Throwing them was hella satisfying but it also had a similar final impact just swinging the weapon right? It's been a while but I recall just continuing my swings and gettin that big ol crack, sometimes disarming the enemy
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
I want to talk about how genius the weapon breakability in Breath of the Wild is...
- Thread starter FernandoRocker
- Start date
Throwing them was hella satisfying but it also had a similar final impact just swinging the weapon right? It's been a while but I recall just continuing my swings and gettin that big ol crack, sometimes disarming the enemy
Get out with your common sense, we've got backseat game designing to do
It was one of the worse aspects of the game, besides dungeon design and story.
I still liked the game, but replaying it with durability turned off made it a lot more enjoyable.
I still liked the game, but replaying it with durability turned off made it a lot more enjoyable.
The amount of people voting they "hate it" is actually legitimately surprising to me. I knew there were quite a bit of very vocal people who were strongly against it, but still.
I'm curious to the amount of people who voted that "They hate it" actually played the game and/or if they did play the game, just how much of a connection to and nostalgia associated with previous Zelda games colors their perception.
As someone who has never been particularly into Zelda, and who considers Mario to be the peak of Nintendo's franchises (and pretty much peak video games overall); I think Breath of the Wild is not only the best video game that Nintendo has ever made, it might be the best game of all time up to this point. And it's going to be incredibly hard for another game to dislodge it.
I'm curious to the amount of people who voted that "They hate it" actually played the game and/or if they did play the game, just how much of a connection to and nostalgia associated with previous Zelda games colors their perception.
As someone who has never been particularly into Zelda, and who considers Mario to be the peak of Nintendo's franchises (and pretty much peak video games overall); I think Breath of the Wild is not only the best video game that Nintendo has ever made, it might be the best game of all time up to this point. And it's going to be incredibly hard for another game to dislodge it.
Last edited:
The reasoning cited in the OP is correct, but...
...it can be applied to any game that has breakable weapons. I certainly don't see how it's "genius". It's a pretty standard mechanic. I don't remember people calling it genius in Dead Island even though that game does it very similiarly, makes sense in the context of the world and setting with how you can use random shit as weapons, and even allows you to craft upgrades for your stick, which extends its usage, and, even alters the visuals on it, so you can look at it and see how your stick is much more durable now.
I just found it an annoying, grating part of BOTW. I don't generally like breakable weapons but BOTW's implementation of it is probably my least favorite of them all. It's the main reason why I dropped the game unfortunately.
...it can be applied to any game that has breakable weapons. I certainly don't see how it's "genius". It's a pretty standard mechanic. I don't remember people calling it genius in Dead Island even though that game does it very similiarly, makes sense in the context of the world and setting with how you can use random shit as weapons, and even allows you to craft upgrades for your stick, which extends its usage, and, even alters the visuals on it, so you can look at it and see how your stick is much more durable now.
I just found it an annoying, grating part of BOTW. I don't generally like breakable weapons but BOTW's implementation of it is probably my least favorite of them all. It's the main reason why I dropped the game unfortunately.
Like every system, mechanic and detail in Breath of the Wild, the weapon durability is a half-baked idea that feigns a "dynamic" sense of "depth" that really only manages to be as complex as adding your first few LEGO to the base plate. It's neat at the start, but eventually you find it boils down to the same, monotonous bullshit over and over again. There is ZERO nuance here.
I played the shit out of BotW the year it came out. It was my first Switch game (naturally), and was what I had with me during my summer vacation that year. So I put some 150+ hours into it before finally finishing it. This past week I decided to go back and start a fresh save file...man replaying this game has not been kind to how I feel about it.
I played the shit out of BotW the year it came out. It was my first Switch game (naturally), and was what I had with me during my summer vacation that year. So I put some 150+ hours into it before finally finishing it. This past week I decided to go back and start a fresh save file...man replaying this game has not been kind to how I feel about it.
I loved it. Literally the only thing I would have changed was to have the Master Sword regain durability when not equipped. Getting a weapon to low durability and throwing it in an enemies face with the big ol' hitspark, the ragdoll/stun, and the damage. Unff.
Crazy to me how many people dislike it, after a certain point you get everything back so fast that it's not worth keeping anything. Even arrows and money, which are pretty scarce early on but are plentiful hours in. I hope the complaining about it doesn't affect it in the sequel, because I really enjoy using weapons and tossing them, and having different arsenal moment to moment.
You are totally on the mark on your assessment of the weapon degradation.
As to your second point, I think how people who have actually played the game feel about the system says a lot about there personality/temperament. That if they played the game and are staunchly against the system, they might be more likely to be conservative/risk averse in their decision making processes overall. And that they are the kind of people who are very much more about the "destination" rather than the "journey". That I would hazard to guess that they had a tough time with the game and its design in general and probably tried to beeline quests/tasks as fast as possible rather than allow themselves to just "go with the flow of the wind", as is the intention of the game's design.
Nintendo would be fools to listen to the detractors, and I think they are smarter than that (and most game developers honestly).
Nah, it's garbage.
Even Fire Emblem managed to strike a balance between the old shitty "you won't actually use this weapon anyway because you will end up saving for a harder battle aaaaand the game is finished" and something unbreakable.
Even Fire Emblem managed to strike a balance between the old shitty "you won't actually use this weapon anyway because you will end up saving for a harder battle aaaaand the game is finished" and something unbreakable.
A game that 40% of word of mouth absolutely hated wouldn't continue selling something on the order of a million copies every quarter two years after release.
It wasn't fun in Story of Thor back in the 90s and it's still not a fun mechanic.
Story of Thor at least had the good taste to add in secret unbreakable versions of a bunch of the weapons.
Story of Thor at least had the good taste to add in secret unbreakable versions of a bunch of the weapons.
(insert obligatory what year is it meme)
I like it but I do wish weapons last longer because the majority of the weapons you find are pretty much junk compared to what you would lose. I also would've liked it if they added optional unbreakable "legendary" weapons or something aside from the master sword.
I like it but I do wish weapons last longer because the majority of the weapons you find are pretty much junk compared to what you would lose. I also would've liked it if they added optional unbreakable "legendary" weapons or something aside from the master sword.
This is an issue with the poll, not that everyone voting for that option hated the game. It's the only negative option. "I hated the weapon breakability as a flaw in an otherwise good game" or "I dislike weapon durability but it didn't make me dislike the game" are probably better descriptors.
And why do you need a stupid mechanic like weapon durability to do this?
I actually liked it, and can't think of the game without it. It certainly fit the self-sufficiency ethic of the game and it forced me to completely change my play style compared to previous games.
It forced me to think strategically about combat - did I have the weapon to take those guys on? Did I have enough health or stamina to take a few hits while I experiment? It made the game harder, especially in the early parts. And it forced you to conserve energy rather than just going in all guns blazing every time.
It forced me to think strategically about combat - did I have the weapon to take those guys on? Did I have enough health or stamina to take a few hits while I experiment? It made the game harder, especially in the early parts. And it forced you to conserve energy rather than just going in all guns blazing every time.
User Warned: Needless hostility.
How about just starting by focusing on releasing a complete game? I feel tempted to start a thread on just SOME the reasons why I dropped that unfinished over-priced ball-rolling clone game that you worked on after about 30 minutes.
I loved the mechanic. It brought a strategic element to each battle. It reminds me of a card battle.
If you actually run out of weapons, well, you're just doing it wrong.
Ways to make it better:
-when a weapon breaks, auto-equip the next weapon
-maybe later in the game, allow an ability or a way for weapons to last a lot longer
If you actually run out of weapons, well, you're just doing it wrong.
Ways to make it better:
-when a weapon breaks, auto-equip the next weapon
-maybe later in the game, allow an ability or a way for weapons to last a lot longer
Sorry OP, your opinion is wrong.
It didnt make me hate the Game, cause the Game is still awesome, but those weapons... such a dumb idea!
It didnt make me hate the Game, cause the Game is still awesome, but those weapons... such a dumb idea!
I loved it and think it was absolutely necessary to keep exploration being rewarding in the late game. Also it was interesting to decide strategicaly which weapon to save or use in each given situation, or hoarding the best of them in my house so that I could use them in a difficult encounter.
It causes you to actively avoid fighting enemies not for the normal reasons given in RPGs. Normally you level up and the reward from killing lower level enemies just isn't worthwhile. They don't give enough XP. They don't give good drops for your level.
In BoTW, you actively avoid enemies because you're gonna end up replacing your really good weapon with a stick.
They shouldn't have put a durability system like this in place without first establishing how to properly deal with loot and without giving players a way to repair items. If they're going for a realistic approach, neat, but when the blade on my sword becomes dull, I'm not gonna replace it with a brand new sword. I'm gonna repair it.
And the likelihood that the enemies I'm avoiding will provide me at the very least with a replacement should be significantly higher.
I don't have a reason to go back and play the Switch version when the emulated version allows me to disable basically the worst aspect of the game.
In BoTW, you actively avoid enemies because you're gonna end up replacing your really good weapon with a stick.
They shouldn't have put a durability system like this in place without first establishing how to properly deal with loot and without giving players a way to repair items. If they're going for a realistic approach, neat, but when the blade on my sword becomes dull, I'm not gonna replace it with a brand new sword. I'm gonna repair it.
And the likelihood that the enemies I'm avoiding will provide me at the very least with a replacement should be significantly higher.
I don't have a reason to go back and play the Switch version when the emulated version allows me to disable basically the worst aspect of the game.
I love and, even if I don´t think it´s genius, I do think it´s a really intelligent design decision for this game. Weapons breaking made me rethink how to tackle encounters twice and use all the possibilities the game offers, like laying traps, using fire, environmental objects with statis and magnesis...And it didn´t make me stop using weapons, it made me think of them as ammo, of something to use as part of the plan instead of a tool to just go face enemies head on every time. Something I wonder is if people who hated the system just took on encounters straight on and never bothered exploring other options, because I can see weapon durability becoming such a pain if so (just like it did in DS2 at release in PC). In that case you feel like weapon durability is in fact limiting your options.
I would´ve liked though if you had weapons that didn´t break with certain uses (axes cutting wood and hammers breaking rocks). I know that these weapons have extended durability in these cases, but they´ll end up breaking anyway and you´ll end up using bombs. It would´ve been an interesting choice if you had to decide whether to use your axe in battle and break it, forcing you to go fetch a new one. It would give more value to these weapons. I would´ve liked something similar for the champions´ weapons: Give them special abilities (like the Zora trident being stronger when it´s raining, the Rito bow shooting more arrows when shot in the air...) and an easier way to repair them. Make them situational so that they don´t become overpowered weapons but have clear advantages in specific situations.
I would´ve liked though if you had weapons that didn´t break with certain uses (axes cutting wood and hammers breaking rocks). I know that these weapons have extended durability in these cases, but they´ll end up breaking anyway and you´ll end up using bombs. It would´ve been an interesting choice if you had to decide whether to use your axe in battle and break it, forcing you to go fetch a new one. It would give more value to these weapons. I would´ve liked something similar for the champions´ weapons: Give them special abilities (like the Zora trident being stronger when it´s raining, the Rito bow shooting more arrows when shot in the air...) and an easier way to repair them. Make them situational so that they don´t become overpowered weapons but have clear advantages in specific situations.
Going through the trial of the sword without weapon durability would be horrible. The game is indefinitely better with it and you come across so many weapons, yes even great ones, so often throughout the game that is is complete non-issue to anyone who is not part packrat/horder, and those of you who are, just upgrade links house, keep your favorites there so you can view them anytime with an "emotional attachment" and get on with your life.
I didn't mind the weapon durability but i also don't think it's a "genius" system.
The pro's OP mentions didn't happen for me.
- I never ran out of weapons, so i never had to experiment with something else (i did it because it's fun, not because i had to). Weapons as a "limited" rescource don't work if they are actually abundant. The enemy weapons even scale so you never get crap!
- The weapons weren't actually meaningfully different to use. All enemies can easily be dispatched with all weapons, with the exeption of some requiring a shield or some of your permanent abilities.
- in fact, all the best and most fun experimentation in the game is stuff that doesn't involve weapons but your permanent abilites like bombs.
- the durability doesn't even work as a "reload ammo" moment because equipping a new one is instant and safe.
- it also made finding loot underwhelming since pretty much everything you find is disposable. or a korok seed.
Tbh, better enemy design would have done way more to force me to switch up my tactics than durability did. Because the durability was ultimately meaningless.
The pro's OP mentions didn't happen for me.
- I never ran out of weapons, so i never had to experiment with something else (i did it because it's fun, not because i had to). Weapons as a "limited" rescource don't work if they are actually abundant. The enemy weapons even scale so you never get crap!
- The weapons weren't actually meaningfully different to use. All enemies can easily be dispatched with all weapons, with the exeption of some requiring a shield or some of your permanent abilities.
- in fact, all the best and most fun experimentation in the game is stuff that doesn't involve weapons but your permanent abilites like bombs.
- the durability doesn't even work as a "reload ammo" moment because equipping a new one is instant and safe.
- it also made finding loot underwhelming since pretty much everything you find is disposable. or a korok seed.
Tbh, better enemy design would have done way more to force me to switch up my tactics than durability did. Because the durability was ultimately meaningless.
13 million of people opinions are hard to read.
This is why compendium exist
Last edited:
its better than most alternatives but it could use some fixing imo
the amount of weapons with useful damage later in the game ends up mostly being the slow 2 handers, and those also have the highest durability, so lategame youre just using one weapon type and its the lamest slowest one. I ended up just using a lot of little 14 damage swords and taking twice as long to beat every enemy just to get some variety. Also in general 3 weapon types is just not enough. Sure there are differences like boomerangs and rods ect but in terms of combat use it kinda feels like just a few weapons. More moves that are unique in general would have been nice and made switching on the fly out of necessity a lot more fun. Also bows and shields breaking felt very meaningless and all weapons suffer from inventory management being a slow hassle
overall though i see people who say durability ruined the game for them and it feels like they just decided at some point early in their game playing lives that they cant like weapon durability on principle because it stressed them out as a kid and now will just write off entire games for having one mechanic. Usually i like durability unless it ends up just being part of a silly skinner box system
the amount of weapons with useful damage later in the game ends up mostly being the slow 2 handers, and those also have the highest durability, so lategame youre just using one weapon type and its the lamest slowest one. I ended up just using a lot of little 14 damage swords and taking twice as long to beat every enemy just to get some variety. Also in general 3 weapon types is just not enough. Sure there are differences like boomerangs and rods ect but in terms of combat use it kinda feels like just a few weapons. More moves that are unique in general would have been nice and made switching on the fly out of necessity a lot more fun. Also bows and shields breaking felt very meaningless and all weapons suffer from inventory management being a slow hassle
overall though i see people who say durability ruined the game for them and it feels like they just decided at some point early in their game playing lives that they cant like weapon durability on principle because it stressed them out as a kid and now will just write off entire games for having one mechanic. Usually i like durability unless it ends up just being part of a silly skinner box system
It was bad game design, you don't create systems that punish the player for not playing how you want, which in this case was to use lots of different weapons, instead you create systems that reward that behaviour instead
Uh huh. If you'd ever like to actually chat about it we have a discord where you can actually get answers.
You can DM me if you're interested, this isn't the thread for that.
Last edited:
Nah I never liked it, I still loved my time with the game but the weapon breaking never stopped being annoying.
Im fine with wooden sticks breaking fast but a sturdy metal blade shouldnt break after a minute.
Im fine with wooden sticks breaking fast but a sturdy metal blade shouldnt break after a minute.
So you are saying that dark souls has a horrible game design, if i want to play It like DMC?
Dark Souls actually does do things to reward you to incentivise certain behaviour, but there are indeed some aspects that are done poorly, this is why for example people hate that fight with the congregration which punishes you for using the lock on system that you've been conditioned to use by that point in the game
This. If the goal is weapon variety and convincing players to explore them all, weapons that break so frequently is the worst way of doing that. It's a very negative feeling approach from the player's perspective. A good example of how to achieve weapon swapping in a positive way would be damage types and enemy resistances, ie: slashing, piercing, blunt, steel, silver, light, dark, fire, ice etc. And ideally allow players to create their favourite mixes of those weapon types.
