not really, you just need to be at the right time with the right level, if the enemy has a red title, you're fucked and doesn't matter the "best weapon or the best armor" cause well, you need the right level to use those. it's terribly balanced and gives you the illusion of freedom, but if you are not level 30, you're fucked. Zelda handle's this in a different way, easier cause you can use any weapon and any armor but if your enemy is too strong like a Lynel, you need the best of the best to defeat that guy, so I don't understand the "kiddy" comment.

Weapon durability in TW3 is very different, weapons wear down over time and lose damage and even bonuses like Armor Piercing, but you can repair them yourself and crafting repair kits is really cheap. Not to mention how much longer the weapons last, so it's a pretty poor comparison.

Weapon durability and even breakage is nothing new, but the rate at which they break in BotW is kinda ridiculous, it also takes away a lot of incentive to go look for or craft better gear like weapons and shields. Yes, it adds a strategic element, but it also adds frustration and it makes weapons and shields more or less worthless, both when I played it myself and when I watched the owner of the machine play, the main focus became always using the the worst weapons so as not to break the best ones, and that takes away a lot of the point of crafting, upgrading and gathering loot for some.

The breakage itself isn't the problem, in my opinion, it's the ridiculous rate at which they break that causes irritation.

Not to mention the witcher and some other games "difficulty" settings. I hate scaling difficulty, or the New Game+ where every enemy starts at like lvl 30.

It's annoying as shit taking 5 minutes to kill a freaking drowner in Witcher 3. I'm this super human person with ungodly skills and yet I am taking forever to kill this fodder beast that I was mowing over 100 hours earlier like they were nothing.

I like the way Zelda does it. The difference between me 100 hours into the game and 1 hour into the game is solely my weapon and armor. I could pick up a stick and be fighting that same kobold how I did in early game. I recently went back to the great plateau to search for any missing seeds now that I knew for more teltale signs of them. I did not use any of my good weapons. I picked up weapons I found on teh plateau. This was not only to make it more fun combat wise, but also so I didn't waste my good weapons on these fodder. But a quick switch and they are fodder. They have a hard time killing me with my new armor though. Their hits no longer do like 4 hearts of damage but like 1.

I can't believe find Zelda's weapon system a negative. I think its great. It adds complexity and variation to the fighting mechanics. You are also never without as you can get a new weapon/shield at ease. I end up leaving them on the ground all the time due to not having enough room to carry more.

The rate at which they break is not an issue either. You should choose your weapon for your foe(s). Some are far better in specific scenarios than others. But if you try to use a hammer to open a jar of food, then you'll probably complain about the hammer spoiling your food too.

It's love hate. Sure it forces you to experiences all kinds of weapons and similarly you won't be dicing up the easy parts with a 40 dmg Guardian sword for long. Back to that 8 dmg moko club.

Yet when you get a special sword from completing a divine beast and decide to use it in a hard fight against a Lynal, only hit soft squishy parts with max attack buffs up, and it doesn't even last 2/3rds of the fight, something is not quite right. At least you can replace those for a diamond, yet why bother if it can't even last one fight.

More inventory space would be nice, since I like to keep a high level spear, sword and 2 hander at the ready for any hard fight coming up, while going through whatever the local flavor is for normal use, spear, sword and 2 hander. Wich means only 2 slots left for a utility wand and some special effect blade.

Plus what it leads to is avoiding enemies that don't have weapons.

I don't mind it, but it's a fairly minor mechanic in TW3. Weapons last for ages, the wear is gradual, and repairing stuff is cheap and easy.

In Zelda, weapon durability is a core mechanic. From what I've seen, most weapons break within a few minutes of use, and no matter how much you like that weapon once it's gone it's gone (bar a few costly exceptions). I've not been fortunate enough to play Zelda for myself yet so i can't comment on if i personally think it's a significant problem, but it and TW3's systems do appear to be very different. TW3 also wasn't touted by most critics as one of the best games ever made, which makes it easier to tolerate its flaws.

The kiddy comment was in reference to the weapons in Zelda because of the gimmick of them wanting you try try as many weapons as possible in the beginning. later on you mature and know which weapon you will need at what time, given their finite lifetime. Makes you appreciate them more because they wont last. The Witcher expects you to know your weapons value from the beginning and once you respect one sword, you ultimately know what the next sword will give you if you replace it. Zelda, flips the script and tries to get you to switch it up  (corny I know, but there was an opening). Its about options and having an open mind searching the distance....well much like a lot of us did when we were a kid.

The witchers more realistic, so it pisses you off when the sword breaks. This is why a couple repair kits on hand never hurt. Thats because you spend so much time the weapons though, I think.

Reading from this thread, I'd like if Zelda tries at one game to have the same system as TW3. Sounds interesting.

Weapons lasted A LOT longer in the Witcher, and I still hated it.  

I think BOTW is a 10, but man.....  the weapons to break way to fast, it's a chore.  If this was on PC I would mod most of the survival elements OUT, but that's just me.

Yeah, he's not the only one who seems to be expecting the combat to mirror Dark Soul's, and I really don't get that.

Otherwise, he seems to see the worst in everything. He likes to complain about how the more difficult mobs are made more difficult by increasing their damage output and health (as if this is something that all open world games don't do), but fails to make any mention of the impressive AI and their adapting strategies mid-fight, or the creative ways at your disposal to fight these creatures. If anything, I think the only valid complaint would be that combat is eventually too easy, especially with the availability of useful foods and elixirs which he seems to be aware of given he describes them in detail.

He manages to twist the sheer number of shrines into a negative by suggesting they break immersion and that you feel forced to do them (that's his own construct, as you can simply mark them on the map and return to them later as I've done time after time), and then falsely claims you'll need to finish as close to all 120 of them as possible (I'd wager you can easily beat this game with just a couple dozen of them, as I've been putting off beating the game for ages and have only just passed 60 shrines).

Thereafter he takes up the complaint I've seen others mention regarding stamina, mentioning that you'll find yourself stopping for a breather as you scale certain cliffs and the like. Strangely, the focus of most of his negativity in this is the idea that any progression whatsoever is necessary, even though the required progression in this game is far less than just about any other game of its kind. I've no doubt whatsoever that, were zero progression necessary, he would immediately bitch and moan about the lack of motivation for doing many of these activities (something the weapon fragility also fosters).

Even still, it's the limited stamina that turns climbing into an experience and a challenge itself as opposed to just holding up on the joystick for 3 minutes. It really seems to me as if he never stops to think through the implications of his complaints, instead just choosing to focus on the negative even though he'd undoubtedly find an all new negative were they to adapt to his wishes. To him, the idea that he had to do sixteen (his italics, not mine) shrines to get the stamina to where he was OK with it was somehow outrageous... how dare the game motivate him to actually explore its content?!?

Really, the only criticisms I can say he definitely was spot on with were that rain makes climbing impossible and the blood moon gets irritating (indeed, that short section struck me as the only honest criticism in the whole article), but that hardly turns a masterpiece into a "meh" title.

I'm certainly not claiming this is some sort of hit-piece; he's far too intelligent for that. Jim has established a huge fanbase by walking that line perfectly, never stooping to outright trolling (as no one would take him seriously) but routinely offering a contrarian's position to generate views and clicks. He references directly the reception this game has received and so was fully conscious of its standing and the fact that not a soul had felt it deserved lower than a 90, and 70 is precisely the perfect rating to get everyone's attention but not be so unreasonable as to be passed off as mere trolling. Truly, if I'd been asked ahead of time to pick one reviewer who'd provide a low score, Jim would have been my first guess followed a bit behind by Gamespot; if Jim's review had even reached a 9 I would have been very surprised, especially given his current disdain for the Nintendo (the company) itself. He has reason to be in a negative state of mind.

That he claims to be surprised by the outrage proves outright that he was fully aware it was coming; a man who has so often been in this position and makes a living by having his finger on the pulse of the gaming community could not possibly be surprised by this reaction lol

The line "Too often does BotW paint its players into corners rather than encourage 'varied' playstyles" entirely proves my point in my mind... never have I played a game for which that statement was less true, and yet he included it in his summation. How that's what he took away from this game is more than just perplexing; it's damning of his mindset when reviewing this game.

This review reads like one which he had the title "Open World, Closed Doors" and closing wordplay "Close, but no tri-force" planned out before he even got his hands on the game.