Weapon Durability: Yay or Nay

I liked it in Far Cry 2. When guns jam (or rust after a rain), time to tuck tail and run. ;)

Sword blades also rust and need repair in The Witcher 3. That was okay too.

the bane of my existence

Are you going for the world record of internet topics created. or is that just your thing?

On topic: It depends on the game. Weapon durability in Ninja Gaiden would be silly but in Zelda it seems right.

i like how its implemented in zelda anyway. i havent run into a situation where i have run out of weapons and i have a couple of places marked where i can always pick up some decent stuff if im stuck.

its pretty good at ensuring that a lot of different weapons have a use and are used. plenty of games have a bagillion weapons but people just end up using 2-3 because they have no need to use another. in zelda you will need to change your weapon a lot and that, in turn, means a change in playstyle. fighting with a spear is different from fighting with a sword and spear. its also pretty cool throwing a badly damaged weapon at an enemy, grabbing their weapon, then continuing to knock the crap out of them.

i would perhaps have a basic bow and arrow (no damage just distract the enemy) and sword always available though. when i say basic i mean very low damage, can never be upgraded, will just about do in the starting area kind of basic. just there to ensure that:

1) you dont use valuable weapons getting things like ore

2) the player can work on any dungeon without having to worry about running out of arrows

though, as i say, i havent actually run into the scenario where i had to leave a dungeon due to a lack of equipment.

I'm kind of neutral/inbetween when it comes to the durability system. DOn't really care for it, but it doesn;t really hamper the experience either.

I kind of wish the handled weapons like they handled armor in BotW, where there are different weapons for different situations/battles, and these weapons could be upgraded.

One of the most stupid, annoying game mechanics ever. There aren't many game mechanics that will flat out guarantee I won't go anywhere near a game if they're included, but weapon durability is one of them.

As always it depends on how it's implemented. Botw implemented it perfectly. But I rather take no durability system than a bad implemented one. In games liek Diable for example, it's just annoying. You have enough money to fix all your gear all the time, so it isn't much more than a time waster

It made Zelda a 7 at best.

Who knows, you might think its more than a 7 when you actually play it. Do you think you ever will ?

Fallout had it. So

All depends on the game for me. Think it works well in STALKER, and I've got no big issues with it in Zelda, altho wish the weapons weren't as fragility is they are. Skyrim I found it annoying.. But usually I'm not that fussed.

Annoying and stupid.

Are you trying to flood the board with pointless threads?

Depends entirely on how it is implemented in game. For the record, I like it in Souls, Monster Hunter, Fire Emblem, and Zelda.

As long as the weapon durability isn't tried to frame rate like in Dark Souls then yay.

It gives you something to think about from going in and swinging like a maniac hitting the walls. Saying that I absolutly hated the durability thing in the first Diablo where if an item broke it was fucked forever, you had to take your armour off during a fight just before it broke, too hardcore for me.

Most definitely nay. Always just a pointless mechanic that wastes your time.

Depends on the material.

I don't mind it but I wish it was contextualized in the world. Specifically with Zelda it would work well if Link had a curse that made weapons break, but to be honest I like the extra depth weapon degradation add to a game.

A big nay on that one. I can tolerate it in games like the Witcher III, but I despise how it's done in Breath of the Wild. One of the reasons why I'm currently enjoying playing Nioh so much is because it doesn't have any of that durability crap.

@Jshoelace: weapons broke in skyrim?

Hate it

Nay

Not all games can make a good use of it, but generally it's another variable for player to keep in mind making for a more nuanced gameplay.

One thing i miss in newer FC games.

In FC2 basically any scavenged weapon was dirty and worn-out, so if you wanted an AK-47 that wouldn't jam or break you had to buy one new.

In FC3 you just knife the first fucker you meet in that game and he drops a shiny indestructible AK-47 that you also can pick up in every safehouse for free if you somehow lose yours.

That's just boring.

I'm 100% certain weapons don't break in Skyrim, did you mean Oblivion?

I tend not to prefer it.

@kingjazziephiz: thinking of a different game aparantly but I'm not sure what.

Oblivion/Morrowind?

@charizard1605: hmm maybe Oblivion then? I honestly can't remember ha. It used to come up saying the weapon was damaged but you could still use them, but they would be weak

Nay. Weapon durability has never been good in any game ever

Durability is fine so long as you have a sensible and balanced repair mechanism. The model employed by Souls games is my most preferred, though it does not punish you enough if you let a weapon break. Perma-destruction is too harsh if there is no sensible means by which to keep a weapon in proper form.

It's freaking annoying and does nothing for a game. I celebrated with balloons and confetti when it was removed from Nioh.

The only ones that will say "Yay" are the ones damage controlling the abysmal mechanic from BotW. That's a fact.

Also this. When it was removed, the whole community was praising TeamNinja. Why? Because its one of the dumbest mechanics in video games.

If my weapons suffers durability the same should happen with enemies. Games has yet to move away from the infinite resource enemies from unbreakable weapons to unlimited ammo. BOTW is an example of poor and generic implementation. Its seems like people are forgiving it purely because its Zelda.

For every freakin' broken weapon, you get like 3 new ones. Smh Gimme a damn break.

I think we had too many of those. BTW which enemies drop 3 weapons at a time?

I have and the breaking of weapons adds nothing but tedium to the game in addition to removing the all anticipation of receiving any weapons because the shit it going to break on your next encounter.

Hit, hit , hit, shatter, switch to a new weapon rinse repeat as necessary.

Me no like it. The only game I've played has weapon degradation was FC2, although I liked the game a lot,the weapon degradation was annoying.

You do realize that none of the features or benefits you have mentioned has anything to do with durability. Those features can and will still exist without the stupid durability mechanic.

Breath of the Wild's open endedness is facilitated by the weapon durability. Given the fact that the designers have created the world such that you can go literally anywhere, any time, without the durability mechanic, it would have been all too possible to get an end game weapon near the beginning of the game and then cheese your way through the rest of the game with a broken difficulty and progression curve. Breaking weapons is literally the only way BotW could have existed the way it does, outside of hard level caps, which the game does not have.

You can argue you don't like the mechanic, and that's fine, but to pretend that the mechanic adds nothing to a game that is designed centrally around it betrays ignorance.

Firstly you can have an attachment to any weapon even with a durability mechanism. Gamers would hold on to weapons that are best suited for specific situations as you mentioned in your previous post. The fact is that durability is not needed for variety. Forcing the player to plough through weapons for the sake of "variety" is a broken approach. If you want players to play with a variety of weapons you make specific weapons more effective against certain enemies. None of this needs durability. Durability, especially without a repair system is just tedious.

Please stop spewing nonsense. To make a claim that the durability is the "only" way to prevent cheesing through the game is factually untrue. In fact, in order to cheese through the game one must rely on former experience with the game or someone else's. You are trying to argue that the entire purpose of durability was to prevent gamers from finding the most powerful weapon and using that weapon to dominate. If that's the case then all of the other mechanics with the weapons in the game are garbage because according to you all you need in this game is the most powerful weapon and the game is practically done. You know as well as I that that is nonsense.

Durability certainly adds to the game, it adds tedium and routinely breaks the pacing during combat. One can argue that they took the lazy route for balancing the game. Instead of actively spending the time to gate weapon availability in relation to enemies and location they just went for "let make the weapons break".

Yes because it makes you use other weapons as well but in Zelda is too annoying because there are times you find yourself with no weapons and those times are too often than it should be.

The crux of your argument is 'I don't like durability, so it is worthless.' When one tries to demonstrate why it is not worthless, they are 'spewing nonsense.' You don't want to have a discussion, you want to, much like so many others on this board, say your piece and be done with it.

How would they have gated weapon in a game where the entire point is for you to be able to go wherever you want, whenever you want, without any restrictions? They chose to make a game with a full open ended nature- they could have gated progression in two ways meaningfully, hard level caps, which they chose not to go with, or durability, which they did. That's all there is to it. You don't like it, which is fine, but please stop pretending your dislike holds even a semblance of assessment of an objective value assessment of the game or its mechanics.

'You are trying to argue that the entire purpose of durability was to prevent gamers from finding the most powerful weapon and using that weapon to dominate. If that's the case then all of the other mechanics with the weapons in the game are garbage because according to you all you need in this game is the most powerful weapon and the game is practically done.'

Generally speaking, this is how games, and especially RPGs, work- if you become too powerful, then the entire game is trivialized, which is why high level loot, high EXP and level gains/etc. are reserved for the end game. I don't see what would be so remarkable or special about Zelda in this case.

Was weapon durability something that players had to deal with while equiping their heroes in some Fire Emblem games? That is, weapons can be used a certain number of times before they break and had to be replaced.

You realize that this is a discussion/thread about weapon durability right? Trying to fall back on "your opinion" and "play something else" is a cop out. Your follow up statement is stupendously ridiculous. Its always up to the gamer to decide whether or not a mechanic was good or bad. To blatantly say that "It's not for you to say either way" is clearly indicating that you are incapable of dealing with criticism and that you are too emotionally involved with a game that you didn't make.

You cannot repair your weapons. They literally make you a new one and it applies to specific weapons. That is not weapon repair. Have played games that has a weapon repair system? Obviously not.

Outside of all of this deviation, your points with regards to the need for durability is unfounded. All of the benefits that you mentioned of the system can and has existed in many games without durability. The fact is that durability has nothing to do with the supposed benefits your are citing.

Like any other mechanic it depends entirely on the game and how it is used.