Poll: Weapon degradation - yes or no?

[Easton Dark]

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.

 

[emeraldrafael]

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.

 

[Defenestra]

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.

 

[MacChris1991]

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.

 

[Lord_Jaroh]

In my mind it depends on the game and how it is implemented. As a survival type mechanism, or a "hard-mode" type mechanism, if done correctly, it is absolutely a great mechanic. The problem is in most games, it is not done correctly and feels heavy handed. Monster Hunter sort of gets it right, with weapon "grades" rather than a number that slowly ticks down (ala Fallout or Oblivion), But I still "like" the feeling like in Diablo, where I used up my King's Sword of Haste in an intense battle, and it was gone forever. Having a sense of loss is a good thing. When you have something to lose, you become more careful with it. Albeit, it doesn't work with every game.

 

[Double A]

If you've ever played a Fire Emblem game you'd know how important weapon degradation is.

Honestly it's a good mechanic that can change how a game is played. Because sometimes it can actually bring on a whole new level of difficulty or strategy to the game that teaches you proper management as well as risk management.

Wait, what? The only reason I have two Fire Emblem games instead of half of them is because weapons disintegrate when you use them. It's not even a logical system. Iron is weaker than steel makes sense, but iron breaking slower than steel doesn't. Weapons are only good for two battles max and there isn't enough cash to justify using anything other than iron on bosses. Weapons are way too ridiculous.

 

[FrostyFinn]

If you've ever played a Fire Emblem game you'd know how important weapon degradation is.

Honestly it's a good mechanic that can change how a game is played. Because sometimes it can actually bring on a whole new level of difficulty or strategy to the game that teaches you proper management as well as risk management.

This. I imagine Fire Emblem would be a bit boring if you could use the same weapon throughout the game without worrying it's going to break. A huge part of the appeal, at least for me, is rationing out the use of the good weapons for bosses and using the basic iron weapons on everything else. However, while it is technically weapon degradation, it functions more like ammo conservation rather than a separate degrading function like in System Shock and Fallout, which can cripple your weapons regardless of ammo. I didn't have any problems in those games, I have yet to play a game where weapon degradation significantly disrupts or ruins gameplay, but it does seem a bit unnecessary.

The way I see it, the purpose of weapon degradation in games is to coerce the player to try out different weapons. Yes you could go through all of System Shock 2 with the first shotgun but then you would never experience any of the other guns.Games like Condemned 2 the weapons break very fast, forcing you to experiment with other available weapons and making yourself that much less screwed when the clown girl with the lollipop saw is coming and you don't have your trusty baseball bat to send her into the outfield.

 

[dagens24]

Ultimately it depends on the type of experience you're going for. In a survival horror type game I think the system adds another layer of terror, but in something like Skyrim it would just be an annoyance.

 

[Kilo24]

In theory, weapon degradation is an excellent way to add suspense into games, to encourage the player to use different kinds of weapons, to keep a need for money throughout the whole game, and to keep expensive/legendary weapons feeling valuable instead of just being a strict upgrade. In practice - in every game I've played with it - the degradation is too slow to keep it from being an occasional distraction. It's just a checkbox to fill out once you're in town (one which causes you to randomly lose your weapon in battle if you forget to do so.)

More generally, I think weapon degradation could be useful in highly unpredictable games like roguelikes (although ammo is still probably better - see Teleglitch.) Whether or not you can find another weapon, or whether or not the danger in not using your better weapons is worth it becomes a matter of calculated risk then instead of just adding another thing to do in town. It could be useful elsewhere, but I think it's generally a bad idea to add a constant negative side effect onto every offensive action you do without making it a central mechanic of the game that the player should always be keenly aware of.

If you've ever played a Fire Emblem game you'd know how important weapon degradation is.

Honestly it's a good mechanic that can change how a game is played. Because sometimes it can actually bring on a whole new level of difficulty or strategy to the game that teaches you proper management as well as risk management.

I must strongly disagree about it being a good mechanic in Fire Emblem. Weapons break maybe each 2-3 missions for a character who uses them frequently: too slow to be a significant concern, too quickly to ignore. The only time it has a major effect is when you forget to give a character a second weapon of the same type. You get enough gold that it's not a major issue to keep buying basic weapons. Moreover, it removes a major sense of the reward when you're given a snazzy new weapon which you can't buy; they tend to get relegated to the "too powerful to use" pile instead of actually being wielded. And few weapons within the same sword/lance/axe class are different enough from eachother to make the downgrade significant. In other words, it screws over people who don't pay attention to it, but adds nothing but muddling with inventory to the game for people who do.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Yes and no.

Dark Souls: Weapon degradation is slow, generally speaking, the weapons can be repaired at any bonfire, meaning it's easy if you remember, and you can use Repair Powder or the Repair spell if you can't be bothered. It mainly serves as a random disadvantage for forgetting to repair equipment, although some enemies like clams and multiple-limbed Serpentmen actually exploit the mechanic. Another important thing it does is limit the uses of weapon special attacks, without an arbitrary counter for number of uses or something. All in all, I'm happy with it.

Armored Core: Silent Line: Weapons could break during a mission if they took too much damage, to be repaired at the end of the mission. Sadly there was nothing you could do about the weapon being broken, it didn't have any interesting effects or require interesting tactics. Instead it resulted in a stat that was unfortunately difficult to judge in regards to combat effectiveness, and severe unbalancing meant that this stat could alone make a weapon OP compared to others.

However, I don't mind not having to repair things either.

Basically, I'm fine with it if you can repair it, if it doesn't make the weapon unusuable instantly, if it's gradual, if it affects equipment choice, but only a little bit, and definitely if it replaces the need for unexplained use limits on attacks.

 

[lunavixen]

I voted other, because there are games that make it work, like Minecraft and Dark Cloud (one of the integral parts of Dark Cloud was weapon upgrading, and you could repair weapons really easily, but also upgrade the weapons hardness/durability so that it degrades slower, and while you do lose a weapon permanently when it breaks, except your starter, you pretty much always get enough warning to repair it).

But games that throw it in arbitrarily make it into a nuisance, especially with faster degredations

 

[idarkphoenixi]

There's a time and a place for that kind of mechanic.

If you can make it interesting, fine. But most of the time it just feels like pointless busywork.

 

[Joccaren]

Depends on how its done.
If its done terribly where after 1 dungeon all your stuff needs to be repaired, and its repaired by going to town and clicking "Repair", and it has little tangible effect in fights beyond a massive, instant reduction in damage... yeah... no. That's shit.

If its done where you can get a dungeon's worth of use out of your basic iron sword, a few dungeons with steel, more with the elven made weapons [Orcish, Dwemer, Elven] and even more with the advanced materials like Daedric or Dragonbone, Glass and Ebony, its good. If repairing is done beyond simply hitting "Repair" and paying 5 gold per item, and is instead more a work of finding the components, going to a work bench like you would to craft an item, and choosing to repair instead, and the Daedric Artefacts repairing automatically over time anyway, that'd be nice. If it wasn't an instant reduction in damage, but had a variety of effects that got applied to weapons - blunted, which reduces slashing damage, cracked which reduces its durability and leads to it breaking faster, and when it breaks its gone [Unless its Daedric Artefact], but can be reforged for the same cost as a new sword out of its pieces, rusted, which applies a slight bonus to poison damage whilst lowering durability faster - and a bunch of other more creative ones, each of which may require a different workbench to repair [Within reason], then that's cool too.

If it does something with the mechanic, it works well. If it does nothing but delay the game, that's just a pain. It has its places, but its got to be well executed.

 

[Akytalusia]

other: i fucking hate equipment degradation, but i can't say i don't respect the concept. it does make perfect sense, so there's really nothing you can say against it when it's implemented. it's just damned annoying.

 

[ThoughtlessConcept]

The only games in which it felt right were Fallout 3 and New Vegas, in those games you could really avoid the mechanic if you wanted to, but you could use it to your advantage if you didn't mind it.

 

[crimson sickle2]

The only game I can think of that did it well was Dark Souls, because it had: attacks that affected weapon durability; a repair item; the ability to repair anything at a bonfire or blacksmith; and a repair spell. If a game has magic, or forges, and weapon durability, weapons had better be repairable. It's just another reason I dislike Fire Emblem. The spell casters can raise zombies, replenish life force, and mess with the atmosphere to call out a thunderstorm, but they never figured out how to sharpen a blade, fly, or revive allies (except in the latest games where word of god said it was okay).

 

[Syntax Error]

As with all game mechanics, it depends on implementation.

If it just takes you out of the action too much (unless that's the point of the game), then it's bad. Personally, in games like Fallout 3, I don't really like it. It's passable. However, in Silent Hill 4, it was abysmal. If you're gonna implement breakable weapons, once they've outlived their usefulness, don't make them take up inventory space you'll have to manually transfer to your storage box!

 

[Denamic]

It's really just annoying busywork.
In an MMO like WoW, I can accept it, because it works as a money sink for the economy, as well as a risk/reward function. Not to mention you can go for quite a while without repairing if you don't die. But in single player games? No. It's just annoying. I dislike it so much I cheat to get the jury rigging perk in New Vegas. And I practically never cheat in games. Hell, I don't even use legitimate strategies or items that I consider too powerful.
A reverse durability system though, where you can maintain or temper items to get stat buffs or some such, THAT I can live with.

 

[Gottesstrafe]

Based on how it is implemented in the game, then yes. In games like Dead Rising, for instance, where weapons are strewn all over the place and weapon degradation encourages you to try throwing stack of plates or a giant umbrella to get past the zombie hordes, it works great. It plays to and highlights the strengths of the game. In games like Condemned 2 and Yakuza, weapons degradation is bearable because their fist fighting systems are more thoroughly focused on (and in the formers case, because firearms were strewn around everywhere like candy). In games like Fallout, STALKER, and System Shock, weapon degradation is a key aspect of the game because it encourages scavenging for basic survival gear. It gives you a reason to carry extra copies of weapons (i.e. spare parts), and gives weight to the Repair ability and those that choose to keep it as a main skill. In Beat 'em up games, weapon degradation is for balancing reasons. In games like Dark Souls and Way of the Samurai, weapon degradation is a great way to encourage the player to NOT kill every NPC in the vicinity, and consider the repercussions of their actions.

In the TES series, though, I didn't mind the Repair system. To me, it added another facet to RPing, was an important survival skill to consider (i.e. take a hammer to repair it yourself or some gold to get someone else to do it), and was a good way to train Endurance without running in circles for a few hours or standing in the middle of a field and letting goblins take potshots at you. Of course, Skyrim changed its system and carefully implemented it so that these items were satisfied in other ways, so they may be moot. Could the weapon/armor degradation system have been better implemented? Yes. However, I think getting rid of it entirely is a bit much, though the ability to upgrade gear is a nice alternative. Still, I think I'm one of the few who the new system in place as another case of streamlining the game unnecessarily. I miss being able to equip the different sections of my armor and mix and match them as I please. I also miss being able to wear clothes underneath my armor, or a cloak over it. I miss crossbows and spears. I miss restricted free travel that encouraged you to explore the land, intermixed with ferries, teleportation mages, and teleportation spells that still allowed you get around quickly if you needed to. I miss the absence of the now ever-present pointing arrow that flat up tells you where to go at the cost of exploration and careful directions given in flavor text, maps, and books scattered around the map.