I had a feeling someone would say this. But that'd be ignoring the fact that you cannot take the guns out of the equation. They are what gives attacks their unique characteristics, just like the weapons do in Zelda. If the weapons (in Zelda) are the bullets, then what are the guns? They're certainly not the durability bar. The closest thing to that would be the bullets.

Permanent breakage being a prominent factor in one game and not the other means they have different resource mechanics.

Generally speaking, the closest analogy while not conveniently leaving out any of the main factors (guns, weapons, bullets, durability) would be to liken the durability to the bullets. And the weapons to the guns.

The durability/bullets are what allows the weapons/guns to function, and dictates how much they can be used.
While the weapons/guns are what dictates what you get out of those bullets/durability.
The same bullet in a different gun will have a different effect. The same durability in a different sword will have a different effect.

And durability is a resource you can farm in TOTK, and use it to restore durability in most weapons, as long as you don't allow them to reach 0.
But it can be a tedious process.

Weapons in RE can have sentimental value because of their design or playstyle. Not really the case for bullets, is it?
Weapons in Zelda can have sentimental value because of their design or playstyle. Not the durability meter.

There's no use for the bullets without the weapon. And the weapons are what give the attacks their unique characteristics. You can't just take them out of the equation.
(In some cases there are special ammo that give the weapon unique characteristics depending on which type you chose to load it with. But even then, the gun itself is important.)

Right now in RE4 I'm working on the Killer 7 gun instead of the Handcannon I've been using.
Both are magnums. Both take the exact same bullets. But they handle very differently in almost every metric.
The Handcanon fires very slowly and has one of the worst spreads (aim) of any gun in the series. You can miss enemies at almost point blank range. The Killer 7 has fast firing speed and a laser sight dot. So it is pixel accurate with its aim.
It also sounds more satisfying when it fires to me.

Same bullets.
Different gun. Different feel.

The designers spent most time on the appearance and functionality of the weapons. Not so much on the bullets or durability.

I can get attached to the way a weapon looks and handles in Zelda for the same reason I can get attached to how a weapon looks and feels in RE4.
Or I can simply want to save a particularly strong weapon in a game like Zelda for when 'I need it'. Which unbeknownst to me at the time, usually turns out to be never.

I generally wouldn't care about breaking a tree branch in Zelda. But I do care about breaking certain interesting/stronger weapon. Or a weapon that reminds me of something fun/interesting I went through when I look at it.
I don't know why that seems to be a forreign concept to you. Because even if you're not like that yourself, you should know that there are plenty of people who are.

I would use the weapons more often and not hoard them if they didn't permanently break. The breaking mechanic is actively working against its own purpose for certain people.
And I challenged whether the breaking is even neccesary to accomplish the things people argued it promotes. And I don't think it is.

I was careful to characterize this as my opinion. I use the term like "I think" a lot.
But you are coming on agressively, telling people how they should think and play. You were on the recieving end of people telling you how to feel about something a while back, and I defended you then. And reminded people then that everyone has their own unique circumstances that that affects their perspective. So I'm a bit surprised to see you essentially shoving your opinion down people's throats here..

You say people should have a different mentality. But that doesn't work when it results in the opposite of having fun. Especially if it's not neccesary.

I've played dozens of games with permanent breakage for equipment over the course of several decades. There will always be the chance that I'll end up not having fun because of it. (Unrelated to the survivability/resource management aspect, which I usually enjoy in games).
The more well made the game is, the higher the risk.

If there are no problems with the system, why not break the Master Sword permanently as well in a few swings?

Because of sentimental value? Because it feels good to use? Because it's powerful? Etc.
All concepts that can be applied to other weapons people find throughout their adventure to various degrees.

(You can avoid story issues with some imagination. The broken Master Sword could 'lend its energy and appearance' to a normal weapon. But still function and be as weak and durable as the actual weapon would be during gameplay. And if you break all weapons in a fight where you are supposed to have the Master Sword, an ally will teleport a tree branch into your inventor, etc.)

If the reason for the permanent breaking is to 'encourage different playstyles' and/or 'resource management', then keep that same principle with the Master Sword. Because there are other ways to accomplish these things without alienating the other camp.

Speaking of which, I don't know what percentage of players enjoy or dislike this mechanic. Although I'd bet that most people enjoy it. But I wouldn't gauge that based on how praised a game is overall.
(Nor how many don't percieve flaws because they like the rest of it. Which is a human thing.)
There can be something in a game that most people don't like, but still love the game in spite of that. For example, how rain affects climbing in BOTW seems very unpopular.

How so?
I hear a lot of proclamations, but no examples of why.

How does it 'completely undermine the game's survival elements' if weapons simply became unusable at 0 durability? And you had to leave the area or dungeon and go to to some NPC in a town to replenish the durability? By paying with some other resource (like Rupees, or something similar.)

Or if the process of replenishing the durability of the equipment is the equivalent of finding a new copy of that same equipment, then how does that undermine the survivability aspect?

Since there are no explanations attached to these claims, and the examples I pointed out just now seem very obvious, it genuinely feels like people who make this argument don't think things through. But I'm open to the possibility that maybe I just missed something very obvious. In which case please do tell me, because I'm genuinely curious. Because right now I don't see it, at all.

I was about to say that survival horror games manage to do this without permanently breaking your equipment, but then I see you went on to liken them to one another again in spite of that.

I've gone over why they are different takes on resource management, and some examples of the many many different ways games can handle survival elements and encourage usage of different playstyles and weapons without permanently breaking equipment, off the top of my head. And a development team would be thinking about these things over the course of 5+ years.

But regarding your last sentence, saving certain weapons for when you need them (which may be never) has more to do with being strategic than attached.
Though it's not uncommon that people can end up liking a weapon due to its design or functionality, etc, and may want to keep it for whatever reason. Developers know this.

You claim people are not supposed to feel or think this way, yet the game allows you to to repair almost any piece of equipment, as long as it didn't reach 0 durability. If we are just supposed to use and discard everything, then I don't think that feature would be in the game.
But let's say the repair system wasn't in the game, and the developers wanted to try to force a portion of players to play in a way they know they won't enjoy. Then that's where constructive criticism comes in.

If the answer to every single instance where players don't like the direction a developer chose is "just shut up and do what they wanted you to do", then a lot of these dicussions wouldn't exist.

Thanks for your reply. I'll try to go through it piece by piece. Some of my comments might fit in several positions, I hope one can still follow what my thoughts on this are.

(1) It was you yourself who said that you like using only knives in RE games because bullets are too valuable, plus knifing led to creative ways of killing enemies. But I don't understand how you couldn't come up with creative ways in BotW when there are so many. For instance, you can always use the bow, that is the first thought. Many enemies can be dealt with bows and arrows perfectly fine and you most likely have enough arrows with you at any time. Plus the standard arrows can be recollected. Also, when we think of enemy camps and hideouts, most of them have some sort of twist or gimmick that you can use to your advantage, like a big puddle of water so you can electrocute your enemies, or explosive barrels lying nearby. And let's not forget about bombs. They never run out and can be used as an effective weapon. I argue that running out of options to defeat enemies is barely possible.

(2) Look, I know that you had a very restricted way of playing the game because you refused to use the teleport function, instead you traveled everywhere by foot and therefore you reached the woods very late where you could upgrade your inventory. I get that, that's fine and cool if you wanted to do that. So this leads to situations in certain hot and cold areas where you needed the required weapons while having to manage a very small inventory, I get that. But come on, let's face it, you are the minority. Most players don't restrict themselves like that. 

(3a) About matching different enemy types: You mean like regular Lizalfos, Fire Lizalfos and Ice Lizalfos? Where the elemental ones can be one-hitted with the opposite elemental arrow? Okay fair enough, but even the elemental ones can be killed with regular weapons and even the regular ones can be killed with elemental weapons if you just so happen to not have any other ways. When you don't have the optimal methods, you are supposed to come around with a different solution. This new solution may be less efficient, but that doesn't matter if it still works.

(3b) Or do you mean different enemy types like Moblins, Hinoxi, Lynels and so on? I definitely agree that a lot of weapons are required to bring these down, no question about that, but when I encounter one and I think I'm not prepared enough I simply walk around, mark the spot on the map, return when I a have better gear and then get the job done. That's a valid tactic. All encounters are optional except for bosses in the titans but I argue that you will be showered with strong weapons along the way so that is also not a concern.

(4) Sorry I do not understand this logic. When you travel through Hyrule and your weapons break along the way and you find other ones instead that means that your inventory is constantly switching up, isn't it? Therefore you experiment by default because you're more or less forced to do so.

(5) See 3a. It's not required to use the best weapon against a certain enemy, just use whatever you have at hand and what the situation allows.

(6) To me it is the polar opposite. It pushes new approaches and makes you plan ahead much more. Sorry but your arguments do not hold much weight, if I'm being honest.

- Plenty of games have bullets with specific charactertistics, even Zelda itself does with elemental arrows. It's the same concept.

You're acting as if I didn't literally mention exactly that, and why that doesn't change my point whatsoever.

"In some cases there are special ammo that give the weapon unique characteristics depending on which type you chose to load it with. But even then, the gun itself is very important."

That part of that situation is the same concept, except you're ignoring the gun. The main factor in what separates one attack from another in RE.
If the ammo is the weapon in Zelda, then what is the gun? You glosesed over that part, as well as just about 99% of every other comparison I made that contradicts yours.

Why is it that in your analogy, there are two factors on the Zelda side (weapons & durability), but only one factor on the RE side? (Just ammo. No guns exist apparently.)
That's not how you make an analogy.

If the ammo in RE is the equivalent to the weapons in Zelda, then what is the gun in RE the equivalent of?

I explained why the game may not be designed that way (because there is a repair system in it, which suggests that we're not just meant to use up and discard everything unless we want to), but you just repeat your claim again, without explaining.
I even made a point about how there is a lack of explanation behind these reasonings to begin with.

And even if we pretend there was no repair system in the game, telling people how to feel about something as personal as sentimental value in games comes off as really tone deaf.

There's also the strategic aspect of saving weapons.

Throughout your life, how many times have you complained about a design choice in a game you didn't agree with?
Where was this energy then about "the problem is my mindset and playstyle"?

Is the problem also with my mindset and playstyle that I don't enjoy slipping down a mountain every time it randomly rains? Or is there an exception there where criticism can be valid, but for some reason not when it comes to the weapon breakage system?

I'm sure Nintendo didn't intend for you to feel frustrated with their releases either.

Yet you still complained about it.
And when a bunch of people were dogpiling on you for critisicing them, I had to remind them that people have different perspectives, and that they're not wrong for feeling the way they do. A mindset you seem to have forgotten now.

It would still be there for lore purposes in some other way under my suggestion. And where did I say a single word about relying on one thing permanently?
The fact that it's only a temporary break for the Master Sword but not for other weapons is exactly what I'm talking about. 

It doesn't seem like you even read half my post. Which granted is understandable as it was long. But if you're going to reply, then you should at least read through a post first.

So why not break the Master Sword permanently when you swing it a few times?  It can still have a presence in the story after it breaks in other ways. But the player loses its in-game abilities after a few uses.
If we shouldn't be attached to expendable items, which this would be from a gameplay perspective, then why not?

So then why have you not told yourself this in the past, instead of wanting change?
It will inevitably only lead to frustraton, as you said. You just needed a different mindset, and fall in line with what was intended.

And I already challenged your claim that all weapons are meant to be expended with the fact that there is a stamina replenishing system in the game. If we are just meant to expend and discard everything, why is that in the game? I'd rather hear your counter argument before you double down on it again. 

- There is no gun. The weapons are ammo to be used, that's all.

There's a gun in RE though. And it's kind of a big deal.
You can't make an analogy to Zelda's weapon system without including the most imoportant weapon aspect from RE's system.

That's why the analogy you guys made never worked.

That is not what I 'm reffering to.

There is a way to fully repair durability on most weapons (Amiibo weapons cannot be repaied for some reason, etc.) as long as it didn't reach 0.
There are NPC's in the game that do this for Link.

It can be a tedious process if you want to repair many weapons. Because the NPC's will have to be respawned. But the system is there, so you could theoretically use the same weapons throughout the whole game.

It's not like I'm doing it on purpose.
I would have loved to use all the cool weapons I found in Fire Emblem games instead of seeing them rotting in my inventory while the credits roll and I just used Bronze/Silver weapons the whole game.

But the game opens with the sword being broken.

(It's in the trailers and promotional material, so I don't consider it a spoiler.)
If they can break it in the beginning, they could break it later as well.

A common suggestion is that weapons should get a similar treatment where reacing 0 durability makes the weapon unusable, but not permanently gone.

Yeah, my bad. I meant to say durability replenishing system. Referring to the NPC's that can fix Link's weapons.
I'll edit that part of the post.

But it sounds like you were not aware that there is a repair system in the game that you can use over and over. (Even if cumbersome.)
You can look it up on youtube.
Do you still think they absolutely intended for players to not be attached to any weapons then?

- I didn't make the guns breaking analogy. I just pointed out that no, it's not the same because the weapons in BOTW/TOTK are themselves an expendable resource more like the bullets.

The core combat loop on the other hand is built around constantly cycling through weapons as they quickly break and are replaced. So yes, I still think that you're not meant to get attached, because if you were, the game would've facilitated this through weapons lasting much longer and repair being a major feature, like in something like Witcher 3.

- I was referring to its implementation in BOTW; I can't comment on TOTK yet, since if there is a point where it is reintroduced, I haven't reached it.

- You could argue that the weapons in Zelda are an expendable resource themselves. But you can't say that this is the equivalent of "bullets in *insert game", without accounting for the role weapons play in those games, or what durability does in Zelda.

They are different. And the primary difference is the breaking imo.

Secrets are a part of Zelda games though. Don't know if there are hints about this in the actual game, but you have to wonder about the purpose of its inclusion. If not to keep some of your favorite weapons, then what for?

They don't know which will be your favorite weapons though, so they'd have to apply the durability increase to all weapons. Which would have a big impact on the game balance.
Adding the ability to repair them at a later time seems like a more reasonable solution. The fact that it can be a cumbersome process doesn't though. But neither does climbing walls when its raining in BOTW, but they thought that was a great idea anyway.

Earlier you said that having permanent weapons would 'completely undermine the game's survival elements', and I asked you to explain that, but you didn't give one, so I'd like to ask for it again.

Permanent does not mean that the weapon constantly functions. It just means that the weapon will not disappear from your inventory when it hits 0 durability.

If weapons became unusable at 0 durability, and you had to leave the area or dungeon and go to to some NPC in a town to replenish the durability by paying with some other resource (like Rupees, or something similar), how does it 'completely undermine the game's survival elements'?

Or if the process of replenishing the durability of the equipment is the equivalent of finding a new copy of that same equipment?
But instead of getting an extra copy of that weapon, the durability of the one you already have gets restored.

They can adjust inventory space to accommodate for this, as well as how frequently you find the weapons based on how much durability you restored.
(Because finding a copy of a weapon and getting a durability refill when it was already at 99%, so you only refill it by 1%, is certain less rewarding than finding a brand new copy of that weapon.)

If anything it looks like this would result in the opposite of undermining the survivability elements.

1, Not only but yes, using knives and alternatives to conserve ammo when possible. I found the bow in BotW rather finicky to use, wasn't my favorite. But I did use it often. Mostly wished I could use those bow slots for weapons though :p My bows hardly ever broke as I didn't use them much. Just a waste of inventory space! Same with the shields. Never understood the use of them. They break too fast when using them for their intended purpose, ie blocking. So I just learned to dodge better instead of swapping shields as well. Then when you get better shields at the end I was long past using them. More inventory space wasted!