-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
How do you feel about weapon durability in games?
- Thread starter balgajo
- Start date
It does depend on the game but I'm not a fan of it personally. I didn't like how my legendary master sword brakes and then has a cool down timer. But in games like nioh or bloodborne it didn't bother me in the slightest.
Dying Light. Having a good weapon break in the middle of a fight, surrounded by a crowd of zombies, is one of those "oh shit" moments.
Weapons aren't the only way to kill zombies.
Edit:
A lot of the complaints about durability are really about the lack of alternatives to weapons, once they break.
Last edited:
I hated it there. Broke battle pacing IMO so that integration worked against it.
I am not a fan of it at all. In Witcher 3 for some reason the weapons really degrade too quickly and its just annoying. Doesn't add anything to an otherwise sublime game.
If it was a mechanic that was something more then click two buttons every 15 minutes. Sure, but as of now I never seen it add anything meaningful to a game.
It's tedious work. And as for the "immersion" argument I'd rather a game not immerse me in chores.
Some games do it well but most games it's just boring busy work.
I like it in botw because you don't need to repair weapons or anything you just get a new one.
I like it in botw because you don't need to repair weapons or anything you just get a new one.
It depends on the game. I didn't mind it in Demon's Souls. It was a bit annoying in DC Universe Online. I'm blanking out on other games I've played with this system. The scraping spear is probably the best example of why it's a great system though. :p
I almost always hate it. I'm struggling to think of a game that was improved by it. At best I'm indifferent. Really it depends on how often it interrupts the gameplay.
There was a very specific confluence of durability and ethereal items that were excellent if made indestructible in D2. That's probably it. More often it just led to slightly stronger leveling items or useless ones that weren't worth the cost of upgrading.
There was a very specific confluence of durability and ethereal items that were excellent if made indestructible in D2. That's probably it. More often it just led to slightly stronger leveling items or useless ones that weren't worth the cost of upgrading.
I have yet to see a game where it makes the experience more enjoyable, just longer and more tedious. Usually it's just used as a crutch to push the player to go back to town, have a forced gold sink and soft-cap "abuse" gameplay where you don't vary up your approach.
At the very least I think it should change from a Negative mechanic to a Positive one. Never remove the ability to perform the action/use the item or enforce debuffs, instead have bonuses that are only available at certain thresholds (ie: Durability VS Sharpness).
It's the same concept as in WoW where in the beginning you got less XP the more you played, which people hated, but then they turned it around where it would be that you earned more XP the longer you were offline (ie: Rested XP). The end result is the same where they're trying to let players who don't play as much keep up with those who continue playing while funneling you back to town. But the perception of the feature is vastly different and it goes from a negative thing to a positive one.
At the very least I think it should change from a Negative mechanic to a Positive one. Never remove the ability to perform the action/use the item or enforce debuffs, instead have bonuses that are only available at certain thresholds (ie: Durability VS Sharpness).
It's the same concept as in WoW where in the beginning you got less XP the more you played, which people hated, but then they turned it around where it would be that you earned more XP the longer you were offline (ie: Rested XP). The end result is the same where they're trying to let players who don't play as much keep up with those who continue playing while funneling you back to town. But the perception of the feature is vastly different and it goes from a negative thing to a positive one.
It's a shit mechanic.
The only time I'm fine with it is when it is so non-invasive, it may as well not be in the game.
It's one of the big reasons I will never think BotW is a good game.
The only time I'm fine with it is when it is so non-invasive, it may as well not be in the game.
It's one of the big reasons I will never think BotW is a good game.
I have yet to play a game where I felt that it added to the design of the game. BotW perhaps does it, but then you are just encouraged to hoard your best weapons and never use them.
Had the complete opposite effect to me but different strokes I guess.
The weapon fragility in BOTW made me waste time by having to get my favorite weapons and shields after they broke rather than spend that time exploring and enjoying those weapons. Such a chore.
The same way I feel when the batteries in my gamepad die mid combat, that's how I feel about durability.
The worse implementations are when damage is decreased as your durability goes down, so after a few fights you already feel like you're not at full strength.
The worse implementations are when damage is decreased as your durability goes down, so after a few fights you already feel like you're not at full strength.
Depends a lot on the game:
In Dark Souls I wondered why they even have it in the game since it almost never affects the game at all.
In Fallout 4 it annoyed me because repairs of good stuff always used up a lot of ressoucres and I felt those prices were not justified.
In Breath of the Wild I loved it since you could essentially use the durability as combo and it was the first game that got me over my hoarding problem.
In Dark Souls I wondered why they even have it in the game since it almost never affects the game at all.
In Fallout 4 it annoyed me because repairs of good stuff always used up a lot of ressoucres and I felt those prices were not justified.
In Breath of the Wild I loved it since you could essentially use the durability as combo and it was the first game that got me over my hoarding problem.
I'm fine with it if you have a way to repair on the fly. BotW handled it miserably, probably the worst example of weapon durability ever conceived.
I personally only enjoyed it in Breath of the Wild. The entire game is based on the concept of weapon durability. Conversely, I hate it in games that force you to micromanage your weapons by giving you ways to repair your weapons. It just feels like you're babysitting your weapons at that point. In Breath of the Wild, you're not supposed to cling to a weapon. It feels pretty liberating when you're able to use them and discard them without a care because you're always going to find a suitable replacement.
I can understand the thought behind weapon durability but i personally think it works against people not wanting to loose their hard earned favorite weapons.
I believe there can be a in between solution like in Doom (2016)...
The idea behind breaking weapons in Breath of the Wild is to get the player to use different kinds of weapons and think on their feet. But in the end you don't get an attachment to your weapons. It's just something to use and throw away because the next is 1 minute away. There's only one weapon without this mechanic and it's the Master Sword. The Master Sword is working on a kind of ammo basis. You can use it x times before it's done for a time. After it recovers you can use it again. This is the ideal way to do it imo and that's why i would compare it to Doom (2016).
In Doom (2016) your weapons never break, they run out of ammo. On the higher difficulties i had to use at least 4-5 different weapons in a big fight because the ammo of a "favourite" isn't going to last. This way you get to keep your hard earned weapons but have to constantly change weapons. It's the same goal of getting the player to not rely on one weapon for the majority of the game but without anyone loosing their favourite toy.
Enemies being tougher against certain kinds of weapons add another soft way to get the player to change tactics without destroying their hard earned loot. And this way you get them to use their gear instead of "saving" for the whole game because they might need it later.
I believe there can be a in between solution like in Doom (2016)...
The idea behind breaking weapons in Breath of the Wild is to get the player to use different kinds of weapons and think on their feet. But in the end you don't get an attachment to your weapons. It's just something to use and throw away because the next is 1 minute away. There's only one weapon without this mechanic and it's the Master Sword. The Master Sword is working on a kind of ammo basis. You can use it x times before it's done for a time. After it recovers you can use it again. This is the ideal way to do it imo and that's why i would compare it to Doom (2016).
In Doom (2016) your weapons never break, they run out of ammo. On the higher difficulties i had to use at least 4-5 different weapons in a big fight because the ammo of a "favourite" isn't going to last. This way you get to keep your hard earned weapons but have to constantly change weapons. It's the same goal of getting the player to not rely on one weapon for the majority of the game but without anyone loosing their favourite toy.
Enemies being tougher against certain kinds of weapons add another soft way to get the player to change tactics without destroying their hard earned loot. And this way you get them to use their gear instead of "saving" for the whole game because they might need it later.
The treatment of durability in BotW is a far cry from how ammo is implemented; the guns in Doom don't disappear when they run out, and the method of engagement is not primarily one of higher numbers as distinguishing characteristics about why someone would want to use one weapon or another.
The problem with weapon durability isn't the systems, but people disability to deal with loss and negative emotion in general in games. Negative emotion would bring a lot of new experiences and gameplay methods on the table. BotW is a great example, where the game tries to create moments of desperation and creativity, which can only exists, if you lose something.
Positive feedback is great an all for designs, but for art there also needs to be negative feedback.
Positive feedback is great an all for designs, but for art there also needs to be negative feedback.
I'm not a fan. It can work, if you're treating weapons as temporary power-ups (a la Streets of Rage), but in RPGs it's almost always needless busy-work. TW3 is one of my favourite games of the generation, but the durability stuff was completely redundant, creating extra inventory clutter in an already bloated inventory.
Breath of the Wild's system was bold, but ultimately had the effect of turning weapons into consumables, which meant that - as with so many similar systems in games - I would always save the best ones for when I really needed them - a time that actually never came - meaning I was dragging around a nearly-always-full inventory of weapons I was never willing to use.
I can't honestly think of a game I've played where it really added something vital to proceedings, even in Dark Souls (another game I love) it just seems counter to the core of the design. You already have a limit on how far you can roam in the form of skill and Estus, a durability system on top of that is either redundant, because you'll run out of Estus before your weapon breaks or counter intuitive as it punishes skilled players who can manage long runs without taking too much damage.
Yeah, it sucks...
Breath of the Wild's system was bold, but ultimately had the effect of turning weapons into consumables, which meant that - as with so many similar systems in games - I would always save the best ones for when I really needed them - a time that actually never came - meaning I was dragging around a nearly-always-full inventory of weapons I was never willing to use.
I can't honestly think of a game I've played where it really added something vital to proceedings, even in Dark Souls (another game I love) it just seems counter to the core of the design. You already have a limit on how far you can roam in the form of skill and Estus, a durability system on top of that is either redundant, because you'll run out of Estus before your weapon breaks or counter intuitive as it punishes skilled players who can manage long runs without taking too much damage.
Yeah, it sucks...
Don't see the point of it.
I'm yet to see a game where it adds value to it.
It's either completely pointless and just an additional hassle to click on a vendor every now and then, or way too intrusive to the point it actively harms my enjoyment of the game by forcing me to play with different weapons, and thus styles, that I might not enjoy at all.
Usually its just a way to blow through your finances early games and becomes an utterly useless annoyance late game, see Diablo or WoW.
I'm yet to see a game where it adds value to it.
It's either completely pointless and just an additional hassle to click on a vendor every now and then, or way too intrusive to the point it actively harms my enjoyment of the game by forcing me to play with different weapons, and thus styles, that I might not enjoy at all.
Usually its just a way to blow through your finances early games and becomes an utterly useless annoyance late game, see Diablo or WoW.
I have played very little of Dying Light, but I rationed the weapons for use only in certain situations. I treated them like temporary consumables.