Man everyone getting all crazy about pineapple pizza around here. What happened to if you don't like it pick the pieces off?
Link would eat a pineapple pizza whole.
You and I both know that if pineapple pizza was something you could make in the game and it gave 3 stamina circles worth of temp stamina, they would be eating it.
The only thing more boring than cooking is crafting, so I vote no. Having unusable weapons in your inventory sucks too. I am looking at you Master Sword.
There is no fixing this terrible mechanic. Some people like it and that is fine. Some people also like pineapple on pizza.
If you strongly dislike wep durability AND you find cooking boring, then there is no fixing the game for you. Which is fine! This is all personal preference and there are no rules about what you have to like and dislike. Thing is, if you straight up took out wep durability it would alter the game so much it wouldn't feel the same.
My personal example of this is survival horror games. I can't stand how ammo is so rare yet needed so often. The last and only Resident Evil game I tried made you gather an item to save your game. When I discovered that I immediately stopped playing. If I "fixed" the game to something I would enjoy, it wouldn't be Resident Evil, it would be Half Life.
My fix is not to swing people who for whom durability is a complete deal braker for the game. It's meeting halfway the people who otherwise like the game but dislike durability. Game critic Jim Sterling hates it with a burning passion and he still gave the game a good score.
I'm with you about pineapple on pizza. The people who like that are monsters. It's there choice, but their still monsters.
EDIT: My post is implying that you do not like the game. That is not my intention and I apologize.
no it wouldn't
the only thing it would change is having to switch weapons in the middle of combat, and since the game pauses while you do that ....
Well, more accurately it would not feel the same to me. It makes weps more valuable, another resource you have to account for. It greatly reinforces the feeling of scavenging in a post apocalyptic world, which I dig. I even genuinely like switching weps mid combat. Did you know you can switch weps when you trigger flurry, but only before you start attacking?
I'm starting to think I may just be weird about this whole thing.
I definitely don't fault anyone for liking the system
I feel like adding a blacksmith would be the best solution since it would give both options
Thing is, what's ultimately annoying me about the entire system now is the aftermath of a weapon breaking. The grinding to a halt of gameplay flow, cycling through a long ass list for the next weapon I'm prepared to lose, and the possibility of doing this multiple times in a fight depending on what I'm fighting and the state of all my weapons.
A blacksmith isn't going to fix that problem. It just fixes the problem of acquiring new weapons, which honestly isn't as severe an issue.
It's gotten to the point now where I'm looking into this weapon meta of Ancient armor and a full list of ancient weaponry. Find the highest DPS per durability cost, and this seems to be it. Which in the end isn't really an embrace of the durability system, it's just me looking to circumnavigate it the best way I can.
after a certain point, weapons start lasting a few encounters so repairing them would be an option.
But why?
All these suggestions that weapons should be repairable make no sense to me. What is the difference between "your weapon broke, but the monster dropped a new one to replace it" and "you weapon is too damaged to use, but the monster dropped a repair material you can use to fix it", aside from the latter adding what is basically an errand you have to complete before you get your sword back?
A repair system would create the illusion that the durability system had been altered, while actually changing nothing except to add an extra layer of tedium to the game. It is fascinating to me that there are so many people who hate the idea of their weapons breaking and having to find new ones, but would be totally fine with it if they were allowed to carry the useless broken weapon around in their inventory like some sort of totem until they found a new one they could strip for parts to 'fix' the completely identical original.
Anyone else obsessively babies their extra yellow stamina wheels, thinking "gotta save it when I really need it," but that moment never comes?
The first time i got a yellow wheel was after purchasing some food from a 'dubious to say the least' character who seemed to enjoy feeding it to me with my eyes closed a little too much. I thought the bastard had poisoned me. I kept watching that yellow circle thinking i was using double normal stamina or something wondering why it never went away...then i actually went past my normal stam max and i realized what it was.
Stercus, Stercus, Stercus, Morituri Sum
+1
Metal JaredMulligan WizardRhode IslandRegistered Userregular
The only thing more boring than cooking is crafting, so I vote no. Having unusable weapons in your inventory sucks too. I am looking at you Master Sword.
There is no fixing this terrible mechanic. Some people like it and that is fine. Some people also like pineapple on pizza.
If you strongly dislike wep durability AND you find cooking boring, then there is no fixing the game for you. Which is fine! This is all personal preference and there are no rules about what you have to like and dislike. Thing is, if you straight up took out wep durability it would alter the game so much it wouldn't feel the same.
My personal example of this is survival horror games. I can't stand how ammo is so rare yet needed so often. The last and only Resident Evil game I tried made you gather an item to save your game. When I discovered that I immediately stopped playing. If I "fixed" the game to something I would enjoy, it wouldn't be Resident Evil, it would be Half Life.
My fix is not to swing people who for whom durability is a complete deal braker for the game. It's meeting halfway the people who otherwise like the game but dislike durability. Game critic Jim Sterling hates it with a burning passion and he still gave the game a good score.
I'm with you about pineapple on pizza. The people who like that are monsters. It's there choice, but their still monsters.
EDIT: My post is implying that you do not like the game. That is not my intention and I apologize.
no it wouldn't
the only thing it would change is having to switch weapons in the middle of combat, and since the game pauses while you do that ....
Well, more accurately it would not feel the same to me. It makes weps more valuable, another resource you have to account for. It greatly reinforces the feeling of scavenging in a post apocalyptic world, which I dig. I even genuinely like switching weps mid combat. Did you know you can switch weps when you trigger flurry, but only before you start attacking?
I'm starting to think I may just be weird about this whole thing.
I definitely don't fault anyone for liking the system
I feel like adding a blacksmith would be the best solution since it would give both options
Thing is, what's ultimately annoying me about the entire system now is the aftermath of a weapon breaking. The grinding to a halt of gameplay flow, cycling through a long ass list for the next weapon I'm prepared to lose, and the possibility of doing this multiple times in a fight depending on what I'm fighting and the state of all my weapons.
A blacksmith isn't going to fix that problem. It just fixes the problem of acquiring new weapons, which honestly isn't as severe an issue.
It's gotten to the point now where I'm looking into this weapon meta of Ancient armor and a full list of ancient weaponry. Find the highest DPS per durability cost, and this seems to be it. Which in the end isn't really an embrace of the durability system, it's just me looking to circumnavigate it the best way I can.
after a certain point, weapons start lasting a few encounters so repairing them would be an option.
But why?
All these suggestions that weapons should be repairable make no sense to me. What is the difference between "your weapon broke, but the monster dropped a new one to replace it" and "you weapon is too damaged to use, but the monster dropped a repair material you can use to fix it", aside from the latter adding what is basically an errand you have to complete before you get your sword back?
A repair system would create the illusion that the durability system had been altered, while actually changing nothing except to add an extra layer of tedium to the game. It is fascinating to me that there are so many people who hate the idea of their weapons breaking and having to find new ones, but would be totally fine with it if they were allowed to carry the useless broken weapon around in their inventory like some sort of totem until they found a new one they could strip for parts to 'fix' the completely identical original.
I really like how you need to use new weapons all the time. Yeah it sucks that they break super fast but this way I feel like I have to try all the weapons (I have some 50 strength weapon that I've never used since it's so much better than anything else I've ever gotten). If there was no weapon durability than you would basically find a weapon, look at its damage and then never use another weapon again. Yeah spears vs swords or whatever but it would always just be optimization and everything else would be trash.
One thing that I would personally like would be if smashing boxes or stasis items didn't hurt durability. I'm not a fan of blowing up boxes with bombs and then trying to look around to see if there was anything in the box I just exploded.
I think why some are arguing that changing weapon durability would change the game too much is because of the open nature of the game. I managed to get a few pretty powerful weapons early. Which if they didn't break (or could be repaired) would mean I'd only ever use a couple of weapons the whole game, severely impacting much of the exploratory nature of the game. How excited would I be to beat a shrine and get a weaker sword that I'd never equip. At least when I get those items now I still use them, just on weaker foes (or to hunt).
It's also connected to Link's progression. If you're tempted not to fight monsters to save weapons, that's fine, but it will make armor upgrades much harder to get in the long run.
I definitely feel like they could have increased the durability of some weapons up to last longer though. It's also possible that I had less frustration with the system because I upgraded my weapon slots to double digits very early and so always have a long list of back-ups to switch to.
The only thing more boring than cooking is crafting, so I vote no. Having unusable weapons in your inventory sucks too. I am looking at you Master Sword.
There is no fixing this terrible mechanic. Some people like it and that is fine. Some people also like pineapple on pizza.
If you strongly dislike wep durability AND you find cooking boring, then there is no fixing the game for you. Which is fine! This is all personal preference and there are no rules about what you have to like and dislike. Thing is, if you straight up took out wep durability it would alter the game so much it wouldn't feel the same.
My personal example of this is survival horror games. I can't stand how ammo is so rare yet needed so often. The last and only Resident Evil game I tried made you gather an item to save your game. When I discovered that I immediately stopped playing. If I "fixed" the game to something I would enjoy, it wouldn't be Resident Evil, it would be Half Life.
My fix is not to swing people who for whom durability is a complete deal braker for the game. It's meeting halfway the people who otherwise like the game but dislike durability. Game critic Jim Sterling hates it with a burning passion and he still gave the game a good score.
I'm with you about pineapple on pizza. The people who like that are monsters. It's there choice, but their still monsters.
EDIT: My post is implying that you do not like the game. That is not my intention and I apologize.
no it wouldn't
the only thing it would change is having to switch weapons in the middle of combat, and since the game pauses while you do that ....
Well, more accurately it would not feel the same to me. It makes weps more valuable, another resource you have to account for. It greatly reinforces the feeling of scavenging in a post apocalyptic world, which I dig. I even genuinely like switching weps mid combat. Did you know you can switch weps when you trigger flurry, but only before you start attacking?
I'm starting to think I may just be weird about this whole thing.
I definitely don't fault anyone for liking the system
I feel like adding a blacksmith would be the best solution since it would give both options
Thing is, what's ultimately annoying me about the entire system now is the aftermath of a weapon breaking. The grinding to a halt of gameplay flow, cycling through a long ass list for the next weapon I'm prepared to lose, and the possibility of doing this multiple times in a fight depending on what I'm fighting and the state of all my weapons.
A blacksmith isn't going to fix that problem. It just fixes the problem of acquiring new weapons, which honestly isn't as severe an issue.
It's gotten to the point now where I'm looking into this weapon meta of Ancient armor and a full list of ancient weaponry. Find the highest DPS per durability cost, and this seems to be it. Which in the end isn't really an embrace of the durability system, it's just me looking to circumnavigate it the best way I can.
after a certain point, weapons start lasting a few encounters so repairing them would be an option.
But why?
All these suggestions that weapons should be repairable make no sense to me. What is the difference between "your weapon broke, but the monster dropped a new one to replace it" and "you weapon is too damaged to use, but the monster dropped a repair material you can use to fix it", aside from the latter adding what is basically an errand you have to complete before you get your sword back?
Ohhh OK. Yea if you do not like having to switch weps mid combat then there is no fix except to totally remove durability.
Nobeard on
0
Metal JaredMulligan WizardRhode IslandRegistered Userregular
The only thing more boring than cooking is crafting, so I vote no. Having unusable weapons in your inventory sucks too. I am looking at you Master Sword.
There is no fixing this terrible mechanic. Some people like it and that is fine. Some people also like pineapple on pizza.
If you strongly dislike wep durability AND you find cooking boring, then there is no fixing the game for you. Which is fine! This is all personal preference and there are no rules about what you have to like and dislike. Thing is, if you straight up took out wep durability it would alter the game so much it wouldn't feel the same.
My personal example of this is survival horror games. I can't stand how ammo is so rare yet needed so often. The last and only Resident Evil game I tried made you gather an item to save your game. When I discovered that I immediately stopped playing. If I "fixed" the game to something I would enjoy, it wouldn't be Resident Evil, it would be Half Life.
My fix is not to swing people who for whom durability is a complete deal braker for the game. It's meeting halfway the people who otherwise like the game but dislike durability. Game critic Jim Sterling hates it with a burning passion and he still gave the game a good score.
I'm with you about pineapple on pizza. The people who like that are monsters. It's there choice, but their still monsters.
EDIT: My post is implying that you do not like the game. That is not my intention and I apologize.
no it wouldn't
the only thing it would change is having to switch weapons in the middle of combat, and since the game pauses while you do that ....
Well, more accurately it would not feel the same to me. It makes weps more valuable, another resource you have to account for. It greatly reinforces the feeling of scavenging in a post apocalyptic world, which I dig. I even genuinely like switching weps mid combat. Did you know you can switch weps when you trigger flurry, but only before you start attacking?
I'm starting to think I may just be weird about this whole thing.
I definitely don't fault anyone for liking the system
I feel like adding a blacksmith would be the best solution since it would give both options
Thing is, what's ultimately annoying me about the entire system now is the aftermath of a weapon breaking. The grinding to a halt of gameplay flow, cycling through a long ass list for the next weapon I'm prepared to lose, and the possibility of doing this multiple times in a fight depending on what I'm fighting and the state of all my weapons.
A blacksmith isn't going to fix that problem. It just fixes the problem of acquiring new weapons, which honestly isn't as severe an issue.
It's gotten to the point now where I'm looking into this weapon meta of Ancient armor and a full list of ancient weaponry. Find the highest DPS per durability cost, and this seems to be it. Which in the end isn't really an embrace of the durability system, it's just me looking to circumnavigate it the best way I can.
after a certain point, weapons start lasting a few encounters so repairing them would be an option.
But why?
All these suggestions that weapons should be repairable make no sense to me. What is the difference between "your weapon broke, but the monster dropped a new one to replace it" and "you weapon is too damaged to use, but the monster dropped a repair material you can use to fix it", aside from the latter adding what is basically an errand you have to complete before you get your sword back?
Ohhh OK. Yea if you do not like having to switch weps mid combat then there is no fix except to totally remove durability.
Seems like the answer is to be able to Q up your weapons. Put them in slots (have like 3) and then when your weapon breaks, weapon 2 is ready to go! Same with shields and bows! Lets do this!
You don't need a durability system to promote weapon diversity. Weapons are already different enough. Spears are low damage but do a lot of hits. Greatswords are the opposite, slow sweeping hits that can knock away shields. Regular swords are in the middle. Boomerangs can be thrown. And rods are your catch all magic attacks. You don't need to slam my head into the ground and force me to use them by breaking my weapons. I'll want to use them depending on the situation.
But on the flip side, all that weapon diversity flies out the window when I'm fighting say a lynel. The difference between weapons no longer makes a lick of difference, the fight is exactly the same either way. Whack them with this damage stick until it breaks, get new damage stick, whack them until it breaks, repeat. So the idea of promoting weapon diversity with durability still doesn't make sense.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
You don't need a durability system to promote weapon diversity. Weapons are already different enough. Spears are low damage but do a lot of hits. Greatswords are the opposite, slow sweeping hits that can knock away shields. Regular swords are in the middle. Boomerangs can be thrown. And rods are your catch all magic attacks. You don't need to slam my head into the ground and force me to use them by breaking my weapons. I'll want to use them depending on the situation.
But on the flip side, all that weapon diversity flies out the window when I'm fighting say a lynel. The difference between weapons no longer makes a lick of difference, the fight is exactly the same either way. Whack them with this damage stick until it breaks, get new damage stick, whack them until it breaks, repeat. So the idea of promoting weapon diversity with durability still doesn't make sense.
The point is, lets say there was no durability. You'd get your sword, spear, greatsword and rods. Once you get a better sword you throw all your other swords away, same with every other weapon. You'd have an inventory of X weapons and that's it. Forever. The difficulty curve of the game would be almost impossible to do. What happens if you snuck somewhere and got a really great spear right off the bat? Does the whole game become super easy because you have a spear that kicks ass and nothing can touch you? Do they need to make the game super super hard in case that happens? What happens if you don't get that rad weapon early are you just going to get rekt until you find something good?
It's not weapon diversity in the sense of which type of weapon, it's that you need to use ALL your weapons. You can't just get something great and destroy everything for the rest of the game and say goodbye to difficulty. You need to use resource management while you play.
You can kill the most powerful version of a Lynel without breaking a single weapon if you do it good
Spend 30 minutes chucking bombs at it?
Though i admit i play stupid when it comes to weapon durability. Probably because it hardly bothers me. Use stuff, destroy it, find more stuff.
Nail them in the face with a Lynel bow using normal arrows and it will stagger them. Hit them, then mount them. You get 5 free hits that use up no durability.
As you're backflipping off of them, go into slowmo and shoot them in the back of the head with your bow a few times.
You can kill the most powerful version of a Lynel without breaking a single weapon if you do it good
Spend 30 minutes chucking bombs at it?
Though i admit i play stupid when it comes to weapon durability. Probably because it hardly bothers me. Use stuff, destroy it, find more stuff.
Nail them in the face with a Lynel bow using normal arrows and it will stagger them. Hit them, then mount them. You get 5 free hits that use up no durability.
As you're backflipping off of them, go into slowmo and shoot them in the back of the head with your bow a few times.
You will kill them extremely quickly.
Oh dang, I never thought to try this part.
Switch: SW-2431-2728-9604 || 3DS: 0817-4948-1650
0
Handsome CostanzaAsk me about 8bitdoRIP Iwata-sanRegistered Userregular
You don't need a durability system to promote weapon diversity. Weapons are already different enough. Spears are low damage but do a lot of hits. Greatswords are the opposite, slow sweeping hits that can knock away shields. Regular swords are in the middle. Boomerangs can be thrown. And rods are your catch all magic attacks. You don't need to slam my head into the ground and force me to use them by breaking my weapons. I'll want to use them depending on the situation.
But on the flip side, all that weapon diversity flies out the window when I'm fighting say a lynel. The difference between weapons no longer makes a lick of difference, the fight is exactly the same either way. Whack them with this damage stick until it breaks, get new damage stick, whack them until it breaks, repeat. So the idea of promoting weapon diversity with durability still doesn't make sense.
The point is, lets say there was no durability. You'd get your sword, spear, greatsword and rods. Once you get a better sword you throw all your other swords away, same with every other weapon. You'd have an inventory of X weapons and that's it. Forever. The difficulty curve of the game would be almost impossible to do. What happens if you snuck somewhere and got a really great spear right off the bat? Does the whole game become super easy because you have a spear that kicks ass and nothing can touch you? Do they need to make the game super super hard in case that happens? What happens if you don't get that rad weapon early are you just going to get rekt until you find something good?
It's not weapon diversity in the sense of which type of weapon, it's that you need to use ALL your weapons. You can't just get something great and destroy everything for the rest of the game and say goodbye to difficulty. You need to use resource management while you play.
This is hardly a unique dilemma. Loads of other games have had it, and have dealt with it perfectly fine. You can sneak off and get the power armor in Fallout early. You can sneak off and get a daedric weapon in Skyrim. You can sneak off to an area in an RPG you shouldn't be in yet and buy all the equipment there. This happens all the time in games, and none of them are broken or ruined by it. Shit, they develop strats and communities around getting these "gamebreaking" items. And there are already balance checks against it.
-If you're really good about your game progression and how you lead the player along, they're not just going to trip over these mega weapons in the first hour of the game
-If you do find a mega weapon and you're sad that it's making the game too easy... don't use it.
There are ways of developing similar systems and playstyles here that don't involve forcibly ripping tools out of players hands and saying "You can't use this anymore now".
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
0
Metal JaredMulligan WizardRhode IslandRegistered Userregular
You don't need a durability system to promote weapon diversity. Weapons are already different enough. Spears are low damage but do a lot of hits. Greatswords are the opposite, slow sweeping hits that can knock away shields. Regular swords are in the middle. Boomerangs can be thrown. And rods are your catch all magic attacks. You don't need to slam my head into the ground and force me to use them by breaking my weapons. I'll want to use them depending on the situation.
But on the flip side, all that weapon diversity flies out the window when I'm fighting say a lynel. The difference between weapons no longer makes a lick of difference, the fight is exactly the same either way. Whack them with this damage stick until it breaks, get new damage stick, whack them until it breaks, repeat. So the idea of promoting weapon diversity with durability still doesn't make sense.
The point is, lets say there was no durability. You'd get your sword, spear, greatsword and rods. Once you get a better sword you throw all your other swords away, same with every other weapon. You'd have an inventory of X weapons and that's it. Forever. The difficulty curve of the game would be almost impossible to do. What happens if you snuck somewhere and got a really great spear right off the bat? Does the whole game become super easy because you have a spear that kicks ass and nothing can touch you? Do they need to make the game super super hard in case that happens? What happens if you don't get that rad weapon early are you just going to get rekt until you find something good?
It's not weapon diversity in the sense of which type of weapon, it's that you need to use ALL your weapons. You can't just get something great and destroy everything for the rest of the game and say goodbye to difficulty. You need to use resource management while you play.
This is hardly a unique dilemma. Loads of other games have had it, and have dealt with it perfectly fine. You can sneak off and get the power armor in Fallout early. You can sneak off and get a daedric weapon in Skyrim. You can sneak off to an area in an RPG you shouldn't be in yet and buy all the equipment there. This happens all the time in games, and none of them are broken or ruined by it. Shit, they develop strats and communities around getting these "gamebreaking" items. And there are already balance checks against it.
-If you're really good about your game progression and how you lead the player along, they're not just going to trip over these mega weapons in the first hour of the game
-If you do find a mega weapon and you're sad that it's making the game too easy... don't use it.
There are ways of developing similar systems and playstyles here that don't involve forcibly ripping tools out of players hands and saying "You can't use this anymore now".
Right. I'm saying the way the game is right now, not having durability would completely fuck the game difficulty. Could they have changed the game to account for this? Yup they sure could have. They didn't though so that's why I made my statement. Feel free to hate the game or whatever that's cool for you but it's pretty clear that there isn't a balance check for no durability in the video game we're both currently playing.
There's a bit of an issue with difficulty scaling in general.
Silver enemies don't have anything special going for them beyond absurd hp, and the final, ultimate, "I've completed absolutely everything" boss is the minimum completion boss with most of the stages removed and half health. For the most part, progression just leads to systems that were relevant and interesting at the beginning slowly decaying into worthlessness.
You don't need a durability system to promote weapon diversity. Weapons are already different enough. Spears are low damage but do a lot of hits. Greatswords are the opposite, slow sweeping hits that can knock away shields. Regular swords are in the middle. Boomerangs can be thrown. And rods are your catch all magic attacks. You don't need to slam my head into the ground and force me to use them by breaking my weapons. I'll want to use them depending on the situation.
But on the flip side, all that weapon diversity flies out the window when I'm fighting say a lynel. The difference between weapons no longer makes a lick of difference, the fight is exactly the same either way. Whack them with this damage stick until it breaks, get new damage stick, whack them until it breaks, repeat. So the idea of promoting weapon diversity with durability still doesn't make sense.
The point is, lets say there was no durability. You'd get your sword, spear, greatsword and rods. Once you get a better sword you throw all your other swords away, same with every other weapon. You'd have an inventory of X weapons and that's it. Forever. The difficulty curve of the game would be almost impossible to do. What happens if you snuck somewhere and got a really great spear right off the bat? Does the whole game become super easy because you have a spear that kicks ass and nothing can touch you? Do they need to make the game super super hard in case that happens? What happens if you don't get that rad weapon early are you just going to get rekt until you find something good?
It's not weapon diversity in the sense of which type of weapon, it's that you need to use ALL your weapons. You can't just get something great and destroy everything for the rest of the game and say goodbye to difficulty. You need to use resource management while you play.
This is hardly a unique dilemma. Loads of other games have had it, and have dealt with it perfectly fine. You can sneak off and get the power armor in Fallout early. You can sneak off and get a daedric weapon in Skyrim. You can sneak off to an area in an RPG you shouldn't be in yet and buy all the equipment there. This happens all the time in games, and none of them are broken or ruined by it. Shit, they develop strats and communities around getting these "gamebreaking" items. And there are already balance checks against it.
-If you're really good about your game progression and how you lead the player along, they're not just going to trip over these mega weapons in the first hour of the game
-If you do find a mega weapon and you're sad that it's making the game too easy... don't use it.
There are ways of developing similar systems and playstyles here that don't involve forcibly ripping tools out of players hands and saying "You can't use this anymore now".
Right. I'm saying the way the game is right now, not having durability would completely fuck the game difficulty. Could they have changed the game to account for this? Yup they sure could have. They didn't though so that's why I made my statement. Feel free to hate the game or whatever that's cool for you but it's pretty clear that there isn't a balance check for no durability in the video game we're both currently playing.
There's already a balance check. The fact that enemies can do a ton of damage and potentially one shot you if you're fighting above your weight limit. An unbreakable sword isn't going to turn me into a walking god that can slaughter any enemy camp or lynel I see. I still need some skill in fighting them.
And if I specifically hunt down this "omega sword" for the sole purpose of slaughtering enemies and breaking the difficulty? Well, that's on me then. I know exactly what I'm doing, I think I'm ok with the potential consequences.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
0
Metal JaredMulligan WizardRhode IslandRegistered Userregular
You don't need a durability system to promote weapon diversity. Weapons are already different enough. Spears are low damage but do a lot of hits. Greatswords are the opposite, slow sweeping hits that can knock away shields. Regular swords are in the middle. Boomerangs can be thrown. And rods are your catch all magic attacks. You don't need to slam my head into the ground and force me to use them by breaking my weapons. I'll want to use them depending on the situation.
But on the flip side, all that weapon diversity flies out the window when I'm fighting say a lynel. The difference between weapons no longer makes a lick of difference, the fight is exactly the same either way. Whack them with this damage stick until it breaks, get new damage stick, whack them until it breaks, repeat. So the idea of promoting weapon diversity with durability still doesn't make sense.
The point is, lets say there was no durability. You'd get your sword, spear, greatsword and rods. Once you get a better sword you throw all your other swords away, same with every other weapon. You'd have an inventory of X weapons and that's it. Forever. The difficulty curve of the game would be almost impossible to do. What happens if you snuck somewhere and got a really great spear right off the bat? Does the whole game become super easy because you have a spear that kicks ass and nothing can touch you? Do they need to make the game super super hard in case that happens? What happens if you don't get that rad weapon early are you just going to get rekt until you find something good?
It's not weapon diversity in the sense of which type of weapon, it's that you need to use ALL your weapons. You can't just get something great and destroy everything for the rest of the game and say goodbye to difficulty. You need to use resource management while you play.
This is hardly a unique dilemma. Loads of other games have had it, and have dealt with it perfectly fine. You can sneak off and get the power armor in Fallout early. You can sneak off and get a daedric weapon in Skyrim. You can sneak off to an area in an RPG you shouldn't be in yet and buy all the equipment there. This happens all the time in games, and none of them are broken or ruined by it. Shit, they develop strats and communities around getting these "gamebreaking" items. And there are already balance checks against it.
-If you're really good about your game progression and how you lead the player along, they're not just going to trip over these mega weapons in the first hour of the game
-If you do find a mega weapon and you're sad that it's making the game too easy... don't use it.
There are ways of developing similar systems and playstyles here that don't involve forcibly ripping tools out of players hands and saying "You can't use this anymore now".
Right. I'm saying the way the game is right now, not having durability would completely fuck the game difficulty. Could they have changed the game to account for this? Yup they sure could have. They didn't though so that's why I made my statement. Feel free to hate the game or whatever that's cool for you but it's pretty clear that there isn't a balance check for no durability in the video game we're both currently playing.
There's already a balance check. The fact that enemies can do a ton of damage and potentially one shot you if you're fighting above your weight limit. An unbreakable sword isn't going to turn me into a walking god that can slaughter any enemy camp or lynel I see. I still need some skill in fighting them.
And if I specifically hunt down this "omega sword" for the sole purpose of slaughtering enemies and breaking the difficulty? Well, that's on me then. I know exactly what I'm doing, I think I'm ok with the potential consequences.
There's a bit of an issue with difficulty scaling in general.
Silver enemies don't have anything special going for them beyond absurd hp, and the final, ultimate, "I've completed absolutely everything" boss is the minimum completion boss with most of the stages removed and half health. For the most part, progression just leads to systems that were relevant and interesting at the beginning slowly decaying into worthlessness.
You know, in not so many words I have kind of had the same thought. As the game progresses, eventually everything is trivial and I actively miss those systems that made the game more of a challenge early on. My Link is essentially an unstoppable force of destruction, woe unto any who stand before him.
There's a bit of an issue with difficulty scaling in general.
Silver enemies don't have anything special going for them beyond absurd hp, and the final, ultimate, "I've completed absolutely everything" boss is the minimum completion boss with most of the stages removed and half health. For the most part, progression just leads to systems that were relevant and interesting at the beginning slowly decaying into worthlessness.
You know, in not so many words I have kind of had the same thought. As the game progresses, eventually everything is trivial and I actively miss those systems that made the game more of a challenge early on. My Link is essentially an unstoppable force of destruction, woe unto any who stand before him.
To be fair, this has been true in pretty much every game I've ever played. Everything is easy if you overlevel the content, and completing everything will by necessity lead to you overleveling. There was never going to be a version of the Ganon fight that was still hard when you rolled in with the master sword, hylian shield, maxed hearts, and 88 defense on your gear.
You can kill the most powerful version of a Lynel without breaking a single weapon if you do it good
Spend 30 minutes chucking bombs at it?
Though i admit i play stupid when it comes to weapon durability. Probably because it hardly bothers me. Use stuff, destroy it, find more stuff.
Nail them in the face with a Lynel bow using normal arrows and it will stagger them. Hit them, then mount them. You get 5 free hits that use up no durability.
As you're backflipping off of them, go into slowmo and shoot them in the back of the head with your bow a few times.
You will kill them extremely quickly.
Also, generally speaking, bows can do a ton of damage before breaking relative to same-tier melee weapons (presumably to offset the fact that you also have to spend arrows to use them). A Savage Lynel Bow with the 5x property can output over 8,000 damage before it breaks, if you hit with all the arrows it fires - almost enough to kill two of the high-level Lynels that drop them even without taking any advantage of the no-durability-loss melee hits.
There's a bit of an issue with difficulty scaling in general.
Silver enemies don't have anything special going for them beyond absurd hp, and the final, ultimate, "I've completed absolutely everything" boss is the minimum completion boss with most of the stages removed and half health. For the most part, progression just leads to systems that were relevant and interesting at the beginning slowly decaying into worthlessness.
You know, in not so many words I have kind of had the same thought. As the game progresses, eventually everything is trivial and I actively miss those systems that made the game more of a challenge early on. My Link is essentially an unstoppable force of destruction, woe unto any who stand before him.
To be fair, this has been true in pretty much every game I've ever played. Everything is easy if you overlevel the content, and completing everything will by necessity lead to you overleveling. There was never going to be a version of the Ganon fight that was still hard when you rolled in with the master sword, hylian shield, maxed hearts, and 88 defense on your gear.
This is the first game in which the final boss actively gets weaker, though, rather than just you getting stronger.
You don't need a durability system to promote weapon diversity. Weapons are already different enough. Spears are low damage but do a lot of hits. Greatswords are the opposite, slow sweeping hits that can knock away shields. Regular swords are in the middle. Boomerangs can be thrown. And rods are your catch all magic attacks. You don't need to slam my head into the ground and force me to use them by breaking my weapons. I'll want to use them depending on the situation.
But on the flip side, all that weapon diversity flies out the window when I'm fighting say a lynel. The difference between weapons no longer makes a lick of difference, the fight is exactly the same either way. Whack them with this damage stick until it breaks, get new damage stick, whack them until it breaks, repeat. So the idea of promoting weapon diversity with durability still doesn't make sense.
The point is, lets say there was no durability. You'd get your sword, spear, greatsword and rods. Once you get a better sword you throw all your other swords away, same with every other weapon. You'd have an inventory of X weapons and that's it. Forever. The difficulty curve of the game would be almost impossible to do. What happens if you snuck somewhere and got a really great spear right off the bat? Does the whole game become super easy because you have a spear that kicks ass and nothing can touch you? Do they need to make the game super super hard in case that happens? What happens if you don't get that rad weapon early are you just going to get rekt until you find something good?
It's not weapon diversity in the sense of which type of weapon, it's that you need to use ALL your weapons. You can't just get something great and destroy everything for the rest of the game and say goodbye to difficulty. You need to use resource management while you play.
This is hardly a unique dilemma. Loads of other games have had it, and have dealt with it perfectly fine. You can sneak off and get the power armor in Fallout early. You can sneak off and get a daedric weapon in Skyrim. You can sneak off to an area in an RPG you shouldn't be in yet and buy all the equipment there. This happens all the time in games, and none of them are broken or ruined by it. Shit, they develop strats and communities around getting these "gamebreaking" items. And there are already balance checks against it.
-If you're really good about your game progression and how you lead the player along, they're not just going to trip over these mega weapons in the first hour of the game
-If you do find a mega weapon and you're sad that it's making the game too easy... don't use it.
There are ways of developing similar systems and playstyles here that don't involve forcibly ripping tools out of players hands and saying "You can't use this anymore now".
Right. I'm saying the way the game is right now, not having durability would completely fuck the game difficulty. Could they have changed the game to account for this? Yup they sure could have. They didn't though so that's why I made my statement. Feel free to hate the game or whatever that's cool for you but it's pretty clear that there isn't a balance check for no durability in the video game we're both currently playing.
There's already a balance check. The fact that enemies can do a ton of damage and potentially one shot you if you're fighting above your weight limit. An unbreakable sword isn't going to turn me into a walking god that can slaughter any enemy camp or lynel I see. I still need some skill in fighting them.
And if I specifically hunt down this "omega sword" for the sole purpose of slaughtering enemies and breaking the difficulty? Well, that's on me then. I know exactly what I'm doing, I think I'm ok with the potential consequences.
The game designers apparently disagree with you
Which they totally can, and I'll disagree with them right back. But as we've learned with various hot topic issues of varying severity over the years, the developers don't get the final word in how their designs are perceived.
I have no problem agreeing that they designed many features of the game around durability. But I also think in the end it's a dumb system, and designing something around a dumb system does not automatically make it good. I also don't think that, were they to release a patch tomorrow that totally nixed durability (via a checkbox in the option menu, because choice is never a bad thing... not that it wouldn't stop the flood of arguments much), I don't think the game's difficulty would be cracked wide open and irrevocably changed forever for the worse. The game would still be plenty great, challenging, and rewarding.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
0
Metal JaredMulligan WizardRhode IslandRegistered Userregular
You don't need a durability system to promote weapon diversity. Weapons are already different enough. Spears are low damage but do a lot of hits. Greatswords are the opposite, slow sweeping hits that can knock away shields. Regular swords are in the middle. Boomerangs can be thrown. And rods are your catch all magic attacks. You don't need to slam my head into the ground and force me to use them by breaking my weapons. I'll want to use them depending on the situation.
But on the flip side, all that weapon diversity flies out the window when I'm fighting say a lynel. The difference between weapons no longer makes a lick of difference, the fight is exactly the same either way. Whack them with this damage stick until it breaks, get new damage stick, whack them until it breaks, repeat. So the idea of promoting weapon diversity with durability still doesn't make sense.
The point is, lets say there was no durability. You'd get your sword, spear, greatsword and rods. Once you get a better sword you throw all your other swords away, same with every other weapon. You'd have an inventory of X weapons and that's it. Forever. The difficulty curve of the game would be almost impossible to do. What happens if you snuck somewhere and got a really great spear right off the bat? Does the whole game become super easy because you have a spear that kicks ass and nothing can touch you? Do they need to make the game super super hard in case that happens? What happens if you don't get that rad weapon early are you just going to get rekt until you find something good?
It's not weapon diversity in the sense of which type of weapon, it's that you need to use ALL your weapons. You can't just get something great and destroy everything for the rest of the game and say goodbye to difficulty. You need to use resource management while you play.
This is hardly a unique dilemma. Loads of other games have had it, and have dealt with it perfectly fine. You can sneak off and get the power armor in Fallout early. You can sneak off and get a daedric weapon in Skyrim. You can sneak off to an area in an RPG you shouldn't be in yet and buy all the equipment there. This happens all the time in games, and none of them are broken or ruined by it. Shit, they develop strats and communities around getting these "gamebreaking" items. And there are already balance checks against it.
-If you're really good about your game progression and how you lead the player along, they're not just going to trip over these mega weapons in the first hour of the game
-If you do find a mega weapon and you're sad that it's making the game too easy... don't use it.
There are ways of developing similar systems and playstyles here that don't involve forcibly ripping tools out of players hands and saying "You can't use this anymore now".
Right. I'm saying the way the game is right now, not having durability would completely fuck the game difficulty. Could they have changed the game to account for this? Yup they sure could have. They didn't though so that's why I made my statement. Feel free to hate the game or whatever that's cool for you but it's pretty clear that there isn't a balance check for no durability in the video game we're both currently playing.
There's already a balance check. The fact that enemies can do a ton of damage and potentially one shot you if you're fighting above your weight limit. An unbreakable sword isn't going to turn me into a walking god that can slaughter any enemy camp or lynel I see. I still need some skill in fighting them.
And if I specifically hunt down this "omega sword" for the sole purpose of slaughtering enemies and breaking the difficulty? Well, that's on me then. I know exactly what I'm doing, I think I'm ok with the potential consequences.
The game designers apparently disagree with you
Which they totally can, and I'll disagree with them right back. But as we've learned with various hot topic issues of varying severity over the years, the developers don't get the final word in how their designs are perceived.
I have no problem agreeing that they designed many features of the game around durability. But I also think in the end it's a dumb system, and designing something around a dumb system does not automatically make it good. I also don't think that, were they to release a patch tomorrow that totally nixed durability (via a checkbox in the option menu, because choice is never a bad thing... not that it wouldn't stop the flood of arguments much), I don't think the game's difficulty would be cracked wide open and irrevocably changed forever for the worse. The game would still be plenty great, challenging, and rewarding.
I never said it was objectively good system and that you were wrong, I never said you had to like it, I never said my opinion is right. Well besides the fact that the game designers disagree with you. I'm assuming they made the game they did for a reason, but you never know. You can like or dislike the game however you want. You can think any or all of the systems are dumb and stupid and you hate them. I honestly could not care less. I'm just saying from my perspective removing durability would make the game much different and easier. You're welcome to disagree.
You don't need a durability system to promote weapon diversity. Weapons are already different enough. Spears are low damage but do a lot of hits. Greatswords are the opposite, slow sweeping hits that can knock away shields. Regular swords are in the middle. Boomerangs can be thrown. And rods are your catch all magic attacks. You don't need to slam my head into the ground and force me to use them by breaking my weapons. I'll want to use them depending on the situation.
But on the flip side, all that weapon diversity flies out the window when I'm fighting say a lynel. The difference between weapons no longer makes a lick of difference, the fight is exactly the same either way. Whack them with this damage stick until it breaks, get new damage stick, whack them until it breaks, repeat. So the idea of promoting weapon diversity with durability still doesn't make sense.
The point is, lets say there was no durability. You'd get your sword, spear, greatsword and rods. Once you get a better sword you throw all your other swords away, same with every other weapon. You'd have an inventory of X weapons and that's it. Forever. The difficulty curve of the game would be almost impossible to do. What happens if you snuck somewhere and got a really great spear right off the bat? Does the whole game become super easy because you have a spear that kicks ass and nothing can touch you? Do they need to make the game super super hard in case that happens? What happens if you don't get that rad weapon early are you just going to get rekt until you find something good?
It's not weapon diversity in the sense of which type of weapon, it's that you need to use ALL your weapons. You can't just get something great and destroy everything for the rest of the game and say goodbye to difficulty. You need to use resource management while you play.
This is hardly a unique dilemma. Loads of other games have had it, and have dealt with it perfectly fine. You can sneak off and get the power armor in Fallout early. You can sneak off and get a daedric weapon in Skyrim. You can sneak off to an area in an RPG you shouldn't be in yet and buy all the equipment there. This happens all the time in games, and none of them are broken or ruined by it. Shit, they develop strats and communities around getting these "gamebreaking" items. And there are already balance checks against it.
-If you're really good about your game progression and how you lead the player along, they're not just going to trip over these mega weapons in the first hour of the game
-If you do find a mega weapon and you're sad that it's making the game too easy... don't use it.
There are ways of developing similar systems and playstyles here that don't involve forcibly ripping tools out of players hands and saying "You can't use this anymore now".
Right. I'm saying the way the game is right now, not having durability would completely fuck the game difficulty. Could they have changed the game to account for this? Yup they sure could have. They didn't though so that's why I made my statement. Feel free to hate the game or whatever that's cool for you but it's pretty clear that there isn't a balance check for no durability in the video game we're both currently playing.
There's already a balance check. The fact that enemies can do a ton of damage and potentially one shot you if you're fighting above your weight limit. An unbreakable sword isn't going to turn me into a walking god that can slaughter any enemy camp or lynel I see. I still need some skill in fighting them.
And if I specifically hunt down this "omega sword" for the sole purpose of slaughtering enemies and breaking the difficulty? Well, that's on me then. I know exactly what I'm doing, I think I'm ok with the potential consequences.
The game designers apparently disagree with you
Which they totally can, and I'll disagree with them right back. But as we've learned with various hot topic issues of varying severity over the years, the developers don't get the final word in how their designs are perceived.
I have no problem agreeing that they designed many features of the game around durability. But I also think in the end it's a dumb system, and designing something around a dumb system does not automatically make it good. I also don't think that, were they to release a patch tomorrow that totally nixed durability (via a checkbox in the option menu, because choice is never a bad thing... not that it wouldn't stop the flood of arguments much), I don't think the game's difficulty would be cracked wide open and irrevocably changed forever for the worse. The game would still be plenty great, challenging, and rewarding.
I mean, it would still be plenty great. Worse, though, and definitely less rewarding, in that like 75% of every reward in the game would become useless and a disappointment to get. Right now, if a shrine gives me a weapon with 5 less attack than my current sword, I'll probably keep it in reserve. Without durability, I'm not even going to take it out of the chest. Why bother?
I mean, shit, there are entire weapon categories I would never have bothered using had the game not forced me to keep rotating them. Basically any and all heavy two-handers to start! I'd just keep a good one-handed sword, a decent spear, and then utility. No real reason to use a hammer to kill hard-shelled enemies like Talus if there's no durability hit to attacking them with bladed weapons, after all. And so on.
It definitely plays to the elemental weapons too. I'm very selective about when to use my elemental weapons on regular enemies as I prefer saving them for the Wizrobes. If there were no durability I'd probably be shooting my rods a heck of a lot more.
I leave 75% of weapons in the chest even with durability. My inventury is always full. The only worthwhile rewards are suits and arrows. I don't need more knight's bows or opals.
Choice can always potentially be a bad thing. This is not to say that some arguments against specific choices might be ill-conceived, or even whether or not this specific choice would be a bad thing, but in general, it's ridiculous to say that choice can never be a bad thing.
People are susceptible to a thing called choice paralysis...too much choice can make us disinclined to choose anything at all, or cheapens the value and importance of any individual choice. And sometimes a creator's work is designed to evoke a specific feel or make a certain point. How would games like Spec Ops: The Line or Papers Please have worked as they did, if they'd muddled their message with a myriad of weird choices that let you avoid making the hard decisions? Or light-hearted, jokey choices that altered the mood? What about games designed to come down to a binary or trinary choice, like an ultimatum? Sure, games can get this wrong, but others get it right, and would've lost the plot with 5, 10, 20 other choices for how to handle things. It also would've bloated the budget and time required to account for all those choices.
Some of the best, most poignant games I've played offered no choice at all.
This specific example? If the developers of Breath of the Wild felt strongly that they had offered enough choice among fighting styles, weapon types, bombs, arrows, environmental hazards, that they didn't need to include a toggle for the durability system, more power to them. It's their game, and you always have the choice not to play it.
Seriously this comes across like arguing that Link to the Past should've had a menu toggle to turn off limited arrows because you wanted to shoot everything and it's not fair you felt compelled to use a sword.
Exactly, sticking with the same weapons is a problem with Bethesda-likes. You start out thinking you'll try something different like a heavy armor barbarian....and then you're right back to sneaking around and getting backstabs with bows.
There's a bit of an issue with difficulty scaling in general.
Silver enemies don't have anything special going for them beyond absurd hp, and the final, ultimate, "I've completed absolutely everything" boss is the minimum completion boss with most of the stages removed and half health. For the most part, progression just leads to systems that were relevant and interesting at the beginning slowly decaying into worthlessness.
You know, in not so many words I have kind of had the same thought. As the game progresses, eventually everything is trivial and I actively miss those systems that made the game more of a challenge early on. My Link is essentially an unstoppable force of destruction, woe unto any who stand before him.
To be fair, this has been true in pretty much every game I've ever played. Everything is easy if you overlevel the content, and completing everything will by necessity lead to you overleveling. There was never going to be a version of the Ganon fight that was still hard when you rolled in with the master sword, hylian shield, maxed hearts, and 88 defense on your gear.
This is the first game in which the final boss actively gets weaker, though, rather than just you getting stronger.
It isn't, though. And even if it were, that's a distinction without a difference. Would it be different somehow if instead of the boss having his HP cut in half, finishing all the dungeons gave you a one-use ability that did half his health in damage? Or if it doubled the damage of the Master Sword (again)? It's all exactly the same, it just happens that in order to serve the needs of the story (that the divine beasts are a superweapon you need to kill Ganon) the reward for having them has to be presented as the Divine Beasts doing something.
Exactly, sticking with the same weapons is a problem with Bethesda-likes. You start out thinking you'll try something different like a heavy armor barbarian....and then you're right back to sneaking around and getting backstabs with bows.
People always like to use the argument "well just don't do that, it's your own fault for lacking self control not to take advantage of those optimal strategies," with an air of superiority because they've got so much self control those plebes lack.
I would much rather play a focused game designed around the play styles the devs wanted you to use. I have to be sneaky in Hitman, and I know that, and I love it. There's no sense of, oh I can just put on a vest and run in with an assault rifle, and that's the fastest most effective way, so all these sneak-enabling environmental bits are pointless. Conversely I'm not supposed to be a sneaky hitman in God of War, and that's ok too.
I leave 75% of weapons in the chest even with durability. My inventury is always full. The only worthwhile rewards are suits and arrows. I don't need more knight's bows or opals.
Posts
You and I both know that if pineapple pizza was something you could make in the game and it gave 3 stamina circles worth of temp stamina, they would be eating it.
Lasagna pie?
PSN: SoulCrusherJared
But why?
All these suggestions that weapons should be repairable make no sense to me. What is the difference between "your weapon broke, but the monster dropped a new one to replace it" and "you weapon is too damaged to use, but the monster dropped a repair material you can use to fix it", aside from the latter adding what is basically an errand you have to complete before you get your sword back?
A repair system would create the illusion that the durability system had been altered, while actually changing nothing except to add an extra layer of tedium to the game. It is fascinating to me that there are so many people who hate the idea of their weapons breaking and having to find new ones, but would be totally fine with it if they were allowed to carry the useless broken weapon around in their inventory like some sort of totem until they found a new one they could strip for parts to 'fix' the completely identical original.
The first time i got a yellow wheel was after purchasing some food from a 'dubious to say the least' character who seemed to enjoy feeding it to me with my eyes closed a little too much. I thought the bastard had poisoned me. I kept watching that yellow circle thinking i was using double normal stamina or something wondering why it never went away...then i actually went past my normal stam max and i realized what it was.
I really like how you need to use new weapons all the time. Yeah it sucks that they break super fast but this way I feel like I have to try all the weapons (I have some 50 strength weapon that I've never used since it's so much better than anything else I've ever gotten). If there was no weapon durability than you would basically find a weapon, look at its damage and then never use another weapon again. Yeah spears vs swords or whatever but it would always just be optimization and everything else would be trash.
One thing that I would personally like would be if smashing boxes or stasis items didn't hurt durability. I'm not a fan of blowing up boxes with bombs and then trying to look around to see if there was anything in the box I just exploded.
PSN: SoulCrusherJared
It's also connected to Link's progression. If you're tempted not to fight monsters to save weapons, that's fine, but it will make armor upgrades much harder to get in the long run.
I definitely feel like they could have increased the durability of some weapons up to last longer though. It's also possible that I had less frustration with the system because I upgraded my weapon slots to double digits very early and so always have a long list of back-ups to switch to.
Ohhh OK. Yea if you do not like having to switch weps mid combat then there is no fix except to totally remove durability.
Seems like the answer is to be able to Q up your weapons. Put them in slots (have like 3) and then when your weapon breaks, weapon 2 is ready to go! Same with shields and bows! Lets do this!
PSN: SoulCrusherJared
But on the flip side, all that weapon diversity flies out the window when I'm fighting say a lynel. The difference between weapons no longer makes a lick of difference, the fight is exactly the same either way. Whack them with this damage stick until it breaks, get new damage stick, whack them until it breaks, repeat. So the idea of promoting weapon diversity with durability still doesn't make sense.
The point is, lets say there was no durability. You'd get your sword, spear, greatsword and rods. Once you get a better sword you throw all your other swords away, same with every other weapon. You'd have an inventory of X weapons and that's it. Forever. The difficulty curve of the game would be almost impossible to do. What happens if you snuck somewhere and got a really great spear right off the bat? Does the whole game become super easy because you have a spear that kicks ass and nothing can touch you? Do they need to make the game super super hard in case that happens? What happens if you don't get that rad weapon early are you just going to get rekt until you find something good?
It's not weapon diversity in the sense of which type of weapon, it's that you need to use ALL your weapons. You can't just get something great and destroy everything for the rest of the game and say goodbye to difficulty. You need to use resource management while you play.
PSN: SoulCrusherJared
Spend 30 minutes chucking bombs at it?
Though i admit i play stupid when it comes to weapon durability. Probably because it hardly bothers me. Use stuff, destroy it, find more stuff.
I've read that when you hit them while mounted on their back, it takes no durability off your weapons. But I can't personally confirm this.
Switch Friend Code: 3102-5341-0358
Nintendo Network ID: PhysiMarc
Nail them in the face with a Lynel bow using normal arrows and it will stagger them. Hit them, then mount them. You get 5 free hits that use up no durability.
As you're backflipping off of them, go into slowmo and shoot them in the back of the head with your bow a few times.
You will kill them extremely quickly.
http://www.gamestop.com/nintendo-switch/games/the-legend-of-zelda-breath-of-wild-special-edition-ships-by-4-5/141923
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
This is hardly a unique dilemma. Loads of other games have had it, and have dealt with it perfectly fine. You can sneak off and get the power armor in Fallout early. You can sneak off and get a daedric weapon in Skyrim. You can sneak off to an area in an RPG you shouldn't be in yet and buy all the equipment there. This happens all the time in games, and none of them are broken or ruined by it. Shit, they develop strats and communities around getting these "gamebreaking" items. And there are already balance checks against it.
-If you're really good about your game progression and how you lead the player along, they're not just going to trip over these mega weapons in the first hour of the game
-If you do find a mega weapon and you're sad that it's making the game too easy... don't use it.
There are ways of developing similar systems and playstyles here that don't involve forcibly ripping tools out of players hands and saying "You can't use this anymore now".
Right. I'm saying the way the game is right now, not having durability would completely fuck the game difficulty. Could they have changed the game to account for this? Yup they sure could have. They didn't though so that's why I made my statement. Feel free to hate the game or whatever that's cool for you but it's pretty clear that there isn't a balance check for no durability in the video game we're both currently playing.
PSN: SoulCrusherJared
There's already a balance check. The fact that enemies can do a ton of damage and potentially one shot you if you're fighting above your weight limit. An unbreakable sword isn't going to turn me into a walking god that can slaughter any enemy camp or lynel I see. I still need some skill in fighting them.
And if I specifically hunt down this "omega sword" for the sole purpose of slaughtering enemies and breaking the difficulty? Well, that's on me then. I know exactly what I'm doing, I think I'm ok with the potential consequences.
The game designers apparently disagree with you
PSN: SoulCrusherJared
Also, generally speaking, bows can do a ton of damage before breaking relative to same-tier melee weapons (presumably to offset the fact that you also have to spend arrows to use them). A Savage Lynel Bow with the 5x property can output over 8,000 damage before it breaks, if you hit with all the arrows it fires - almost enough to kill two of the high-level Lynels that drop them even without taking any advantage of the no-durability-loss melee hits.
Which they totally can, and I'll disagree with them right back. But as we've learned with various hot topic issues of varying severity over the years, the developers don't get the final word in how their designs are perceived.
I have no problem agreeing that they designed many features of the game around durability. But I also think in the end it's a dumb system, and designing something around a dumb system does not automatically make it good. I also don't think that, were they to release a patch tomorrow that totally nixed durability (via a checkbox in the option menu, because choice is never a bad thing... not that it wouldn't stop the flood of arguments much), I don't think the game's difficulty would be cracked wide open and irrevocably changed forever for the worse. The game would still be plenty great, challenging, and rewarding.
I never said it was objectively good system and that you were wrong, I never said you had to like it, I never said my opinion is right. Well besides the fact that the game designers disagree with you. I'm assuming they made the game they did for a reason, but you never know. You can like or dislike the game however you want. You can think any or all of the systems are dumb and stupid and you hate them. I honestly could not care less. I'm just saying from my perspective removing durability would make the game much different and easier. You're welcome to disagree.
PSN: SoulCrusherJared
I mean, it would still be plenty great. Worse, though, and definitely less rewarding, in that like 75% of every reward in the game would become useless and a disappointment to get. Right now, if a shrine gives me a weapon with 5 less attack than my current sword, I'll probably keep it in reserve. Without durability, I'm not even going to take it out of the chest. Why bother?
I mean, shit, there are entire weapon categories I would never have bothered using had the game not forced me to keep rotating them. Basically any and all heavy two-handers to start! I'd just keep a good one-handed sword, a decent spear, and then utility. No real reason to use a hammer to kill hard-shelled enemies like Talus if there's no durability hit to attacking them with bladed weapons, after all. And so on.
Choice can always potentially be a bad thing. This is not to say that some arguments against specific choices might be ill-conceived, or even whether or not this specific choice would be a bad thing, but in general, it's ridiculous to say that choice can never be a bad thing.
People are susceptible to a thing called choice paralysis...too much choice can make us disinclined to choose anything at all, or cheapens the value and importance of any individual choice. And sometimes a creator's work is designed to evoke a specific feel or make a certain point. How would games like Spec Ops: The Line or Papers Please have worked as they did, if they'd muddled their message with a myriad of weird choices that let you avoid making the hard decisions? Or light-hearted, jokey choices that altered the mood? What about games designed to come down to a binary or trinary choice, like an ultimatum? Sure, games can get this wrong, but others get it right, and would've lost the plot with 5, 10, 20 other choices for how to handle things. It also would've bloated the budget and time required to account for all those choices.
Some of the best, most poignant games I've played offered no choice at all.
This specific example? If the developers of Breath of the Wild felt strongly that they had offered enough choice among fighting styles, weapon types, bombs, arrows, environmental hazards, that they didn't need to include a toggle for the durability system, more power to them. It's their game, and you always have the choice not to play it.
Seriously this comes across like arguing that Link to the Past should've had a menu toggle to turn off limited arrows because you wanted to shoot everything and it's not fair you felt compelled to use a sword.
More options are not always a good thing.
People always like to use the argument "well just don't do that, it's your own fault for lacking self control not to take advantage of those optimal strategies," with an air of superiority because they've got so much self control those plebes lack.
I would much rather play a focused game designed around the play styles the devs wanted you to use. I have to be sneaky in Hitman, and I know that, and I love it. There's no sense of, oh I can just put on a vest and run in with an assault rifle, and that's the fastest most effective way, so all these sneak-enabling environmental bits are pointless. Conversely I'm not supposed to be a sneaky hitman in God of War, and that's ok too.
you always need more opals.