GTD: Picking up objects

[Slasher]

Hi

Re: picking up objects

This has probably been debated in the past no doubt but I would like to bring it up again for my research.

* You come across an apple tree. You stop and pick an apple or two (put into inventory). Acceptable, it can and does happen in real life.

* You come across a small rock. You stop and put it in your pocket (put into inventory).  Unacceptable, it does not really happen in real life (usually).
But if you get into a situation where you need a small rock then it becomes 'acceptable' to pick it up.

What is your view on picking up objects in these circumstance?

cheers

[MiteWiseacreLives!]

Do you mean:
If you don't need the rock yet, the game won't allow you ("There is no reason to take a rock"), but after some interaction you will be able to pick-up-rock ("This could be useful...").
That is sometimes irritating if the response when you first attempt to interact causes you to permanently rule out the "rock" as a possibly useful item, since later you try everything but the darn rock because you "know" it's useless. If there are small rocks everywhere I'd better be able to grab any of them! in any room! pixel-hunts don't happen in real life either,

Unacceptable, it does not really happen in real life

[elegantmechanic]

On the one hand it's a genre convention that an adventure game protagonist will grab anything not nailed down and shove it straight in their pants so to devotees of these games it's not much of an issue. I think someone who is less accustomed to that sort of convention is more inclined to look at it as illogical behaviour and therefore something that breaks immersion.

If it's something that bothers you as a writer of plot, it should be relatively easy to provide reasons for the character to be carrying the object. If the character must be carrying a stone to solve a puzzle in scene D, give them a different, logical reason to acquire one in scene A. That way, when they get to scene D the stone is a thing they are already carrying for one "legitimate", explained purpose which can now be re-purposed to a secondary function: the scene D puzzle.

I think the problem is that, with this sort of "collect every item" behaviour being a convention, some creators don't even think about how illogical it really is and therefore don't try to find a way to make it more logical or at least less obvious.

[Tabata]

For me it's okay if I got a reply that gives me a hint about it maybe becoming an useful item later on. Like " I don't have a use for that right now!" or something similar.
If I will get a reply like "I can't pick it up!" then I usually won't try it again later on, but if it was like "I don't know what to use it for!" I will try it again when I think that the character now should have a use for it.

For me it's a different gameplay. It's not enought to know what is to be done as the player. The other goal is to make the character realize that he needs the item.

[Radiant]

I find it poor game design if the game doesn't allow you to pick up items that you later end up needing. If my character is capable of picking up the rock and the script calls for him to pick up the rock at some point, he had better be picking up that rock when I tell him to.

[cat]

What Radiant said.

[Ghost]

In real life people do not pick up a rock while saying, "I will now carry this rock around because I will, maybe, need it later." In games they do. And it works because in a way all the stuff in your inventory is stuff you have access to.
It doesn't really matter if you literally carry a rock around or know where to get one quickly as far as the plot is concerned. I pick that rock up now and happen to find it useful later is the same as coming across a situation where I really need a rock, and then go and pick one up.
That icon in my inventory just means I happen to have the ability to get a rock and use it- no need to make the player actually *return* to the place where that rock is.

So, basically, I expect to be able to pick up anything (as long as picking it up isn't a puzzle in itself). It may be more realistic to "lock" objects until the hero is aware he needs them... but the player is playing the game! 

[Stupot]

I'm with Radiant et al.
The puzzle is 'How do I use the selection of random stuff at my disposal to get past this obstacle in a creative and imaginative (but preferably logical) way?', not 'When, if ever, will I be allowed to pick that rock up?'.

I like how Ghost puts it.  That would also help us get around the problem of why the player character can carry all kinds of objects of all shapes, sizes, and wetness in just his jeans and mac pockets with so much ease.

[Slasher]

Cheers guys.

This is what I have come up with:

A, Don't need the rock but have an excuse why you should pick it up.
   "That rock is an unusual color, I think I'll keep it to show my mates." (Hence it goes into your inventory.)

B. Need the rock for something.
  "That rock is just what I need." (Hence it goes into your inventory.)

This way you can pick the rock up whether you actually NEED it or not.

What do you think?

[Tabata]

In an adventure game you don't need a special reason if you allow to pick something up.
You just need a (good) reason, if you don't allow it.   

[Stupot]

A, Don't need the rock but have an excuse why you should pick it up.
   "That rock is an unusual color, I think I'll keep it to show my mates." (Hence it goes into your inventory.)

This isn't at all necessary.  As Tabby says, the player doesn't need a reason.  But I do think if you can give the player a reason, so long as it doesn't come across as contrived, then why not?  Example: maybe the rock has a blood stained shoe-print, or an interesting symbol on it.  That way the player now has a potential clue for the mystery... and they also have a rock.  A rock that you, the designer, knows the player is going to need later for smashing a window.

[Armageddon]

Just allow people to pick up what they need whenever, if the rock isn't needed I like to do the old cartoon trick, draw objects you need with a simple palette of 2-4 colours so it stands out from the background.

[Andail]

I don't exactly agree, but I know how most people think and feel about this, so I'm adjusting my own game accordingly.

I for one think it's unrealistic and a bit absurd to allow the character to pick up objects unless s/he has even a vague suspicion it may actually be used. Especially if it's a mundane, seemingly useless object. With tools like knives, crowbars and monkeys, it's a different thing altogether - these may always come in handy.

This becomes extra absurd if we're talking about a collection of items, like the goods on display in a shop, or books in a bookshelf. If the character has no idea one of these books will be useful later, why on earth would he pick up that precise one, and not the entire library?

It doesn't really matter if you literally carry a rock around or know where to get one quickly as far as the plot is concerned. I pick that rock up now and happen to find it useful later is the same as coming across a situation where I really need a rock, and then go and pick one up.
That icon in my inventory just means I happen to have the ability to get a rock and use it- no need to make the player actually *return* to the place where that rock is.

I don't personally look at it like this at all, and I doubt most people do (except when trying to provide explanations in a GTD thread). When I play I consider the items in my inventory my personal possessions, not items I have a theoretical access to. If that was the case, how does it work when the player is suddenly trapped inside a room? Washed ashore an isolated island? Does s/he still have access to all the items in the game world?
Some items are only obtained within a short time window, or awarded in very unique situations. I don't think your model of theoretical access fits in those situations.

I think we've seen plenty of ways games have solved this in the past. In MI, I recall many instances where the object you end up with is the result of another action, like the left-over ingredient in a combination of other objects, or simply something you hold on to instead of throwing it away (let's say you move a chain to enter a door, and you simply choose to keep the chain).

I believe letting the character pick up everything at any moment takes away some of the lateral thinking. If the player encounters a situation where the object could be used, I'd prefer to let him make this connection himself, and go back and fetch it. The alternative - to simply allow the player to solve the puzzle by first clicking everywhere (to get the item) and then clicking everywhere again (this time with the inventory item) - just promotes mechanical problem-solving, in my opinion.

[Ghost]

I don't personally look at it like this at all, and I doubt most people do (except when trying to provide explanations in a GTD thread). When I play I consider the items in my inventory my personal possessions, not items I have a theoretical access to. If that was the case, how does it work when the player is suddenly trapped inside a room? Washed ashore an isolated island? Does s/he still have access to all the items in the game world?

That's why I added the "picking up an object can be a puzzle in itself" clause  When you consider inventory from a real life perspective many, many games play it totally unrealistic and for laughs (Guybrush carrying a figurehead in MI2- and a live dog, too), or use some magic handwave (Simon the Sorcerer and his magic hat). In most cases I am with you- what I carry is what I have with me, but in several cases I think my explanation is valid: Carrying a large, cumbersome object that I need at some place and time is just a shortcut.
The "lock items until needed" has a huge pitful in my opinion, it can make the player feel a bit stupid. I remember a game where I was not allowed to brew coffee until someone explained how you do just that. I think I got the ingredients from a cabinet that the chartacter claimed to be empty before said exposition. That really felt... odd.

[Slasher]

I somewhat agree guys.

If you can't get an item object (even if the need for it is NOT YET required but will be needed at some point where you may have or may not have been yet.) simply give a reason why you CAN'T get it by interacting or using incorrect inventory items on it but make it so you think you need it for whatever reason.

Metal Object on wall (can't get yet):

Example Interact:  "I could melt that metal into a cross for my mother if I can get some off the wall."
Example Incorrect Inventory item: "That's not able to get any metal off the wall!"

Metal Object on wall (can yet):

Example Interact:  "I could melt that metal into a cross for my mother if I can get some off the wall."
Example Correct Inventory item: "Yes, got some metal off the wall!"

Scenereo:

On a wall in a cave there is some embedded metal that you try to grab (interact with). You are told that "You can't scrape the metal off with just your bare hands." This should tell you that you need to use an inventory item which should indicate that you WILL NEED the metal at some point. Using incorrect inventory items fails to get the metal off the cave. If YOU USE the correct inventory item to get it (which you picked up in another room) you are able to get the metal off the wall. For getting the metal off the wall you are awarded a point which you will need at a later time.

I also think that you should only carry (inventory) items that you need use at some point(s).

Carrying 101 Inventory items around with you whereby you can only use 12 of them is a total a waste of time, space and can become frustrating.

There may well be certain types of games that this could be applied to.

This is my view at this time.

[Stupot]

Carrying 101 Inventory items around with you whereby you can only use 12 of them is a total a waste of time, space and can become frustrating.

There may well be certain types of games that this could be applied to.

This is my view at this time.

That is one extreme, but on the other hand I also don't like it (in longer games, anyway) when you only ever have a small number of items at any given moment. I like to build up a nice healthy inventory quite early on.  To me, inventory puzzles are about having a bunch of stuff, and seeing how you can overcome obstacles by using that stuff.  If you only have a couple of items, you're limited in the number of possible things to try, so the game becomes that much less of a challenge.

[Slasher]

I agree Stupot+,

Before getting to the 'point of no return' (in my game) you do have a number of items that you have obtained and used previously. However, during the 'point of no return' you will need new items as well as the ones you already have, depending on the task you need to complete in that section of the game to move on to the next section.

[mkennedy]

If you don't let the character get objects until their needed the message should at least let them know that they can come back for it at a later point.

"I have no use for a rock right now, but if I ever do then at least now I know where to find one."

[Vince Twelve]

I'm definitely in the camp of letting them pick it up even if the use isn't readily apparent.  If a character refuses to pick something up, I generally forget about it as soon as it's out of sight (especially if it's as insignificant as a rock), so I won't think to go back to it to get it when I do need it.

Although, I'd say the best design should strive to have the player discover the problem before finding the object that solves it.  So, if you need a rock, it would be best if the game introduced you to the window that you need to break ("I need to get through here. Now if I only had something heavy enough to break it...") before you pass the pile of rocks.  This can be done either geographically (put the window close to the entrance to the room, while making the player walk and scroll the room a bit before discovering the rocks.) or by structuring the game around it (looking in the window plays a cutscene which opens up access to an alleyway where you find the rock needed to break the window).

I am 100% guilty of bad design in this regards! Live and learn!

[Slasher]

So, if you need a rock, it would be best if the game introduced you to the window that you need to break

Yes, that would be a good idea. But that would not always be possible if there is more than one way you can go: like a series of tunnels where you can venture back and forth its many branches etc etc..

Still, I have to agree that if that were possible then it would be the best way.

I have plans, in later rooms, to 'Pan' the whole room after fade in so you can see exactly what is what.

cheers