173 réponses à ce sujet

[Lord_Saulot]

egervari wrote...

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.

Simply stating that time is not a factor does not make it so.  That is an opinion, and saying that you have studied game design does not add a fiat to your opinions.

[Thiefy]

i think as long as smaller items can be grouped together, like bombs, it's ok. i was one of those people that LOVED bombs and had a huge number of them with me at any time, so 120 max items would not be enough if i was carrying over 50+ of each different bomb type.

some people are just item wh*res and love to "collect" stuff. i am one of them. i like to stockpile stuff "just in case" and save items i think may be important later on, to prevent myself from having to backtrack.

[FieryDove]

Unlimited Backpack DLC...That I will purchase.

I am a packrat. sigh

[venusara]

In DO2 I believe all the unusable items will be sent automatically to 'junk' for you to sell next time you're at a merchant. That will at least be useful to the new player who is unsure of what to sell....I'll admit I like inventory management and never had a major problem with the space available in DA:O. I did have to destroy cheap items at times but it was way less annoying than the Fallout games IMO; I never felt like I was leaving behind something that could truly help me in the game.

[Scar_Theory]

I've never had a problem with inventory management as long as I didn't pick EVERYTHING up such as arrows, bolts, random bows that will at best fetch 50 silver max. Thing is, I actually got to buy everything I wanted through Origins and still have a couple hundred gold for Awakening. If you're good with inventory management, it's easy... if not it becomes a thing to complain of. Being a packrat never helped anyone.. watch Hoarders, lol.

[Redneck1st]

TJPags wrote...

Hoard what, exactly?  Gems?  Blank Vellum?  silk carpets?  silver chalices?  greater nature balms?

Honestly, when you pick up a weapon or a piece of armor, look at it.  Is it better than what you have?  Yes?  Then use it, and sell what you were using (or give it to another party member, but that's a limited option in DA2).  It's not better than what you have now?  Then sell it.

When you pick up a potion, ask yourself, do I use potions?  No?  Sell it.  Yes?  Keep it.  It's only 1 inventory slot for 99 of them.

Why is this such a problem? 

Not to mention the fact that for all those horders we will have a storage chest to store things in that we don't want to sell. Just check out my posting under the topic Blood Dragon Armor and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

[bill4747bill]

Should be toggles for inventory.

Have a toggle for unlimited space for one.

[Thiefy]

bill4747bill wrote...

Should be toggles for inventory.

Have a toggle for unlimited space for one.

why would anyone not have the max inventory on though?

[termokanden]

egervari wrote...

Sometimes you are in a mission and can't sell it. I.e. the current mission contains so much crap that nobody would have the space for all of it in a single playthrough. So, what are we supposed to do... trek 3 floors just to go back to town to sell all the junk off and walk 3 floors back to where we were? This is crazy and a total waste of human effort.

Giving the player more inventory space just minimizes wasteful time like this and lets the player actually have fun and *play* the game and not manage inventory.

I think the reason you need so much inventory space in DAO is mostly the fact that there are so many silly items that have no real impact on gameplay, but you need to carry them around to get enough gold to buy useful items later on.

Even most magic items in DAO are utterly useless because they are much worse than the items sold by merchants.

I never really thought having a limited inventory space in itself was the problem. That just forces you to check out your loot every now and then and sell things you don't want, which absolutely makes sense and doesn't annoy me. But there are too many trash items so you often get stuck far inside a dungeon and have to play the exciting minigame to find a delete the least valuable trash item.

If you left that part unchanged and just had unlimited inventory, I just know I'd end up having to look through thousands of items every time I opened my inventory. That's not much fun either.

Modifié par termokanden, 07 mars 2011 - 07:14 .

[egervari]

You are - you are implying that I am in some way stupid or not as intelligent as bioware, because they somehow must automatically be better than I am regardless of whatever arguments I put forth.

It was said that RPG games are not for me - but I'm playing them for 20 years.

Was Final Fantasy not an RPG? It was. It had at least 100 inventory slots, and you could put 99 of an item into each slot.

I think what a lot of people forget is that RPG - stands for Role Playing GAME. Games are meant to present players with meaningful, non-trivial choices to achieve some sort of victory or goal. When a game presents a choice that only has 1 good answer all the time, it is a flaw in the design of said game. It is a pretty simple concept to understand.

[Terrifyer]

It's called risk vs. reward. Moreover, you should only have had inventory issues in DA:O if you picked up every piece of junk you came across and didn't sell it. They gave you a base camp for a reason.

However, I will admit that the item database in DA:O was absurdly convoluted at times leading to problems like the OP. Having 50 variations of every armor type for every slot (Veridium, Iron, Ironsteel, Dragonbone, Chainsteel, as nauseum), 4-5 of each potion type, and 9,000 different random odds and ends just made the inventory system in DA:O outright asinine.

From what I can tell DA2 might as well have removed the inventory system altogether, so that should no longer be a problem.

[egervari]

Lord_Saulot wrote...

Simply stating that time is not a factor does not make it so.  That is an opinion, and saying that you have studied game design does not add a fiat to your opinions.

It does make it so. Tell me which part of the game factors in player time? In Starcraft, time is very important - it is critical. Hence "real-TIME strategy".

In this game, time is irrelevant. You can walk back and forth for hours on end... pause the game and take as much time as you want.

Timing is critical when it comes to tactics, but there is no penalty for taking multiple trips back to camp or town to sell off junk. No penalty at all.

In starcraft, the timing aspects is so important that it is always a factor.

Modifié par egervari, 07 mars 2011 - 07:18 .

[egervari]

Terrifyer wrote...

It's called risk vs. reward. Moreover, you should only have had inventory issues in DA:O if you picked up every piece of junk you came across and didn't sell it. They gave you a base camp for a reason.

However, I will admit that the item database in DA:O was absurdly convoluted at times leading to problems like the OP. Having 50 variations of every armor type for every slot (Veridium, Iron, Ironsteel, Dragonbone, Chainsteel, as nauseum), 4-5 of each potion type, and 9,000 different random odds and ends just made the inventory system in DA:O outright asinine.

From what I can tell DA2 might as well have removed the inventory system altogether, so that should no longer be a problem.

What is the risk in picking up a ton of junk and walking through a bunch of empty areas? There is no risk.

[Lycans Bane]

egervari wrote...

And I know this isn't a technical limitation at all. The storage chest technically holds a crapload of items, so there is no reason at all that your inventory couldn't just merge with the storage chest = make it simple.

The actual memory requirements to hold a list of 1000 items is basically negligible considering how complex the game is. We are talking about a extremely small fraction of the game's memory usage here.

There are data structures that you can use the express a constantly growing list of items too while making sure that the smallest amount of memory is used at any given time.

Even if you wanted it to be a finite amount, then 50 is too damn small. Just make it 500 or 1000. This is really peanuts. Computers can store millions or gazillions of items. What is 1000 items in 2011? It's nothing.

I doubt that there would be much held in the storage chest. And having loads in a chest can murder your frame rate. I tried it on Oblivion and the game was nigh on unplayable for five minutes after closing the chest.

[Lycans Bane]

I will agree that the way the inventory works with the limit. IMO it would be better if (a) the limit was calculated through equations and ( your companions could contribute with the inventory.

[egervari]

Lycans Bane wrote...

egervari wrote...

And I know this isn't a technical limitation at all. The storage chest technically holds a crapload of items, so there is no reason at all that your inventory couldn't just merge with the storage chest = make it simple.

The actual memory requirements to hold a list of 1000 items is basically negligible considering how complex the game is. We are talking about a extremely small fraction of the game's memory usage here.

There are data structures that you can use the express a constantly growing list of items too while making sure that the smallest amount of memory is used at any given time.

Even if you wanted it to be a finite amount, then 50 is too damn small. Just make it 500 or 1000. This is really peanuts. Computers can store millions or gazillions of items. What is 1000 items in 2011? It's nothing.

I doubt that there would be much held in the storage chest. And having loads in a chest can murder your frame rate. I tried it on Oblivion and the game was nigh on unplayable for five minutes after closing the chest.

Oblivion had many bugs, slow downs and crashes. It does not serve as a great example. The actual inventory size probably didn't cause this. If you wrote a program to store/retrieve inventory only, you would see that it would be very memory efficient and quite fast if it only had to support about 1000 items. Item retrieve should take 5-15 milliseconds tops.

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

[egervari]

Autolycus wrote...

egervari...

seriously....you 'really' want me to answer your question? Hmmm...ok, go on then, I'll bite.

Have you actually 'designed' a game, that has been published? I think perhaps not, therefore you have no more 'knowledge' of designing games than I or anyone else here has.

So yes, Bioware are more intelligent.

There we go with the personal attacks. Instead of actually debating things logically, it's always back to personal attacks.

How does one gain knowledge in the first place? By using logic. I am presenting my case logically. You are taking Bioware's decision based on faith, without really giving a case as to *why* they are right.

If you ask me, I am approaching this intelligently.

Modifié par egervari, 07 mars 2011 - 07:33 .

[RainyDayLover]

Are you guys sh!tting me? So they finally leave in a RPG feature from the first game and people still complain.. :|

[TJSolo]

Sorry, I have played Titan Quest where space management was literally a puzzle and where buying and selling excess loot frequently felt like a mini-merchant quest. So another RPG that implements limitations on how much a player can schlep around is not going to make me wince.

[SnowHeart1]

egervari wrote...

You are - you are implying that I am in some way stupid or not as intelligent as bioware, because they somehow must automatically be better than I am regardless of whatever arguments I put forth.

It was said that RPG games are not for me - but I'm playing them for 20 years.

Was Final Fantasy not an RPG? It was. It had at least 100 inventory slots, and you could put 99 of an item into each slot.

I think what a lot of people forget is that RPG - stands for Role Playing GAME. Games are meant to present players with meaningful, non-trivial choices to achieve some sort of victory or goal. When a game presents a choice that only has 1 good answer all the time, it is a flaw in the design of said game. It is a pretty simple concept to understand.

I assume this was directed at me? Regarding my bafflement that you had jumped to a conclusion that I was impugning your "character"? A person's intelligence has little bearing on the qualities of her character or integrity and, regardless, I made no comment about your intelligence whatsoever. (E: I've known some relatively not-too-bright people who had sterling characters, and a lot of very intelligent people who were weak and corrupt.)

That said, you apparently do not understand the difference between opinion and fact. You have an opinion that you have articulated and argued. However rational or well-reasoned you think your opinion is, it remains your opinion. It does not magically become fact. It may even be an "expert opinion", but it remains an opinion. So, yes, I guess by trying to explain to you that you don't understand the difference between the two your intelligence may implicitly be called into question, but that wasn't my intent or my point -- you're the one who went there.

And, for the record, I actually do see some merit behind your opinion. I just think you've articulated in an absolutely atrocious, high-handed and egotistical fashion.

Modifié par SnowHeart1, 07 mars 2011 - 07:40 .

[Lycans Bane]

egervari wrote...

Lycans Bane wrote...

egervari wrote...

And I know this isn't a technical limitation at all. The storage chest technically holds a crapload of items, so there is no reason at all that your inventory couldn't just merge with the storage chest = make it simple.

The actual memory requirements to hold a list of 1000 items is basically negligible considering how complex the game is. We are talking about a extremely small fraction of the game's memory usage here.

There are data structures that you can use the express a constantly growing list of items too while making sure that the smallest amount of memory is used at any given time.

Even if you wanted it to be a finite amount, then 50 is too damn small. Just make it 500 or 1000. This is really peanuts. Computers can store millions or gazillions of items. What is 1000 items in 2011? It's nothing.

I doubt that there would be much held in the storage chest. And having loads in a chest can murder your frame rate. I tried it on Oblivion and the game was nigh on unplayable for five minutes after closing the chest.

Oblivion had many bugs, slow downs and crashes. It does not serve as a great example. The actual inventory size probably didn't cause this. If you wrote a program to store/retrieve inventory only, you would see that it would be very memory efficient and quite fast if it only had to support about 1000 items. Item retrieve should take 5-15 milliseconds tops.

True, Oblivion wasn't the best example, but it was the best I had at the time. In terms of a dedicated program for the inventory yes it would be efficient, but difficult to incorporate into the game, with all the background processes and all. Not to mention the addition of necessary scripts to form a causeway for the program to work in game.