Encumbrance sucks, so why is it still so common?

[Tuesday Night Fever]

Encumbrance systems are the only thing stopping me from pocketing everything that isn't nailed down in a game like Fallout or Skyrim.

Do I need fifteen stacks of Pre-War Money, a pack of bubble gum, a pencil, three letter blocks, and a dozen subway tokens? Probably not. But I might...

I... I might have a problem.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

That?s the other thing that bothers me about RPGs. Why does a pre-established character need to constantly start ?at the beginning? with basic stats and skills just because of the story?

I guess it's a matter of balance. Oftentimes, a gamer might never play an earlier title and so design 101 is generally start all players even at the start. This is only really a factor in RPGs with recurring characters. Some get around it by having different protagonists and/or time periods (eg. Elder Scrolls, Dragon Age). In the case of Baldur's Gate saga, you actually can take the same character from the start through the end of ToB, although IIRC as a result, BG1 had a level cap of 8 or 9, so you'd get no more XP after that (and wealth/items didn't carry over (except some specific things).

I do agree with you that it's harder to justify with the Witcher and Mass Effect series, when your player character is imported in and is still the protagonist. ME2 justified it as Shepard being "rebuilt", not sure if ME3 even bothered with an explanation. Adam Jensen in Mankind Divided actually begins in Dubai at full power (as he would have been at the end of HR), but a story development actually explains why after the prologue he's returned to the start. The game doesn't have a save import, but I think it actually does a good job of explaining why you're back at the beginning power-wise.

I think it's not unreasonable to accept, as a player, that we'd begin a game anew even if it was a sequel. Simple design decisions mean a game has to be balanced for a certain difficulty/level and it has to allow for new players. New Game+ mode, of which I'm a big fan, is a solution of sorts in that a game with NG+ generally allows us to start levelled and geared up. Mankind Divided has this, as does all the Mass Effect games, Borderlands titles, Dark Souls games and many more. Alpha Protocol gave a unique dialogue tree only available in its pseudo-NG+. I believe TW3 has NG+ mode tho I'm not sure how that works.

 

[Tanis]

Because it's easier to mess with people saying 'okay, you have XXXX amount of weight' verses saying you can have 'XX amount of items'.

I don't like it, personally, but it does help me not be AS MUCH of a hoarder.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Because it reminds my players minmaxing the shit out of your ability scores has a downside, and that extra 6lbs carrying capacity means the difference of being able to wear armour, be able to carry that loot, AND not plummet to your death the next time you try to make a jump check.

 

[Mothro]

That?s the other thing that bothers me about RPGs. Why does a pre-established character need to constantly start ?at the beginning? with basic stats and skills just because of the story?

I guess it's a matter of balance. Oftentimes, a gamer might never play an earlier title and so design 101 is generally start all players even at the start. This is only really a factor in RPGs with recurring characters. Some get around it by having different protagonists and/or time periods (eg. Elder Scrolls, Dragon Age). In the case of Baldur's Gate saga, you actually can take the same character from the start through the end of ToB, although IIRC as a result, BG1 had a level cap of 8 or 9, so you'd get no more XP after that (and wealth/items didn't carry over (except some specific things).

I do agree with you that it's harder to justify with the Witcher and Mass Effect series, when your player character is imported in and is still the protagonist. ME2 justified it as Shepard being "rebuilt", not sure if ME3 even bothered with an explanation. Adam Jensen in Mankind Divided actually begins in Dubai at full power (as he would have been at the end of HR), but a story development actually explains why after the prologue he's returned to the start. The game doesn't have a save import, but I think it actually does a good job of explaining why you're back at the beginning power-wise.

I think it's not unreasonable to accept, as a player, that we'd begin a game anew even if it was a sequel. Simple design decisions mean a game has to be balanced for a certain difficulty/level and it has to allow for new players. New Game+ mode, of which I'm a big fan, is a solution of sorts in that a game with NG+ generally allows us to start levelled and geared up. Mankind Divided has this, as does all the Mass Effect games, Borderlands titles, Dark Souls games and many more. Alpha Protocol gave a unique dialogue tree only available in its pseudo-NG+. I believe TW3 has NG+ mode tho I'm not sure how that works.

So in TOS the Klingons looked nothing like the Klingons in TNG, DS9, Voyager and the TNG movies. Now we all know the reason, it's because makeup technology had improved in the years between TOS and TNG but people unwisely wanted an in-universe explanation. Well, it was a stupid ask and a stupid explanation was provided in DS9. Something about a virus.

What's my point? The reason you have to start a character new is for gameplay purposes and an explanation is not needed since it's just going to be BS anyway (you already know the real reason). Have you ever played a game in New Game + mode (or cheated with an Action Replay) and made the game boring because you were too powerful?

 

[Tanis]

The virus was actually explained fairly well in Enterprise.

 

[Kyrian007]

And as far as "immersion breaking..." yes it is a little odd when your dragonborn suddenly can't run or jump because he picked up that one too many butterfly wing. But immersion BREAKING? In a game where you can whisper a SHOUT, or steal after placing a bucket on someone's head, or... turn into a werewolf... somehow encumbrance is the immersion problem?

It is, or certainly can be immersion breaking, and I'll explain why as succinctly as I'm able (hah!). JRR Tolkein described the concept of the Secondary World [http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Secondary_world]. In its simplest it can be thought of as:

Secondary world is a term used by Tolkien to refer to a consistent, fictional world or setting, created by a man, also called subcreation, in contrast to the Reality, called Primary world.

While you're playing Skyrim, turning into a Werewolf and FUS-ROH-DAHing like a champ, you're immersed in the world. They are among the reasons the game is so immersive. It's all consistent and keeps you hooked. When you suddenly get the encumbered popup and slow to a crawl, the player is often suddenly thrown back to the primary world and reminded that they're playing a game and have to take care of busywork. It has nothing to do with how fantastic the setting, it's about consistency and respect to the player, reader or viewer.

Immersion and secondary world is such a subjective thing though. It could be that every time I turn into a werewolf I'm reminded there actually are no such things and bam, immersion broken... I'm playing a video game. Conversely I pick up a butterfly wing and suddenly feel overburdened, but remember that I'm carrying that potion of strength. I quaff it and am able to make it back to my trusty horse and ride back into town to sell my loot... and bam, I'm completely immersed. The "problem" isn't encumbrance. Its the player trying to justify not wanting to have to deal with inventory management in a game where that's just part of the game.

 

[Squilookle]

Good question- who ever thought that not getting to carry all a shooter's guns at once was a good idea?

Halo has a lot to answer for.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Immersion and secondary world is such a subjective thing though. It could be that every time I turn into a werewolf I'm reminded there actually are no such things and bam, immersion broken... I'm playing a video game. Conversely I pick up a butterfly wing and suddenly feel overburdened, but remember that I'm carrying that potion of strength. I quaff it and am able to make it back to my trusty horse and ride back into town to sell my loot... and bam, I'm completely immersed. The "problem" isn't encumbrance. Its the player trying to justify not wanting to have to deal with inventory management in a game where that's just part of the game.

It doesn't have anything to do with subjectivity, that isn't a relevant point. If something else is immersion breaking it doesn't preclude another thing from being that too. Regardless, if players are mentioning it, there's a reason for it. I'm just explaining the why....it breaks the illusion for many players. In the case of Skyrim, encumbrance is more a quality of life thing than a mechanical thing. It doesn't add strategic depth or affect builds and while there are in-game remedies, it is an annoyance and for many evidently an immersion-breaker, more than an interesting mechanic.

What's my point? The reason you have to start a character new is for gameplay purposes and an explanation is not needed since it's just going to be BS anyway (you already know the real reason). Have you ever played a game in New Game + mode (or cheated with an Action Replay) and made the game boring because you were too powerful?

I agree that an explanation isn't always needed and have no issue with the trope. Having said that, when Deus Ex: MD is able to explain it in-universe there's something to be said for trying; it acknowledges Jensen's abilities, even lets you enjoy them in the prologue, then a story development elegantly explains their later loss. It's only really a noticeable issue when the same protagonist returns for a sequel (in the RPG/RPG-elements genres) and there aren't a huge number of games like that.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

To this day the upgradable Resident Evil 4 suitcase and Deus Ex:HR inventory remain my favorite way to do inventory.

There's a mod for The Witcher 3 that allows you to use your horse as additional inventory, which is also kind of awesome and also worrisome because modders thought of it before the devs.

The grid inventory i think it's called, and it was also in Diablo among other games. I don't mind it, although some people think of it as just more busywork. It sure beats something we got in new Fallouts or first Mass Effect, though.

 

[Mothro]

To this day the upgradable Resident Evil 4 suitcase and Deus Ex:HR inventory remain my favorite way to do inventory.

There's a mod for The Witcher 3 that allows you to use your horse as additional inventory, which is also kind of awesome and also worrisome because modders thought of it before the devs.

The grid inventory i think it's called, and it was also in Diablo among other games. I don't mind it, although some people think of it as just more busywork. It sure beats something we got in new Fallouts or first Mass Effect, though.

It's called inventory Tetris.

 

[Kyrian007]

Immersion and secondary world is such a subjective thing though. It could be that every time I turn into a werewolf I'm reminded there actually are no such things and bam, immersion broken... I'm playing a video game. Conversely I pick up a butterfly wing and suddenly feel overburdened, but remember that I'm carrying that potion of strength. I quaff it and am able to make it back to my trusty horse and ride back into town to sell my loot... and bam, I'm completely immersed. The "problem" isn't encumbrance. Its the player trying to justify not wanting to have to deal with inventory management in a game where that's just part of the game.

It doesn't have anything to do with subjectivity, that isn't a relevant point. If something else is immersion breaking it doesn't preclude another thing from being that too. Regardless, if players are mentioning it, there's a reason for it. I'm just explaining the why....it breaks the illusion for many players. In the case of Skyrim, encumbrance is more a quality of life thing than a mechanical thing. It doesn't add strategic depth or affect builds and while there are in-game remedies, it is an annoyance and for many evidently an immersion-breaker, more than an interesting mechanic.

And my point is, the problem isn't with the mechanic... it is with the players who subjectively judge encumbrance as immersion breaking. Basically, it isn't the game's issue if the player can't suspend disbelief enough to get into it.

 

[sXeth]

Immersion and secondary world is such a subjective thing though. It could be that every time I turn into a werewolf I'm reminded there actually are no such things and bam, immersion broken... I'm playing a video game. Conversely I pick up a butterfly wing and suddenly feel overburdened, but remember that I'm carrying that potion of strength. I quaff it and am able to make it back to my trusty horse and ride back into town to sell my loot... and bam, I'm completely immersed. The "problem" isn't encumbrance. Its the player trying to justify not wanting to have to deal with inventory management in a game where that's just part of the game.

It doesn't have anything to do with subjectivity, that isn't a relevant point. If something else is immersion breaking it doesn't preclude another thing from being that too. Regardless, if players are mentioning it, there's a reason for it. I'm just explaining the why....it breaks the illusion for many players. In the case of Skyrim, encumbrance is more a quality of life thing than a mechanical thing. It doesn't add strategic depth or affect builds and while there are in-game remedies, it is an annoyance and for many evidently an immersion-breaker, more than an interesting mechanic.

And my point is, the problem isn't with the mechanic... it is with the players who subjectively judge encumbrance as immersion breaking. Basically, it isn't the game's issue if the player can't suspend disbelief enough to get into it.

To take your example, Werewolves and magic potions are fantastical elements. We can accept them more or less however ludicrously they're presented.

Whereas we understand how people work on a pretty intimate level. And we know inherently that there's no magic point at which a 0.01lb butterfly wing will suddenly slow our pace to a crawl or stop it altogether (while notably having no other ill effects). Its such a drastic abstract of a human experience that it bears no semblance to our actual well-founded knowledge.

If I had to work encumbrance into Bethesda's mechanics, it'd make far more sense if being encumbered just increased stamina expenditures and over time reduced max stamina. And some sort of stacking of the state after you spend a while in it, where miniscule items would have to have a lot of the encumbrance effect stacked up to start actively contributing to it.

 

[Mothro]

Applying realism usually makes a game worse and gamers demanding realism is like shooting themselves in the foot. If Mario was say...30 in 1985 then he is 63 now and there is no way he is making awesome jumps at 63. How about Sonic, do Hedgehogs really run the fast? Does a magic potion really heal 5 sword hits?

Games aren't about realism and gamers trying to make them more realistic aren't doing themselves any favors.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

That?s the other thing that bothers me about RPGs. Why does a pre-established character need to constantly start ?at the beginning? with basic stats and skills just because of the story? At the very least you should be able to transfer your build over the course of the series, even if it would require some extra legwork balancing the game. I think some games actually do this, but only to varying degrees.

You don't need to start a player "at the beginning" with a character. A character action game isn't starting your character at "level 1" (even though those games don't have levels), they give you most of the combat system and mechanics at the start of the game and the game is about learning/mastering those mechanics. I don't see why RPGs can't do the same thing. RPGs get so bogged down in stats for really no reason. What's the point in having your character constantly get damage and health stat increases to basically keep the game the same in the next dungeon? What I mean by that is that the devs ideally what the challenge to stay even the entire game, Souls is a great example. If you level up and upgrade properly, the enemies in say the 8th dungeon should be dying in 4 hits just like enemies in the 1st dungeon died in 4 hits. Basically, you level up to keep the game the same. What's the point? Can't we just cut out the garbage that's not really doing anything? When you're just increasing numbers the game isn't changing, but getting new abilities/skills/moves/etc does change gameplay. To me, Borderlands is all about the builds via the skill trees, not the fucking time-wasting loot system causing so much wasted time in inventory management that I'm just doing to basically keep the game the same.

I understand then players won't feel a sense of progression if they can theoretically beat a dragon at level 1, but you can link all that damage/defense/health increases to just character leveling and/or gear upgrading. Your character gets better at using said sword so its damage increases. Where Souls does a great job is not giving the player all this inventory trash to swift though, you get one of every weapon and if you like it, you can upgrade it instead of later on finding a +5 katana so now you have to unequip and sell your +3 katana. Souls also utilizes character stats to get better using dex or str weapons for example. I personally don't find that too engaging because it is still keeping the game the same basically but at least I ain't constantly managing the inventory wasting time so it's like 100x better than a stupid loot system. Monster Hunter does a similar thing with gear and you're basically never in your inventory.

I do agree with you that it's harder to justify with the Witcher and Mass Effect series, when your player character is imported in and is still the protagonist. ME2 justified it as Shepard being "rebuilt", not sure if ME3 even bothered with an explanation.

I'm like 99.9% sure that ME3 started you with a ton of skill points to allocate how you wanted so Shepard didn't start at level 1 in ME3.

The "problem" isn't encumbrance. Its the player trying to justify not wanting to have to deal with inventory management in a game where that's just part of the game.

The problem is inventory management in most games is not adding anything to the game, and the game's loot system is usually the core cause of pointless inventory management. Also, an overly complicated crafting system can also be the cause; as Seth Carter mentioned a 0.01lb butterfly wing, the player is probably only picking that up because it just might be some integral item needed to craft something later. In fact, most RPGs keep stuff like crafting materials totally separate from your managed inventory and not adding weight because of all the random shit needed for crafting. Players mostly just want to hold an armory of weapons and gear just to sell them (not for actual tactical purposes like a mage carry old wands or a bastard sword) just in case there is something awesome to buy, which there rarely is because the best stuff is found or crafted in just about every RPG anyway. It's like how the devs made a point to put in a haggle mechanic in Witcher 3, but it's not like Geralt actually needs money for anything important. Geralt being poor or rich changes nothing really. Players have a problem with doing needless things that just waste their time.

 

[Zeras]

That?s the other thing that bothers me about RPGs. Why does a pre-established character need to constantly start ?at the beginning? with basic stats and skills just because of the story? At the very least you should be able to transfer your build over the course of the series, even if it would require some extra legwork balancing the game. I think some games actually do this, but only to varying degrees.

You don't need to start a player "at the beginning" with a character. A character action game isn't starting your character at "level 1" (even though those games don't have levels), they give you most of the combat system and mechanics at the start of the game and the game is about learning/mastering those mechanics. I don't see why RPGs can't do the same thing. RPGs get so bogged down in stats for really no reason. What's the point in having your character constantly get damage and health stat increases to basically keep the game the same in the next dungeon? What I mean by that is that the devs ideally what the challenge to stay even the entire game, Souls is a great example. If you level up and upgrade properly, the enemies in say the 8th dungeon should be dying in 4 hits just like enemies in the 1st dungeon died in 4 hits. Basically, you level up to keep the game the same. What's the point? Can't we just cut out the garbage that's not really doing anything? When you're just increasing numbers the game isn't changing, but getting new abilities/skills/moves/etc does change gameplay. To me, Borderlands is all about the builds via the skill trees, not the fucking time-wasting loot system causing so much wasted time in inventory management that I'm just doing to basically keep the game the same.

I understand then players won't feel a sense of progression if they can theoretically beat a dragon at level 1, but you can link all that damage/defense/health increases to just character leveling and/or gear upgrading. Your character gets better at using said sword so its damage increases. Where Souls does a great job is not giving the player all this inventory trash to swift though, you get one of every weapon and if you like it, you can upgrade it instead of later on finding a +5 katana so now you have to unequip and sell your +3 katana. Souls also utilizes character stats to get better using dex or str weapons for example. I personally don't find that too engaging because it is still keeping the game the same basically but at least I ain't constantly managing the inventory wasting time so it's like 100x better than a stupid loot system. Monster Hunter does a similar thing with gear and you're basically never in your inventory.

I do agree with you that it's harder to justify with the Witcher and Mass Effect series, when your player character is imported in and is still the protagonist. ME2 justified it as Shepard being "rebuilt", not sure if ME3 even bothered with an explanation.

I'm like 99.9% sure that ME3 started you with a ton of skill points to allocate how you wanted so Shepard didn't start at level 1 in ME3.

The "problem" isn't encumbrance. Its the player trying to justify not wanting to have to deal with inventory management in a game where that's just part of the game.

The problem is inventory management in most games is not adding anything to the game, and the game's loot system is usually the core cause of pointless inventory management. Also, an overly complicated crafting system can also be the cause; as Seth Carter mentioned a 0.01lb butterfly wing, the player is probably only picking that up because it just might be some integral item needed to craft something later. In fact, most RPGs keep stuff like crafting materials totally separate from your managed inventory and not adding weight because of all the random shit needed for crafting. Players mostly just want to hold an armory of weapons and gear just to sell them (not for actual tactical purposes like a mage carry old wands or a bastard sword) just in case there is something awesome to buy, which there rarely is because the best stuff is found or crafted in just about every RPG anyway. It's like how the devs made a point to put in a haggle mechanic in Witcher 3, but it's not like Geralt actually needs money for anything important. Geralt being poor or rich changes nothing really. Players have a problem with doing needless things that just waste their time.

To the part about ME3, if you didn't import a Shepard from ME2 you started at level 1; it was semi-justified by having Anderson call you "soft" during one of the cut-scenes (though it kinda loses its jab since he says it no matter if you're doing an import or not).

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Great discussion, this is old Escapist stuff, love it. We should talk about some other mechanics/tropes.

Basically, it isn't the game's issue if the player can't suspend disbelief enough to get into it.

No man, it is entirely the game's/book's/film's fault, that's the point. That's one of people's complaints from ME1, from Skyrim and from myriad other games. It's an annoyance and at least in the case of Skyrim, mods like Glimpse of Elswyr and the like solve it.

To the part about ME3, if you didn't import a Shepard from ME2 you started at level 1; it was semi-justified by having Anderson call you "soft" during one of the cut-scenes (though it kinda loses its jab since he says it no matter if you're doing an import or not).

I don't remember the specifics, but I'm trying to remember games where this is an issue. So far I've got:

- Mass Effect: Rebuilt in ME2, Handwaved in ME3. Both have NG+ anyway.
- Baldur's Gate: Imports same character (stats/skills) but not inventory (except select items)
- The Witcher: Never explained
- Deus Ex: Explained in-game as part of the story.
- Dragon Age 2/Inquisition: Imports some story elements, but different protagonist so not really relevant.
- Jedi Knight: I never played JK1, only JK2 onward, but Kyle Katarn begins JK2 without access to the force at all. However it's explained in game and is an integral part of the story.

I'm trying to think of other RPG games with returning protagonists. I can think of non-RPGs (AssCreed2, GoW, Halo) but they aren't relevant here.

 

[sXeth]

Great discussion, this is old Escapist stuff, love it. We should talk about some other mechanics/tropes.

- Mass Effect: Rebuilt in ME2, Handwaved in ME3. Both have NG+ anyway.
- Baldur's Gate: Imports same character (stats/skills) but not inventory (except select items)
- The Witcher: Never explained
- Deus Ex: Explained in-game as part of the story.
- Dragon Age 2/Inquisition: Imports some story elements, but different protagonist so not really relevant.
- Jedi Knight: I never played JK1, only JK2 onward, but Kyle Katarn begins JK2 without access to the force at all. However it's explained in game and is an integral part of the story.

I'm trying to think of other RPG games with returning protagonists. I can think of non-RPGs (AssCreed2, GoW, Halo) but they aren't relevant here.

I mean, AssCreed's probably as much of an RPG as Jedi Knight.

Ultima had he transfer between the 4 realms of the series revert the persons strength. Got a bit clunky of course (particularly since the villains in Serpent Isle were seemingly unafflicted by the transition) Also post Serpent Isle and Pagan you were literally a god and presumably beyond that (though in the first case another god takes you and dumps you in Pagan, so maybe he offscreen took the Earth Serpents power away from you). Up until the 7th installment is was also a bit implied that the Avatar was actually a series of different strangers crossing from Earth.

Some of the older gold box D&D games (Pool of Radiance quadrology and the Champions of Krynn trilogy particularly) had ongoing protagonists, but they had an import system (which you could "exploit" to actually get what I believe is the first occasion of NG+).

I have a vague recollection of one of the Command and Conquer games where you were supposed to be the same Commander, but you still started out with restricted units, though similar vague memory as to whether they were justified somehow. New Xcom to a degree could also be thrown in, though that depends on how far the canon first war supposedly went.

Heroes of Might & Magic manages to do an ingame variation, where often your hero got scaled back while in the same campaign. IT was an off and on thing though. Your tech level or whatever changing was justified by having moved to a new city that needed to be developed. The 5th game probably has the best explained case, where Heretic hero Agrael eschews his demon magic and next appears as a warlock, explaining the need to learn new skills.


Speaking of Ultima 7 and back on the original topic, that had one of the really obtuse encumbrance systems. Essentially having both a weight limit, and a version of tetris inventory since you had to space things out in physically rendered bags and backpacks. Though the space limit was more of a personal sanity thing to keep organized so you could find things rather then stacking everything on top of each other.

 

[maninahat]

So the pros of encumbrance:
1) It stops people hoovering up and keeping every last thing until the inventory just becomes too unweidly.
2) If you have a restrictive limit, it can feel more realistic.
3) A restrictive limit also forces the player to think tactically about their approach to things, with few options available.
4) In a system where shops will buy anything off the player, people can essentially get infinite money by simply picking up and selling everything in the land, unless you put some limit on the player that will punish them for carrying a million cheese wheels.

The negatives:
1) Despite the above attempt at realism, its often too generous and lets the player carry twenty swords. You will also still be able to pick up too many of the lighter nic-nacs, filling out your inventory screen.
2) It makes players have to think about inventory in the first place, when it is often a useless spreadsheet exercise which pads out the game.

 

[Mothro]

So the pros of encumbrance:
1) It stops people hoovering up and keeping every last thing until the inventory just becomes too unweidly.
2) If you have a restrictive limit, it can feel more realistic.
3) A restrictive limit also forces the player to think tactically about their approach to things, with few options available.
4) In a system where shops will buy anything off the player, people can essentially get infinite money by simply picking up and selling everything in the land, unless you put some limit on the player that will punish them for carrying a million cheese wheels.

The negatives:
1) Despite the above attempt at realism, its often too generous and lets the player carry twenty swords. You will also still be able to pick up too many of the lighter nic-nacs, filling out your inventory screen.
2) It makes players have to think about inventory in the first place, when it is often a useless spreadsheet exercise which pads out the game.

P1) My first game with an unlimited inventory was Final Fantasy VI. As far as I know you can carry 99 of every item in the game. The inventory never became unwieldy.

P2, C1) Realism is for the real world and it only hurts video games.

P3) Forcing a player to play a certain way is not a good thing in an RPG. Why not let the player decide to play tactically or to bring 99 potions?

P4) What good does infinite money do if the game isn't giving you a good use for it and if the game is giving you a good use for it, what's wrong with spending the money on new equipment? IF the game is offering, it is meant for you to be able to get it.

C2) IMO, a simple list based inventory system is the least troublesome. No reason why you can't have icons beside the name of the item and even 'Press Y to view item' but for simple viewing and sorting, just a list.