Starkrun: i like how Diablo 3 does it... you fight like hell and it slowly, super very slowly goes down... if you die is significantly drops in durability...

repair costs are low, and its pretty easy to just hit the blacksmith in town. Oblivion had a similar durability concept and i was ok with that too.. overtime it gets low and you can fix it yourself with a repair skill, a blacksmith can do a better job though unless your a master at it.

Telika: Okay. Wasn't 100% what the title was about talking about.

I like my weapon's durability to be a non-factor. I find it a very artificial gameplay element, that feels pretty odd in the timescale of a videogame's story. It also cancels the very point of using non-ammo-based weapons (it makes them indeed non-rechargeabble limited shots weapons). And, well, it shatters immersion along with the weapon.

I've tortuously rationalized the silly durability of System Shock 2's space weapons in weirdly contaminated artificial space station atmosphere. But damn, Zomboid !

Randalator: My hatred for item durability in games burns hotter than a thousand suns.

Darvond: What's the worst you encountered, then?

Darvond: System Shock 2 makes sense. You're just a runner in a very hostile environment. It isn't like Shodan would allow you to repair things.

Darvond: But how do you prefer your durability?

tinyE: Durability is the reason that while most people gave System Shock 2 a 'Thumbs Up', I gave it 'The Finger'.

Darvond: This is a bit of a hot topic as a highly discussed game has breakable weapons that last about 3 swings before crumbling into dust. This a durability system I don't like.

The sort of durability I prefer is more along the lines of a 3 phase system.

Normal: This means your weapon is functioning normally and any special effects or statuses associated with it are granted. Repairs cheap.

Damaged: The weapon has become cracked, damaged, or otherwise impaired. Magic effects, stats granted, and such are no longer granted. Repairs inexpensive but increasing as it heads towards the final phase. (Yes, just like Diablo.)

Broken: The weapon at some major point has broken, and needs to be reforged with new material or scrapped for materials. Expensive and time-consuming, but you shouldn't have let the weapon get to this state.

I realize the system I just described is more hypothetical than anything, and actually I prefer not having to deal with durability at all. Rather, i'd rather have a system where weapons are situational, and trying to stab a lizard man to death with a wooden club simply won't work.

See, the popular game has durability akin to ammo, except there's no way to "reload" a weapon, so instead it is expected that you dispose of them, and never get attached to something like a warhammer you killed 400 elves with and named in Dwarf Fortress.

But how do you prefer your durability?

Breja: I prefer the game don't waste my time with that at all. Just like with crafting, I find doing maintenance of my inventory to be tedious busywork.

tinyE: I gave it 'The Finger'.

misteryo: I don't like durability in games. Unless it's a roguelike. Then it's ok, just like hunger. Hunger has no place except in roguelikes.

Because roguelikes are designed to piss you off, test your patience, and kill you a lot. Other games should not do that to you.