Hammerspace

The title of this blogpost is a term derived cartoons.  Particularly, instances where a character produces an item or object far too large to have been concealed on their person.  Often times this would come in the form of a mallet pulled seemingly out of nowhere.  Where did that come from?  For all intents and purposes it was tucked into some kind of pocket dimension, accessible to a particular individual at a moment's notice.  The old table-top RPG Dungeons and Dragons had a similar concept with the magical "bag-of-holding," essentially, a container that drastically downsizes anything places within.  Video games designers were quick to adapt the concept of hammerspace into their games, but I don't think they were ever (generally speaking) entirely comfortable with the concept.  Space Quest III's narration text, "You shove the ladder in your pocket."  Followed by the word "Ouch!" was the first instance I can recall a designer pushing back on the absurdity of it all, albeit for laughs.  So, why are game developers willing to turn a blind eye to something that is completely unrealistic on a fundamental level.

The simplest answer is they are not.  In fact, I get the impression that a lot of thought and energy has gone into trying eliminate hammerspace.  One of the most common solutions is an encumbrance system.  These weight limits were fairly ubiquitous in early table-top RPGs and (unsurprisingly) ended up being incorporated into a lot of CRPGs.  In more recent years, the concept has fallen out of fashion (Demon's Souls is the last game I've played that used it).  One of the problems with an encumbrance system is it still doesn't really reflect reality in that players can still haul way more stuff on their characters than would ever be humanly possible.  In some cases this would result in hilarity in games like Diablo and Dungeon Siege, causing a massive explosion of dropped equipment all over the screen when a player character was killed.  Another big problem with abstractly measuring weight is it doesn't account for bulk.  Some objects (say, for example, a big bag of fluffy cotton) aren't particularly heavy, but do take up a lot of physical space. 

One way to simulate both weight and volume is with inventory tetris.  It can be found in games like Betrayal at Krondor, Resident Evil 4 and Dead Space.  Again, it isn't a popular solution among gamers though it is perhaps a bit closer to reality.  The problem with such a system is instances where an object is very small but incredibly dense, such as a bar of gold.  Oddly enough, the original XCOM (released way back in 1994) had a system that accounted for both space and weight - calculating burden against the strength of the carrier and adjusting movement rates accordingly.  Even so, the system had its quirks.  Armor (or lack there of) was not factored into weight restrictions and a 80 item limit on missions was the result of programming limitations rather than some kind of lift capacity on the in-game air transport craft.

Taking a step back, it's easy to see why a lot of game developers give into the temptation of hammerspace.  Managing inventory is a tedious task and in loot-driven games can be an outright punishment in that it forces players to leave valuable booty behind.  That is unless a core aspect of the fun is logistical planning.  Darkest Dungeon, Astroneer and most recently Death Stranding are built around making important decisions based on limited inventory capacity.  In an interesting case of reverse cross-media influence the table-top RPG Torchbearer uses an inventory slot system very similar to what was invented in video games.  Another instance where this sort of restraint can be interesting is in the case of equipment definingly the character's role.  Some FPS games let the player carry all the guns, but others such as those in the Halo series force the player to decide on a class (made up of two guns) and stick to it.  An alternative approach might be to make encumbrance restrictions adjustable in the options menu, or perhaps tied to the difficulty setting.  Regardless, the takeaway here is developers that don't want hammerspace need to integrate the limitation in a positive way rather than a negative one.

A great example of how not to do it is Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild.  Weapons degrade as they are used, and certain weapons are more effective against certain types of enemies.  This incentivises the player to carry a lot of (and a wide variety of) weapons.  However the game places a strict cap on the number of weapons Link can carry.  It should be noted that the number is (even at its lowest) still more than what is realistic.  Instead of this neither-here-nor-there system, a much more enjoyable approach would be to tie weapon usage into some kind of progression system.  Want the player to use more variety?  Give an EXP boost based on cooldown timers, or number of times used.  Want players to haul around fewer weapons?  Provide a stat boost (speed, damage, stamina, health, etc.) if they carry below a certain limit.

In truth, I don't mind hammerspace as a concept.  The "Tain" in the Myth series or "Dite" in Metal Gear Survive hint at the storytelling potential of having an in-fiction pocket dimension.  Alas, the vast majority of the time hammerspace it just hit points of a different color - concepts overused by developers because they lack the creativity to come up with an innovative alternative.