[Unknown Soldier]

I like the grid inventory, for some reason it always struck me as the most realistic. I also like having pack characters or animals, like mules with me, it makes it even more fun. I think Elder Scrolls needs a spell which turns crap into money, makes inventory management much more fun.

Carry weight wouldn't be a problem if you could just instantly sell the stuff you picked up, or like in Torchlight where you could send your imp to town to sell your stuff while you kept on exploring the dungeon.

Sacred 2 actually had a genius feature where you could sell your inventory's contents for reduced gold compared to what you could get walking to the vendor and selling it there. You never had to go to town in that game just because your inventory was full and you needed to sell things.

[dock]

I love games that limit you to carrying one item at a time, so that's an inventory limit of sorts. Halo's two weapon limit is cool too.

However sometimes they do feel a lot like juggling, especially when items like health are mixed in with weapons.

[linko9]

Carry Limits are a crucial aspect of Inventory Management which itself is one of the backbones of a good RPG. We need more severe Carry Limits even. Developers chicken out a bit here due to the crybaby softcore like the people posting in this thread. One of the first things I look for in a good mod is more severe limits.

Yeah, good point, Dark Souls is for pussies. Skyrim is much more difficult and "hardcore."

[subversus]

Why stop there? If you're trying to make it realistic, either limit the carrying of items to realistic proportions or make purchasable bags that slow down the character when he packs them full of stuff..

really, why? I'm yet to see the game which implemented it.

[Jac_Solar]

I'm surprised that even gamers who are interested enough to go onto forums don't want their game experience to be anything but constant fun, all the time, as opposed to a game with balanced and correct systems that may be slow paced or boring at times but in turn makes other aspects much more enjoyable or appealing.

"No punishment, no reward" applies to pretty much every single conceivable aspect of any game. IE; After an RPG has established that gold is valuable (Also depends on other systems, like armor upgrades or not, monster differences and difficulties or not, as well as combat variations/upgrades/relative difficulty power or not, all of which also ties into their personal value or reward.), it might make you eventually go back to town to sell -- it might be a drag, depending on how well the reward systems are designed (Or how valuable gold is in the game at that point.), but since you don't want to drop the items you do it, and then you might decide to hang around in town for a little break, and talk to new NPC's, find new quests, new items or information on locations, gameplay mechanics, and so on -- and since a lot of players will probably do this several times atleast during a game like Skyrim, it adds a lot of additional value.

It's not a bad design, it's well designed - it may not be as subtle as other reward systems (Or, rather, one of the systems with reward.), but it certainly adds a lot to a feeling of playing/being in a living world.

This also applies to the reward of improving yourself in a game, but that's slightly different IMO since I think that is somewhat related to showing off "eventually" online, or to friends, whatever.

Call of Duty single player and similar FPS games, for example, is somewhat unique I think in this regard though -- a part of the incentive to keep playing is probably to learn the story, "explore" new locations, get new weapons and to a much lesser degree since it's single player, your skills in the game. But when I first play a game like that, perhaps I can play for 2 hours, which is not a lot at all, and then play through in 30 minute increments, simply because I get so bored. I think this could be compared to an action movie -- they can maintain a high tempo throughout and be good, but most people will be burned out on action movies or would prefer a different genre afterwords -- which, might have something to do with the seratonin or dopamine levels. A game, for example, would need to provide stimulus for other emotional aspects to maintain interest -- the lack of stimulus of the other emotions or impulses will probably make most people sick of the action.

Ie, in a really crude and simple example; if you have 5 types of Seratonin that need to be mixed together with minimum 3 different types at varying times to "gain access to" endorphins or dopamine - Seratonin 1 (Happy.), Seratonin 2 (Sad.), Seratonin 3 (Angry.) Seratonin 4 (Lethargic.), Seratonin 5 (Excited.) -- if the only output demanded for an extended period of time is Nr. 5, Excited, without any other periods where other emotions are required for more than a few seconds/minutes, you would become bored, and would need some other input (Which might make you interested in the Excited experience again.)

Also known as repetitious behaviour I suppose, but I was trying to explain why it happened and how it might be factually true for most people -- so FPS games obviously need an update in systems designs.

As the difficulty goes down, the quality of games will go with it, because a lot of the incentives to play are, on some level, relative to the diffculty.

It almost seems as if people don't really want to play, and just want to tap some buttons or watch an interactive-movie, and somehow expect incredible, awesome things to happen without any boring/slow paced/lesser than incredible stuff which defies logic and human psychology all at once.

[Lancehead]

RPGs should give an option to select infinite inventory/weight and then do something like what Vampire Bloodlines (with the WESP patch, I think) did when you meet Jack at the start.

[PetriP-TNT]

Haven't played a single game where carry limit made the game better

[abstract alien]

My roommate is like this. When he went deep into Fallout 3 I remember him coming out of The Pitt with like like 4000 lbs of stuff and sloooooow walked all the way back to Megaton. Straight Up hoarders'd that shit.

No. No. No no no no. Bloody hell lol

[Turlast]

Never been a big fan of this, honestly. I'd rather keep everything instead of having to discard things.

[afreaknamedpete]

NetHack had a terrific weight system. It wasn't an all or nothing system, with different stages and nuanced penalties for each. For a game basically about difficult choices the weight limit in Nethack was great as well, especially since maintaining stashes could be hard and annoying. Made you really question "do I need this crap?"

[ArynCrinn]

Yeah, carry weight annoys me more than anything. It just seems like a arbitrary way to enforce needless, and tedious, pre-strategy. Although I'll admit that when you get a ability of some sort to make that aspect easier, feels pretty good.

[Hoo-doo]

I've been playing Resident Evil 2 on the PS3 lately and it has a very restrictive item limit.

You literally have to make some hard choices every time you encounter a chest. Items like keys, cranks and valves all need to be taken with you, along with necessary weaponry and health items, which is almost impossible. So either you skimp on health items/weapons and risk death, or risk having to backtrack to the chest all the time to get the item you need to proceed in the level.

It's a touch too restrictive to me, even with the additional pack. Just two or three more inventory slots would be sufficient.

[Nimajneb]

Yes. I love inventory management, especially grid-based inventory systems like RE4, STALKER, and Deux Ex etc.


So Good.

However, It does become pointless when the carry limit is too high, it just means you have to dump your extra equipment at a store once in a while, rather than adding any meaningful strategy or gameplay. Bethesda's games suffer a lot from this. But then again, every aspect of Bethesda's games are poorly designed, so it doesn't stand out that much.

[Forkball]

I hate it. I grew up on RPGs where you could have 99 of a single item. I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR "REALISM."

[Jac_Solar]

I've been playing Resident Evil 2 on the PS3 lately and it has a very restrictive item limit. You literally have to make some hard choices every time you encounter a chest. Items like keys, cranks and valves all need to be taken with you, along with necessary weaponry and health items, which is almost impossible. So either you skimp on health items/weapons and risk death, or risk having to backtrack to the chest all the time to get the item you need to proceed in the level. It's a touch too restrictive to me, even with the additional pack. Just two or three more inventory slots would be sufficient.

That's a different story though, since OP is talking about RPG's, or games with loot/vendors/crafting/walking speed -- games with a lot of choices. If you can upgrade weapons but can only carry 2-3, and there are many different ones, then that system is totally messed up. But when it's a game like Call of Duty, or most FPS's similar to that, where you get a weapon/pick up a weapon and ammo only, then it's not really even a feature or a system in the same sense, it's an integral/major gameplay system similar to level design.

But it doesn't do anything, it's just there, and it doesn't provide any rewards/incentives besides, perhaps, conflicting emotions on which gun to choose at certain points. (Unless you can upgrade it. Getting new weapons is a different situation in this case since it's inventory management and size.)

[vareon]

Let's start with Skyrim. First off, your character starts getting overburdened when he stashes everything and the kitchen sink into his two pockets. Why stop there? If you're trying to make it realistic, either limit the carrying of items to realistic proportions or make purchasable bags that slow down the character when he packs them full of stuff. Or, you can drop the limit entirely, the series stopped being realistic long before Dragons appeared. In fact, it was never realistic to begin with, so either go one way or the other. Purgatory is a sickening thing. The latter coming from a virtual-item hoarder.

As said before, these games try to be believable rather than "realistic". Thing is, the degree of believability differs for each people. Heck I know many people who prefer to disable fast travel and to walk in the city (because who ran every time?)

I think New Vegas's hardcore mode option is a good design decision.

[Dead Man]

No but they're a necessary evil. Adding some management and sometimes making you make tough choices is important to me in RPGs. It's not realistic or fun to just run around care free with magical infinite pockets picking up thousands of junk items on the way to a dungeon just because I have no weight to worry about. Sometimes I think people put too much stock into needing every ounce of a game to be "fun" and that results in people diluting games. In order to have a higher challenge level you need things that stress you and force you to think hard, and that's not always going to be "fun".

Nailed it. That said, I often disable them with mods if possible once I have beaten a game.

[Dennis]

Yes. I love inventory management, especially grid-based inventory systems like RE4, STALKER, and Deux Ex etc. So Good.

QFT

Real gamer talk right there.

[Xater]

No but they're a necessary evil. Adding some management and sometimes making you make tough choices is important to me in RPGs. It's not realistic or fun to just run around care free with magical infinite pockets picking up thousands of junk items on the way to a dungeon just because I have no weight to worry about. Sometimes I think people put too much stock into needing every ounce of a game to be "fun" and that results in people diluting games. In order to have a higher challenge level you need things that stress you and force you to think hard, and that's not always going to be "fun".

I don't mind them that much but they really suck if you like crafting. I HATE managing crafting items. I don#t always want to go back to my stash just s I can get the one thing that would allow me right now to create what I want to create.

[Ravage]

Limits add meaning to your choices...but only when done right. Inventory limits that merely force the player to waste time travelling to the nearest merchant are essentially meaningless. I just don't see how such mechanics add depth without the presence of a time limit or other relevant consequences.

[amrihua]

Yes!

No limit simplifies the game.

[Spring-Loaded]

This reminds me of some Yahtzee Crenshaw said about Red Dead Redemption a few years back:

A dog is basically a retarded wolf.

Wait...that's not it.

What disappointed me the most is that there's no reason to break the law at all. In GTA, gaining a wanted level was this constant occupational hazard that came of doing the standard activities required of missions ... In RDR, on the other hand, missions very, very rarely demand breaking the law and there's no need to steal horses when you can recall your previous one at any time with one button. And fleeing your wanted circle across empty wilderness doesn't really have the same excitement to it. Becoming an outlaw just becomes another toy to mess around with for its own sake alone, another squeaky red button for the activity center. ... What it needed was a survival mechanic. On-screen meters for hunger, thirst and exhaustion, which constantly tick down as you adventure, requiring that you frequently eat, hydrate and camp out or hire a room for the night. Neglecting these stats worsens your aim, striking power and sprinting ability and decreases the size of your health bar, and may eventually cause you to pass out, at which point it's even odds whether a good samaritan finds you first or a mountain lion. Lose the insta-horse recall button and make it easier for a horse you're not riding to wander off, die or get nicked by opportunistic Mexicans. Instantly, with the struggle of human existence reinstated, virtually every other mechanic is enriched. Money has more worth because of the appeal of softer beds, larger canteens and tastier food. Players would have to be sure they were properly equipped before heading out of town. For a game with a plot whose central theme seems to be "pretentious trappings of civilization versus harsh purity of the wilderness," it would be most fitting if the player had to ask themselves how much it would take for them to abandon civilization. How desperate will you need to be before you succumb to the wilderness yourself? Before the dog transmutes back into the wolf?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/arti...ead-Redemption

RDR is an example of what a game becomes (or loses) when it throws away limits, be they in regards to weapons, items, stamina, health, etc. You have all of your weapons with you at a given moment. You never need to worry about dehydration, sleeping or eating (even though you come across other characters in the game world who are starving/lost in the desert). You never have to regularly spend money on anything.

Money is worthless since you never need to buy food/water, the meat and herbs you hunt for/harvest are worthless beyond selling it (which nets you more worthless money), buying horses is a novelty at best since you can just whistle for a replacement horse even after your current one dies, the infinite-horse call ability makes it almost pointless to steal horses, the wanted system is worthless because you barely feel the need to break any laws through normal game progression/survival and you can fast travel, almost making it so you don't have to ride a horse outside of missions.

The game is awesome, yet the option to have it be more hardcore in terms of survival would've given worth to just about every other aspect of the game. It's not completel analogous, but the carry limit of RPGs and this theoretical RDR survival mode seem akin.

There's no problem with preferring no carry limit, but don't just hate on it as if there's no point. Devs already cater to that point of view enough as it is. It has its worth.

[Monocle]

I can't think of any game I've played that was improved by carry limits. In every case they're annoying or worse.

The greatest thing I ever did in Skyrim was getting rid of my weight limit with a stat exploit. It saved me so much time dropping off loot. Finally I was able to feel the sense of freedom that the game was meant to convey in the first place.

[Dennis]

I can't think of any game I've played that was improved by carry limits. In every case they're annoying or worse.

[Monocle]

[Dennis]

O_O

[McLovin]

I hate it, and then skyrim also limits the buyers money so it's infinitely worse. I've had situations where I'm full, my companion is full, half way through a dungeon and I find some sick loot. All I can do is say Fuck.
If they made it so your armor and weapon in use didn't weigh anything it wouldn't be so bad.

[Canis lupus]

I don't enjoy it but its a good thing there's a carry limit. Otherwise some games wouldn't be challenging. Its all about the choices you make.

[Casimir]

I can't think of any game I've played that was improved by carry limits. In every case they're annoying or worse. The greatest thing I ever did in Skyrim was getting rid of my weight limit with a stat exploit. It saved me so much time dropping off loot. Finally I was able to feel the sense of freedom that the game was meant to convey in the first place.

Here's a few:

Dead Space 1/2
Max Payne 3
Fallout
Day Z
Splinter Cell

[OmegaDragon]

Can anyone name a recent game that was "challenging" because of inventory limits? I'd like to play it.

I liked how Recettear handled it. In Recttear you run a shop and need to items to sell. You can buy items, but you can also get them from dungeons (for 'free'). The main objective of the dungeon crawl is to get valuable items, but it's also a place where you can get items that are used in crafting (crafting items are usually low in value, but crafting can give you very good items for free). Or you can try to most of the dungeon in one run. You should also consider bringing good gear and along healing/mana items. Those will cost you valuable inventory space. If you die, you lose your loot and lose half a day, which can be pretty disastrous.
So you have to make a couple of decisions. How much healing/mana items do want to keep in your pocket and will you take some crafting ingredients? Should you take that knife with you for another adventurer or get an item that that is very valuable. You also have to take into account what your customers want.

[Wazzim]

It's the first thing I mod away when starting a WRPG.

[Acheteedo]

Hmm, I don't get you guys, I love weight limits, having to repair your armour etc. The item management side to RPGs is fun and immersive. Nothing beats that feeling of unloading your inventory and having freshly repaired armour!

[Lancehead]

Seems like for a lot of people in this thread not picking up what you don't need is a tough task. They want all their RPGs to be loot games.

[Wazzim]

Hmm, I don't get you guys, I love weight limits, having to repair your armour etc. The item management side to RPGs is fun and immersive. Nothing beats that feeling of unloading your inventory and having freshly repaired armour!

You're back from work and have 30min to play some Skyrim, the last thing you'd wanna do is unloading your inventory.

[Derrick01]

I don't know why people want limits in games, any game that limits you just isn't fun.

Because having no limits is boring. It's like playing with cheats or mods that grant cheat like abilities. Not fun at all and it's the fastest way for me to stop playing a game.

I don't mind them that much but they really suck if you like crafting. I HATE managing crafting items. I don#t always want to go back to my stash just s I can get the one thing that would allow me right now to create what I want to create.

My problems with crafting in most games goes further than adding weight. Most RPGs have awful crafting systems that are basically just item collectathons, there's no other depth to it at all. Like I want to actually craft my sword in Skyrim not just have it magically appear after getting enough steel ingots. I want to spend hours custom forging my sword into something awesome.

[olore]

No, I like stuff. It's a freakin' videogame

[Azure Phoenix]

I can't stand carry limits in games, the argument that having a limit makes the game more realistic is poor because if so then how would you explain where your hero manages to hide their 60 potion bottles without any visible bag to carry them in?

Inventory limits either need to go the entire way and limit you to what your character can visibly carry on their person (1 sword, 1 shield, a small bag full of potions and nothing else) or they need to go away completely. You can't pretend that limiting a character to "only" be able to carry 4 shields is realistic when those shields are nowhere to be seen.

[TheExorzist]

(Playing Witcher 2 atm) Now equip weight actually makes sense, but carry weight limits are just an annoyance. Pick up some good loot? Oh sorry we will now make you walk at half speed to the nearest warp connected vendor so you can dump some of your old items. Want to craft something? Oh sorry, you don't have that item on you at the moment. You have to go visit the warp connected vendor to access some of your crafting materials, then trudge all the way back here and I'll craft it for you. Micromanagement at its worst.

Don't put em all in one bowl. Witcher 2's inventory was straight from hell. Carrying limits are not always bad.

[Zaventem]

Carry limits are good for things like horror games, diablo like loot heavy RPGs( even though i find the inventory in diablo 3 way to small).. you know things that give survival type gameplay/modes. It's shit anywhere else.Thank god they From Software removed it when making Dark Souls,that made Demon's Souls much more terrible.

[Lancehead]

I can't stand carry limits in games, the argument that having a limit makes the game more realistic is poor because if so then how would you explain where your hero manages to hide their 60 potion bottles without any visible bag to carry them in? Inventory limits either need to go the entire way and limit you to what your character can visibly carry on their person (1 sword, 1 shield, a small bag full of potions and nothing else) or they need to go away completely. You can't pretend that limiting a character to "only" be able to carry 4 shields is realistic when those shields are nowhere to be seen.

The point of inventory limits is not whether I should be able to carry 2 weapons or 10 weapons, but whether I should carry 2 weapons or replace one with a bunch of potions. Carrying 2 weapons might mean you're more versatile in combat, but on the other hand carrying potions is helpful in a different way (health, mana, buffs etc). Now you have a meaningful choice to make, and it's facilitated by inventory limits.

[sinxtanx]

Unemployed people, maybe.

[Azure Phoenix]

The point of inventory limits is not whether I should be able to carry 2 weapons or 10 weapons, but whether I should carry 2 weapons or replace one with a bunch of potions. Carrying 2 weapons might mean you're more versatile in combat, but on the other hand carrying potions is helpful in a different way (health, mana, buffs etc). Now you have a meaningful choice to make, and it's facilitated by inventory limits.

Limits are not imposed to force players into making tough decisions about the way they play, as much as developers would like to have you believe, they are there simply to cover up poor game design. As previously mentioned, Dark Souls did away with the limit and yet you never become overpowered, nor is the in-game currency devalued by being able to pick up everything.

Besides, since when you does anyone ever have to choose between taking potions or an extra weapon with you into battle? Nobody leaves themselves short of equipment, they just end up having to leave loot on the ground or hobble back to town at a snails pace.

[Zaventem]

The point of inventory limits is not whether I should be able to carry 2 weapons or 10 weapons, but whether I should carry 2 weapons or replace one with a bunch of potions. Carrying 2 weapons might mean you're more versatile in combat, but on the other hand carrying potions is helpful in a different way (health, mana, buffs etc). Now you have a meaningful choice to make, and it's facilitated by inventory limits.

But 90% of those games allow you to stack some form of health potion to 99 so it defeats the purpose.

[Lancehead]

Limits are not imposed to force players into making tough decisions about the way they play, as much as developers would like to have you believe, they are there simply to cover up poor game design. As previously mentioned, Dark Souls did away with the limit and yet you never become overpowered, nor is the in-game currency devalued by being able to pick up everything. Besides, since when you does anyone ever have to choose between taking potions or an extra weapon with you into battle? Nobody leaves themselves short of equipment, they just end up having to leave loot on the ground or hobble back to town at a snails pace.

I recommend you play New Vegas with Sawyer's Mod, then you might see what tough choices you do have to make. It, in fact, starts right at the character creation.

Inventory limits may be poorly designed, but they're not a poor design concept, at all.

Your last comment doesn't make sense. Imposing well-designed carry limits doesn't make your character short of anything. Not every RPG is a loot game where you want to pick up everything you come across. In many RPGs inventory limits are designed to work with other gameplay systems, it's not some arbitrary bullshit.

But 90% of those games allow you to stack some form of health potion to 99 so it defeats the purpose.

Yeah, I'm not saying games are particularly good at implementing these limits. Majority aren't.

[patapuf]

Limits are not imposed to force players into making tough decisions about the way they play, as much as developers would like to have you believe, they are there simply to cover up poor game design. As previously mentioned, Dark Souls did away with the limit and yet you never become overpowered, nor is the in-game currency devalued by being able to pick up everything. Besides, since when you does anyone ever have to choose between taking potions or an extra weapon with you into battle? Nobody leaves themselves short of equipment, they just end up having to leave loot on the ground or hobble back to town at a snails pace.

Playing Hardcore Mode in New Vegas for example, especially the one introduced later, does restrict you in what stuff you carry around and what you don't. If you want to be prepared for everything you will have less capacity for looting and will earn less money as a result. It makes you choose what you loot because looting everything is not a viable tactic. Why would an adventurer pick up hundreds of steel swords anyway? He wouldn't, he would look for the valuable stuff and pick up just that.

Having to prepare and choose what you take with you when you go explore is a thing i like and it's a shame it's implemented rarely.


If you have no carry limit in Skyrim and remove the money constraints of the Merchants the game becomes even more trivial than it already is. And this is true for a lot of RPG's, there's no need to take everything with you. Of course i understand that this may be too cumbersome for some. Not everyone likes to manage such things. But if done right they are not bad mechanics at all.

[Geoff9920]

For me it depends entirely on the game. Item limits work very well in Deus Ex: HR or RE4, but it becomes an absolute pain in the ass in a game like The Witcher 2. Inventory Tetris > random equipment load limit.

[Field]

Yes.

[Despera]

No but they're a necessary evil. Adding some management and sometimes making you make tough choices is important to me in RPGs. It's not realistic or fun to just run around care free with magical infinite pockets picking up thousands of junk items on the way to a dungeon just because I have no weight to worry about. Sometimes I think people put too much stock into needing every ounce of a game to be "fun" and that results in people diluting games. In order to have a higher challenge level you need things that stress you and force you to think hard, and that's not always going to be "fun".

It's not like the limits are realistic though.

Carrying 49 swords? No problem.

Just picked up your 50th sword? Can't move anymore, you're over-encumbered, bitch!

To hell with this shit.

Dark Souls did it right. You can carry all you want, and your character's stamina and mobility depend only on what you equip.

[Zaptruder]

Personally, I quite like how Dragon's Dogma does it.

5 tier carry weight vs agility system (no encumberance, light, medium, heavy, slowed to a walk).

Plus team mates - to distribute stuff among.

Also carry weight and agility that's dependent on character size - the larger your character is, the less agile they are by default, but also the more they can carry.

And finally stuff in your home stash is accessible from any other home stash around the world - and crafting stuff is accessible from the stash at all times.

So the end result is - you get a carry limit, but it's really only for the items of the current trip + your personal equipment... every time you go back to town, you deposit all the stuff and start with a fresh load again.

It's probably one of the most elegant and most underrated (or at least least talked about) features of that game - especially when you compare it to how countless other RPGs do it.

Additionally, items are sorted automatically into relatively intelligent and useful categories, which is always a useful design feature that people don't think too much about... until they have to tediously sort through hundreds of objects without categories.

[InvincibleAgent]

I like RE4's setup. Infinite capacity for story items, e.g. keys, but limited space for weapons, health, ammo, etc.