Current Events > What's a worse game mechanic?

(+) Yeah! (+)

durability

Status effects, and elemental weaknesses. Mechanics either poorly balanced to the point of being useless or OP. Almost never balanced.

worse is that its usually tacked on to add a false sense of depth.

deoxxys posted...

Here's the crazy thing, we don't need massive maps.

All they do is waste your time making giant maps full of nothing where most of your time is spent traveling.

Carefully constructed worlds and environments where you can encounter lots of different things in a compact space is king! I don't know why ever since 3D was invented people have the obsession with making massive worlds. Simply just having a big world isn't better. Banjo Kazooie, Dark Souls, Outer Wilds are all great examples of well-constructed worlds focused on the spectacle of their individual designs.

Okay 50 square miles was an exaggeration. But my point is, I'd much prefer to have mini maps and gps when navigating maps, rather than having to figure out where I'm going based on landmarks or some other system. The games that have done it are "more immersive" but also far more tedious to navigate for me. Even in a smaller game map, it would be annoying.

Again, I'm all for including the option to turn navigation tools off, for those that want to do that. But make it optional, not a "feature"

Weapon durability at its absolute best is tolerable. It's never a positive addition to a game from what I can remember.

projectpat72988 posted...

I never understood people who don't enjoy limits in games.

it makes things far more immersive for me. The world matters more if a fall can kill me. Yeah Witcher 3 is ridiculous but overall there should be some.

I also enjoyed when games like Fallout had weapons wear out. It was something else I had to manage and think about IN the game.

Games tend to be shallow as fuck these days and when there is less to focus on it is going to be boring quickly.

Agreed. Fallout 3 was the first RPG I ever played and one of the first properly huge games and the minimal amount of effort you had to put into keeping your weapons fixed up really added to the game. It's a good anchor because, mechanically it gives you a reason to hoover up any enemy weapons you and find and to keep an eye on the ones you have, and also fits well into the world itself where everything is hostile and shitty. Even if you don't like the mechanic it takes up so little time and effort I couldn't imagine complaining about it.

specialkid8 posted...

Agreed. Fallout 3 was the first RPG I ever played and one of the first properly huge games and the minimal amount of effort you had to put into keeping your weapons fixed up really added to the game. It's a good anchor because, mechanically it gives you a reason to hoover up any enemy weapons you and find and to keep an eye on the ones you have, and also fits well into the world itself where everything is hostile and shitty. Even if you don't like the mechanic it takes up so little time and effort I couldn't imagine complaining about it.

EXACTLY, it wasn't overbearing at all. I feel like the type of people who hated that are ones who don't want to manage inventory whatsoever. The type who do a fight and don't even look at a single corpse inventory. Just go point A to B acting like the goal is to end the game ASAP. Never understood it....

I found it satisfying to repair my weapons. I can still hear that sound in my head. Like you said it gives you reason to be more aware of your surroundings. How some gamers do NOT want that and how games have gone away from that is something I just don't understand. I had a very similar relationship with Fallout 3. I wasn't much of a gamer and that game got me back in FULL swing back then.

It even forces you to leave your comfort zone to use other weapons which in the end will be more fun. Overall fit the theme of these being weapons from hundreds of years ago just sitting around. I enjoy the game making me interact with the world. Not less of that, like every game today.

projectpat72988 posted...

EXACTLY, it wasn't overbearing at all. I feel like the type of people who hated that are ones who don't want to manage inventory whatsoever. The type who do a fight and don't even look at a single corpse inventory. Just go point A to B acting like the goal is to end the game ASAP. Never understood it....

I found it satisfying to repair my weapons. I can still hear that sound in my head. Like you said it gives you reason to be more aware of your surroundings. How some gamers do NOT want that and how games have gone away from that is something I just don't understand. I had a very similar relationship with Fallout 3. I wasn't much of a gamer and that game got me back in FULL swing back then.

It even forces you to leave your comfort zone to use other weapons which in the end will be more fun. Overall fit the theme of these being weapons from hundreds of years ago just sitting around. I enjoy the game making me interact with the world. Not less of that, like every game today.

Or the games could give players more incentives to pick up loot that don't revolve around needing a backup weapon in case your current weapon breaks. If the loot isn't varied enough for players to want to check enemy corpses, then fix the loot, don't add durability to "fix" the issue.

NoxObscuras posted...

Or the games could give players more incentives to pick up loot that don't revolve around needing a backup weapon in case your current weapon breaks. If the loot isn't varied enough for players to want to check enemy corpses, then fix the loot, don't add durability to "fix" the issue.

What more incentive do you need than the game saying. "Pick up these items after battles so that you will go further in the game." I also never had a backup weapon. I had like 4-5 weapons I would use depending on the situation. If someone is actually just wanting to use 1 weapon. I doubt there is much that could be done to persuade them otherwise rather than the game giving them a better one every 2 seconds. Like ME1 did.

There is nothing that will satisfy people who hated that system other than having loot be "find gun have gun". Some people don't even want to have to find ammo...

I remember in Mass Effect 1. Each gun had like 10 tiers to it and same with mods. People cried and cried because somehow managing what number was larger was too difficult. It's just the same thing different system.

projectpat72988 posted...

What more incentive do you need than the game saying. "Pick up these items after battles so that you will go further in the game." I also never had a backup weapon. I had like 4-5 weapons I would use depending on the situation. If someone is actually just wanting to use 1 weapon. I doubt there is much that could be done to persuade them otherwise rather than the game giving them a better one every 2 seconds. Like ME1 did.

Exactly. So that's why the mechanic is annoying. It's no big deal if they play the way you play and have 4-5 different weapons for different situations. But if they have 1 specific gun they want to use and they don't plan on switching, then durability doesn't add anything to the gameplay for them. Only takes away.

But all of this is moot anyway since on PC, you can just remove durability with mods. So people can experience Fallout 3 the way they want.

NoxObscuras posted...

Okay 50 square miles was an exaggeration. But my point is, I'd much prefer to have mini maps and gps when navigating maps, rather than having to figure out where I'm going based on landmarks or some other system. The games that have done it are "more immersive" but also far more tedious to navigate for me. Even in a smaller game map, it would be annoying.

Again, I'm all for including the option to turn navigation tools off, for those that want to do that. But make it optional, not a "feature"

And that's fine that's why I opened up my post by saying a GPS is fine for an toggle option off by default but designing the entire game around a GPS can enable creating lazy copy and paste environments.

A game can have much more impact when it's designed around not having a GPS or waypoint system. I've never got lost in Banjo-Kazooie, Dark Souls or Outer Wilds because the environments are unique enough where a map is unnecessary.

Not saying you shouldn't have an option for GPS but that more games should be designed to be able to play it without one.

Game makers tool kit made a great short video on this:
https://youtu.be/FzOCkXsyIqo

Durability cause shit shouldn't break so easily.

It's not always so bad though like fallout or elder scrolls it took awhile and repairing wad easy and cheap enough. And fallout being the world it is I understand most things are gonna be in poor shape from the get go.

Botw it sucked things broke quickly and no way to repair them in a game where resource gathering is big.

Dark cloud I have mixed opinions on. You got your best weapons by a form of crafting so if it broke it really sucked. You could repair them but mid dungeon that meant taking up precious inventory space for repair powders.

item durability

I only really hate fall damage when its stupid, like falling 10 feet hurts a superhuman.

Item durability is always either terrible or meaningless.

PraetorXyn posted...

I only really hate fall damage when its stupid, like falling 10 feet hurts a superhuman.

Item durability is always either terrible or meaningless.

As said I don't mind it if isn't too bad and makes sense for the setting of the game. Like fallout and I'd say tears of the kingdom made it make more sense than botw. (Shit still breaks too easy in the latter though)

I don't mind items being destroyed by game mechanics, but a metal sword just wearing out is stupid.

I dont hate item durability as much as other people ITT, I didnt even care about it in breath of the wild. But its worse than fall damage for sure

however, I dont like ammo in most games. The last thing I want to do in Skyrim is be concerned about how many arrows I have and worry whether its enough to get through the next dungeon, try and guess how many bullet sponges there are that will consume all my arrows, etc. if the game is a full fledged shooter than its fine

BewmHedshot posted...

I don't mind items being destroyed by game mechanics, but a metal sword just wearing out is stupid.

Honestly they shouldn't break but wear down maybe and just have a damage reduction till sharpened.

Guns should just start to jam up after awhile if not maintained.

If they wanna make things more realistic that's the way.

I've never enjoyed weapons breaking. It's an annoying mechanic. At best it's a neutral mechanic if done well. Most of the time it's a negative mechanic.

Even in Breath of the Wild it was obnoxious. Yes there were crap weapons everywhere you could pick up. But did I want to maintain my sword, bow, and shield? Monitoring them and opening up the menu to switch out broken gear? No. No I did not.

the amount of zoomers defending weapon durability is saddening. I want to play RE2 with just a knife! but no! I have to complete bunch of challenges and multiple playthroughs to be able to use a knife that doesn't break >_<

All you whiners have never experienced hell like Berwick Saga's durability system!

Realism in videogames is boring and annoying.

What if guns jammed? What if you could not reload while moving? what if reload times aren't always consistent? What if you dropped your mag? what if you could not do a tactical reload

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

Realism in videogames is boring and annoying.

What if guns jammed? What if you could not reload while moving? what if reload times aren't always consistent? What if you dropped your mag? what if you could not do a tactical reload

But STALKER is like my favorite FPS ever. Even better with the Misery mod.

I want a game with a flashlight that doesn't turn off after 12 seconds of use. I want a flashlight that actually shines through the darkness.

For the people complaining about BOTW: weapons breaking was a huge point of the entire combat system. There are so many tools and systems in the game they wanted you to engage with rather than just running around swinging a sword at everyone. And potentially getting caught empty handed so you had to think of some crazy shit on the fly is the whole point.

Fall damage has no place in 2d sidescrollers.

Fall damage in open world games is okay!

specialkid8 posted...

For the people complaining about BOTW: weapons breaking was a huge point of the entire combat system. There are so many tools and systems in the game they wanted you to engage with rather than just running around swinging a sword at everyone. And potentially getting caught empty handed so you had to think of some crazy shit on the fly is the whole point.

Still doesn't make the system fun, which is kind of the entire point of a video game.

BucketCat posted...

fall damage actually makes sense from a game design perspective.

item durability will never be anything more than game padding imo. i suppose it could also be a crutch for lazy design to force scarcity onto the player.

Item durability should be more like far cry 2 in that there's a percent chance it will break or malfunction. A guaranteed number of strikes before it breaks is silly.

Fall damage isn't necessary to complete the game but generally using weapons/items are

So definitely the mechanic related to what's necessary

My problem with fall damage is that I feel like it limits the ability to explore in open world games. Wanna see if you can go over there? Well you cant and now you died and now you have to respawn and walk over to where you died to collect things you dropped. It also doesnt help if janky controls cause you to fall.

Fall Damage and weapon durability both dont respect players time IMO

ThunderTrain posted...

My problem with fall damage is that I feel like it limits the ability to explore in open world games. Wanna see if you can go over there? Well you cant and now you died and now you have to respawn and walk over to where you died to collect things you dropped. It also doesnt help if janky controls cause you to fall.

Fall Damage and weapon durability both dont respect players time IMO

How is this different from any other kind of dying?

ThunderTrain posted...

My problem with fall damage is that I feel like it limits the ability to explore in open world games. Wanna see if you can go over there? Well you cant and now you died and now you have to respawn and walk over to where you died to collect things you dropped. It also doesnt help if janky controls cause you to fall.

Fall Damage and weapon durability both dont respect players time IMO

I don't think that should really count since janky controls are a result of incompetence, and not an issue with fall damage itself. Similarly, I wouldn't use Dark Souls 2 durability as an example on why item durability is bad because there was a bug that resulted in higher framerates lowering durability faster.

Otherwise, I think there should be limitations to exploration. The developers made a set of obstacles to prevent you in getting from A to B and fall damage can help you keep within those boundaries.

Difference between durability in something like Dark Souls 2 and Breath of the Wild is massive.

DS2, you center your entire build around a certain weapon, and it sucks if it breaks at an inconvenient time because you'll probably just die.

Breath of the Wild however, just throw whatever you have at them, switch to something else if it's weak just yeet it at them or run two feet pick up a different weapon, It's not really a big deal.

specialkid8 posted...

For the people complaining about BOTW: weapons breaking was a huge point of the entire combat system. There are so many tools and systems in the game they wanted you to engage with rather than just running around swinging a sword at everyone. And potentially getting caught empty handed so you had to think of some crazy shit on the fly is the whole point.

Wasn't fun though. I want combat to be combat

Where's the option for neither?

ThunderTrain posted...

My problem with fall damage is that I feel like it limits the ability to explore in open world games. Wanna see if you can go over there? Well you cant and now you died and now you have to respawn and walk over to where you died to collect things you dropped. It also doesnt help if janky controls cause you to fall.

Fall Damage and weapon durability both dont respect players time IMO

That limitation is kinda meant for you to be set on a path or trade some damage for time

You could either go down this winding bridge, or jump and skip all of that and make the health up later.

With weapon breaking, there's no way to avoid it. You must damage your weapon. It's not like you get a super attack that you only get 4 of that will break your weapon.

It's like taking "walk damage". Fall damage is the boost/shortcut/opportunity whereas weapon breaking is mandatory, you cannot avoid it.

You have to take weapon damage but you don't have to take fall damage.

Fall damage is fine.

Durability could work if there were no unique weapons, but there are always unique weapons, so in effect you can never use them.

"without fall damage there'd be no balance. Players would just farm the most OP stuff as soon as possible! People that don't want weight limits just want to cheese through the game and buy the most expensive stuff and never feel any sense of danger"

>_<

Durability, mostly because it's very rarely implemented in a way that's interesting.

durability, fall damage, weight limit, limited inventory. it's all mechanics just implemented to slow players down from leaking spoilers online too quickly.

specialkid8 posted...

For the people complaining about BOTW: weapons breaking was a huge point of the entire combat system. There are so many tools and systems in the game they wanted you to engage with rather than just running around swinging a sword at everyone. And potentially getting caught empty handed so you had to think of some crazy shit on the fly is the whole point.

It being a huge point of the gameplay doesn't make it fun. It was also a key reason why I couldn't get into the game.

people play games to escape realism. what's so fun about getting a weapon that will break after a few swings? there's nothing exciting about using any items because you're too afraid you won't have anything good for a boss fight.

also I hate stamina

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

people play games to escape realism. what's so fun about getting a weapon that will break after a few swings? there's nothing exciting about using any items because you're too afraid you won't have anything good for a boss fight.

also I hate stamina

And then when the boss fight comes, you might as well stay with what you have. I mean, you're effectively 99% of the way through a challenge run.

Item durability systems tend to be annoying at best. I do give props to Fallout: New Vegas in this area though. Performance of weapons wouldn't be hampered until they dropped below 75% durability, and armor below 50% durability; and perks like Jury Rigging could make repairs nearly a non issue. That also made it easier to fire customized ammunition which did more damage at the cost of a greater loss of durability.

I like fall damage though, it's an obstacle to consider.

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

people play games to escape realism. what's so fun about getting a weapon that will break after a few swings? there's nothing exciting about using any items because you're too afraid you won't have anything good for a boss fight.

also I hate stamina

Stamina might be the worst after item durability if it affects running. How stupid to sprint then walk then sprint then walk

Item durability is anti-fun.

ThunderTrain posted...

My problem with fall damage is that I feel like it limits the ability to explore in open world games. Wanna see if you can go over there? Well you cant and now you died and now you have to respawn and walk over to where you died to collect things you dropped. It also doesnt help if janky controls cause you to fall.

Fall Damage and weapon durability both dont respect players time IMO

I've never had a problem with fall damage. Usually if something like that happens, it's because you're trying to get to an area in a way that's not intended. Like in Xenoblade Chronicles, the only time fall damage killed me was when I was trying to cheese my way past tough enemies (like sneaking into high level areas). And most games outside of souls-likes and survival games don't cause you to lose items on death.

If janky controls cause you to fall, then your issue there is with the controls, not the fall damage.

fall damage is bad in open world games when you want to explore an area with a lot of steep hills and cliffs.

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

Fall damage has no place in 2d sidescrollers.

Prince of Persia is basically built around fall damage, so hard disagree.