76 réponses à ce sujet

[Yggdrasil]

Games are played for fun.  They aren't reality simulators.  Things like requiring you to eat and sleep never add to gameplay in my opinion; they just become another tedious mechanic.  Immersion and realism have to be balanced by what adds or detracts to the enjoyment of the game, and I personally have enough tedium in my real life.  As I said before, any game that doesn't limit you to what you can equip is not a realistic depiction of inventory management, end of story.  Item looting is an integral part of most RPG's, and I want it to continue to be part of the Dragon Age series.  You could make a successful game that didn't include copious item acquisition, but that doesn't mean it has to be applied to every game.  Fiddling around with inventory is one of my great pleasures in RPG's, and I don't see any reason to complicate it over some vague notion of realism.

[UniformGreyColor]

Games are played for fun.  They aren't reality simulators.  Things like requiring you to eat and sleep never add to gameplay in my opinion; they just become another tedious mechanic.  

 

There was a whole slew of mods for Skyrim that had to do with realism and survival and they were a huge hit. I did a very fast google search and came up with this.

 

 

Immersion and realism have to be balanced by what adds or detracts to the enjoyment of the game, and I personally have enough tedium in my real life.  As I said before, any game that doesn't limit you to what you can equip is not a realistic depiction of inventory management, end of story.

 

 

I was never making that argument, however, if one is to think about "class" in the form of "profession", it only makes sense that a "warrior" would wear stronger armor than a "mage". I am not trying to say the game needs to be a real life simulator - obviously mages and the like are fantasy. I would like my game to at least makes some sense when it came to things that are explained or not explained. What explanation is there for a party of 4 to communally share a pool of resources that could add up to thousands of pounds of inventory? The fantasy part of it is that there are mages and rogues and warriors who have to battle against foes and get stronger as they gain experience. That at least makes more sense than carrying 5 mauls in a party of 4. Set aside the point that companions just magically end up with a new set of skills that are specializations and I think you prolly get my point.

 

 

Item looting is an integral part of most RPG's, and I want it to continue to be part of the Dragon Age series.  You could make a successful game that didn't include copious item acquisition, but that doesn't mean it has to be applied to every game.  Fiddling around with inventory is one of my great pleasures in RPG's, and I don't see any reason to complicate it over some vague notion of realism.

 

 

I'm not trying to complicate anything. I'm just saying what actually makes sense to me. I'm not asking my suggestions to be applied to every game, but I would like the next DA game to be more focused on, and this is key, realism that makes sense. Fantasy that makes sense should also be a priority. You don't see Cassandra all the sudden becoming a Grey Warden halfway through the main quest and abandoning the Inquisition during a time when a blight is far off because it would not make any sense for that to happen. There is a line that an NPC speaks in TW3 that goes something like "You'll choke on 3 lbs of steel". Swords during that time in history actually weighed pretty close to 3 lbs -- how exactly was that char supposed to speak that line if a sword in the game actually weighed 1 unit of weight?

[Yggdrasil]

I dunno, I'm not really trying to say that you're wrong.  Opinions are opinions.  I just don't see realism as an end unto itself in a video game.  Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation said it better than I ever could in his review of Fable II:

 

"You know how in The Sims you can get a job as a mailroom clerk? You remember how you had to go into the office every single in-game day and play a little minigame where you fling envelopes into pigeon holes? Of course not, because it would have been really f***ing boring! Yes, all right, Peter, it's more realistic than dead monsters dropping pocket change. But you know what else is realistic? Working a desk job for fifty years in a cloying mire of tedium and self-hatred before dying..."

[Abyss108]

Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether you're using inventory weight, item count, or spacial arrangement as a limiting factor, the entire point is to force the player to engage in loot triage. It determines how long an adventure can be before the inevitable return to base and it controls how much wealth a character can earn.

 

It doesn't determine how much wealth you can earn, which would be a perfectly valid thing to do, it just forces me to walk back to a village every 10 minutes or have a worse off character.

 

You are thinking about this wrong. What if there was a way to make a game where you did not have to loot everything under the sun? What if you just kept what you could use? I get that you have to generate revenue some way, but that is another thing that would have many solutions other than having to pick up everything that you find and selling it for a low price. What if you found low weight items that you didn't find very often, but could sell at a high price ie gems, diamonds, rare stone, jewelery and other things you found on corpses. You could even find paper money and bills [shock] and find more coins that could very well substitute for collecting all the armor you won't ever use.

 

Sure, nothing against removing the current loot system in favour of a different way to earn revenue, but that's not what the topic asked.

 

Would you still loot everything, then?

I wouldn't. As evidence, I point to Skyrim, where early in the game I would loot only items that had a value:weight ratio of 10 or higher, and then once I'd made it to the first town I'd loot only things I could actually use (mostly crafting supplies).

Enemies should drop as loot literally everything they're carrying. And we should leave the vast majority of it there.

 

I would loot everything. Otherwise I'm stuck knowing I'm not playing the game optimally. Skyrim is a different sort of game anyway. All those small worthless items are there because the game is trying to simulate everything and have the entire world be interactable. Dragon Age doesn't do that.

[UniformGreyColor]

I dunno, I'm not really trying to say that you're wrong.  Opinions are opinions.  I just don't see realism as an end unto itself in a video game.  Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation said it better than I ever could in his review of Fable II:

 

"You know how in The Sims you can get a job as a mailroom clerk? You remember how you had to go into the office every single in-game day and play a little minigame where you fling envelopes into pigeon holes? Of course not, because it would have been really f***ing boring! Yes, all right, Peter, it's more realistic than dead monsters dropping pocket change. But you know what else is realistic? Working a desk job for fifty years in a cloying mire of tedium and self-hatred before dying..."

 

The Sims is almost by definition a busy work game with almost no outlet for artistic creativity. It is a game for people who desire to do something that lets them play but not imagine. Even Pokemon has a more captivating story and more interesting mechanics than The Sims. The Sims is a game for people who all they are looking for in a game is to micromanage; there is nothing in it that captures your heart and pull on your heartstrings.

 

Sure, nothing against removing the current loot system in favour of a different way to earn revenue, but that's not what the topic asked.

 

We are not dealing within a vacuum; they are interrelated. A dev team does not make a game only considering one aspect at a time. Even computers are not so linear. A processor now days has multiple cores and multiple threads within each core. The workload of the CPU is almost never even steven across all cores. Its just not how it works.

[Yggdrasil]

Actually, Yahtzee is talking about Fable II, a fantasy RPG, with an illustrative reference to The Sims.  His point is that realism doesn't automatically make a game better or more enjoyable.

[AlanC9]

I would loot everything. Otherwise I'm stuck knowing I'm not playing the game optimally.

Wouldn't "playing the game optimally" mean playing the game in the way that's the most fun?

[UniformGreyColor]

Actually, Yahtzee is talking about Fable II, a fantasy RPG, with an illustrative reference to The Sims.  His point is that realism doesn't automatically make a game better or more enjoyable.

 

I would have never known that unless I was to view where it was written in entirety. I don't see where in the quote you posted how it ties into Fable II.

[Abyss108]

 

We are not dealing within a vacuum; they are interrelated. A dev team does not make a game only considering one aspect at a time. Even computers are not so linear. A processor now days has multiple cores and multiple threads within each core. The workload of the CPU is almost never even steven across all cores. Its just not how it works.

 

I answered the question the topic asked which was "should the inventory be based off weight instead of number of items", not " should the entire looting system be redesigned from the ground up, possibly in a way that doesn't even include looting anyway, part of which would have weight taken into account". 

 

That's like asking if a line a dialogue should have been different, but failing to mention the rest of the conversation has been rewritten to be something different.

 

And why are you lecturing me about how a computer works? Not only is that completely unrelated, but you are talking to a Software Engineer who does that stuff for a living. 

 

Wouldn't "playing the game optimally" mean playing the game in the way that's the most fun?

 

No, that would make too much sense. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I would loot everything. Otherwise I'm stuck knowing I'm not playing the game optimally.

Apparently your optimal calculation doesn't factor in your enjoyment.

Skyrim is a different sort of game anyway. All those small worthless items are there because the game is trying to simulate everything and have the entire world be interactable. Dragon Age doesn't do that.

All RPGs should, though. RPGs should be simulators, not stories or games.

And I'm not just talking about worthless items. I'm talking about most weapons or armour.

And frankly, the very concept of playing optimally as you describe is why I think every game should give us access to the dev console. If you want to gove yourself extra money or killallhostiles, you can do that. And if you don't, that's a choice. Because that's always what this is. If you choose to loot everything and trudge back to town after every encounter, you're doing that because you want to.

The dev console would just make that choice explicit.

[Abyss108]

Apparently your optimal calculation doesn't factor in your enjoyment.
All RPGs should, though. RPGs should be simulators, not stories or games.

And I'm not just talking about worthless items. I'm talking about most weapons or armour.

And frankly, the very concept of playing optimally as you describe is why I think every game should give us access to the dev console. If you want to gove yourself extra money or killallhostiles, you can do that. And if you don't, that's a choice. Because that's always what this is. If you choose to loot everything and trudge back to town after every encounter, you're doing that because you want to.

The dev console would just make that choice explicit.

 

I don't like simulations. I do like RPGs. This doesn't work for me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't like simulations. I do like RPGs. This doesn't work for me.

I think all RPGs are simulators, by definition. They simulate the world's reaction to your roleplaying. A more interactive and internally consistent world helps with that.

[Abyss108]

I think all RPGs are simulators, by definition. They simulate the world's reaction to your roleplaying. A more interactive and internally consistent world helps with that.

 

Except there's a obvious limit to that. Do you really want the game to simulate your character needing to sleep for 8 hours game time after every 16 hours of play? Do you want the maps to be actual size and for you to have to walk for several hours to get back to town? Extreme examples, but there is a limit to how much you want the game to simulate. I don't want it to simulate me being able to carry every item in existance. That doesn't make the world more consistent, it just makes me wonder why nobody is questioning me about why I have a thousand spoons in my backpack.

[UniformGreyColor]

I answered the question the topic asked which was "should the inventory be based off weight instead of number of items", not " should the entire looting system be redesigned from the ground up, possibly in a way that doesn't even include looting anyway, part of which would have weight taken into account". 

 

That's like asking if a line a dialogue should have been different, but failing to mention the rest of the conversation has been rewritten to be something different.

 

I referenced what changes I would make to a weight system in posts #9 and #11. I thought those posts would be taken into consideration.

 

And why are you lecturing me about how a computer works? Not only is that completely unrelated, but you are talking to a Software Engineer who does that stuff for a living. 

 

The actual talking about CPUs wasn't the point; it was an analogy. I was saying that the conversation had evolved from the OP to include new info and that there is a similar process that a CPU uses when it is processing information in comparing that to how a dev team works. I was saying the Devs work on a lot of things at the same time and that some things are weighted (no pun intended) differently given the state of the games development.

 

No, that would make too much sense. 

 

If such a game was made playing optimally would change drastically. It would not be optimal to collect everything and go back to camp and sell those things and then go back to where you came from. Simply, it would be a waste of time.

[UniformGreyColor]

I think all RPGs are simulators, by definition. They simulate the world's reaction to your roleplaying. A more interactive and internally consistent world helps with that.

 

You are saying the rules that govern the game must be the same throughout for the creative process of roleplaying to be valid.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Except there's a obvious limit to that. Do you really want the game to simulate your character needing to sleep for 8 hours game time after every 16 hours of play?

My character isn't aware of that time, ao it could be skipped without incident.

After all, do you know that the time that passes when you are asleep actually occurred? Or did the universe just skip ahead? What would be the difference?

Do you want the maps to be actual size and for you to have to walk for several hours to get back to town?

Much bigger maps would be cool, but I see where you're going.

Documented abstractions don't break the simulation as long as they're applied consistently. Or, in some cases, maybe they're not abstractions. Maybe that's just how the world works. Like hit points. Are those an abstraction?

How about dialogue? It could be. Keyword systems like Morrowind or Ultima IV seem to have been abstractions. The actual in-game content remained hidden from us, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there.

Extreme examples, but there is a limit to how much you want the game to simulate. I don't want it to simulate me being able to carry every item in existance. That doesn't make the world more consistent, it just makes me wonder why nobody is questioning me about why I have a thousand spoons in my backpack.

I'd like those spoons to have both weight and volume. I'd like the game to unpause when you open your inventory so you can't browse casually during combat (BG did this - BG2 got rid of it). I'd
Iike heavy armour to make swimming impossible. I'd like a pack animal, or even a wagon to carry my supplies.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You are saying the rules that govern the game must be the same throughout for the creative process of roleplaying to be valid.

Yes.

[correctamundo]

I'd rather they use programming resources on companions and npcs/monsters, rather than pack animals and wagons. In a  pena and paper milieu it is easy to have a wagon train with on road. When you have to render it in videogame it will probably be glitch and bugprone.

[Realmzmaster]

I have stated on this forum many times. How realistic do you want your fantasy to be? Some of the posters on this forum want the game to look realistic (like realistic looking armor and weapons i.e. bows with bowstrings or weapons swinging like they have weight). Others want the gameplay mechanics to actually reflect the realism (such as archers actually having quivers with a set number of arrows and items having weight and causing encumbrance).

 

The inventory system in DA is simply unrealistic and for some immersion breaking because it simply throws the laws of the physical world out the window.

 

One of the charms of the BG system was that the party members would complain if kept up to long without rest and question the main characters leadership. Lack of rest would also see a drop of in performance. The DA system simply chunks that decision making process.

 

Do I rest the party or push on? Can I carry that extra set of armor? Will I have to leave behind something to pick up that unidentified sword? Does the party try to camp out in this dangerous area to get some rest? One of our party members is injured from the last fight. Can we risk an attack by resting here or push on to the healer or inn?

 

 

DA system allows the party to carry 60 sets of plate mail or any other armor. Party members can no longer die out of combat from poison, disease, starvation or lack of proper clothing.

 

Part of roleplaying for some gamers is deciding on what others consider "mundane" or "tedious" choices

[The Baconer]

Dragon Age was never that kind of game.

[PhroXenGold]

A role-playing game is just that. A game. Thus, first and foremost, it's there's to be entertaining. Fiddling around with things like item weight is, for me at least, tedious as ****, and therefore is contrary to the entire point of an RPG.

[Realmzmaster]

Whether it is entertaining or not depends on who is playing the game. Two of Bioware's best games (BG1 and BG2) had those so-called tedious functions. The games are still considered some of the best crpgs ever made and not just because of the characters and story. Those two classics are still being played today. Those two games were so good Beamdog made enhanced versions of them and is considering BGIII.

 

Pillars of Eternity and Divinity:OS shows that there is a market for these games. I want Bioware to go back to its BG roots. DAI was a step in the right direction. IMHO.

 

But, YMMV.

[PhroXenGold]

Whether it is entertaining or not depends on who is playing the game. Two of Bioware's best games (BG1 and BG2) had those so-called tedious functions. The games are still considered some of the best crpgs ever made and not just because of the characters and story. Those two classics are still being played today. Those two games were so good Beamdog made enhanced versions of them and is considering BGIII.

 

Pillars of Eternity and Divinity:OS shows that there is a market for these games. I want Bioware to go back to its BG roots. DAI was a step in the right direction. IMHO.

 

But, YMMV.

 

Interestingly, I replayed the BG games relatively recently, and while the story and characters in BG2 in particular are still phenomenal, I found the game mechanics to be pretty clunky across the board. Admittedly, that is basically down to the fact that its uses D&D (a system designed around the limitations of PnP and thus unable to take advantage of BG being a CRPG) and not specifically things like item weights, but still, for all that BW's storytelling was at its peak then, their game mechanics are far more fun for me these days (though I'd probably say DA:I is a bit of a step back from DA2).

 

And yeah, PoE was a good game, I had a lot of fun playing it. But item weights and similar fiddly mechanics aren't part of what made it good. It was having a solid, enjoyable combat system and good writing. (D:OS did the former reasonably well, but was very lacking on the latter and as such I got rather bored of it.)

[nightscrawl]

What I don't understand is why Bioware doesn't get that players are going to keep certain items. They just are. Whether you think it's ridiculous, or pointless, or whatever else, players WILL do it. There was no storage chest in DAO; they added one with the Warden's Keep DLC and in DAA to much delight. DA2 had a storage chest by default -- happy days! DAI did not have a storage chest until a few patches in, and it was a requested item.

Having a system of weights and encumbrance that required you to manage your inventory wouldn't be so bad as long as they have storage from the outset of the game. That way, players can keep all of their extra junk for whatever reason -- RP or practical -- and carry only what they need.
 
There is also the problem that the player's inventory, at least in DA games, is the entire party's inventory. Party members don't have their own inventory to manage. If I am playing a non-mage, but I want to have extra elemental damage staves for my mages, I have to carry them myself and switch them out when necessary, I can NOT put them in my mages' bags and have them carry their own staves. The same applies to other +damage weapons, or +elemental resistance gear (+fire for dragon fights, and so on). I would love to have my inventory contain my own gear and not have to sift through a bunch of other gear when I have to sell to a merchant. But that just isn't how DA has been done to this point. DAI even made it a tad worse because you still see equipped items in the inventory list.

[MaxQuartiroli]

Would you still loot everything, then?

I wouldn't. As evidence, I point to Skyrim, where early in the game I would loot only items that had a value:weight ratio of 10 or higher, and then once I'd made it to the first town I'd loot only things I could actually use (mostly crafting supplies).

Enemies should drop as loot literally everything they're carrying. And we should leave the vast majority of it there.

 

I agree with you and I think that this is more or less what naturally happens in every RPG game that I play.

 

At the beginning, where my character is usually very poor and weak I use to keep everything, because every single coin may be worth it, and in order to buy better gear, some life-save potion, and so on.. Later I usually tend to discard every item which is not very useful or that doesn't provide at least a fair amount of gold. I remember in BG and in IWD at higher level I didn't ever bother with any weapon or armor which wasn't a "unique item", allmost every gem, lesser potions and low-spells scrolls. Like you said, enemies must drop everything, but is up to you to choose carefully what to keep.

 

If your 20th level character is keeping in his inventory 250 weapons +1, 400 cure light wounds potions, 800 aid scrolls and so on, which have a total value of maybe 1000 gold while you own already 500.000 gold, it's not a fault of the inventory system then....