Inventory - limitations or not?

[Polanski]

I am not in favour of no-limit inventory systems, but I can't right now think of an rpg, where I were not at some point irritated by tedious micromanagement of the inventory. I will post it if I think of one.

 

[Sigourn]

Playing with Project Nevada, JSawyer, and Vicious Wastes. Weight limit set to 50 base, x5 per point of strength. That means I would see as much as 100lbs with 10 Strength.

It's difficult, especially when you die so easily and stimpaks are so hard to acquire, meaning most of your caps go into medicine rather than equipment, in other words, getting that sweet Sniper Rifle as you describe it is even harder.

It's good fun, though, having to choose carefully what I'm bringing to the wasteland with me. The real problem with Fallout is that in real life "you would" come across more raiders. Yet in the game, you come across the same raiders in the same spots, meaning it's harder to get good loot.

Still, it's better than muh 400lbs carry weight. The game isn't challenging at all with that.

 

[Excidium II]

I find 5 point per STR is way too low. Stats should have more impact, less base and more per point.

 

[laclongquan]

I dunno. fallout new vegas low level playing is pretty challenging for me. Get a 3x slower level rate and go to town~

Face it, the lower quadrant areas are enough to raise your level to middle and high, meaning the higher quadrant areas for low levels are waste.

Playing at lower level, you learn to appreciate your inventory.

 

[Sigourn]

I find 5 point per STR is way too low. Stats should have more impact, less base and more per point.

I actually agree with you. Your comment made me remember one observation I made ages ago: with 1 point in Strength, you would have 55lbs of carry weight, which is A LOT for a wimp. Thankfully it is a matter of moving sliders around in Project Nevada, I'll leave it at 20 base and 8lbs per point of Strength, max of 100 like before.

Anyways, after my post I remembered how I DON'T like inventory limits being handled. And that game is Baldur's Gate.

I hate Baldur's Gate inventory. Not because it is limited. I'm oaky with it. I would much rather prefer, however, a space-based system coupled with a carry weight mechanic. But the real issue is that Baldur's Gate works with "loot everything" in mind. Items are very expensive, moreover, selling a sword costs basically nothing, and one would expect a sword to be worth something more than 2 gold pieces, especially since we don't see any lower denomination of coin, whereas in New Vegas, a common gun (at least in my game) costs maybe 200 caps, while the crappier items cost much less.

In other words: in Baldur's Gate you are constantly looting stuff because everything is damn epensive by comparison, and the inventory limit doesn't help at all. Again, this is not a problem with the inventory system itself, but how it becomes an annoyance because of how the loot system works. That's definitely one of the things that makes it difficult for me to enjoy Baldur's Gate (alongside the High Fantasy setting).

 

[DraQ]

I find 5 point per STR is way too low. Stats should have more impact, less base and more per point.

I actually agree with you. Your comment made me remember one observation I made ages ago: with 1 point in Strength, you would have 55lbs of carry weight, which is A LOT for a wimp. Thankfully it is a matter of moving sliders around in Project Nevada, I'll leave it at 20 base and 8lbs per point of Strength, max of 100 like before.

Anyways, after my post I remembered how I DON'T like inventory limits being handled. And that game is Baldur's Gate.

I hate Baldur's Gate inventory. Not because it is limited. I'm oaky with it. I would much rather prefer, however, a space-based system coupled with a carry weight mechanic. But the real issue is that Baldur's Gate works with "loot everything" in mind. Items are very expensive, moreover, selling a sword costs basically nothing, and one would expect a sword to be worth something more than 2 gold pieces, especially since we don't see any lower denomination of coin, whereas in New Vegas, a common gun (at least in my game) costs maybe 200 caps, while the crappier items cost much less.

In other words: in Baldur's Gate you are constantly looting stuff because everything is damn epensive by comparison, and the inventory limit doesn't help at all. Again, this is not a problem with the inventory system itself, but how it becomes an annoyance because of how the loot system works. That's definitely one of the things that makes it difficult for me to enjoy Baldur's Gate (alongside the High Fantasy setting).

The worst problem with BG inventory is that it's fucking nonsensical.

While the weight limit works more or less as designed, a single space "slot" can just as well be completely occupied by as little as a tiny ring, gem or a plot-relevant piece of parchment, or as much as a suit of full plate.
It simply makes no fucking sense to the point of being almost painful to wrap your head around.
Having to constantly work around arbitrarily stupid and stupidly arbitrary decision isn't very conductive to getting into game either.

 

[Sigourn]

While the weight limit works more or less as designed, a single space "slot" can just as well be completely occupied by as little as a tiny ring, gem or a plot-relevant piece of parchment, or as much as a suit of full plate.
It simply makes no fucking sense to the point of being almost painful to wrap your head around.
Having to constantly work around arbitrarily stupid and stupidly arbitrary decision isn't very conductive to getting into game either.

I was going to point that out, then I remembered the game has the "gem bag" and stuff like that which sort of makes sense when you think about it (it's easier to carry lots of gems when they are in a bag). Still, yes, BG's inventory is awful and I'd much rather have a system like Fallout's or TES's. The best system, however, is the one that takes space in mind as well as weight. A gold bar is small in size, but weights a lot. Similarly, a fan may be huge by comparison, but it is also very light (by comparison).

 

[DraQ]

I was going to point that out, then I remembered the game has the "gem bag" and stuff like that which sort of makes sense when you think about it (it's easier to carry lots of gems when they are in a bag).

BG2 does. It also has scroll tube and whatever.
Doesn't change the fact that those only try to solve systemic flaw by exception, anything not specifically covered is still broken, so for example a dagger will take same amount of space as halberd or full plate.
Also doesn't change the fact that BG1 has no such thing.

Still, yes, BG's inventory is awful and I'd much rather have a system like Fallout's or TES's. The best system, however, is the one that takes space in mind as well as weight. A gold bar is small in size, but weights a lot. Similarly, a fan may be huge by comparison, but it is also very light (by comparison).

Or ditch the concept of abstract inventory in favour of concrete slots and containers, limited by individual volume and jointly contributing to weight.

 

[kwanzabot]

I find 5 point per STR is way too low. Stats should have more impact, less base and more per point.

I actually agree with you. Your comment made me remember one observation I made ages ago: with 1 point in Strength, you would have 55lbs of carry weight, which is A LOT for a wimp. Thankfully it is a matter of moving sliders around in Project Nevada, I'll leave it at 20 base and 8lbs per point of Strength, max of 100 like before.

Anyways, after my post I remembered how I DON'T like inventory limits being handled. And that game is Baldur's Gate.

I hate Baldur's Gate inventory. Not because it is limited. I'm oaky with it. I would much rather prefer, however, a space-based system coupled with a carry weight mechanic. But the real issue is that Baldur's Gate works with "loot everything" in mind. Items are very expensive, moreover, selling a sword costs basically nothing, and one would expect a sword to be worth something more than 2 gold pieces, especially since we don't see any lower denomination of coin, whereas in New Vegas, a common gun (at least in my game) costs maybe 200 caps, while the crappier items cost much less.

In other words: in Baldur's Gate you are constantly looting stuff because everything is damn epensive by comparison, and the inventory limit doesn't help at all. Again, this is not a problem with the inventory system itself, but how it becomes an annoyance because of how the loot system works. That's definitely one of the things that makes it difficult for me to enjoy Baldur's Gate (alongside the High Fantasy setting).

The worst problem with BG inventory is that it's fucking nonsensical.

While the weight limit works more or less as designed, a single space "slot" can just as well be completely occupied by as little as a tiny ring, gem or a plot-relevant piece of parchment, or as much as a suit of full plate.
It simply makes no fucking sense to the point of being almost painful to wrap your head around.
Having to constantly work around arbitrarily stupid and stupidly arbitrary decision isn't very conductive to getting into game either.

i think maybe you should design a new syastem, with the control you have over the engrish language i think you could find some plumbing company to hire you fairly quickly

 

[Sigourn]

BG2 does. It also has scroll tube and whatever.
Doesn't change the fact that those only try to solve systemic flaw by exception, anything not specifically covered is still broken, so for example a dagger will take same amount of space as halberd or full plate.
Also doesn't change the fact that BG1 has no such thing.

Oh, I know Enhanced Edition only, which has both things (gem and scroll bag).

Or ditch the concept of abstract inventory in favour of concrete slots and containers, limited by individual volume and jointly contributing to weight.

Yes, that's what I suggested at the end.

Overall, back to OP, I think inventory limitations are awesome when done correctly and when used in the right genre. Having inventory restrictions in Pokémon would do nothing to make it a fun game to me.

 

[DraQ]

Or ditch the concept of abstract inventory in favour of concrete slots and containers, limited by individual volume and jointly contributing to weight.

Yes, that's what I suggested at the end.

I mean something like this:

Imagine a game where character has no inventory of their own, just equip slots, but equipped items can also work as containers, each with their own inventory space OR hotkeyable slots. For example a belt could have a number of small inventory spaces representing pouches as well as quickly accessible weapon slots.

Where there is no notion of abstract inventory space whatsoever - everything is held in some actual place.

UI-wise this should be no problem as the game could simply traverse equipment tree and open up grid window for every item that's a container when opening inventory.
The main difference is that naked character would have no inventory only slots for both hands and worn items.
If a naked character can somehow hold two suits of armour, a halberd, crossbow and a stack of books you're either dealing with a game with an abstract inventory or an implementation of FATAL gone even more wrong than usual.

Overall, back to OP, I think inventory limitations are awesome when done correctly and when used in the right genre.

Agreed.

 

[Sigourn]

I mean something like this:

Imagine a game where character has no inventory of their own, just equip slots, but equipped items can also work as containers, each with their own inventory space OR hotkeyable slots. For example a belt could have a number of small inventory spaces representing pouches as well as quickly accessible weapon slots.

Where there is no notion of abstract inventory space whatsoever - everything is held in some actual place.

UI-wise this should be no problem as the game could simply traverse equipment tree and open up grid window for every item that's a container when opening inventory.
The main difference is that naked character would have no inventory only slots for both hands and worn items.
If a naked character can somehow hold two suits of armour, a halberd, crossbow and a stack of books you're either dealing with a game with an abstract inventory or an implementation of FATAL gone even more wrong than usual.

Oooh, this would be awesome. I originally wanted a New Vegas mod where clothing added carrt weight depending on the type of clothing. So for example, a normal t-shirt would give you nothing, whereas a lab coat with pockets would. I would definitely love something like this.

 

[aweigh]

wizardry 1-5 operated under limited inventory in order to foster resource management.

wizardry 1-5 are the best rpg's ever made.

therefore inventory should be limited. case closed.

 

[Damned Registrations]

I mean something like this:

Imagine a game where character has no inventory of their own, just equip slots, but equipped items can also work as containers, each with their own inventory space OR hotkeyable slots. For example a belt could have a number of small inventory spaces representing pouches as well as quickly accessible weapon slots.

Where there is no notion of abstract inventory space whatsoever - everything is held in some actual place.

UI-wise this should be no problem as the game could simply traverse equipment tree and open up grid window for every item that's a container when opening inventory.
The main difference is that naked character would have no inventory only slots for both hands and worn items.
If a naked character can somehow hold two suits of armour, a halberd, crossbow and a stack of books you're either dealing with a game with an abstract inventory or an implementation of FATAL gone even more wrong than usual.

Oooh, this would be awesome. I originally wanted a New Vegas mod where clothing added carrt weight depending on the type of clothing. So for example, a normal t-shirt would give you nothing, whereas a lab coat with pockets would. I would definitely love something like this.

Yeah, micromanaging a dozen differently sized containers sounds great. The best part would be dumping it all out on to the ground then putting it back together because you found a widget that needs to go in your backpack, and there's not quite enough room, but the things you can afford to discard are in your pockets, so you need to move objects from your belt and backpack to your pockets, pockets to your belt, and then pick up the widget. Then you can bring it back to finish your quest, and be rewarded with a magic sword and do it all over again!

They should simulate the inventories physical properties too, it'd be dumb letting you keep a sword and a blanket in the same bag, it'd obviously get cut up. Ditto for a sack full of glass vials. Packing material would be a great addition to supplies needed for adventuring.

 

[Sigourn]

Yeah, micromanaging a dozen differently sized containers sounds great. The best part would be dumping it all out on to the ground then putting it back together because you found a widget that needs to go in your backpack, and there's not quite enough room, but the things you can afford to discard are in your pockets, so you need to move objects from your belt and backpack to your pockets, pockets to your belt, and then pick up the widget. Then you can bring it back to finish your quest, and be rewarded with a magic sword and do it all over again!

Smart sorting? Click a button, and bam, your stuff is optimally distributed among your different containers.

They should simulate the inventories physical properties too, it'd be dumb letting you keep a sword and a blanket in the same bag, it'd obviously get cut up.

This would be cool, to be honest.

 

[laclongquan]

Smart sorting is rarely smart. Plus packrat generally has own idea about which goes where.

 

[Sigourn]

Smart sorting is rarely smart. Plus packrat generally has own idea about which goes where.

Dunno, man. FFVI's Optimization sucked because it is a matter of taste, but if we take smart sorting to be "rearrange the items in my containers so I can carry as much weight as possible" doesn't seem that difficult.

 

[laclongquan]

That's what you THINK. In matter of practices, no games ever has a satisfactory sorting button or auto-sort function worth remembering.

 

[Excidium II]

Probably because they didn't give a fuck because it's p. trivial.

 

[Sigourn]

That's what you THINK. In matter of practices, no games ever has a satisfactory sorting button or auto-sort function worth remembering.

"Worth remembering"

You are talking las if we were discussing quantum level crap right here. And we are only talking about "please distribute this crap so I can carry more crap" things. It's pure math. Are you seriously suggesting this is a HARD thing for a video game to emply? If you could at least post an example that proves me wrong, I would understand where you are coming from.

Like I said, and I repeat: Final Fantasy VI's Optimization feature is not that useful when considering the different possibilities given to the player. It's not difficult for the computer to realize you are better off with a gun than without one if your skills are better with one. But when you start pouring different data into it, the computer can't make a proper decision.

EDIT: Of course a computer won't know if you want all your guns to be stashed in certain pocket instead of another. It wouldn't be hard at all either to add exceptions, like "Back pack - Guns only". But FFVI's was nothing like that, it was as simple as "give me the best you've got", and even then "best" is a very relative term.

 

[laclongquan]

The more it is easy to sort, the boring that inventory become. Take Fallout 2/ Fallout Tactics for instance: It used a column of stuffs which is boring and no need to sort. take Silent Storm, as JA2 successor, for a newer experiment: It use grid-based inventory, and the sorting is not smart. Successor to S2 is Hammer and Sickle, use a system of both gridbased and weight based, and that limit the number of craps you can carry and that make self sorting easy, render the auto-sorting nearly moot.

BG2 tried to do same thing early : 20 slot item and weight restrict but due to loot abundance, they dont have enough to carry. Introduce the bags and cases increase the number of bugs related to that issue.

 

[Sigourn]

The more it is easy to sort, the boring that inventory become.

I take it you mean "boring" as "classic", and "interesting" as "innovative", right?

A boring inventory is an inventory that keeps me on the UI for too long. That's my opinion, and people may disagree, but if the inventory system doesn't give me the right tools to deal with it as fast as I can, then I can't help but hate it and find it boring. That's generally what happens when everything is a scrambled mess, which is a very good point about multiple pieces of equipment that add slots. Then again, this kind of stuff happens even in a game like New Vegas: scrambled ingredients/magazines/medicine/chems all in one single window. I wish it was sorted by type instead of alphabetically.

Baldur's Gate suffers from the "too much time on the inventory" issue, much like Fallout. The first one is due to the incredibly annoying low value of equipment which forces you to pick up everything you come across instead of only what you could reasonably need. And the second one, only because Fallout's "column inventory" is extremely annoying, having to navigate to the end of that column just to find the things that you use. Not even the bag was of that much use. Other than that, Fallout's inventory is okay if only because picking up a single leather armor makes for very good money, so there's no need to pick up a 100 pistols like you would in a post-apocalyptic Baldur's Gate game.

 

[laclongquan]

I dont object to the idea of an autosort button in principle, I merely point out it's very hard to do a feature like that and nothing ever work halfway satisfactorily to serve the purpose.

On a side note, "classic" doesnt hold water for me. It works or not, that's it. If it's classic and it doesnt work, or work idiotically, here's my middle finger salute to such things.

 

[Lilura]

Baldur's Gate suffers from the "too much time on the inventory" issue ... The first one is due to the incredibly annoying low value of equipment which forces you to pick up everything you come across instead of only what you could reasonably need.

 

[Jaesun]

Joined: Feb 6, 2016

Yes, it's really hard to spot the complete dumbfuck....