Different manufacturers and quality of cyberware is fine and good, but degradation of any kind is bad and totally unrealistic , it is not fun mechanic it is not good mechanic.
Gear quality varying depending on where it was bought would be fine. As would various upgrades coming with problems if purchased from a shady source.
In terms of general, gear-wide deterioration.... The problem I have with those systems is they don't really add to the game play. Yes, it's more realistic to need to clean firearms or fix up gear as it takes punishment. I still don't feel like it adds anything to the game play itself. It could just as easily not be in a game and the experience wouldn't feel any worse. It's almost never done in a realistic way either (as other posters pointed out).
Of course, there are exceptions. When resources are limited the few items you do have falling apart can further the sense of barely scraping by to survive. It amplifies the desire to search every nook and cranny to find anything and everything. It makes you question whether spending a few bullets on an enemy here or there is worth the cost. Good examples of this would be games with survival elements.
I don't think that fits the setting of the game. Surviving the troubles of the world certainly fits the theme. I think that is more a result of threats being commonplace. Not because bullets, weapons or cyberware are rare. There are better ways to create this feeling in the given game setting.
If it were used as it's commonly portrayed in games and movies it would break down quite quickly
. I'd agree this wouldn't apply if the weapon were used properly though.
In terms of general, gear-wide deterioration.... The problem I have with those systems is they don't really add to the game play. Yes, it's more realistic to need to clean firearms or fix up gear as it takes punishment. I still don't feel like it adds anything to the game play itself. It could just as easily not be in a game and the experience wouldn't feel any worse. It's almost never done in a realistic way either (as other posters pointed out).
Of course, there are exceptions. When resources are limited the few items you do have falling apart can further the sense of barely scraping by to survive. It amplifies the desire to search every nook and cranny to find anything and everything. It makes you question whether spending a few bullets on an enemy here or there is worth the cost. Good examples of this would be games with survival elements.
I don't think that fits the setting of the game. Surviving the troubles of the world certainly fits the theme. I think that is more a result of threats being commonplace. Not because bullets, weapons or cyberware are rare. There are better ways to create this feeling in the given game setting.
If it were used as it's commonly portrayed in games and movies it would break down quite quickly
. I'd agree this wouldn't apply if the weapon were used properly though.
1.) With differing price / manufacturer / quality, I'd rather it not be a better-or-worse thing, but rather that all cyberware offers a particular tweak / perk based on the manufacturer. So, while all "cybernetic eyes" might offer zoom / targeting:
2.) I think degradation would get tiresome pretty quickly. That would be okay for a sandbox, but such things can be kind of intrusive and awkward for the pacing of a narrative experience. I wouldn't mind seeing something like critical hits causing damage to cyberware that needs to be repaired, or something like that.
- a military one might steady your aim a bit
- a medical one might allow you to better guage an enemy's weak spots
- a high-tech one might highlight tech terminals or "hidden switches" for you
- a social one might automatically display extra personal data based on facial recognition that you can use in dialogue
- a defensive one might indicate threats in the area, highlight the most dangerous enemy, etc.
2.) I think degradation would get tiresome pretty quickly. That would be okay for a sandbox, but such things can be kind of intrusive and awkward for the pacing of a narrative experience. I wouldn't mind seeing something like critical hits causing damage to cyberware that needs to be repaired, or something like that.
What's unrealistic about maintaining your equipment? What's unrealistic about different manufacturers/vendors selling shoddier or higher quality equipment? I just bought my hamster a new wheel the other day, because the other one was a piece of crap that required constant glue and tape to function. The new one is silent, stable, bigger, and more comfortable on his feet. I imagine even more complex things like cyberware and firearms would be similar.
I don't want "LEGENDARY, EPIC, COMMON" tiers or anything. I've proposed an alternate system before, and it would be an alternative to a levelling system. Have a Skyrim-like quality system, ranging from Ramshackle to Street to LE (Law Enforcement grade) to Corporate to Military. Lower-quality gear could fail, jam, or break at a higher rate than high quality gear.
Last edited:
Even in last year demo weapon have Epic label, so that's already is in game.
In games equipment detroit to fast it is not realistic or fun or interesting mechanic, sure you need to maintain your gun or equipment in real life, but not every 10 minutes like you must in games.
Sadly, yes.
Yeah, I wouldn't want it to happen every 10 minutes. Every few hours of playtime would be enough, depending on how often you use your stuff. I just think it makes no sense for equipment -- which will be taking bullets, melee attacks, etc. -- to not degrade over time through use.
Let me put it this way: degradation has 3 common occurences:
Story-related: you saw it in DX: HR. The gameply demo alluded to something like this, you had to get upgrades for a higher-level mission. This can be an acceptable way if it's not used to bar you from areas.
In-game event based: critical hits or EMP damages your chrome and needs replacement. This might also be acceptable unless you have to run back to the chrome alley after every fight
Built-in: in Fallout it's reasonable that everything falls apart, after centuries of radiation that's well acceptable that you need frequent repairs. Here it wouldn't fit the theme.
Story-related: you saw it in DX: HR. The gameply demo alluded to something like this, you had to get upgrades for a higher-level mission. This can be an acceptable way if it's not used to bar you from areas.
In-game event based: critical hits or EMP damages your chrome and needs replacement. This might also be acceptable unless you have to run back to the chrome alley after every fight
Built-in: in Fallout it's reasonable that everything falls apart, after centuries of radiation that's well acceptable that you need frequent repairs. Here it wouldn't fit the theme.
I had no issues with the repair system in Witcher 3 and that MOSTLY because I carried a minimum of 4 swords and I would come across plenty repair items during my lootings. So it didnt feel like a chore to me.
But also, I saw no point in having the feature. I'd just repair when I want to instead of when I needed to. Even In RDR2, if the gun shoots, than good. Even if the weapon has deteriorated, the gun is still operational - get them head shots.
I feel it's a feature that exists for the sake of biting into a bit of realism, but it doesnt quite do anything for the experience other than agitate players or do nothing at all.
So Developers, take that [...] out your games. Its [...] a novelty feature - let it go.
[Edited -- SigilFey]
But also, I saw no point in having the feature. I'd just repair when I want to instead of when I needed to. Even In RDR2, if the gun shoots, than good. Even if the weapon has deteriorated, the gun is still operational - get them head shots.
I feel it's a feature that exists for the sake of biting into a bit of realism, but it doesnt quite do anything for the experience other than agitate players or do nothing at all.
So Developers, take that [...] out your games. Its [...] a novelty feature - let it go.
[Edited -- SigilFey]
Last edited by a moderator:
Also, the primary issues I take with devs incorporating too much realism is that it takes away the escapism people enjoy experiencing in video games.
No matter how realistic they approach their game(s), every dev should know that, in the end, the game has to be fun. Realism is fantastic on the surface, but it should not affect game play to a point where the player is incapable of reloading a revolver under 4 seconds because, realistically, no one can move that fast. Make the surface details realistic, but make the gameplay fun. It's not necessary for my character to find food every 10 minutes to fill stamina. Just stop at that point. Hehehe.
No matter how realistic they approach their game(s), every dev should know that, in the end, the game has to be fun. Realism is fantastic on the surface, but it should not affect game play to a point where the player is incapable of reloading a revolver under 4 seconds because, realistically, no one can move that fast. Make the surface details realistic, but make the gameplay fun. It's not necessary for my character to find food every 10 minutes to fill stamina. Just stop at that point. Hehehe.
Maintenance sure. But I put that right with visiting the bathroom or in most games eating. Something that's just assumed in the background. Because in most cases you need little more then an inexpensive cleaning kit, a small bottle of lube, and 10-15 minutes.
As to quality, that's also EZ, cheap weapons have slightly lower stats (accuracy, range, damage, ROF, whatever) no need for constant repairs. You get what you pay for!
The problem is every game I've ever played that had maintenance it was nothing more then a repetitive, boring, time and money sink. Do a handful of fights and your weapons fall apart. If you're lucky the game allows field repairs (how I have no clue; a repair hammer or junk weapon A to "fix" weapon B ... yeah, sure ...) if not it's back to town. Yay for traversing the same ground over-and-over.
Different qualities and prices, absolutely.
I, too, loathe item degradation. It never adds anything except pointless hassle, and it can be a huge pain if for some reason an item, especially a weapon, degrades to the point where it's little more than a toy (practically useless in combat or other situations). I tolerate degradation mechanics if they're in a game by default (looking at you, Witcher 3), but I will never like or want them.
I, too, loathe item degradation. It never adds anything except pointless hassle, and it can be a huge pain if for some reason an item, especially a weapon, degrades to the point where it's little more than a toy (practically useless in combat or other situations). I tolerate degradation mechanics if they're in a game by default (looking at you, Witcher 3), but I will never like or want them.
We will have to agree to disagree, I suppose. I'm one of those crazy bastards that enjoyed Red Dead Redemption 2 -- in all aspects.
Post automatically merged:
A few weeks, maybe? It cracked at one part and it caused the wheel to spin as if it was an oval, which was very disorienting for him.
Last edited: