SictorVullivan
Member
Yeah, weapon degrading is easy to manage in Dark Souls. It's broken as hell in Dark Souls 2 though, and Bloodborne goes back to how it functioned in Dark Souls.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Why is weapon degradation/breaking a thing in games?
- Thread starter sn00zer
- Start date
Yeah, weapon degrading is easy to manage in Dark Souls. It's broken as hell in Dark Souls 2 though, and Bloodborne goes back to how it functioned in Dark Souls.
hipsterpants
Member
One of the worst parts about Witcher 3. It works okay early game when you're trying to manage your weapons and your meager amount of money. Late game it's a pain in the ass because you have to constantly take breaks in your adventuring to either warp to a blacksmith or use one of the repair kits. It's awful.
I like it. It keeps me busy. And like others have said, it adds new layers or micromanagement and whatever. But it should be implemented well, not that it breaks super fast or in such a slow manner that it actually shouldn't be in there. For example, I thought Dark Souls did it perfect. Maybe a wee bit slow, but I didn't mind. On the other hand, Dark Souls II broke way too fast, but fortunately it repairs on its own if you use a bonfire.
Babbies everywhere.
Degradation exists so that one can take advantage of it.
Using the scraping spear in PvP was quite something lol
RespectThySole
Member
How? It takes ages for weapons to decay in TW3 if you're playing correctly. It's also very cheap to fix and there are tons of repair kits to find. You shouldn't have any trouble with that unless maybe if you're still in White Orchard.
Crayon
Member
I like it. I'm very mechanical and in my mind every tool is subject to wear and eventual uselessness. I only wish games would get into what types of wear more. I may be incorrect, but I remember demos souls imparting wear on your weapon when striking walls, which would be a graceful way to expand on weapon-wear mechanics.
Irl, a good tool can wear very long when used for one purpose but break quickly when used for other purposes. So imagine a game where you could pry open doors and such with your sword at the risk of breaking the blade.
Some game do this mechanic poorly, but overall I like it.
Irl, a good tool can wear very long when used for one purpose but break quickly when used for other purposes. So imagine a game where you could pry open doors and such with your sword at the risk of breaking the blade.
Some game do this mechanic poorly, but overall I like it.
Palculator
Unconfirmed Member
It's not inherently bad, in most RPGs it's just a distraction but in Monster Hunter it's an important part of the battle system.
User 479360
Banned
For realism, I guess, but I hate it. Especially when you need repair kits.
Made sense in Fallout 3&NV because maintaining weapons was a bigger deal. You could make your weapon better by repairing it to a better condition, but you need the parts from other weapons. It was also handy for getting around encumberance and maintaining the value of having weapons in your inventory by combining them.
It's really not a bad mechanic if used right.
It's really not a bad mechanic if used right.
yanipheonu
Member
It's almost never a good idea.
Only time I kinda liked it was in Fallout 3, since having to maintain weapons seemed to fit the post-apocalypse role play.
That said, I didn't exactly miss it in Fallout 4.
Only time I kinda liked it was in Fallout 3, since having to maintain weapons seemed to fit the post-apocalypse role play.
That said, I didn't exactly miss it in Fallout 4.
I've never minded it. Usually gives me incentive to use other weapons instead of sticking to the same Super Fire Sword +18 because it's simply the best.
I do think it is honestly done well in Shadow of Rome though. In that game--much like it's loose successor, Dead Rising--weapons really are supposed to be power-ups. They're made to be picked up and used swiftly as limited resources to give yourself an advantage over the other gladiators. You can even chuck them at people. You perform different gladiatorial feats to earn favor with the crowd so that they'll throw down more--and more powerful--weapons.
There's a cheat for making weapons unbreakable, but it kind of dulls the experience, no pun intended.
I do think it is honestly done well in Shadow of Rome though. In that game--much like it's loose successor, Dead Rising--weapons really are supposed to be power-ups. They're made to be picked up and used swiftly as limited resources to give yourself an advantage over the other gladiators. You can even chuck them at people. You perform different gladiatorial feats to earn favor with the crowd so that they'll throw down more--and more powerful--weapons.
There's a cheat for making weapons unbreakable, but it kind of dulls the experience, no pun intended.
ROUGE_BLOCK
Member
I only ever enjoyed it in Fire Emblem Awakening. It burned through all of my money in the first 30 hours of the Witcher 3 and made padded my gametime of Far Cry 2 by at least 5 hours. All that time traveling to the damn warehouse to replace the weapons that break after 90 mins of use. Not to mention all the enemies were bullet sponges so you burn through the weapons even faster.
Oh and it was very annoying in Fallout 3.
Oh and it was very annoying in Fallout 3.
OverturePT
Member
Still the worst part of the game, it should tell you how much I like that game. It's a minor thing but I don't like it, it brings nothing to the table, it's just there to make you pause the game, use a repair kit, or go to a blacksmith/armorsmith, whatever and waste gold/time. It adds nothing to the game, and it's when this system is used like this that it sucks, it simply should not be there imo.
Muramasa and Monster Hunter, for example, make a different use of it and do it faily well, but games like Witcher 3 and Fallout 3 make it boring imo.
Yeah, Fallout 3 is a good example of weapons breaking way too fast. I'd much rather have had them slow down the process in Fallout 4 than to get rid of it completely.
It's not "broken as hell" in DS2. It's actually the best version of it in any of the games, because of the way it forces you to experiment and play around with the utterly vast weapon sets the game has (loodborne is a marked step back from this). The game gave you an extra item slot per hand for a reason, guys. The only legit complaint I see with it is that when the game launched it had borked 60FPS support by tying degredation to framerate (the fuck?), which was finally fixed in Scholar.
In DS1 I used like 1-2 weapons the entire game. In bloodborne, I basically used one until I got so bored with the game I started using a wiki to find more weapons. In DS2, I rotated like 7 weapons.
I can't really believe people HATE this mechanic so much. It's really never been an issue for me, just fix your stuff whenever you sell stuff or go back to the central hub. Really not a big deal.
In big open world games I actually like it for the RP factor - it gives you a reason to stop back into town.
In big open world games I actually like it for the RP factor - it gives you a reason to stop back into town.
Bankastuba
Member
Weapons degrade/break in RL.
I guess degradation in games adds to the immersion?
I don't mind it at all, regardless.
I mean, why have health bars in games?
Edit: plural correction
I guess degradation in games adds to the immersion?
I don't mind it at all, regardless.
I mean, why have health bars in games?
Edit: plural correction
Confidence Man
Member
Worst part of removing it in Fallout 4 is that you can't target weapons anymore.
timetokill
Banned
I actually ADDED it to Skyrim via a mod
Come at me, haters
Come at me, haters
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
It's acceptable in SRPGs, though I prefer if it is absent. In all other games I think it's an inacceptable junk mechanic. Degrading shields (and crafting, leave the simulation stuff out of all games I want to play please :/) is the worst part of Skyward Sword, which I love otherwise. It can really hamper my enjoyment of a game a lot. Typically my solution to that is to never use stuff that degrades if it is possible (for instance, I did not use the shield in Zelda SS other than when it was abolutely neccessary) or, if that is not possible, to always choose the cheapest / easiest to get weapon. In Fire Emblem, I still carry iron swords into the final battle, though right before the battle starts I take out all my stronger weapons which then I cannot use up anyway of course.
Totally agree. I should just be able to stop using a weapon behind a wall for 15 seconds and have it regenerate. Games are supposed to make me feel like a god and require no more effort than drinking Dew.
Sounds like an interesting mod, how do you repair it?
visiblemode
Member
It really just depends on how it's handled. I like it when used thoughtfully. Personally, I liked it in FO3.
Depends on the game... but in open-world games it encourages different tactics and controls pacing.
Linear experiences don't need this mechanic because the levels themselves take that role.
Open-world games have less control of what weapons the player has at any given time. The degradation mechanic causes the player to either use a different weapon or take a break from the action to go fix their weapon.
And like everyone else has mentioned, it also ties in with the currency system.
Linear experiences don't need this mechanic because the levels themselves take that role.
Open-world games have less control of what weapons the player has at any given time. The degradation mechanic causes the player to either use a different weapon or take a break from the action to go fix their weapon.
And like everyone else has mentioned, it also ties in with the currency system.
I think it works well in Fire Emblem, Monster Hunter, and Fallout Mew Vegas because it creates an interesting mechanic or strategy for the player.
Fire Emblem causes a meta layer of strategy, you only get a few really good swords per playthrough, so save that for the big bosses.
In monster hunter it lends to the flow of combat, I know you want to get in there but your weapons dull, you'll need to sharpen to do danger so give yourself a seconds to do that and heal. It adds tension. Monster Hunter is a game about spacing, distance, and reacting to the enemy. The weapon degradation lends itself to this.
New Vegas and Fallout 3 let you role play as a scavenger, and with a good repair skill you are slapping 2 guns together to make a better quality gun, so if you find dupes don't worry, it can still be useful.
Fire Emblem causes a meta layer of strategy, you only get a few really good swords per playthrough, so save that for the big bosses.
In monster hunter it lends to the flow of combat, I know you want to get in there but your weapons dull, you'll need to sharpen to do danger so give yourself a seconds to do that and heal. It adds tension. Monster Hunter is a game about spacing, distance, and reacting to the enemy. The weapon degradation lends itself to this.
New Vegas and Fallout 3 let you role play as a scavenger, and with a good repair skill you are slapping 2 guns together to make a better quality gun, so if you find dupes don't worry, it can still be useful.
grosvenor_92
Member
It adds tension to the game and forces you to use different weapons instead of the same one for the entire game
DannyDanger
Member
Yep I'm cool with it
Imperfected
Member
Like most mechanics, it can be quite useful and provide several pacing, thematic, and strategic benefits to a game design. Also like most mechanics, the problem tends to be that inexperienced designers assume it provides these benefits automatically, which is not the case.
Just putting "durability" mechanics into a game in a vacuum, without considering how it influences the rest of the game design, is what creates significant problems. This is usually done out of a misguided desire for "realism", which tends to be the sort of thing that inexperienced designers put too much faith in, in general. (Veteran designers tend to realize that "verisimilitude" is actually the thing they want.)
Let's take MGSV, for example. You do have weapon durability--your silencer/suppressor degrades--but it isn't universal. If you wanted to be "realistc", it should be; most firearms do suffer significant loss of reliability if they aren't cleaned relatively thoroughly after heavy use, especially if they're given time to "cool" between uses. There wouldn't be much gameplay benefit to that, though; you already have the ammunition and resupply system there, weapon durability would just be one extra fiddly little bit on top of it annoying the player.
So, why do suppressors get limited shots? Because the designers identified that players of MGS games had often come to equate "stealth" with "just shoot everyone, but do it with a silenced weapon". The AI tech still isn't quite advanced enough to deal with this in a realistic way ("Hey Yuri, have you noticed none of the other guards seem to be patrolling anymore and no one's talking on the radios?"), so the suppressor durability is kind of a stop-gap solution: it's meant to make you consider whether or not it's worth KOing every guard, and hopefully sometimes bait you into leaving a few awake and trying to sneak around them instead, because you're too deeply infiltrated to want to resupply.
Just putting "durability" mechanics into a game in a vacuum, without considering how it influences the rest of the game design, is what creates significant problems. This is usually done out of a misguided desire for "realism", which tends to be the sort of thing that inexperienced designers put too much faith in, in general. (Veteran designers tend to realize that "verisimilitude" is actually the thing they want.)
Let's take MGSV, for example. You do have weapon durability--your silencer/suppressor degrades--but it isn't universal. If you wanted to be "realistc", it should be; most firearms do suffer significant loss of reliability if they aren't cleaned relatively thoroughly after heavy use, especially if they're given time to "cool" between uses. There wouldn't be much gameplay benefit to that, though; you already have the ammunition and resupply system there, weapon durability would just be one extra fiddly little bit on top of it annoying the player.
So, why do suppressors get limited shots? Because the designers identified that players of MGS games had often come to equate "stealth" with "just shoot everyone, but do it with a silenced weapon". The AI tech still isn't quite advanced enough to deal with this in a realistic way ("Hey Yuri, have you noticed none of the other guards seem to be patrolling anymore and no one's talking on the radios?"), so the suppressor durability is kind of a stop-gap solution: it's meant to make you consider whether or not it's worth KOing every guard, and hopefully sometimes bait you into leaving a few awake and trying to sneak around them instead, because you're too deeply infiltrated to want to resupply.
It has its place (one of those the OP mentioned IS a roguelike and that comes with the territory), but it is pretty lame in a game like Fragile where the combat system is kind of janky as is and it's basically a % chance of breaking with every use or fight, not just generally wearing down in a predictable manner. I really want to get through the game, but it's kind of offputting to buy a weapon to replace on that just broke, only for it to break before you leave the fucking area.
Because resource management is fun and adds depth to games.
Unfortunately, most games just require you do go to the blacksmith and hand over some money to repair your weapons. When a game used a near infinite resource to repair weapons, degradation can become pointless busy work. Especially if you run into blacksmiths frequently enough that weapons breaking is very unlikely. If a game has fast travel it can trivialize it even further, since you can go fix your weapons at any time.
Games that use very limited resources to repair weapons are far better. It encourages active management and rotation of your weapons, and makes looting actually useful since there are resources you need to find.
System Shock 2 is a good example, where repair kits are rare for the fist part of the game, but you can find way too many of them later on. Fallout 3 also had a pretty good implementation where you needed to find similar weapons to repair them. It's a damn shame F4 took it out in its mass "streamlining."
Unfortunately, most games just require you do go to the blacksmith and hand over some money to repair your weapons. When a game used a near infinite resource to repair weapons, degradation can become pointless busy work. Especially if you run into blacksmiths frequently enough that weapons breaking is very unlikely. If a game has fast travel it can trivialize it even further, since you can go fix your weapons at any time.
Games that use very limited resources to repair weapons are far better. It encourages active management and rotation of your weapons, and makes looting actually useful since there are resources you need to find.
System Shock 2 is a good example, where repair kits are rare for the fist part of the game, but you can find way too many of them later on. Fallout 3 also had a pretty good implementation where you needed to find similar weapons to repair them. It's a damn shame F4 took it out in its mass "streamlining."
Silent Chief
Member
True, but I'm sure tons of players cheat and duplicate their weapons.
Astral/H3X
Member
If it's a core part of the gameplay? Like Monster Hunter or Fire Emblem? I love it.
If it's just there cuz "lol fuck it", then "lol, fuck it."
If it's just there cuz "lol fuck it", then "lol, fuck it."
Eh, SS2 is one that needs an asterisk on it.
When the game first came out, the system was very balanced throughout the game. Unfortunately, it pissed a lot of people off and they patched it out a few months after launch. You can still go into the config files and change it back, though. Works much better as the system no longer seems like a reverse difficulty curve that it is in the version most people play.
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
Games usually handle this in one of two ways:
Either weapon degradation is so slow it's meaningless (see: Dark Souls)
Or it has meaning and is incredibly annoying. (See: Dead Island)
It could have meaning if a weapon is really something special in the game (in games like Day Z for exmaple) but otherwise it's just annoying. Either make it super meaningful, build the game around it, do something interesting with it or don't put it in there at all.
I like Dying Light, but what was the point of the weapon degradation? It just meant that I couldn't use a weapon I like after some time, but there were always hundreds of other weapons around, I just didn't like them that much. So what's the point?
Either weapon degradation is so slow it's meaningless (see: Dark Souls)
Or it has meaning and is incredibly annoying. (See: Dead Island)
It could have meaning if a weapon is really something special in the game (in games like Day Z for exmaple) but otherwise it's just annoying. Either make it super meaningful, build the game around it, do something interesting with it or don't put it in there at all.
I like Dying Light, but what was the point of the weapon degradation? It just meant that I couldn't use a weapon I like after some time, but there were always hundreds of other weapons around, I just didn't like them that much. So what's the point?
blankempathy
Member
It would make sense in every game if we're going the logic route. Weapons degrade with use. Even modern ones. Doesn't really mean it translate well into a game element. Of course it depends on how they go about it. If it becomes a chore to keep up and drags down the experience then it needs to be implemented better. Thats why I need fast travel in my open world games.
