Wyrdness said:
You're mistaking failure of resource management and preparation for freedom being put into question, the designers put shrines to be done when ever you can the is no mandatory time to go into any shrine hence why they don't need to be completed to be used as teleport points you going in unprepared is not freedom being questioned it's the game telling you can try it if you want we won't stop you but if you're unprepared don't expect to be given an easy ride. You basically fought a higher tier enemy with weak early game weapons that's why you had to quit it's would be like me challenging a super boss in any rpg with out the proper set ups 9 times out of 10 the boss will win. |
So?
It's honestly the designers fault for putting the shrine in a place they knew would be explored mostly by early game players ... had the weapon durability not been a factor and skill was the only thing that mattered? I would be more than happy with that kind of design decision. But knowing that weapon durability is basically the name of the game ... it's such a questionable decision to put that shrine there.
And you're missing the entire point with the last part of your comment. That's exactly the point. In games without weapon durability you can face enemies that are a significantly higher level than you without having to get superior weapons as long as you know what you're doing. If I am able to learn an enemies attack patterns, then I should be able to beat the enemy. It might take a longer amount of time to with lower level weapons, but at least I'm able to do it. In Breath of the Wild, you're only allowed to do it on the technicality that remote bombs are a thing, but even then you're sacrificing more than you're earning because your entire weapon arsenal can perish. This is why it wasn't a good idea for you to assume I wasn't "prepared", because it actually punctuates the problem even further. To have a weapon durability system that is so exaggerated that my entire arsenal of early game weapons can be depleted, along with my bows and arrows, before a boss that's in an early part of the game dies, is terrible.
It's even worse because Zelda games are not "RPGs", they just have RPG elements, but so do a lot of games which come out these days. In an adventure game the ability to defeat enemies should be based on your skill level, not a number near a weapon.
And all of this is assuming that the only point against weapon durability is the freedom of the player, too. Don't get me wrong, it's definitely a mark against weapon durability, but there are other problems with it, such as the fun factor. It's fun to lose weapons in the middle of the field and scavenge for new ones while enemies shoot bows at you and throw bombs. It's fun to fight with a broomstick while fields are set on fire. It's NOT fun to do any of this during a boss battle, and the whole concept of weapon durability gets tiring after a while. It's not so much the feeling of losing a powerful weapon, at least for me, as much as it is the constant breaks in the middle of battle to look at the user interface - which isn't very well made in the first place.
Your Resident Evil 2 example isn't that applicable to Breath of the Wild. Resident Evil 2 is simply a much more linear game with less factors to consider - it still offers choices that affect the game, but ultimately it's not advertised as an open world freedom-based title. One game is based around interesting risk-reward scenarios in a linear environment, the other is a game that nearly blocks off content even though it's advertised as an exploration title. Your also never guaranteed to get the items you want back in Breath of the Wild, which is a key difference between weapon durability and ammo (notice how 99.99% of the people who don't like weapon durability do not complain about bows having limited arrows?)
Look, I'm not the kind of person who hated weapon durability day one. Pretty sure I was even that guy that subconsciously laughed at all the overblown complaining about it. I know I had a similar attitude about the complaints regarding weather. And I even used a lot of the same excuses that are still said nowadays. "You're missing the point of the game!", "It's the wild!", etc. Well, while I don't think that weapon durability is bad enough for it to affect my enjoyment of the game to the same level it does for many other people, I'm still not in favor of it. People talk about how it's such a great mechanic because it forces you to use weapons that you aren't familiar with, and while that's a pretty good way to make people expand their horizons, there's also a lot of other ways to do it that don't require forcing people into giving up everything they've earned. For example, Breath of the Wild already has a lot of fascinating and unique weapons. Make more of those! Create a diverse arsenal with unique weapons akin to traditional action games. Make enemies more multi-faceted so that you have to find exploits in their design. Develop a combat system which is more in-depth than what we have currently.
It's fine to have your opinion and I think we can both agree that the mechanic isn't a deal-breaker. I think I would even go as far as to say more focus on survival elements wouldn't be bad for the sequel. But for a game which is constantly championed as breaking new boundaries in the gaming industry, it sure is interesting how closely people want to stick to the ideas from the game without budge.
Last edited by AngryLittleAlchemist - on 27 January 2019
