Support NeoGAF

[ValiantTraveler]

The way weapon damage was implemented in The Alliance Alive was interesting.

A weapon breaks mid-battle when you use the special, devastating move related to it. However every character can equip two weapons and can even fight barehanded (though the unarmed skills are less powerful than weapon skills).

For a good chunk of the game, weapons are fairly affordable and you can find some in chests so you can stack spares to replace broken weapons after a battle.

Past a certain point in the game, you can simply fast-travel to a location where, if memory serves right, you can repair all wepaons for free. So you don't have to worry about the cost of replacing weapons anymore.

Now, this system leads to a risk-reward situation in boss battles: do I use my super move right now, in the hope that the boss's HP (which the game doesn't show) are low enough that it'll die from it? And if it doesn't, I'll lose the skills of that weapon (some of which are needed for my overall strategy) and will only have room for another super move (that of the second weapon), after which I'll be left with a few barehand skills that deal little damage. Or do I save my super move, knowing that my character could get killed before I get a chance to use it?

That dilemma made boss battles more challenging and tense, if frustrating at times. The battle system in Alliance Alive had flaws, but I think its implementation of weapon damage was well thought and deserves to be further fleshed out, maybe in a future game by the same developer.

 

[drganon]

Not really but it's not a game breaker, no pun intended. Its something I'll tolerate but would prefer to do without.

 

[Paasei]

Highly depends on the way it is implement. How quickly your stuff breaks, the method(s) of repairing and the amount of currency that is required.
I don't mind it in Fallout and WoW as an example.

 

[Stiflers Mom]

I hate that shit so much.
Especially in Fallout 3 it really diminished my enjoyment of that game.

 

[Saruhashi]

I wouldn't say I "like" it but I think it can be a good tool for pushing players to try something different and to come up with strategies for beating the game.

In BotW I thought it was cool because it discourages the player from just sticking with one weapon all the time and really forces you to use what the game throws at you. It also has the effect of creating "moments" where you, for example, might think you've got an enemy easily beat and then your weapon is gone and you need to come up with something else. This works better in the early game to be fair.

It's really an interesting thing to see how people engage with this kind of thing in games.

I think many players just see their current game as a thing they just want to get through before they move onto the next one.

Developers on the other hand are looking at their game and thinking "well we don't just want them to grab a weapon and wail endlessly on enemies and never think about it".

Like it's as if sometimes players see the games systems and "roadblocks" and just inconveniences that stop them from finishing the game.

 

[deriks]

Mostly a big no.

BotW could be a perfect game if this wasn't a thing. Even the fucking Master Sword has a limit to use

I could understand if breaks after a long use, but not like 20 times or something

 

[Closer]

I don't mind. It adds strategy and planning, but that's it. Having limited storage space bugs me way more, but I'm OK with that also.

 

[Kadayi]

I'm not opposed but it's got to be balanced. I didn't mind the wear and tear in say Kingdom Come deliverance because you actively are conscious that swords etc are going to be fucked after a few fights, but as someone stated earlier the durability of the weapons in System Shock 2 was a fucking joke. Lucky to get though 2clips before the pistol needed repairing.

 

[Petrae]

Interesting how often Breath of the Wild is brought up. To be honest, just watching someone else play the game, the weapons falling apart was quite apparent and helped save me time and money by not buying it.

The fact that Breath of the Wild went full Western RPG with shit like instantly breakable weapons, aimless “It’s the journey, not the destination” wandering, and other subsystems that required their own levels of micromanagement really made me hate it before long.

I wasn’t liking what I had seen in videos, but so many people calling it “Game of the Year” got me to give in and risk the $60. I stopped listening to word of mouth after that waste of money,

 

[bobone]

It fucking sucks. Huge flaw in BOTW which is otherwise a fantastic game. I hope they drop it for the sequel.

Completely ruined that game.
Had to force myself to play up to the master sword in order to avoid that nonsense. Even then the master sword still "breaks".

Amazing how easy it is to turn a good game into an absolute chore to play.

 

[CuteFaceJay]

They seem like a waste of time when you can afford all repairs very easy. It's like what's the point other than to just waste the players time. At least Zelda: BoTW had a system that made you think about what weapons to use in a situation where it might end up being lost.

 

[johntown]

I don't know if I like it but I am not opposed to it if it is done well and serves a purpose. I liked in Fallout 3 because it actually had dropped guns serve a purpose. In Fallout 4 where they removed that dropped guns basically became junk and serve little to no purpose until you can get the perk to salvage decent items from them.

As long as the mechanic is not too cumbersome like some survival horror games I like it as long as it is implemented well.

 

[iorek21]

I only liked it in Far Cry 2 and Dark Souls trilogy.

It made a lot of sense in FC2, as it was a very realistic game, and the mechanic really added to that immersive feeling of surviving in the Savanna (Malaria mechanic was also interesting, even if somewhat annoying). FC 2 is still the best Far Cry.

Weapon degradation also made sense in Dark Souls, although its effects were not really noticeble in DS3.
DS1 was kinda annoying as repairing required souls and a specific item to be used on bonfires.

I think DS2 was its best implementation, weapons had low durability and some levels had lots of enemies, it was almost obligatory to have a reserve weapon.


As for other games, it sucks ass

 

[Fbh]

At most I can think of games where it didn't bother me too much, but I can't think of a single game where I actually thought it enhanced the experience. Same as inventory weight limit in RPG's

Worst offender is definitely Breath of the Wild, not only was it annoying but I think it directly affected exploration in a negative way.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Lazy, pointless and useless mechanic.

Devs waste their time giving me this shit, but can't balance the stats of characters and items, skills and armour in a fucking RPG.

Cunts.

 

[SurprisedPikachu]

I like the idea but they never seem to balance it right. Take Breath of the Wild for example - get a sword, fight like 5 enemies and it breaks. Imagine the horror of the enemy as you break your weapon fighting them and you bring out another. Oops that broke and you bring out another. Uh oh that broke too and you bring out another. That monster is watching you pull these out of thin air because Link isn’t riding into battle with 10 swords, a backpack full of berries, and 30 outfits.

Back to my point, it would have been better if the sword simply did little damage to stronger enemies rather than break faster. I think there should be wear on the sword to give you an incentive to prepare before you embark. But they should also give the you option to repair your shit too, because AFAIK that game doesn’t.

 

[Helios]

I enjoyed weapon degradation in Kingdom Come, which had a whetstone mechanic that was more than just clicking a button. I grew tired of it in Witcher 3 and eventually modded it out. It's also the main reason I stopped playing Breath of the Wild.

Same here. I really liked Kingdome Come's system. Although removing bloodstains from a weapon using a grindstone was really weird.

 

[iconmaster]

It was neat in BotW because it forced me to try different weapons and, thus, different combat styles. Also I enjoyed the role-play of fighting with whatever was on hand, even if it was something terrible like a mop and pot lid.

 

[Labadal]

It's not a deal breaker by any stretch of the imagination, but I am happy when it is not included in a game. It can work if I don't have to constantly think about it.

 

[Yoshi]

It is, without exception, always shit. Best implementation is probably Fire Emblem, where it is just super quick to replace the weapons and it is more like a nuisance than anything demanding any time or thought investment. At best it does not make a game much worse. Which is a terrible thing to say about a mechanic.

 

[Elektro Demon]

I don't like it one bit.

 

[Pejo]

It totally ruined the flow of BotW for me. I don't hate it in implementation like the Souls games, where you have powerful but fragile weapons, or repairs are easy to come across/automatic. In BotW where you lose a weapon after a few swings, it totally ruined exploration or rewards since literally everything was disposable. I like finding a weapon I enjoy and sticking with it. Totally a buzzkill.

 

[ethomaz]

Yes, I did like it.

It is one of the core part of Death Stranding.

 

[EverydayBeast]

Tanks wouldn't be the same without repairs in Battlefield V so I think repairs play a role in certain games, not all games.

 

[Allnamestakenlol]

I've always enjoyed it, yes. It adds to my immersion.

 

[peronmls]

I loved it in Dark Souls 1 and Demons Souls. Item burden was hard to except in the beginning. The should of had a better work around for item burden. I dont know why everyone hates Weapon Durability.

 

[BigBooper]

Sometimes I haven't really minded it, but I've never liked it.