105 réponses à ce sujet

[Helena Tylena]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

"Junk" is a name that has an advantage of "this item can safely be sold because it's principle purpose is simply to be sold."

Although I can agree that that may not be the best way of doing things. There's been discussions over whether or not we should just give the copper equivalents straight up, but it starts to make less sense with creatures and frankly I get the impression that some would be disappointed if the game didn't contain inventory that existed for little other reason than to be sold. The idea of looting creatures and bringing back the haul is fun for them.

Terminology could be improved, however.

I think renaming it to 'other' could go a long way. It would also allow for items that don't fit any other categories, but could be given to, say, a blacksmith to forge into armour.

[Zelto]

Never really found DA:O annoying with the junk loot, but in DA2 it was just pointless, why have junk loot that just disappears into a junk tab. If thats the plan then better just have cash.

However DA2s weapon and armour was just really really annoying compared to how good DA:O's was. I liked the tired items. I liked that each armour class had a few different choices but in DA2 I had no idea what anything was and normally had to just go by the star rating (which didnt seem to have much logic some of the time). One of the biggest problems I had with DA2!

So please don't try and make it simple, if you are donig that they might as well have the armours just level up with the character and have no loot at all.

[Mike_Neel]

on topic of loot can we talk about fed ex quests? In DA2 it was a little weird to find something in a cave and know instantly that someone else was looking for it and where they are to return it. I'd rather have fed ex quests done a little more logically, like through a chanters board. It was hardly used in DAII, and then it was just for Sebastians DLC. Bring the Chanter Board back for the short skippable quests that aren't necessary to plot but make for some XP and lose change rewards.

[deuce985]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

"Junk" is a name that has an advantage of "this item can safely be sold because it's principle purpose is simply to be sold."

Although I can agree that that may not be the best way of doing things. There's been discussions over whether or not we should just give the copper equivalents straight up, but it starts to make less sense with creatures and frankly I get the impression that some would be disappointed if the game didn't contain inventory that existed for little other reason than to be sold. The idea of looting creatures and bringing back the haul is fun for them.

Terminology could be improved, however.

To be honest with you, I'd like to see "Junk" items removed from the game completely. I've never understood these items in RPGs. When I'm running around exploring I like to be rewarded. Going into a treasure pile only to find old socks that sell for 3c is a huge downer for me. If I know everything in the environment rewards me in some way - like all items are used in crafting recipes - then I'll explore the world more. It's just more incentive for me to run off the beaten path and gives you that sense of accomplishment/award. When I find useless treasure it makes me feel like the devs don't want me hitting the optional exploration paths.

Have you ever played Fable 2? That's exactly what not to do when making a game. You gain ZERO reward for exploring the world. 95% of treasure chests in that game contain loot that's useless(and no, I'm no exaggerating). It's either a small amount of currency that practically does nothing for you(like 3g ) or a trinket to make people happy. The only problem is the trinket system in that makes no sense. You give people trinkets to make them favor you but you gain no reward. They just give you another trinket to give other people. It's silly.  The only time you were rewarded in that entire game is at the end when you can get a couple legendary weapons. That's it.

This is how I felt exploring Fable 2:

@OP, I agree on some of your points. I wouldn't mind seeing more icons. However, I do like the Junk tab. As I said above, I see no point why "Junk" loot like that is even in games. It serves no purpose if you can't at least gain currency from it. In DA2's case, junk sells for so little, it's practically pointless to loot it. Another problem I have with this, I can't leave that junk loot sitting in the barrels. I can't stand going into environments without exploring every corner. If I leave barrels with crap loot inside them, when I backtrack, I'll open them again. That's kinda annoying for me because I forget where I leave loot. So, I either have the option to loot it and watch it eat my inventory space up or just leave it there and see nice sparkling treasure glowing the next time I come back...

Both are extremely annoying for me. At least with the junk tab in DA2 I could immediately sell everything off. I hate sifting through my inventory just to drop/sell a bunch of pointless inventory. Labeling weapons/armor I don't want as junk is also another great way for me to immediately sell everything I want without constant inventory management. I don't mind inventory management but only when it benefits me and the companions. I feel junk loot serves no purpose other than to be a debbie downer. Raise the amount of currency they give, take no inventory space up, or get rid of junk loot completely and make everything in the game have a use...

Modifié par deuce985, 24 novembre 2012 - 07:14 .

[Auintus]

FF12 called it "loot" had it's own category and only very specific(and obvious) items could be used. The rest were vendor trash. It worked.

[Imp of the Perverse]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Has no one else ever felt the joy of holding a pair of Torn Trousers? Or an Empty Stained Bottle?

Skyrim is full of junk items and that's considered a major appeal by its numerous fans.

Skyrim's junk had physical models you could look at that added a great level of detail to the environments. It was also so ubiquitous that it was pretty clear it was meant as a decoration that you could optionally interact with, rather than a limited resource you were obligated to scavenge. All those little trinkets were also great for giving modders things to expand on.

In DA2 it always felt weird taking the time to scrounge a pair of torn trousers from a barrel while frantically rushing to stop the Qunari from invading the viscount's keep, yet it was pretty clear that's what you were meant to do, since passing up any loot meant sacrificing precious resources.

I don't think DA3 needs to go to the same lengths that Skyrim did. DA3 won't allow modding, and it isn't a first person game so I already feel a little detached from the environment. I'm playing it more for the story and characters than for an intricately simulated gameworld. I'd prefer to see that sort of junk taken out entirely, or maybe just listed as flavor text when you look inside a barrel, but don't bother letting the character scavenge it. It just complicates inventory management, and makes the protagonist come across as a scavenging hobo rather than the important world figure they're usually meant to be. Let the protagonist make his coin some other way, maybe by managing a forge or smithy for providing equipment to whatever factions he's supporting in the war, and save the looting for precious stuff like rings of power or starmetal (I loved that part.)

Modifié par Imp of the Perverse, 24 novembre 2012 - 09:18 .

[Sanunes]

I don't mind an inventory, but at the same time I really disliked the inventory system from both Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age 2, for it seems like I was always picking up items with next to no value and wasting inventory space with that. If items I picked up had a reasonable value I would probably feel differently, but the junk items or even the vendor items really didn't impact my wallet that much if I decided to pick them up or not. Most of the time I picked them up only to clear the "loot this item" sparkle.

If my input means anything, I would just like to have less items that are just for a vendor and improve the value of the ones that remain while replacing some with coin as well. So in a dungeon there might be a dozen items to vendor, but everything else is coin based or consumables.

One thing that I would like to mention is I enjoyed the Mass Effect 2/3 inventory system and replacing a generic box to drop items into with a closet that manages to use a system like that might be a good way to manage inventory and storage as well. For I am the type of person that will look at my character and wonder why I am carrying ten or more pieces of heavy armor.

Modifié par Sanunes, 25 novembre 2012 - 05:11 .

[StarcloudSWG]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

"Junk" is a name that has an advantage of "this item can safely be sold because it's principle purpose is simply to be sold."

Although I can agree that that may not be the best way of doing things. There's been discussions over whether or not we should just give the copper equivalents straight up, but it starts to make less sense with creatures and frankly I get the impression that some would be disappointed if the game didn't contain inventory that existed for little other reason than to be sold. The idea of looting creatures and bringing back the haul is fun for them.

Terminology could be improved, however.

You could also minimize the need for looting and thus for 'junk' items that are sellable simply by, gasp, giving the character an in-game salary or, double gasp, letter of credit from the Chantry, so that would leave most loot from creatures/animals to be things that can be sold for a reason. Like feathers from avians, they have a use in fletching and tailoring, as one example. Resources that it would be reasonable for a wanderer to pick up.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 25 novembre 2012 - 06:03 .

[upsettingshorts]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

You could also minimize the need for looting and thus for 'junk' items that are sellable simply by, gasp, giving the character an in-game salary or, double gasp, letter of credit from the Chantry.

You know how many people, gasp, like loot management in RPGs or you know, double gasp, would compare doing what you suggest to throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

[JimboGee]

Which would make more sense considering I'm playing as the inquisitor. Not Johnny Hobo who is on an adventure to root though bins to find moth eaten underpants.

[In Exile]

Nothing makes me feel less like a hero than rummaging through garbage and robbing the dead, staple of the RPG genre those these things be. I much prefer looting to be based around components, with vendors replaced by craftsmen (and if we explore/loot properly, we can craft cool and unique weapons/armour like Vigilance).

Modifié par In Exile, 25 novembre 2012 - 06:05 .

[jackkel dragon]

I have mixed feelings about vendor trash. On the one hand, I hated how the Dragon Age games have treated trash items, since it's a drain on inventory space for very little reward (but since everything adds up you still need to do it to get rich). However, the player needs to be given money somehow, and having every enemy drop coins whether or not that makes sense isn't really the answer.

This is just me shooting out ideas, but I can think of three different ways to improve vendor trash:

1 - Remove vendor trash and increase quest/mission rewards. This removes the whole idea of looting corpses like a vulture completely. Special items could still be dropped, of course, but not inventory cloggers.

2 - Reduce drain of vendor trash on inventory and make it more useful, in either money recieved or other uses or both. I'm sure some items that could be sold for coin or used to craft other items might make for some interesting gameplay choices.

3 - Have vendor trash appear in containers and on corpses, but automatically convert it into money when picked up. I'm sure some might dislike that the game automatically assumes the PC sells the items magically for immersion reasons, but it keeps the idea of collecting and selling loot without forcing the player to find a store and click "sell trash",

As for the original topic of inventory icons... I believe I side with the OP. I liked DA2 for many things, but the generic equipment and loot icons are not those things. It's resources that have to be put into icon artists rather than other aspects of the game, but well-done icons sure are worth it.

[StarcloudSWG]

Right. You're playing, in DA 3, an Inquisitor, a Seeker. Someone with the backing of the Chantry, in authority and in finances. You shouldn't need to pick up 'torn trousers' or 'broken bottles' or 'moth-eaten shirt'.

In DA 2, I really enjoyed the fact that things that literally had no use didn't impact the inventory at all. The one disappointment I had was the quest book from Feynriel's storyarc, that was just junk and wasn't meant to be read or stored. I've accidentally sold it off a couple times when I meant to keep it as a souvenier.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 25 novembre 2012 - 06:19 .

[jackkel dragon]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

Right. You're playing, in DA 3, an Inquisitor, a Seeker. Someone with the backing of the Chantry, in authority and in finances. You shouldn't need to pick up 'torn trousers' or 'broken bottles' or 'moth-eaten shirt'.

Source?

[StarcloudSWG]

No source, but it's a pretty damn strong impression I'm getting from the background material, what has been released about the game so far, and the in-game description of the Seekers in DA 2.

[In Exile]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

No source, but it's a pretty damn strong impression I'm getting from the background material, what has been released about the game so far, and the in-game description of the Seekers in DA 2.

I'm pretty sure that DG said, on record, you don't have to work with/for the Chantry (or something to that effect), so I think Inquisition is more a description of the setting than the PC.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

"Junk" is a name that has an advantage of "this item can safely be sold because it's principle purpose is simply to be sold."

Although I can agree that that may not be the best way of doing things. There's been discussions over whether or not we should just give the copper equivalents straight up, but it starts to make less sense with creatures and frankly I get the impression that some would be disappointed if the game didn't contain inventory that existed for little other reason than to be sold. The idea of looting creatures and bringing back the haul is fun for them.

Terminology could be improved, however.

The auto-sorting should be optional (or removed).  I do not want meta-game instruction as to what function a given item has.

Let the player discover whether an item has plot relevance.

[Sylvius the Mad]

LPPrince wrote...

Though definitely keep the junk tab,
players love using it to place items they plan to sell in one location
for easy merchandising.

I have no objection to the junk tab, as long as nothing is placed there automatically.

LPPrince wrote...

Honestly, I'd prefer no junk items. No items that exist "purely to be sold".

Every item you don't need exists "purely to be sold" in that playthrough.  Some items are never needed on any playthrough, but if BioWare stops telling us in advance what items have a use then the players will stop seeing these items as junk, and instead see them all as potentially useful.

Skyrim does this expertly.  Every Iron Sword you find in the game is effectively useless.  But they do have a plausible function.  The vast majority of the items in the game you don't need, but enough of them can be used that all of them look like things that could plausibly have a use (even if you never find out what that use is).

I strongly oppose the approach of treating loot as a game system.  Loot is a world system - it needs to make sense in the world before we worry at all about how it affects the game.

[Shazzie]

I like the 'junk'/vendor item tab, but nothing should ever go there automatically. Let me send stuff there so I can quickly and easily sell them when I reach a merchant, but nothing should go there by default. Especially not quest rewards, even if  they are useless. I am still massively irritated by the priceless, precious book given to me by the Keeper after Feynriel's quest that went straight to my junk tab. Gee, thanks for rewarding me with priceless, precious junk!!

I would like to see the return of flavor text/descriptions. In games (DA:O and many others) I kept/stored items just because of their flavor text, not because I thought they would magically be useful, not because I would ever or could ever use it at all, but because the text struck a chord with me or with my character that meant that she would never sell it.

If you're worried that players would constantly be asking 'will I ever need this?': well, that was happening even on items that automatically went to DA2's junk tab, so even that wasn't a remedy. Use the flavor text section to designate if something has no use (but find some other term than 'junk', please) and/or color the background/border of items that have no in-game use a specific color.

If there is crafting, being able to break at least some items down into components could also be a fantastic idea. Even if you got a truly pitiful amount of components out of 'torn trousers', and even if selling the item would get you more money than the value of the component you got from breaking it down, those 'torn trousers' still have more use than just being vendor fodder.

Modifié par Shazzie, 25 novembre 2012 - 07:30 .

[Allan Schumacher]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

You could also minimize the need for looting and thus for 'junk' items that are sellable simply by, gasp, giving the character an in-game salary or, double gasp, letter of credit from the Chantry, so that would leave most loot from creatures/animals to be things that can be sold for a reason. Like feathers from avians, they have a use in fletching and tailoring, as one example. Resources that it would be reasonable for a wanderer to pick up.

The attitude isn't necessary.  You take what are perfectly reasonable suggestions and undermine them with your apparent lack of breath.

[Maria Caliban]

I'd like to see a loot/money system like in Assassins Creed II.

The only things you loot from enemies is coin and consumables (daggers, bullets, poisons) though you can carry one of their weapons at a time. Making money isn't about digging through pockets, but investing in your villa.

If they wanted to control the economy, instead of having your income increase real time (you'd make X amount of coin per 30 minutes), they could have it based on quest completion.

[CrystaJ]

Less raven's feathers, moth-eaten scarves and torn trousers in general plz.

I know some people might miss them but...

[nightscrawl]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I strongly oppose the approach of treating loot as a game system.  Loot is a world system - it needs to make sense in the world before we worry at all about how it affects the game.

If by this you mean that loot placement makes sense: animals have meat, hide, claws, fangs, sinew; humanoids have junky or high quality weapons and armor; and not something weird like a fire demon dropping a nice belt, or random chests scattered around for no reason, then I completely agree.

I also do not accept the argument for random chests in caves and such that it encourages exploration. I tend to think that players who are willing to explore need no encouragement, whereas players who do NOT want to explore will be annoyed if they are forced to in order to gain more money/exp or higher quality loot. -- Please keep in mind that here I am only referring to physical loot items being scattered about, and not hidden quests and NPCs.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

StarcloudSWG wrote...

You could also minimize the need for looting and thus for 'junk' items that are sellable simply by, gasp, giving the character an in-game salary or, double gasp, letter of credit from the Chantry, so that would leave most loot from creatures/animals to be things that can be sold for a reason. Like feathers from avians, they have a use in fletching and tailoring, as one example. Resources that it would be reasonable for a wanderer to pick up.

The attitude isn't necessary.  You take what are perfectly reasonable suggestions and undermine them with your apparent lack of breath.

This is a pretty interesting idea though! However, I think this idea assumes a great deal about what we will be doing in DA3 that hasn't been confirmed yet. But, if we are going to be getting a castle, it would be interesting if we could make some money with that, like a proper lord.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 25 novembre 2012 - 10:02 .

[Helena Tylena]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I'd like to see a loot/money system like in Assassins Creed II.

The only things you loot from enemies is coin and consumables (daggers, bullets, poisons) though you can carry one of their weapons at a time. Making money isn't about digging through pockets, but investing in your villa.

If they wanted to control the economy, instead of having your income increase real time (you'd make X amount of coin per 30 minutes), they could have it based on quest completion.

I like this. This would've made a hell of a lot more sense in DA2. You have an estate, so reason follows you should make money off that estate, right? Nope.