I voted no based on how it's being implemented in games. If someone found a better way to implement that feature then I'd be OK with it if it makes sense in the game.
Poll: Weapon degradation - yes or no?
- Thread starter endtherapture
- Start date
Recommended Videos
- Feb 7, 2011
- 9,045
- 3,726
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
No, anything that adds more randomness to a multiplayer game is bad. I mean sure, it's more realistic, but reality isn't fun, that's why we play video games.Esotera said:
Besides, Halo does have overheating mechanics for a large number of guns.
I like it but then again my repair/armorer skill is always pretty high so it's never bothered me. If anything I like it because it adds a survival type element to games like the Elder Scrolls and the Fallout series. Personally I wish they'd have added it to Skyrim, didn't make sense that all the blades would stay forever sharp.
I'm rather ambivalent about degradation mechanics. It only works in certain games. But typically, to me, it's just one more chore. Blech.
Depends on how it's done and what game it's in.
Certain games just don't need it at all.
Torchlight II's frantic pace and arcade slash'em up mentality would be hindered greatly by a durability system, on the other hand some games are already hard enough and having a durability system would make them a nightmare, like Legend of Grimrock.
I have a friend who says it should never be used, says it has no value whatsoever.
I disagree and think it can add either an additional element of strategy, tactics, or sometimes just make the world feel a bit more alive.
Certain games just don't need it at all.
Torchlight II's frantic pace and arcade slash'em up mentality would be hindered greatly by a durability system, on the other hand some games are already hard enough and having a durability system would make them a nightmare, like Legend of Grimrock.
I have a friend who says it should never be used, says it has no value whatsoever.
I disagree and think it can add either an additional element of strategy, tactics, or sometimes just make the world feel a bit more alive.
I didn't mind it in Fallout 3 and New Vegas. There was so much fiddling around with the inventory that it was simple enough to keep track of it.
Absolutely hated it in Far Cry 2 where you were extremely limited in the number of guns you could carry and you had to eyeball your weapon model to figure out how much life it had left in it.
So I guess if the game encourages me to be rooting around in my inventory screen a whole lot, and said inventory screen isn't Mass Effect 1 awful, then I'm cool with it. I just don't want something needlessly fiddly.
Absolutely hated it in Far Cry 2 where you were extremely limited in the number of guns you could carry and you had to eyeball your weapon model to figure out how much life it had left in it.
So I guess if the game encourages me to be rooting around in my inventory screen a whole lot, and said inventory screen isn't Mass Effect 1 awful, then I'm cool with it. I just don't want something needlessly fiddly.
Depends.
If a weapon can be fixed, then it's fine. If it can't, then that's bad.
Also, if a weapon breaks, is it repairable? Or gone forever? The former is fine. The later is very bad.
Dark Cloud 2 did it well, as did Kingdoms of Amalar.
If a weapon can be fixed, then it's fine. If it can't, then that's bad.
Also, if a weapon breaks, is it repairable? Or gone forever? The former is fine. The later is very bad.
Dark Cloud 2 did it well, as did Kingdoms of Amalar.
I think it is an interesting thing, but it really hasn't ever been done to my taste. It always either degrades too quickly (like in oblivion), or it degrades until it disappears so it's essentially a limited use item.
I would like a system where it does degrade, but it realistically effects the player, like a blunt sword doing less cutting damage (maybe hindering bleed effects), but slightly increased bruising or something, AND degrades a LOT SLOWER. Seriously if I have to repair my weapon mid-level you're doing it wrong.
I would like a system where it does degrade, but it realistically effects the player, like a blunt sword doing less cutting damage (maybe hindering bleed effects), but slightly increased bruising or something, AND degrades a LOT SLOWER. Seriously if I have to repair my weapon mid-level you're doing it wrong.
I really liked the way it was handled in Betrayal at Krondor and Betrayal in Antara, and I guess I'm okay with how it works in Fire Emblem. The way it works in TES I could take or leave, though. The Betrayal games are weird -- they managed to make not only decaying weapons, but needing to eat and sleep fun. The first couple TES games did the sleeping thing pretty well, but not as well as Krondor and Antara. They have the kind of mechanics that typically get held up as examples of things you /don't/ put in a game because it's not fun, yet they manage to make it fun. I kind of want to load up BiA now.
That depends on why it's there and whether or not it fits in with the other mechanics and creates balance.
Like mages being limited by their mana/spells per day and thieves by available shadows, warriors need to be limited too. Sometimes, stamina provides the necessary limitation, since a warrior without stamina can't do significant damage and can be easy to knock down - in that case, weapon/armor degradation might be unnecessary, but in other games a weapon/armor degradation system works better with the other mechanics, and a stamina system isn't implemented.
As for the Elder Scrolls - I agree that Skyrim is good as it is - without weapon/armor degradation.
Like mages being limited by their mana/spells per day and thieves by available shadows, warriors need to be limited too. Sometimes, stamina provides the necessary limitation, since a warrior without stamina can't do significant damage and can be easy to knock down - in that case, weapon/armor degradation might be unnecessary, but in other games a weapon/armor degradation system works better with the other mechanics, and a stamina system isn't implemented.
As for the Elder Scrolls - I agree that Skyrim is good as it is - without weapon/armor degradation.
Who said anything about multiplayer?Dirty Hipsters said:
Not the person you quoted, at least.
I think it'd be pretty damn cool if put into Halo's singleplayer, or practically any shooter's single player that takes place in a gritty environment that isn't a pure arcade shooter. As long as it isn't done terribly (Far Cry 2...), it wouldn't be much of a hindrance to the player.
OT: Dark Souls handled repairing well, since even no-bonfire runs are perfectly doable with repair powder, and allows for mechanics like attacks that degrade weapons/armor (Gaping Dragon, for example). Even the least durable of weapons don't degrade very quickly and cost little to fix, making it a believable and useful system.
Yeah, this.SajuukKhar said:
A weapon upgrade system is preferable to a weapon degradation system. With weapons that degrade, a player is losing something. The more fun they have with a weapon, the less effective it gets, the less fun they can have with it. But an upgrade system rewards those who build up their crafting skill without punishing those who don't. People arent punished for not having high smithing, but people who do have high smithing still get bonuses. They can take any old piece of crap iron sword and work on that shit until it has sufficent damage for any enemy in the game.
I hate weapon degredation. Yes it's realistic (to a degree anyway) but making my character stop for toilet breaks would too and I don't see anyone calling for that. I'm all for realism in games but when it starts treading on the toes of having fun it's going to get a less than heartfelt welcome from me.
It depends on the game. It worked really well in fallout, and I had no problem with it in Amalur, though I do admit I have some issues with it in Oblivion.
Take it away.
The first thing I do before I play through Fallout 3 or New Vegas is either disable degradation or make the degradation 90% slower, because tedious busy work is tedious.
The first thing I do before I play through Fallout 3 or New Vegas is either disable degradation or make the degradation 90% slower, because tedious busy work is tedious.
Depends on the game itself. If its going for gritty realism type thing or realistic in anyway then yeah, I enjoy it. Adds a certain element to the game. though when it becomes outrageous cost wise to counter balance it gets old quick.
Some games focus more heavily than others on resource management, and that's what item degredation is about. It's another quality to consider in one's tools, and another resource to keep track of in the field. If part of the game's intended challenge is making sure you have enough lewts to push forard, or even to just retreat at a controlled pace, then item degredation can be a tool in that regard.
Exploration-based games are a good example. If the goal is to give you a push to keep exploring and checking in all the dark corners and in every sock drawer, then the need for pistol parts can get the player to do that.
Survival games can also exploit this, except in this case it's because having an axe that really might run out of sharp at an inopportune time, losing its edge after hacking through the bones of not nearly enough zombies, adds to the pressure and reminds the player that sometimes running and hiding are a better choice than fighting. Alternately, it might mmake the player rely on less-powerful weapons with more replaceability or higher durability instead of always using their favourite weapon with the huge damage that needs maintenance every other monster.
Other times, it's a pain in the ass.
Exploration-based games are a good example. If the goal is to give you a push to keep exploring and checking in all the dark corners and in every sock drawer, then the need for pistol parts can get the player to do that.
Survival games can also exploit this, except in this case it's because having an axe that really might run out of sharp at an inopportune time, losing its edge after hacking through the bones of not nearly enough zombies, adds to the pressure and reminds the player that sometimes running and hiding are a better choice than fighting. Alternately, it might mmake the player rely on less-powerful weapons with more replaceability or higher durability instead of always using their favourite weapon with the huge damage that needs maintenance every other monster.
Other times, it's a pain in the ass.
Like any game feature it is all a matter of its implementation and appropriateness to its game, no idea is simply bad. If there is a focus on quick combat with lots of combos and on the fly maneuvers it probably isn't the best thing to have weapons continually degrade. But a slower more strategy focused turn based game could maybe use an extra layer of strategy. It is all a matter of implementation and appropriateness.