Points: 5
Cover Story: It Came From Outer Space!

Steven Mayo


Total Points:
Robo Technoid
Last Visit:
Plano, TX

What I'm Playing

My Friends

cowklr nochildren

When to Use Scarcity

Are limited resources immersive or just annoying?

Feb 01, 2010 1:50PM PST

From the moment of inspiration, this post was conceived as simple and easy. The thesis: buying fuel in Mass Effect 2 is stupid.

Of course, I don't mean that doing so is stupid. You have to in order to get through the game. I mean that being forced to do so is stupid. I mean that managing the Normandy's fuel, as a limited resource and gameplay element, really does nothing for the game. It doesn't make it harder (not really) and it doesn't test your skill. Nothing hinges on your ability to manage fuel.

What it does do is punish you for exploring the game world. Even if my current objective isn't pointing me to Galaxy X, if I want to go there, I shouldn't have to pay a monetary penalty just to check it out (the cost of refueling).

It brings to mind other examples of scarcity - the purposeful limitation of resources - in games that have consistently brought me to this question: would I prefer to stay in reality or just not deal with this fucking problem anymore?

I would almost always choose the latter.

Another Example
A common example is encumbrance. In this case, the limited resource is inventory space. Oblivion, Fallout 3, Borderlands, Resident Evil 5 - all of these games force players to wage a constant scrum with inventory space. In RE5 and Borderlands it's a distinct limit, while in the Bethesda games you're limited by your character's "carry" limit via his or her strength.

Maybe I'm more of a packrat than most, but this is how it goes for me: I collect everything I find until I max out, which usually doesn't take long. From that point, I decide whether to return and sell, or just march through, checking the value of everything I cross and swapping out for the most lucrative finds. Option one takes forever, option two misses out on loads of cash. Either way, it's a trivial annoyance that could be easily avoided by simply giving the player an unlimited inventory.

What fun is being forced to choose? Neither option really determines my success in the game, so what's the point? Do you get anything out of this? Would you ever say that you like encumbrance?

Recent roguelike Torchlight was celebrated for a revolutionary feature: you can send your pet to sell your surplus mid-dungeon. Awesome, right? I'll take it over warping back to town, sure, but I'd rather skip it altogether and be allowed to collect unto infinity.

So maybe I have a new thesis: scarcity in games is stupid.

The Other Side
But wait, no, that's not right. What about survival horror? What about RTS?

If you didn't feel like you had to conserve ammo in Resident Evil, would the series be as effective? You might be surprised to learn that I don't think so. I believe that limited factors such as ammo and, to a degree, movement make those games more intense. They impart a sense of helplessness that makes them frightening.

So what gives? Why does hunting down shotgun shells in RE4 engage me while buying fuel in Mass Effect 2 pisses me off? I think it has to do with relevance to player performance. Finally, I have a two-part thesis:

  • Scarcity is good when a player's ability to manage and respond to it is central to the progression of the game. The player is gratified by outwitting the system.
  • Scarcity is bad when managing it well receives more or less the same results as managing it poorly. The player is a slave to the system with no opportunity to excel.

Do you like scarcity or limited resources in games? Are their times when you feel they are and are not appropriate? What other instances of scarcity interest you? What about flashlights and battery-life (F.E.A.R, Half-Life 2)? Let me know your thoughts.

  • E-mail it
  • 3

Comments (2)

  • Machocruz
  • Each thing in its place.

    Posted: Feb 01, 2010 12:00AM PST by  Machocruz

    In action games, pure action games, nothing should exist in the game that slows down the forward momentum.  However, the expenditure of supplies can be a useful device to create the illusion that there is a possibility of running out, thus increasing the sense of danger, as in Doom.  In that game, the player is supplied with a steady stream of ammo and armor pick-ups.  It is near impossible to run out of ammunition, but in the mind of the player, especially for the first time player, it is a potential menace.

    You mention some RPGs; I believe that one of the attractive things about the genre is the decisions you constantly have to make.  As in life, which RPGs try to imitate in an abstract and exaggerated way, you are as defined by the things you can't do as by those you can.  In a game, this idea is used to create a well-defined role.  For example, if you intend your character to be a very strong person and stat/skill them accordingly, this will be reflected in how much they can carry.  If your intention is to focus on your avatar's tech skills, their Strength will suffer at the expense of their Intelligence, thus they will carry less.  It's all about defining the role, and pleasure is derived out of pitting a unique character (which can be thought of as a "build theory") -with all their abilities and limitations - against the challenges of the game.  This also serves to increase the realism, and thus for some players, the immersion. For myself, who usually plays these choice heavy games at least twice, thereis the added entertainment of seeing what would happen if a use a totally different kind of character, and how I go about adapting with their particular set of advantages/disadvantages; as pertaining to our discussion, how does the amount of stuff I can carry effect my manner of play.

    The Fallout series in particular has a strong survival theme, as does anything set in a post acpocalypse, another game being STALKER on the PC.

    On the other hand, a game like Mass Effect is a RPG with less simulation elements.  Story and combat focused, the game is less about "state of being" immersion than it is narrative immersion.  Having to worry about management would not serve the game's purposes.  The rest of the game's systems aren't consistent with that level of minutia to begin with.

    Survival games: pretty much explains itself.  This takes the earlier Doom example to its extreme: "I can run out of ammo/things that help me, and that makes things dangerous and intense.  I have to use my wits, plan ahead, outsmart my enemies, and that is very engaging and enjoyable."  This is also something that can be used in other genres to sell the realism of the world and your place in it.

    Ecumberance is just another challenge, a tactical decision.  It rarely has an impact on the bigger picture of gameplay, but it is a detail for gamers like me who like that extra bit of busy work, when it's appropriate to the presentation of the game, of which what I've outlined above are some examples.

    An interesting topic.  Much appreciated around here.



  • Kitanarama
  • Thanks Machocruz

    Posted: Feb 02, 2010 12:00AM PST by  Kitanarama

    Thanks for your reponse, Machocruz. You make some great points.

    I think where you and I diverge is the notion that encumbrance is a tactical decision. I don't think so. You don't stand to gain or lose on the basis of that decision, so really it's no decision at all. I think you're buying into the idea of encumbrance as realistic, therefore immersive, but if you played a Bethesda style game with no carry limit, I really doubt you would feel any less immersed.

    I started with RPGs in my post because I love them. Decision making, character building, possibly having an impact on the story - it's what draws me to the genre. But there are plenty of character traits to exploit that actually serve the story - diplomacy, ability to pick locks/hack computers, ability to steal - that allow you to roleplay your character. I guess that's my problem with encumbrance - I don't feel that there's any roleplay value to it. I don't get anything back for my struggles, be it immersion, realism, or fun gameplay. As I said above, I'm just a slave to the system, forced to grind through.

    Thanks again for writing.

Title Of Comment

Maximum characters for title is 120


Around the Network

IGN Entertainment Games