Support NeoGAF

[goldenpp72]

You know, having seen some gameplay of the game, I can see where Jim's coming from. Completing a quest and getting a super cool weapon that'll break absurdly fast can kill the excitement of getting that weapon in the first place, since you know it's A) going to be gone before you know it or B) stuck in your inventory because you're too afraid you'll accidentally waste it on a nothing enemy.

I feel like if there was a thing on the Sheikah Slate that let you sacrifice the common loot weapons you got to boost and restore an existing weapon's durability, the mechanic would be less divisive and Nintendo would've actually gotten that "choice and variety" thing down.

The quest in this game are rarely something you're doing to obtain said weapons, they are usually just you trying to get an objective done and sometimes get rewarded. There is no 'go do this super challenge to get super weapon that breaks immediately' that i've seen in the 100 hours I've put in.

 

[Deckard Chapel]

Honest question; are you ok? Do you need some time away from the computer to relax?

Oh believe me, I'm fine.

I'm at work and it's a slow day, so I've got ample time to peruse Neogaf and share my opinion on his opinion.

Nothing can dissuade me from the fact that by looking at every other review of this game, my own personal thoughts and feelings on it - as well as my friends opinions and millions of others opinions - that this game is above a 7. All the evidence points to him giving it a lower than average score only to rock the boat.

 

[blankempathy]

The quest in this game are rarely something you're doing to obtain said weapons, they are usually just you trying to get an objective done and sometimes get rewarded. There is no 'go do this super challenge to get super weapon that breaks immediately' that i've seen in the 100 hours I've put in.

Yep. If I did a huge quest line to get a weapon that breaks easily I'd be pissed too. Most of the quests promote exploration anyways.

 

[Screaming Meat]

Oh believe me, I'm fine.

I'm at work and it's a slow day, so I've got ample time to peruse Neogaf and share my opinion on his opinion.

Nothing can dissuade me from the fact that by looking at every other review of this game, my own personal thoughts and feelings on it - as well as my friends opinions and millions of others opinions - that this game is above a 7. All the evidence points to him giving it a lower than average score only to rock the boat.

Aren't review scores entirely subjective?

...at least you're not abusing Occam's Razor now.

 

[jviggy43]

Oh believe me, I'm fine.

I'm at work and it's a slow day, so I've got ample time to peruse Neogaf and share my opinion on his opinion.

Nothing can dissuade me from the fact that by looking at every other review of this game, my own personal thoughts and feelings on it - as well as my friends opinions and millions of others opinions - that this game is above a 7. All the evidence points to him giving it a lower than average score only to rock the boat.

Shrug, BoTW might be one of my favorite games and Zelda games of all time, but the majority of his complaints are totally valid.

 

[Majukun]

Shrug, BoTW might be one of my favorite games and Zelda games of all time, but the majority of his complaints are totally valid.

that's debatable

 

[MTC100]

Oh believe me, I'm fine.

I'm at work and it's a slow day, so I've got ample time to peruse Neogaf and share my opinion on his opinion.

Nothing can dissuade me from the fact that by looking at every other review of this game, my own personal thoughts and feelings on it - as well as my friends opinions and millions of others opinions - that this game is above a 7. All the evidence points to him giving it a lower than average score only to rock the boat.

Well, yet perhaps, you might want to consider playing Hyrule Warriors instead, I've heard Jim gave that game a 9.5/10 and also praised its DLC...

 

[Deckard Chapel]

It's just a review, mate.

Yes, it was.

I'm not sure that's quite how Occam's Razor works. The simplest solution is the least complex one, hence why "he gave it the score he thought it deserved" is the one the razor would lean towards; it has fewer variables, so to speak.

In my philosophy days, we used Occam's Razor in our experiments and another class work to help break down something that was simple/obvious as to a choice that needed to be determined. For example, lets say you feel that your girlfriend cheated on you. If all the evidence supports that conclusion and you just "felt" in your gut this was the case, versus the simple explanation from her as "I would never cheat on you" - the obvious answer is if the evidence is there and you just "feel" it, you are most likely correct.

If you don't like his opinion of the game then go stand with the crowd and get your free t-shirt, but the conspiracy crap is unnecessary.

See above answer

 

[toddhunter]

Explain why weapon degradation is a flawed mechanic in the context of Dead Rising or Breath of the Wild. The games are designed around losing weapons by giving you amply opportunity to acquire new replacements, even more than you can carry most of the time.

You say pointless busy work but it's just a simple act of picking up a new weapon off the ground when one breaks. I would say the Souls stat system is a better definition of pointless busy work. Min/maxing your strength/dexterity to get the best damage output for your weapon while also maintaining a stat line for survivability is just fiddling around with a calculator on your character's stat screen.

Because you can't have it both ways.

Your answer is "there are so many weapons laying around that it doesn't matter". So what then does weapon degradation add besides more menu management?

If you actually had no weapons or they were scarce you could argue it is central to the game. System Shock 2 had this for example. Sure 98% of people hated it and changed the ini values but it did actually change how you played if you stuck with it.

As it stands in Zelda it is something unnecessary that gets in the way of what you want to do. Picking up 400 clubs or just having one club that never breaks is the same thing except for a lot of extra dicking around.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Hmmm. So Zelda weapon durability is that the weapons get destroyed?


In other games, the weapons durability in goes down so you have to repair them. In MMOs and online RPGs, developers have become more lax on making death in those games punishable. Durability of having to repair your armor and weapons serves as a method of reminding you "hey buddy, you fucked up. git gud. now pay a fee and repair your shit. maybe dodge out of the next time you imbecile?" < And I quite like that sort of repair system. To me that makes me feel the game is grounded. Players in a big sprawling world need a entry point to go back to towns- socialization, trade, grouping, organizing, storing hubs. They connect players and make a world feel alive.


The second thing is that "money sinks" is put in place to balance out an economy. You have players endlessly killing monsters and accumilating money. To stop the economy from getting out of hand, developers put in money sinks- Fees and costs with in game currency that eats up the players infinite resources. Usually it costs 30% profit trasnaction fees when you buy or sell something on the auction house, usually items or materials you need become gated by costs. boats, mounts, houses, equipment, storage expansion, account expansion and so on, becomes money sinks as well. The whole goal is not just to make the ingame currency feel worthwhile but to always continually make it feel desirable to get new currency.

So durability and repairs serve a purpose. On the other hand, you could say that this form of durability in Zelda, makes you appreciate the loot you've achieved less if it gets destroyed. You don't have time to be excited about it because it has no permanence.


I think the lack of permanence is really what is being said between the lines. Now, I've not played BoTW but I am not convinced that peoples actual objection to durability is really about the inconvenience. Open world games are full of inconvencieses. In and of themselves they are backtracking and time consuming. That is the ultimate aspect.

Rather the lack of permanence upsets people because you play games to escape the temporary existence of everything in real life. Your health, youth, material items, love for those near to you- Everything you have, everything you will have is fleeting and limited. Video games is a form of escapism where your items last forever, where your character doesn't age. It's comforting, it's secure, it's pleasent.

I totally get that there is a psychological barrier of not wanting that. If durability makes you not appreciate the loot because it has the lifespan of a mayfly, it makes sense people would be upset.



Now- In Black Desert they have a wonderful durability system. Since the game has strong sandbox elements, when you die or when you fight, you will need to repair your equipment. It doesnt cost as much, but it works as an achor. Usually it takes 1-2 hours of continueous grinding before you need to go back to a blacksmith and repair.

The first weapon and armor you get in the game can be upgraded to end game gear. no gear, weapon or armor is level gated. a level 1 can equip the best weapons in the game. everything has to be enhanced and enhanced and enhanced. and when you enhance the durability goes down. so what happens is that to restore the durabiity you need to seek identical items of the same time to restore the weapon. My main sword is a Yuria. If I want to upgrade my sword I need to enhance it, but that will lower its durability. so I need to collect many other Yuria swords out in the world- or make my own, or buy them off the market place from other players. And so it is with all the weapons and armor. It doesn't become permanently destroyed but they create an incentive to keep making the items worthwhile.

Because what happens in a lot of games is that once players get good enough gear they don't give a shit about the lesser gear. Thats a problem. because it ruins the fun of any loot table that is beneath them. With this system you create a constant supply and demand that makes prior items relevant.


For the case of Zelda, it seems (from what I can see) that enemy drops a lot of different weapons and so the developers might have thought that to keep making the weapon loot drops exciting they had to drop the lifespan of the weapons to keep making it worthwhile. But what they could have done would have been to allow you to take all those weapons - the replicas of weapons you already have, and used them to enhance your existing weapons. or something.

 

[WordsintheWater]

I spoke about this in the other locked thread, but I'm pretty much in line with Jim Sterling here, the weapon durability is one of the worst parts of the game for me. His point about him rather find a rupee in a chest then a weapon is something I thought of a couple of times while playing. I don't like weapon durability systems in general, but this one is by far the worst I have experienced. The argument that it encourages different styles of play is also lacking for me, they offer no compelling reason to try different weapons and took the easy way out by forcing you to use them.

 

[Zafir]

the problem is not if you don't like the mechanic
the problem is when people can't recongnize what would happen if it wasn't in the game.

i mean jim says that it doesn't feel satisfying to get a good weapon because it has limited uses, but what would happen if you make by chance a trip into an advanced proof of strenght and exit the shrines with a 60 damage guardian weapon?
from that moment on basically 90% of the weapons of the game are garbage to you..how is that satisfying?

and that's just one of the several things that would fell apart if you get rid of that mechanic.

That's a poor excuse though, I'm sorry.

Having early access to the better weapons in the Souls games doesn't affect the game at all. It still offers a challenge. You can run through 4-1 in Demon's Souls and get the Crescent Falchion, and it doesn't really change all that much. Drake Sword in Dark Souls is another example of this. More over different weapons in the Souls games offer different playstyles and other interesting ways to play. So it can still feel rewarding getting weapons past that. (in the Drake Swords case it actually get worse as you get higher level due to poor scaling)

You can balance the game around just being interesting and challenging.

You don't need to add durability as a crutch.

It's a design choice they made, which works for some people, doesn't work for others. I don't believe the game wouldn't work without it for one second though.

 

[Deckard Chapel]

Shrug, BoTW might be one of my favorite games and Zelda games of all time, but the majority of his complaints are totally valid.

Well, yet perhaps, you might want to consider playing Hyrule Warriors instead, I've heard Jim gave that game a 9.5/10 and also praised its DLC...

Is that true? Lol

That's would validate my theory

 

[Holiday]

"Trust your feelings, Luke." - William of Ockham, 1340

 

[riotous]

Hmmm. So Zelda weapon durability is that the weapons get destroyed?

Yes; often after using them against 2-3 enemies.

It's rather extreme compared to your typical RPG: there's generally no repairing them either.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

Oh believe me, I'm fine.

I'm at work and it's a slow day, so I've got ample time to peruse Neogaf and share my opinion on his opinion.

Nothing can dissuade me from the fact that by looking at every other review of this game, my own personal thoughts and feelings on it - as well as my friends opinions and millions of others opinions - that this game is above a 7. All the evidence points to him giving it a lower than average score only to rock the boat.

Jeff Gerstmann said he probably will not finish the game because he finds the durability and having to constantly manage inventory and the slow climbing very tedious. I don't think Jim is the only person who feels that way.

I think some things in games bother some a lot more than others. For example, I beat TW3 and I think it does some things better than any game I've ever played, but I also find controlling Geralt so uncomfortable that it really hurt my enjoyment of the game. Meanwhile, many on gaf thinks it's one of the best games ever made, but I can't regard a game with such poor controls that highly. For me it's an issue I couldn't get over even after 90+ hours. It really kept me from immersing into the game. If I were to review TW3, I would probably say it's a good game but would score it lower than most. So I completely understand Jim Sterling and Jeff Gerstmann finding some
Issues unforgivable.

I think parts of Jim's review come across as unprofessional when he references the thoughts of others in a review. I'd prefer a review not go there. But I also think he explains why he feels the way he does about the things that kept him from enjoying the game as much as he would have liked

 

[freethoughtbubble]

Because you can't have it both ways.

Your answer is "there are so many weapons laying around that it doesn't matter". So what then does weapon degradation add besides more menu management?

If you actually had no weapons or they were scarce you could argue it is central to the game. System Shock 2 had this for example. Sure 98% of people hated it and changed the ini values but it did actually change how you played if you stuck with it.

As it stands in Zelda it is something unnecessary that gets in the way of what you want to do. Picking up 400 clubs or just having one club that never breaks is the same thing except for a lot of extra dicking around.

Honest question, have you played the game? Because you don't keep getting the same weapon drops. Enemies wield a variety of weapons from the plateau onwards. You can have it both ways in this game--fast weapon degradation and diverse weapon pickups = using diverse assortment of weapons, often in improvisational combat scenarios.

 

[jviggy43]

that's debatable

Is that true? Lol

That's would validate my theory

By all means, elaborate.

 

[Me_Marcadet]

I don't mind the durability and was even enjoying it at first, but combined with limited slots, it ruined the flow of the game for me.

I have more than 50 hours of gameplay and I love the game, but right now whenever I explore or kill some monsters, I have to juggle and ponder longly what weapon I keep or toss and it's not fun anymore.

Here my weapon set :

Spoiler

I don't want to waste most of those weapons on regular monsters, so I use them sporadiccaly and switch between the "Knight" and "DragonBone" tier weapons I find on monsters.

It's very frustrating and limit my options a lot. Sure, I can use that Meteor Rod and have fun 15 seconds, but what if I will need it against a real icy threat ?

I also have to ditch rare weapons in order to use a torch, a Heavy Hammer or a Korok Leaf sometimes. I understand why we have the durability system, but they should have let us stack or repair rare and special weapons.

This flaw is really ruining my time with the game and make other flaws stick out more, and while it's clearly a well polished game and maybe the most polished Zelda game ever, It's not as fun to play as other games in the serie.

 

[Deckard Chapel]

"Trust your feelings, Luke." - William of Ockham, 1340

If the evidence supports his conclusion given all possible outcomes and if he is in a galaxy not-so-far away and in the year 1340, then yes Luke, trust those feelings.

 

[nded]

Weapon degradation should be a punishment for messing up rather than just something that happens no matter what. Like, an edged weapon should hack through fleshy targets all day without much worry but bashing it against walls and shields would obviously wear it down more quickly.

 

[Majukun]

I spoke about this in the other locked thread, but I'm pretty much in line with Jim Sterling here, the weapon durability is one of the worst parts of the game for me. His point about him rather find a rupee in a chest then a weapon is something I thought of a couple of times while playing. I don't like weapon durability systems in general, but this one is by far the worst I have experienced. The argument that it encourages different styles of play is also lacking for me, they offer no compelling reason to try different weapons and took the easy way out by forcing you to use them.

forcing the player to use different playstyles is one of the lesser reason the system is in place really

if you explore a bit and find a 50 damage weapon early on,then most of the loot will fill useless throughout the whole game, for once

also,the entire game is based around resource management and trying to survive in an hostile environment..weapon durability falls exactly in place with all the other system in place, forcing you to always be on your toes and judge what to do and when to do it, instead of just using that one good weapon for all the game and lamenting that the game has bad loot.

 

[aBarreras]

I don't mind the durability and was even enjoying it at first, but combined with limited slots, it ruined the flow of the game for me.

I have more than 50 hours of gameplay and I love the game, but right now whenever I explore or kill some monsters, I have to juggle and ponder longly what weapon I keep or toss and it's not fun anymore.

Here my weapon set :


I don't want to waste most of those weapons on regular monsters, so I use them sporadiccaly and switch between the "Knight" and "DragonBone" tier weapons I find on monsters.

It's very frustrating and limit my options a lot. Sure, I can use that Meteor Rod and have fun 15 seconds, but what if I will need it against a real icy threat ?

I also have to ditch rare weapons in order to use a torch, a Heavy Hammer or a Korok Leaf sometimes. I understand why we have the durability system, but they should have let us stack or repair rare and special weapons.

This flaw is really ruining my time with the game and make other flaws stick out more, and while it's clearly a well polished game and maybe the most polished Zelda game ever, It's not as fun to play as other games in the serie.

you can reforge the

Spoiler

champions

weapons

 

[Nessus]

I guess some people play games for the challenge and new ideas they bring to the table, some people just want to breeze through a game while being told how and what to do the whole way through. Not saying one way is wrong or right, its just obvious that the folks complaining don't want to put any effort into adapting their playstyle to fit the situation. Instead they complain that the game doesn't work exactly the way they want. Is this what is considered an "entitled gamer?" That's a question for another discussion that has been done before and doesn't end well.

But is the change they made actually fun?

I'm about a quarter of the way through the game and I agree with Jim that the weapon durability in this game just isn't fun (about the only games I've played where weapon durability didn't really annoy me were Fallout: New Vegas and, oddly enough, Dead Island). I don't *hate* it in Zelda and it hasn't prevented me from enjoying the game, but I know I'd be having even more fun with the game if it weren't a concern or if it was better balanced, and I think the game would be better overall if that were the case.

The result has been instead of the game encouraging me to try lots of weapons or different tactics I just hoard them and avoid almost all fights. Which sucks, because I generally love Zelda combat, but not when I feel like I have to ration everything. I'm giving serious consideration to getting the Master Sword early just so I don't have to deal with that crap.

I feel like it could have been fixed by simply tripling the durability of every weapon, except maybe stuff like branches or rusty swords (which are used to demonstrate durability to the player early on). To me that seems like that would be a much more reasonable amount of use to get out of a weapon. It's the kind of thing where I'd install a mod in a heartbeat if this game were on PC.

 

[V-Faction]

Weapon degradation should be a punishment for messing up rather than just something that happens no matter what. Like, an edged weapon should hack through fleshy targets all day without much worry but bashing it against walls and shields would obviously wear it down more quickly.

You can, actually. Cutting Grass = Never lose durability. Puzzle Switches will not lower your durability as well.

The place where they should've had the same effect is with Stasis puzzles. Sucks blowing through a Hammer just to have a ball fly in the wrong direction.

 

[Apathy]

Oh believe me, I'm fine.

I'm at work and it's a slow day, so I've got ample time to peruse Neogaf and share my opinion on his opinion.

Nothing can dissuade me from the fact that by looking at every other review of this game, my own personal thoughts and feelings on it - as well as my friends opinions and millions of others opinions - that this game is above a 7. All the evidence points to him giving it a lower than average score only to rock the boat.

I wonder. What do you think of GTA 4? Think that is worthy of a 98% on metacritic. It has very positive reviews, glowing even, or do you think the person at gamer node that gave it an 87% is probably closer to what it should have actually scored?

 

[aBarreras]

But is the change they made actually fun?

I'm about a quarter of the way through the game and I agree with Jim that the weapon durability in this game just isn't fun (about the only games I've played where weapon durability didn't really annoy me were Fallout: New Vegas and, oddly enough, Dead Island). I don't *hate* it in Zelda and it hasn't prevented me from enjoying the game, but I know I'd be having even more fun with the game if it weren't a concern or if it was better balanced, and I think the game would be better overall if that were the case.

The result has been instead of the game encouraging me to try lots of weapons or different tactics I just hoard them and avoid almost all fights. Which sucks, because I generally love Zelda combat, but not when I feel like I have to ration everything. I'm giving serious consideration to getting the Master Sword early just so I don't have to deal with that crap.

I feel like it could have been fixed by simply tripling the durability of every weapon, except maybe stuff like branches or rusty swords (which are used to demonstrate durability to the player early on). To me that seems like that would be a much more reasonable amount of use to get out of a weapon. It's the kind of thing where I'd install a mod in a heartbeat if this game were on PC.

about the master sword...

 

[Simon Belmont]

For me personally, finding out about the weapon degradation makes me way less interested in this game. It's a mechanic that I know is going to drive me mental.

 

[freethoughtbubble]

You can, actually. Cutting Grass = Never lose durability. Puzzle Switches will not lower your durability as well.

The place where they should've had the same effect is with Stasis puzzles. Sucks blowing through a Hammer just to have a ball fly in the wrong direction.

Okay, this I agree with 100 percent. Oh, and shield boarding.

 

[empo]

That's a poor excuse though, I'm sorry.

Having early access to the better weapons in the Souls games doesn't affect the game at all. It still offers a challenge. You can run through 4-1 in Demon's Souls and get the Crescent Falchion, and it doesn't really change all that much.

Okay so the clearly better choice would be weapons that barely matter because everything is the same. Really epic feeling when you get that 2DMG Guardian Axe instead of your 1DMG Club.

 

[Majukun]

By all means, elaborate.

his opinion against weapon durability seems to ignore everything that would go wrong in the game,or need to be adjusted or omitted if the system wasn't like it is,or wasn't in the game at all.

it's a gamne where you can go wherever you want from the beginning,that means that if you don't follow the main path that the game gives you at the start,you are gonna find some good weapon pretty early into the game, and then instead of being unsatisfied because that good loot is not gonna last long, you will be unsatisfied because a big percentage of all the loot is now useless because it's worst of the one good weapon you've found.

that without counting that the game gives you plenty of ways to approach an hostile encounter without having to use your resources (in this case weapons)..from sneaking to ewxploding barrels,to infinite bombs to setaling weapons,to all the other interactions you can have in this game.

that's the first thing i remember from his review..but i remember disagreeing with quite a lot of things he said and not finding his reasoning sound at all.

of course by all means he is entitled to his opinion.

 

[Zafir]

Okay so the clearly better choice would be weapons that barely matter because everything is the same. Really epic feeling when you get that 2DMG Guardian Axe instead of your 1DMG Club.

Okay, you haven't played a Souls game.

Good discussion, thanks for your input.

Didn't even bother to read the rest of the post which explains anything either.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

I don't mind the durability and was even enjoying it at first, but combined with limited slots, it ruined the flow of the game for me.

I have more than 50 hours of gameplay and I love the game, but right now whenever I explore or kill some monsters, I have to juggle and ponder longly what weapon I keep or toss and it's not fun anymore.

Here my weapon set :


I don't want to waste most of those weapons on regular monsters, so I use them sporadiccaly and switch between the "Knight" and "DragonBone" tier weapons I find on monsters.

It's very frustrating and limit my options a lot. Sure, I can use that Meteor Rod and have fun 15 seconds, but what if I will need it against a real icy threat ?

I also have to ditch rare weapons in order to use a torch, a Heavy Hammer or a Korok Leaf sometimes. I understand why we have the durability system, but they should have let us stack or repair rare and special weapons.

This flaw is really ruining my time with the game and make other flaws stick out more, and while it's clearly a well polished game and maybe the most polished Zelda game ever, It's not as fun to play as other games in the serie.

The thing is, almost all of those weapons you're saving become extremely common later on, then items a tier lower will show up with bonuses making them nearly on par with those rarer weapons, then the top tier weapons will start always having bonuses making them always outclass the standard ones.

That's kind of the thing in this game: once you realize that actually using those powerful weapons on strong enemies, instead of constantly saving them or purposefully avoiding combat, results in getting more and better weapons. If you just keep holding onto them, then that Flame Greatsword or Royal Broadsword is going to become obsolete or redundant before you decide you've discovered the perfect moment to use it.

 

[WordsintheWater]

forcing the player to use different playstyles is one of the lesser reason the system is in place really

if you explore a bit and find a 50 damage weapon early on,then most of the loot will fill useless throughout the whole game, for once

also,the entire game is based around resource management and trying to survive in an hostile environment..weapon durability falls exactly in place with all the other system in place, forcing you to always be on your toes and judge what to do and when to do it, instead of just using that one good weapon for all the game and lamenting that the game has bad loot.

It does nothing of the sort for me, not once did I feel like I had to be on my toes, it's just annoying to see my weapon break after a couple of hits, essentially pause the game and pick another from the list. The food mechanic feels better than the weapons mechanic. I personally don't like durability systems in the first place, but the pace of which weapons break in this is ridiculous.

 

[riotous]

if you explore a bit and find a 50 damage weapon early on,then most of the loot will fill useless throughout the whole game, for once

There's other ways of handling this though; weapons can have variations and levels (and level requirements); they can level with the player and top out, or any combination of those things. I've put thousands of hours into various RPGs and none of them had completely un-repairable weapons, but I always every once in a while found a new weapon to use as my main or side.

Zelda goes the complete opposite direction from what you just stated; finding a 50 damage weapon is nearly useless because you'll be afraid to use it in fear of losing it. At the very least; that is the feeling a lot of people are having. Many responses are "Well just use them, you'll find plenty more"... which in turn you then ask.. "why did it break then?" It's just not a rewarding loot system for many; it's a constant resource management thing.. and not everyone likes that.

also,the entire game is based around resource management and trying to survive in an hostile environment..weapon durability falls exactly in place with all the other system in place, forcing you to always be on your toes and judge what to do and when to do it,

This is certainly a valid point; it's also quite valid to not enjoy how this was implemented.

I personally prefer being able to use the cool new weapons I find without worry of them breaking; and plenty of RPGs have been able to do this without "making all the other loot pointless."

 

[Professor Beef]

Would it have killed them to let Link throw a fucking punch?

 

[Wallach]

You can, actually. Cutting Grass = Never lose durability. Puzzle Switches will not lower your durability as well.

The place where they should've had the same effect is with Stasis puzzles. Sucks blowing through a Hammer just to have a ball fly in the wrong direction.

100% agree. I wonder if they found some abuse case where weapons didn't lose durability when hitting objects affected by Stasis, but I would be hard-pressed to imagine what it could be. Maybe they just did so for consistency sake (hitting object against object hurts your weapon) but I do think that is a case where it probably lowered peoples' willingness to experiment with the Stasis rune as much as the others.

 

[Huge Succeeded]

The result has been instead of the game encouraging me to try lots of weapons or different tactics I just hoard them and avoid almost all fights. Which sucks, because I generally love Zelda combat, but not when I feel like I have to ration everything. I'm giving serious consideration to getting the Master Sword early just so I don't have to deal with that crap.

You should try just using the weapons. Early-game there's a bit of a twinge of regret when something dope breaks, but early-game, every single weapon is still perfectly viable, whether it's a Flameblade or a Boko Club, especially if you're playing smart. Using foods and potions to buff yourself appropriately, utilizing stealth mechanics/the hitbox or physics quirks of some items to trivialize encounters, etc.

Mid-way through the game you're going to find a lot more good loot. Almost to the point where I, someone who's firmly midway through the game (I guess?), really don't understand where the majority of these complaints are even coming from. I've always got cool or useful shit on me, and I know how to keep it, now. I know how to use it all effectively now, too, in combination with my rune skills and the environment, particularly because early-game had me mixing up my strategies and trying new things out of necessity. Now that I'm loaded up on good weapons and shit, it's just a matter of using it all effectively.

I'm still seeking out camps for chests because arrows and gems and the contents of breakable crates are all still very useful to me on a moment to moment basis. The occasional weapon really isn't, considering mobs drop weapons that are mostly comparable all the time now. If I've got one major complaint, it's that the chests aren't always worth seeking out, but I'm good enough at the game that taking out an entire camp is just a trivial thing I can throw myself into, and come out of with crafting materials, arrows, and maybe some tools, at the absolute least.

 

[Deckard Chapel]

I think parts of Jim's review come across as unprofessional when he references the thoughts of others in a review. I'd prefer a review not go there. But I also think he explains why he feels the way he does about the things that kept him from enjoying the game as much as he would have liked

You had me at unprofessional.

By all means, elaborate.

If I don't like something, I say it - I don't drone on and on about it for several minutes, spewing hyperbole and "jokes" that are only funny if you can try to remimagine them as an "actual" joke.

His shtick is tiresome and like "Angry Joe" - if he's on a rant about a game that you know he doesn't like - do you really expect him to be decent about it and give the game a high score?

"Angry Joe" and the "Angry Video Game Nerd" before him - their shtick is when reviewing a bad game that they obviously don't like, they're going to tear into it. Jim Sterling does the same thing with just about everything. His favorite topic as of late has been himself, which I never found to be particularly interesting even in the slightest initially; so now his videos [which have always been near-unwatchable and unbelievably annoying and self-serving] are irrelevant.

To think that Jim Sterling would review this game highly was a pipe dream. I knew his review was going to be a problem.

Anyway, we should all go play BOTW

 

[Audioboxer]

It was made easy for you Jim, but that video was great. Well stated boss!

 

[Ziocyte]

For me personally, finding out about the weapon degradation makes me way less interested in this game. It's a mechanic that I know is going to drive me mental.

A lot of people (myself included) dislike item degradation when flippantly injected into a game. BotW is not one of these cases. It is holistically tied with a number of other systems in the game which feed off each other, resulting in an experience which has received nearly universal praise by reviewers and people who have played it. Don't let this narrative psych you out. It really is being blown way out of proportion by the 98->97 metacritic controversy.

 

[Lanrutcon]

his opinion against weapon durability seems to ignore everything that would go wrong in the game,or need to be adjusted or omitted if the system wasn't like it is,or wasn't in the game at all.

it's a gamne where you can go wherever you want from the beginning,that means that if you don't follow the main path that the game gives you at the start,you are gonna find some good weapon pretty early into the game, and then instead of being unsatisfied because that good loot is not gonna last long, you will be unsatisfied because a big percentage of all the loot is now useless because it's worst of the one good weapon you've found.

that without counting that the game gives you plenty of ways to approach an hostile encounter without having to use your resources (in this case weapons)..from sneaking to ewxploding barrels,to infinite bombs to setaling weapons,to all the other interactions you can have in this game.

that's the first thing i remember from his review..but i remember disagreeing with quite a lot of things he said and not finding his reasoning sound at all.

of course by all means he is entitled to his opinion.

Nah, he meant elaborate on the conspiracy theory that Jim engineered the backlash, made the reaction videos in advance and riled up the Nintendo fanbase to make money.

That theory. Apparently there's evidence. I want to ask what it is, but I'm pretty sure all I'm going to get are guesses and "but Jim hates Nintendo!".

 

[Me_Marcadet]

you can reforge the

Spoiler

champions

weapons

The amount of time and work dedicated to reforge those weapons are not worth the thirty seconds of fun I will get by destroying some mobs.

So I rather keep them in my inventory until I face an appropriate threat (I destroyed a Talus in less than five seconds, it was amazing), and so they use a slot and I have to juggle between three weapons and so I'm very limited in my options against mob because I can't use a huge variety of weapons.

I tried to use the top tier weapons against regular mobs, but it was not fun. I destroyed them and lost my cool weapons, I felt like I wasted my time and playing the game was not worth it.

It's a cool system at the beginning of the game, but when you get a alot of cool special weapons, it's pointless and kill the combat system.

 

[NotLiquid]

That's a poor excuse though, I'm sorry.

Having early access to the better weapons in the Souls games doesn't affect the game at all. It still offers a challenge. You can run through 4-1 in Demon's Souls and get the Crescent Falchion, and it doesn't really change all that much. Drake Sword in Dark Souls is another example of this. More over different weapons in the Souls games offer different playstyles and other interesting ways to play. So it can still feel rewarding getting weapons past that. (in the Drake Swords case it actually get worse as you get higher level due to poor scaling)

You can balance the game around just being interesting and challenging.

You don't need to add durability as a crutch.

It's a design choice they made, which works for some people, doesn't work for others. I don't believe the game wouldn't work without it for one second though.

I mean, sure, the game will still work but... I don't think it'd be as elegant as it is in it's current form without heavily reconstructing the world as BoTW is designed. Even though they're an obstacle to overcome I feel like I appreciate so much more of the situations and contexts which allow me to utilize and gain more of them - which isn't to say they would work in every game ever. I generally don't prefer durability at all but can see why it had to be a compromise in this game. Dark Souls' way of handling it works for that game (even though that also hosts an example of a game where I do agree with Jim and find weapon degradation detrimental) while I think Breath of the Wild's way of handling it works for itself.

It's interesting to think about it I feel because it kind of evokes something of a deliberately disadvantageous piece of game design that almost feels like it's necessary to keep the overall playing field consistent. I've sort of speculated about this in another topic and how the Blue Shell from Mario Kart almost feels like it occupies a similar niche. It is an incredibly frustrating element to the game once you're in first place and is often one of the most detested items in the series, but at the same time it's an element that kind of elegantly balances the entire item meta to players who are caught up so far behind that it's hard to imagine the game without it. Impeding design elements for the benefit of the whole are probably more of an element in multiplayer games but the weapon degradation makes me think of situations that'd be comparable in single player games.

 

[Simon Belmont]

A lot of people (myself included) dislike item degradation when flippantly injected into a game. BotW is not one of these cases. It is holistically tied with a number of other systems in the game which feed off each other, resulting in an experience which has received nearly universal praise by reviewers and people who have played it. Don't let this narrative psych you out. It really is being blown way out of proportion by the 98->97 meteoritic controversy.

Loads of people loved Majora's Mask but I can't play the game because I don't want to deal with the time constraints. Lots of people hate Zelda 2 but I have a soft spot for it. People are funny, I'm no exception. I'm not saying it should be a deal breaker for anyone else, but for me it sounds like one.

 

[-shadow-]

While I don't mind the weapon durability in enough itself, there are three things that I do think that should've been done differently. Enemies can keep theirs for however long a battle lasts and that very same weapon might barely last a few hits with you, that's downright unfair. Stuff like hammers lasts ages and I'm fine with that, if it breaks it breaks. And that brings me to the second thing, I would've rather seen the wooden handles just break, a sword bend weirdly or partially breaks off and deals way less damage instead of the current shatter system. And finally, and this one could potentially be in the Hard Mode, don't pause the game when changing weapons. It's so weird that I'm in the middle of a hectic battle and the game just pauses for me to quick select a weapon. If I do it through the menu, fine that I get that I do on purpose, but the quick select?

As Zelda implements it though with the final hit counting as double the damage I actually do like that final hit. I was at one point fighting a horde of enemies and had two Bokoblin Clubs that were about to break, with a strategic final throw I finished a couple Moblin off from a relative safe distance due to that extra damage.

The systems not perfect, but I don't entirely hate it either. It's the implementation that needs some tinkering and it can work.

Spoiler

And lol at the people DDOS'ing. Come on, really?

 

[KaoteK]

Anyone who watches more than just the Jimquisition should have known he was going to have issues with weapon durability and the stamina system in Zelda. He's been railing against these things for years so it came as no surprise to me when he didn't give Zelda the glowing score most others have.


The problem is people just looked at the score rather than reading the review (as usual). If they had read it, they'd see that he justified his score completely.

The fact people are upset over the meta critic score is fucking asinine, why do they care?

 

[Deckard Chapel]

A lot of people (myself included) dislike item degradation when flippantly injected into a game. BotW is not one of these cases. It is holistically tied with a number of other systems in the game which feed off each other, resulting in an experience which has received nearly universal praise by reviewers and people who have played it. Don't let this narrative psych you out. It really is being blown way out of proportion by the 98->97 metacritic controversy.

This.

I'm also not a tremendous fan of weapon degradation in games, but the way that Breath Of The Wild accomplishes this system is quite honestly the best way I've ever seen it done. That Arlo YouTube video that's floating around in this thread is a must-watch especially if you haven't played the game yet.

@Simon Belmont - Don't listen to Jim Sterling's rant about it - try it for yourself and see if it gels for you.

 

[aBarreras]

The amount of time and work dedicated to reforge those weapons are not worth the thirty seconds of fun I will get by destroying some mobs.

So I rather keep them in my inventory until I face an appropriate threat (I destroyed a Talus in less than five seconds, it was amazing), and so they use a slot and I have to juggle between three weapons and so I'm very limited in my options against mob because I can't use a huge variety of weapons.

I tried to use the top tier weapons against regular mobs, but it was not fun. I destroyed them and lost my cool weapons, I felt like I wasted my time and playing the game was not worth it.

It's a cool system at the beginning of the game, but when you get a alot of cool special weapons, it's pointless and kill the combat system.

other guy ssaid it but never answered,

what amount of time and work? the freaking weapons are really easy to reforge

 

[AquaWateria]

My problem with the review is not the score, but the fact he brought in other reviews. That's just unprofessional imo especially as a journalist. Bringing up other reviews is not a good way in presenting himself.

Plus also the fact he was trying to stir shit before his review if you look at his twitter posts. I can see why some may like him, but to me his shtick is really corny and its been getting worse lately to be honest.