Poll: Weapon degradation - yes or no?

[Abomination]

I enjoy it when, for firearms, it makes the weapon less accurate or more prone to jamming. I do not like it when it somehow makes the weapon less powerful, which makes little sense.

With armour I think it should reduce the chance of armour being effective with a small decrease in overall damage reduction. Armour penetration attacks reduce the chance of armour effectiveness whereas pure damage attacks would reduce the armour's damage reduction.

With melee weapons it would make sense that slashing weapons do slightly less damage eventually breaking and being useless while crushing weapons have decreasing armour penetration stats, eventually breaking and becoming useless.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

It depends how well its implemented, New Vegas hit a real sweet spot for me. Energy weapons were more powerful and ignored some armour but were not that durable and replacements parts could be scarce while my trusty rifle was ok and copies were everywhere but the damage was't great.

Unfortunately that sort of gameplay where the affects of repair skills are interwoven into the entire game are sadly rare with many games abusing the skill as another grind for the player to do.

 

[mfeff]

Context is everything.

For the vast majority of people that play "video" games/interactive comic book narrative stuff that clogs the shelves of toy stores everywhere... the answer should be a screaming NoooooooOOOOOO!!!!

For the vast majority of the people that enjoy simulation then YeeeeSSSS!!!

In something like Ace Combat it does not make much sense. It hurts the flow of the entertainment.

In Dark Age of Camelot it was used to get gear out of the system and penalize "gearing up" lowbies.

It makes a little more sense in something like Area 88/UN Squadron where the failure of a weapon is contextually supported by the black market and second hand nature of the arms. Same could be said for any mercenary or apocalyptic setting.

It makes perfect sense in something like this:

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Don't like it in pretty much any game. I understand it's purpose as a money sink/death penalty in online games, but there's no need for it offline. It doesn't add depth or anything of interest to a game. A really anal person might argue it adds immersion (which I'm all for!) but I would disagree. Going through convoluted menus to repair something, or even making it simple and seamless (eg. in a merchant's screen/conversation) is a chore. It's boring and seldom brings any real value to a game.

I'd prefer that it be left out of games entirely, tho if it really must be included, at least include an option to disable the mechanic entirely. Unless you've centered your games entire balance and economy around it, it won't make any difference in the short, medium or long term. If you have balanced your game around such a system, all I can say is WTF? Why would you do something so stupid?

Same goes for eating/drinking/sleep mechanics. Unless they're needed and for an integral part of gameplay, make them optional.

One cool system along these lines I always thought was brilliantly conceived and implemented, is the Blood system in Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines. Being low on blood significantly increases the chance of frenzying. In frenzy, the player loses control of their character temporarily and will likely feed on the first human they see, likely breaking the Masquerade and/or losing Humanity points. Both have long term consequences, but frenzying makes the player very powerful indeed so there are advantages here (in fact, IIRC one of the clans, the Gangrel, benefit greatly in power from Frenzying). This is the only example I can think of where a food/resource system was implemented well.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Oh, I might add STALKER games to this list. I must admit I quite enjoyed those even with the system. Weapons failing was a part of the game that affect PC and NPC alike, and not only added some tension/luck/preparedness to combat, but did enhance the feeling of being in that setting. I'm trying to remember if Metro 2033 had it...I remember the ammo thing, but not weapon durability.

Anyway, hate it except in rare cases. Would prefer games without it, or at least make it optional.

 

[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.