A classic mechanic in many games, namely shooters, is the weapon mechanic of a simple two-weapon slot system where the player has a primary and a secondary weapon. There is, however, a considerable amount of games that allow you to use a variety of weapons that are selected commonly using a weapons wheel or something of the sort. These guns, swords, wrenches and otherwise are found, bought, or looted (depending on the game) within the world, and more are found as the player progresses through the story.
Now, imagine that you are playing through a game such as DOOM or Fallout, and you gather weapon after weapon from story, enemies, and the occasional chest/treasure trove. You gather more and more to your arsenal, and you subconsciously feel yourself getting heavier (is it lag or…?). Eventually, a small but irritatingly itchy question comes up: How could having all of these weapons on me be physically possible?!
Of course, some games balance the system out and even add logic to this philosophical dilemma, such as Borderlands’s backpack storage and Fallout’s weight system, and because we are talking about the dimension of videogame physics, reasoning can be thrown out the window. This does not, however, mean that there is anything wrong with the system. Gamers everywhere can tell you that they enjoy walking around looking innocent while having a rocket launcher in their pocket (along with an assault rifle, carbine, grappling hook, sniper rifle, smg, samurai blade, mini-gun, baseball bat, bloodscythe, broken whiskey bottle, and a small tactical warhead slingshot). This is just how gamers work.
What do you think about having an infinite (or finite) number of weapons at your disposal? How does this affect the way a game plays and how you play it?
In my experience, sometimes too much realism takes away from the fun of gameplay. I want to play a game, not experience the real. So the weapon wheel seems appropriate for games. But on the other hand, too many options becomes pointless, in my opinion. I end up favoring one or two weapons anyway. Assassin's Creed creates a nice balance of this, in my opinion. – DrTestani6 years ago
It is my belief that most gamers don't care enough about the institution of realism to forego this system as a rule. Frankly, sometimes the convenience of an infinite inventory just beats out the sheer ridiculousness of it all. I can't tell you how many times I was frustrated by over-encumbrance in games like Fallout and Skyrim. Yeah, there is of course no way I could carry ten dragon bone, a couple dozen potions, and a full set of armor and weapons in real life, but when exactly am I going to run into this incident in real life? Gaming, for me, is all about throwing away all those pesky trappings of life--physics, reality, and whatnot. I mean, can you imagine how boring Mario would be without that plumber's superhuman leaping abilities? But to get back on topic, I would say that I don't believe that realism necessitates the removal of the infinite inventory from the game. There are some games that do better without it (e.g. The Left4Dead series, which tries to encourage its players to be resourceful with the limited nature of its primary weapons) and there are those that absolutely need it (e.g. Skyrim, which I alone seem to believe needs to do away with practically the whole concept of carrying a limited amount of things). I think it would be interesting to examine how the concept of the inventory plays out on both ends of the spectrum and to look at the advantages and disadvantages of both systems. – Farrow6 years ago
This reminds me of Skyrim. Of course it's a burden to start getting heavy just when you find the perfect weapon assortment, but at the same time, it could also make the player choose which weapons are more important to them to carry, as well as, which weapons to level up on. It might be interesting to look into, I brought up Skyrim earlier because of this, which games allow you to have a secret place that you can fast travel to so that you could get what you need. – Jaye Freeland6 years ago