RPGs: I wouldn't say the player is bad and doesn't know how to play the game. I would say the game did not properly make use of the inventory mechanics. A good game will make the inventory system work smoothly with the loot system and the game world. Simply eliminating the inventory system or making infinite inventory is just lazy game development. If the inventory is very repetitive and time consuming, then that's also on the Devs.
I hate infinite inventory limits. I want either encumbrance or space, but to make those work, the game has to keep it in mind, which is where Fallout 4 fell short. Ideally I want both inventory weight and inventory space, and I expect the game to work well with them fluidly.
@hecatonchires: I was trying to make a constructive point that the mule provided an interesting method that helped make a lot more people happy: both the people who want weight effects and the people who want to collect a lot of loot. All you're saying is "To hell with what other people want. I just want infinite inventory capacity". If you're not going to say something constructive then you're just wasting my time.
@hecatonchires: I would argue that scarcity is an important mechanic in any RPG. The dumbing down of inventory mechanics and the ease of fast travel has nearly eliminated scarcity in RPGs, which is a big let-down.
Mule: No. Giving everyone 125% inventory space would not be exactly the same because inventory weight affects how the characters perform in combat. Having a mule allowed the characters to avoid having to carry those items on their person. Thus, realistic weight implications without preventing the player from gathering a fair amount of loot.
@Verenti: Well, when Bioshock was in development, a lot of their advertising said it was the spiritual successor to System Shock, but it really wasn't. They did a lot of things to dumb it down. To answer your question though: Yes, I'm sure I would have enjoyed it more if they'd included an inventory system.
Another example is Resident Evil 4 (discussed in this video), which had a very limited Tetris-style inventory space system that forced the player to make hard choices. Resident Evil 5 and subsequent games got rid of it, much to the detriment of the series.
That being said, I'm not saying that every game needs to have an inventory system, but in the RPG genre I don't like not having one.
I understand the gripe with collecting loot in Fallout 4. I find it frustrating too. However, I don't think the problem is that we don't get bottomless bags. The loot system could have been designed to work with the inventory system better. In the older Fallout games, enemies you killed often didn't drop anything. Now, Fallout 4 could have made it so you could break down armor and weapons into crafting materials on the spot. Or, they could easily have made it so that less stuff drops, but you can earn more caps from what you do get.
I remember one game, I forget the name, where you had a party of four and you had to gather loot, but too much weight slowed down a character's movement. However, the game literally let you buy a pack mule and it would join the party as a fifth member. I thought that was a cool idea.
@Verenti: There are a lot of games where I like having inventory weight, and equipped item weight. Or at least a limited space inventory. Some games I want the inventory to look at both space and weight.
Bioshock, for example, removed the inventory system from System Shock entirely, and I found it to be a much less enjoyable game.
I think this would be a plus. The key would be to make games that can benefit from improved frame rates or other graphics settings, and avoid making games that will only run on the higher end version. Basically, give the games some adjustable graphics settings like PCs have (but fewer).
I do agree with some other comments on here that new purchases would shift heavily to the more powerful version, but that's not a problem. As long as the existing owners of the less powerful version aren't left behind, and the games all run on both versions, it's all good IMO. If they get to the point that there are games that only run on the newer system, then it should be called the PS5 rather than a more powerful PS4.
Considering that they have yet to conclusively determine whether real life soldiers become more aggressive due to their experiences or if more aggressive people join and take combat positions in the military in the first place, I don't see how they can conclusively determine whether video games make people (or even just children) more aggressive.
Trifler's comments