By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
AngryLittleAlchemist on 28 January 2019
Edit Thread

 

irstupid said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

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.  

Unless you were on Master Mode, you had weak weapons. One average Claymore can probably take down that guardian. 

At that point in the game you probably thought that flame sword was top tier. That flame sword is not even worth picking up. It doesn't matter if RE2 has limited resources for the whole game, or not. Point remains. In RE2 you can run into situations where you came ill-prepared. THat is what happened in BotW. You entered ill-prepared. Do you want the game to run a test before you enter and a pop up goin "you don't have good enough weapons to beat this shrine" 

Durability is fine and I hope it stays. I wouldn't mind if they increased teh durability to say double, but it brings versatility, and makes you try new things in and out of battle. Ignoring fights, trying to kill without using weapons. Sneaking. comboing weaposn together, ect. If the weapons never broke, the game would be insanely boring imo. People would just go run to a linux, lightning arrow them to have them drop their weapon and then bam, they have some 112 power club to go and kill everything easy peezy. Why use other weapons, the weapon would own. Grab an ice spear and use that non-stop and game broken. Or use ice wand, freeze group of enemies and hurricane in with overpowered lynal club.

I feel like by now my own answers are being used against me Like when I explained why I didn't know the Test of Strength was the hardest combat shrine and that was called "whining". But ehh ... I don't think you mean it maliciously right now To answer your question: While the flame sword was one of the better weapons, I did not really rely on it that much, as I had a couple of other weapons that outranked it. I only mentioned it because someone (I think you? Can't remember) asked if I followed a path to a treasure chest. And that was the quest I remember doing early on in the game that was similar to what said person described. That might not be the quest they were talking about though because I think that quest begins at the Dueling Peak Stable. 

An average Claymore can take down the highest level combat guardian ... or are we still arguing as if I was going up against a modest? Let me just put as a reminder I'm talking about a Test of Strength. I don't think "one" Traveler's or a Soldier's Claymore could take out a Test of Strength guardian. Maybe I'll check that out when I eventually restart the game. 

Well I actually was going to mention that, I already have a comment typed out for Wyrdness on this example. While I agree both scenarios can be basically summarized as a lack of "preparation", it is the specifics I have a problem with. Especially because Wyrdness kept specifying the point about resource management. The scenario in BOTW is not really an example of bad resource management, it is an example of bad resources. However yes both can very be attributed to a lack of preparation and that I will admit - my point is that I prefer preparation in action adventure games to be based on your skill level, more so than a durability mechanic. That might just be where we differ and that's fine. 

To some extent I don't know which camp I fall in more : no durability or just more durability. I think I would say for now the first option, but I'm open to the second.