Poll: Weapon degradation - yes or no?

[J Tyran]

I like the principle behind wepon and item degradation but I cannot think of many games I have played that did it well. Having it skill based often sucks, even then the idea of it being skill based is not bad its just the way its done, have the skill make it more efficient or allow you to improve the item or allow you to increase the trade value sure but not prevent you from maintaining them.

Same goes for the mechanics of the repairing. Having to carry 3-4 versions of the same gun in Fallout 3 so you can combine them to "maintain" the gun sucks, it was better in New Vegas. Having to explore and find materials to craft weapon repair kits was much better, same for the dividing line between "maintenance" and "repair" was a better idea. Unless weapons degraded past a certain point you didn't lose stats and the degradation was fairly slow, you just needed to maintain it. Once you passed that point the guns damage decreased, it would jam during reload and it decreased the percentage of improvement you got from combining or using WPRKs.

Maintenance in Oblivion was dreadful, a suit of armour or a weapon would often not last a single dungeon. Unless you spent lots of time increasing the armourer skill you would need to carry a feckton of hammers with you when going through an Oblivion gate. The only real "cheat" I would use in Oblivion was set armourer to 100 with the console so I would only need to carry a singe hammer.

I do not know why equipment maintenance is not a mini game or something, or at the very least like the crafting system in New Vegas. Like instead of combining two of the same types of gun you cannot break guns down into "parts" and have a bunch of springs and levers and so on, having gun lube, cleaning kits, whetstones, oilcloths and everything else like that in kits would be far better.

 

[MorganL4]

I think that it can be done well. I really liked the way it was done in Oblivion.... I thought that allowing you to pay for repairs OR actively train yourself to do repairs was brilliant... The amount of money spent was directly proportional to the amount of effort one chose to put toward the activity. On the other hand, I hate having to worry about it in MMOs... Games like WoW or GW2 that require you to constantly be going to a blacksmith paying X gold and repairing stuff (half the time you are in the field trying to do something and your stuff breaks). So yes.... I think weapon degradation can be done well, if they allow the player a means of repairing their own gear.

 

[WanderingFool]

Like most things, its fine when it works. Weapons degradation can add to the game, but it can just as easily remove from it. Its all a matter of execution. Take a game like Far Cry 2, there it was done rather poorly and was quite unbalanced(the fucking USAS rusted shut after firing a full magazine... while the AK-47 could be rusted away and still fire just fine.)

And than you have games like Fallout New Vegas, where it was actually quite good (all you needed was another of the same weapon and you where in business, until you get the jury rigging perk than it basically semi-broke the game.)

Personally, I dont care for it as it never seems to just work good (this is IMO, of course. It probably does work in a number of games, they're just games I dont play.)

 

[Comrade Richard]

No, mainly because it's implemented poorly. Items typically have too little health (Oblivion, Fallout 3, New Vegas), have ass-backwards methods for repairing (Fallout 3, New Vegas - whoever thought sacrificing items to repair other items was a good idea is an idiot.), feel like pointless micromanagement that isn't enjoyable like - say - taking care of your party, and this could go on. I remember Dragon Age being notable for reducing the overall hit points of a weapon permanently and not just decreasing them from a replenishable value. If you absolutely -must- have it I'd recommend three things; use a specific item you can purchase in bulk to repair something or make it into a -fun- minigame, do not permanently decrease the overall durability of a weapon over time or destroy it once its value runs out, and for the love of the Sithis do not make certain items unrepairable! (Fallout 3's Gauss Rifle)

 

[Signa]

I voted Other, because I generally am OK with the mechanic. I noticed a distinct lack of mention of Diablo 2, yet that had a ton of degradation in it. I feel Morrowind handled it perfectly too. In Morrowind, there was actually some purpose to the mechanic, because a damaged and weaker weapon could be used to strike enemies more for more weapon XP.

Then you have games like Dead Island where your crowbar, a solid iron rod, breaks after killing 10 or so zombies. Fucking stupid.

 

[GodzillaGuy92]

I would have voted no if Minecraft hadn't shown me that there do exist a tiny handful of games in which the mechanic can work - in its case, because weapon and tool degradation is a natural fit for its crafting-centric sandbox gameplay, and provides one of the central gameplay challenges/obstacles instead of being needlessly included for the sake of some fake difficulty.

 

[Doclector]

To me, it depends on the frequency of it. It happened far too fast sometimes in fallout 3. Especially considering there is no on the move repairs outside of using the same weapon to repair it. That makes sense, needing to replace parts and all, but it's annoying when I end up dragging around a powerful piece of kit that I rarely use for fear of it breaking and not being able to find a spare. Always made me wonder about people who opt for big guns. They're heavy enough without having to carry around something to repair it with, and that's if you have the good fortune to stumble upon a second copy.

It happened way, WAY too fast in far cry 2. Especially when using the AK-47. One of the most legendary features of that gun is its incredible reliability, and after downing a few guys it jams? Bullshit.

I struggle to think of one where it took too long, but I think amular got it just right. It takes short enough a time for it to be a concern, but long enough that it wasn't one of the biggest things you had to worry about. I'm all about having an epic adventure, it sucks to have to stop that every single quest to go back to a town and repair your stuff.

 

[Vausch]

It depends on the setting and the way its presented.

Fantasy game: Not fond of it. If magic exists in this world and it's such a common thing that anybody can read a spellbook and learn how to use it, then I'd rather there not be degradation.

Survival game: It makes sense, it helps the world feel like it should, like you need to be careful with your stuff because it's keeping you alive and could break.

That said, if it's going to be there I'd rather there be a way of knowing. It can be obvious like a meter, or it can be subtle like the weapon looks visibly tattered or starts doing less damage than it did previously.

 

[s0p0g]

nope; maybe that adds another layer of realism to a game... but if i wanted realism, i'd play reality, not a game
i mean, isn't that the entire purpose of a game? go somewhere else, do something else, not being bound by the usual rules?
if i wanted my medieval (why always medieval? "am i the only one who is sick of medieval settings?" *cough* sorry... ) fantasy/sci-fi/superhero/space-shooter/build-tanks-within-seconds-RTS game to be realistic they a) wouldn't exist, and b) *add* something to the game that i originally tried to take a break from
that's why i usually don't miss needs like thirst, hunger or having to take a dump of the protagonist

doesn't it basically boil down to: what does my game want to be? does this feature help being that, or is it just an unnecessary obstacle along the way?

(it's a totally different thing when implemented in a game that by and large is about stuff like that, of course; you know what i mean)
(also, read what Vausch wrote above)

 

[TheCommanders]

For all the people ragging on about how it's more realistic for weapons to degrade over time, it would also be more realistic if you had to walk your character one leg at a time, none of this continue running forward as long as you hold the button nonsense. And while we're at it, you should probably make sure to use the bathroom 2-3 times per in game day, right? Realism is an acceptable loss in video games if the result is avoiding tedium.

 

[IKWerewolf]

It all depends on circumstance. If a game drops in weapons from a military base, you would expect them to be fully functioning and to last. If you scavenge rag-tag low quality weapons or you use a weapon in the wrong way, you would expect them to break eventually.

In an arcade Shooter you would expect weapons to work as long as ammo exists for it, in a survival game, you would allow the degregation to occur over time to make survival a challenge.

It's circumstance that wins through in the end.

 

[A Weakgeek]

I'd like if it wasn't as gradual. I would much more prefer a system, where it would do a percentile roll, and If you roll a critical failure (like 0-5) your weapon would recieve alot of damage at once, but normally it wouldn't degrade. The chance of it could increase or decrease depending on the creature, like how a blade glancing platearmor would get dull fast, where as a mace crushing rats wouldn't.

 

[Cookiegerard]

Really depends on the game, Oblivion was a bit too harsh with it, with the whole, each hammer takes up space, and has a waaay too high of a chance to break per use, so you have to carry tons of hammers, and even then if you are unlucky..

Fallouts did it well, where you just need another weapon of the same type, so you could imagine you where taking a spring from one, stuff like that.

But when I think about weapons degrading, I think of Far Cry 2. I liked the system they had. If you bought a gun, it was better quality, but if you picked one up, it was older, fell apart more easily. I loved that you could literally see the rust start to appear on the gun, so if you were paying attention, you could see how bad it is. And in a way, it did make a little sense how quickly the guns would break, seeing as you are basically dragging them through deserts and jungles, the kind of places that if you don't take care of your gun, it will break.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Weapon Degradation yes and no. It's important in games like Monster Hunter and should be used in other MMOs to promote resource gathering. Furthermore it should be used in survival horror to increase tension and make you dread each encounter. I can also see scripted 'weapon failures' or 'weapon damage' being used in story-driven games or RPGs being used to some great effect (oh no! The sword of fate has shattered! Now I must quest to repair it)

In most other games though it isn't really necessary. A lot of J/RPGs are already micromanagement nightmares that adding in weapon damage could just add to frustration more times than not. I like how it was used in Fallout as it promoted resource gathering to a degree but...I can't think of any other game that features guns and weapon degradation other than running out of ammo so I'll stop.

 

[Festus Moonbear]

I love the weapons degradation in Far Cry 2, it's just another of the many things that keep you on your toes and make it essential to plan ahead and get set for missions instead of just barrelling ahead. It is possible to play through the whole game without experiencing any jams/fails at all if you plan your routes properly and make use of weapons shops, but sometimes it's nice to deliberately let a weapon degrade just to shake things up and make the combat more edgy. When you have an explosive pile surrounded by unsuspecting hostiles lined up in your RPG sights, but when you pull the trigger the rocket goes shrieking off into the air and does a few loop-de-loops and fucks up all your plans, it can be a rush. Murphy's law has its benefits.

 

[CloudAtlas]

It all depends on circumstance. If a game drops in weapons from a military base, you would expect them to be fully functioning and to last. If you scavenge rag-tag low quality weapons or you use a weapon in the wrong way, you would expect them to break eventually.

In an arcade Shooter you would expect weapons to work as long as ammo exists for it, in a survival game, you would allow the degregation to occur over time to make survival a challenge.

It's circumstance that wins through in the end.

I could agree with that. However, I haven't played a single game yet where I thought that equipment degradation is enhancing the gameplay. Too often, it's just a gold sink, annoying because you need to carry around tons of hammers or spare material, or disincentives the use of the most fancy, most fun weapons at your disposal because they are harder to repair.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

It's really difficult to simply label a mechanic as wholly bad or wholly good. It all depends on what the developers are trying to accomplish.

Eg: weapons breaking down fit perfectly into Stalker. It's a game that is largely supposed to be about scavengers, and having your gun jam in the middle of a firefight is exactly the kind of thing they want to happen in that game. But having the same mechanic is CoD is stupid. CoD is supposed to be fast paced action between 'elite' soldiers. Adding in such a mechanic would break that flow in the same way that not having such a mechanic in stalker would break it's attempt at immersion and scavenging mechanics.

Most things have their proper place it's just about fitting them into the games where they are supposed to go.

 

[Fijiman]

I think Oblivion is the only game I played in which weapon degradation was an annoying chore that didn't really add anything to the game.

 

[Therumancer]

I don't care for it myself, as others have said it largely turns into busy work. In single player games it's a limitation on the player character that NPCs don't have to worry about, and generally amounts to yet another thing when you go back to the most recent quest hub. In MMOs it generally serves a purpose in terms of a way to "punish" the player for dying, and also to try and shave some money out of the economy to help combat inflation (rather badly).

One of those mechanics that DOES make a degree of sense, but doesn't tend to be a whole lot of fun in a computer game. When it comes to PnP games it depends on the mechanics of the game. As much as I've liked Palladium games in the past it always seemed to me that armor got wrecked way too easily. In their fantasy game a normal suit of chainmail might last for hald a dozen hits, due to having like 60 or so SDC, this is a game where a two handed weapon or some single handed weapons do like 3d6 damage before adding strength bonuses, craftsmanship modifiers, or anything else into them, for a serious monster or dedicated melee player character dishing out 25 damage points per blow isn't unreasonable and the really touch ones can occasionally do that 60 damage easily per attack. It's like "Armor of tissue paper".

 

[bigfatcarp93]

I voted "other" because it depends HEAVILY on the rest of the game, and how much resource management is ALREADY present. I think OP is right about Skyrim, where it would have been just a bit too much along with upgrading armor and weapons, charging magical weapons, like five types of arrows, etc.