Now we bring in what it adds to the game. Player choice and agency. As the player, you get to pick your own path. In any game with an inventory, you are going to get to pick which things you keep and which you don’t. This means you have to actively make choices according to your playstyle. In Deus Ex the question boils down to, do you take the big fuck off GEP gun or do you keep your inventory lean for lockpicks, pistols, SMGs, shotguns, and assault rifles so you can use whatever ammo you come across. In the first Deus Ex, ammo is very scarce. Thus having room for ammo and the tools to use it is very important. a GEP gun only really works on 4-6 enemies and the ammo is huge as well as the gun. Taking up around a third of the inventory, maybe more, depending on if you get inventory upgrades. This is an active playstyle choice.
Yeah, this is the usual justification for limited inventory space, but I’m not buying it. I don’t think it adds choice at all, quite the opposite. You could just as easily make the choice to not take the GEP gun even if you had infinite inventory space, so contrary to what you said, the limitation doesn’t actually add any choice. What it does do is remove the choice of taking the gun anyway “just in case” even if you’re on a stealthy playthrough, and that has the knock-on effect of removing a whole bunch of other choices later down the line. You can’t pull a “surprise, motherfucker” moment on some hapless enemy. You can’t change your playstyle later if you discover that stealth really isn’t as much fun as you thought it would be. And perhaps most importantly, you can’t choose to keep playing stealthily despite having a big fuckoff gun. Choice only exists when alternatives exist. By taking those alternatives away and locking the player into one playstyle, you’re not adding choice, you’re diminishing it.
This is basically the same discussion that occurred around Skyrim, where Bethesda made the controversial design decision of getting rid of character classes in favor of completely free-form character leveling. Some people argued that this meant that you couldn’t choose your playstyle anymore, and I always found that logic to be completely backwards. Of course you can still choose your playstyle, but now you make that choice by actually playing the game in a particular way rather than by clicking stuff in a menu at the beginning. Surely it’s self-evident that this is better…?
Inventory limitations (and character classes) are therefore just one aspect of the larger question of whether or not to lock the player into their choices or allow them to play a jack-of-all-trades or change their playstyle later. Having played a lot of games from either side of that spectrum, I’m very firmly in favor of the latter. It’s easy to point to Deus Ex, regarded by many as the best game ever made, as an example of how to do it right. But the reality is that most games aren’t that good and don’t offer multiple equally well fleshed out playstyles to choose from. What if the game is badly balanced and your chosen playstyle ceases to be viable halfway through? What if it turns out that the playstyle simply isn’t as fun as it initially seemed? If the game falls into the former category of locking you into your choices, you’re screwed and have to start over. That’s just frustrating and disrespectful of the player’s time. Game devs would be wise to eat their humble pie and allow a lot of leeway to the player not just because the player may have made some bad choices when playing the game but also because the devs themselves may have made some bad choices when making it. Only a perfect game is justified in being unforgiving, and precious few are.
Now you might say, “But Sordid, if you allow the players to have everything, they’re going to optimize the fun out of the game and play an OP jack-of-all-trades!” And my response to that is, “So what?” It’s their choice, let them. If adding choice were the goal as you claim, it should be a no-brainer. Yeah, the temptation to optimize is strong, and sticking to your chosen playstyle can be difficult at times, but nothing worthwhile is easy. And some people genuinely enjoy being an OP jack-of-all-trades. Why take that choice away from them when it doesn’t add any choice to anyone else?
Yeah, this is the usual justification for limited inventory space, but I’m not buying it. I don’t think it adds choice at all, quite the opposite. You could just as easily make the choice to not take the GEP gun even if you had infinite inventory space, so contrary to what you said, the limitation doesn’t actually add any choice. What it does do is remove the choice of taking the gun anyway “just in case” even if you’re on a stealthy playthrough, and that has the knock-on effect of removing a whole bunch of other choices later down the line. You can’t pull a “surprise, motherfucker” moment on some hapless enemy. You can’t change your playstyle later if you discover that stealth really isn’t as much fun as you thought it would be. And perhaps most importantly, you can’t choose to keep playing stealthily despite having a big fuckoff gun. Choice only exists when alternatives exist. By taking those alternatives away and locking the player into one playstyle, you’re not adding choice, you’re diminishing it.
This is basically the same discussion that occurred around Skyrim, where Bethesda made the controversial design decision of getting rid of character classes in favor of completely free-form character leveling. Some people argued that this meant that you couldn’t choose your playstyle anymore, and I always found that logic to be completely backwards. Of course you can still choose your playstyle, but now you make that choice by actually playing the game in a particular way rather than by clicking stuff in a menu at the beginning. Surely it’s self-evident that this is better…?
Inventory limitations (and character classes) are therefore just one aspect of the larger question of whether or not to lock the player into their choices or allow them to play a jack-of-all-trades or change their playstyle later. Having played a lot of games from either side of that spectrum, I’m very firmly in favor of the latter. It’s easy to point to Deus Ex, regarded by many as the best game ever made, as an example of how to do it right. But the reality is that most games aren’t that good and don’t offer multiple equally well fleshed out playstyles to choose from. What if the game is badly balanced and your chosen playstyle ceases to be viable halfway through? What if it turns out that the playstyle simply isn’t as fun as it initially seemed? If the game falls into the former category of locking you into your choices, you’re screwed and have to start over. That’s just frustrating and disrespectful of the player’s time. Game devs would be wise to eat their humble pie and allow a lot of leeway to the player not just because the player may have made some bad choices when playing the game but also because the devs themselves may have made some bad choices when making it. Only a perfect game is justified in being unforgiving, and precious few are.
Now you might say, “But Sordid, if you allow the players to have everything, they’re going to optimize the fun out of the game and play an OP jack-of-all-trades!” And my response to that is, “So what?” It’s their choice, let them. If adding choice were the goal as you claim, it should be a no-brainer. Yeah, the temptation to optimize is strong, and sticking to your chosen playstyle can be difficult at times, but nothing worthwhile is easy. And some people genuinely enjoy being an OP jack-of-all-trades. Why take that choice away from them when it doesn’t add any choice to anyone else?