By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Weapon Durability, Fanbase Fragility (The Jimquisition)

Normchacho on 13 March 2017

I respect Jim Sterling even though him and I don't often agree about what games we like, and I think he's right here.

Durability systems are bad, always, every time. I've never once been like "Thank God that weapon I really like keeps breaking and I need to spend time and resources to fix it! I also really enjoy having to decide if an enemy is worth using my favorite weapon on!"

And yeah, DDOS attacking a website because he gave the game a 7? That's garbage.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

Around the Network
Peh on 13 March 2017

You get weapons which are not just fire, ice or thunder, but also some which have additional features like a way higher durability later in the game. My inventory is full of 50-70dmg weapons because they don't easily break. I just ignore picking up new weapons. This just shows that this Sterling guy didn't played much of the game.



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

potato_hamster on 13 March 2017
Alkibiádēs said:
potato_hamster said:

Uhh. How does this make any sense at all?

"Look at this awesome sword that just broke after 10 hits! Man I loved that sword. I found another 14 of them off of enemies I killed with that sword, and have my inventory jammed full of them, because they're just that special."

It's quite clear you haven't played the game if you think all weapons break that easily. And I have different rare weapons. A thunder sword, a fire sword, a special fire wand, a Sheikah halberd, etc. 

It's called hyperbole. Perhaps you should look it up.



potato_hamster on 13 March 2017
sc94597 said:
potato_hamster said:

More of this "this feature isn't broken, people are playing the game wrong!". Tell that to Lair or StarFox Zero. This is an open world game, and now you're telling me the game is just in punishing me for trying to play the game the way I find to be the most fun because it's "realistic". This a game with fucking goblins, and giant pig warlords, and the ability to turn water into huge blocks of ice on a whim. The realism argument does not apply here when it comes to something like weapon durability. I refuse to believe that in this magical world, practically no one can make a sword that doesn't literally shatter apart after a handful of swings. That isn't even the case in the real world.

Besides, if you're going to be touting player freedom in every ad for this game, maybe it isn't a good idea to force the players into playing the game certain ways mostly for no good reason other than to make people do things differently.

You have a hard time grasping that there need to be constraints in combat in order to make choice meaningful. If everything were equally effective and with equal consequences, then there would be no strategy to the game's combat. "Total freedom" is not the goal here. The goal is a balance of "freedom" with fun so that the choices we make are more meaningful. 

The realism argument is to make it clear that there is no gamey logic here. Everything is intuitive. It is possible for the gameplay to be intuitive without realism, sure, but I wanted to emphasize that it is reasonable to expect somebody to know that hitting a sword on a shield again and again is going to break either one or the other. 

It's "intuitive" for YOU because that's the way YOU think the game should be played. Put it this way, the mere fact that this is an issue for many people, and further more that you felt the need to explain why weapons break how they do means it's not nearly as "intutive" as you think it is.



potato_hamster on 13 March 2017
RolStoppable said:
potato_hamster said:

I don't  know, do you like it in the hundreds of other games that implement such or similar solutions? Was Ocarina of Time less enjoyable becasuse weapons weren't breakable? How did you manage then?

Here's another idea: keep the current system in place, just make the weapons twenty times more durable and repairable. That way its at least tolerable to those who like to keep things that work for them.

If weapons were 20 times more durable and repairable in Breath of the Wild, you'd get the same result as with unbreakable weapons. That weapons break in BotW isn't a problem though. Anyone who has some sense for resource management will eventually have more strong weapons at their disposal than they can carry around, so the actual issue is that you need to leave behind good stuff and can't stockpile a huge amount. That is, if you like to hoard things. Otherwise you'll shrug it off as a non-issue.

 

Another shining example of "if it isn't a problem for me, it shouldn't be a problem for anyone".



Around the Network
Darashiva on 13 March 2017

Pretty much agree with everything he says on the video. He provided clear reasons why he didn't like the weapon durability system, and mentioned that it's almost never a good system in his opinion. I think that done right it can work, but the way the video showed weapons breaking every 10 seconds in Breath of the Wild isn't the way.

Regarding his response to the people who got absolutely furious about his review score, he's right. The way people have been acting over it is utterly ridiculous. I still have yet to see any good reason to be angry about the score.



My Twitter: @TheDarashiva

Most Recent Articles:

1.2025 in Review: Winners and Losers

The Best Video Game Music of 2024-thread

sc94597 on 13 March 2017
potato_hamster said:
sc94597 said:

You have a hard time grasping that there need to be constraints in combat in order to make choice meaningful. If everything were equally effective and with equal consequences, then there would be no strategy to the game's combat. "Total freedom" is not the goal here. The goal is a balance of "freedom" with fun so that the choices we make are more meaningful. 

The realism argument is to make it clear that there is no gamey logic here. Everything is intuitive. It is possible for the gameplay to be intuitive without realism, sure, but I wanted to emphasize that it is reasonable to expect somebody to know that hitting a sword on a shield again and again is going to break either one or the other

It's "intuitive" for YOU because that's the way YOU think the game should be played. Put it this way, the mere fact that this is an issue for many people, and further more that you felt the need to explain why weapons break how they do means it's not nearly as "intutive" as you think it is.

So you are telling me that your intuition is that if you took a sword and wacked in on a steel shield it would remain useable? Okeydokey then.



potato_hamster on 13 March 2017
RolStoppable said:
potato_hamster said:

Another shining example of "if it isn't a problem for me, it shouldn't be a problem for anyone".

If that is me, then you comfortably qualify for "if it is a problem for very few people, then it is a widespread problem."

Where did I say it was a widespread problem?



SvennoJ on 13 March 2017
sc94597 said:

You are more worried about spending your arrows than your bow breaking. Bows detorirate much slower than melee weapons. Many of the problems people have with weapon degregation is that they are using the wrong weapons on the wrong enemies. You shouldn't be using swords for hitting shields, in example. That is bound to get your sword broken. You need to use axes or spears to either avoid the shield or destroy it/fling it out of the enemies hands. Then you can switch to a sword if you wish. Certain attacks also instantly break weapons. 

If you follow these (realistic) gameplay rules, you can preserve your weapons longer. It requires planning though. Just as in a survival-horror game you plan to preserve ammunition, the same is true about planning how to use your favorite weapons. Later in the game, great weapons are so common that it isn't a problem, and since enemies scale as you complete things, you never feel like you are wasting weapons on undeserving enemies. 

When do they scale? I've completely explored the west end of the map, finished 2 dungeons, 42 shrines, 91 korok seeds found and recently descended the Gerudo mountains into Faron. The enemies there are very simple, so I'm currently fighting with a dropped dmg 4 moblin spear while saving my 24 flame spear, 54 crusher, 60 battle axe etc. I don't see any scaling.

I need to head back to the start though. My kids just showed me where you can increase your inventory after showing me the tutorial shrine for combat yesterday where the game tells you you can jump dodge for flurry rush and disarm enemies with the shield. A risk of total freedom, missing little essential details. Yet also nice to know there's still more to learn after apparently 70+ hours played. (Switch is showing play times now)



potato_hamster on 13 March 2017
RolStoppable said:
potato_hamster said:

Where did I say it was a widespread problem?

Well, where did I say that it shouldn't be a problem for anyone?

Perhaps its the part where you're repeatedly disagreeing with people who say its a problem for them by explaining why its not a problem for you.