By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
irstupid said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Wasn't the argument of Wyrdness that you could leave battle whenever you want in Breath of the Wild? ....  WHAT 

LMAO

Welp, guess he's wrong. I was taking his word for it because I haven't played in a while. So much for that point haha. 

By the way, my point really isn't dependent on whether someone dies or not. In fact since you haven't said a single point in favor of weapon durability (your entire contribution has basically been to call me a whiner and stupid) then I would say this has been a pretty pointless endeavor on your part. 

Wasn't trying to argue for weapon durability. All I was pointing out to you was that the game is not broken for putting you in an impossible to win situation in an open world game. I wouldn't be surprised if you are the guy I saw complaining in the Xenoblade 2 game about level 90+ enemies in the first starting area.

As you keep ignoring RE2 and its limited ammo. If you run guns a blazing in that game, you will run into impossible boss fights cause you won't have enough ammo to kill boss. Same with this game. Irregardless if you like the durability or not, the system exists. THUS you need to keep that in mind. If you come upon an enemy that appears to be tough, you better be equipped. Nice thing about this game, you can stock up and come back. In RE2, you may have screwed your whole game. 

So then why are you even arguing? You aren't arguing for weapon durability, you're just saying I did something wrong. I know that, what I'm saying is that the standard for what was "wrong" shouldn't carry over to the next game. This is why I'm frustrated with you and Wyrdness, at this point you guys aren't even discussing whether durability should make a comeback in the next game or not. That's the only thing I've been discussing this entire time. You're just saying I did something wrong. Yes, I know that by the standards of the game I did. I am criticizing the standards.

I didn't ignore RE2, it just isn't a good comparison. Why? Because I wasn't running in swords blazing in that point in the game. In that point in the game, I had stalked up on so many weapons that my entire inventory was either full or nearly full. I had a decent amount of arrows too. But guess what? They weren't enough for the boss. Now, I'll admit I may have had one or two weapons that flat out sucked. Not gonna deny that especially because it's been so long since that happened. But I remember very specifically having many weapons which were high level for that portion of the game. 

The reason why the comparison to RE2 doesn't make sense is because the standards for both games are not the same. One scenario is poor resource management, the other is having all the resources in the world but they don't account for much because of durability. Do you see why that comparison is flawed? Hypothetically, if you had the maximum amount of bullets you could carry in RE2, and that still wasn't enough to beat a boss, I'm pretty sure most people would be pissed at the game and would say that the health of enemies is too overblown. Well, that's basically what happened in BOTW, but because people are such a fan of the game the weapon durability mechanic goes by totally excused. 

Also, I was writing something to Wyrdness about the RE2 comparison and I've already written on the comparison many times, so I don't know how I'm ignoring it. It's just not a good comparison. I'm not going to argue against multiple people at once, so the more you waste time calling me a whiner the less I'm going to respond to him.