I'm not even that big of a fan of Jim's but donating to his Patreon now just to spite all the manbabies throwing hissy fits.
then he achieved his goal
I'm not even that big of a fan of Jim's but donating to his Patreon now just to spite all the manbabies throwing hissy fits.
It's not just difficulty though. It's also encouraging players to use different weapons, use runes, use the environment, use stealth; to PLAY more, which is the point
I'm not even that big of a fan of Jim's but donating to his Patreon now just to spite all the manbabies throwing hissy fits.
I'm not even that big of a fan of Jim's but donating to his Patreon now just to spite all the manbabies throwing hissy fits.
No, he has an objectively incorrect point.
Consider the game design; it's a massively open world. You will come back and revisit areas as you explore. Due to the nature of game design and the way you start out, your enemies are weaker and brandish weaker weapons than the more resilient enemies you'll encounter in other areas of the map as you explore further.
Weapon breakage acts as a dynamic scaling to the difficulty of enemy encounters. When you defeat more difficult enemies who wield more powerful powerful weapons, you are now effectively on the same footing as the enemies you are encountering in that area by having a weapon of equal capability. This doesn't happen drastically, as you move from one area to the next, the enemies slowly become more powerful, as do the weapons you find, so you are never hopelessly underpowered. The important thing here is also that you are never ridiculously overpowered either. If weapons didn't break, or you could simply repair them, then you would end up with an arsenal of high powered weapons that would simply destroy enemies easily as you venture back to areas of the game where lower level enemies with lower tier weapons exist, thus negating any perceivable challenge in revising areas.
What you find instead, is you keep a few high power weapons for areas when you know you'll venture into areas with high level enemies and use lower power weapons in areas with lower level enemies because weapons capable of defeating those enemies will remain in abundance.
It's a balancing act that prevents encounters from every being too difficult or too easy.
There's nothing wrong with people not liking any game for whatever reason. If people don't like this system, that's fine too, but it's implemented for a reason.
What is irking about Jim is his shouty, "I'm fucking right, this is never fun and fuck everyone else who didn't pick up on it." It's his usual shtick of being a pompous self righteous ass. He doesn't discuss or court any form of discussion, he simply talks down on anything he doesn't agree with or like and this is just his way of presenting things. As a 'journalist' the entire point is that you look at all angles. Jim could never see far enough past his need to jump on the subject and turn it into another one of his little tirades to actually consider the implementation of the system.
It's ok to not like it, but he makes a clear statement about the system that is extremely one dimensional. Some of his rants come across as justifiable, but on the whole I find the guy hard to take seriously when his ego gets out of control and his pulling his authoritarian rants on how everyone else is wrong. I'm sure many teenagers and some young adults find his sweary anti-establishment rants amusing, those of us that grew up just find it immature and boorish.
I think that if this wasn't Nintendo people would be much more critical. The game is fun but not perfect. You have a giant world you can walk to anywhere you see other games have done this.
I'm waiting for Nintendo to finally make a black main ( someone who can appear in smash) character or....a black link but sadly both will probably never happen.
That shrine you complained about is a hilarious example actually. That fancy guardian axe you broke? That was a second tier guardian axe. The guardian you broke it on drops three weapons that are even better, including a new axe that is strictly better. That is how Breath of the Wild works: you use strong weapons on strong enemies, and you get even better weapons as a result. Breaking that weaker guardian axe to get three awesome weapons is a steal. It was the best possible use of that weapon you can find. If you kept it, you would have pointlessly hoarded it until it was obsoleted by something better.As stated before I agree with him on Weapon durability, it's one of the worse part of the game, the second being Zelda's shitty English voice.
I did a moderate test of strength and I lost a weapon while doing that and I picked up a cool guardian ax and not long after I found a Major test of strength shrine and I went and did, my swanky brand new guardian ax broke during the fight and I wasn't too happy about that as I worked hard to get it in the first place and instead of it being a reward the games decides to punish me for using a strong weapon against the guardian, it felt like a total waste of my time.
Furthermore if a game has to resort to weapon durability as a mechanic to encourage players to experiment with their weapons then they have failed and could have easily found a better way of doing that by having that certain enemies are easier to defeat with the right weapons.
As for the second part of the video, yeah there's no excuse in attacking someone because they don't share the same feeling about the game as you did. It's childish, pathetic and gives the fan base a bad name though Jim did acknowledge that those people don't speak for the whole fan base and that it isn't mutually exclusive to one fan base.
This is a great post that will be ignored for the sake of controversy. I've played tons of open world games that either level scale or wall you off, and it sucks. The only thing i'd change about the weapon system is placing a secondary weapon as a 'second line' in the event your weapon breaks as to not need to swap in the middle of a fight.
Do I need ta play the new Zelda to post in this thread?
At least half of the thread title and video posted in the OP is in regards to weapon durability in games in general. I posted earlier about the few games I'd encountered this gameplay mechanic in an how I didn't like it. No one should have to have played every game with that mechanic in order to discuss it in a thread about it.
Anyhow less then a second is still longer then not at all. Real time weapon switching or even assigning weapons/items to say the d-pad has kinda been a thing for awhile now. Phantasy Star Online had a quick weapon/item select menu alllll the way back in 2000 on the now ancient Dreamycast tech. The action didn't pause, you were expected to evade baddies while you menu'd. In addition you could assign different attacks/items to 3 face buttons, and then R should+ the 3 face buttons for a total of 6, again all in real time. Shining Soul on the piddly lil GBA in 2002 let ya assign 3 weapons the the L should button and 3 items to the R shoulder button an let ya cycle through 'em in real time with no pause in the action. I dunno. Maybe all that can be said is that Sega (and many others) really does what Nintendon't?
Theres stuff even in my favorite games that annoy me so its likely this would. Enough to make me not have fun? Prolly not on its own, but the general Zelda trappings, the open world, an who knows what else possibly would. Sadly(?) I'm in no position ta drop $400+ to see if I'm right or wrong. An even if I do get a Switch someday, with the way Nintendo game prices never go down I prolly wouldn't drop $60 to find out either.
In BotW? Ya, then its totally not a game for me.
I think that if this wasn't Nintendo people would be much more critical.
The game is fun but not perfect.
You have a giant world you can walk to anywhere you see other games have done this.
It really does sound like a lot of the complaints about weapon durability stem from the ability to not to be able to run around with a flaming sword and use it all the time without breaking. Or the pausing in combat to switch weapons. Outside of that no one has come up with legitimate criticisms of how weapon degradation ruins the flow of gameplay. And no I don't mean 2 second pauses. I'm referring to instances where you're completely unable to do anything or get stuck having to find or farm a weapon because you're unable to continue playing.
In fairness, it would be but in BOTW at no point did the combat/difficulty feel balanced. I was always up against enemies that were either way too easy or way too hard.
Edit: Hard is the wrong word. They were never hard, but just had much more health and needed to be approached more carefully.
I think that if this wasn't Nintendo people would be much more critical. The game is fun but not perfect. You have a giant world you can walk to anywhere you see other games have done this.
I'm waiting for Nintendo to finally make a black main ( someone who can appear in smash) character or....a black link but sadly both will probably never happen.
Just going in circles here but for me it discourages engaging in combat and exploring the world. I really like the game but now I'm about 30 hours in and I just run by every combat encounter I can because there is no point in engaging. It's almost always a net loss in terms of your weapons. It also discourages exploration because most of the time the reward is a weapon/shield/bow I don't need.
I'm pretty good at games like this and I found plenty of situations where I put myself in too difficult of scenarios. I killed a lynel with 4 hearts and a basic 2 hand sword, but it took forever. The weapon I got from him was way better than what I had. In this game you can go anywhere AND win right from the start, but for most that will be a big struggle. If I could sneak into the castle and get the 60+ damage bow from the get go and run, it would break the game.
Not only does the system as it is, encourage swapping and using new weapons, but it also creates a nice balance so you can truly roam the world instead of walling off entire segments or auto leveling the whole time.
Then incentive for me is either whatever weapons they have or just straight up monster parts. I love picking up monster parts! One of the most surprising things about BotW for me is how much I like the economy. I'm always using rupees and needing rupees so farming monster parts to sell or make elixirs to sell is a big incentive for me.
I'm a bit confused at encounters being a net loss in weapons for you though. I almost always engage but I almost always have a full cadre of weapons, both before and after encounters.
I'm sorry, but if you can't figure out the systems of the game, that's on your credibility. You can say they're too difficult for a newcomer, but if you give a lower to SFIII cause you never figured out parrying, your opinion will be disregarded. Everyone has an opinion, doesn't mean I can't laugh at it.You could use that excuse for any game review. Any reviewer could criticize any mechanic for being 'bad', score it accordingly, and then you could dismiss the reasoning behind that criticism as being 'the player's fault for not enjoying it', since it was an intentional part of the game design.
For example, say a game doesn't allow saving but once every hour. A reviewer notes how obnoxious that is and how it isn't fun, scores it 7/10. But then you could say, that mechanic is intentional. The game is much more intense that way, causing the player to make decisions based on making it to the next checkpoint.
To be honest though, what you described up there sounds awesome. If I forced my way through a really tough battle I should be rewarded with something more meaningful than a bow that will last for 15-20 shots.
Nobody expected him to give BOTW a perfect score - but a 7 solely because he didn't like weapon durability, is beyond harsh. An 8 or 9 based on that criticism is understandable - but a 7? That score makes it seem like it's a decent, but irrevocably flawed game, which BOTW most certainly is not.
Oh...a Nintendo is racist post. I genuinely didn't see this coming.
Nintendo fanatics: *DDOS Jim, tell him to kill himself*This is madness.
Jim bashes Zelda fans and calls them "fanatics" and then makes a video to trash them.
That was beyond childish and unnecessary.
To be honest though, what you described up there sounds awesome. If I forced my way through a really tough battle I should be rewarded with something more meaningful than a bow that will last for 15-20 shots.
sorry man, but you really suck at this game lol
Well in that context, you can leave the castle with 15+ awesome weapons. I haven't had a 'junk' weapon in my inventory for dozens of hours now, aside if a quest needs one anyways. All of my swords, bows, etc are amazing, I also had to kick a whole lot of ass to get there. Now if I need super cool bow I just go maul a lynel and take his triple shot 30+ damage bow.
No, it's not. It's absolutely a 7. And an 8. And a 9.5. A 10. A 5, 6, Average, Perfect, and so onHe gives a 7/10 to a game that is clearly a critical darling - that has more perfect scores than any entertainment product in history this far - and precedes said review with negative tweets towards Nintendo and Zelda fans in general, giving the impression that "*wrings hands* Muhahaha! I'll show the Zelda fans something...oh, and Nintendo too...heh, heh *wrings hands*"
This isn't a red-flag to anyone that he might just be doing this to illicit a negative reaction??
Nobody expected him to give BOTW a perfect score - but a 7 solely because he didn't like weapon durability, is beyond harsh. An 8 or 9 based on that criticism is understandable - but a 7? That score makes it seem like it's a decent, but irrevocably flawed game, which BOTW most certainly is not.
Loo king at it objectively, no game is perfect, but BOTW is a solid 9.5 if ever there was one.
No, he has an objectively incorrect point.
Consider the game design; it's a massively open world. You will come back and revisit areas as you explore. Due to the nature of game design and the way you start out, your enemies are weaker and brandish weaker weapons than the more resilient enemies you'll encounter in other areas of the map as you explore further.
Weapon breakage acts as a dynamic scaling to the difficulty of enemy encounters. When you defeat more difficult enemies who wield more powerful powerful weapons, you are now effectively on the same footing as the enemies you are encountering in that area by having a weapon of equal capability. This doesn't happen drastically, as you move from one area to the next, the enemies slowly become more powerful, as do the weapons you find, so you are never hopelessly underpowered. The important thing here is also that you are never ridiculously overpowered either. If weapons didn't break, or you could simply repair them, then you would end up with an arsenal of high powered weapons that would simply destroy enemies easily as you venture back to areas of the game where lower level enemies with lower tier weapons exist, thus negating any perceivable challenge in revising areas.
What you find instead, is you keep a few high power weapons for areas when you know you'll venture into areas with high level enemies and use lower power weapons in areas with lower level enemies because weapons capable of defeating those enemies will remain in abundance.
It's a balancing act that prevents encounters from every being too difficult or too easy.
There's nothing wrong with people not liking any game for whatever reason. If people don't like this system, that's fine too, but it's implemented for a reason.
What is irking about Jim is his shouty, "I'm fucking right, this is never fun and fuck everyone else who didn't pick up on it." It's his usual shtick of being a pompous self righteous ass. He doesn't discuss or court any form of discussion, he simply talks down on anything he doesn't agree with or like and this is just his way of presenting things. As a 'journalist' the entire point is that you look at all angles. Jim could never see far enough past his need to jump on the subject and turn it into another one of his little tirades to actually consider the implementation of the system.
It's ok to not like it, but he makes a clear statement about the system that is extremely one dimensional. Some of his rants come across as justifiable, but on the whole I find the guy hard to take seriously when his ego gets out of control and his pulling his authoritarian rants on how everyone else is wrong. I'm sure many teenagers and some young adults find his sweary anti-establishment rants amusing, those of us that grew up just find it immature and boorish.
Maybe, but at least I have basic grammar and spelling on my side.
Maybe, but at least I have basic grammar and spelling on my side.
Sure, but the effort put in doesn't match the reward so it isn't worth doing.
Lack of diversity doesn't equal racist. Just sad that the company that got me into games who makes such wonderful characters doesn't have anyone who has anything in common with me other than gender.
Maybe, but at least I have basic grammar and spelling on my side.
No, he has an objectively incorrect point.
Consider the game design; it's a massively open world. You will come back and revisit areas as you explore. Due to the nature of game design and the way you start out, your enemies are weaker and brandish weaker weapons than the more resilient enemies you'll encounter in other areas of the map as you explore further.
Weapon breakage acts as a dynamic scaling to the difficulty of enemy encounters. When you defeat more difficult enemies who wield more powerful powerful weapons, you are now effectively on the same footing as the enemies you are encountering in that area by having a weapon of equal capability. This doesn't happen drastically, as you move from one area to the next, the enemies slowly become more powerful, as do the weapons you find, so you are never hopelessly underpowered. The important thing here is also that you are never ridiculously overpowered either. If weapons didn't break, or you could simply repair them, then you would end up with an arsenal of high powered weapons that would simply destroy enemies easily as you venture back to areas of the game where lower level enemies with lower tier weapons exist, thus negating any perceivable challenge in revising areas.
What you find instead, is you keep a few high power weapons for areas when you know you'll venture into areas with high level enemies and use lower power weapons in areas with lower level enemies because weapons capable of defeating those enemies will remain in abundance.
It's a balancing act that prevents encounters from every being too difficult or too easy.
There's nothing wrong with people not liking any game for whatever reason. If people don't like this system, that's fine too, but it's implemented for a reason.
What is irking about Jim is his shouty, "I'm fucking right, this is never fun and fuck everyone else who didn't pick up on it." It's his usual shtick of being a pompous self righteous ass. He doesn't discuss or court any form of discussion, he simply talks down on anything he doesn't agree with or like and this is just his way of presenting things. As a 'journalist' the entire point is that you look at all angles. Jim could never see far enough past his need to jump on the subject and turn it into another one of his little tirades to actually consider the implementation of the system.
It's ok to not like it, but he makes a clear statement about the system that is extremely one dimensional. Some of his rants come across as justifiable, but on the whole I find the guy hard to take seriously when his ego gets out of control and his pulling his authoritarian rants on how everyone else is wrong. I'm sure many teenagers and some young adults find his sweary anti-establishment rants amusing, those of us that grew up just find it immature and boorish.
Sure, but the effort put in doesn't match the reward so it isn't worth doing.
Dude, it's just a fucking number.This is madness.
Jim bashes Zelda fans and calls them "fanatics" and then makes a video to trash them.
That was beyond childish and unnecessary.
But isn't it a little fanatical on the side of people saying "Great video Jim" and "Way to go Jim" when he's clearly made this video just for spite? Are his "fans" not a bit fanatical as well?
He gives a 7/10 to a game that is clearly a critical darling - that has more perfect scores than any entertainment product in history this far - and precedes said review with negative tweets towards Nintendo and Zelda fans in general, giving the impression that "*wrings hands* Muhahaha! I'll show the Zelda fans something...oh, and Nintendo too...heh, heh *wrings hands*"
This isn't a red-flag to anyone that he might just be doing this to illicit a negative reaction??
Nobody expected him to give BOTW a perfect score - but a 7 solely because he didn't like weapon durability, is beyond harsh. An 8 or 9 based on that criticism is understandable - but a 7? That score makes it seem like it's a decent, but irrevocably flawed game, which BOTW most certainly is not.
Looking at it objectively, no game is perfect, but BOTW is a solid 9.5 if ever there was one.
Look at it from the principle of Occam's Razor. The principle of Occam's Razor suggests that given two explanations, the simpler of the two is usually the correct one. So is it that under Jim Sterling's masterful reviewing skills, that just because he doesn't like tbe way weapon durability is handled he docks the game 3 points...
...or is it that he just gravely dislikes Nintendo and loves trolling Nintendo and Zelda fans and preceded his review by releasing menacing, trolling tweets aimed directly at Nintendo and Zelda fans; then releases a very shockingly-low scoring review for the game and coincidentally makes a video *almost as if he already had most of it done already* the day after said review.
You can make up your own minds based on that.
Incidentally, I loathe Jim Sterling. I find him the opposite of funny. He's illogical, self-absorbed and a tremendous attention seeking individual. He thrives on stirring the pot unnecessarily and feeds on the disdain and discourse he himself creates. He's like a baby in a playpen - take it's pacifier away and the ensuing screaming and whining from the child is basically a Jimquisition video.
Nobody expected him to give BOTW a perfect score - but a 7 solely because he didn't like weapon durability, is beyond harsh. An 8 or 9 based on that criticism is understandable - but a 7? That score makes it seem like it's a decent, but irrevocably flawed game, which BOTW most certainly is not.
Nintendo managed to put something in that is upsetting gamers but at the same time challenging them to rethink the way they play the game.
then he achieved his goal
Opening a hard one chest to find another disposable weapon I can't get attach to, it's a letdown, not a reward. Never have I been so happy to find just 100 rupees at the end of a challenge.
In my experience if the fight is low effort, your weapons don't break; if the fight is high effort, you get better gear back. Simple.
I do think Jim definitely knew the review backlash was coming and fully embraced it in order to gain the attention.This is madness.
Jim bashes Zelda fans and calls them "fanatics" and then makes a video to trash them.
That was beyond childish and unnecessary.
But isn't it a little fanatical on the side of people saying "Great video Jim" and "Way to go Jim" when he's clearly made this video just for spite? Are his "fans" not a bit fanatical as well?
He gives a 7/10 to a game that is clearly a critical darling - that has more perfect scores than any entertainment product in history this far - and precedes said review with negative tweets towards Nintendo and Zelda fans in general, giving the impression that "*wrings hands* Muhahaha! I'll show the Zelda fans something...oh, and Nintendo too...heh, heh *wrings hands*"
This isn't a red-flag to anyone that he might just be doing this to illicit a negative reaction??
Nobody expected him to give BOTW a perfect score - but a 7 solely because he didn't like weapon durability, is beyond harsh. An 8 or 9 based on that criticism is understandable - but a 7? That score makes it seem like it's a decent, but irrevocably flawed game, which BOTW most certainly is not.
Looking at it objectively, no game is perfect, but BOTW is a solid 9.5 if ever there was one.
Look at it from the principle of Occam's Razor. The principle of Occam's Razor suggests that given two explanations, the simpler of the two is usually the correct one. So is it that under Jim Sterling's masterful reviewing skills, that just because he doesn't like tbe way weapon durability is handled he docks the game 3 points...
...or is it that he just gravely dislikes Nintendo and loves trolling Nintendo and Zelda fans and preceded his review by releasing menacing, trolling tweets aimed directly at Nintendo and Zelda fans; then releases a very shockingly-low scoring review for the game and coincidentally makes a video *almost as if he already had most of it done already* the day after said review.
You can make up your own minds based on that.
Incidentally, I loathe Jim Sterling. I find him the opposite of funny. He's illogical, self-absorbed and a tremendous attention seeking individual. He thrives on stirring the pot unnecessarily and feeds on the disdain and discourse he himself creates. He's like a baby in a playpen - take it's pacifier away and the ensuing screaming and whining from the child is basically a Jimquisition video.
Almost done watching the video, and while I'm loving so far what I've played of Zelda and don't agree with all Jim points; this line resonated a lot with me:
Yesterday, I was completing some shrines and when I see those chest, all I can think it "please be material, or rupees; please not another weapon".
I know many people love Jim, but a lot of his usual shtick has gotten old to me. Mission accomplished of course, as everyone is talking about his review.
Sure, but the effort put in doesn't match the reward so it isn't worth doing.
I'm not even that big of a fan of Jim's but donating to his Patreon now just to spite all the manbabies throwing hissy fits.
edit: I would legitimately love to know if people like Jim tend to get a spike in revenue when they create controversy, negative or otherwise. I imagine it'd be hard to find anyone willing to disclose that information though.
You're right, to be fair, it doesn't. But bear in mind, they're a Japanese company. Do you really expect them to conform to the race demographics of your own country?
But what if some people feel it is?
I'd have gone with an 8/10, and I certainly have no agenda. It just wasn't as fun for me as Nioh or Horizon.
Nobody expected him to give BOTW a perfect score - but a 7 solely because he didn't like weapon durability, is beyond harsh. An 8 or 9 based on that criticism is understandable - but a 7? That score makes it seem like it's a decent, but irrevocably flawed game, which BOTW most certainly is not.
Looking at it objectively, no game is perfect, but BOTW is a solid 9.5 if ever there was one.
Incidentally, I loathe Jim Sterling. I find him the opposite of funny. He's illogical, self-absorbed and a tremendous attention seeking individual. He thrives on stirring the pot unnecessarily and feeds on the disdain and discourse he himself creates. He's like a baby in a playpen - take it's pacifier away and the ensuing screaming and whining from the child is basically a Jimquisition video.
People are allowed to feel differently? Is that why I ended my post by saying it was my personal opinion? Also no I'm not looking for justification as I'm clearly enjoying the game. However I simply stated that there has been virtually no legitimate criticisms on how the durability system actually ruins the flow of gameplay. Yes it ruins some players play style while at the same time others are enjoying it but what about discussing the real mechanics behind it. Does the durability system often force players to stop what they're doing and backtrack to replace weapon? Do players often have to exit combat because their weapons keep breaking leaving them defenseless? That's a big difference from " I skip combat because I don't want to lose this weapon I like and replace it with something I don't like as much".Man, you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. What is not a big deal to you may not be to someone else. You are looking for a justification that you feel would validate the criticism, but it doesn't exist for you. You don't have a problem with the system; that's great. Some other people do.
Moreover, you would be better served not trying to undermine other people's criticisms simply because you don't agree with them.
People are allowed to feel differently. That goes for you, and that goes for everyone that disagrees with you.
I think that if this wasn't Nintendo people would be much more critical. The game is fun but not perfect. You have a giant world you can walk to anywhere you see other games have done this.
I'm waiting for Nintendo to finally make a black main ( someone who can appear in smash) character or....a black link but sadly both will probably never happen.
Look at it from the principle of Occam's Razor. The principle of Occam's Razor suggests that given two explanations, the simpler of the two is usually the correct one. So is it that under Jim Sterling's masterful reviewing skills, that just because he doesn't like tbe way weapon durability is handled he docks the game 3 points...
...or is it that he just gravely dislikes Nintendo and loves trolling Nintendo and Zelda fans and preceded his review by releasing menacing, trolling tweets aimed directly at Nintendo and Zelda fans; then releases a very shockingly-low scoring review for the game and coincidentally makes a video *almost as if he already had most of it done already* the day after said review.
You can make up your own minds based on that.