Support NeoGAF

[aBarreras]

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

 

[hank_tree]

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

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.

 

[blankempathy]

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. A complete pause in what you were doing just to find a new weapon. The closest thing I've seen are players who spent all their weapons tackling a very strong enemy and most people seem to enjoy having to go all out in those instances. Usually you get rewarded with better or weapons comparable to what you had before th fight. As well as valuable crafting materials. Maybe it's because I don't spend hours trying to get a weapon that I don't feel super attached to them. Most of the stuff I just happen to come by out in the wild. Even stuff I get for clearing monster camps or shrines only maybe took me 20 minutes tops. The

Spoiler

special weapons you get from killing divine beasts felt like more of a bonus to me than anything. After all I already got a heart piece.

that's my personal opinion anyways. Clearly it differs from others.

 

[guek]

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.

 

[Mohonky]

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.

Congrats, you're his prime demographic.

 

[goldenpp72]

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.

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.

 

[King_Moc]

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.

Oh...a Nintendo is racist post. I genuinely didn't see this coming.

 

[SkyOdin]

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.

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.

I find myself using Knight Claymores to mine and Guardian Axes to chop trees because I am absolutely swimming in high-end weapons. I have chucked spears into lakes because I needed a torch more. If you actually fight enemies and open chests, there are plenty of weapons to find.

The real trick of the game is that you can kill at least two to four enemies with each weapon, and even more with more powerful weapons (since you need fewer hits). Each of those enemies will drop a weapon. Over time, this lets you sort out the better ones until you have an entire arsenal of awesome high-end weapons.

So just use the cool weapons and don't feel any regret when they break. Using that weapon was a smart choice.

 

[hank_tree]

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.

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.

 

[RRockman]

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 would strongly recommend it, considering this thread is also about talking about said systems from other games and then comparing them to what Zelda does with it specifically. you're missing like half of the argument.

 

[Sadist]

About the last few minutes in the video Jim, (I doubt you'll read this, the thread is pretty huge, but that doesn't matter) man, you shouldn't have done that. I do get it from your side of the argument, but why should you care? Those shit posts aren't worth your time. Yeah, a fanbase is angry because you didn't give the newest bestest game of all time a "great" score, but those comments are as old as reviews. Honestly I think those trolls will be quite happy with you mentioning them in this weeks vid. I think you did them a favour.

I'd rather would have seen this video just talking about your argument regarding the weapon durabillity, because really... I respectfully disagree. While I understand your viewpoints, I don't experience the weapon system as broken (sorry) as you do. Honestly I thought I would detest the weapon breaking system, but as I kept playing it surprised me at how easy you get new weapons and equally powerfull to boot. Yes, they might break a tad too easy, but even if you personally dismiss the fact that Breath of the Wild forces you to switch weapons, it really does help me to use other strategies in fighting enemies. Made me even appreciate the weapon system even more.

So yeah, it's not perfect, but weapon durabillity can be fun and BotW is the first one to make a step in the right direction. There's always room for improvement and we'll see with the next Zelda I guess. So in 2022.

 

[Nepenthe]

I think that if this wasn't Nintendo people would be much more critical.

Show us a game exactly like BotW in everything but franchise and parent company so we can compare the Metacritic scores. If you can't, this is a baseless claim meant to do little but downplay people's sincerity.

The game is fun but not perfect.

The only people talking about perfection are the people who aren't fans of the game, or at least don't like it as much as others, and thus they feel the need to remind everyone that it isn't perfect, even though 99.9% of people who love it haven't made such a claim in the first place.

You have a giant world you can walk to anywhere you see other games have done this.

The game's open world is not being praised for being an open world, but for the simple physical systems that eschew set-pieces and automation and instead allow for natural interactions and lateral thinking to problem-solving.

 

[Spman2099]

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.

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.

 

[Deckard Chapel]

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.

 

[goldenpp72]

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'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.

 

[SomTervo]

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.

Nnno, there is not any other game that integrates game play with its world to this degree and detail. Perhaps The Witness?

You're right that it's not perfect, but your open world criticism is flat

Edit: also missed the race comment... Interesting

 

[guek]

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.

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.

 

[hank_tree]

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.

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.

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.

Well I have a full set of really nice weapons cos I rarely engage in combat. If I do get into a fight I'll break one of my good weapons and probably replace it with a weapon that's less good. I'm swimming in monster parts and rupees so that's not a draw anymore.

 

[atr0cious]

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.

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.

 

[aBarreras]

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

 

[Emperor_Uriel]

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.

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.

 

[Big0Bear]

Oh...a Nintendo is racist post. I genuinely didn't see this coming.

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.

 

[SamNW]

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.

Nintendo fanatics: *DDOS Jim, tell him to kill himself*

Jim: *makes fun of Nintendo fanatics in online video*

"Jim is being childish!!"

 

[goldenpp72]

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.

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.

 

[hank_tree]

sorry man, but you really suck at this game lol

Maybe, but at least I have basic grammar and spelling on my side.

 

[hank_tree]

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.

Sure, but the effort put in doesn't match the reward so it isn't worth doing.

 

[More_Badass]

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.

Loo king at it objectively, no game is perfect, but BOTW is a solid 9.5 if ever there was one.

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 on

And he made it unbundately clear that he felt the way he did not because of "weapon durability" but how weapon durability negatively affected the pacing, gameplay, and his enjoyment of the overall game

 

[SomTervo]

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.

Quoting for truth

Maybe, but at least I have basic grammar and spelling on my side.

Come on, now.

 

[aBarreras]

Maybe, but at least I have basic grammar and spelling on my side.

hahahaha

Sure, but the effort put in doesn't match the reward so it isn't worth doing.

how would you know, if you dont like to fight on the game?

 

[King_Moc]

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.

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?

 

[immortald3ath]

Maybe, but at least I have basic grammar and spelling on my side.

Grammar and Spelling are the best weapons to use in BOTW from what I've heard.

 

[Kthulhu]

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.

Except you still encounter enemies far from the plateau that are using wooden weapons. Even when you encounter enemies with stronger weapons, they are often inferior to what you'd find in a shrine.

At one point I had two elemental spears, two elemental swords, and two guardian swords. I used up all of them, and now all I have are normal metal weapons. How does that feel to me as a player? It make me feel like I just got into a fight for nothing, as I've sacrificed my amazing weapons for okay ones.

I will admit that BOTW is balanced around it's durability fairly well, but it does suck some of the fun out of it for me and a lot of other people.


Also, if you want to debate a point Jim made, you should probably quote him instead of generalizing his statement and accusing him of something he didn't do.

 

[SomTervo]

Sure, but the effort put in doesn't match the reward so it isn't worth doing.

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.

 

[Magwik]

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.

Dude, it's just a fucking number.

 

[MTC100]

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.

He didn't give the Game a 7 solely because of the weapon durability. However I get how you might think that, as he isn't talking about anything else in his video before saying he'll skip the good parts. Thus implying the weapon durability IS in fact the reason Zelda is only a 7.

If you read the review he has other points as well, like the shrines being a hassle and that he feels Nintendo is forcing them on him, becaue links stamina is so low and enemies one-hit him, which he sees as artificial difficulty while the difficulty in dark souls is perfectly fine, because they don't do the same thing(oh surprise they do, even though he denies it). In the end he feels inclined to do those pesky shrines to increase his stamina and hearts to somewhat enjoy this drag of a game 7/10 "good".

 

[PunjabiPlaya]

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.

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.

 

[psychowave]

then he achieved his goal

But he doesn't gain anything from clickbait guys

 

[Cess007]

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:

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.

Yesterday, I was completing some shrines and when I saw a chest, all I could think was: "please be material, or rupees; please not another weapon".

 

[hank_tree]

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.

That doesn't disagree with the point I'm making.

 

[CronoShot]

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.

I do think Jim definitely knew the review backlash was coming and fully embraced it in order to gain the attention.

But that doesn't make his review or his opinions of the game any less valid. To say he can't possibly dislike something because everyone else liked it is just silly.

 

[DigitalScrap]

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.

 

[SomTervo]

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".

Yeah, there are definitely too many weapon chests. Especially weird level 20-26 bows.

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.

Same. Similarly to Angry Joe, I respect him and enjoy his rhetoric but it's just become more and more reductive and often blunt over the years. Both often miss key nuances of things they play, too.

 

[goldenpp72]

Sure, but the effort put in doesn't match the reward so it isn't worth doing.

Sure it does, especially if you consider the tools the game gives you over time. You DO get a sword that doesn't break but just needs a 10 minute recharge, along with super murder filled lightning that can dispatch those once brutal fights in pretty short time. I find I have an abundance of opportunity to pick up good weapons, especially as the game further spawns more and more silver/white versions of enemies.

I am always leaving good weapons behind, not scrounging to find another. I also made a house to store my best gear just because I saw no need to carry it around.

It really just depends on how you approach it, I was very concerned about weapons breaking in this game but I find it's pretty manageable as it is. Good weapons can wipe out many enemies before breaking, and if you hit a crappy one with it, it barely damages it at all. If you're fighting a tough enemy they will always drop something cool, the Lynels drop a nice shield, bow AND melee weapon despite maybe losing one weapon in the process. I don't see how it's not worth it myself.

 

[NOLA_Gaffer]

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.

You're kinda proving the point that some of the folks in here are making, thanks for the input.

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.

Well-publicized controversy can raise awareness of an individual or organization to the general public that wouldn't have otherwise known about it, so I wouldn't find it surprising.

 

[Big0Bear]

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?

I get that argument but the same can be said and white people. What do they know about white people. I live in Japan and can tell you there are not that many foreigners here. Living here has shown me it's years of movies and tv shows staring white actors that has them as ideal concept of beauty.

Tekken is made by a Japanese company and the way they portray foreigners is amazing

 

[Deckard Chapel]

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.

Opinions are subjective and when one radically differs from the majority concensus - it stands out and is then dissected and questioned.

Jim's review is his opinion of the game, one that very, very few people share.

Do I think that it was "on purpose" - that he did it to be spiteful and to cause discourse?

Absolutely.

Do I enjoy his "shtick" or what he calls reviews?

Nope.

My opinion, is that his opinion was for the sole purpose of causing a problem and "sticking it to Nintendo and Zelda fans".

After all, he did foreshadow it with his twittering...

 

[Lanrutcon]

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.

In your interpretation of the score, you mean.

Looking at it objectively, no game is perfect, but BOTW is a solid 9.5 if ever there was one.

Objectively the game is a "solid 9.5"? I'm not sure that's how it works.

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.

We got your opinion of Jim by the second sentence of your post.

 

[blankempathy]

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.

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".

 

[Chindogg]

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.

Aren't the Gerudos, Ganondorf particularly, black or at least dark skin?

 

[Screaming Meat]

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.

Isn't the simpler explanation the former one?