Currency Preference

[Kopikatsu]

I was thinking about the thread complaining that Far Cry 3, like many games, gives you far too much money and as a result, devalues itself and it made me remember Final Fantasy XIII, where you never, ever had enough money to buy a fraction of the things you wanted, even late in the game.

Since the former category is so vast, I was wondering if anyone knew of any other examples of the latter. Also, which is preferred? Too much money, or not enough?

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well if a resource isn't constricted then it just becomes meaningless, and then I'd like to ask the devs why they even bothered at all.

The old D&D games knew a thing or two about resource balance, not only were you broke all the time but you couldn't just waltz into town X and load up on all top shit, your regular shop keep only ever had the regular stuff and in very limited supply.

 

[Karma168]

I think money needs to be tight at the start when enemies are usually easier, to up the difficulty so you can't just cakewalk the earlier missions. As the game progresses enemies get harder so it makes sense to make the money easier as otherwise you could hit a brick wall of difficulty and be unable to progress.

Perfect example is XCOM: EU. In the early game the actual missions are ridiculously easy, 1 shot kills all the way, so the hard part is making sure you can afford to run your base without losing the council. Eventually though the combat ramps up and the base management becomes less of a problem so that you can actually fight.

If the money was always plentiful the early game would have no challenge and if it's always scarce then you'd never be able to afford everything you need to survive

It's not a straightforward lots vs none problem, it's a case of balancing the money you can get with what's needed to create a challenge, but not a grind.