Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[FogGobbler]

Hi!

I´m in the planning stage of  making an adventure and thinking about how to handle inventory objects. In the most common adventures I´ve played so far, the main character can pick up any kind of object, without knowing WHY.

For instance why should I pick up a peace of string in real life, if I don´t have a real reason to do so. In real life I would only pick this up, if a KNEW that I could build a fishing rod with it (stupid example). So shouldn´t the character only be allowed to pick this peace of string up, if he knew that he had to build this fishing rod. I clue could help the player along.

I know, it could be very annoying for the player to have to go back to some location, but it would be more realistic.

What do you think abou this?

[Mnemonic]

Well, Runaway did this, and it was *extremely annoying*. For me, at least. It went to such extremes where the player (me) already knew the right solution to a puzzle, while the main hero refused to do it because he'd been still missing some piece of information. For example **SPOILER**, when I tried to grind the coffee beans to refill the coffee machine, but Brian didn't want to, because he had to examine the coffee machine first to find out that the machine used ground coffee. *duh*

[Castler]

Yeah, that was a really annoying part. But I thought that, if they had put more thought into it, it would have been fine. I didn't have a problem with going back to a gardening closet to look for a new tool. It seemed to make sense, and after a while I adjusted to it.

Also, I enjoyed the added revelation that came when you realized, "Aha, I can use the <BLANK> for this!" Then you would go back and get it. The game designer just has to be sure to write it well, so that the character "keeps up" with the player's thoughts.

[gfx johnny]

Bad idea. The majority of adventure gamers will hate it imho. And it is not realistic, because in reality, i could take something with me just for fun, if it is my wish. In your game i would need a justification for every item i want to pick up - a big no-no if you ask me.

[odnorf]

Well, I don't like the idea but it could work. In case of Runaway for example, it works really good (despite what Mnemonic thinks  ) because the game is FULL of hints everywhere for every small puzzle and ofcourse because it's way too easy. What I'd prefer is a middle solution. Maybe the player be able to pick most of the items, but in case of really strange ones (and don't make me to mention a few  ) he should need to find a hint/reason first to do so. But those items must also be interactive before the hint, he just won't be able to pick it up yet.

[Nihil]

I like it more to pick up everything I see - it would be too annoying to wander through the whole game again and again to collect the things I need for this and that.

But I think it's a good idea to give the player hints when he has to use what so that the game does not end up in a try-and-error-orgy.

Things like that with the coffee machine Mnemonic mentioned should only be used very rare and when there is a good reason for (and in that special case it's not ;-) ) - it must serve the logic of the story somehow.

[FogGobbler]

Thanks for all your comments and opinions!

Oli

[drakon]

I think that the best inventory system that I have seen was the on in Return to the Mysterious Island. You could pick up anything but you have a full screen inventory where you could combine items together to create new ones and you didnt just need 1 combination to make the required item. At some point you need a weapon and you end up having the choice of making a bow/gun/dynamite or all 3 if you like. Also some items which arent chemically changed can be taken apart with the components used for something else. I didnt particularly like the game story but the inventory system was what kept me playing and made it good. Im planning to implement a similar sort of system in the game I'm currently working on.