My only experience with this mechanic was in FO 3 and Baroque.
And it can fuck right off with the sewer levels.
And it can fuck right off with the sewer levels.
Equipment wear and tear in games.
- Thread starter Asmundr
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well theres the Silent Hill approach where your weapons are made of tin foil and cardboard and can obliterate into useless nothing fairly easily.
Then theres dead rising where weapons are really just a move set you can use for a short while before running out.
Now I loved Oblivion, but I soon felt pissed when the mighty sword Umbra, containing the soul of a mighty warrior, weared down to crap after a bit. Plus repair hammers are a ***** an a half in their own right. However it did bring me brief moments of immersion, sneaking through the dungeon, with nothing but the shadows, my wit, and a dulled sword.
Fallout 3 handled it better, especially with the setting. I understood why my pistol was crap, because it was an old relic that probably hadn't been fixed up in decades.
Now for weapon degredation it should be shown, like a swords edge breaking up, or armor being dented. Not just some arbitrary number. I should look at two guns and see a difference, one rusted, with the wood stock busted, and the other fresh.
As for repair there should be some system, vendors, blacksmiths, maybe the main character is good with tools. It will probably be a while before we see this new idea mastered.
Then theres dead rising where weapons are really just a move set you can use for a short while before running out.
Now I loved Oblivion, but I soon felt pissed when the mighty sword Umbra, containing the soul of a mighty warrior, weared down to crap after a bit. Plus repair hammers are a ***** an a half in their own right. However it did bring me brief moments of immersion, sneaking through the dungeon, with nothing but the shadows, my wit, and a dulled sword.
Fallout 3 handled it better, especially with the setting. I understood why my pistol was crap, because it was an old relic that probably hadn't been fixed up in decades.
Now for weapon degredation it should be shown, like a swords edge breaking up, or armor being dented. Not just some arbitrary number. I should look at two guns and see a difference, one rusted, with the wood stock busted, and the other fresh.
As for repair there should be some system, vendors, blacksmiths, maybe the main character is good with tools. It will probably be a while before we see this new idea mastered.
I agree on the fallout 3 complaint about exact copies. I think the system would have been slightly improved if any weapon could be used to repair another but that it would only repair a small percentage of it. to get the full boost you would need an exact copy.
This would still provide the incentive to loot for those exact copies of your favorite gun while still allowing you to use it if the model was scarce
This would still provide the incentive to loot for those exact copies of your favorite gun while still allowing you to use it if the model was scarce
I think the system in Fallout 3 was pretty well done. However, I think a better way would've been to use random misc. items found in the wastes to repair your weapons, as well as being able to use duplicate guns. IE the ability to use stuff like scrap metal, etc to repair weapons, or individual schematic weapon components to repair the weapon itself.
I, very generally, dislike the degradation system as it is implemented in most games. First, the introduction of such a system does nothing save give the player a new resource to manage along with health, ammunition, magical power or whatever else you might be juggling at the moment and yet, if one steps back a bit, all it really equates to is a "different" pool of ammunition.
So, why precisely does a weapon need a new resource pool that governs its use? Perhaps it is an attempt to force the player to use other weapons from time to time. In sandbox style game, the player will obviously favor a certain type or category of weapon simply because of how common a resource is for it. If one particularly incredible interpretation of a weapon is available to the player, why would he choose to use the more pedestrian model unless you put a system into place that forced an eventual transition? Take Fallout 3: The combat shotgun was one of the best Small Guns in the base game and yet was relatively uncommon among your enemies. Why would a player ever use other models of shotgun available when the combat shotgun was so useful? It seems like a reasonable solution if you ignore that the problem exists because of a flaw in the design of the game. If there were ever a golden rule for designing a system, it is that you do not introduce a variable that controls the same thing as another variable in the same instance of your system.
The second problem I have is that the fail state of the weapon can often be reversed somehow. Fallout implies I need a whole new gun worth of repair parts after firing a few shots when, at best, all I really need is a wire brush and some lubricant and time. In this case, I guess we can justify the problem by pointing out that such a system helps limit the growth of the player's wallet. The trouble is, with so little worth buying in the game (you can't buy any of the best weapons for example, and there was no need to ever buy power armor) such a limitation does nothing except force me to do more and more inventory maintenance as my burden increases. In this case, we can view the repair system as a mitigating factor for inventory clutter but even then we have to wonder if there is not a better way.
So, why precisely does a weapon need a new resource pool that governs its use? Perhaps it is an attempt to force the player to use other weapons from time to time. In sandbox style game, the player will obviously favor a certain type or category of weapon simply because of how common a resource is for it. If one particularly incredible interpretation of a weapon is available to the player, why would he choose to use the more pedestrian model unless you put a system into place that forced an eventual transition? Take Fallout 3: The combat shotgun was one of the best Small Guns in the base game and yet was relatively uncommon among your enemies. Why would a player ever use other models of shotgun available when the combat shotgun was so useful? It seems like a reasonable solution if you ignore that the problem exists because of a flaw in the design of the game. If there were ever a golden rule for designing a system, it is that you do not introduce a variable that controls the same thing as another variable in the same instance of your system.
The second problem I have is that the fail state of the weapon can often be reversed somehow. Fallout implies I need a whole new gun worth of repair parts after firing a few shots when, at best, all I really need is a wire brush and some lubricant and time. In this case, I guess we can justify the problem by pointing out that such a system helps limit the growth of the player's wallet. The trouble is, with so little worth buying in the game (you can't buy any of the best weapons for example, and there was no need to ever buy power armor) such a limitation does nothing except force me to do more and more inventory maintenance as my burden increases. In this case, we can view the repair system as a mitigating factor for inventory clutter but even then we have to wonder if there is not a better way.
Like others have stated, it's really just a resources sink in games. Some may think it promotes the idea of forcing the player to use more of the items in the game (as their favorites are unusable until repaired) but a lot of players will go out of their way to pause game progress just to keep playing it the way they prefer as opposed to how a designer would prefer.
Fallout 3's idea of make all the extra weapons able to be cannibalized for repairs makes it, theoretically, a good idea to never leave something behind, though I've seen a few players storing mountains of crap in a 'workshop' just in case, which really cuts down on the ability of a player to just proceed with the plot and spend more time managing their resources (hurray, second job instead of relaxing with a game). It would make more sense to skip a repair system and just use a weapon until it's about to break, pick up a replacement, and proceed. Sure, that means the more rare an item is, the less likely it'll ever be used again and wind up being saved for an ideal scenario, but ammunition limitations make it a moot point.
A lot of games that do implement repair systems do so to the degree that it is an unavoidable chore. I'm certain there's plenty of people who enjoy doing chores, but usually not as a matter of recreational choice (i.e. keep the minutiae out of games, people get enough of it in real life). Yes, immersion is a very important element of games, but breaking a player away from the 'action', especially to do a chore, is going to do more to ruin the enjoyment than a little dismissal of realism.
The best answer I've seen to this actually comes from pen and paper role playing games: "Only when dramatically appropriate". Weapon jams, equipment breakage, sometimes even running out of ammunition, all of these things are used as dramatic elements when it specifically adds to a story and not done just because of lazy design decisions. A game should yield to the player's enjoyment, a player should never have to yield to a game mechanic which serves only to try and balance poor design. Now, if a player is specifically looking for added difficulty of resource management, make it a difficulty setting, don't expect that all players want to spend a significant play time maintaining gear.
One notable exception to the rule is player versus player game play. All involved players should have the same restrictions and opportunities. PvP is often meant to be quick, to the point that if a weapon becomes unusable it would logically be discarded (stopping to repair would be suicidal). Ammunition is much more a balancing factor in PvP than in other types of game play, especially since opposition cannot be scaled up or down to meet expected player power levels. Also note how few attempt to create realism in their scenarios, people being thrown into kill or be killed situations where their own allies will kill them for embracing the biological instinct to get the *bleep* out of a dangerous situation. Yes, I understand the rationale of trying to maintain fair game play in a ranked match; but the point is that PvP rarely, if ever, forces the player to deal with realism, why should the single player experience differ so greatly, both should be meant to be enjoyable without sinking time into chores in game.
Fallout 3's idea of make all the extra weapons able to be cannibalized for repairs makes it, theoretically, a good idea to never leave something behind, though I've seen a few players storing mountains of crap in a 'workshop' just in case, which really cuts down on the ability of a player to just proceed with the plot and spend more time managing their resources (hurray, second job instead of relaxing with a game). It would make more sense to skip a repair system and just use a weapon until it's about to break, pick up a replacement, and proceed. Sure, that means the more rare an item is, the less likely it'll ever be used again and wind up being saved for an ideal scenario, but ammunition limitations make it a moot point.
A lot of games that do implement repair systems do so to the degree that it is an unavoidable chore. I'm certain there's plenty of people who enjoy doing chores, but usually not as a matter of recreational choice (i.e. keep the minutiae out of games, people get enough of it in real life). Yes, immersion is a very important element of games, but breaking a player away from the 'action', especially to do a chore, is going to do more to ruin the enjoyment than a little dismissal of realism.
The best answer I've seen to this actually comes from pen and paper role playing games: "Only when dramatically appropriate". Weapon jams, equipment breakage, sometimes even running out of ammunition, all of these things are used as dramatic elements when it specifically adds to a story and not done just because of lazy design decisions. A game should yield to the player's enjoyment, a player should never have to yield to a game mechanic which serves only to try and balance poor design. Now, if a player is specifically looking for added difficulty of resource management, make it a difficulty setting, don't expect that all players want to spend a significant play time maintaining gear.
One notable exception to the rule is player versus player game play. All involved players should have the same restrictions and opportunities. PvP is often meant to be quick, to the point that if a weapon becomes unusable it would logically be discarded (stopping to repair would be suicidal). Ammunition is much more a balancing factor in PvP than in other types of game play, especially since opposition cannot be scaled up or down to meet expected player power levels. Also note how few attempt to create realism in their scenarios, people being thrown into kill or be killed situations where their own allies will kill them for embracing the biological instinct to get the *bleep* out of a dangerous situation. Yes, I understand the rationale of trying to maintain fair game play in a ranked match; but the point is that PvP rarely, if ever, forces the player to deal with realism, why should the single player experience differ so greatly, both should be meant to be enjoyable without sinking time into chores in game.
I like it when you can repair the items yourself. If it just falls apart and there's nothing you can do about it, it's just annoying.
Morrowind didn't really do it right, just having a single item type that repaired everything left the whole endeavor feeling pointless. Fallout 3 did it right, but I would have expanded on it a bit. Mostly just expand the list of armors/weapons that could be used to repair each other, though anything that wasn't identical would offer a lower repair value. Adding scrap misc. items that could be used to repair a wider variety of items at a lower rate would've been good as well.
With all that said, I don't think realistic immersion is a good enough reason by itself to include equipment degradation into a game. With Fallout 3 it works for immersion on a couple of different levels, realism in general, and adding to the feeling that the world was falling apart and you had to scrounge for supplies. It can/should also be a great design element. In Fallout 2, for instance, it would have been a great way of deterring an early run straight to grab a suit of Advanced Power Armor. It let's you occasionally reward the player with a piece of late-game gear without making destroying your difficulty curve. You can also use it as a money sink, which kind of sounds like a lame design aspect, but depending on how all the numbers work out, may be helpful, from a designers point of view.
I could probably go on, but I think I've been incoherent enough for one day, or at least for one post.
With all that said, I don't think realistic immersion is a good enough reason by itself to include equipment degradation into a game. With Fallout 3 it works for immersion on a couple of different levels, realism in general, and adding to the feeling that the world was falling apart and you had to scrounge for supplies. It can/should also be a great design element. In Fallout 2, for instance, it would have been a great way of deterring an early run straight to grab a suit of Advanced Power Armor. It let's you occasionally reward the player with a piece of late-game gear without making destroying your difficulty curve. You can also use it as a money sink, which kind of sounds like a lame design aspect, but depending on how all the numbers work out, may be helpful, from a designers point of view.
I could probably go on, but I think I've been incoherent enough for one day, or at least for one post.
How can people say fallout 3's idea was good? I loathed it, I just kept swapping out guns ... till I got sick of that and went all out melee with all my perks in guns.
The whole idea is just frustrating, like in far cry 2 there weapons would jam, good idea but it meant all to often you were facing a legion of angry dudes and you were praying to just about every god you find a new gun!
Dead rising 2, a fire axe is going to last more than about 20 zombies before breaking.
Realism and immersion can be bad thing sometimes, you know? Like that onion thingy out the MW3, spending hours polishing your guns etc.
http://www.theonion.com/video/ultrarealistic-modern-warfare-game-features-awaiti,14382/
The whole idea is just frustrating, like in far cry 2 there weapons would jam, good idea but it meant all to often you were facing a legion of angry dudes and you were praying to just about every god you find a new gun!
Dead rising 2, a fire axe is going to last more than about 20 zombies before breaking.
Realism and immersion can be bad thing sometimes, you know? Like that onion thingy out the MW3, spending hours polishing your guns etc.
http://www.theonion.com/video/ultrarealistic-modern-warfare-game-features-awaiti,14382/
I think it all comes down to implementation. If you're going to let the player easily repair his/her gear with spares or money, there's really no point in having degradation because it's just a time/money-sink at that point. If degradation is a real concern, with no guarantee of repair or replacement, players might have to prioritize their parts and limit item usage. At that point, you've got a legitimate play mechanic on your hands as opposed to just mindless busywork.
I'm reminded of the "identify" mechanic in Diablo. At first, when the item drops outstrip your supply of scrolls, identifying an item seems like a legitimate, semi-difficult choice. Then, when you find that the scrolls are cheap and readily available, you start to just despise the system. It's a needless and tedious extra step for the player.
I'm reminded of the "identify" mechanic in Diablo. At first, when the item drops outstrip your supply of scrolls, identifying an item seems like a legitimate, semi-difficult choice. Then, when you find that the scrolls are cheap and readily available, you start to just despise the system. It's a needless and tedious extra step for the player.
This site: http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Far_Cry_2 is great at pointing out weapon inaccuracies. It's good to read for a laugh, IMO, because of the things it points out that you would never think the developers could miss.Straying Bullet said:
OT: I like degradation in weapons, but only to a certain point. STALKER SoC made them degrade way too fast. 25 rounds out of my Bulldog 6 (RGD-6) and the gun would already be useless.
I recall seeing someone comment on a similar topic with an interesting response. I don't remember who they were or else I would link the post, but it went into the mix-up that games seem to have between repairing items and maintaining them.
Most games have you repair weapons at rates so much higher than the real world it's not funny. Taking a sword in Oblivion. Every time you hit something with it, it takes damage and after a decent fight, you would need to whip out a hammer and repair it. In a real life situation, that wouldn't be necessary. However, after that fight you might need to, say, resharpen the blade. That is, perform maintenance.
Same thing with guns. We use Fallout as an example, but again players chew through guns way too fast in that game. After a firefight against a dozen enemies I would need to repair. Obviously, the higher repair rate is supposed to reflect the shoddy condition of the guns after 200 years but I would think that if the player can still use the gun after that much time it has more than 50 more shots left in its lifespan. After fighting those dozen or so enemies, parts shouldn't be falling off the weapon, the gun should just need to be cleaned.
Games need to realise there is more to a weapon degradation than repairing a weapon. And if they insist on leaving maintenance out of the equation (which is understandable for simplicity's sake) the rate at which someone needs to repair needs to be lowered drastically.
Most games have you repair weapons at rates so much higher than the real world it's not funny. Taking a sword in Oblivion. Every time you hit something with it, it takes damage and after a decent fight, you would need to whip out a hammer and repair it. In a real life situation, that wouldn't be necessary. However, after that fight you might need to, say, resharpen the blade. That is, perform maintenance.
Same thing with guns. We use Fallout as an example, but again players chew through guns way too fast in that game. After a firefight against a dozen enemies I would need to repair. Obviously, the higher repair rate is supposed to reflect the shoddy condition of the guns after 200 years but I would think that if the player can still use the gun after that much time it has more than 50 more shots left in its lifespan. After fighting those dozen or so enemies, parts shouldn't be falling off the weapon, the gun should just need to be cleaned.
Games need to realise there is more to a weapon degradation than repairing a weapon. And if they insist on leaving maintenance out of the equation (which is understandable for simplicity's sake) the rate at which someone needs to repair needs to be lowered drastically.
Yes of course I am aware of that it is in the user manuel.... Although for classes it is a waste of money/time/major skill to try raise so a proper unbreakable hammer like skeleton key would be better.archvile93 said:
By the same token the Skeleton key makes the Lockpick skill redundant which is why I think it would a good end game item to give say a mage player a chance at using some different tactics without having to reroll.LordNue said:
DDO also has a good weapon degradation system. The bonus there is that you can get items repaired. There is a small chance of permanent damage however, unless the item is bound to you.WrongSprite said:
Beowulf, however, had a terrible weapon system. Most stuff would break after about 15 hits, unless you got the Legendary stuff.
Never played it, but that sounds horrible.Straying Bullet said:
If there was limited enough degradation in a shooter I could see it, but nothing anywhere near that extent.
First off, that is not a wall of a text, more like a fence. No offense.Asmundr said:
Second, while Fallout 3 did the wear and tear system nicely, it's very irritating when you have repaired a gun to the max and almost immediately it goes to half-condition after you have shot a few bullets. But i can't complain since it the game is so awesome and this is as close to realism you're gonna get.