Do you also sell your console every time you run out of ammo in a shooter and have to switch to a different weapon?
Goddamn these takes are really something
-
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.
I want to talk about how genius the weapon breakability in Breath of the Wild is...
- Thread starter FernandoRocker
- Start date
Do you also sell your console every time you run out of ammo in a shooter and have to switch to a different weapon?
Goddamn these takes are really something
If the player wants to use a sword, they shouldn't be punished via weapon durability. This is a design issue easily solved by giving the player more resources for using the proper tool.
Yea the takes comparing the system to running out of ammo in a shooter game are really something I agree. Incredibly disingenuous framing.
It doesn't limit the player, but it seems like a reasonable penalty given the survival elements of the game. I'm pretty sure games like Minecraft do it too. So this in particular doesn't feel like a reasonable critique of the system. But if someone does not want to engage with the fairly light survival elements in the game at all (which I also see with people complaining about not having more stamina or being able to climb all surfaces in all conditions with ease), then I guess the game's not for them. Which is totally fine.
" If the player wants to use a AK-47, they shouldn't be punished via limited ammo. This is a design issue easily solved by giving the player more resources for using the proper tool."
See what I did there? This is why we're making the comparison; switching the nouns changes nothing because they're functionally identical. You're not thinking outside the box and assuming that melee and shooting mechanics must never intersect or share ideas ever.
If anything, dismissing the comparison is the truly disingenuous statement.
It absolutely does limit the player.
What shooter game limits AK-47 ammo and what game has an AK-47 that's only useful in specific situations? Like, the more I see people bring up shooter comparisons it becomes increasingly obvious that those people probably don't play shooters in the first place. 😂
I'm not surprised at the low approval it gets here in the poll. It's just so awful and just sapped the fun out of the game for me. It's great if you like durability, but then surely other stuff should have it too? I can actually understand it in games like MMOs that have artisans that create items in game for other players to use but in a single player game it just ends up tedious.
I don't think indifference is the goal, and I never felt that. A cool weapon is still a cool weapon. One awesome sword can help you take down a Lynel and then you're rewarded with what, 2-3 awesome weapons? There's almost always a net gain in your inventory's strength.
People complain about the combat but this system is one big push to use all your tools rather than rely on that one sword you like. Stealth, bombs, magnesis, environments, fire, lightning, bows, throwing weapons (massive damage if they break) etc.
It's also something of a natural balancing factor, since you're likely to use your weaker weapons against weaker enemies, making the progression towards being way overpowered slower than it otherwise would have been if you were able to just always use the most powerful weapon you've found.
I think enough people think BotW is one of, if not the very best game ever made that you can say this mechanic worked for it's intended purpose. Imo the complaints are not crazy, because I understand where they come from. But I don't think many people realize what a butterfly effect of negative consequences it would have on the game if durability wasn't this much of an integrated gameplay mechanic.
Again, there are games with just as much weapon and tool variety, that players have no issue switching tactics, improvising, etc. without being FORCED to do so. What is it about BOTW's sandbox specifically that would cause players to not take advantage of the tools if they weren't forced to do so? The premise of the argument is that the game's combat and tools aren't engaging enough for players to decide to take advantage of the variety unless they were forced to do so.... 🤔
Pretty much every single player shooter limits what ammo I can use. If I run out of AK ammo in Half-Life 2 for example, and the game is only dropping shotgun ammo... well I guess I'm stuck using the shotgun even if I don't care for it much.
Your weapons don't explode when you run out of ammo in most games.
I didn't like it at first, when you're super weak at the start of the game to the point i would avoid enemies. I also didn't like the two-handed swords that seemed to be the most prevalent. But by the mid point i really enjoyed just going ham with more weapons than i had room for and i realised that the charged two-handed sword attacks were aces. I constantly had a full inventory of powerful weapons to the point that getting weapons in shrines as rewards was very meh. So i'm down for more of the system in BOTW2 and i hope we get more weapon variety.
I think this is the game that finally taught me to stop hoarding everything to the point of never using it which is something that has crossed over into RPG items.
I think this is the game that finally taught me to stop hoarding everything to the point of never using it which is something that has crossed over into RPG items.
But not to an unreasonable degree. (At least, I don't think so.) It's a trade-off if you choose to abuse a sword in a way it's not meant for--which makes even more sense with whacking rocks, honestly---and it's not like you can't use bombs for that. I guess I don't mind that "dedication" to a survival game system, or would think that there wouldn't be an incentive to use the correct tools otherwise. (Like, I wouldn't bother using them at all if I only got a little bit more resources and would just brute force everything.)
Which ones?
..........Half Life 2 doesn't have an AK-47 nor is ammo ever a concern in that game. 🤔
Not if the weapons and enemies are created with true variety in mind, making them ineffective in certain scenarios.
This is an apt comparison. Doom Eternal is addressing weapon favoritism in a similar way. But unlike survival horror, BotW undermines its system in multiple ways (weapon farming, repairing) at which point the tedious system is laid bare as another time sink.
The problem is that a gun won't break in say, COD. You may run out of ammo, but you can normally pick more up. The ranged weapons in BOTW not only run out of ammo but they break too. And you don't break melee weapons in COD either.
Are you serious? There's no mechanical difference between the weapon "exploding" and finding another and the weapon being useless because you have no ammunition and no idea when you will find more.
Shooters usually only have a handful of weapons and developers usually boil the ammo types down into a few categories so you can get more ammo from many other sources and make the ammo interchangeable between weapons in that category and continue to use that weapon you like. I think the flaw in that argument is if you like "x" weapon, you literally have to find another copy of "x" weapon in BoTW.
Most shooters have universal ammo. Most shooters don't limit the player's ammo, nor does the player ever have to pause the action to get different weapons. The shooter comparison doesn't work. Especially considering that you don't nearly run out of ammo after two encounters.
Okay, AK was the wrong term, I'm not super knowledgeable about the guns. There is a machine gun, and the argument remains the same.
This difference is aesthetic only, and nothing more.
Not really, in BotW there's only 6 broad weapon types. There are some special weapons with special uses that you can chose when and when not to use them, but in most cases a sword is a sword and a spear is a spear even if they look a little different.
You should probably actually play Half Life 2. Because the hypothetical you presented, weapon that doesn't actually exist in the game aside, never happens.
Errr no, most modern shooters do that, but I'd hardly argue that's a general rule when taken for shooters as a whole.
Speaking just for myself, I never really change up my aporoach in a game if what I'm doing works.
Dark Souls? I use 1 or 2 swords all the way through, almost never use magic or bows.
Game like Elder Scrolls? Always use the weapon with highest damage stat, zero reason to switch up my strategy ever.
Etc.
I'm sure many play the same ways. Does BotW have enough depth in it's combat to be fun if you use your sword 90% of the time? No. Is that a fault in the game? Perhaps, but it's also not that kind of game. It's a sandbox, it wants you to experiment and try different things. The gameplay systems push the player towards doing that and rewards players who switch up strategies (tons of ways to dispatch enemies quickly using ingenious methods). I definitely think it would make a lot of players enjoy the game less if there was zero "punishment" for using the same weapon and strategy all the time. That's gameplay design 101.
Weapon durability is fine and even fun in some games, in BOTW however it's simply awful.
Not just because of how quickly weapons break but because of limited inventory space and the fact that so many weapons have great utility.
It's almost as if you are being discouraged from enjoying the beautiful sandbox gameplay to its fullest.
Not just because of how quickly weapons break but because of limited inventory space and the fact that so many weapons have great utility.
It's almost as if you are being discouraged from enjoying the beautiful sandbox gameplay to its fullest.
This is a you problem, not a fundamental design issue with those games. There are entire communities centered around the discussion of builds. Me CHOOSING to be a stealth archer in Skyrim is not a flaw of Skyrim's variety.
I hated the system so much.
But I think a simple fix would have been the ability to repair broken gear (in inventory) with drops from around the world AND to reduce the durability degradation rate.
But I think a simple fix would have been the ability to repair broken gear (in inventory) with drops from around the world AND to reduce the durability degradation rate.
Nah it sucks. I end up just running around using skeleton arms or whatever cuz I was scared of using good weapons. I don't really think the game is that good in general tho, i played like 39 hours hoping to see this amazing game people were raving about, and found it to be like a 7/10 game. I didn't even bother to finish it
Of course there is a difference. If the game rewards me for completing a particular quest with a unique weapon, then I expect that weapon to last for a while. What's the point otherwise?
Here's your ancient sword that belonged to our people and only the best warriors can wield it.
Don't get too attached tho.
I feel I would have appreciated the dynamic a bit more had I not started it in master mode, but I'm of the persuasion that your gear should have lasted a bit longer. Coupled with the limited weapon slots early on, you don't really have a choice but to avoid combat entirely, save for a few circumstances where you could drown them, for example. On the other hand, the plateau was a great place to learn stealth and evasive tactics, and I had a lot of fun doing it.
The game has a much larger enemy problem than breakable equipment imo, and it's a consequence of the engine itself, but that's perhaps for another post.
The game has a much larger enemy problem than breakable equipment imo, and it's a consequence of the engine itself, but that's perhaps for another post.
Same argument applies to Botw, the whole point is a gamefied version of open world survival sim and that includes things breaking like they do in real life. It's not trying to solve a problem but adhere to a consistent design philosophy.
That moment you throw a weapon about to break at an enemy and it shatters in his face and sends him flying is such a great feeling
I guess I wouldn't have minded much if 99% of the weapons in the game worked like they do right now and then there was a small contingent of other weapons that worked like the Master Sword. Like, one of each type and/or element.
It's been a couple of years but I don't believe Breath of the Wild has quests requiring the use of a particular weapon? If I'm wrong feel free to correct me.
BotW is it's own beast that plays by its own rules.
Well, the analogy here is that picking up a new sword in BotW is effectively like picking up "sword ammo".
And I'm not necessarily saying the system is "genius" or other games should adopt it. My point would be the mechanic is there for a reason. I would wager the most important reason for it is so that players can't just go pick up the best weapon early on and steamroll through the rest of the game. Since BotW lets you go anywhere at the start, they had to come up with a way to prevent that. It's a trade-off.
It's a similar thing how in BotW the dungeons don't get progressively more complex or give you new tools like in old Zeldas... They had to be designed so players could do them in any order. It would suck to arrive at the flying beast only to discover you can't progress since you don't have whatever thingamajig you get from beating the water beast.
Then it might be a case of attitude. For me, the ultimate feeling of the game was one of superficiality, because nothing about the world felt especially consequential: everything could be done; nothing needed to be done. The weapon system exemplifies this for me: nothing you discover here will have a lasting impact. And it doesn't. The only things that can make a huge change are the Divine Beasts and you'll be told about them right from the outset.
It's a bold principle and I applaud Nintendo for its courage in pursuing this (especially considering the IP). Moreover, I do think this kind of inventiveness, whether it works or not, is necessary and valuable, so I'm not even criticising, it's fueled a lot of discussion and great games always should.
Oddly enough I've had the same set of kitchen knives for years, and have yet to have one explode on me mid-use
It's not about requiring, but more about how losing a weapon that's supposed to be a special reward/important lore wise undermines it as a reward.
If my ancient spear from the Zora still breaks in two minutes like every other weapon then it's not that special of a reward now, isn't it.
I don't think society would be able to function if tools broke in real life like they do in breath of the wild. Or if tools couldn't be repaired and exploded when used for five minutes. When even the master sword briefly breaks to fit the system, there's an issue.
Unless you've been trying to use your kitchen knife to cut metal and hit shield this is an absurdly silly comparison.
If you have then well I feel sorry for you.
The worst part about durability was that much of the rewards for exploring were weapons which would last about one fight.
Y'all go do that time-stop golf shrine and come back and tell me weapon durability is a good thing, I'll wait.
It is one of the cores of the game and without it the game would be much much worse. People don't think about the implications of the disappearence of this mechanic because they tend to separate all mechanics individually when in reallity everything is intertwined, getting rid of it would diminish other parts of the game (scaling, the way enemies are approached, player progression, zone progression and freedom, etc) and to refix them with another mechanic would only bough down the game with more superfluos mechanics and restrictions. Which would strip breath of the wild of what makes it a masterpiece, the best of the decade and one of the GOATs.
Mechanics should never be taken into consideration individually, instead they should be discussed in the context of the other mechanics of the game. If a game mechanic has no bearing with anyother or it is only detrimental to them that means it is a bad mechanic. Weapon degradation may be annoying if you come with a certain mindset and are not willing to let it go, but it is a very key aspect to make a lot of other mechanics in the game work and shine.
Mechanics should never be taken into consideration individually, instead they should be discussed in the context of the other mechanics of the game. If a game mechanic has no bearing with anyother or it is only detrimental to them that means it is a bad mechanic. Weapon degradation may be annoying if you come with a certain mindset and are not willing to let it go, but it is a very key aspect to make a lot of other mechanics in the game work and shine.
This take is off imo, I doubt Nintendo were going for realism
Do you think Romans brought ten swords into battle? Do you think when a sword breaks it explodes? What part of real life do you think this is like?
Where's the "I dislike it and I think there are ways you can accomplish something similar in a different way" or something similar option? Like hate it is a strong word because it didn't ruin the game, but it was consistently the aspect I disliked the most and I can't help but feel that they could incentivize people to rotate weapons in a different fashion.