mZuzek said:
Actually, you are wrong in saying the system is broken, because it simply isn't. No matter how much you like or dislike it, the system works exactly as intended and designed, therefore it's not broken. Now for the rest of your post... Yes, weapons are disposable. That's the point of it, it's the game expecting the player to learn to let go of things they get attached to - this is even more true for Zelda fans, as each and every tradition of the series is shattered every second. Breath of the Wild is a survival game, and it wants players to let go. People who can't accept change, well, they won't have much fun, that's simply how it is. I understand saying combat is pointless if the reward is simply "another disposable weapon". However, those "disposable weapons" are crucial to your survival, they're essential for you to keep going and keep exploring, wherever it is you're going - and no matter how much some people try to say otherwise, weapons generally do last for longer than a single battle, meaning you always have a little bit more than before. If you raid an enemy camp, even if you might lose one weapon in the progress, you generally get at least 2 or 3 in return. So the reward is always bigger than the price. About the whole Master Sword thing... no. The Master Sword is unbreakable, yes, but it does "lose energy" and becomes useless for a good while - it also has a meager 30 power, which makes it useful enough but absolutely not broken. If every weapon in the game worked like that, well... there wouldn't be a point anymore. You could just keep about 3 good weapons and cycle between them until the next one's restored, never needing more weapons and never needing to use anything else again. The way it is right now, I always use the Master Sword whenever it is available, but at least during those 10 minutes when it's not, I need to rethink my strategy - and that's a good thing. Having to think about what you're going to do before going into a battle makes said battle more interesting and engaging. (but some people don't like thinking...) Also, restricting weapons behind "levels" is as anti-immersion and anti-freedom as it gets. It makes absolutely no sense if you kill a monster and then just can't use his weapon because you're "not strong enough". If you kill a whole enemy camp, opening up a treasure chest, only to find the reward is some weapon you can't use yet, just because... those kinds of things don't make sense in-universe, and are very frustrating for a player too. Breath of the Wild thrives in giving the player freedom to do whatever they want, so it would go completely against the game's philosophy to just have weapons the player can't use just because. It works for the Master Sword because it is a legendary thing. There is a whole mythos behind it, a massive history behind it spanning the last 26 years of Zelda, and it really is supposed to be something only a hero can use. It's awesome that it has to test you with your life, and it makes a lot of sense thematically - having the same kind of test for a sword that belonged to a monster you just slayed would be absolutely ridiculous. Your last paragraph, however, only reinforces my belief that the people who don't like this system are the same kind of people who expect games to be adapted to them instead of adapting to games. When I'm playing a game, I don't think "the way Nintendo insists I should play" or "Nintendo's way is the best way". I don't think I should be respecting the "choices Nintendo does for me". No, I just accept that games are the way they are, and I try to adapt to them myself, because that way I can be a more flexible person and enjoy more variety of interesting content - instead of just being negative about stuff and complaining about everything that doesn't fit my narrow taste. ...but as I said before, I understand your point of view. I'm just sad some people can't get over it. |
So restricting weapons behind levels is "as anti-freedom" as it gets, but making weapons disposable so players are forced to constantly use new weapons is... not anti-freedom? See, the word "force" implies that players don't have a choice - because they don't. It seems to me that the only real reason you think that one is okay and the other isn't is because Nintendo made that choice for you. And hey man, it's cool if you let Nintendo make your choices for you. There are millions of fans who get their gaming fill off of just that. But to call someone who has literally over a thousand hours into such games as the Metal Gear Solid series, Hitman series, Splinter Cell series etc. as someone who "doesn't like to think" is just a intellectual dishonesty, and you know it.
P.S. Kinda hilarious how you think that wanting to play games outside of the restrictive sandbox Nintendo has placed on Zelda is a "narrow taste". I'll sure hope you keep that in mind when the next time you dislike a design decision in a game, that it's just your "narrow taste" talking, and that you should dismiss your own personal preferences and convince yourself you actually like it, lest you be a total hypocrite.
