You’re right about some of the effects that limited inventory space has, like forcing the player to prioritize what they take or to vary their approach instead of just using one gun throughout the entire game, but that’s kinda my point. I was responding to your statement that limited inventory adds player choice, which is not true. These effects are the opposite, they’re restrictions on the player’s choice, specifically on the player’s ability to choose something that might be considered boring or overpowered. I don’t think such restrictions are necessary, but more to the point, I think players deserve to know the true nature and purpose of them. Don’t go around saying that limited inventory space adds choice. Tell your players the truth, that it’s a leash that restricts their choice and that you’re keeping them on because you don’t trust them not to ruin the game for themselves. And that you’re withholding that choice from those who would actually enjoy that playstyle.
You’re also correct that skill systems are another significant factor in locking the player into their choices. That’s what I meant when I mentioned character classes and praised Skyrim’s lack of them. You’re right that switching playstyles in Skyrim requires some effort, but not nearly as much as leveling up in the first place. A high-level character has all kinds of equipment, abilities, and resources they can use to speed up the process (e.g. just using their wealth to pay for skill training), and I really think Bethesda is onto something with this system. It doesn’t let you be great at everything right from the start (too OP), nor does it rigidly lock you into a single playstyle (too restrictive). Other games have also implemented skill systems that achieve a similar effect (Kenshi, Dark Souls 2).
As for the question of how to handle inventory itself, here’s the thing. The issue I have with limited inventory space is that most games slavishly implement it without giving a lot of thought to what happens when you run out. Because that’s the whole point, right? Your inventory capacity is limited so that you can run out, either of inventory capacity itself or of the resources that you carry in your inventory. At which point you need to stop doing what you’re doing and replenish, and the usual ways of handling that are just uninspired and annoying: If you run out of inventory space, you need to make a trip to town and sell your vendor trash before you get back to killing mobs. If you run out of ammo, you need to stop fighting and go pick up some more. Both of those feel like a chore, they’re a needless, boring interruption of gameplay.
And it’s not an easy problem to solve, very few games even make an attempt. Some adjust resource drops to suit your needs, dropping you ammo/resources that you’re short on and not dropping stuff that you have plenty of. That works, but it cheapens the experience, because the entire resource economy is fake. The new Dooms have the right idea of making the player engage enemies even more aggressively instead of backing off to replenish ammo, but even there the glory kills are basically short first-person cutscenes that interrupt the gameplay (which is the reason I haven’t played those games, I find the idea of having to frequently do finishers with canned animations off-putting). The best solution I’ve seen, which unfortunately doesn’t seem to be very popular, is Mass Effect 1’s overheat meter, which is basically equivalent to regenerating ammo. It prevents you from just holding the button down as you might if you had an enormous/infinite ammo reserve, but it also doesn’t force you to stop fighting when you run out and have to wait for your gun to cool down, since you can use that time to reposition, throw grenades, use abilities, etc. It’s a shame this system hasn’t caught on.
Similar issues exist around vendor trash hauling. Some games manage to do away with it completely. For example, The Saboteur and The Bard’s Tale both show you what loot you found and then immediately convert it into money as if you’d sold it to a vendor, only you didn’t actually have to make the trip. It’s basically just a currency drop with some flavor text, and the games are in no way worse off for not forcing the player to periodically visit a vendor. But that only works in these games because actual usable items and weapons are very few and very simplistic, it’s a much tougher nut to crack in games with more complex itemization. Path of Exile actually uses inventory management issues as part of its monetization model, where buying stash tabs is technically optional, but inventory management is hell without them. The Nioh series, which is a soulslike with ARPG-esque itemization, is a prime example of devs not giving any thought to what happens when you run out. They almost give you an unlimited inventory but not quite. You can carry 600 items on you and store 4000 more in your stash, which is a lot. You won’t have to worry about inventory limitations for a long, long time, quite possibly all the way to endgame. But what happens when you do finally run out of space? You probably just give up on the game outright, because now it expects you to manually sort through almost five thousand items one by one, and fuck that, right? Unlike the ammo problem, which IMO is solved quite well by ME1, I can’t recall a game that has a really good solution to the vendor trash problem.
Oh, and as for players finding your game too easy and boring due to unlimited inventory and leaving bad reviews after playing for five minutes, I don’t think that’s a realistic concern. You can make games challenging and interesting just fine without rigidly locking players into their choices. Skyrim’s unlimited leveling doesn’t seem to have made a dent in its success, and Nioh also isn’t regarded as easy despite having an inventory limit that you’re unlikely to reach for a few hundred hours.
In some ways, yes, limited inventories are to prevent the player from making the wrong choice but it is also a point to ask the player do you take X or Y, and having a choice between those two options makes the player choose a playstyle. Of course, you can absolutely still do this without a limited inventory. Deus Ex does it right at the start of the game where Paul runs up to you and gives you 3 weapon options and straight up asks how are you going to play this game. That said it’s supposed to be a reminder, a constant active choice, on what the player is picking for their playstyle. That said…
Honestly, you’ve kind of swayed me more into wanting unlimited inventories. You are right, limited inventories seem to be a design crutch used by a lot of games that don’t think of their whole ramification and more important the actions needed during other gameplay to justify a limited inventory. I will say I do think certain games make a lot of sense to have limited inventories but I would really like to see designers move away from limited inventories to allow more player freedom. I could see taking Doom 2016’s style of driving players toward getting more resources while keeping inventories unlimited (and not putting you in a gameplay-breaking cutscene).
Unlimited inventories certainly work really well for the latest Hitman series which kind of shows that it could have worked for Deus Ex. In fact, in the first half of the Deus Ex, you work for UNATCO and could just let players collect a bunch of crap and then have them turn it into the evidence locker or whatnot. The design choice to simply limit your inventory can be seen as almost lazy nowadays because it means no one is thinking of what happens if you don’t have a limited inventory. It’s certainly given me a lot to think about on how I’d build or design a game without the inventory limitations.
I’m glad I was able to give you some food for thought. For my part, I can see how some games might benefit from inventory limitations. Certainly if you’re making any kind of realistic simulation, infinite inventory space would be inappropriate. Allowing the player to amass huge stockpiles of consumables is probably also not a good idea (though this issue can also be attacked from the other direction, by simply not giving the player too many consumables in the first place). After further consideration, it seems clear to me a distinction should be drawn between inventories used to hold items the player uses, such as weapons and consumables, and inventories used to hold vendor trash. I still firmly believe that the latter should be unlimited and the player should not be forced to interrupt the fun they’re having slaying monsters just to make room for more loot. It doesn’t help that most games don’t in fact make such a distinction and just have one inventory for everything (Kingdoms of Amalur being the only exception I can think of at the moment).
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !gaming@beehaw.org
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it’s gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
You’re right about some of the effects that limited inventory space has, like forcing the player to prioritize what they take or to vary their approach instead of just using one gun throughout the entire game, but that’s kinda my point. I was responding to your statement that limited inventory adds player choice, which is not true. These effects are the opposite, they’re restrictions on the player’s choice, specifically on the player’s ability to choose something that might be considered boring or overpowered. I don’t think such restrictions are necessary, but more to the point, I think players deserve to know the true nature and purpose of them. Don’t go around saying that limited inventory space adds choice. Tell your players the truth, that it’s a leash that restricts their choice and that you’re keeping them on because you don’t trust them not to ruin the game for themselves. And that you’re withholding that choice from those who would actually enjoy that playstyle.
You’re also correct that skill systems are another significant factor in locking the player into their choices. That’s what I meant when I mentioned character classes and praised Skyrim’s lack of them. You’re right that switching playstyles in Skyrim requires some effort, but not nearly as much as leveling up in the first place. A high-level character has all kinds of equipment, abilities, and resources they can use to speed up the process (e.g. just using their wealth to pay for skill training), and I really think Bethesda is onto something with this system. It doesn’t let you be great at everything right from the start (too OP), nor does it rigidly lock you into a single playstyle (too restrictive). Other games have also implemented skill systems that achieve a similar effect (Kenshi, Dark Souls 2).
As for the question of how to handle inventory itself, here’s the thing. The issue I have with limited inventory space is that most games slavishly implement it without giving a lot of thought to what happens when you run out. Because that’s the whole point, right? Your inventory capacity is limited so that you can run out, either of inventory capacity itself or of the resources that you carry in your inventory. At which point you need to stop doing what you’re doing and replenish, and the usual ways of handling that are just uninspired and annoying: If you run out of inventory space, you need to make a trip to town and sell your vendor trash before you get back to killing mobs. If you run out of ammo, you need to stop fighting and go pick up some more. Both of those feel like a chore, they’re a needless, boring interruption of gameplay.
And it’s not an easy problem to solve, very few games even make an attempt. Some adjust resource drops to suit your needs, dropping you ammo/resources that you’re short on and not dropping stuff that you have plenty of. That works, but it cheapens the experience, because the entire resource economy is fake. The new Dooms have the right idea of making the player engage enemies even more aggressively instead of backing off to replenish ammo, but even there the glory kills are basically short first-person cutscenes that interrupt the gameplay (which is the reason I haven’t played those games, I find the idea of having to frequently do finishers with canned animations off-putting). The best solution I’ve seen, which unfortunately doesn’t seem to be very popular, is Mass Effect 1’s overheat meter, which is basically equivalent to regenerating ammo. It prevents you from just holding the button down as you might if you had an enormous/infinite ammo reserve, but it also doesn’t force you to stop fighting when you run out and have to wait for your gun to cool down, since you can use that time to reposition, throw grenades, use abilities, etc. It’s a shame this system hasn’t caught on.
Similar issues exist around vendor trash hauling. Some games manage to do away with it completely. For example, The Saboteur and The Bard’s Tale both show you what loot you found and then immediately convert it into money as if you’d sold it to a vendor, only you didn’t actually have to make the trip. It’s basically just a currency drop with some flavor text, and the games are in no way worse off for not forcing the player to periodically visit a vendor. But that only works in these games because actual usable items and weapons are very few and very simplistic, it’s a much tougher nut to crack in games with more complex itemization. Path of Exile actually uses inventory management issues as part of its monetization model, where buying stash tabs is technically optional, but inventory management is hell without them. The Nioh series, which is a soulslike with ARPG-esque itemization, is a prime example of devs not giving any thought to what happens when you run out. They almost give you an unlimited inventory but not quite. You can carry 600 items on you and store 4000 more in your stash, which is a lot. You won’t have to worry about inventory limitations for a long, long time, quite possibly all the way to endgame. But what happens when you do finally run out of space? You probably just give up on the game outright, because now it expects you to manually sort through almost five thousand items one by one, and fuck that, right? Unlike the ammo problem, which IMO is solved quite well by ME1, I can’t recall a game that has a really good solution to the vendor trash problem.
Oh, and as for players finding your game too easy and boring due to unlimited inventory and leaving bad reviews after playing for five minutes, I don’t think that’s a realistic concern. You can make games challenging and interesting just fine without rigidly locking players into their choices. Skyrim’s unlimited leveling doesn’t seem to have made a dent in its success, and Nioh also isn’t regarded as easy despite having an inventory limit that you’re unlikely to reach for a few hundred hours.
In some ways, yes, limited inventories are to prevent the player from making the wrong choice but it is also a point to ask the player do you take X or Y, and having a choice between those two options makes the player choose a playstyle. Of course, you can absolutely still do this without a limited inventory. Deus Ex does it right at the start of the game where Paul runs up to you and gives you 3 weapon options and straight up asks how are you going to play this game. That said it’s supposed to be a reminder, a constant active choice, on what the player is picking for their playstyle. That said…
Honestly, you’ve kind of swayed me more into wanting unlimited inventories. You are right, limited inventories seem to be a design crutch used by a lot of games that don’t think of their whole ramification and more important the actions needed during other gameplay to justify a limited inventory. I will say I do think certain games make a lot of sense to have limited inventories but I would really like to see designers move away from limited inventories to allow more player freedom. I could see taking Doom 2016’s style of driving players toward getting more resources while keeping inventories unlimited (and not putting you in a gameplay-breaking cutscene).
Unlimited inventories certainly work really well for the latest Hitman series which kind of shows that it could have worked for Deus Ex. In fact, in the first half of the Deus Ex, you work for UNATCO and could just let players collect a bunch of crap and then have them turn it into the evidence locker or whatnot. The design choice to simply limit your inventory can be seen as almost lazy nowadays because it means no one is thinking of what happens if you don’t have a limited inventory. It’s certainly given me a lot to think about on how I’d build or design a game without the inventory limitations.
I’m glad I was able to give you some food for thought. For my part, I can see how some games might benefit from inventory limitations. Certainly if you’re making any kind of realistic simulation, infinite inventory space would be inappropriate. Allowing the player to amass huge stockpiles of consumables is probably also not a good idea (though this issue can also be attacked from the other direction, by simply not giving the player too many consumables in the first place). After further consideration, it seems clear to me a distinction should be drawn between inventories used to hold items the player uses, such as weapons and consumables, and inventories used to hold vendor trash. I still firmly believe that the latter should be unlimited and the player should not be forced to interrupt the fun they’re having slaying monsters just to make room for more loot. It doesn’t help that most games don’t in fact make such a distinction and just have one inventory for everything (Kingdoms of Amalur being the only exception I can think of at the moment).