Actually, combat was mostly pretty pointless in other games. I wouldn't call it boring, but it was never anywhere nearly as engaging as it is in Breath of the Wild, and that added strategy element is part of it.

I'm not saying it should be beyond criticism because it's a design choice. Design choices can be good or bad, and if they're bad they should get criticised. The weapon system, however, is a good design choice that works very well within the game's rules and ideas. It's objectively a big part of what makes the combat in the game actually good, interesting, difficult, and rewarding.

It's inevitable for it to annoy a lot of people, because people don't like losing power. However, that is a subjective point of view, not an objective look at the game design. Saying you don't like Breath of the Wild because of the weapon durability is fine, but saying the weapon durability is a flaw in the game is simply wrong.

This is complete nonsense. Saying that weapon durability cannot be a flaw in the game requires believing that this part of the game is designed as well as it possibly could be and cannot be improved upon in any way. This is of course, total horse shit.

Here's the crux of the issue you're having: You believe the weapon degredation mechanic works well within the games rules and ideas. You believe it is a big part of what makes the combat in the game actually good, interesting, difficult, and rewarding. This is not a factual statement. That is your opinion. No matter how objectiive you declare it to be so, all you're doing is passing off your subjective opinion as objective fact, and it's fallacious to do so.

A flaw is something broken durability is not broken in BOTW, someone may not like a mechanic but that doesn't make it a flaw.

In your opinion, it's not broken. In my opinion it is. See that's the things about subjective opinions regarding game design. The greatness of game design isn't an objective thing, and is typically determined by the amount of joy that is obtained because of that design, which is as subjective as it gets.

Let's take Trico's AI in The Last Guardian for example. Trico will misinterpret what you have to say and will make mistakes, and sometimes not listen to your orders or ignore it all together. It is apprently designed that way, and as the game goes on and your supposed "bond" with Trico increases, he listens to the user more and more, but then will still totally ignore you on occasion, or do the opposite of what you ordered. It reaches a point where you actually do not know if Trico's AI is buggy, or if the game's designers programmed to work that way and it's working exactly as intended. Some people say the AI for Trico is flawed, broken etc. because what kind of AI doesn't actually do what you ask it to do? Others say that the AI for Trico is some of the most realistic and thought provoking they've ever seen in a video game, and the fact that Trico was frustrating them the same way their household pets would was adding to their experience. Who is right? Both of them, of course. It's subjective.

But I dare you to find me a review for the Last Guardian that give that game a "not great" score that doesn't mention Trico's AI as a detractor, even though it might be working exactly as it was designed. Just because it was designed a certain way, and just because it's working exactly as it was designed doesn't mean it makes the game objectively better. It doesn't mean it makes the game any more fun.

In your opinion, it's not broken. In my opinion it is. See that's the things about subjective opinions regarding game design. The greatness of game design isn't an objective thing, and is typically determined by the amount of joy that is obtained because of that design, which is as subjective as it gets.

Let's take Trico's AI in The Last Guardian for example. Trico will misinterpret what you have to say and will make mistakes, and sometimes not listen to your orders or ignore it all together. It is apprently designed that way, and as the game goes on and your supposed "bond" with Trico increases, he listens to the user more and more, but then will still totally ignore you on occasion, or do the opposite of what you ordered. It reaches a point where you actually do not know if Trico's AI is buggy, or if the game's designers programmed to work that way and it's working exactly as intended. Some people say the AI for Trico is flawed, broken etc. because what kind of AI doesn't actually do what you ask it to do? Others say that the AI for Trico is some of the most realistic and thought provoking they've ever seen in a video game, and the fact that Trico was frustrating them the same way their household pets would was adding to their experience. Who is right? Both of them, of course. It's subjective.

But I dare you to find me a review for the Last Guardian that give that game a "not great" score that doesn't mention Trico's AI as a detractor, even though it might be working exactly as it was designed. Just because it was designed a certain way, and just because it's working exactly as it was designed doesn't mean it makes the game objectively better. It doesn't mean it makes the game any more fun.

No dude broken is not subjective broken is when something doesn't work like it should do, Trico's Ai maybe broken if it doesn't work as intended (haven't played the game so can't speak on it) but the durability works how it should in BOTW these are 2 wildly differently scenarios. It's like if you complained in a FPS like Halo you can only carry 2 weapons at a time while another one like Half-life 2 you can carry all of them and declared Halo broken when it's not, the design works as intended you may not like the design or prefer another type of design but that doesn't mean it's broken and it's not a subjective matter either.

That is again complete nonsense. Just because its working as it was designed and as intended doesn't mean that design is not "broken" or "flawed". The term "Broken" is completely subjective. If I design a soccer game where the only way you can score if if you kick the ball between the keepers legs and then in the net, and someone plays the game "scores a goal" but the game doesn't register it, then sorry, but my goal scoring mechanic is fucking broken, even if its working exactly as I designed it to work because my design is terrible to that player who expects any ball that is kicked into the net should count as a goal.

Weapon durability is a big part of what makes the combat in the game actually good, interesting, difficult and rewarding.

That phrase might sound like an opinion if you just type it in isolated like that, but I already explained why it's not.

The reward for fighting enemies in Breath of the Wild is getting good loot. You want their weapons, you want to open their chest with the weapons. You also can't just come barging in without any thought because you always need to think about what's the best weapon for each situation.

If weapons had infinite durability in this game, the reward for battling enemies would be completely useless. The moment you got a Royal Broadsword +14, for example (which I did), every regular Royal Broadsword in the game would be completely useless to you - however, the way the game works now, even if you get a weapon that's worse than your current one, as long as it's good enough that's great loot, because it means you have something more "disposable" for weaker enemies.

If weapons had infinite durability, the whole combat would boil down to 1. Finding enemies; 2. Mashing Y; 3. Being disappointed at crappy loot.

Weapon durability is a big part of what makes the combat in the game actually good, interesting, difficult and rewarding.

That phrase might sound like an opinion if you just type it in isolated like that, but I already explained why it's not.

The reward for fighting enemies in Breath of the Wild is getting good loot. You want their weapons, you want to open their chest with the weapons. You also can't just come barging in without any thought because you always need to think about what's the best weapon for each situation.

If weapons had infinite durability in this game, the reward for battling enemies would be completely useless. The moment you got a Royal Broadsword +14, for example (which I did), every regular Royal Broadsword in the game would be completely useless to you - however, the way the game works now, even if you get a weapon that's worse than your current one, as long as it's good enough that's great loot, because it means you have something more "disposable" for weaker enemies.

If weapons had infinite durability, the whole combat would boil down to 1. Finding enemies; 2. Mashing Y; 3. Being disappointed at crappy loot.

No mate the only nonsense is from yourself, broken means not working as intended if something works like it should it's not broken I'll keep pointing this out until you understand that, broken is not a subjective term. The overall design of BOTW all comes together just fine.

I'll highlight how bad your analogy is as you're describing a design that makes no logical sense of a fully realized concept as your example, that's nowhere near the durability in BOTW only someone who has had no time with the game will attempt that argument. Your argument is more along the lines that if a FPS is design for you to carry two weapons at a time then switch as you playthrough it's broken because you prefer to stock up weapons like in some other games.

That's not how the argument you're trying to push flies at all, a design not being to your preference doesn't make it broken, for something to be broken the has to be a concrete logical explanation as to why it's broken and not fundamentally working as it should.