On the one hand, Annapurna seems to know what they’re doing - Nimona was fantastic. On the other hand, I think it’s going to be hard to make this into a movie. I’m assuming they’ll focus on the journey of the cat and the environment around it, but they’ll have to fill all of the other space, hopefully with the robots and their personalities.
@stopthatgirl7 Thanks, I hate it lol. I still loved both #baldursgate3 and #starfield but dislike the inventory busywork. Also the vendors have limited money to buy my loot. These games are retraining our old looting habits and I don't know if I like it.
I haven't played Starfield, but on Bg3 you can do a partial rest (not using any camp supplies) you can initiate this standing right in front of the vendor when you leave camp after the rest your vendor will have money again. You can repeat this until you run out of things to sell.
I’m a pack-rat in games and ive only hit the first (of three) stage of encumbrance two or three times in Baldur’s Gate and I’m in the final act. And my character is a bard with 8 strength so he has no muscles which means the lowest encumbrance threshold. I wouldn’t consider encumbrance even a little bit of a problem in BG3 since if you ever do become encumbered you can just move stuff from your player character to one of the NPCs used as a pack mule.
You can also send stuff from your bag directly to the camp chest without having to go there. On pc it's right click send to camp, on ps5 it's square button send to camp. I'm not sure if there is a limit as to how much you can send there i havent hit it yet if there is. You can access camp from anywhere but a red zone so no real reason to carry what you are not using.
I’m a hoarder in these games. If I can store all my stuff back at my base like in Fallout 4 and Skyrim then I’m happy. As long as they don’t pull the Fallout 76 stunt where you need to pay monthly for extra storage.
Eh. Can't say I had fun watching my higher end weapon break on the stronger, bullet sponge enemies later on, and replacing it with a crappy short swords that do barely any damage. ToTK though was certainly better thanks to fusion.
That it kind of the thing tho, if you just violently smash your sword around, it's gonna break. Like katanas are pretty flimsy and a german greatsword for example could just snap it off. Let's take elden ring for example and you use your sword to find an invisible wall, that's terrible for a sword and it would go to shit really quick. So i guess in a way it's realistic. But i really don't like it when games do that. All it does for me is that i'm never going to use the nice things in the game, because they break, then you need a new one or repair it or whatever.
I'm fine with encumbrance... especially in these Bethesda games. All they do is litter the world with garbage for the player to pick up and carry around for no reason other than make the game longer.
It’s not “here to stay” it’s a feature that is used or not used depending on the level of realness wanted. Some are fine with hand waving away encumbrance, some are not.
If you’re playing a walking simulator, it is kinda part of the immersion.
If you’re running around killing every Greek god under the Sun, but suddenly you pick up your 7th weapon that’s just chains with something at the end of it, and BOOM you can’t move anymore cuz your too heavy, then it’s getting in the way. Instead of implementing encumbrance they just, limit you to 6 weapons and tada, they could explain it as “it’s too much weight” but they won’t give you the option for it to happen as slowing you down would kill the pace and feel of the game.
Baldurs gate is a DND based CRPG and Starfield is a loadscreenwalking simulator. Of course they have encumbrance.
Fair, depends on the game. CRPG’s will tend to have it in. I mean for example WotR and Kingmaker you can get a bag of holding if you buy it or put stuff into strength on characters or etc in order to not have to worry about it much but it’s still there, and not spending the money on it or building any characters with strength means you will be limited.
And you’ve got KOTOR and Pillars of Eternity and others that are clearly D&D derivatives, but solve the problem handily with a “stash” whose contents are never accessible in combat.
I have never understood the fascination with inventory management. I just want to find stuff, and use that stuff later on. If I wanted something as boring as my actual job, I’d just do my actual job and get paid for it instead of buying a game.
In BG3 it is a balance mechanic. Heavy objects tend to be completely OP and are used to cheese combat. encumberance limits this and even allows building your character specifically for this playstyle.
In Bethesda games encumberance is in part there to protect players from themselves. If every object can be picked up (and that is a design principle in those games) and every object has a Value, then the optimal strategy is always to grab every single object you can find and then sell everything at once. If that does not sound like fun to you that is because it is not, but still i know multiple people who play those games this way even with encumberance in place. Players will always find a way to ruin their own fun, the only hing you can do is to put systems in place that disincentivise these behaviors.
A “stash” that is only accessible outside combat mostly preserves that balance, IMO.
Most games come up with a range of ways to get around the problem, even when they do have a strictly limited inventory with encumbrance:
Zero weight quest items
Ability to run or fast travel while encumbered (FO4 selectable perk)
A pet or NPC capable of carrying your less valuable stuff back to the vendor for sale (Torchlight had this, did Diablo? I haven’t played in decades.)
Pack animals/robots
Portable vendors (Skyrim had a demon vendor you could summon once a day)
Bags of holding (or similar)
Warp chests (many chests with same contents/inventory around map)
etc. ad infinitum. The fact that most games implement a variety of ways to deal with absence of an infinite inventory is kind of a tipoff that it’s more of a burden than a desirable aspect of gameplay. Most of these games are holding up a carrot (or several) to get you to pursue certain achievements just to reduce the monotony of inventory management.
Yeah, I added a ship upgrade and never even got it beyond halfway full. Granted I don't pick up everything, and I usually sold spare armor/weapons each town visit out of habit, but exotic materials and resources I always grabbed, and ended up with like 1100 mass out of 2600 on my ship.
You can modify your ships without having any of the shipbuilding stuff I think. You are limited, but you can add cargo space with some penalty to range and mass to help ease it that. Additionally, storage via outpost is cheap. It's like 3 iron, 2 aluminum, 2 adaptive frames for 250 mass resource storage. Build a couple of those at an outpost and you're set. If you do a....I don't remember the name, but a storage link between your ship and containers, you can transfer straight from ship to container without taking it out of cargo. Just mass dump things into storage and be cleared out.
Alternatively, if you have a lot of credits, Shieldbreaker, a class B ship at New Atlantis, is a wonderful ship. Like 2300 mass stock, and you can add more if needed with minimal penalty.
It takes 4 minutes to craft like 30 storage containers and the piece to move stuff off your ship easily.
Every single Bethesda game since at least Daggerfall has had carry weight. This isn't a new concept within Bethesda games. If you are hoarding crafting materials, why not...use them to craft things so you can hoard more?
They’re always the first mods I installed in skyrim. So many times you get a surprise dragon fight after just clearing out and looting an entire dungeon. I hate killing it and then not being able to pick up the bones because oooh no you’re already carrying too much!
I don't mind encumbrance, unless it's painfully low. Stalker is a bit annoying with it, though it makes sense. Then when it's so high it becomes a non issue is also annoying because eventually I hit the cap. The one in bg3 is fine with me. I tend to choose my companions to carry specific items, so it's evenly spread out. Then I take breaks to go sell off my junk, usually every few in game days. I think I gave only hit cap once, I gave Karlach all the weapons I find and she was overloaded. I don't mind encumbrance most of the time.
Actually I think I'm the opposite. I hate encumbrance more when it's massive. When I played survival mode in Fallout NV, I found it so much more fun to only pick up essential items. I would commonly pick up water bottles and food instead of valuable weapons or ammo. I was usually way under my low encumbrance because I had a mindset switch to only pick up stuff that will allow me to survive the desert.
Thing is, what’s the alternative? Either you put a hard limit on the inventory, or you give players an infinite inventory. The latter can be made to work, but it also takes away the element of risk.
Perhaps ‘inventory size’ could be tied with difficulty settings. If you want a Deus Ex-type experience where you really have to be picky about what you bring, maybe that should be down to the player; and so should a huge inventory that lets you bring everything everywhere.
I actually really like what starfield does. It’s a rolling scale, the more encumbered you are the more you have to pause and “recharge” O2. So being over by 2 won’t affect you a lot, but over by 100 sure will
I agree, I don’t mind much of how they handle encumbrance itself except for the constant nagging from my companion. Personally, I just don’t think they interrogated the concepts of encumbrance at all - which isn’t surprising of course, bethesda design seems to have so many sacred cows it may as well be a holy dairy.
In my opinion, it works best to make loot non-sellable. It takes away the need to fill your inventory with tons of garbage, just to carry it to the store. Instead, your inventory can be reduced to a size that meaningfully limits your options during challenges and forces you to select your equipment strategically.
Not so much for these games, but this conversation had me thinking about alternate mechanics for loot sales in the open source game I work on, and I think one solution is to have any loot of any value use more of a pawn shop/consignment mechanic. Rather than selling guns individually maybe you can put your crate of used weaponry up for sale on the black market, and then you have to wait for a buyer. Might take a long time depending on how much they’re worth.
Hmm, do you mean with a limited number of slots of what can be on offer in the pawn shop? So, that players can maybe grab one or two trophies for selling and leave the rest behind? Otherwise, I’m not sure, what your idea is. 🙃
No, I mean when you the player want to sell your items you have to put them up for sale on the black market and wait for buyers, and there’s a simple demand algorithm that determines what kind of price you’ll get and how long it will take.if you’ve flooded the market with cheap guns, you don’t get much for them.
Amazing people make articles on… Nothing, essentially? It’s just encumbrance, right?
I was expecting it would at least go into detail and explain or compare how many items or units of weight you can carry, if it slows you down gradually or if it pretty much freezes you on the spot, differences with previous well known franchise games but no, none of that either.
I love how in Starfield your encumbrance and movement are aided or harmed by planetary gravity.
On a low gravity world I have had over 800/200 and run along with no issues. While on a planet with 1.6 or higher and you really can’t ignore the slowdown. You just can’t fast travel, but you don’t stop like in Skyrim, so I think that’s a positive step in the right direction.
That's not even realistic. I know that Starfield isn't meant to be a simulator, but if you put in something to try and be "real", you should do it right. Gravity would affect the weight of something, but the inertia is still the same. Moving and stopping a big object in space with no gravity at all is still hard to do.
In BG3 encumbrance is so pointless. The increased carry capacity and reduced armor weight make it a non-factor. The few times you actually reach it you just sort by weight and send some of the heavier stuff to camp. You can even do it during combat. So they should have just gotten rid of it. You are bringing all your resources at all times anyhow and the inventory manamgent is still terrible.
The current system is just a minor inconvenience because you will have to go to your camp when you reach a vendor and want to get rid of some of the extra stuff. I would much prefer it if they either stick to the base rules, with base weight values and encumbrance starting at 5x the strength value. Then one would have to make actual decisions on what to bring. But right now, even with 8 strength you never have any issues. Or they just get rid of it.
And that's how I feel about encumbrance in general. Most games have such absurd high carry limits that the system doesn't add anything and just becomes an inconvenience and annoyance.
I don’t mind encumbrance in Baldur’s Gate. I think people are only thinking of I got all this cool stuff why should I have to choose between it all. I see it as limiting cheese mechanics. It could limit infinite money by not letting people pick up every single item to sell. Or if there was no encumbrance why would I use tactics when I can just use barrelmancy? I have to fight these powerful opponents? Nah I’m just gonna hit em with x amount of exploding barrels till they die since I can carry every barrel ever.
I don’t like encumbrance, but I’ve never felt it negatively impact my enjoyment of a game. I didn’t even know encumbrance was this much of an issue honestly. It just makes sense in certain games, imo.
Edit: Could also be made a toggle-able feature or unlock?
“Would I like this game more if I didnt have my cool item right now?”
Hard to say yes… But in practice the answer might very well be yes. Challenge in games is rarely something you directly ask for, you want the reward after all, but often the fun is in exactly overcoming those obstacles, and not actually the reward. In that sense encumbrance might feel bad… but being able to grab every single item always could very well ruin part of the fun.
In the end games are sets of challenges presented in certain ways, and its just whether those challenges work well from a game design perspective.
Has anyone here ever thought “I would like this game more if it had encumbrance in it”?
Yes, I totally have. In fact even in starfield, I found pretty quickly that I was wishing the game would arbitrarily restrict my ammunition and medpack supplies, because the combat was more fun when I could run out of shots and healing in the early game. It’s not even the kind of thing I can easily do as a challenge myself because it’s so easy to pick them up and go “over”. I legit think starfield’s encumbrance system would be much better if it was more restrictive, so that I had to carefully choose my equipment and things, than the current “I can carry so much that gameplay is not meaningfully restricted, but not nearly enough to collect and sell all the loot I find”.
I posted upstream about the problem with encumbrance in this style of game. It’s not that encumbrance is inherently bad, but that most of the time in crpgs, it just seems to be ‘there’, it’s not in the service of any part of the gameplay.
I think encumbrance adds something really important to the game but it’s really delicate. Namely, I think the pacing of games is better when encumbrance exists compared to not.
What encumbrance does is force you to make some decisions about loot right now as opposed to later at the merchant. I have to decide to pick something up intentionally because I don’t want to have to deal with all this junk later. When I later go to a merchant, I only now have stuff in my inventory that either (a) I want to have on hand to use or (b) I think will be valuable to sell.
A game with no encumbrance does not enforce this part of the decision making on you. You no longer are required at pick-up time to make any part of that decision. As a result, players are less likely to interact with loot at all until they get to the merchant. At which point they now need to spend much more time sorting through their stuff to figure out what to sell or keep. In other words, the optimal way to play becomes simply clicking the take all button on every container you find and dealing with it later. I personally would find this interact worse as the chore of dealing with it becomes bigger and bigger and harder to manage with no in game penalty for doing this to yourself. Basically, players have to choose to play the game in a way that’s fun rather than being forced to play the game in a way that’s fun.
There’s also a second important thing that encumbrance adds to games like this: scarcity of resources. Not scarcity in a sense that resources of any kind are hard to come by, but in the sense that the player has to purposefully make decisions in order to amass things like gold or camp supplies. With encumbrance, I could still just take all every container until I fill up, but then I would have an inventory filled with worthless junk which might sell for much less. Or I might have less room for camp supplies. What I think most players will end up doing, though, is being more selective about what they pick up, enabling them to be more efficient with their sold goods and inventory space to prioritize things that help them succeed. Without encumbrance, this entire aspect of gameplay is removed.
Sure, it might feel bad in the moment to have to make a decision between two items for the sake of encumbrance, but I think the value it adds to the game is generally more than it takes away.
ign.com
Najstarsze