The durability system was not done well, at least in botw. It happened way too often, and it forced alot of people to just play the game with weaker weapons just because they wanted to conserve the stronger ones. It is not that hard to get strong weapons in botw, but it can indeed be very tedious, and not everyone wants to deal with that. This idea of "don't get attached" is so stupid. Believe it or not, sometimes people want to do more then 10 damage at a given point, but don't want to bother with getting a replacement. I don't want to have to restock my entire weapon inventory just because i decided to fight a lynel.
I like durability in fire emblem, because the way it's handled works with the genre. Since generally, it is not hard to restock on weapons, especially in later games, the issue then turns into if you want to conserve, for example your silver lance or just use it for the boss of that map and save an extra turn or 2 since that extra turn can be devastating for you, and hope you can replace it sooner then later, and even then, that system is not liked by everyone. The difference in botw is whether or not you want to spend more time killing that lynel or have your stronger weapons break and having to go spend time getting a replacement.
TOTK improved durability by making most of the importance lie with the fusing, so the importance on which weapon it is matters less, even though it does still obviously matter.
What's pissing me off about this thread is that many people on op's side, acts like the way they play is the correct way, when a game like BOTW is supposed to be played in many different ways. There isn't supposed to be a "correct way". If a system forces you to play a specific way, especially when the game is supposed to be open world, then that is not good. Maybe you like the system, but if it's a system that gets in the way of so many people, then maybe it's not a good one.