Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Mermaid
I think you need to acknowledge that this is a pet peeve of yours. You may not like randomisation, but other people do, and there is nothing objectively wrong with it.

Yeah, it is.
Not one born by mere feelings, though.
It's a dislike caused mostly by my love for good design.

I have yet to hear a single good argument in favor of randomized itemization in any RPG.
The go-to flagship argument seems to be "When everything is random you are constantly surprised", which is countered by the sad reality of it: "when every item is randomized and easily disposable, every single find feels equally generic and often worthless".

In Baldur's Gate 2 you could find a +3 talking longsword near the tavern in Amn. I still remember that item, I still remember how you could go half of the game before having some NET upgrade over it (rather than few comparably good alternate options). I didn't play BG2 in the last four years.

It was useful, it was memorable, it was funny. It was also something I could plan a future playthrough around. "Hey, I know I have *that* specific item there, I'll give it to Character X and for Character Y I'll get that other weapon instead".

In this game I couldn't tell you a single item I'm equipping now on my party, in my current campaign, without loading my game and checking.
I'm also confident it wouldn't matter even if I did, because one level from now I'll have to replace it, if the RNG will allow it.


Here's one: the argument is that randomised loot increases replayability because each playthrough is going to be different. You may not agree with this argument, but you have to acknowledge the fact that this is a view held by not an insignificant part of the gaming community and with good reason. Yes, the system has some of the drawbacks that you mentioned, but it also has certain advantages over a strictly fixed loot system. You may like a fixed loot system, but half the people like a randomised loot system. Ipso facto that is a matter of taste, not a matter of good/bad design. A well-executed randomised loot system ensures infinite replayability, but it is obviously not going to be absolutely everyone's cup of tea.

But even then the game also has Unique items with fixed stats. Not all loot is randomised. Unique items are among the most powerful in the game. If you have not yet found them then you should be doing more exploration. If anything, I disagree with this approach because I know where the best item for build X is to be found on every playthrough. Boring. You may disagree with me, but this does not make my view any less valid.

Finally, this is not a loot based RPG. Loot plays a very small role in this game. I said in a different thread that in one of my playthroughs I realised in Arx that one of my dudes was still wearing a level 3 Migo's Breastplate. Surely if that extra xxx magical + physical armour was such a game breaker than it must have been replaced several levels ago? But it isn't, and even with all the infamous stat inflation you can absolutely breeze through the game on Tactician without ever visiting a vendor. The only items of any significance are weapons for physical damage dealers. So long as you have a solid build you have a solid run. Suggesting that you "have to" visit a vendor every other level is pure bollocks. You don't. In my last playthrough I ran entire Arx looking for a new 2 Hander for my warrior when I hit level 22. All the vendors were selling total garbage so I did not manage to find one. I'll equip Anathema - I thought, but when I got to the final boss I forgot to do it. I still beat him on turn 1 with my shitty outlevelled green 2 Hander.

Look, I get you. You find the loot system unfulfilling. That's a valid view to hold - but you must equally acknowledge that this is a consequence of your needs as an individual and not a matter of bad design as such.

Does it mean that the loot system is perfect? Of course not. But it is robust. You may not like it, but others do, and it works just fine.