So you're proposing they make it so guns just get NEARLY unusable, but still working? I mean, that sounds plausible, but whats the difference? If your gun gets to the point of it's lowest durability, then either way, it should be useless, or next to useless compared to other guns, so either way it doesn't really matter. its like arguing over eating garbage, or eating raw garbage, it svcks either way...

Also, different weapons in FO3 DO have different durabilities, though I honestly can't disagree that the differences were, in most cases, not too dramatic. I think the durability should not only depend on what kind of gun it is, but the availability of it. for instance, you find hunting rifles EVERYWHERE, so I think it's durability should fall at a normal rate, because if it gets down to 75% or so, just pick another up, and repair it real quick.

Honestly though, the realism of it is, in NV, it is what it is. In future games, I'd like to see reform, but really, I'm ok with a little bit of tedium in the game, I just wish they'd either go 100% realistic tedium, or none at all. I like how in NV, you can either consume other guns to repair, which will be perfect for those common guns, or you can use a repair kit for the rarer guns.

but whatever, honestly, I don't see it as a game breaking issue, so it seems you care more about this than I do, so I'll just leave it at this, I think something should be done to the repair system to make it more weapon-specific, and make it less of a prominent feature, but it still should be a factor in combat effectiveness, and you should have to take care of your equipment.

Well in at least old black powder weapons you had to clean the barrel out as residue would build up on the inside of the barrel which degraded the lethality of the weapon, which depending on the type of propellent used in New Vegas could be a logical way that the damage drops the lower the condition of the weapon.

In the 'case' I just mentioned repairing the weapon would be along the lines of clearing out the residue which had built up in the guns barrel, as if you didn't do that the bullets velocity would keep dropping until you end up with a bullet jammed inside the barrel due to the build up of residue and firing that could quite well prove disasterous.

No, I guess I should further explain this. Old Onley is a Deathclaw hot zone; that would always remain that. The school near Megaton is a raider hangout; that will remain that way. What I would try to scale down would be the random Super Mutant encounter I stumbled into on my way from Megaton to the Super Market. I wasn't even level 3 and I had my pistol while they had miniguns and Chinese Assault Rifles. After getting my backside handed to me 6 ways from Sunday, I reloaded and never saw that encounter again.
I could see dealing with that randomly happening at a higher level because I'd have the gear, or that happening if I was running with a low luck (Bad luck is part of the gameplay mechanics), but it should be beyond super rare and maybe more common as you start getting to level 12 or 13.

I gotta agree with Baersark. It is more a logistical issue then a tactical concern.
Ever play Mass Effect 2 or Dragon Age by BioWare? I use them in the basis of this debate because they are another type of Action RPG (Or FPS-RPG, if you will) and they're easily some of the greatest franchises of this genre. Does the lack of equipment repair detract from those games? No, it doesn't. Do you think fans of their games are upset because they don't add weapon damage and repair necessity into the game? No, they don't and for good reason. In a game where the tactics are more about utilizing cover, out-flanking your opponent and suppressing your enemy, the thing you shouldn't be worrying about is if your gun is going to snap in two and you'll need 4 more just to get it back to working condition. It's just something that does not need to happen.

then you know where to go. I'm kidding, just kidding, hehe. But really...

I think the repair system in the new Fallout is fine for the most part. think of it this way. If there was no repair system that required other guns to use for spare parts, what would be the point in finding/picking up guns past the one you've already found? I could see if there were 100's or 1000's of guns in Fallout (like say.. borderlands, or a game where weapons can have different enchantments/properties), but the fact that there aren't really that many weapons in the game means you're usually coming across the same weapons repeatedly.

I think it's great that you never come across a "useless" weapon, as even if it's in crappy condition, you can still use it to repair your own weapon. Also, yeah, you could say "just sell it", but that isn't really a USE...

I'm tired of games putting in useless weapons that you'll never use. in Fallout, every gun has a potential use. even if it's spare parts. And to contrast your references, in Diablo II (MASSIVELY popular), your weapons would have a durability, that didn't effect damage, but the drawback was, if the item broke, you couldn't use it. and if you let it fall too far into disrepair, it got REALLY expensive to repair, and you could only repair it by going to a blacksmith. (later you could use runes to repair, but meh)

So some really great games also use the repair game mechanic. Honestly, I never really put too much thought into it untill this thread. it never really bothered me all that much. The only thing that bothers me slightly about it, now that I think about it, is how fast weapons loose their durabilty, particularly harder to find, or craftable weapons. Namely, my Deathclaw gauntlet.

But selling the weapon is a use! It means you are putting the cost of that weapon towards the purchase of another. Or for ammo so you can continue to use your weapons. And with income being restricted, it becomes almost necessary to sell those weapons early on just so you can keep shooting people.

The repair system in D2 still sends shivers of anger up my spine. It was why I played an amazon, necromancer, or something else that didn't deal much with equipment wear.
Also: gold in D2 was excessively common and inventory space was horribly restricted so you HAD to go to town every 5 minutes to sell all the junk you found and repair your gear, especially after charms came into effect. And dear GODS was inventory space a nightmare when charms came into play.
This became less of an issue and more of an annoyance because you where making 600x more gold then you where losing on repair costs and you where able to fully fix your stuff at any given second. Unless it was Ethereal (and why the hell are you using a non-Zod eth item anyway?), everything always stayed at high durability because of Town Portals.
I'm not saying Fallout 3 is a bad game because of the repair system. I like Fallout 3. I am, however, saying the game would have been better without it.

Well, I think it *COULD* have been better if they had put a little more detail and thought into the repair system. but to say it'd have been better without any repair at all.. I can't agree with that. I mean, maybe. I wouldn't know, because it WAS in, but honestly, it would have been FAR too easy if the guns didn't degrade over time. can you imagine a sniper rifle like the victory rifle that NEVER had to be repaired/maintained? the only reason you'd ever have to go to town is for more ammo.. but still. I think the repair system keeps everything in check. Yes it's annoying at times, but without it, it would just be a post apocalyptic FPS. (exaggeration). just shoot shoot shoot, reload, get more ammo, shoot shoot shoot. To each their own though

Anyway, this has dragged on too long. It's not changing in NV. Maybe next game, but to keep this thread going any more would just be repetitive. All we know is, NV is going to be AMAZING!

eh, actually when your guns in Fallout 3 dropped enough they did jam, and that has affected me in combat.

I can. Easily. This is what we traditionally refer to as an 'endgame weapon' and it isn't a problem if it's kept suitably near the endgame. Honestly, it's my experience and my personal inclination as well that giving the player something awesome and then making them afraid to use it is just a terrible design decision that just deeply undermines whatever excitement they may have otherwise felt at getting something awesome.

There are serious holes in claiming that the repair system in its present state actually makes the game more difficult as opposed to simply more tedious. Even if I were to take your point at face value for a moment, though (I don't), it would seem an obvious solution to make the core gameplay more challenging, not slap a nuisance feature on top of it just to fill an arbitrary frustration quota.

Level scaling would work better if it was a probabilistic system. Like so:
There are multiple tiers of enemies. This is most easily visualized by creatures with clear hierarchies, you have baby geckos, full sized geckos, golden geckos and fire geckos. It would work for human enemies too. One class of raider mobs would have crappy raider armor and basic pistols and varmint rifles. Further up the tiers you'd see mobs with a few raiders in leather metal armor, with more powerful SMGS, magnums, and assault rifles, but the majority of the mob would still be lesser guys. Eventually you'd see mobs that have 1 or 2 raiders that are heavily armed and armored, I'm talking combat armor, riot shotguns, sniper rifles, grenade launchers, the works.

Now every area would have its own difficulty level. One place might be full of little geckos and cheap raiders. Another might be crawling with fire geckos and large raider mobs with quite a few well armed guys in them.

In addition to this base level, there will also be a player level dependent chance of encountering a stronger mob. In your little gecko, plinking raider infested area, if you're level 15 you have a 20% chance of seeing a mob of big geckos or a mob that contains some leather or metal amored raiders. At level 20 that chance increases to 30% with a 20% chance you'll find a fire gecko or combat armored raider among the mobs.

Now here's the thing, there would always be a chance of running into a strong mob, at any level, and that chance would also be dependent on location. All the level scaling would do is increase the probability, so that way if you're level 30 there is still some what of a chance you'll run into a challenging enemy in an area you'd otherwise think is safe because the enemies are too weak- but most of the time the mobs you run into WILL be the expected weak mobs.

This also means that at a low level you may run into a very powerful enemy, even in an area that is "safe" for your level. Your choices are "run away", "devise a devious scheme to defeat a disproportionately strong foe", or "take a dirtnap."


Oh, and one thing that level scaling systems should NEVER do is have monsters that level infinitely and are always 5+ levels more than your character. I'm looking at you, Oblivion's Ogres. Screw Ogres, man.



Did you ever think that maybe some people ENJOY repairing their gear, and don't find it a nuisance? It gives me great pride to keep my weapons in tip-top shape, and I think it does make the gameplay more challenging in that you actually have to pay attention to your weapons, you can't just shoot endlessly with no repercussions. You won't be afraid to use it because you'll know you can repair it later. (This was somewhat of a problem because of Fallout 3's copy repair system, but has been solved by repair kits.)

Some people also enjoy self-mutilation. I am not going to respect their opinions if they come to the Bethesda forums to tell us how much more immersive Fallout 4 would be if it shipped with a USB hunting knife to carve yourself with as the grim loneliness of the wasteland sets in. Although now that I mention it, it just might work better than this.

The fact that you think it makes gameplay more challenging is not going to change the opinion of anybody with a coherent definition of "challenging," and frankly, the fact that you take "great pride" in the condition of your imaginary rifle implies to me that you're probably forming that definition in line with a significant dose of confirmation bias. Routine maintenance isn't difficult, it's simply time-consuming. It is not a feature which tests the player's system knowledge, reflexes or judgement, only their patience, and only appears to gratify people who like to congratulate themselves for accomplishing something 'difficult' that doesn't actually involve real difficulty.

What most people didnt get with fo3 was you werent supposed to have a well repaired gun or armor most of the time. They obessed about keeping armor and guns tip top shape and wondered why it was so hard.... About the same sillyness as some people putting thier kids in white cloths and then complaining about how hard it is to keep them snow white....

I found the repair system in fo3 to be pretty fun. But I always took repair as one of my tag skills and got it to 100 as fast as possible.

I didn't say it by itself made the game difficult, it's just another strategic element, just like health, just like the hardcoe requirements for food/water/sleep, and just like ammo. None of those things are difficult, but neglecting them can ruin your day.

Finding ammo isn't difficult, it's just tedious. Losing health and dying isn't a challenge, it's just an annoyance. And so on.
Inventory management has been lambasted as being tedious too, but you know what? I like it. I like the choice offered by being able to manage my stuff, rather than have a simplistic FPS style inventory.

I also like repair because it adds another level of choice and strategy.
If I find another weapon identical to my own, I can choose either to sell it, give it to a companion, or use it to repair my own. I like that.
If I find a weaker weapon than mine that just happens to be better than my normally stronger gun because of my current gun's crappy condition, I LIKE that. It gives me a reason to use that gun for a while as a change of pace. Basically what you want just removes depth. You might consider it an annoyance, but don't get smart with me and act like YOU are the "normal" one, like you do when you equivocate gear maintenance with self mutilation. Repair is probably at the very least "neutral" to most people who play the game. You're the one with a rather irrational hate for it.

Seriously? I've never seen a more false anology.


And really, testing gamers' patience is a GOOD thing. Gamers should be patient. We shouldn't be looking for instant gratification. We shouldn't be looking for games to absolve us of responsibility.

I would actually prefer it if we could break weapons down into subassemblies. We could then keep the parts that wear out the most and save some carry weight. Who needs to carry the heaviest part, the reciever, when if that breaks, you might as well throw the weapon away.

Repairing your weapons in combat is NOT a strategy, it's a logistical nightmare. And there are the definition to prove it. Now,

No ammo conservation, health management and inventory limitations are reasonable logistics for a game. If you walked around a game immortal, spraying rounds of hot death to everything you see, then it's no fun. Being forced to take cover, return fire, and not waste your ammunition forces you to use strategy rather then just pull Terminator on everything.

Actually, he has a point. When you like to deal with an unreasonable feature of a game that causes more annoyances then pleasure because the developers where too lazy to balance things themselves, then it's much like enjoying self mutilation.


No, games are supposed to be FUN not tedious! If you want tedious then go play Desert Bus.

Yeah, he lost a lot of credibilty by taking it to that extreme. It seems to me like Baersark is the kind of person who has never lost an argument in his life, no matter how wrong or out of line he is. That is not an insult, btw. Just an observation. I agree with Protectron here. I rather enjoy having to maintain my gear. You insult us by more or less calling anyone who supports repairing a "simpleton" (I'm paraphrasing) but I think you (Baersark) are the one who needs to sit back for a second and think about just how (irrationally IMO) passionate you are being about this about this.

Repair is in the game. With a few new tweaks to make it a little better, I might add. It's in New Vegas. If you think they are going to remove features less than a month from SHIPPING the title, or in any DLC, you are greatly mistaken, to say the least.

Now, with all that said, I will just close by saying I wouldn't be opposed to them making changes to the system, but as long as keep durability, and repairing in, any changes could be improvements. I'd even support what .46ACP said and let us tear down guns and just hold on to specific parts (maybe only possible with a high enough repair skill). Maybe even let us use parts from different guns. It would take a lot of coding and memory, as you'd need to add in items for several different gun parts (particularly if was separated in to parts for each sub-class of weapon, with the exception of unique designs like revolvers and certain big guns), but the awesome would be worth the work

But again, This is not even a moot point, it's done. NV is done. This thread is, honestly, in the wrong place, and should be locked/moved to general/future Fallout titles.

I do, however, anticipate what response I get from this post. Are you going to continue arguing opinions, or can we just call this a mexican standoff, and leave it at that? because no matter the outcome, I'm done in this thread. Just let it rest. we all know how we each feel, but whats done is done. and boy, is this game ever done.

Actually I was being facetious. I was being quite amused by the turn this thread has taken. I sincerely apologize.

Nice try. In real life, weapon maintenance, provisions, etc are logistical, but in a game, they're all part of your general plan of how you play the game, or strategy. Simply put, in a game, logistics IS part of strategy. In an RTS, resource gathering is part of your strategy, although it would seem logistical in nature.
Again, I reiterate, in video games, logistics and strategy are one and the same.

The fact that weapons found in the field and bought from stores may be in varying condition, the fact that your use of these weapons degrades that condition, and your ability to improve that condition is not an unreasonable feature. The developers were not too lazy to "balance" things themselves, it's just that taking out repair and CND results in all guns of the same type being identical, which is not practical for this type of game.

And I agree- games are supposed to be fun. And instant gratification is not fun to me. AND I don't find repair tedious. Besides, I like the noise it makes when you repair things.



You forgot to use your Fuscicious color.

Yeah. I know. Everything was so serious, and like, real wordy and stuff. I get nervous around real big words and, like, forget things.

Edit: See. There I did it again.

Wrong. Just because it's a design flaw in the game does not instantly make it a strategy. It's still a logistical issue you have to deal with. Please read and comprehend the definitions.

Well, it is a GAME, they don't need to force every little thing you find to be unique little snowflakes of crap that you have to fix. It's not necessary, needed, or wanted.

And there are some people who manicure their lawn with scissors. I, personally, would just as soon turn the entire thing into a porch or gravel then deal with that.

First off, NO. It's not a design flaw, it's something that's endemic to every single game ever. Juggling what items you want to use and when in Mario Kart is not a logistical issue. It's strategy. Deciding what items you want to take with you into the viridian forest in pokemon is not logistical. It's strategy.
And like I said, RTS games. Resource gathering is half the frigging game. But you don't see them being called "Real Time Logistics and Strategy Games" do you?

Games are an abstraction of physical reality. That means semantic concepts like logistics may lose their uniqueness within that abstraction. Deal with it.

They don't need to "force" anything. Don't like it, don't play it. It's not objectively bad, you just don't like it. Again, you need to deal with the FACT that your opinions are not (facts).

Again, a false anology. I mow my lawn like everyone else. I don't obsess over it. It has no bearing on video games whatsoever.

Really, I'm trying to be nice but you and others like you are just filled with so much vitriol over this feature and you direct it to anyone who disagrees with you.
I don't mind that you don't like repair, but if it's so unbearably bad, perhaps you should just go play the older fallouts, there are actually some really cool mods in the works for them, and you will never have to worry about repairing your stuff, ever.

I have to admit, I kinda obsess over my lawn. Just a bit.

Are you my neighbor across the street? He's always mowing his lawn and blowing leaves off of it. He takes pride in his lawn looking like a finely coiffured golf course green.

Course, I always get the last laugh when the summer sun burns out patches of his lawn each year anyway.

Maybe "flaw" was the wrong choice of words here. Flaw would imply it was an unintended problem with the game. They intended for this to be a problem. So it's more of a poor design decision. Much like some of the ones you might enjoy in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBr7EhL6Jpg.

Failure to comprehend definitions is still a failure. Those ARE logistics. The strategy would be proper implementation. In Mario Kart you can grab and worthlessly hurl every item you find in the game. The using items part is the strategy. Logistics would be gathering said items.

Because that name is boring and the part that decides the outcome is the strategy. You can epically fail at the logistics, but if you micro your units well enough you might be able to pull off a victory. Conversely, there have been players in StarCraft tournaments who had maps almost locked down for victory and they still lost because they failed to implement proper strategy with their units.

And I am saying people do obsess over mundane and trivial tasks in the course of perfection. They revel in what any other person would call pointless all for meaningless bragging rights. Much like your "Games should test your patience" theory.


I do play Fallout 1, 2 and Tactics. I play them quite often. I also play Fallout 3. And because these forums are public I do have a right to point out an inherent problem with the game.

And your pointless "games are supposed to be FUN" mantra- which is meaningless unless one absolute definition of what is and isn't "FUN" can be produced, which it can't. If it could, there'd only be one sport played planet-wide since the one that is, by any and all definitions, "FUN" would have edged all the others out in popularity. There would only be one style of videogame, since there would only be one style that is "FUN."

But that's not the case- some people find A to be fun while others find A to be definitively boring, while the latter group finds B more fun than a barrel of monkeys but the former group finds B to be definitively boring. And then another group finds the barrel of monkeys boring.

The problem occurs when one group or other begins to confuse their unsubstantiated and unprovable opinion with actual verifiable fact.



Except that you've never proved anything to be "an inherent problem," only to be "something you don't like personally."

The entire debate reminds me of the Playboy interview with Beavis and Butt-head:
"We only like stuff that's cool. We don't like stuff that svcks."
"But isn't that argument somewhat circular? What's 'cool' is what you like, so you're basically saying you only like stuff you like."
"Yeah- we only like stuff that's cool."

Replace "cool" with "FUN" and you've got a summary of this entire thread.