SAWYERISM BETRAYED - Might turns back into Strength, Resolve will affect spell damage

[Nail]

Weight limit wasn't implemented because it's a pain in the ass with no benefit whatsoever and possibly the worst way to give benefit to strength anyone has ever come up with. Characters with low strength won't suffer from it - their players will, as they have to shuffle equipment around to the stronger characters or stash.

 

There's also no such thing as magic resistance in PIllars. How would it even work?

Weight limit:

Never liked that magic stash thing.

I personally never suffered due weight system in any of so many games with that parameter, it gives more game depth, better character feeling.

Wounds could give encumbered, so more options occur, that's just logical.

 

It's pretty silly when there is no weight limit, as well as strength affecting firearms damage.

FPS don't have weight and that's understandable, but Pillars is a RPG...

 

Magic resistance: imagine it as damage reduction + % of resolve parameter influencing damage taken from spells.

[Ninjamestari]

"generifies", man I hate these made-up hipster words. Having one's head backwards isn't 'non-generic', it is retarded. If you want to be something other than generic, you definitely do not touch the fundamentals, ****ing up the fundamentals is the most stupid and generic way people try to be 'non-generic'. That's why people don't like hipsters; they're pretentious, they put insane amounts of effort into appearing non-generic, and they completely miss the functional reality. It's the all appearance zero essence type of difference. That's the issue PoE stats have, they're kinda hipster stats some people like just because they're different, not because of any supposed merits. Every single 'merit' argument for the PoE stat system is pure rationalization that is usually false, like "no min-maxing" and meaningless platitudes like "every build is valid".

[MortyTheGobbo]

Hate to break it to you, but weight limit doesn't make sense anyway, unless it's absolutely extreme. Otherwise, you can carry around eight suits of plate with you, but not nine. You've got a magic stash with you anyway, it's just a matter of degrees. Weight limit has a place if it's really severe and managing inventory is part of the experience - like in survival or crafting games. In a traditional RPG, it has no real point or "depth". It's just bean-counting. And, again, just makes some party members into pack mules.

 

As for magic resistance... DR already applies to magic as normal. In current Deadfire beta, it apparently applies too much. Why do we need a separate magic resistance value?

Edited December 25, 2017 by MortyTheGobbo

[Wormerine]

Weight limit:

 

 

Never liked that magic stash thing.

I personally never suffered due weight system in any of so many games with that parameter, it gives more game depth, better character feeling.

 

The problem is: in majority of RPGs (especially story driven RPGs) weight limit doesn't add depth but rather is a time waster and that is precisely why it was removed. 

 

As Josh explained there is nothing stopping you from carrying absolutely everything from Dungeons and stashing it/selling it, so removing stash or restricting carry limit only adds more wasted time between looting&selling rather than adding any depth. Some depth of choice could be added if items would disappear once you leave the level, but it creates an issue with game design - unique weapons can be easily permanently lost. If that was the case, people might feel even more obliged to carry what they can, then run back to keep and stash their goods before moving on.

 

So yes, carry limit adds a bit of "immersion", but lately it really did become and annoyance rather than a boon (Elder Scrolls/Witcher3) as it takes your time&attention from doing fun things rather than adding any depth. 

[Ninjamestari]

Following strength influence, I've mentioned that somewhere before, still - a pity we have no weight system in Pillars...

 

It would be natural if strength affect weight limit, so characters with dumped strength would suffer a lot from that, alas we have no weight...

 

And I don't understand why this basic mechanic (weight) was not implemented in PoE series!

 

I understand that there is PoE I legacy, with already given rules, but in case when every stat matter - there will be no dumped stats.

 

It seems so logical if:

Strength: % melee damage, + fortitude rolls, + max weight limit

Constitution: % health, + fortitude rolls, + max weight limit

Dexterity: % action speed, + reflex rolls, + deflection

Perception: + accuracy, + spell penetration, + reflex rolls, hidden things detection

Intellect: % spell damage, buff / debuff duration, + will rolls

Resolve: % health regeneration, + overall magic resistance, + will rolls

 

Yes, I understand there are many things that are not in game, and probably there won't be any such changes...

 

Still, 20 years ago we had games with almost perfect stat system, why not just improve that...

For instance baldur's gate or fallout - just take that system and make some tweaks.

 

I'd add extra skill points to intelligence, I always hated that I couldn't influence how many skill points I get per level. And magic resistance could work just like other defence types, you'd just use it against strictly magical attacks, such as spells. I mean the concept is ready there for the taking, just copy the mechanic from D&D and tweak it to fit the PoE system. Never try to re-invent the wheel, the concepts of D&D work out flawlessly, even if the actual mechanics do not, and there's absolutely no reason to do things differently just for the sake of difference. This whole fear of all things 'generic' is a symptom of there being too many hipster **** in this society who insult everything they deem as 'generic' in an attempt to seem sophisticated, and then simple ordinary people associate the fear of rejection to the word. If something is good, it doesn't have to be different. There are things where 'generic' actually does mean boring, but basic logic isn't one of them.

 

If I did the stats for PoE it would go something like this:

 

STR -> Physical strength, +melee damage, + carry capacity, + melee accuracy, large bows and heavier armor could have STR requirements

DEX -> Agility and coordination, + accuracy, + dodge, perhaps + movement and attack speed

CON -> Toughness and Health, +HP, + fortitude

WITS -> Perception and quick thinking, +spell power, + reflex, +dodge, spell casting speed

INT -> Reasoning and Learning, + skill points, + number of spells, abilities and talents you learn

RES -> Willpower and resilience, +will, +spell/ability duration, + effect of passive abilities.

 

In addition I'd tie certain abilities and situations to direct stat checks, such as a DEX check if you're moving on something slippery, STR if you're attempting to resist a physical force, such as from a pushback spell etcetera.

 

The idea would be to have every single stat be distinct in their role, so that the stat actually describes the character instead of just being some vague maths you pull up during combat. The Physical stats are self-explanatory, Wits is your ability to make rapid decisions in quick situations, making for a more 'liquid' and slippery character, INT brings in more versatility due to your increased capability to learn and Resolve would be your general pig-headedness.

 

Strict spell-power would depend on your class, INT for Wizards and Chanters, WITS for Ciphers and RES for Priests and Druids.

[Ninjamestari]

 

Weight limit:

 

 

Never liked that magic stash thing.

I personally never suffered due weight system in any of so many games with that parameter, it gives more game depth, better character feeling.

 

The problem is: in majority of RPGs (especially story driven RPGs) weight limit doesn't add depth but rather is a time waster and that is precisely why it was removed. 

 

As Josh explained there is nothing stopping you from carrying absolutely everything from Dungeons and stashing it/selling it, so removing stash or restricting carry limit only adds more wasted time between looting&selling rather than adding any depth. Some depth of choice could be added if items would disappear once you leave the level, but it creates an issue with game design - unique weapons can be easily permanently lost. If that was the case, people might feel even more obliged to carry what they can, then run back to keep and stash their goods before moving on.

 

So yes, carry limit adds a bit of "immersion", but lately it really did become and annoyance rather than a boon (Elder Scrolls/Witcher3) as it takes your time&attention from doing fun things rather than adding any depth. 

 

 

Perhaps there should be? Perhaps items you leave on the ground should disappear during area transitions? I mean, it would make sense that all sorts of scavengers would pick the bandit camp clean of everything even remotely valuable after the player party has removed the dangerous bandits from the picture.

[MortyTheGobbo]

I think the best way to sum up weight limits in traditional RPGs is: low enough to be annoying, not low enough to be actually realistic. You're still carting around more crap than any real person should, but there's an arbitrary limit of how much crap is too much crap.

 

If weight limit is to matter, it must be harsh. Take Darkest Dungeon - it has a strict limitation on how much you can carry. And your supplies occupy the same space as your loot. This creates decisions. Something weight limit in Baldur's Gate, Witcher or whatever doesn't. In DD, need to decide how much you can carry safely and what you want to carry out. But Darkest Dungeon is a game with a very specific, niche gameplay style. Pillars doesn't share it. So a weight limit is pointless.

 

I'll also point out that Darkest Dungeon simply has a set number of item slots, which aren't affected by a Strength score... because it doesn't have attribute scores to begin with, something perhaps worth keeping in mind for those who insist there's only one way to do it. I think you can increase your load with upgrades, but either way it's much clearer and less prone to abuse than calculating a nebulous number of pounds you can carry.

Edited December 25, 2017 by MortyTheGobbo

[Juodas Varnas]

Eh, the only reason i'd see behind limiting the carrying capacity is to prevent people from looting literally every piece of trash in the level and unloading them to the nearest vendor for mad cash

[Nail]

I recall Fallout 2, where buffout was my best friend.

 

Edited December 25, 2017 by Nail

[MortyTheGobbo]

Eh, the only reason i'd see behind limiting the carrying capacity is to prevent people from looting literally every piece of trash in the level and unloading them to the nearest vendor for mad cash

 

Certainly never stopped me in Baldur's Gate, where everything actually worth selling was way below carrying capacity. It's a bit more relevant in Pillars, where you wade hip-deep in fine or better weapons dropped from rank and file enemies. But solving that with weight capacity is like taking a rocket launcher to deal with a clogged drain.

[Juodas Varnas]

But solving that with weight capacity is like taking a rocket launcher to deal with a clogged drain.

Don't tell me that wouldn't work though!

[Ninjamestari]

I think carry weight does add a ton of depth to the game AND to the identity of your characters. You'll end up cursing the weak members of your party and praising the strong every time you begin to figure out which pieces of loot get left to rot on the ground. If you want a deep roleplaying experience, then convenience for the sake of convenience really is the wrong way to go.

 

Also, every product has to stand for something, not just be a "pick your own experience" - mess that stands for nothing. I think PoE should stand for the long and glorious tradition of computer roleplaying that culminated in the IE games, not just get a similar paint job.

[MortyTheGobbo]

 

But solving that with weight capacity is like taking a rocket launcher to deal with a clogged drain.

Don't tell me that wouldn't work though!

 

 

You wouldn't have a clogged drain afterwards, certainly.

[Wormerine]

 

 

Weight limit:

 

 

Never liked that magic stash thing.

I personally never suffered due weight system in any of so many games with that parameter, it gives more game depth, better character feeling.

 

The problem is: in majority of RPGs (especially story driven RPGs) weight limit doesn't add depth but rather is a time waster and that is precisely why it was removed. 

 

As Josh explained there is nothing stopping you from carrying absolutely everything from Dungeons and stashing it/selling it, so removing stash or restricting carry limit only adds more wasted time between looting&selling rather than adding any depth. Some depth of choice could be added if items would disappear once you leave the level, but it creates an issue with game design - unique weapons can be easily permanently lost. If that was the case, people might feel even more obliged to carry what they can, then run back to keep and stash their goods before moving on.

 

So yes, carry limit adds a bit of "immersion", but lately it really did become and annoyance rather than a boon (Elder Scrolls/Witcher3) as it takes your time&attention from doing fun things rather than adding any depth. 

 

 

Perhaps there should be? Perhaps items you leave on the ground should disappear during area transitions? I mean, it would make sense that all sorts of scavengers would pick the bandit camp clean of everything even remotely valuable after the player party has removed the dangerous bandits from the picture.

 

No, it "shouldn't" be but it "could" be. It is not that it is a bad idea, but does mesh with the "unique" and "pre designed" item philosophy. The way items are dropped and designed would have to be redesigned. But as PoE and IE games main focus is story and worldbuilding, I imagine devs saw unique handcrafted items as a more important feature than inventory management. Sometime two equally good ideas go against with each other and you have to let one go. 

[dragubaba]

I personally used console commands to lower my carry capacity in Skyrim to such a number that it allowed me to carry my current equipment, reasonable ammount of smaller objects like few health potions, sack of herbs and one, maybe two pieces of looted equipment. And my character always wore a backpack. It annoyed me to no end that I had to actively limit myself in order to enjoy some immersion instead of the game having an option to do so. But then again Skyrim is it's own thing when compared to other games. I think I had something like 20+ gigs worth of mods installed.

 

I blame Diablo for inserting the idea that you have to be able to loot everything into gamers consciousness. And even it had a limit. Limits create value I think.

Edited December 25, 2017 by dragubaba

[MortyTheGobbo]

I personally used console commands to lower my carry capacity in Skyrim to such a number that it allowed me to carry my current equipment, reasonable ammount of smaller objects like few health potions, sack of herbs and one, maybe two pieces of looted equipment. And my character always wore a backpack. It annoyed me to no end that I had to actively limit myself in order to enjoy some immersion instead of the game having an option to do so. But then again Skyrim is it's own thing when compared to other games. I think I had something like 20+ gigs worth of mods installed.

 

I blame Diablo for inserting the idea that you have to be able to loot everything into gamers consciousness. And even it had a limit. Limits create value I think.

 

Diablo has a way more limited inventory than any IE game, TES game or Fallout. I frequently had to choose what I can pick up in Diablo, but I only sometimes did it in TES games and certainly never in Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale. So blaming Diablo for that strikes me as random. Diablo also lets you return to the town any time, as long as you have a town portal (or just reset, in Diablo 2 and 3), and the loot is entirely randomized, making this comparison even more sketchy.

 

My preferred inventory is no inventory at all, like in Witcher 1, Mass Effect 2 or Mass Effect 3. But if you're going to have me hoover up crap from fallen enemies or random crates, at least don't make it difficult. And don't make the amount of garbage I can carry dependent on my characters' stats.

Edited December 25, 2017 by MortyTheGobbo

[Ninjamestari]

No, it "shouldn't" be but it "could" be. It is not that it is a bad idea, but does mesh with the "unique" and "pre designed" item philosophy. The way items are dropped and designed would have to be redesigned. But as PoE and IE games main focus is story and worldbuilding, I imagine devs saw unique handcrafted items as a more important feature than inventory management. Sometime two equally good ideas go against with each other and you have to let one go. 

 

 

I don't see how those two things are mutually exclusive. If you decide that the unique pre-crafted item isn't worth picking up, you'll end up without it. Also, magic bags. The unique items are more valuable if you are facing the limitations of a limited inventory/carry capacity. When it comes to unique pre-designed items, less is more, to a certain degree. If there are too many unique items, then the unique items lose their novelty. You know, special not being special anymore.

 

I think there are two camps in this regard; people who want a proper inventory management and people like Morty who don't want inventory at all. The sad reality I think is that there is no real compromise between the two, anything less than real inventory management won't sit well with those who want it as a part of their experience, and any inventory hassle is too much for the people who don't, which is why I'd say the design team should pick one option and stick with it. Either eliminate inventory almost completely like in ME2, or have a proper limited carry capacity inventory tetris. Either of those choices would be better than what was in PoE in my opinion; either commit to inventory being a core part of the game experience, or don't do it at all. No one really likes a compromise, they just say they do because they hate controversy.

Edited December 25, 2017 by Ninjamestari

[Wormerine]

I don't see how those two things are mutually exclusive. If you decide that the unique pre-crafted item isn't worth picking up, you'll end up without it. Also, magic bags. The unique items are more valuable if you are facing the limitations of a limited inventory/carry capacity. When it comes to unique pre-designed items, less is more, to a certain degree.

 

I wasn’t trying to say that you can’t have unique items and real inventory management with tangible consequences for leaving stuff behind. However, how game is and works would work well if items could be lost permanently. After all, even when you sell them they remain in merchants inventory for later possible use. Let’s say you see a nice battleaxe of drake slaying. Nice stuff, but no one in your party specialises in axes and there are no drakes nearby. So you leave it and it disappears forever. But then you meet Jimmy the Barbarian Dwarf and he loves his axes. You also venture into the cave of drakes. You could really use this axe now. But it was one of a kind, handcrafted and now completely lost to you.

 

Of course, you could make every weapon craftable/buyable, which would mean leaving stuff behind would have consequences but wouldn’t be that crashing. Or you could choose your companions at the start of the game, decided what they will use and not add new companions throughout the game making decision making on what to leave behind easier. Both would work for me, and probably there are more ways to do it. But PoE doesnt care about inventory as it’s not its focus. It does, what it needs to do and does it well, without enhancing or sabotaging core game.

Edited December 25, 2017 by Wormerine

[Ninjamestari]

Let’s say you see a nice battleaxe of drake slaying. Nice stuff, but no one in your party specialises in axes and there are no drakes nearby. So you leave it and it disappears forever. But then you meet Jimmy the Barbarian Dwarf and he loves his axes. You also venture into the cave of drakes. You could really use this axe now. But it was one of a kind, handcrafted and now completely lost to you.

 

And you would rob the player of the chance to have such a powerful experience? The game must allow players to make bad decisions, otherwise there's no point to the decision making at all, and it is all just for show. Naturally, there should be something preventing them from disappearing if the player hasn't found them at all, but other than that, I don't think that the possibility of a player permanently losing something valuable is a bad thing, quite the opposite. It gives the game replayability, as you try to not screw up as badly as you did the first time around. It also forces the player to focus while playing, which immensely deepens the immersion and lets the player notice more details, and overall provides for a more vivid experience.

[Blades of Vanatar]

The Axe example is only good for the players first run through the game. After that he now knows.... what would be the point in limiting it then? Devs WANT you to replay so of course they are going to create the option that makes replay the easiest decision for a player.

[MortyTheGobbo]

 

No, it "shouldn't" be but it "could" be. It is not that it is a bad idea, but does mesh with the "unique" and "pre designed" item philosophy. The way items are dropped and designed would have to be redesigned. But as PoE and IE games main focus is story and worldbuilding, I imagine devs saw unique handcrafted items as a more important feature than inventory management. Sometime two equally good ideas go against with each other and you have to let one go. 

 

 

I don't see how those two things are mutually exclusive. If you decide that the unique pre-crafted item isn't worth picking up, you'll end up without it. Also, magic bags. The unique items are more valuable if you are facing the limitations of a limited inventory/carry capacity. When it comes to unique pre-designed items, less is more, to a certain degree. If there are too many unique items, then the unique items lose their novelty. You know, special not being special anymore.

 

I think there are two camps in this regard; people who want a proper inventory management and people like Morty who don't want inventory at all. The sad reality I think is that there is no real compromise between the two, anything less than real inventory management won't sit well with those who want it as a part of their experience, and any inventory hassle is too much for the people who don't, which is why I'd say the design team should pick one option and stick with it. Either eliminate inventory almost completely like in ME2, or have a proper limited carry capacity inventory tetris. Either of those choices would be better than what was in PoE in my opinion; either commit to inventory being a core part of the game experience, or don't do it at all. No one really likes a compromise, they just say they do because they hate controversy.

 

That's true, but not entirely. I do think games should either make inventory management central to the experience or not bother. But I don't consider Pillars' way of doing it to be meaningfully different from other RPGs, such as Baldur's Gate, Fallout, Witcher etc. Either way, you're picking up a ton of loot, selling most of it and saving a few pieces for yourself. Some games just put an arbitrary limit on how much, which is still leagues above what any real person or small group could carry.

 

Games with meaningful inventory management... the one I've played relatively recently is Darkest Dungeon. STALKER also does it, but it's been a while. Of course, neither of them uses a strength attribute or makes inventory space depend on it, so. Darkest Dungeon also doesn't have any gear or equipment you pick up. The inventory management centres around bringing supplies and picking up precious objects.

Edited December 26, 2017 by MortyTheGobbo

[Wormerine]

And you would rob the player of the chance to have such a powerful experience? The game must allow players to make bad decisions, otherwise there's no point to the decision making at all, and it is all just for show. Naturally, there should be something preventing them from disappearing if the player hasn't found them at all, but other than that, I don't think that the possibility of a player permanently losing something valuable is a bad thing, quite the opposite. It gives the game replayability, as you try to not screw up as badly as you did the first time around. It also forces the player to focus while playing, which immensely deepens the immersion and lets the player notice more details, and overall provides for a more vivid experience.

Failing is only powerful, if the decision was made knowing full well risks and rewards. The example I gave wasn’t exciting it was frustrating. Playing without walkthrough should be more exciting, not frustrating.

 

I might be scarred for life by playing Rick Dangerous as a kid on Comodore 64. You want to have a bad time, because you didn’t know what’s ahead of you? Give this a go:

 

http://www.arcadedivision.com/classicgame27/platform/rick-dangerous.html

 

The Axe example is only good for the players first run through the game. After that he now knows.... what would be the point in limiting it then? Devs WANT you to replay so of course they are going to create the option that makes replay the easiest decision for a player.

First run through is the real experience. It’s like saying a level design isn’t confusing if you know how to beat it. You shouldn’t encourage players to replay your game by sabotageing their first experience, rather make it interesting enough and give it depth so they want experience it again/try different approach.

Edited December 26, 2017 by Wormerine

[Blades of Vanatar]

 

And you would rob the player of the chance to have such a powerful experience? The game must allow players to make bad decisions, otherwise there's no point to the decision making at all, and it is all just for show. Naturally, there should be something preventing them from disappearing if the player hasn't found them at all, but other than that, I don't think that the possibility of a player permanently losing something valuable is a bad thing, quite the opposite. It gives the game replayability, as you try to not screw up as badly as you did the first time around. It also forces the player to focus while playing, which immensely deepens the immersion and lets the player notice more details, and overall provides for a more vivid experience.

Failing is only powerful, if the decision was made knowing full well risks and rewards. The example I gave wasn’t exciting it was frustrating. Playing without walkthrough should be more exciting, not frustrating.

 

I might be scarred for life by playing Rick Dangerous as a kid on Comodore 64. You want to have a bad time, because you didn’t know what’s ahead of you? Give this a go:

 

http://www.arcadedivision.com/classicgame27/platform/rick-dangerous.html

 

The Axe example is only good for the players first run through the game. After that he now knows.... what would be the point in limiting it then? Devs WANT you to replay so of course they are going to create the option that makes replay the easiest decision for a player.

First run through is the real experience. It’s like saying a level design isn’t confusing if you know how to beat it. You shouldn’t encourage players to replay your game by sabotageing their first experience, rather make it interesting enough and give it depth so they want experience it again/try different approach.

Not really... or better yet, only partially true. The replay is just a different type experience. So the Axe example is good for the first playthru OR for those who want the RP type of game experience on every playthru. But does not hold for those who don’t care about the RP experience as much as they care about conquering the game, finding every Easter eggs, etc...in subsequent replays.

 

So the Devs need to figure out their target and aim for it. I’m good either way as I see some benefits in both options and a perfect scenario in neither. Though if the choice was left up to me and only me..... I would choose a large inventory to be consistent with the first game.

[Yosharian]

I think it's important to differentiate between the type of carry weight system that should be in games like Skyrim where the goal is immersion, and games like Baldur's Gate where the goal is fun gameplay.

 

Not to say that Skyrim isn't 'fun', but I don't treat an immersive carry weight system with the same importance in a game like Pillars as I do in a game like Skyrim.  An isometric turn-based party RPG doesn't need the same level of immersion as a first-person game.

 

When I play Skyrim, I use an overhaul mod that dramatically changes the game to make it more realistic, including carry weight.  I then add a mod which adds appropriately-tuned backpacks, pouches, etc.  It's satisfying to spend time skinning animals, making leather, making bags out of them, seeing my character with all the bags equipped, etc.

 

None of that applies in game like Pillars where it's unlikely that any 'bag' or 'pouch' item would exist in a meaningful sense, let alone be rendered on my character's avatar, not to mention that the isometric view and party-based approach to combat makes managing individual carry weights a bit of a tedious chore for very little extra immersion.  And there isn't an open-world aspect that would make hunting animals and skinning them a meaningful activity.

 

I don't necessarily think that Pillars 1's 'magic teleporting stash' concept is the best solution, I find it a bit distasteful honestly, but if it makes the game less tedious and allows me to get straight to the core gameplay pillars faster, then it's fine by me.

 

To summarise: hunting animals, skinning them, making them into bags, making tough choices about what loot to take and what to leave behind: these are core gameplay pillars for games like Skyrim.

 

Games like Pillars, I believe the core pillars are more isometric tactical combat and rich storytelling.  Managing carry weights is a very distant priority for a game like that, for me personally.

 

That said, I agree it would provide a nice extra mechanic for restricting characters who dump strength.

Edited December 26, 2017 by Yosharian

[Ninjamestari]

 

And you would rob the player of the chance to have such a powerful experience? The game must allow players to make bad decisions, otherwise there's no point to the decision making at all, and it is all just for show. Naturally, there should be something preventing them from disappearing if the player hasn't found them at all, but other than that, I don't think that the possibility of a player permanently losing something valuable is a bad thing, quite the opposite. It gives the game replayability, as you try to not screw up as badly as you did the first time around. It also forces the player to focus while playing, which immensely deepens the immersion and lets the player notice more details, and overall provides for a more vivid experience.

Failing is only powerful, if the decision was made knowing full well risks and rewards. The example I gave wasn’t exciting it was frustrating. Playing without walkthrough should be more exciting, not frustrating.

 

I might be scarred for life by playing Rick Dangerous as a kid on Comodore 64. You want to have a bad time, because you didn’t know what’s ahead of you? Give this a go:

 

http://www.arcadedivision.com/classicgame27/platform/rick-dangerous.html

 

 

C'mon, in a game where you know you might get more companions or run into unexpected situations where that particular axe might be useful, all the while it has all the glow and polish of a soulbound item, you know full well that he item *might* come handy at some point in the game. You're making it sound like the player is a complete imbecile.

 

EDIT: also, what the hell are you talking about, that Rick Dangerous is an awesome game! Now I know what we're going to play when celebrating new years eve drunk :D

 

EDIT EDIT: 7840 on my fourth or so attempt, how on earth can this masterpiece scar anyone? xD

Edited December 26, 2017 by Ninjamestari