this post was submitted on 11 May 2024
800 points (99.0% liked)
Greentext
4610 readers
869 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I say this as a game designer: use the stuff you get. That's why we put it there. You'll get more, we promise.
And then there are games like... Oh, you sold that quest item? Tough luck, restart the whole game and make better decisions lol
Yeah that's definitely no good. Thankfully zorking yourself is basically unheard of in modern game design.
Yeah but achievements exist.
Maybe I did need to carry that garden gnome throughout the entire game and send it into space.
I hadn't really thought of them that way before but you're right. That is often where the missable stuff is now.
Then you could get some replay value out of the game. Sometimes I find having goals in the game can help motivate the desire to play, even if I don't end up going for them.
I miss the old games that didn't make winning inevitable.
We know that you are brave, but you might want to save.
But then I wouldn't have had the opportunity to dump an attache case full of grenades on the head of the last boss in Resident Evil 4!
You don't fill your attache case with fish?
This is a game design failure, it's why max ammo is a thing.
I'm not sure what you mean. You're saying it's a failure if the game doesn't limit what you can carry?
In fps games ? Absolutely. By adding a limit you're telling your player to use it, or lose it. Gotta protect players from themselves. Unfortunately it's hard to apply to some types of games, like crpgs which are notoriously bad at giving random shit that you might one day need.
There should be some kind of mechanic where you can put the thing somewhere and retrieve it later. Sort of like a ender chest, but with multiple, mutually-exclusive repositories.
For example, you could sell the item to a particular NPC, and someone else from the NPC’s same guild in a different city might have the item, but only if you ask about unusual items. “Oh yeah I bought this the other day from my counterpart in Lombard: ”
Some way to free up inventory, and take a chance the item will still be in your world later.
Ok cool, I definitely agree in most cases. Limitations create choices, and choices are what create meaningful gameplay.
I don't think you can use this as a blanket statement, though, even if I usually prefer it personally. Some people absolutely despise inventory management, and that's fair.
I also don't think inventory limits totally get rid of the hoarding thing. For people who hoard to an extreme it can create a lot of distress for them, and they probably won't enjoy the game as much. They still try and hoard, and end up having to leave things behind or throw things away, still never using them. It's not an easy problem to solve.
It sounds like we have a similar preference though, and I agree that it can be really good design to limit people to create a more powerful experience. It's certainly the way I design in general.
Final Attack materia from ff7 has entered the chat.
Old games definitely were much more comfortable with missable very important items. There's a certain magic to it, but it can definitely feel pretty bad.
I say this as an old timer: use the stuff you get. That’s why you have the urge now. You won’t get more, I promise.
are you talking about my dick