mZuzek said:
Yes they are sad. People are entitled to their own opinions and as I said, it's completely normal and understandable that some people won't like it. However, pointing that as a flaw in the game is simply ridiculous. It's a design choice that is completely coherent with everything else in the game and makes the game far more interesting, because it keeps that survival factor, and it keeps it hard. It keeps the player always on their toes and always having to make decisions and have a good understanding of what they're doing, rather than just going in without giving things any thought because they have an OP weapon. It also balances the game because it makes it so you can't just get a super broken weapon in Hyrule Castle and breeze your way through the whole game because of it. ...and besides making the game more balanced, and making combat more interesting, it's also a crucial part of why combat is fun, too - because when you battle an enemy, and you defeat it, you want a reward. That reward always comes in the form of more weapons, which is always a good thing to have - except if weapons didn't break ever, in which case every enemy encounter in the game would be completely pointless by the point you get a good weapon. tl;dr the destructible weapons not only make the combat in the game more interesting, but also rewarding. If it wasn't for that, combat would be completely boring and pointless. |
So... because it was a design choice means it should be beyond criticism even if that design choice detracts from your overall experience? Your entire post is dictating to everyone what they should and should not find fun. If weapon degredation is such a critical part to the combat of a Zelda game, then why is it the first of over a dozen Zelda games to feature it? Are you saying the combat boring and pointless in all previous Zelda games?
