mZuzek said:
potato_hamster said:
I understand your side perfectly. I just disagree with it. I do not agree that the weapon durability system in the game a) needs to exist or b) needs to exist as it is implemented. Weapon durability does not need to exist as a game mechanic, ever. I believe that all weapon durability systems (in all games) at best are only tolerable, and do nothing more than add a point of needless annoyance to the game. It doesn't ever make the game more enjoyable in my experience, and in my 50+ hours I've spent so far in BotW, I've learned to live with it by simply not caring about any weapon, and treating them all as the disposable bullshit they are. As long as I have 8-10 weapons in my inventory that are decent, I really don't bother trying to pick up more. I don't bother going after look. I no longer care about fighting random mobs of enemies because I'll probablt destroy a weapon or two, and that loot chest might have worse weapons than I have now. There's no point. Even then, I don't give a shit about loot because it's going to get destroyed in a couple of fights anyways. Nothing is special. Everything is disposable - except the Master Sword.
See the Master Sword spits in the face of any argument of how necessary weapon durability is for two main reasons: It cannot be broken, and it requires the player to be at a certain "level" (Must have 13 hearts) in order to obtain it. Yet somehow this doesn't break the game! Every argument you make about happening upon super awesome swords and how game breaking it would be if you could use them forever? Well you can't break the master sword. Oops. Every argument you can make about how the game would break if you couldn't just pick up and use super awesome swords as soon as you find them? Well you can't just pick up and use the master sword. Amazingly, BotW has both a weapon durability system, and a permanent, locked away weapon system within the same game, both somehow "don't break the game" yet you're arguing with me about how critical only one of those systems is, and about how the other one simply wouldn't work. Huh.
Why can't every weapon be treated like the master sword to a certain degree? Get to a point where all of your weapons are on cooldown and you have to throw one away. Require a certain number of hearts or stamina in order to pick up weapons the same way the master sword tests you.
Hey look at that, a reasonable suggesstion of how to eliminate the durability system and not break the game - implementing a mechanic that's already in the game that you clearly have no problem with.
But if you insist on sticking with it, why can't the durability on all weapons be repaired or upgraded? Seriously. Are there no competent black smiths in Hyrule? Not only can they only make weapons that last through a handful of battles (except one), they're too incompetent to repair all but a handful? Why even make those handful of repairable weapons repairable if you're going to charge the player so much that it makes it not worth it. At least give players the choice between throwing away weapons and going back to a town to repair them for a reasonable fee. Don't make that choice for them and force them to play a certain way.
Seriously, weapon durability mechanics are bad, and even as far as weapon durability mechanics go, the design of the mechanic in BotW it's one of the worst in a AAA game ever. If you enjoy playing BotW the way Nintendo insists you play it then it's fine and you think it works great because you trust that Nintendo's way is the best way, and you enjoy having Nintendo make that decision for you. I don't I like playing open world games the way I see fit, so it doesn't work for me, and it doesn't work for others, and we're not wrong in saying that this system is broken.
|
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.
|
