The weapons aren't the guns. They're the bullets. Getting attached to a specific sword is like getting attached to a specific bullet in Resident Evil. You use them, you get new ones. They're there to be used, not hoarded.
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.
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.
The problem here is not the game design, it's that people are bringing the wrong playstyle and mentality to it.
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.
Having permanent weapons would completely undermine the game's survival elements
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.
not being able to just pick one weapon and play nothing else is the whole point. You are supposed to be making do with the resources you have at any one time, much like a survival horror game might require you to make do with limited ammo or items at any one time. It's a resource management mechanic.
You are not supposed to get attached to the weapons, you just use them then get new ones.
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.