Are inventory weight limits a useless mechanic?

[Mikejames]

In theory I think the idea of weight based inventory management can work. In practice I'm having a hard time coming up with a game in which it actually did work. Whereas Tetris style inventory has numerous examples that work. Most notably Resident Evil 4 and Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

I'm usually frustrated when explorative games prolong things with an item limit, but I was fond of RE4's system.

Something about physically sorting your weapons and color-coding your limited supply of grenades before the jubilations of buying a bigger apache case resonated with me.

 

[AnthrSolidSnake]

It's something a lot of people have seemed to be voicing their distaste for recently. I like them a lot honestly. However, I like challenge in my games, however arbitrary it may seem, so it could just be me.

There are obviously problem with it, such as in Skyrim there's that joke that you can be carrying two full sets of armor, three swords, and a swarm of potions, but once you pick up one little flower all of a sudden you can barely move. In this case managing an inventory through spaces makes a little more sense, however considering how much Skyrim is focused on loot, that wouldn't exactly be ideal.

In my opinion it depends on what kind of game you're playing. Survival games? Fuck yeah, limit the inventory. To me, cautiously managing your inventory in a survival game and choosing between that extra med kit, or that fancy new weapon you found is crucial to the gameplay. I even purposely limited my inventory space in Fallout 3, since I wanted a more survival based experience. To me, it actually improved my experience, but some people would call me a masochist I suppose.

I won't claim realism, since at the end of the day, it's all still a game. A game can be pretty grounded in reality, but if you plan on making it 100% authentic to how things work in the real world, you'll probably find not many people will want to play your game.

DayZ is a great example I can think of for a great limited inventory system. You have nowhere to store your items. Just on yourself. The amount of inventory space you have depends on what you're wearing, and what backpack you have. It really makes you think about what is more important to you. Some extra bandages for yourself, or that defib for your partner?

 

[PirateRose]

The weight/inventory limit is annoying, yes, but I do feel that if removed it can create imbalances in other aspects of the game. In particular when it comes to the economic function of games. It's there to help deter people who collect ever tiny little cheap thing just to to sell for that extra bit of money. That's the major end result of loot, the game economics.

When you go to loot, most games have a window that pop up showing you whats in the loot and you have the option to determine what to take or not there. A lot of people just click to take everything, or set up their game to autoloot, and then they run into the problem of the weight/inventory limit very quick.

It's not just weight/inventory limit that's annoying, it's loot existing in general that is technically annoying. I can easily see someone ending up with so much loot, that they spend a good hour trying to find shops with enough money left to sell them in.

If you get rid of weight/inventory and all everyone does is autoloot, why even have any loot and inventory at all. What's the use of all the little things in Fallout and Skyrim, the garbage items in Dragon Age that you just end up pressing a button in your inventory to trash anyways.

All that loot is just trashed or sold and are ultimately a waste of the developers time creating if the players don't even care.

Why not just pick up money directly from the enemies killed, forgo the whole annoying loot gathering thing, and use the money to buy what you want from the shops, which would have all the weapons available.

Ultimately, removing weight/inventory limits is dumbing down and over simplifying a RPG game because there are people who want to just blow through the game as quickly as possible.

For me, personally, I like my rpg games to be well over 40 hours, ideally over 100 hours. I like taking my time in those games, I like loot systems, I like finding random books and objects with lore information to sit and read. I see there is a perfectly good reason for weight/inventory limits and again, although annoying, I feel it does play a minor part of the game that has many consequences if removed. I think it all adds to a level of immersion for the world, adds to the role playing aspect of a role playing game, and the slight amount of complexity to it makes the game interesting.

 

[WeepingAngels]

Well you do need limits on your inventory otherwise people will just stack up some shit that will make them immortal

Why do you care if I stock up on 99 Hi Potions?

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Now I do not condemn the mechanic itself. I mean, it's just another tool in a designer's box, isn't it? It even makes sense in games in which resource management is a major focus. survival horror is a great example of this. The thing is, I just don't see what point it has in most RPGs. It seems to only serve to put hurdles in the way of exploration.

There are a great many reasons to have an inventory weight or item limit. I'll just list the ones that come to mind immediately:

1) Limitations restrict what a player can carry which can force a player to balance their priorities for success and survival. This is commonly seen in Survival Horror games and RPGs where basic survival is designed to be somewhat taxing (Fallout New Vegas for example). It can also be used to force a player to use items in novel or unusual ways.

2) Limiting what a player can carry and offering a player a meaningful way to get rid of excess baggage subtly urges players to revisit hub areas to offload such things. This can be used to help ensure the story advances or that players are aware that quests are being handed out.

3) Limitations, when done realistically, can add the inherent realism in a game which can be important when a key aim of the game is simulation.

4) Limitation of what players can carry can allow for performance improvements which is especially important when dealing with large numbers of players or characters with an inventory as having caps allows for simplifying assumptions to be made when designing various systems.

In most RPGs, some combination of the above four reasons as well as simple tradition in the genre explain why it tends to be a fixture.

 

[Thedutchjelle]

Not neccesarily.

Take a look at S.T.A.L.K.E.R, which already got a mention earlier in this thread.

Weapons and armor in the game are usually fairly heavy, as are anti-armor bullets. Regular ammo and medkit/food also take up weight, albeit less.

When you carry a little weight, your stamina lasts virtually forever. Then, the more items you carry, the longer it takes for your stamina to recharge and the faster it is depleted during sprint. When you hit the "red" zone, your sprinting capabilities basically end. IF you decide to carry even more than that you simply can't move.
It's very gradual, which makes it better.
Stalker ain't the kind of game in which you should lug around 80 guns. With this system, you can decide which items you want to take with you and which you want to leave behind - you can decide to carry 4 guns, but then you'll have less space for ammunition and healthpacks. You can decide to carry a hazmat suit and a bulletproof suit, but then you'd have less weight available for your gear..

It makes for interesting choices while still allowing for freedom - you don't have an arbitrary "two guns only" rule.

 

[SilverStuddedSquirre]

I disagree and actually find games that remove weight limits as "dumbing down" the game. While I do understand the idea of inventory management being "unfun", I would be downright pissed if games stopped using it. Ideally this is because having infinite carry space drastically effects the economy in the game so that the only way to balance it is to require the player pick up and sell everything because every item is calculated into the player's budget so everything buyable is super expensive - or - ignore it entirely usually resulting in the player being a millionaire and the most expensive thing in game only costs 5,000 gold. RPGs with a bullshit economies lose me pretty fast.

Skyrim is so bad I had to install mods that blasted player prices and STILL set self imposed inventory limitations. I didn't do it because I enjoy being broke or am a masochist. I did it because I like gear progression and in a game with an economy that makes me a bajillionaire, once I hit 50,000 gold there is no more of that really, now its just leveling progression and I am only level 12. I like being broke at level 12 if max level is 80 because I see cool stuff and can't afford it at low levels which makes sense, I have to work for it in that economy. SO that when I do get it, it actually feels like an accomplishment. I like spending all my gold on an awesome new upgrade knowing it may be some time before I can afford another one.

Ultimately, I see removing it as dumbing it down so the player doesn't have to do any math. It isn't hard math either, its basic division. Elementary school level division that I can do in my sleep. Most if not all of us probably can. Locating the center of a board is actually harder math than a any game's weight limit system. I will do math if it aids the game's economy gladly. This is a "whole is greater than the sum of its parts" thing for me. Is it fun to juggle that stuff? Not particularly, but it makes the overall game more enjoyable. It amazes me the amount of open world games we have today and that in-game economic systems are so terrible compared to the purely mediocre ones of yesteryear.

Thank you! As a Dungeons and Dragons Player and DM both, I have MANY MANY times asked the question: Yes, I know it's within your weight capacity, but WHERE in your backpack are you fitting that Seven Foot Longspear? Or, And How many Tower shields were you planning on carrying the 10 miles back to town? My other favorite was "I fill my backpack with these Adamantine ingots!" Ok, sure. They weigh 500 lbs together, and your backpack is made of canvas, sewn with Twine. It is now ripped, and in need or repair. If you are going to have ANY inventory management, do it right. It's no fun if your charatcer can carry every item in the world.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Weight-Limits definitely add to the experience if you're interested in role playing but as a game play mechanic, it seems kind of useless. Kind of like weapon-limits in FPS games; the claim is that limitations force players to think strategically but in practice it just slows you down half-way through a dungeon because you know you have to quickly get out, sell off some of your crap and then go all the way back through...

 

[00slash00]

I think they still have their place, but only in certain games. In games like Baldur's Gate or classic Fallout games I think they make sense, because those are more slow paced games with more focus on planning. But the Souls games walk the line between an action game and an RPG and having such an action focus makes the inventory limit feel slightly out of place. I would guess the reason behind it would be to add more difficulty, in the sense that you could only bring limited gear with you and thus, may not be ideally equipped to deal with some enemies. However, for me a staple of the Souls games has always been that you want to keep moving forward but risk losing your souls with every encounter. It is a battle between the temptation to play it safe and the temptation to just risk whatever's around the next corner. Making you go back to town to store items stands in the way of that (which is probably why Dark Souls 1 and 2 did away with that)

 

[Collin Stewart]

Personally i loved the weight limit in the STALKER games, it reminded me a lot of my hiking trips into the mountains in real life, having to contend with my meager 80 pounds of kit (a near backbreaking load) not lasting me more than a week without me having to resupply from the wilderness (rifle and hunting licence in hand)
I understand more "gamey" people disliking them but I think weight limits define, to some extent, what kind of game it is. Something like STALKER is very survival and difficulty based, games that don't restict inventory weight or size (not that I can think of any right now) are more about story and game play than planning and foresight.

This can be argued for almost every mechanic from more complicated combat systems to how in depth party management should be. Its all about preference

 

[Username Redacted]

In theory I think the idea of weight based inventory management can work. In practice I'm having a hard time coming up with a game in which it actually did work. Whereas Tetris style inventory has numerous examples that work. Most notably Resident Evil 4 and Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

I'm usually frustrated when explorative games prolong things with an item limit, but I was fond of RE4's system.

Something about physically sorting your weapons and color-coding your limited supply of grenades before the jubilations of buying a bigger apache case resonated with me.

Which makes it doubly impressive because as far as I'm aware RE4 is the only RE game without a crap inventory system.

Weight-Limits definitely add to the experience if you're interested in role playing but as a game play mechanic, it seems kind of useless. Kind of like weapon-limits in FPS games; the claim is that limitations force players to think strategically but in practice it just slows you down half-way through a dungeon because you know you have to quickly get out, sell off some of your crap and then go all the way back through...

I thought that Torchlight handled this very well. Here's your familiar/pack animal it says. Why not sent him/her/it back to town with all your junk while you continue exploring? Why yes Torchlight I think I will.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

I find inventory management being part of my gameplay just something else the game has me being - sure it's somewhat arbitrary, but as others have mentioned there are some reasons for inventory limitation that seem obviously useful for devs - making players visit hubs to sell things off, keeping inventory slim makes players assess character's equipment on a regular basis to keep the best stuff in circulation, keeping a tab on how much in game money the player can make - in Dragon Age, which the OP specifically mentioned as a "I don't know why this game has this" I can tell you the surplus gear you get and can sell off is limited in itself (monsters do not respawn) and the economy of the game is thus limited to a point where players can not buy many of the best items from shops based on what they get from selling that stuff off alone, forcing a player to either accept that economy or embrace the crafting system to expand their wallet power.

Another thing I think it's there for is for the devs/game designers to show the players how much loot the game has. Loot is a powerful motivator for most players and having to manage your inventory frequently does call attention to how much stuff you are getting for what you are doing, which is a positive reinforcement to keep doing it that's built into the game.

 

[Risingblade]

Well you do need limits on your inventory otherwise people will just stack up some shit that will make them immortal

Why do you care if I stock up on 99 Hi Potions?

Because those same people complain about how easy the game is.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

-snip-

I thought that Torchlight handled this very well. Here's your familiar/pack animal it says. Why not sent him/her/it back to town with all your junk while you continue exploring? Why yes Torchlight I think I will.

I've never played Torchlight but that sounds like a brilliant work-around. Torchlight is a bit old though isn't it? It's a shame other RPGs haven't taken to using a similar mechanic despite other RPGs having companion characters who could act in much the same way.

 

[SilverStuddedSquirre]

wait...let me get this right...so the weapon carrying limit that came in with Halo is generally viewed as modern/realistic/cool/whatever and one of the big things that particular much vaulted game supposedly introduced to the FPS genre for the better...but a carry limit in an RPG like game is somehow a gaming abomination now ?...

Does anyone really like that element from modern FPSs? I figured people just complacently accepted it.

actually i fecking hate it...but i've seen it said enough times....mostly here tbh.

And just how many guns would you like to carry? How many gunz can YOU carry? How many guns do REAL soldiers bring into battle? 2, maybe 3. All while wearing 60lbs more than a fully Kitted out Knight in Full Plate armour, longsword, Dirk, shield and we'll give him a Flail and a Sir-coat for good measure.

Where do you want the line to be Guy? I personally LOVE the gun restriction. Hell, if what I brought isn't doing it, I'll just kill you, take your gun and steal ammo from the corpses of your comrades.

As far as RPG games go, if you want more than a realistic carrying capacity, (which should include BOTH weight limit AND backpack Tetris) Include a MAGICAL bag of Holding. D & D has had that shit figured out for almost 50 YEARS now. Some magical or Technological macguffin which reduces the mass or stores in an extra dimensional space.

Ta-DAAAAAA!!!! Now you can have your 500 cakes, and die of a Diabetic Coma too! AND you don't have a system which caters to lazy or stupid inventory management.

I can Has Games Studio now?

 

[RedDeadFred]

It forces you to make choices about what you take with you. I don't think that makes it useless, if anything, it grants more depth to the process of making decisions in games.

 

[SilverStuddedSquirre]

-snip-

I thought that Torchlight handled this very well. Here's your familiar/pack animal it says. Why not sent him/her/it back to town with all your junk while you continue exploring? Why yes Torchlight I think I will.

I've never played Torchlight but that sounds like a brilliant work-around. Torchlight is a bit old though isn't it? It's a shame other RPGs haven't taken to using a similar mechanic despite other RPGs having companion characters who could act in much the same way.

That is so beautifully elegant, why can't I do that in Skyrim?

 

[Kolyarut]

I like the OP's point about weight limits punishing exploration, that's not an aspect I'd considered before.

I really don't buy into the idea that the limits assist immersion in any meaningful way, though. I've lost track of the number of times in Bethesda games where I've wanted to loot one last enemy, but to do so I've had to eat six potatoes, drink some cheap potions, drop the pillow I accidentally picked up earlier, then dropped loot with a poor cost/weight ratio until I bring my total down to some arbitrary number (then accidentally re-encumbered myself by picking a flower on the way back). I don't see any bit of any of that that enriches the realism, or the feeling of being lost in a fantasy world.

And games where that arbitrary number is influenced by your character's strength stat, thereby meaning mages need to make extra vendor runs before they're allowed to keep playing the game, make that annoyance oh so much worse.

Inventory tetris isn't a lot more compelling, but I do still have a soft spot for the pack mules you could hire in the first Dungeon Siege game. Those guys were awesome.

 

[WeepingAngels]

Well you do need limits on your inventory otherwise people will just stack up some shit that will make them immortal

Why do you care if I stock up on 99 Hi Potions?

Because those same people complain about how easy the game is.

No I don't and what's wrong with telling those people that they made it too easy for themselves instead of opting for inventory limits. Most people probably don't find inventory management to be a fun part of a game, more like a chore.