Brutal inventory management makes sense when it gels with the overall game.
Like DayZ is an apocalyptic survival game, so fiddling about with exacting inventory concerns like "this jacket is warmer, but it has less pockets" or "yeah, this backpack has more storage space than my current one, but mine is in better condition" or "do I take the water bottle that holds more water, or the one that takes up less space?" are all legit questions that enhance the gameplay experience because they are survival questions.
I got a package from Shanghai with five Rayban sunglasses inside. Nobody here ordered them. They also listed my state as "California" but had everything else - city, zip code - correct.
The fuck?
I definitely haven't been charged for anything.
Congratulations, you're in a Triad.
Wait, I did put an application in a long time ago but I never heard back. I guess I should wear the Raybans tomorrow and triad the hell out of people.
Like on the street I'll walk up to people, put my finger in their chest, and go "beep boop, you've just been triaded."
That's how they do it, right?
I'll call my US chapter of the traids "Golden General Tso's Chicken"
My favorite solution to non-combat skills is simply siloing them away from combat skills, so they don't draw from the same pool of resouces. Your healer gets better at healing and at killing fools with a hammer and those aren't competing priorities. I think this is perfectly fair and viable.
It's worth remembering that Original Original Original D&D didn't have a rogue class because the idea of a dude who would be useless in a fight seemed silly to the designers (wizards, by contrast, are weak, but they are far from useless). And indeed, there are still hardcore old-school players who don't include the Thief because it is like a fantasy version of the Decker Problem from Shadowrun: you have a guy perfectly adapted to deal with all these non-combat challenges that you're likely to encounter (much more so than the fighty guy) but has to sit on his hands and whistle during the fights. That often ends up being boring for the party in the first instance and for the player in the second.
hmm I can either carry three 4x6 inventory square pillows
or
thirty-six 2-square Desert Eagles.
hmm.
What you seem to be mocking would be a balance issue, not an inventory-tetris issue.
No I'm talking about the difference in actual encumbrance between carrying three pillows and 36 pistols. Inventory tetris places singular and ultimate importance on the size of the icon, not the properties of the item. That's what makes it dumb.
You could carry 40,000 rounds of ammo, or four cardboard boxes, because the icons are equivalent even though literally nothing else about the items is, either in RL or the game's internally consistent vision.
the game designer is making an explicit choice to say that a sniper rifle is more valuable than a pistol, and thus takes up more squares. So your opportunity cost for carrying around a sniper rifle needs to be larger -> more squares.
so...yes its arbitrary but not dumb?
it's worse than that, because it's not just inventory maximum... if that's all you wanted, you could simply assign a value to each item (let's call it "encumbrance"!) and give the pc a max amount.
The shape of the gun's icon is integral to the problem, because you have this finite field of squares and you need to tetris all your shit into it. It's super common to have to toss out an item that's clearly more valuable because it's the wrong shape for the plot item you need to carry for this quest. All sorts of dumb situations come about because it's not weight or importance or value in the game that matters most; it's the shape of the stupid item icons.
I got a package from Shanghai with five Rayban sunglasses inside. Nobody here ordered them. They also listed my state as "California" but had everything else - city, zip code - correct.
The fuck?
I definitely haven't been charged for anything.
Who was the carrier (i.e. Fed Ex, UPS, USPS)?
My guess, by the way, is US Mail, and leave it to Shanghai to think the US Mail would be the way to send that.
??? My point is I didn't order sunglasses, what is going on...
Misdelivered mail?
It's like the time my buddy got a bunch of dick pills he never asked for (true story). I think a buddy of his ended up taking them and using them. It's amazing what men will get up to when left to their own devices...
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
hmm I can either carry three 4x6 inventory square pillows
or
thirty-six 2-square Desert Eagles.
hmm.
What you seem to be mocking would be a balance issue, not an inventory-tetris issue.
No I'm talking about the difference in actual encumbrance between carrying three pillows and 36 pistols. Inventory tetris places singular and ultimate importance on the size of the icon, not the properties of the item. That's what makes it dumb.
You could carry 40,000 rounds of ammo, or four cardboard boxes, because the icons are equivalent even though literally nothing else about the items is, either in RL or the game's internally consistent vision.
Well yeah, it is supposed to approximate realism for gameplay purposes rather than actually be realistic. The weight system runs into similar problems in terms of being silly.
"Hey, I'm having a lot of trouble carrying all these rocket launchers and explosives around. Better get rid of this empty soda bottle."
I got a package from Shanghai with five Rayban sunglasses inside. Nobody here ordered them. They also listed my state as "California" but had everything else - city, zip code - correct.
The fuck?
I definitely haven't been charged for anything.
Who was the carrier (i.e. Fed Ex, UPS, USPS)?
My guess, by the way, is US Mail, and leave it to Shanghai to think the US Mail would be the way to send that.
??? My point is I didn't order sunglasses, what is going on...
put on all 5 pairs
say "deal with it"
enjoy your sunglasses
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Brutal inventory management makes sense when it gels with the overall game.
Like DayZ is an apocalyptic survival game, so fiddling about with exacting inventory concerns like "this jacket is warmer, but it has less pockets" or "yeah, this backpack has more storage space than my current one, but mine is in better condition" or "do I take the water bottle that holds more water, or the one that takes up less space?" are all legit questions that enhance the gameplay experience because they are survival questions.
I do not want that shit in my fantasy action RPG.
Torchbearer has my favorite inventory system. It's a brutal game about dungeon crawling and has slots for all of your items. You usually have to make a hard choice between carrying more food, light sources (which are also tracked), or treasure.
hmm I can either carry three 4x6 inventory square pillows
or
thirty-six 2-square Desert Eagles.
hmm.
What you seem to be mocking would be a balance issue, not an inventory-tetris issue.
No I'm talking about the difference in actual encumbrance between carrying three pillows and 36 pistols. Inventory tetris places singular and ultimate importance on the size of the icon, not the properties of the item. That's what makes it dumb.
You could carry 40,000 rounds of ammo, or four cardboard boxes, because the icons are equivalent even though literally nothing else about the items is, either in RL or the game's internally consistent vision.
the game designer is making an explicit choice to say that a sniper rifle is more valuable than a pistol, and thus takes up more squares. So your opportunity cost for carrying around a sniper rifle needs to be larger -> more squares.
so...yes its arbitrary but not dumb?
it's worse than that, because it's not just inventory maximum... if that's all you wanted, you could simply assign a value to each item (let's called "encumbrance"!) and give the pc a max amount.
The shape of the gun's icon is integral to the problem, because you have this finite field of squares and you need to tetris all your shit into it. It's super common to have to toss out an item that's clearly more valuable because it's the wrong shape for the plot item you need to carry for this quest. All sorts of dumb situations come about because it's not weight or importance or value in the game that matters most; it's the shape of the stupid item icons.
yea, tetris is straight up shit
it's better to have X weapon slots, a sniper rifle takes 4 slots, a pistol takes 1, X can be increased or decreased
but inventory tetris is bullshit
+1
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Brutal inventory management makes sense when it gels with the overall game.
Like DayZ is an apocalyptic survival game, so fiddling about with exacting inventory concerns like "this jacket is warmer, but it has less pockets" or "yeah, this backpack has more storage space than my current one, but mine is in better condition" or "do I take the water bottle that holds more water, or the one that takes up less space?" are all legit questions that enhance the gameplay experience because they are survival questions.
I do not want that shit in my fantasy action RPG.
Likewise, I do not want to maintain my items, fucking ever.
hmm I can either carry three 4x6 inventory square pillows
or
thirty-six 2-square Desert Eagles.
hmm.
What you seem to be mocking would be a balance issue, not an inventory-tetris issue.
No I'm talking about the difference in actual encumbrance between carrying three pillows and 36 pistols. Inventory tetris places singular and ultimate importance on the size of the icon, not the properties of the item. That's what makes it dumb.
You could carry 40,000 rounds of ammo, or four cardboard boxes, because the icons are equivalent even though literally nothing else about the items is, either in RL or the game's internally consistent vision.
the game designer is making an explicit choice to say that a sniper rifle is more valuable than a pistol, and thus takes up more squares. So your opportunity cost for carrying around a sniper rifle needs to be larger -> more squares.
so...yes its arbitrary but not dumb?
it's worse than that, because it's not just inventory maximum... if that's all you wanted, you could simply assign a value to each item (let's called "encumbrance"!) and give the pc a max amount.
The shape of the gun's icon is integral to the problem, because you have this finite field of squares and you need to tetris all your shit into it. It's super common to have to toss out an item that's clearly more valuable because it's the wrong shape for the plot item you need to carry for this quest. All sorts of dumb situations come about because it's not weight or importance or value in the game that matters most; it's the shape of the stupid item icons.
Yes, the actual tetris implementation is annoying and a kinda dumb attempt to shove realism where it doesn't necessarily belong. But I have no issue with the core concept of 1. limited slots & 2. some items take more slots than others
Shameful pursuits and utterly stupid opinions
+1
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
My favorite solution to non-combat skills is simply siloing them away from combat skills, so they don't draw from the same pool of resouces. Your healer gets better at healing and at killing fools with a hammer and those aren't competing priorities. I think this is perfectly fair and viable.
It's worth remembering that Original Original Original D&D didn't have a rogue class because the idea of a dude who would be useless in a fight seemed silly to the designers (wizards, by contrast, are weak, but they are far from useless). And indeed, there are still hardcore old-school players who don't include the Thief because it is like a fantasy version of the Decker Problem from Shadowrun: you have a guy perfectly adapted to deal with all these non-combat challenges that you're likely to encounter (much more so than the fighty guy) but has to sit on his hands and whistle during the fights. That often ends up being boring for the party in the first instance and for the player in the second.
oh my god old d&d is so bad
well, you know, my point in this instance was that it was smarter than people give it credit for
because they were designing around a certain playstyle (go out and kill stuff, this is basically a wargame after all) and excluding options that didn't make sense in that context
which is actually a rudiment of good design. you might not be a fan of "go out and kill stuff" but the point is that if one's game is going to involve that then it is probably best to let players be good at the going out and the killing things and not trap them with choices that they will only learn are bad when it is too late to do anything about it.
My favorite solution to non-combat skills is simply siloing them away from combat skills, so they don't draw from the same pool of resouces. Your healer gets better at healing and at killing fools with a hammer and those aren't competing priorities. I think this is perfectly fair and viable.
It's worth remembering that Original Original Original D&D didn't have a rogue class because the idea of a dude who would be useless in a fight seemed silly to the designers (wizards, by contrast, are weak, but they are far from useless). And indeed, there are still hardcore old-school players who don't include the Thief because it is like a fantasy version of the Decker Problem from Shadowrun: you have a guy perfectly adapted to deal with all these non-combat challenges that you're likely to encounter (much more so than the fighty guy) but has to sit on his hands and whistle during the fights. That often ends up being boring for the party in the first instance and for the player in the second.
In a game that is multiplayer coop or in which you only get to create/customize a single character (whether these be tabletop or computerized) then siloing combat from noncombat resources is definitely necessary yeah
I think a good case could be made that in a single player game with a party (my favorite) that it works to have specialists in various spheres. To use the shadowrun example, in a single player game where you control the whole party then you get to control the decker while he is off doing his thing (or the shaman) rather than sitting around waiting. Essentially your "character" is the whole party.
another terrible idea on the tabletop (or in multiplayer) that I think can work in single player computer games is the "being weak early on is balanced by being strong later (or vice versa)" problem which D&D (other than 4th ed) is really bad about
Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
+1
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
hmm I can either carry three 4x6 inventory square pillows
or
thirty-six 2-square Desert Eagles.
hmm.
What you seem to be mocking would be a balance issue, not an inventory-tetris issue.
No I'm talking about the difference in actual encumbrance between carrying three pillows and 36 pistols. Inventory tetris places singular and ultimate importance on the size of the icon, not the properties of the item. That's what makes it dumb.
You could carry 40,000 rounds of ammo, or four cardboard boxes, because the icons are equivalent even though literally nothing else about the items is, either in RL or the game's internally consistent vision.
Well yeah, it is supposed to approximate realism for gameplay purposes rather than actually be realistic. The weight system runs into similar problems in terms of being silly.
"Hey, I'm having a lot of trouble carrying all these rocket launchers and explosives around. Better get rid of this empty soda bottle."
I think it was Fallout 2 where I once had issues because my wallet of bottlecaps was large enough to finally weigh a full pound. Thank god for mules.
I never felt that the Deus Ex inventory Tetris was any more annoying than the weight system in many RPGs. I ended up looking at my inventory system frequently when it came to loot in Fallout and the Elder Scrolls games. If anything, the original Deus Ex was much better because there wasn't loot that you ended up selling.
0
Options
Rear Admiral ChocoI wanna be an owl, Jerry!Owl York CityRegistered Userregular
Inventory Tetris played with several individual storage containers, hell, individual pockets within the same items
A weight limit established so you can't just carry a shitton of lead around, but bandoliers decreasing effective weight because of efficient weight distribution, incentivizing ammo and grenade storage on proper webbing and not a backpack
An item retrieval mini game where you physically select items out of your bags to pull them out while shit keeps going on, like an overlay you're focused on but can still see the action all Last of Us style, making proper equipment storage important
You could disassemble weapons for more efficient storage but have to assemble it in a hurry while dudes could be shooting at you or just go for the weapons on your person, so if you're marching into a firefight it's already on you, maybe even just slung over your back openly, but when subtlety is needed you're sweating bullets putting a rifle together as dudes noisily search for you, getting closer and closer
hmm I can either carry three 4x6 inventory square pillows
or
thirty-six 2-square Desert Eagles.
hmm.
What you seem to be mocking would be a balance issue, not an inventory-tetris issue.
No I'm talking about the difference in actual encumbrance between carrying three pillows and 36 pistols. Inventory tetris places singular and ultimate importance on the size of the icon, not the properties of the item. That's what makes it dumb.
You could carry 40,000 rounds of ammo, or four cardboard boxes, because the icons are equivalent even though literally nothing else about the items is, either in RL or the game's internally consistent vision.
Well yeah, it is supposed to approximate realism for gameplay purposes rather than actually be realistic. The weight system runs into similar problems in terms of being silly.
"Hey, I'm having a lot of trouble carrying all these rocket launchers and explosives around. Better get rid of this empty soda bottle."
Which raises a better point -- whoever decided to make empty soda bottles an inventory item was clearly too stoned.
Inventory management needs to be a fun sub-game. Or no effort at all.
Too many games make it an enforced period of boredom. You have to balance going somewhere to sell off crap vs just continuing to play, but getting less money.
Which is the sort of thing people THINK is good game design. But boredom should never be an element in your game design. You can play greed vs failure, greed vs danger, greed vs whatever. But not greed vs boredom.
Using boredom as a penalty/punishment for doing the wrong thing in a game is such a terrible idea, but it's so ubiquitous in video games it's hard to make people see it. XP penalties, corpse runs, inventory management, town trips, go back to the last checkpoint, redo the level, fight the boss until you get the pattern. Some of those are pure boring, some of them are potentially boring. But all of them need to be rethought.
Like in RPGs - when something has fire resistance, your fire spells don't work. But @Aegeri had a much better idea, which I love - your fire spells not working is boring. But your fire spells enraging the fire giant, or the fire elemental slinging them back at you - that's exciting. So things don't really have elemental resistance - they have elemental responses.
Boredom is never something you pursue in entertainment.
actual tetris is more a user interface design issue, where a pretty grid is much more newbie-friendly than Excel. visual sense of how much space is remaining, where important items are, etc.
it is surprising how few games include a "automatically sort stuff in grid" button though
my last skyrim playthrough I used the mod that basically adds the dark souls death system
I feel it adds quite a bit
like all my dicks if the next bethesda game steals dark souls' death system (even if they do away with respawning NPCs) and third person combat with lock on/actual some depth to combat
like I don't particularly care for some of the features of dark souls that feel designed to artificially lengthen the game or just toss a trollface at the player, but anything to do away with the quicksave/quickload lollercaust would be nice
the Dark Souls death system in an Elder Scrolls game would be horrible
Elder Scrolls games are buggy. That's just going to be a thing. And if I had to put up with death penalties because a wolf was clipping through the floor and killed me when I couldn't even see it (let alone hit it) I'd throw my controller through a window
Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
My favorite solution to non-combat skills is simply siloing them away from combat skills, so they don't draw from the same pool of resouces. Your healer gets better at healing and at killing fools with a hammer and those aren't competing priorities. I think this is perfectly fair and viable.
It's worth remembering that Original Original Original D&D didn't have a rogue class because the idea of a dude who would be useless in a fight seemed silly to the designers (wizards, by contrast, are weak, but they are far from useless). And indeed, there are still hardcore old-school players who don't include the Thief because it is like a fantasy version of the Decker Problem from Shadowrun: you have a guy perfectly adapted to deal with all these non-combat challenges that you're likely to encounter (much more so than the fighty guy) but has to sit on his hands and whistle during the fights. That often ends up being boring for the party in the first instance and for the player in the second.
oh my god old d&d is so bad
well, you know, my point in this instance was that it was smarter than people give it credit for
because they were designing around a certain playstyle (go out and kill stuff, this is basically a wargame after all) and excluding options that didn't make sense in that context
which is actually a rudiment of good design. you might not be a fan of "go out and kill stuff" but the point is that if one's game is going to involve that then it is probably best to let players be good at the going out and the killing things and not trap them with choices that they will only learn are bad when it is too late to do anything about it.
oh, no i'm not knocking the concept (c'mon kosh you know that i love Torchbearer, which is like old D&D with better rules)
but AD&D (which I understand is different than OD&D) is so, so convoluted. I don't think anyone actually played that game by the book. I've skimmed OD&D and it seems like a much cleaner document, definitely well suited, within its time, to accomplish its goals.
JEEZ LOUISE. I rented Evil Within and you can only sprint for three seconds. If your stamina runs out, detective dude puts his hands on his knees and huffs and puffs while the cleaver wielding monsters catch up to him. There is a pricey upgrade you can buy that lets you sprint for four seconds.
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited October 2014
Bethesda's pick up everything system is out of control. They should have three inventories in their games. One for weapons and armor. One for crafting stuff and books. One for useless stuff like spoons. Only the first one should be weight limited. All the stuff that goes in the third one should not be able to be sold. Your welcome.
spacekungfuman on
0
Options
Element BrianPeanut Butter ShillRegistered Userregular
something is wrong with my girlfriend
i told her that I started playing hearhstone and it's hella addicting, i'll probably get sucked in
and she's like 'oh that's cool, you'll have to tell me about it more after yoga'
JEEZ LOUISE. I rented Evil Within and you can only sprint for three seconds. If your stamina runs out, detective dude puts his hands on his knees and huffs and puffs while the cleaver wielding monsters catch up to him. There is a pricey upgrade you can buy that lets you sprint for four seconds.
That aside is at any good? Everyone's been hyping that one up, but it just looks like another generic 2rd person horror game. Not that that's a problem, it just doesn't seem very revolutionary.
Brutal inventory management makes sense when it gels with the overall game.
Like DayZ is an apocalyptic survival game, so fiddling about with exacting inventory concerns like "this jacket is warmer, but it has less pockets" or "yeah, this backpack has more storage space than my current one, but mine is in better condition" or "do I take the water bottle that holds more water, or the one that takes up less space?" are all legit questions that enhance the gameplay experience because they are survival questions.
I do not want that shit in my fantasy action RPG.
Likewise, I do not want to maintain my items, fucking ever.
Maintaining items means you have to collect resources and scrap. Collecting resources and scrap means you have to leave your safe areas and explore. No one would ever leave the chemical storage rooms in System Shock 2 if their laser pistol didn't fall apart after five shots.
0
Options
Element BrianPeanut Butter ShillRegistered Userregular
JEEZ LOUISE. I rented Evil Within and you can only sprint for three seconds. If your stamina runs out, detective dude puts his hands on his knees and huffs and puffs while the cleaver wielding monsters catch up to him. There is a pricey upgrade you can buy that lets you sprint for four seconds.
Is it like Zelda where you should sprint for like 1 second and then run and then sprint and then run and then sprint
Brutal inventory management makes sense when it gels with the overall game.
Like DayZ is an apocalyptic survival game, so fiddling about with exacting inventory concerns like "this jacket is warmer, but it has less pockets" or "yeah, this backpack has more storage space than my current one, but mine is in better condition" or "do I take the water bottle that holds more water, or the one that takes up less space?" are all legit questions that enhance the gameplay experience because they are survival questions.
I do not want that shit in my fantasy action RPG.
Likewise, I do not want to maintain my items, fucking ever.
Maintaining items means you have to collect resources and scrap. Collecting resources and scrap means you have to leave your safe areas and explore. No one would ever leave the chemical storage rooms in System Shock 2 if their laser pistol didn't fall apart after five shots.
Why would you use anything other than the starting wrench?
Inventory management needs to be a fun sub-game. Or no effort at all.
Too many games make it an enforced period of boredom. You have to balance going somewhere to sell off crap vs just continuing to play, but getting less money.
I was thinking about getting Diablo 3 for XB1, so I decided to watch a Twitch stream for a while to see if it seemed like something I'd enjoy. In the stream I happened upon, the 60 or seconds I watched was just dudes running into a town, doing a bunch of inventory management, then rapidly button-pressing through dialog boxes to turn in / get quests. It was enough to make me decide not to buy the game.
Bethesda at least has access to the console.
Which means my Syria char had infinite carry, and my New Vegas dude had 1000 repair weapon kits because I hated that system.
That kind of access is pretty rare these days.
Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited October 2014
I love ammo scarcity. I think its a great way to balance weapons.
Inventory management needs to be a fun sub-game. Or no effort at all.
Too many games make it an enforced period of boredom. You have to balance going somewhere to sell off crap vs just continuing to play, but getting less money.
Which is the sort of thing people THINK is good game design. But boredom should never be an element in your game design. You can play greed vs failure, greed vs danger, greed vs whatever. But not greed vs boredom.
Using boredom as a penalty/punishment for doing the wrong thing in a game is such a terrible idea, but it's so ubiquitous in video games it's hard to make people see it. XP penalties, corpse runs, inventory management, town trips, go back to the last checkpoint, redo the level, fight the boss until you get the pattern. Some of those are pure boring, some of them are potentially boring. But all of them need to be rethought.
Like in RPGs - when something has fire resistance, your fire spells don't work. But @Aegeri had a much better idea, which I love - your fire spells not working is boring. But your fire spells enraging the fire giant, or the fire elemental slinging them back at you - that's exciting. So things don't really have elemental resistance - they have elemental responses.
Boredom is never something you pursue in entertainment.
is this a good reason for not wanting to play destiny
i feel like if i played destiny, that this is mostly what it would be
JEEZ LOUISE. I rented Evil Within and you can only sprint for three seconds. If your stamina runs out, detective dude puts his hands on his knees and huffs and puffs while the cleaver wielding monsters catch up to him. There is a pricey upgrade you can buy that lets you sprint for four seconds.
That aside is at any good? Everyone's been hyping that one up, but it just looks like another generic 2rd person horror game. Not that that's a problem, it just doesn't seem very revolutionary.
I'm two hours in. It's a generic horror game with a really good, tense opening. I do like playing with the traps, though.
Posts
Default speed should be like in old FPS games like Doom.
Like DayZ is an apocalyptic survival game, so fiddling about with exacting inventory concerns like "this jacket is warmer, but it has less pockets" or "yeah, this backpack has more storage space than my current one, but mine is in better condition" or "do I take the water bottle that holds more water, or the one that takes up less space?" are all legit questions that enhance the gameplay experience because they are survival questions.
I do not want that shit in my fantasy action RPG.
Wait, I did put an application in a long time ago but I never heard back. I guess I should wear the Raybans tomorrow and triad the hell out of people.
Like on the street I'll walk up to people, put my finger in their chest, and go "beep boop, you've just been triaded."
That's how they do it, right?
I'll call my US chapter of the traids "Golden General Tso's Chicken"
oh my god old d&d is so bad
it's worse than that, because it's not just inventory maximum... if that's all you wanted, you could simply assign a value to each item (let's call it "encumbrance"!) and give the pc a max amount.
The shape of the gun's icon is integral to the problem, because you have this finite field of squares and you need to tetris all your shit into it. It's super common to have to toss out an item that's clearly more valuable because it's the wrong shape for the plot item you need to carry for this quest. All sorts of dumb situations come about because it's not weight or importance or value in the game that matters most; it's the shape of the stupid item icons.
Misdelivered mail?
It's like the time my buddy got a bunch of dick pills he never asked for (true story). I think a buddy of his ended up taking them and using them. It's amazing what men will get up to when left to their own devices...
"Hey, I'm having a lot of trouble carrying all these rocket launchers and explosives around. Better get rid of this empty soda bottle."
put on all 5 pairs
say "deal with it"
enjoy your sunglasses
Torchbearer has my favorite inventory system. It's a brutal game about dungeon crawling and has slots for all of your items. You usually have to make a hard choice between carrying more food, light sources (which are also tracked), or treasure.
Holy shit fuck the encumbrance system in D&D.
yea, tetris is straight up shit
it's better to have X weapon slots, a sniper rifle takes 4 slots, a pistol takes 1, X can be increased or decreased
but inventory tetris is bullshit
Likewise, I do not want to maintain my items, fucking ever.
well, you know, my point in this instance was that it was smarter than people give it credit for
because they were designing around a certain playstyle (go out and kill stuff, this is basically a wargame after all) and excluding options that didn't make sense in that context
which is actually a rudiment of good design. you might not be a fan of "go out and kill stuff" but the point is that if one's game is going to involve that then it is probably best to let players be good at the going out and the killing things and not trap them with choices that they will only learn are bad when it is too late to do anything about it.
In a game that is multiplayer coop or in which you only get to create/customize a single character (whether these be tabletop or computerized) then siloing combat from noncombat resources is definitely necessary yeah
I think a good case could be made that in a single player game with a party (my favorite) that it works to have specialists in various spheres. To use the shadowrun example, in a single player game where you control the whole party then you get to control the decker while he is off doing his thing (or the shaman) rather than sitting around waiting. Essentially your "character" is the whole party.
another terrible idea on the tabletop (or in multiplayer) that I think can work in single player computer games is the "being weak early on is balanced by being strong later (or vice versa)" problem which D&D (other than 4th ed) is really bad about
I think it was Fallout 2 where I once had issues because my wallet of bottlecaps was large enough to finally weigh a full pound. Thank god for mules.
A weight limit established so you can't just carry a shitton of lead around, but bandoliers decreasing effective weight because of efficient weight distribution, incentivizing ammo and grenade storage on proper webbing and not a backpack
An item retrieval mini game where you physically select items out of your bags to pull them out while shit keeps going on, like an overlay you're focused on but can still see the action all Last of Us style, making proper equipment storage important
You could disassemble weapons for more efficient storage but have to assemble it in a hurry while dudes could be shooting at you or just go for the weapons on your person, so if you're marching into a firefight it's already on you, maybe even just slung over your back openly, but when subtlety is needed you're sweating bullets putting a rifle together as dudes noisily search for you, getting closer and closer
*heavy breathing*
Which raises a better point -- whoever decided to make empty soda bottles an inventory item was clearly too stoned.
Too many games make it an enforced period of boredom. You have to balance going somewhere to sell off crap vs just continuing to play, but getting less money.
Which is the sort of thing people THINK is good game design. But boredom should never be an element in your game design. You can play greed vs failure, greed vs danger, greed vs whatever. But not greed vs boredom.
Using boredom as a penalty/punishment for doing the wrong thing in a game is such a terrible idea, but it's so ubiquitous in video games it's hard to make people see it. XP penalties, corpse runs, inventory management, town trips, go back to the last checkpoint, redo the level, fight the boss until you get the pattern. Some of those are pure boring, some of them are potentially boring. But all of them need to be rethought.
Like in RPGs - when something has fire resistance, your fire spells don't work. But @Aegeri had a much better idea, which I love - your fire spells not working is boring. But your fire spells enraging the fire giant, or the fire elemental slinging them back at you - that's exciting. So things don't really have elemental resistance - they have elemental responses.
Boredom is never something you pursue in entertainment.
it is surprising how few games include a "automatically sort stuff in grid" button though
the Dark Souls death system in an Elder Scrolls game would be horrible
Elder Scrolls games are buggy. That's just going to be a thing. And if I had to put up with death penalties because a wolf was clipping through the floor and killed me when I couldn't even see it (let alone hit it) I'd throw my controller through a window
oh, no i'm not knocking the concept (c'mon kosh you know that i love Torchbearer, which is like old D&D with better rules)
but AD&D (which I understand is different than OD&D) is so, so convoluted. I don't think anyone actually played that game by the book. I've skimmed OD&D and it seems like a much cleaner document, definitely well suited, within its time, to accomplish its goals.
i told her that I started playing hearhstone and it's hella addicting, i'll probably get sucked in
and she's like 'oh that's cool, you'll have to tell me about it more after yoga'
wth
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
Ammo should be infinite, like, always. And you should never need to reload.
Who the fuck am I, some real person with their real guns and whatnot?
That aside is at any good? Everyone's been hyping that one up, but it just looks like another generic 2rd person horror game. Not that that's a problem, it just doesn't seem very revolutionary.
Maintaining items means you have to collect resources and scrap. Collecting resources and scrap means you have to leave your safe areas and explore. No one would ever leave the chemical storage rooms in System Shock 2 if their laser pistol didn't fall apart after five shots.
Is it like Zelda where you should sprint for like 1 second and then run and then sprint and then run and then sprint
you know what i'm talking about
with the carrots
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
well, if you want to have it auto-sort well.
Why would you use anything other than the starting wrench?
I was thinking about getting Diablo 3 for XB1, so I decided to watch a Twitch stream for a while to see if it seemed like something I'd enjoy. In the stream I happened upon, the 60 or seconds I watched was just dudes running into a town, doing a bunch of inventory management, then rapidly button-pressing through dialog boxes to turn in / get quests. It was enough to make me decide not to buy the game.
Which means my Syria char had infinite carry, and my New Vegas dude had 1000 repair weapon kits because I hated that system.
That kind of access is pretty rare these days.
that's true
however difficult it is for the computer, though, it's more difficult for the player
is this a good reason for not wanting to play destiny
i feel like if i played destiny, that this is mostly what it would be
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
I'm two hours in. It's a generic horror game with a really good, tense opening. I do like playing with the traps, though.