Support NeoGAF

[Otakumegane]

I like weapon variety. I like having to experiment with Claymores and Hammers and the quickness of gauntlets and dual knifes. Often times, the trade off for this kind of variety in a game is a durability system.

In games like Fire Emblem,and The Last of Us, it's about resource conservation; melee weapons will break after few hits and with the limited resources in these games you must make the tradeoff between saving those precious uses or using it in a pinch. The problem with these kinds of implementations is that it never really feels good to have something break from usage. People were also prone to saving all their best items and weapons until the end like healing items in a JRPG. The newest Fire Emblem scrapped this entirely, adding stat tradeoffs instead and limiting the amount of weapons you could buy by increasing the price many times over. And while some may not agree with this change, many will tell you that the combat feels more strategical and satisfactory for it, choosing the best tool for the situation being far more important than saving all your best sacred uses and having it devolve to "should I use this OP super weapon or not?".

Monster Hunter and Dark Souls, two different games that are both highly praised for their combat systems in their own right, use a slightly different durability mechanic, but not one that is all too satisfying either. While weapons are not lost by losing durability, this stat ties directly into the amount of damage that you inflict, and the areas you can damage. Certain degrees of sharpness in MH are required to damage the more tougher areas of a Monster. One of the various problems with this sort of implementation is that while not incredibly important to your overall combat flow and strategy, it still serves as a minor annoyance all throughout the game. In Dark Souls, how often are you actually worried about if your weapon is at 198 instead of 200 durability? However, how much time will you spend resting at every bonfire and quickly repairing every armor piece and weapon that has barely lost durability like you're trying to level up forging in Skyrim? It not only is it a non-integral part of how you formulate an attack plan, it wastes valuable time and having them at perfect condition at all time is the only best possible solution forcing the player to waste valuable time and attention.

Spoiler

If I may add a very small comment on this, is that Monster Hunter while not perfect with this is at least minimally understandable due to the rotations of the players in formation while playing in a well communicating multiplayer group, however it can be just as annoying)

This brings me to Zelda: Too Many Threads

Spoiler

BotW

. Zelda has had weapon durability in it before. The Razor sword of MM, the Giant Knife of OoT are all examples that followed the first examples of breaking after usage. Again, this is a imperfect method for the reasons stated above. When BotW was shown and revealed to have weapon durability, I was happy that variety was present but concerned that the developers still needed to tie this in with a durability system in order to make collecting them and gathering more prevalent. However, certain mechanics caught my attention.

In BotW, not only does the breaking strike of a weapon deal critical damage but one may throw the weapon, breaking it intentionally for the crit dmg and additional range and area of effect. Not only does this provide a outlet for satisfaction and not make you feel as if you "lost" that resource but that decided on a tradeoff for increased damage. Throwing the weapon also provides players agency for controlling when to break your weapon, instead of merely decaying over time, adding an additional layer of actual choice in attack planning and gameflow. Durability isn't merely an annoyance of a formality for variety no longer and this feature specifically really excited me. Even in exploration, you can choose to sacrifice shield durability for extra mobility with shieldsurfing allowing for more variations.

TLDR: While loving the games with weapon variety, I felt these games were shackled to a system of weapon durability. Of the many things I could praise all these games for their amazing combat systems, Zelda seems to have found a solution that I find acceptable in terms of this balance and with it added an extra layer of strategy on a traditionally unchanged mechanic, something that I've been longing for some of my more combat-intensive games, and of all the cool things Zelda has to offer, this stood out as something that may go unnoticed but truly clever.

If I could be provided with a gif of Zelda weapon throwing it would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Cow Mengde]

I don't mind breakable weapons either. Played a lot of games with limited ammo and breakable weapons. Fire Emblem and Brandish games are incredibly hard games with breakable weapons that I've beaten.

 

[SalvaPot]

I am a hoarder, any game that features durability pretty much makes me afraid to use anything, but it seems this game constantly forces you to throw away stuff all the time anyway.

 

[raven777]

I like the sharpness mechanic in Monster Hunter. While I do find it annoying sometimes, I do feel it adds some difficulty to the combat in a positive way.

 

[Roubjon]

I like the sharpness mechanic in Monster Hunter. While I do find it annoying sometimes, I do feel it adds some difficulty to the combat in a positive way.

It's a fantastic mechanic. And you can use it to your advantage and get skills that make you stronger than you normally would.

 

[Team Filler]

Well said. Zelda continues to be one of the best that RPG's have to offer. Can't wait.

 

[TheCongressman1]

So far, how they are handling durability seems ingenious. The shatter, like you mentioned, is really cool addition that makes breaking stuff worthwhile.

I'm interested how they are going to balance it for late game. Master Sword probably isn't going to break, so then we have a mechanic that is no longer needed.

What I would suggest is that key weapons just get dull, rather than break. You sharpen them to fix it.

I like the sharpness mechanic in Monster Hunter. While I do find it annoying sometimes, I do feel it adds some difficulty to the combat in a positive way.

Yes, Like this.

 

[Timeaisis]

Seems like durability in Zelda is to encourage (and force) you to use different weapons. Seems like the games got a crapton of them. So I'm OK with this.

Normally, I'd say I hate weapon durability, but that's mostly because weapons are indispensable, and it's annoying to repair them all the time. In BotW, seems like you can pick up a new weapon every few minutes.

 

[yanipheonu]

In BotW, not only does the breaking strike of a weapon deal critical damage but one may throw the weapon, breaking it intentionally for the crit dmg and additional range and area of effect. Not only does this provide a outlet for satisfaction and not make you feel as if you "lost" that resource but that decided on a tradeoff for increased damage. Throwing the weapon also provides players agency for controlling when to break your weapon, instead of merely decaying over time, adding an additional layer of actual choice in attack planning and gameflow. Durability isn't merely an annoyance of a formality for variety no longer and this feature specifically really excited me. Even in exploration, you can choose to sacrifice shield durability for extra mobility with shieldsurfing allowing for more variations.

Genuinely didn't know this, thanks!

Was nervous about durability, few games have really pulled it off well. Making weapon break a critical is a stroke of genius. Don't disincentive using a nearly broken weapon, make it a fun mechanic that actually incentives using it to breaking point. Some brilliant design.

 

[GodParticle]

I really, really hate weapon/armor durability when you're not frequently fed with replacements or upgrades. Playing the witcher right and it's really pissing me off how my stuff will wear down

 

[Thin White Duke]

Besides the added strategy during combat, the impression I got from the Treehouse stream was that grabbing anything that's lying around to use as a weapon was very much encouraged and thus the loss of any single weapon isn't that much of an issue. It fosters experimentation and improvisation more than it is a nuisance.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Weapon durability, as far as game design and balance is concerned, is literally exactly the same concept as ammunition pickups for ranged weapons. I don't think people should have a problem with it unless they have a problem with the idea of ammunition too.

 

[Guess Who]

Besides the added strategy during combat, the impression I got from the Treehouse stream was that grabbing anything that's lying around to use as a weapon was very much encouraged and thus the loss of any single weapon isn't that much of an issue. It fosters experimentation and improvisation more than it is a nuisance.

Yeah, that's the impression I got too - it's less about creating scarcity or forcing you to repair and more about making you switch weapons more often and encouraging you to hunt for weapons and steal them from enemies.

 

[Otakumegane]

Functionally, it's the same thing as limited ammo. Do you hate having limited ammo?

I don't dislike limited ammo because functionally it serves a different purpose. Ammo control opens up certain "Windows of opportunity" that is important for multiplayer counterplay. It's the same mechanic as cooldowns more than anything else.

In single player games more often than not limited ammo is also mostly a formality, when you have a ton of it just lying around. Either it's a resource like RE or something similar. I did however, did enjoy the active reload system from Gears of War. It adds another thing to keep on top of as you learn each weapon's sweetspot.

 

[Dark_castle]

Latest Fire Emblem instalment removed the weapon durability mechanics, and I have to say, I don't miss them. It's 'strategic' to think about conserving stronger weapons with less durability for tougher fights, but I like that by removing the durability, every weapons are given their pros and cons rather than straight up higher might or accuracy, so it's not as linear as before. So now one could freely use all weapons without risk of breaking, and yet there are thoughts going into using what weapons in battles.

 

[Artdayne]

I don't particularly like it but I understand why it's there and on PC, I'm never one to look for mods to remove it from the game.

 

[Calvero]

imagine you could break the Master Sword because you choose to use it while it's rusted, and you completely fuck yourself

 

[TheRedSnifit]

I don't dislike limited ammo because functionally it serves a different purpose. Ammo control opens up certain "Windows of opportunity" that is important for multiplayer counterplay. It's the same mechanic as cooldowns more than anything else.

In single player games more often than not limited ammo is also mostly a formality, when you have a ton of it just lying around. Either it's a resource like RE or something similar. I did however, did enjoy the active reload system from Gears of War. It adds another thing to keep on top of as you learn each weapon's sweetspot.

In, say, System Shock 2 or New Vegas, weapon repair kits and the like are a resource you have to search for in order to keep your weapons working. They're identical to ammunition. I fail to see how having to stop to reload or go back to town for more ammo is cool and fun, but doing the exact same thing for durability is a chore.

 

[Platy]

Also, Overall durability is MUCH less than the standard RPG ... so weapons are WAY more break and use another. so you don't feel such a huge loss

 

[Otakumegane]

In, say, System Shock 2 or New Vegas, weapon repair kits and the like are a resource you have to search for in order to keep your weapons working. They're identical to ammo consumption. I fail to see how having to stop to reload or go back to town for more ammo is cool and fun, but doing the exact same thing for durability is a chore.

I never said it was fun. Just that it was more useful for another scenario. I expressed my distaste with those kinds of mechanics. Repair Kits are pretty much exactly equatable to my previously stated opinion.

 

[Neoleo2143]

imagine you could break the Master Sword because you choose to use it while it's rusted, and you completely fuck yourself

Considering you can still beat the game from the very beginning, I imagine you could totally skip the master sword. If it breaks, it's your fault.

 

[ZoronMaro]

In theory I like the idea of a durability system if it encourages using different weapons and play styles. Admittedly it's a difficult mechanic to balance, but I don't like the execution in most of the games I've played, but I tend to be a little OCD so seeing any bar go down as I use something makes me not want to use it.

 

[Luigiv]

Besides the added strategy during combat, the impression I got from the Treehouse stream was that grabbing anything that's lying around to use as a weapon was very much encouraged and thus the loss of any single weapon isn't that much of an issue. It fosters experimentation and improvisation more than it is a nuisance.

Yep that's exactly the impression I got too. My only worry is that they could fuck it up by making some weapons overly rare or by adding an upgrade system. Either of which would create attachment and encourage hoarding.

 

[TriAceJP]

Well said. Zelda continues to be one of the best that RPG's have to offer. Can't wait.

(Zelda isn't an RPG)

 

[Team Filler]

(Zelda isn't an RPG)

Right, it's an action RPG.

 

[tim_pkmn89]

I normally hate it, but it seems different in BotW due to how fast things break. You know from the start that you're only going to be using some of these weapons for a minute or two.

 

[TriAceJP]

Right, it's an action RPG.

Nope. Action Adventure. It doesn't use RPG mechanics.

 

[Svafnir]

The loop of this Zelda is constantly picking up your enemies weapons. I mean every enemy that has a weapon, drops it.

You can get like 20 weapons in 5 minutes. The loop is pick up enemy spear, kill enemy with spear, throw spear at enemy at distance, switch to club you picked up, bash enemy with club, repeat.

Of course the master sword or whatever would last forever the. But it's not a game where you hoard loot, you are constantly using different weapons. They are more like picking up ammo, than an entirely new weapons.

 

[Mexen]

I like games that make combat optional so breakable weapons work for me. It is another layer of strategy that can enrich the overall experience.

 

[cireza]

Like everything, if weapon durability is well designed/implemented, it can be a good experience.

Having breakable weapons, that totally disappear and never come back, is the best implementation for me. Because it leads you into appreciating a good weapon as long as it lasts, and using it wisely.

If you can fix your weapons, then most of the time, it will simply become a hassle.

 

[Team Filler]

Nope. Action Adventure. It doesn't use RPG mechanics.

Sure it does. There's armor, weapons, and buffs improving damage/defense stats and the like, as well as permanent stat boosts. NPC's with quests and quest items. Crafting systems. Player agency of "where to go next, what to do" to varying degrees throughout the games.

Breath of the Wild is making it even more apparent by actually showing numerical stat differences, but these systems have always been going on in the background.

 

[TriAceJP]

Sure it does. There's armor, weapons, and buffs improving damage/defense stats and the like, as well as permanent stat boosts. NPC's with quests and quest items. Crafting systems. Player agency of "where to go next, what to do" to varying degrees throughout the games.

Breath of the Wild is making it even more apparent by actually showing numerical stat differences, but these systems have always been going on in the background.

Those aren't RPG mechanics. Not in the way Zelda utilizes them.

But I mean, if you are dead set on calling it an RPG you do your thing.

 

[Team Filler]

But I mean, if you are dead set on calling it an RPG you do your thing.

Likewise, you're of course free to not consider it one as well.

 

[Freeman76]

Weapon durability, as far as game design and balance is concerned, is literally exactly the same concept as ammunition pickups for ranged weapons. I don't think people should have a problem with it unless they have a problem with the idea of ammunition too.

This doesn't make any sense at all. It's nowhere near the same mechanic!

 

[SOR5]

Like everything, if weapon durability is well designed/implemented, it can be a good experience.

Having breakable weapons, that totally disappear and never come back, is the best implementation for me. Because it leads you into appreciating a good weapon as long as it lasts, and using it wisely.

If you can fix your weapons, then most of the time, it will simply become a hassle.

Slightly on point

 

[Memory]

Depends how its used really, I dislike the change in fire emblem, now I have my characters with 4 weapons just so i can rotate stats. I much preferred only having to have 2 weapons equipped. Since the shop is available from mission 2 breakable weapons would never have been a problem anyway.

Having unbreakable weapons in games also reduces the need to use other weapons so often you just grab the best one and there's no need to ever change it.

Breakable or unbreakable you will hoard stuff anyway since you think that you'll never know when you need to use weapon x. My Fallout 4 store room is full if weapons that will never break but I hoard all the same incase I ever need them.

 

[Kanhir]

I despise durability mechanics, especially when it makes you lose a weapon. I'm one of those people who hoards MP in RPGs in case a boss is coming up, so I end up with an inventory full of stuff that's levels below me because I avoided using it.

Monster Hunter is really the only one that gets a free pass from me, because you can sharpen your weapons on the fly with affordable whetstones, which adds another element to combat strategy. I haven't seen any other durability mechanic like that - usually it's either unrecoverable or you have to make the trek to a blacksmith.

Edit: With the specific Zelda example, durability stands alongside fishing/cooking as "maintenance activities" which I feel waste my time. Maybe I'm just old and don't like change, but I like the Zelda style of just sauntering into a dungeon without needing to do any prep beyond entry puzzles.

 

[Francokid1]

I wonder if you can hoard damaged weapons and break all of them on bosses.
You might be able to defeat them super quick.

 

[MisterGrey3000]

Sure it does. There's armor, weapons, and buffs improving damage/defense stats and the like, as well as permanent stat boosts. NPC's with quests and quest items. Crafting systems. Player agency of "where to go next, what to do" to varying degrees throughout the games.

Breath of the Wild is making it even more apparent by actually showing numerical stat differences, but these systems have always been going on in the background.

Errrr...
A lot of these mechanics/systems are very common tropes in both action-adventure games like GTA and old school collect-o-thon platformers like Jak and Daxter or Banjo-Kazooie; I really don't think most people would waste their breath trying to argue that those games are RPGs despite containing the vast majority of those mechanics.
Also a lot of the stuff you listed is present in many of the past 3D Zelda games including BoTW's predecessor, Skyward Sword; a game which, like it's own predecessors, is firmly planted in the action-adventure genre in many different respects.

 

[KevinCow]

I've said this in another thread, but my only real fear about how Zelda's doing it is that I'll run into the "Awesome item that I never want to use because I'm always saving it for later" issue.

It happens in pretty much any game with items that have limited uses. I'll find a rare awesome item, like a potion that refills all my health and magic and gives me extra damage for a time, or some sort of item that deals a lot of damage to enemies but only has one use. Then I'll never use it, because I'm always waiting for the perfect moment to use it, and that perfect moment never comes.

I'm afraid that I'll find some awesome weapon in Zelda, and I'll be afraid to use it because it might be better to save it for a future boss or combat challenge.

It's something that I'm going to have to actively fight against while playing this game.

 

[QuixoticNeutral]

I've thought about this carefully and I'm very warm to the idea of weapon durability in Zelda. (Mind you, I always liked it in Fire Emblem, though for different reasons, and I was quite apprehensive about it being dropped from Fates until I saw how much thought was put into the overhaul of weapon design. I still miss the element of resource management, but at least there's an additional component of mental arithmetic to make up for it.)

It seems as though the current generation of western players, particularly those trained on RPGs, is really invested in the idea of enemies/encounters as a rewarding source of XP/progression rather than as an obstacle. Nintendo design has always principally revolved around the latter; that's what separates a Metroid from a Castlevania. Upward progression of your character stats in a Metroid or Zelda game comes from accomplishing discrete and well-defined goals, never from grinding. But it seems as though players trained on, say, Diablo, vehemently dislike the idea of a system that incentivizes avoiding optional enemies. They want a reason for every fight. Those who aren't very imaginative about how to implement this naturally reach for conventionally RPG-like systems of experience and loot; witness how often this is brought up in conversations about the current direction of Paper Mario. XP-based systems, however, would be deeply out of place in Zelda.

You could say that there was always some element of grindable content in Zelda, in the form of rupees or ammunition, but the caps have always been so low, and the drops from pots/grass/enemies so meagre in comparison to 'designed' rewards like treasure chests, that the finitude of your resources never really mattered. Outside of a few oddities like an expensive Piece of Heart bought in a shop (which, if anything, were always among the easiest to obtain), almost none of the systems in the Zelda series incentivize amassing things by menial repetition as opposed to obtaining them by accomplishment. Money sinks like potions only temporary, and progression gates like the map decipherment in Wind Waker were not so prohibitively priced as to put up a wall.

So what the designers needed to address was how to strike a balance between making fights rewarding—a consideration that is a little more pressing in a world where you want players to engage with emergent content that is easy to run around, instead of skipping it—while retaining the Nintendo elegance of well-defined, accomplishment-driven rewards that are more about your skill and resourcefulness as a player than about your patience to do something menial over and over.

Skyward Sword made an initial run at introducing collectibles that could be cashed in for upgrades, but what we see in Breath of the Wind is a solution that kills two birds with one stone: it gives you something to farm (at the cost of your existing hearts and weaponry, which you risk in hopes of securing a net gain), while also restoring the dearly missed weapon-seizing system in Wind Waker, which was always fun to play with but never produced a significant advantage over what you could do with your sword.

I'm interested to see how this will play out in the late game, as I assume the Master Sword will be unbreakable. Other weapons will have to offer something substantial it doesn't, like some of the long-range interactions (throwing clubs, spreading fire) that we've already seen.

While on the subject of consumables, I think they should also implement an easily accessible button for binding a 'favourite' food so you don't need to reach into the menu all the time to replenish hearts, one of the few concerns of mine from what we saw in the E3 demos. (Think of how the D-pad works in The Wonderful 101, where you can quickly reach for your Wonderful Noodle Soup to Go.)

 

[KeRaSh]

I welcome the fact that there will be many new weapons and armors to play with.
However, I do think everything broke way too fast in the footage they've shown. I don't know if this is a specific option for this build to showcase the durability system or if it will be tweaked for the final release but it's just not fun to find a new sword and have it break after 20 swings, especially if we can't repair it.
The other downside to this is that all (or at least most) weapons and armor items are common since you could not replace unique items. Will the Master Sword break? If it does, then I'm probably not using it since I always save up the valuable items for special occasions and then just beat the final bosses without them. Will there be other unique items? I hope so. (Does the kite break after gliding too much?)
Your clothes can break too, right? What happens if you are wearing your last fire resistant shirt and it breaks from taking too much damage but you don't have any food on you that increases fire resistance? Do you have to leave the fire temple to farm more shirts or cook up some food? When they showed the icy mountain footage there were hot pepper bushes conveniently placed right at the entrance to the cold area. If that's the case for every biome then they might as well just have unbreakable armor, otherwise they are just wasting my time with minor inconveniences.

Don't get me wrong, I really like that they are trying out new things but in my opinion it has to be tweaked quite a bit to be fun for me. I want to have a favorite weapon and not have it break after killing just a few enemies and I don't want to have to carry 6 of them with me just so I can keep using it.

 

[Camp Freddie]

Weapon breaking is almost always terrible.
It's either a tedious game of buying whetstones and repair materials, a tedious game of returning to the blacksmith after every quest, or a tedious game of not using the cool stuff because you need to save it for the boss/next mission/end-boss/possible end-boss final form/oh wait here are the end credits.

To make it work, you need a game that avoids super-weapons and is basically just continuous improvised combat with whatever stuff is lying around. The Last Of Us does it well, since all the weapons are essentially the same, and breaking is basically an ammo limit.

 

[Gsnap]

It seems like it'll work pretty well in BotW due to how they're handling it. When you get a sword it's not your sword. It's just a sword. It's just another item, just another option. It's not inherently better than your other offensive options, not inherently worse. It's value will depend on the situation. As long as you have some form of melee weapon, then you've got your options covered, and the turnover rate is hight enough that you'll never be without one, but within each encounter you might simply have a different one. Just like in one level of mario bros you may or may not have a fire flower. And of course, like you mentioned, the fact that throwing and breaking are made into mechanics themselves makes a big difference.

 

[redcrayon]

Sharpness in Monster Hunter is a great mechanic- it synergises with armour skills that increase it or decrease sharpening time too. Also, while sharpness affects your ability to hurt tough monsters in certain locations, weapon choice does too. Whenever my lances aren't up to the job of a twenty minute battle with a walking tank, I bring a hammer and smash it's face in instead!

I like the way it's possible to create an armour/weapon set entirely built around sharpness, it's the way the mechanic is part of the game as a whole that's important as much as keeping an eye on it combat.

I think it adds a nice bit of pacing too- after the mark flees, it's cool to see hunters stopping to sharpen weapons, eat, drink potions. Maybe that's just me, but I think it's characterful.

I did find weapon degradation quite tedious in Fallout 3, where it got to the point that I was carrying spare guns to fix my actual guns with.

 

[Zaptruder]

Sounds great. Actually similar to the durability system I've designed for a game on paper (at this point).

The idea is to provide the player with constant hits of rewards. Even if you have a better weapon now, that weapon won't last that long, so the new drop that isn't as good - maybe you want to pick that up because it'll last longer.

Restrict the number of items that can be held, force the player to cycle through weapons like a bunch of power ups.

Actually the theme of my game is the dichotomy between impermanence and permanence in general, so it fits the theme quite well.

 

[gdt]

Dark souls 2....best implementation of weapon durability ever. Actually forced you to keep back up weapons handy.

Actually made you think if your favorite weapon was going to make it through an entire boss fight so you needed to be ready with an alternate.

 

[Nessus]

I remember when Dead Island gameplay was first shown off I was really worried about the weapon degradation.

But in practice, due to an abundance of resources and workbenches, it ended up not being a problem at all and mostly just forced you to keep an eye on your weapon's status and maybe switch weapons every once in awhile. Perhaps the only time I've sorta liked a system like that (generally hate it in like Bethesda RPGs).

With Zelda, in lieu of any way to repair items, it seems like you'll have to think of swords more like you would ammo in other games. Each sword being good for however many hits (and I suspect the Master Sword will have no degradation, making it seem even more powerful in comparison) and just as expendable as bullets.

I do hope the wear on items doesn't end up being so significant that people will feel they have to avoid doing stuff like using the shield as a snowboard, etc.

 

[Crayolan]

Tbh I'm happy weapons have durability in Zelda because of how small the inventory looks. It'd be annoying as hell to have to constantly discard things; with durability things will naturally break quickly and free up slots.

So far, how they are handling durability seems ingenious. The shatter, like you mentioned, is really cool addition that makes breaking stuff worthwhile.

I'm interested how they are going to balance it for late game. Master Sword probably isn't going to break, so then we have a mechanic that is no longer needed.

What I would suggest is that key weapons just get dull, rather than break. You sharpen them to fix it.



Yes, Like this.

Considering they've clearly shown that the Master Sword is rusted in this game I wouldn't be surprised if this is exactly the case.

Though I'm sure once you reach end game you will be able restore it to it's full glory to take on Ganon, which is good because a fully powered Master Sword should stand above any regular weapon.

 

[jdstorm]

I'm pretty sure the weapons are balanced to break quickly so that they are used for each encounter that you find them in. That way it allows you to explore the whole world any way you want without getting caught with under levelled weapons.