some cases, you are punished even if you sold your crap, because there was so much stuff to loot in one place.

If someone has 10,000 items and can't find anything... well... it's their own damn fault. 

I know from experience though that bumping the cap to 999 in my own game, I never really got to 250 at any point in time. Having that buffer made my game infinitely more enjoyable.

200 was just a random number, in DA:O you gto 180 max ( if memory serves) and that was more then enough for me.. 

I don't know how much space is in DA2.. I am hoping its not to small but I will manage ha

[wowpwnslol]

Let's not dumb down the game even further

[Stazro]

I don't understand all the fuss about "running back". If you buy available backpacks and manage your inventory in a way that you don't keep what you don't need before you go on a run, there is not a single area in DA:O that contains more items than you can carry, before you reach the next point that allows you to visit a trader without backtracking in the level.

[egervari]

Exzander1 wrote...

That personal time = more important than gaining gold faster for me. See, at the end of the game, you and I will both have the end game weapons, we will both use that fancy dagger/staff/whatever that cost 150 gold, we'll both fight the final battle fully geared out with high quality weapons. The difference is, while you were spending 40 minutes at a time running back, I will be spending 10-15 seconds at a time managing my inventory.

You will get yours before I get mine, but we'll both get it, and I will have enjoyed my experience more - because where as I enjoy the inventory management fully and do not feel as if I'm losing out on anything, you feel you are losing out on time and are not liking the 40 minute hike back and forth - therefore, my game experience will be more enjoyable - that is what is important, is it not?

Keep in mind, I fully understand where you are coming from, but I can only debate this on my view point (obviously), and my view point is that the game runs near perfect for me using the current system.

On the contrary, I'm quite sure I will get 1 more powerful item than you. Some of this "junk" really adds up. You'd be surprised That's why I do it.

Still, I don't buy time as an argument to the design of a game. It can take someone longer the click the various buttons because they are not very good with computers, should they get a penalty/bonus for their lack of skill with computers? Of course not. Maybe in Starcraft it would really hurt them, but in a game like this, it should not matter. The same is true for chess (unless it's a timed match) or many other games.

The point is, I can make a decision that anyone would ideally want to make that puts me at an advantage over other choices. The "con" that it takes me longer is not a valid argument with respect to the game. This is inherantly bad design if player time is factored into balance, as this is just a single player game. It's really that simple.

Yes, RPGs do have time sinks in them, but this is different. At least in a time sink, there is some other thing going on - killing monsters to get a drop, or some other such thing. In this case, you just lose. If time was not a factor, you'd pick up everything and sell it - don't tell me you wouldn't, because you would.

[Sierra Crysis]

Instead of a larger inventory, I'd like more gold and less random junk. Gifts should go into the bottomless plot item bag, and if I cant put it on, upgrade an item, or hit somebody with it, it shouldn't go into my inventory. It'd sure minimize alot of trips back to town.

[Iwasdrunkbro]

atleast we have an inventory..

[egervari]

Sierra Crysis wrote...

Instead of a larger inventory, I'd like more gold and less random junk. Gifts should go into the bottomless plot item bag, and if I cant put it on, upgrade an item, or hit somebody with it, it shouldn't go into my inventory. It'd sure minimize alot of trips back to town.

I agree. I only offer the increased inventory size as a suggestion because it's the simplest thing to implement without overhauling the whole system and economics of the game.

it is interesting that I am making an argument that this mechanic is actually a very bad mechanic. It's not jsut Dragon Age - it's a whole crapload of games that have made this error. They are just copying the design error from game to game without realizing that it's an error in the mechanics.

[Exzander1]

egervari wrote...

Exzander1 wrote...

That personal time = more important than gaining gold faster for me. See, at the end of the game, you and I will both have the end game weapons, we will both use that fancy dagger/staff/whatever that cost 150 gold, we'll both fight the final battle fully geared out with high quality weapons. The difference is, while you were spending 40 minutes at a time running back, I will be spending 10-15 seconds at a time managing my inventory.

You will get yours before I get mine, but we'll both get it, and I will have enjoyed my experience more - because where as I enjoy the inventory management fully and do not feel as if I'm losing out on anything, you feel you are losing out on time and are not liking the 40 minute hike back and forth - therefore, my game experience will be more enjoyable - that is what is important, is it not?

Keep in mind, I fully understand where you are coming from, but I can only debate this on my view point (obviously), and my view point is that the game runs near perfect for me using the current system.

On the contrary, I'm quite sure I will get 1 more powerful item than you. Some of this "junk" really adds up. You'd be surprised That's why I do it.

Still, I don't buy time as an argument to the design of a game. It can take someone longer the click the various buttons because they are not very good with computers, should they get a penalty/bonus for their lack of skill with computers? Of course not. Maybe in Starcraft it would really hurt them, but in a game like this, it should not matter. The same is true for chess (unless it's a timed match) or many other games.

The point is, I can make a decision that anyone would ideally want to make that puts me at an advantage over other choices. The "con" that it takes me longer is not a valid argument with respect to the game. This is inherantly bad design if player time is factored into balance, as this is just a single player game. It's really that simple.

Yes, RPGs do have time sinks in them, but this is different. At least in a time sink, there is some other thing going on - killing monsters to get a drop, or some other such thing. In this case, you just lose. If time was not a factor, you'd pick up everything and sell it - don't tell me you wouldn't, because you would.

I don't really quite understand the time is not a factor thing. What I mean by that is, obviously I am a fan of item management, right? I don't do item management/support the current system because I don't like walking back, I support it because I enjoy having a limited inventory and I enjoy the small yet interesting (to me) tactics of inventory management when on a level. So, obviously, if the running back was cut out (say you were not able to leave a level once you started it) - I would still vote and pick to have a limited inventory, because that is what I like, I enjoy it.

Can I run back? Sure, do I want to? No. Would I pick up every item if I could? Absolutely. Do I want to pick up every single item without having to manage my inventory? No, I don't.

I enjoy inventory management, I would not want an unlimted inventory, regardless of the game design/choices/mechanics. I think I made this point clear my first or second post.

My point being, in the current system, I have absolutely 0 issues. I get my item management, I don't have to take 40 minutes out of my game session simply walking backwards then walking forwards thorugh areas I've already been, and the items are difficult/challenging to earn (always good to have challenge).

On my view of things, it is really good. People like me can keep progressing without running back, yet not miss out on the big items as we will eventually make that mark, and we have fun with inventory. Where as people like you have the option of running back if you so choose.

It would be best, more accurate, and more simple/peaceful if they just put in a toggle switch for it was we discussed earlier, this would be the ideal system, but as it is now, I literally have 0 complaints - I don't feel like I am wasting anything, i've always played like this in DA:O (not running back), and I've always purchased all the items/weapons I want by end game, and enjoyed it all at a pace I liked.

[egervari]

Exzander1 wrote...

I don't really quite understand the time is not a factor thing.

From a pure game mechanics point of view, time is kind of irrelvant. The game doesn't care how long it took to do anything. It is not a timed game. The game does care about items, gold, etc. though. Thus, you get more of an advantage if you go back to town rather than drop it on the ground and leave it forever. If you didn't care about time, the "correct" decison (we are trying to play well, aren't we?) is to sell all the junk to get the highest advantage possible. In Chess, you don't purposefully make bad moves, and we shouldn't purposefully leave gold on the ground and put us at a disadvantage either. After all, multiple small advantages over a long period of time === a huge advantage.

Exzander1 wrote...

What I mean by that is, obviously I am a fan of item management, right? I don't do item management/support the current system because I don't like walking back, I support it because I enjoy having a limited inventory and I enjoy the small yet interesting (to me) tactics of inventory management when on a level. So, obviously, if the running back was cut out (say you were not able to leave a level once you started it) - I would still vote and pick to have a limited inventory, because that is what I like, I enjoy it.

And that's fine. If that were the case, I'd probably complain a lot less actually.

Can I run back? Sure, do I want to? No. Would I pick up every item if I could? Absolutely. Do I want to pick up every single item without having to manage my inventory? No, I don't.

That's the crux of the argument. Good game design should present the player with MEANINGFUL and NON-TRIVIAL choices. Selling crap gear is a non-brainer choice - it is as trivial as trivial can be. Good game design dictates then that this be handled for you automatically, to put asides these trivial choices to make room for the really interesting choices. Good game design would also dictate re-designing the system to either make the choice more interesting, or to redesign the item/economy mechanics altogether.

Basically, what I'm saying is that the game in its current state is actually flawed - as are so many other games. You admit that you would sell all of this crap if it didn't take the time - of course you would. Everyone would. All I am saying is that you shouldn't be penalized because you don't want to town. And on the flip side, I shouldn't have to do something as mindless as spend 40 minutes walking to and from the shop in town either. It's all very poorly designed.

I enjoy inventory management, I would not want an unlimted inventory, regardless of the game design/choices/mechanics. I think I made this point clear my first or second post.

Then instead of trying to make the game harder on yourself by imposing a restriction or a loss on yourself, perhaps the game should have been designed with this mechanic in mind. Then I'm guessing that you would quite like it. As it is, it just forces players who hate item management to really, really hate this part of the game with no real solution other than to walk back to town... which frankly sucks.

My point being, in the current system, I have absolutely 0 issues. I get my item management, I don't have to take 40 minutes out of my game session simply walking backwards then walking forwards thorugh areas I've already been, and the items are difficult/challenging to earn (always good to have challenge).

I think it would have been better to make more items retrieved through quests and optional bosses rather than buying the most brokenly powerful stuff at the shops actually. If you didn't need so much gold in the game, then I wouldn't pick everything up in the first place.

On my view of things, it is really good. People like me can keep progressing without running back, yet not miss out on the big items as we will eventually make that mark, and we have fun with inventory. Where as people like you have the option of running back if you so choose.

That's the thing, I don't want to walk back. This is stupid. Who doesn't have the "ability" to walk back? Everyone can do this. It is just a mindless, pointless time sink that the game can do for me.

It could handle this with a "sell my junk" button.

It could handle this with diablo-like portaling system.

It could handle this by giving you an ability to instantly convert an item to gold while in a dungeon.

There are loads of ways to handle this problem, yet we have none at all.

It would be best, more accurate, and more simple/peaceful if they just put in a toggle switch for it was we discussed earlier, this would be the ideal system, but as it is now, I literally have 0 complaints - I don't feel like I am wasting anything, i've always played like this in DA:O (not running back), and I've always purchased all the items/weapons I want by end game, and enjoyed it all at a pace I liked.

I agree. 1 hour of work for them tops

Modifié par egervari, 07 mars 2011 - 08:59 .

[Exzander1]

egervari wrote...

Exzander1 wrote...

I don't really quite understand the time is not a factor thing.

From a pure game mechanics point of view, time is kind of irrelvant. The game doesn't care how long it took to do anything. It is not a timed game. The game does care about items, gold, etc. though. Thus, you get more of an advantage if you go back to town rather than drop it on the ground and leave it forever. If you didn't care about time, the "correct" decison (we are trying to play well, aren't we?) is to sell all the junk to get the highest advantage possible. In Chess, you don't purposefully make bad moves, and we shouldn't purposefully leave gold on the ground and put us at a disadvantage either. After all, multiple small advantages over a long period of time === a huge advantage.

Exzander1 wrote...

What I mean by that is, obviously I am a fan of item management, right? I don't do item management/support the current system because I don't like walking back, I support it because I enjoy having a limited inventory and I enjoy the small yet interesting (to me) tactics of inventory management when on a level. So, obviously, if the running back was cut out (say you were not able to leave a level once you started it) - I would still vote and pick to have a limited inventory, because that is what I like, I enjoy it.

And that's fine. If that were the case, I'd probably complain a lot less actually.

Can I run back? Sure, do I want to? No. Would I pick up every item if I could? Absolutely. Do I want to pick up every single item without having to manage my inventory? No, I don't.

That's the crux of the argument. Good game design should present the player with MEANINGFUL and NON-TRIVIAL choices. Selling crap gear is a non-brainer choice - it is as trivial as trivial can be. Good game design dictates then that this be handled for you automatically, to put asides these trivial choices to make room for the really interesting choices. Good game design would also dictate re-designing the system to either make the choice more interesting, or to redesign the item/economy mechanics altogether.

Basically, what I'm saying is that the game in its current state is actually flawed - as are so many other games. You admit that you would sell all of this crap if it didn't take the time - of course you would. Everyone would. All I am saying is that you shouldn't be penalized because you don't want to town. And on the flip side, I shouldn't have to do something as mindless as spend 40 minutes walking to and from the shop in town either. It's all very poorly designed.

I enjoy inventory management, I would not want an unlimted inventory, regardless of the game design/choices/mechanics. I think I made this point clear my first or second post.

Then instead of trying to make the game harder on yourself by imposing a restriction or a loss on yourself, perhaps the game should have been designed with this mechanic in mind. Then I'm guessing that you would quite like it. As it is, it just forces players who hate item management to really, really hate this part of the game with no real solution other than to walk back to town... which frankly sucks.

My point being, in the current system, I have absolutely 0 issues. I get my item management, I don't have to take 40 minutes out of my game session simply walking backwards then walking forwards thorugh areas I've already been, and the items are difficult/challenging to earn (always good to have challenge).

I think it would have been better to make more items retrieved through quests and optional bosses rather than buying the most brokenly powerful stuff at the shops actually. If you didn't need so much gold in the game, then I wouldn't pick everything up in the first place.

On my view of things, it is really good. People like me can keep progressing without running back, yet not miss out on the big items as we will eventually make that mark, and we have fun with inventory. Where as people like you have the option of running back if you so choose.

That's the thing, I don't want to walk back. This is stupid. Who doesn't have the "ability" to walk back? Everyone can do this. It is just a mindless, pointless time sink that the game can do for me.

It could handle this with a "sell my junk" button.

It could handle this with diablo-like portaling system.

It could handle this by giving you an ability to instantly convert an item to gold while in a dungeon.

There are loads of ways to handle this problem, yet we have none at all.

It would be best, more accurate, and more simple/peaceful if they just put in a toggle switch for it was we discussed earlier, this would be the ideal system, but as it is now, I literally have 0 complaints - I don't feel like I am wasting anything, i've always played like this in DA:O (not running back), and I've always purchased all the items/weapons I want by end game, and enjoyed it all at a pace I liked.

I agree. 1 hour of work for them tops

I'm not going to quote/respond like you did simply because it's 1 AM here and I'm sleepy.

Clearly you have issues with the way this part of the game is handled (and I understand/accpet that), and I've even agreed with you that something should be done (my idea, well you actually said it forst but I agree with, is a toggle button), so that everyone is happy.

However, I am still purely on the side of "keep a limited inventory where you cannot hold an infinite amount of items and therefore must make a tactical decision of what to keep and what to throw back".

My game experience is not broken, nore is it flawed. I've played/beatn DA:O a few times this way, and not once did I feel cheated, flawed, not once did I feel that I took a loss, etc. Now, game design wise/mechanics wise/whatever, it very well might be all screwy and messed up. However, it is not hurting my gaming experience in the slightest, I love the inventory management, I don't like picking up infnite items, etc etc.

So... at the end of the day, I agree with you that there should be something in place to aid and make everyone on both sides happy, but also at the end of the day, if I'm stuck with a choice between keeping it the same or giving an unlimited inventory, I'd keep it the same.

At least there are mods/toolset you can work with to help this for you.

[AbsolutGrndZer0]

http://www.shamusyou...idedtale/?p=984

'Nuff said.

Modifié par AbsolutGrndZer0, 07 mars 2011 - 09:34 .

[randName]

Why must there be a health bar, why must you die, why can't I cast every spell in the book at level 1?

Lines has to be drawn.

I for one wish they had a size and weight based inventory instead of slots; but well that's me.