JakDaSnack said:
Areym said:
I'm not sure how i feel about that conclusion, a drastically reduced durability on weapons to encourage diversity in combat. Those other strategies should be compelling enough on their own to warrant you trying them.
I will at least say that it seems like Nintendo did the weapon durability for a reason rather than just a bad balancing issue or something along those lines
|
There isn't any hand holding in Zelda, you wouldn't know you could do those things unless you experimented. Also after beating particularly hard groups, it's possible to get a really op weapon early on. If durability wasn't a thing, that op weapon might make the game too easy.
|
The OP weapon would not be in the early part of the game. If durability wasn't a thing. I prefer that method, than breaking.
Johnw1104 said:
Areym said:
Well, rarely do weapons break as frequently as they do in BotW (at least to my knowledge) I'd say its a valid concern for anybody who has played Dark Souls, TW3, etc. Obviously, they each handle it differently but there's an expectations that your weapons will last you a while.
|
pokoko said:
From my vantage point, it's the other way around. There are no perfect games. Every game has something that some people don't like. With most games, they disagree and it's no big deal. Everyone accepts that preference is a thing. However, with Zelda, I can't recall running into a situation where so many people are so angry and eager to prove that other people are wrong for not liking this or that. It's like they've been personally insulted.
'Weapon durability' hasn't blown up into a big deal because of the people complaining about it, it's blown up because of the people who are upset that other people are complaining about it.
It's something that some players consider a negative. Those who insist that Breath of the Wild has to be perfect need to get over it.
|
Either way, it's hardly an issue, but the way it's being discussed it's as if it's a game breaking feature.
|
That's your opinion.
