173 réponses à ce sujet

[randName]

egervari wrote...
need to make the max inventory size smaller!!!" I really highly doubt that.
.

It's too much in DA:O already, 200 would be silly.

[Felfenix]

Xewaka wrote...

egervari wrote...
I am THINKING - I am thinking if I sell all of this crap, I can get that awesome dagger a little earlier, or I might be able to get 1 more expensive item before I head off and do the final boss. That's what I'm thinking!
Frankly, I am shocked that more people are fighting in favour of how the current system works. This is astonishing to me.

Since you're thinking, have you thought that the inventory limitation is there precisely to avoid that you buy that awesome dagger a little earlier? As in, it is actually a mechanism to keep the player's purse (and thus gear progression) in check with his level?
Not that I wouldn't welcome more inventory space, but it is a point to consider.

Then the inventory limit fails to fulfill it's purpose. I can loot every item in the game. I just have to sell stuff sometimes. The only people the current system in DA limits are hoarders (who don't want to sell anything) and people who never sell stuff in town due to either forgetting or being lazy. Not to mention even if you do hit the cap, you can turn around, go right back to CAMP (not even town), sell everything, and continue on, effortlessly and without limitation. Maybe you should think it through a little.

Modifié par Felfenix, 07 mars 2011 - 12:43 .

[randName]

Felfenix wrote...

As far as the whole "It needs a limit or it would be overwhelming and unmanageable!" argument goes, that's false. Many JRPGs don't have an inventory cap, and their inventory is ironically more manageable than DAO's mess of an inventory menu.

If I want realism, carrying 100 suits of armor like DAO isn't the answer. A system like Fallout's is better, but still not nearly far enough though. In Fallout you can still carry for more than is possible or reasonable.

If the consensus is there should be realism and/or inventory management, then we should probably only be allowed to carry about 2 weapons, maybe a shield too, and an actual backpack full of smaller items like maybe a dozen potions. Even carrying that much should be greatly encumbering, not just for realism's sake, but for forcing us to manage the pros and cons of everything we find worth carrying with us.

Though, if we're going to cast realism and inventory management aside, then any attempt at an inventory cap is just silly. If some people want to hoard, then let them hoard. The person who sells makes more gold and has to "sort" through less crap anyway, right? People who want to keep their inventories small can continue to do as they please even without a cap, and people who don't think sorting recycleables is fun don't have to worry about capping out.

I think it should be optional, or at least add in an option for more BG like invetories, with max volume and weight.

& I like a cap, since it forces me to pick and choose and not hoard, and if they remove the limitation I won't be forced to, so I won't (well I'd probably fix it with mods, but the opposite can be said about unlimited space). (and I would prefer a weight and volume cap any day) 

& agree that its not about avoiding cluttering, anyone that would argue that has kind of lost the debate.
& that the solution they have gone with in KOTOR to ME1/2 and DA:O and now DA2 with a cap is one of the worst design choices they have done.

Modifié par randName, 07 mars 2011 - 12:44 .

[Felfenix]

Wait, KOTOR had an inventory cap? I don't think I sold even one item in KOTOR, and I looted everything.

A trend that really annoys me in recent games is how just about everything I loot makes me go "Eh, more random crap to sell for the crap pile." instead of "Wow! I'm glad I went down this side path / brought a lockpick for this chest / killed this mob!"

Modifié par Felfenix, 07 mars 2011 - 12:47 .

[Nathan Redgrave]

Be glad it's not as draconian as Baldur's Gate, at least.

Honestly, Origins's inventory space never gave me any problems, but it did get a bit claustrophobic during especially long quests where stopping at a shop was a bit out-of-the-way. Thank God the Deep Roads were separated into sections, with no real penalty for stopping back at Orzammar before moving on to the next one.

[TheJist]

I never had to much trouble but I was glad for having the chest in the dlc sometimes I just gained to much stuff that i didn't want to throw away whether or not I would use it at all.

[demonic_cookie]

Of all my time playing DA I had perhaps two or three times I didn't have enough inventory space to accommodate the loot. It was mostly because I forgot to sell it all before I went into the dungeon, once in the Deep Roads. And even then I only had to delete a couple of frozen lightnings or deep mushrooms to make room. I honestly can't see how you'd run out of space in your pack as soon as Ostargar >_> Just dump it all on the quartermaster and the problem's solved.

Modifié par demonic_cookie, 07 mars 2011 - 12:51 .

[Xewaka]

Felfenix wrote...
Then the inventory limit fails to fulfill it's purpose. I can loot every item in the game. I just have to sell stuff sometimes. The only people the current system in DA limits are hoarders (who don't want to sell anything) and people who never sell stuff in town due to either forgetting or being lazy. Not to mention even if you do hit the cap, you can turn around, go right back to CAMP (not even town), sell everything, and continue on, effortlessly and without limitation. Maybe you should think it through a little.

I am taking into account the regular loot taken during game, and I'm assuming a player does sell during every visit to a hub/camp. I disagree on the backtracking though, as I think that the amount of real life time lost backtracking is not compensated by the amount of in-game coin won by selling.

[Felfenix]

Xewaka wrote...

Felfenix wrote...
Then the inventory limit fails to fulfill it's purpose. I can loot every item in the game. I just have to sell stuff sometimes. The only people the current system in DA limits are hoarders (who don't want to sell anything) and people who never sell stuff in town due to either forgetting or being lazy. Not to mention even if you do hit the cap, you can turn around, go right back to CAMP (not even town), sell everything, and continue on, effortlessly and without limitation. Maybe you should think it through a little.

I am taking into account the regular loot taken during game, and I'm assuming a player does sell during every visit to a hub/camp. I disagree on the backtracking though, as I think that the amount of real life time lost backtracking is not compensated by the amount of in-game coin won by selling.

I can loot every item, and I rarely NEED to sell when I visit camp or town. The only time inventory pushes the limit is the Deep Roads, and even that is avoidable. So... what does DAO's inventory system limit, exactly, other than useless hoarding? You seem to be under the impression that there is so much gold or time lost under the current system, and I can't help but laugh. Yes, the game would be broken indeed if I didn't have to talk to a shopkeeper everytime I was in camp or town.

Modifié par Felfenix, 07 mars 2011 - 01:10 .

[randName]

Felfenix wrote...

Wait, KOTOR had an inventory cap? I don't think I sold even one item in KOTOR, and I looted everything.

A trend that really annoys me in recent games is how just about everything I loot makes me go "Eh, more random crap to sell for the crap pile." instead of "Wow! I'm glad I went down this side path / brought a lockpick for this chest / killed this mob!"

could be selective memory, if so sorry about that, if so - I just remembered it going from the old style of BG to a list in KOTOR.

Modifié par randName, 07 mars 2011 - 01:14 .

[randName]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

Be glad it's not as draconian as Baldur's Gate, at least.

Honestly, Origins's inventory space never gave me any problems, but it did get a bit claustrophobic during especially long quests where stopping at a shop was a bit out-of-the-way. Thank God the Deep Roads were separated into sections, with no real penalty for stopping back at Orzammar before moving on to the next one.

& here I found BG to be too lax, esp. in BG2 with all the bags, and generally too kind weight limits.

[egervari]

Rixxencaxx wrote...

If you want only mindless hack n slash go Diablo or Titan quest. You have to admit that you don't like rpgs....play something else....
OH...WAIT even diablo and titan quest have inventory with limited space....<_<

Bringing up an example of a game that is also flawed doesn't prove your case. I would also argue that even in those games, unlimited space would not break it. Seriously, the cost of using a portal, identifying, selling, etc. is just a time sink - nothing more. Why is it so hard for people to see that?

[egervari]

LordPaul256 wrote...

I cannot honestly imagine a situation where you need to haul all this stuff from location to location. Or what this stuff even is. And the fact that you've seemingly been able to already mod it yourself to get 999 item slots makes me wonder why you're even complaining.

Is it the case that you will not be happy until everyone shares your point of view, or something?

What harm would it do if you did haul it all around? What I'm saying is that being forced to constantly sell between missions or being forced to actually drop stuff is actually much worse than having too much stuff.

[egervari]

Felfenix wrote...

elektrego wrote...

Hey ,they just could give us unlimited gold, or how about a magic loot machine at the Black Emporium, where you can pick up as much loot as you want and immidiately sell again. And while they are at it, how about unlimited health and stamina. This all would make the game so much easier. Impliment the killallhostiles script as a hotkey!

On a (more serious) side note:
The only time I ever had a problem with the inventory was rune crafting in Awakening, especially when you gave that talent to a party member and you had to leave the throne room every time you wanted to make a better rune.

How would it make the game any easier? WHAT about DA's inventory system do you feel promotes any kind of challenge, obstacle, or relevant gameplay element?

If the consensus is there should be realism and inventory management, then we should probably only be allowed to carry about 2 weapons, maybe a shield too, and an actual backpack full of smaller items like maybe a dozen potions. Even carrying that much should be greatly encumbering, not just for realism's sake, but for forcing us
to manage the pros and cons of everything we find worth carrying with us.

THAT would be a limiting system that required management and worked as a gameplay element. THEN you could compare it to gold and mana.

Exactly. But logic and reason are not going to work well with some people.

[egervari]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

egervari wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Because apparently, if not for the item limit, people would be wandering around with infinite number of blank vellum, random gems, darkspawn daggers, darkspawn shields, and lets not forget the mabari crunch.

Ask yourself if this *really* matters. It does not. 

This is one case where realism is actually the wrong game design decision. Constant item management = no fun.

It matters to me.

I'm all for miimalistic inventory and drops.

I'd give players as little incentive to pick up needles items as possible...by making  quite a few items literaly worthless and having a REALLY limited inventory.

3 weapons and 1 armor per party member.
I'd make pack rats suffer...SUFFER. It would be...glorious!

If you like realism, there should be an option for it - not a forced mechanic. This is absolutely NO DIFFERENT than a difficulty setting where the fights are a pushover or they are incredibly hard. There is no difference between these things at all.

Actually, there is a difference - at least a difficulty setting affects the choices you make. This doesn't even affect game balance at all. Think about it - you increase the inventory size and all it does is make it so you never waste time going through empty locations. That's it. How is this imbalanced or broken? "My god, we saved the player time! IMBA!"

Seriously, just increase the damn inventory size already.

Modifié par egervari, 07 mars 2011 - 06:31 .

[egervari]

Xewaka wrote...

egervari wrote...
I am THINKING - I am thinking if I sell all of this crap, I can get that awesome dagger a little earlier, or I might be able to get 1 more expensive item before I head off and do the final boss. That's what I'm thinking!
Frankly, I am shocked that more people are fighting in favour of how the current system works. This is astonishing to me.

Since you're thinking, have you thought that the inventory limitation is there precisely to avoid that you buy that awesome dagger a little earlier? As in, it is actually a mechanism to keep the player's purse (and thus gear progression) in check with his level?
Not that I wouldn't welcome more inventory space, but it is a point to consider.

It doesn't avoid it though - you can just circumvent it by going back to town. So what does it really accomplish other than waste player's time?

If the game actually prevented you from going back to town and forced you to make hard choices while in a dungeon, I would totally agree with you. But that's not the case at all. You have all the time in the world to get the advantage, so why are you forcing the player to mindlessly walk through empty locations for?

Obviously, the inventory/economy mechanics are flawed. If they were not flawed, the game wouldn't have an imbalanced choice. As I already explained, there is no pro/con between saving time in a game - the game does not care how long it took to do anything. So basically the player is presented with a choice - either get more gold by going back to town, or less gold by dropping items. This is a false-choice because one choice is ALWAYS superior to the other.

[egervari]

demonic_cookie wrote...

Of all my time playing DA I had perhaps two or three times I didn't have enough inventory space to accommodate the loot. It was mostly because I forgot to sell it all before I went into the dungeon, once in the Deep Roads. And even then I only had to delete a couple of frozen lightnings or deep mushrooms to make room. I honestly can't see how you'd run out of space in your pack as soon as Ostargar >_> Just dump it all on the quartermaster and the problem's solved.

That's 3 times you should never have been punlished for forgetting or for being lazy. Think about it - you are just wasting pointless time being forced to go back to town/camp. Imagine if you just didn't even have to think about it? The game would be more fluid and enjoyable instantly. I know because when I increase the inventory cap to 999, the game * is* infinitely more enjoyable.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I still think the inventory system is terrible. It was terrible in DAO and it's terrible in DA2. What it should be is individual inventories (not a shared party inventory) with individual weight restrictions in a manually sortable 2D grid.

As long as they're using this silly massless shared inventory, I'm inclined to agree with the OP that there shouldn't be an item limit. Though, the reason they have an item limit is a technical one. If your inventory got too large, it would badly slow down loading times.

[egervari]

Autolycus wrote...

egervari...

Look, as has been said, why don't you just admit you're lazy can can't be bothered? As for games being flawed, they are only flawed 'in your opinion'....you have already admitted all you want to do is pick up and play, hack, slash and kill stuff. Seriously, RPG games are really not for you.

Just give it up, accept that a lot of people do not agree with your 'opinion' and move on......jesus....

Stop right there. It is not "opinion" as you state it. There is a way to objectively create good game mechanics that present meaningful, non-trivial choices. I have studied game design. This is not a concept lost on game designers.

The problem is that sometimes mechanics get put into games over and over, and they just get copied - i.e. inventory space. It is one of those things that the designers probably never actually thought about.

The reason it's flawed, as I already explained quite logically, is that it presents a choice in which a player seeking the maximum advantage would always choose 1 option over the other. Whenever a game presents a choice where 1 option is always good and another option is always inferior - there is a game design problem - a flaw.

This is pretty objective.

I have discussed many ways to fix this flaw, one being to make it more like mass effect - being unable to sell your stuff while in a dungeon or on a mission of some kind. This would force the player to make actual decisions on what they want to keep and throw away. This is actually a decent game mechanic.

As it stands, it just a time sink.

Modifié par egervari, 07 mars 2011 - 06:38 .

[Lord_Saulot]

Felfenix wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

egervari wrote...
I am THINKING - I am thinking if I sell all of this crap, I can get that awesome dagger a little earlier, or I might be able to get 1 more expensive item before I head off and do the final boss. That's what I'm thinking!
Frankly, I am shocked that more people are fighting in favour of how the current system works. This is astonishing to me.

Since you're thinking, have you thought that the inventory limitation is there precisely to avoid that you buy that awesome dagger a little earlier? As in, it is actually a mechanism to keep the player's purse (and thus gear progression) in check with his level?
Not that I wouldn't welcome more inventory space, but it is a point to consider.

Then the inventory limit fails to fulfill it's purpose. I can loot every item in the game. I just have to sell stuff sometimes. The only people the current system in DA limits are hoarders (who don't want to sell anything) and people who never sell stuff in town due to either forgetting or being lazy. Not to mention even if you do hit the cap, you can turn around, go right back to CAMP (not even town), sell everything, and continue on, effortlessly and without limitation. Maybe you should think it through a little.

If you can do that, then do that.  It is called a trade off.

[egervari]

Lord_Saulot wrote...

If you can do that, then do that.  It is called a trade off.

It's not a trade off. Time should not be a factor in the trade off for a game that does not recognize time. If you got some bonus for completing the game faster, then maybe it would be worth it to leave the items on the ground and push forward - but no such incentive exists.

It is superior for the player to always sell their junk and make the maximum amount of money. Always.

[SnowHeart1]

egervari wrote...

Stop right there. It is not "opinion" as you state it.

Actually, yes, it is. You don't like it. Some people do. You don't think it's a good system. Other people do. That is pretty much the definition of opinion.

I have studied game design.

Really?  I wonder if the folks at Bioware have done this.  

It is one of those things that the designers probably never actually thought about.

And if they did, then their opinion doesn't match with your facts, right?

[egervari]

SnowHeart1 wrote...

egervari wrote...

Stop right there. It is not "opinion" as you state it.

Actually, yes, it is. You don't like it. Some people do. You don't think it's a good system. Other people do. That is pretty much the definition of opinion.

I have studied game design.

Really?  I wonder if the folks at Bioware have done this.  

It is one of those things that the designers probably never actually thought about.

And if they did, then their opinion doesn't match with your facts, right?

Everything here doesn't prove your case. Just because bioware makes many good decisions doesn't mean everything they made was correct. I am pointing out in logical, rational way on why this particular decision is flawed. Instead of actually putting forth an argument that factors in game design, you just state things that are either untrue or seeks to destory my character.

In a real-time strategt game, TIME is a factor to consider. In this game, it is not.

Even in diablo, time is a factor, since boss running and how fast you can do it factors in to how well you play the game. So inventory space, while a nussance, actually plays a slightly better role in that game. I still hate it mind you, an Titan Quest's inventory system was much better, but there is a slight reason for it.

I can't find any gameplay justifaction for it in this game.

Modifié par egervari, 07 mars 2011 - 06:47 .

[SnowHeart1]

egervari wrote...

Everything here doesn't prove your case. Just because bioware makes many good decisions doesn't mean everything they made was correct. I am pointing out in logical, rational way on why this particular decision is flawed. Instead of actually putting forth an argument that factors in game design, you just state things that are either untrue or seeks to destory my character.

   HAH! Now that's freakin' funny. I offer you the definition of an "opinion" then ask you a couple of questions, and you say I'm attacking your character? That's your "logical, rational way" of making an argument? Wow. Troll on fair lady, troll on.

Modifié par SnowHeart1, 07 mars 2011 - 06:48 .