Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

GameDesign: Repairing items in CRPGs.

ElastiZombie

Liturgist
Joined
Aug 27, 2003
Messages
142
Location
Soviet Canuckistan
theverybigslayer said:
I finished Might&Magic III-IV-V without wearing armor, the repairing was so tedious and cumbersome :o

Oh wow, I completely forgot about that until you mentioned it. It seemed like every other battle all of my characters' armor would become broken and useless. And then you would have to repair each of a half-dozen pieces of armor for each character individually. That was truly a bag of ass.
 

Stark

Liturgist
Joined
Mar 31, 2004
Messages
770
Wysardry said:
Eating and sleeping aren't particularly fun ways to pass the time either, and having it get dark at night can also be a hassle, but without those aspects (role-playing) games seem too shallow to me.

i think the issue here is whether those elements like eating add anything of value to gameplay. when balanced that with the hassle involved it's just not worth it as a feature. by the way no one complained anything about it getting dark at night.

Wysardry said:
The idea of including a blacksmith to repair weapons and armour isn't a new one, it has been done in the Elder Scrolls and Diablo games, although admittedly, in the latter repair was instantaneous.

it's in MW and Diablo as a source of money sink (a term borrowed from Exitium), and added in hope to add variety to what is fundamentally a very dull game. (someone's gonna hit me for saying this). There's a good reason why the repair is instantaneous instead of what you suggested. Quite some people here also suggested to do away with repair altogether.

Wysardry said:
If you've just arrived in town, you probably have spare weapons and armour in your inventory, so there would be no need to go completely unarmed whilst repairs are taking place.

sure, but that does not address the problem of whether this additional hassle is worth it for the realism that you're aiming for. In my opinion it's just not worth it. If I'm looking for realism in a game, I seek it in dialog of NPC (dialog goes a long way bringing out personality of the NPC) and their daily schedule, but not features like having to eat, drink, bath, goto loo, cleaning your nose, repairing weapons, etc.
 

PraetorJudis

Novice
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
30
Location
The other side of here.
Perhaps it could be optional? I'm developing a forum based RPG system and I'm going planning on allowing the admin of the site to turn item decay off and on.

I, for one, approve. I don't miss it if it's gone, but having to make certain your equipment stays in good working order can enhance the tension in a game, if handled properly. Ultima Underworld, for example, handled weapon and armor decay quite well.

I think some games allow the equipment to fall apart too quickly, but that's a matter of play balancing, I suspect.
 

Wysardry

Augur
Patron
Joined
Feb 26, 2004
Messages
283
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
I wasn't suggesting that the player has to spoon feed the character(s), or pick up an oilstone and run it up and down their sword, just that these tasks shouldn't magically take care of themselves without time, materials or money being consumed.

If the player hasn't thought to pick up enough food whilst in town, then the amount of time required to camp/rest outside should be increased due to the character(s) needing to hunt for food before they sleep.

If spending the night at an inn, food could be included in the price or the room.

Maybe I am in the minority here (it wouldn't be the first time), but I prefer having several things to keep track of rather than one or two. I'm not saying it should be necessary to examine your equipment every two minutes, but the opposite extreme (of not ever needing to check) does tend to make a game seem oversimplified to me.

As PraetorJudis mentioned, a little tension does add to the experience, and hacking away at a gargoyle with a weapon you spent six months (of game time) saving up for, should make you at least a little nervous.

It also helps to have a reason to visit towns other than selling items, because in many games walking through town is like taking part in some crazed obstacle course, where NPCs seem to go out of their way to get in yours.

I doubt we'll see many commercial games with realistic NPC conversations, as the trend is towards huge worlds with fancy graphics, which doesn't leave much memory or CPU for NPC AI. Indie developers creating smaller, more detailed worlds are our best hope in that department.
 

Spazmo

Erudite
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Messages
5,752
Location
Monkey Island
Well, that's the thing. If you spent six months slaving to get this awesome sword of face rocking, why should you have to worry about it breaking all the time? That would just lead to player favouring carrying a lot of cheap weapons that could break without any worry over breaking out the +5 shit ruiner.
 

Wysardry

Augur
Patron
Joined
Feb 26, 2004
Messages
283
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Why should an uber weapon be susceptible to wearing out and eventually breaking? To add to the challenge. Part of being a professional fighter is realising that your life literally depends upon the integrity of your weapon, and as the object of an RPG is to play the role of a character, the player should also be aware of this on some level.

The various armed forces don't make new recruits learn how to strip their weapons down and clean them for fun (well, maybe they do a little).

To encourage players to use this more expensive weapon it should obviously have an advantage over cheaper weapons, such as increased damage or durability.
 

Spazmo

Erudite
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Messages
5,752
Location
Monkey Island
It makes sense, sure, but it still is not fun at all. I find fun trumps logic in computer games. I also find that 'realistically' (dirty word, that) having to maintain your equipment and feed your character(s) is just a straight up pain in the ass. It'd just be a complete chore... and yet I'm trying to play a game.
 

Saint_Proverbius

Administrator
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2002
Messages
11,478
Location
Behind you.
Look at it this way. In D&D, you have Artifacts. In Diablo, Diablo 2, Sacred, and so on, they're called "Uniques". You also have set items that have supposedly been around for thousands of years in those games. Would it make much sense that those items eventually break down?
 

Ortchel

Liturgist
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
830
In MMOs with player driven economy it doesn't bother me. In SWG when you died without 'cloning' and insuring first, your equipment would degrade which gave incentive to clone and insure your junk (which is supposed to make death something to be feared .. it didn't). Also, when said junk became so degraded that it no longer worked effectively you had to seek out other players (artisans specifically) to buy armor/weapon/clothing repair kits from. It made those other players useful and hindered the abilities of antisocial powergamers who farm Dathomir for 48 hours straight.

In singleplayer games that aren't terribly realistic otherwise, it just doesn't make any sense. Last night I was playing Morrowind and got kind of entrenched in a dungeon. And I ended up having to duke it out with greatly inferior opponents for ages because all my weapons were degraded to the point of being mostly worthless (1-5 damage a hit).

Anyway.

If games were truly realistic I wouldn't mind this type of thing, but then I also expect to have to heal every wound manually (i.e surgery, bandaging etc) and forage for food, etc. The only game I've seen with this level of virtual realism is Deus.

http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?id=305

If a game isn't *that* realistic (or an MMO) then repairing your gear just seems pointless and time consuming.
 

Ortchel

Liturgist
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
830
I also find that 'realistically' (dirty word, that) having to maintain your equipment and feed your character(s) is just a straight up pain in the ass. It'd just be a complete chore... and yet I'm trying to play a game.

I take it you're not a big simulation fan then, Spazmo?

They are games too, some people find realism entertaining.
 

Spazmo

Erudite
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Messages
5,752
Location
Monkey Island
Excellent point. However, RPGs are not simulations. An RPG is intended to be an outlet for people's fantasies. Lots of people daydream about saving the world and fighting off evil. However, those daydreams tend to focus a lot on killing the wizard and bagging the foozle, not on making sure you maintain a balanced diet while trudging through the Great Swamp and continually patching up your boots with old parchment so that the mud won't get in and give you toe fungus. It's just not fun.

Fallout rolled all the food stuff into the outdoorsman skill. If you happened to have a water flask on you, you'd be okay. If not, the game rolled outdoorsman for you while travelling to see if you could scrounge up some water. If you failed the roll, you'd stop travelling. The game informed you that you had failed to find any water and took some damage from thirst. It was simple, it worked and it wasn't a pain in the ass. Constantly having to manually repair your weapons and feed your characters is not fun. Just about every game to include these elements proves this. Ortchel, next time you decide to disagree with me about something just for the hell of it, try to pick something I'm actually wrong about.
 

Ortchel

Liturgist
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
830
You make everything an argument. There is no right or wrong in this discussion, it's obviously only about preference.

Geez.
 

Spazmo

Erudite
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Messages
5,752
Location
Monkey Island
You're telling me repairing your gear in Arcanum was buckets of fun? And hell, what else am I supposed to express if not my personal preference? The whole point of the goddamn topic was to ask people's personal preferences on repairing equipment in RPGs. Seriously, Ortchel, you badly need that clue.
 

Ortchel

Liturgist
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
830
Did you even read my post?

I said games that don't purport realism on all fronts shouldn't have item repair, like in ARCANUM.

The whole point of the goddamn topic was to ask people's personal preferences on repairing equipment in RPGs.

Isn't that what I just said? In reply to you telling me I was 'wrong'?

We don't even DISAGREE and you argue. I'm not going to indulge you this time.
 

Wysardry

Augur
Patron
Joined
Feb 26, 2004
Messages
283
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Spazmo said:
It makes sense, sure, but it still is not fun at all.
For me, an RPG is less fun if it is less complex or detailed.

Your mileage may vary, however.
Saint_Proverbius said:
Look at it this way. In D&D, you have Artifacts. In Diablo, Diablo 2, Sacred, and so on, they're called "Uniques". You also have set items that have supposedly been around for thousands of years in those games. Would it make much sense that those items eventually break down?
It depends on the circumstances.

A weapon that wasn't actively being used wouldn't wear out or become dull, and if it was stored in the right conditions it wouldn't corrode.

If it has been used during its long existence, then previous owners maintaining it would explain why it is still in a reasonable condition.

Even if a weapon is made of very durable material, it could still be worn or damaged during combat if your opponent has a weapon, armour or hide of equally durable material. Even diamond can be chipped or cut.

It would make less sense to me if the player character had access to weapons and armour made of materials that nobody else could equal, and even if it could be explained, I would consider it to be too much of an advantage.
Ortchel said:
In singleplayer games that aren't terribly realistic otherwise, it just doesn't make any sense. Last night I was playing Morrowind and got kind of entrenched in a dungeon. And I ended up having to duke it out with greatly inferior opponents for ages because all my weapons were degraded to the point of being mostly worthless (1-5 damage a hit).
Yes, the level of realism would need to be reasonably evenly spread throught the game. It would destroy the immersion if weapon durability was closely monitored, but aspects like food consumption, the passage of time, energy levels etc. were ignored.

It seems to me as if your problem in MW was caused by the weapons wearing out too quickly and/or already being partially worn when you found them. In other words, the balance is wrong, not the feature itself.
Spazmo said:
Excellent point. However, RPGs are not simulations. An RPG is intended to be an outlet for people's fantasies. Lots of people daydream about saving the world and fighting off evil. However, those daydreams tend to focus a lot on killing the wizard and bagging the foozle, not on making sure you maintain a balanced diet while trudging through the Great Swamp and continually patching up your boots with old parchment so that the mud won't get in and give you toe fungus. It's just not fun.
For me, those aspects are part of the role-playing experience. If I wanted simplified gameplay I would (and sometimes do) play an FPS or action RPG instead.
Constantly having to manually repair your weapons and feed your characters is not fun. Just about every game to include these elements proves this.
As I mentioned earlier, item repair (and eating) doesn't have to involve the player doing anything more than making a choice about when it should be done and buying any required resources (like food), and could be included in the rest/camp options.

It doesn't have to take up more than a few seconds of the player's time, merely consume at least some of the character's time, money and/or other resources.
 

Sol Invictus

Erudite
Joined
Oct 19, 2002
Messages
9,614
Location
Pax Romana
Wysardry said:
For me, an RPG is less fun if it is less complex or detailed.

I don't see what's so incredibly complex or detailed about tedium.

It depends on the circumstances.

A weapon that wasn't actively being used wouldn't wear out or become dull, and if it was stored in the right conditions it wouldn't corrode.

If it has been used during its long existence, then previous owners maintaining it would explain why it is still in a reasonable condition.

Even if a weapon is made of very durable material, it could still be worn or damaged during combat if your opponent has a weapon, armour or hide of equally durable material. Even diamond can be chipped or cut.
It still wouldn't explain why such a weapon would become so quick to wear out or even break. I've been using the same pairing knife for 2 years and I've only had to sharpen it once in every 2 months that I've had it, and I use it on a daily basis. A sword created for cutting through flesh and bone would certainly not wear out after 15 minutes of use, no matter how constant. Axes, favored for their impact rather than the sharpness of the blade, and maces and warhammers favored for their blunt force certainly shouldn't require constant maintenance.

It would make less sense to me if the player character had access to weapons and armour made of materials that nobody else could equal, and even if it could be explained, I would consider it to be too much of an advantage.
What are you talking about? It isn't as if enemy weapons degrade over time, either. I'm sure the boss enemies (e.g. those in Baldur's Gate 2) wielded similarly powerful weapons that dealt equal damage, if not more than the ones you had.

Yes, the level of realism would need to be reasonably evenly spread throught the game. It would destroy the immersion if weapon durability was closely monitored, but aspects like food consumption, the passage of time, energy levels etc. were ignored.
Certainly, there is a place for realism - but it should be limited to a point where it does not hinder or detract from the rest of the game. I do not find it enjoyable having to walk back to town after every 10 monsters I encounter.

Food consumption, for that matter, shouldn't detract the amount of health you possess much less cause death. Instead, if you insist on its implementation (though I do not) it should be handled in an automated fashion, wherein you might stock food in your container in very small amounts for every journey you take. Having no food should only result in a slight decrease of stats or a reduction of Action Points (if it's turn based) or Stamina (if it's real time) and nothing more.

It seems to me as if your problem in MW was caused by the weapons wearing out too quickly and/or already being partially worn when you found them. In other words, the balance is wrong, not the feature itself.
It is an unnecessary feature that adds unnecessary complications that cause major imbalances to the game as a whole. The positive side of having such features implemented do not, in any way, make up for the hinderances they cause to the player. It would be one thing to sacrifice certain 'irrelevent' dialogue choices (e.g. the option to curse a lot) for a more plot-centric, 'relevent' dialogue that result in actual and immediate choices. While it would be nice to have a ton of 'irrelevent' choices in every dialogue to immerse the player, it might not be preferrable, depending on the developer's outlook. However, the same can't be said about the implementation of timesinks. The potential downsides far outweigh anything positive you could gleam from such features.

For me, those aspects are part of the role-playing experience. If I wanted simplified gameplay I would (and sometimes do) play an FPS or action RPG instead.
I still fail to comprehend the 'complexity' of timesinks. I don't understand why people always equate tedium with challenge and timesinks with complexity. There's nothing complex about forcing the player to go back to town every 5 minutes just to keep his weapons in usable condition. The player's simply going to work around the problem and use disposable and expendable cheap weaponry, concordantly, the player would end up saving a lot of time and money in the long run in doing so, because it would be a lot cheaper and a lot less time consuming to simply do this than the alternative. All this does is place an unnecessary burden on players who opt to use powerful equipment, ergo nullifying any utility they may possess when juxtaposed with the expendability of cheaper equipment.

Gameplay is capital, not realism.
 

Wysardry

Augur
Patron
Joined
Feb 26, 2004
Messages
283
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Exitium said:
I don't see what's so incredibly complex or detailed about tedium.
Not everyone considers the same actions to be tedious, and even when they do their opinions differ on how repetitive they have to be before they become tedious.

It still wouldn't explain why such a weapon would become so quick to wear out or even break. I've been using the same pairing knife for 2 years and I've only had to sharpen it once in every 2 months that I've had it, and I use it on a daily basis. A sword created for cutting through flesh and bone would certainly not wear out after 15 minutes of use, no matter how constant. Axes, favored for their impact rather than the sharpness of the blade, and maces and warhammers favored for their blunt force certainly shouldn't require constant maintenance.
As I mentioned before, if a weapon appears to wear out too quickly (bearing in mind what materials it is made of and what it has been used for), then that's a balancing or implementation problem.

Comparing the use of a modern paring knife with a medieval bladed weapon is like comparing apples with oranges. They would both be used to cut different objects and be made of different materials.

At least compare similar blades within the same time period and technology level.

If you were to buy a much cheaper paring knife, you would likely find that it required sharpening more often even though you used it in a similar fashion. If you used your existing knife to cut harder materials, you'd get a similar result.

I have a couple of screwdrivers that I've owned for years, and they still look almost new. I've also brought cheaper versions where the tip has twisted or broken on the very first use.

If the weapon in question was an iron longsword, it could easily be blunted, bent or broken in much less than 15 minutes, as iron is particularly soft. Historical reports by Roman soldiers during the invasion of Britain mentioned the Celts straightening their blades frequently after combat (the Romans wore armour, had steel shortswords and large shields).

I've also seen a couple of documentaries where people have tested the accuracy of these reports by creating replica swords, and they did indeed bend easily/quickly in use.

Gaining an extra HP or two of damage shouldn't be the only reason for upgrading to a weapon made of a better material.

Axes and blunt weapons would require less maintenance, but they would still require some. The handles were generally made of wood and/or separate from the head, so there is a chance of it fracturing or working loose. They also had leather or a similar material wrapped around the opposite end to improve the user's grip. This would wear out quicker than the head.

What are you talking about? It isn't as if enemy weapons degrade over time, either. I'm sure the boss enemies (e.g. those in Baldur's Gate 2) wielded similarly powerful weapons that dealt equal damage, if not more than the ones you had.
It wouldn't be easy to tell if enemy weapon durability was affected as unlike the player character, they usually only get involved in a single fight. The weapons dropped by enemies in many games that include a weapon durability feature are slightly worn, so some attempt is made to at least fake it.

Either way, it wouldn't preclude the material of their weapon being used as a factor in determining how much damage their weapon did to yours.

Certainly, there is a place for realism - but it should be limited to a point where it does not hinder or detract from the rest of the game. I do not find it enjoyable having to walk back to town after every 10 monsters I encounter.
Again, it's a matter of personal preference as to if/when a particular feature detracts from the game. For example, I dislike combat-intensive games, but for some people it's the only reason they play.

In the early stages of many games you have to walk back to town as frequently as every 10 monsters as your inventory is full and you need the money you'd receive from selling those items.

Later in the same games, you can afford to pick and choose what you carry, and by that point if a repair item skill is implemented it should be of a high enough level for you not to need to return to town. If there is no repair item skill for player characters, you should be able to afford a more durable weapon at that stage.

Food consumption, for that matter, shouldn't detract the amount of health you possess much less cause death. Instead, if you insist on its implementation (though I do not) it should be handled in an automated fashion, wherein you might stock food in your container in very small amounts for every journey you take. Having no food should only result in a slight decrease of stats or a reduction of Action Points (if it's turn based) or Stamina (if it's real time) and nothing more.
If the player character doesn't eat for six months (of game time), they shouldn't even be breathing, let alone at full health.

Most games that include food do allow you to carry enough food to last a set number of days, without using up your main inventory space, and also automatically consume that food during resting/camping and/or fast travel.

In some of them, resting without consuming food means that it takes longer to return to full health.

It is an unnecessary feature that adds unnecessary complications that cause major imbalances to the game as a whole. The positive side of having such features implemented do not, in any way, make up for the hinderances they cause to the player. It would be one thing to sacrifice certain 'irrelevent' dialogue choices (e.g. the option to curse a lot) for a more plot-centric, 'relevent' dialogue that result in actual and immediate choices. While it would be nice to have a ton of 'irrelevent' choices in every dialogue to immerse the player, it might not be preferrable, depending on the developer's outlook. However, the same can't be said about the implementation of timesinks. The potential downsides far outweigh anything positive you could gleam from such features.
Just because there are poor implementations of a certain feature, it does not necessarily follow that the feature is always going to be poor or unnecessary. Personal perference, as ever, is also a factor.

As you mentioned yourself, NPCs are a perfect example of this. In many games, most of the characters have nothing useful to contribute and generally get in the way when you're trying to move around towns. Removing all NPCs or only including the few that have something useful to say would not be a popular move.

Whether item repair is a timesink depends on your point of view. It could also be perceived as contributing to the reward system and to the level of immersion.

Okay, so it's more like a stick than a carrot for low level characters, but the same is true of most skills.

I still fail to comprehend the 'complexity' of timesinks. I don't understand why people always equate tedium with challenge and timesinks with complexity. There's nothing complex about forcing the player to go back to town every 5 minutes just to keep his weapons in usable condition. The player's simply going to work around the problem and use disposable and expendable cheap weaponry, concordantly, the player would end up saving a lot of time and money in the long run in doing so, because it would be a lot cheaper and a lot less time consuming to simply do this than the alternative. All this does is place an unnecessary burden on players who opt to use powerful equipment, ergo nullifying any utility they may possess when juxtaposed with the expendability of cheaper equipment.
People like to make decisions that affect the way they experience the game in some way. Having more decisions to make increases the complexity, particularly if several factors are involved.

The decisions could include "Do I repair my weapon today, or gamble that I'll find something better tomorrow?", "Am I likely to meet something tough enough to break my weapon before I upgrade it at the next town?", "Is it worth buying this new weapon for its increased durability, even though it doesn't do any more damage than the one I have?" and "Can I spare the time it would take to repair this, or will I miss my appointment tomorrow?".

If a player "works around the problem", then they have made a conscious decision to do so, and may well get a sense of satisfaction from "bucking the system". If a player decides that it's cheaper and/or easier to carry several less expensive weapons instead of one expensive one, that doesn't necessarily mean the system has failed, it just means that the player has weighed up the pros and cons and made a decision, which in itself is fun for some people.

The real world isn't 100% balanced. Sometimes buying one item costing twice as much as a cheaper version will last twice as long, but that doesn't always hold true, particularly as the cost increases.

Sometimes it will be cheaper to repair, sometimes to upgrade, and sometimes to just use what you find and throw it away afterwards. It's all a matter of personal priorities which is the "best" option.

Gameplay is capital, not realism.
It depends what you mean by "gameplay", but removing an aspect I like from a game would make me enjoy it less, even if it made you enjoy it more.

If you were to ask 100 CRPG players which features they most dislike about the CRPGs they have played, you would likely get very different answers.

If you removed all those features from a CRPG you were making, I doubt it would more popular... if it still resembled a CRPG at all that is.

It would make more sense to me to ask how to increase the flexibility and/or configuration of each feature than remove them completely.

If you wrote down every feature of every CRPG ever made, closed your eyes and stuck a pin in the list, then went to a reasonably popular forum and asked "Do you hate this feature?", somebody would eventually respond with "Yes". ;)
 

RGE

Liturgist
Joined
Jul 18, 2004
Messages
773
Location
Karlstad, Sweden
Exitium said:
For me, those aspects are part of the role-playing experience. If I wanted simplified gameplay I would (and sometimes do) play an FPS or action RPG instead.
I still fail to comprehend the 'complexity' of timesinks. I don't understand why people always equate tedium with challenge and timesinks with complexity. There's nothing complex about forcing the player to go back to town every 5 minutes just to keep his weapons in usable condition. The player's simply going to work around the problem and use disposable and expendable cheap weaponry, concordantly, the player would end up saving a lot of time and money in the long run in doing so, because it would be a lot cheaper and a lot less time consuming to simply do this than the alternative. All this does is place an unnecessary burden on players who opt to use powerful equipment, ergo nullifying any utility they may possess when juxtaposed with the expendability of cheaper equipment.

The timesink in itself might not be complex, but having to keep track and work around one more simple thing is going to make the game that much more complex. Right?

Also, you forgot to say "vis-à-vis". :lol:

Gameplay is capital, not realism.

I doubt you'll find many who disagree with this, but some people think realism adds to the gameplay. Or rather, pretty much everyone want as good gameplay as possible, but the level of realism is a matter of taste. So it's not really a matter of having one or the other, it's a matter of finding the preferred balance for the latter. Or so it would seem to me anyway.
 

Sol Invictus

Erudite
Joined
Oct 19, 2002
Messages
9,614
Location
Pax Romana
The timesink in itself might not be complex, but having to keep track and work around one more simple thing is going to make the game that much more complex. Right?
I feel obliged to reiterate my point that tedium does not make a good substitute for true complexity. Having to repair half a dozen items is really no different than being on a strict regiment of half a dozen medications and having to take each of them at several set periods of time. The result of such implementations in games are certainly horrendous.

Realism should never detract from the fun factor. The last sentence in particular was directed to those who would suggest for one (head)shot kills in turn-based games. Just try and imagine how bad the snipers in JA2 would have been had this been the case. Hold on! You don't have to imagine - just grab Wildfire and experience 'realism' for yourself.
 

Ortchel

Liturgist
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
830
Wysardry is hands down the most competent individual on this forum .. and my new best friend.

Good post!
 

RGE

Liturgist
Joined
Jul 18, 2004
Messages
773
Location
Karlstad, Sweden
While I don't much enjoy repairing equipment that degrades all the time, I still think Wysardry made a very good post up there. :)

Exitium said:
I feel obliged to reiterate my point that tedium does not make a good substitute for true complexity.

So now it's "good subsitute" for "true" complexity? When previously you couldn't see any complexity at all in timesinks? Well, I guess that change is an improvement of your 'reiterated' point. I agree that tedium is not fun, so the goal behind such a feature might be add to the complexity of the game by forcing the player to take steps to avoid the tedium. Or allow players to suffer the tedium as punishment for not boosting certain attributes that would make it less of a tedium, such as strength in regard to inventory and carrying ability. (That's usually the case in NWN, where weapons don't have durability.)

Realism should never detract from the fun factor.

No one wants realism to detract from their fun factor. But evidently some people want realism to add to their fun factor. It's like a condiment to food. Everyone want their food to taste great, but if you use a certain amount of a certain condiment some people might think the food tastes worse than before. But surely you want some realism in your CRPGs?
 

Sol Invictus

Erudite
Joined
Oct 19, 2002
Messages
9,614
Location
Pax Romana
So now it's "good subsitute" for "true" complexity? When previously you couldn't see any complexity at all in timesinks? Well, I guess that change is an improvement of your 'reiterated' point.
Can you really tell the difference? I am merely paraphrasing with a hint of snide in my accent. What is said is comparable to saying 'voodoo is not a good substitute for heart transplant surgery'.
 

Stark

Liturgist
Joined
Mar 31, 2004
Messages
770
It seems it ultimately boils down to what one enjoys in a game. Given Wysardry's repeated statement that repairing item is what he enjoys, (it adds an element of realism) one really can't argue what he prefers, right?

People like to make decisions that affect the way they experience the game in some way. Having more decisions to make increases the complexity, particularly if several factors are involved.

The decisions could include "Do I repair my weapon today, or gamble that I'll find something better tomorrow?", "Am I likely to meet something tough enough to break my weapon before I upgrade it at the next town?", "Is it worth buying this new weapon for its increased durability, even though it doesn't do any more damage than the one I have?" and "Can I spare the time it would take to repair this, or will I miss my appointment tomorrow?".

sounds like a mmorpg to me. I don't recall any single player game where spending time for weapon repair would actually cause me to miss an appointment. (I assume appointment with RL friends wanting to group with you on a mission?)

I personally find all those decisions cited above are not much fun by themselves, and do not add any real complexity to the game. Those decisions are pretty much no brainer (for me) most of the time.

"Do I repair my weapon today, or gamble that I'll find something better tomorrow?", "Am I likely to meet something tough enough to break my weapon before I upgrade it at the next town?"

It mostly boils down to "Do I have enough $$$ to spare for another repair? If so, go ahead".

Assuming the game gives you more than sufficient cash to spend. in that case, repairing is just an added annoyance and hardly a tough decision to make.

If, on the other hand, the game is such that I'm dirt poor all the time and need to actually consider carefully before repairing, then the game mechanics is encouraging me to horde alot of cheap weapons as back up (in case my primary weapon breaks down). That type of game mechanic, I think, sucks.

a case in point: I need to keep at least 2 weapons with me anytime in MW simply for fear of weapon breaking down prematurely, and need to cut short some of my trips, go back to town/city for repair. Imagine the tedium of having to walk back and forth all that wide areas multiple times. I'm already at the stage of not needing to lug loot back for sale, having more than sufficient cash, yet I'm still forced to repeat this process. All thanks to weapon repair.

"Can I spare the time it would take to repair this, or will I miss my appointment tomorrow?".

If spending time to repair will cause me to miss a timed mission (now I assume that's what you're referring to), I'll be dumb to miss that mission simply because my weapon is held up in the smithy being repaired. (a no brainer decision. why would i lose oppurtunity trading game missions/experience/rewards for tedium of spending time doing nothing while waiting for my repair?) If my weapon broke during this mission be rest assured, however, that I'll get really annoyed.

So the type of decisions that a repair weapon feature adds to the game is neither very deep nor complex (well at least for me).
 

Saint_Proverbius

Administrator
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2002
Messages
11,478
Location
Behind you.
Wysardry said:
Saint_Proverbius said:
Look at it this way. In D&D, you have Artifacts. In Diablo, Diablo 2, Sacred, and so on, they're called "Uniques". You also have set items that have supposedly been around for thousands of years in those games. Would it make much sense that those items eventually break down?
It depends on the circumstances.

A weapon that wasn't actively being used wouldn't wear out or become dull, and if it was stored in the right conditions it wouldn't corrode.

If it has been used during its long existence, then previous owners maintaining it would explain why it is still in a reasonable condition.

In D&D, artifacts had to be purposefully destroyed, and it was very hard to do so. It actually involved planar travelling to some nasty place and dumping it in some magical hellish fire pit. This was in First Edition AD&D, so it might have changed, though.

In Diablo, uniques never degraded. In Diablo 2, they did - even though it takes a hellforge to destroy a soulstone. I never quite understoof that, but that's the circumstances of those three games.

The problem I have with it is that not everyone is going to be as good at maintaining things as others, and who the hell is going to be competent enough to repair a four millenia old magic relic that no one can even make anymore?

Even if a weapon is made of very durable material, it could still be worn or damaged during combat if your opponent has a weapon, armour or hide of equally durable material. Even diamond can be chipped or cut.

Well, if it were that easy, there wouldn't be artifacts or uniques. I can halfway see this happenning to normal items, but if the items are imbued with super magical properties, why couldn't one of them be that they never need repair? If you can magically make swords that do more damage when they hit and hit better than most swords, why couldn't you just as easily make it so that sword didn't get damaged in a fight? Why would you want a better sword that could dish it out and not take the damage it gets from the fight?

It's magic, after all, the ultimate excuse for making things easier on the player in most fantasy settings.

For me, an RPG is less fun if it is less complex or detailed.

I just really hate having to deal with repairing stuff, eating, and so forth. Sure, it's detail, but I find it tedious and pointless detail. I don't want to be the 50th level Dragonslayer of Death andDdestruction, and still have to worry about having a sandwich in the Underhalls of Urkuhath and then sharpenning my +23 Lance of Scary Dismemberment while it digests so I don't get cramps while swimming through yonder Pool of Virtuous Splendor.

To me, there are better places to put the detail in the game than to force fixing armor and weapons and making me eat/carry food or something. I'd rather see that detail come out in the dialogue options or the combat engine or the sneaking skill or the character system or ANYTHING else other than micromanagement. Well, that's not true.. I could do without custom made lightsaber hilts, too, but the point is I'd rather have more game play options than forced management game play.
 

suibhne

Erudite
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
1,951
Location
Chicago
Ortchel said:
I take it you're not a big simulation fan then, Spazmo?

They are games too, some people find realism entertaining.

Do you really find SimCity or The Sims or Roller Coaster Tycoon to be realistic?

Wow. I mean, just, wow.

Those games are all fundamentally unrealistic; the question is degrees of realism, by which I think most people mean degrees of analogy to real life. A game like Roller Coaster Tycoon is totally unrealistic, but it is a brilliantly-coherent symbolic system which fairly analogizes recognizable real-world processes. (You seem to regard this as "realism," and you're certainly not alone. I'm not criticizing your semantic choice, but it does need to be exposed for us to have a productive discussion.) Few if any RPGs are set in "the real world," but RPGs still analogize recognizable real-world processes. Since they're analogizing the activity of human living, though, rather than a theme-park economy or urban planning or railroad expansion, their omissions are more obvious to us (since most of us aren't actually urban planners): we immediately see that our characters don't need to eat, that they don't excrete for months on end, that their items don't degrade through use, etc.

It's a mistake to conceptualize this in terms of "realism." The point isn't that immortal weapons are unrealistic, because nobody sheds any tears over their characters' ferocious lack of bowel activity; the point is that you like repairing weapons, you find it enjoyable, and you want it in the games you play. It's player preference and nothing more. And it works nicely in some game systems and really poorly in others.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom