Current Events > What are the arguments from people who dislike Breath of the Wild

(+) Yeah! (+)

I dont dislike it but my opinion of it kinda dropped a bit.

• Weapon durability. I dont like how it was handled here.
• Lack of enemy variety.
• The Divine Beast dungeons I disliked with a passion.
• The shrines got old over time.

boxoto posted...

it can't be both?

Not really, especially when the last sentence of your last post is "so it might come off as if I'm making it this major thing, but it's more of a gripe." These concepts are mutually exclusive the way you worded this.

boxoto posted...

also, people often like permanent weapons. if, let's say, 99% of the weapons you get can break, but the Master Sword was permanent, that would be one thing, and would still give players the supposed sense of freedom weapon durability proponents sometimes go on about, and also incentivize others to pursue the MS, if that's what they want. however, even the MS needs to be recharged, with is BS.

Again, this doesn't actually explain how the durability system interferes with or impedes gameplay. I'm asking you why you don't like it, and you're replying with "I don't like it" as if that explains anything.

TheOtherMike posted...

Again, this doesn't actually explain how the durability system interferes with or impedes gameplay. I'm asking you why you don't like it, and you're replying with "I don't like it" as if that explains anything.

How is "I don't like it" not a valid reason to not like a gameplay mechanic?

If there's a part of a game you don't like, you don't have to defend it. You just don't like something in a game.

You're acting like weapon breaking being something that a lot of people dislike about BotW somehow has any effect on your own personal enjoyment of the game and you have to defend it.

I don't really care about the breakable weapons, because there are weapons everywhere.
I do wish that there were more traditional dungeons. Hoping that Tears of the Kingdom has them.

I thought it was clear from my posts:

it's generally a gripe, but if it's interfering with my gameplay, by me doubling back for something that I specifically want, then it can also be something that I hate.

and of course I don't like it because I can't consistently use weapons that I want...unless if I double back.

edit: at post 52

TMOG posted...

How is "I don't like it" not a valid reason to not like a gameplay mechanic?

Because it objectively isn't? "I don't like it because I don't like it" is circular logic. I'm asking for the reason. When I dislike a gameplay mechanic, I can articulate why. I'm just asking for the why.

TMOG posted...

You're acting like weapon breaking being something that a lot of people dislike about BotW somehow has any effect on your own personal enjoyment of the game and you have to defend it.

No I'm not. I enjoy what I enjoy and other people have no bearing on that. I'm asking for an explanation because no one has ever seemed to be able to explain how it's such a bad mechanic while being so polarizing. It's strange and I'm trying to understand why this particular point has stuck on so many people even after six years. I already said this.

boxoto posted...

* it can't be both? when I just need a new weapon, then it's a gripe, but if I'm running low on stuff I like, so I have to go back to get some more (maybe actively looking for korok kids along the way to prolong this from happening again), then it's something that I hate since it's getting in the way of how I enjoy playing.
* also, people often like permanent weapons. if, let's say, 99% of the weapons you get can break, but the Master Sword was permanent, that would be one thing, and would still give players the supposed sense of freedom weapon durability proponents sometimes go on about, and also incentivize others to pursue the MS, if that's what they want. however, even the MS needs to be recharged, with is BS.

One thing I'll say regarding the MS, which probably won't resonate much since you already don't like the durability system, is that it has to have a recharge for the entire system to work. By nature of being the master sword it has to be the games most powerful weapon, and if you didn't make it recharge then players would never use any other weapons besides their bow. The workaround is to give other weapons an advantage over the master sword, but then it wouldn't be the best weapon anymore.

The end result, for you at least, is the MS recharging is both a feature and a flaw in the system. Personally the recharge time never bothered me though, mostly because the time.i spent between big encounters was enough time for it to recharge.

TheOtherMike posted...

"I don't like it because I don't like it" is circular logic.

TheOtherMike posted...

I enjoy what I enjoy and other people have no bearing on that.

Hm

TheOtherMike posted...

No I'm not. I enjoy what I enjoy and other people have no bearing on that. I'm asking for an explanation because no one has ever seemed to be able to explain how it's such a bad mechanic while being so polarizing. It's strange and I'm trying to understand why this particular point has stuck on so many people even after six years. I already said this.

Look I don't mind the durability system but it's pretty easy to see why some people don't like it. They want to find a cool weapon and keep it forever, they don't want it to break. The game is designed around weapons breaking and finding new ones, but lots of players don't want to do that, they just want the cool weapon they had that just broke and now they can't find again.

codey posted...

One thing I'll say regarding the MS, which probably won't resonate much since you already don't like the durability system, is that it has to have a recharge for the entire system to work. By nature of being the master sword it has to be the games most powerful weapon, and if you didn't make it recharge then players would never use any other weapons besides their bow. The workaround is to give other weapons an advantage over the master sword, but then it wouldn't be the best weapon anymore.

The end result, for you at least, is the MS recharging is both a feature and a flaw in the system. Personally the recharge time never bothered me though, mostly because the time.i spent between big encounters was enough time for it to recharge.

tbh, if the MS was a consistent, permanent weapon, I'd just keep it as a secondary while I stocked up on other stuff, but yea, I get what you're saying.

I think having 13(?) hearts is a good trade-off, though, where by that point, players would be accustomed to the breakable weapons and play style around them, so once they got the MS, they could choose which way they wanted to play from there.

Massive fully explorable world with tons of nooks and crannies to find.

But no hookshot.

Two kinds of bombs though

The criticism I agree with is:
Lack of classic dungeons.
Lack of enemy variety.

BotW is my favorite game despite my above complaints btw.

I liked the massive world full of nostalgic points of interest.
I didn't mind the durability system. It only slightly annoyed me with the Master Sword breaking. Perhaps the devs should take a craft system approach to finding and improving weapons.

Climbing got boring fast

asdf8562 posted...

The criticism I agree with is:
Lack of classic dungeons.
Lack of enemy variety.

BotW is my favorite game despite my above complaints btw.

I liked the massive world full of nostalgic points of interest.
I didn't mind the durability system. It only slightly annoyed me with the Master Sword breaking. Perhaps the devs should take a craft system approach to finding and improving weapons.

Climbing got redundant very fast even with the upgrades and being only able to change armors piece by piece made it annoying. Also, the world might be bigs, but in general there was not that many points of interests that were not shrines or Korok seeds. I think having more region exclusives ennemies would have made some area feel less like a copy pasta

the weapon durability and the repetitiveness of the dungeons were my biggest gripes with the game.

with that said, i still enjoyed the hell out of it and its easily one of my top 10 games on the Switch!

TMOG posted...

Hm

Yes?

codey posted...

Look I don't mind the durability system but it's pretty easy to see why some people don't like it. They want to find a cool weapon and keep it forever, they don't want it to break. The game is designed around weapons breaking and finding new ones, but lots of players don't want to do that, they just want the cool weapon they had that just broke and now they can't find again.

I get that, but it's not what I'm asking. I'm asking why it's a "bad" mechanic and has been so polarizing for so long when it's an objective nonissue with the way the game is structured. It can't be a bad mechanic if it doesn't impede gameplay, and in six years I have literally never seen an explanation for how it impacts play or what actually makes it bad besides "I don't like it."

I can't speak for others, but I know I've posted why I don't like it multiple times throughout the topic.

How can people dislike something that I personally dont dislike? This doesnt make any sense!

Having to change weapons constantly because they have the durability of a paper bag is not fun gameplay. And no, this isn't the same problem as not having enough weapons. The game gives more than enough. The tedium of switching is what's irritating; it slows the pace of the game and takes me out of the action. Imagine playing a FPS where you are never able to reload your gun; as soon as its initial magazine is empty the gun shatters into pieces and you have to menu dive to take out another one. That probably sounds ridiculous, and that's because it is, and that's what playing this game feels like.

Difficulty imbalance; enemies can't decide between doing scratch levels or 1 shotty levels of damage

The classic Zelda gameplay loop is gone. There basically aren't dungeons anymore aside from the castle (which you can pretty much entirely skip by scaling the walls anyway) and there aren't really any new tools/capabilities to obtain because you get all of the crucial ones in the tutorial. To be clear, they were already starting to do this in A Link Between Worlds, which to me was also a big detriment to that game and why I never felt compelled to replay it

Many shrines, which were clearly intended to fill the gap of dungeons, are either half baked or just filler / outright don't have anything for you to do other than to claim your spirit orb

Seriously, what are armies of giant spider mechs with laser beams doing in a Zelda game? It feels like some other game that had Zelda elements awkwardly shoehorned into it

The Zelda franchise is built on the notion that you go into Dungeon 1. Dungeon 1 gives you item A. Item A grants you access to Dungeon 2, in which item B can be found. Item B opens Dungeon 3, and so forth and so on. Occasionally sprinkle items into the pre-dungeon quests and that's basically the entire formula. BoTW gave you every single tool in the tutorial area, and then that's it pretty much it. You can go and kill Ganon right then and there if you know where to go and what to do. By removing this critical metroidvania esque progression system, they essentially killed any sense of progression or forward movement for me. I beat the first dungeon and my reward is... a special power I can use once a day that has no bearing on the rest of the game. I beat the second and my reward is... another special power that I can use once a day and has no bearing on the rest of the game. So I just skip dungeons three and four, and go straight to Ganon. Credits roll!

Then they fill the empty world with very samey mini dungeons, only the mini dungeons exist to a) give you the same pool of easily broken weapons, and b)the same health and climbing upgrades. There's no variation. It's either a weapon that will break so instantly it's practically worthless or upgrades that becomes so plentiful that they cease to matter about a quarter of the way through the game.

They took all the things that used to give Zelda games direction and a sense of completion, and threw them out the window in favor of an awful weapon mechanic that requires you to waste time in worthless dungeons and required you to waste time exploring the empty world, looking for borderline useless collectables, just so you could stockpile near insta-break weapons so you could beat the equally useless four dungeons.

I prefer the old style. You beat a dungeon with the expectation that a certain amount of items within it grant you progress, then use those items to reach the next dungeon until you have all the items in the game, at which point you go and fight the final boss. That's the formula that works for me. If you like BoTW, all the power to you, but the structure of the game has fundamentally changed the franchise from a metroidvania style game to just another empty open world game, where you just mindlessly wander around, not accomplishing much of anything.

No thanks.

TheOtherMike posted...

Yes?

I get that, but it's not what I'm asking. I'm asking why it's a "bad" mechanic and has been so polarizing for so long when it's an objective nonissue with the way the game is structured. It can't be a bad mechanic if it doesn't impede gameplay, and in six years I have literally never seen an explanation for how it impacts play or what actually makes it bad besides "I don't like it."

I literally explained to you that they view it as bad because the game doesn't allow to hold onto weapons they want. You and I don't have an issue with that, but it doesn't make their opinion invalid.

"I want to irrationally hoard items" seems like a bad reason to dislike durability.

"Items swapping due to durability interrupts the flow of the game" seems like a reasonable criticism, though I don't rememher it happening too often.

I played about 15 hours into it and didnt like it. Here are my reasons why:

• No structure in the game- open world to be an open world, with no real structure.
• Minimal plot.
• Breakable weapons.
• Game looks dated and doesnt give a big wow in the way it looks in 2022 (when I played it); part of the reason why people liked it was because of how grand it is, but today, a free mobile phone game has just as big, if not bigger, more beautiful worlds.
• No music.
• Minimal voice acting.
• Some NPCs legit sound like theyre having sex. Wtf.

I mean sticks and clubs breaking is fine. Maybe make the proper weapons go dull and have to have them serviced at black Smith but having them as consumables is just crap.

Cobra1010 posted...

I mean sticks and clubs breaking is fine. Maybe make the proper weapons go dull and have to have them serviced at black Smith but having them as consumables is just crap.

Durability works so much better as a game mechanic in BoTW than in Valheim, where it works exactly as you suggest. It's an actual pain in the ass in Valheim and will often fuck you over, even if you're being careful.

I think weapons breaking would have been fine if the durability was not as atrocious or if you could forge them to become permanent like the Master Sword who regenates gradually or something. I barely used the cool electric and fire weapons because I wanted to keep them

buddhamonster posted...

The Zelda franchise is built on the notion that you go into Dungeon 1. Dungeon 1 gives you item A. Item A grants you access to Dungeon 2, in which item B can be found. Item B opens Dungeon 3, and so forth and so on

Is that how the first Zelda game worked?

codey posted...

I literally explained to you that they view it as bad because the game doesn't allow to hold onto weapons they want. You and I don't have an issue with that, but it doesn't make their opinion invalid.

Hard disagree. "I want to do this thing that's entirely counter to the design and structure of the game" is an invalid criticism, and again, doesn't actually explain what's "bad" about the mechanic or how it impedes gameplay.

Intro2Logic posted...

Is that how the first Zelda game worked?

In some ways, yes. Think of items like the ladder and the raft and how they unlock access to new areas.

If it didnt have Zelda in the title it wouldnt be so acclaimed

TheOtherMike posted...

Hard disagree. "I want to do this thing that's entirely counter to the design and structure of the game" is an invalid criticism, and again, doesn't actually explain what's "bad" about the mechanic or how it impedes gameplay.

look at this guy so desperate to win

The thing I dislike the most about it is the lack of enemy variety. The Zelda series has a plethora of enemy types they could have used, but it feels like they only used a small handful of them. And of that small handful, like 90% of them are either bokoblins, moblins, lizalfos, or the undead variations of them.

Same deal with the world bosses. For a game lacking in dungeons (with bosses of said dungeons just being some variation of a Blight Ganon), they could have made up for it with a larger variety of world bosses instead of just the 4 we got. Like it would have been much more interesting if you wandered into the shaded ruins and had to deal with Ghoma instead of another Hinox. Or over in a corner of Death Mountain you come across a King Dodongo or something like that instead of Talus #7. Stuff like that would have made exploration much more interesting imo.

COVxy posted...

Durability works so much better as a game mechanic in BoTW than in Valheim

I'm just gonna have to brutally disagree with you there. In Valheim I used my weapons with vigorous glee. In BotW I used them for half a battle and then they snapped into ten thousand pieces.

I vividly remember the moment I first used my silver sword against the werewolves in the mountain region of Valheim. I also vividly remember using the master sword in its enhanced and glowing powered-up state against a guardian for the first time.

Difference is, when the guardian was dead, my master sword became a butter knife and snapped in half against the next enemy.

My silver sword stayed awesome in every single fight I ever used it in.

I feel like I shouldn't like a standard weapon in Valheim more than I liked the Master Sword in a Zelda game, but here we are. One of them never disappointed me. The other disappointed me all over again every 10 minutes.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

I'm just gonna have to brutally disagree with you there. In Valheim I used my weapons with vigorous glee. In BotW I used them for half a battle and then they snapped into ten thousand pieces

But you're explicitly playing the game incorrectly. You're supposed to use weapons like they are disposable. Kill 3 enemies? Throw your weapon at the next and pick up a new one, etc.

The durability in BoTW sucks, if you are playing expecting and planning to use a single weapon for a long period of time. Then you play the game in a way that item durability impedes.

But if you play the game as expected? The play style works really well.

With Valheim, durability impedes. It is explicitly meant to impede. With BoTW, it's literally designed not to impede.

for what its worth tho, at least there were no shortage of weapons around to replace the ones that break... lol

I wouldnt say I disliked botw but I definitely didnt love it as much as some people. The open world was cool and really beautiful, but the dungeons definitely took a back seat. I wasnt really a fan of shrines picking up that slack. For one the aesthetics were all the same and a lot of them just felt repetitive. I also had mixed feeling towards the breakable weapons. Its cool that it encourages you to try different weapons but its also kind of annoying and just led to me hoarding all my best ones.

One issue I have is the crafting. I generally don't like crafting/cooking in the first place outside of games like Dead Rising, but I really didn't like how it was implemented in Breath of the Wild.

If I have a stack of meat, let me cook all of it in one go to make a stack of cooked meat. Or give the option of cooking it in stacks of a recipe. Less time spent cooking, more time adventuring.

COVxy posted...

But you're explicitly playing the game incorrectly.

No, no I definitely broke a thousand weapons while playing. That feels correct, given the system, but it wasn't fun.

If playing the game correctly runs contrary to my enjoyment of the game on a personal level, then the game is not that fun to me.

I have a long, long history of playing Zelda games. The best ones are the ones that follow the tried and true formula. The best moment for me in every good Zelda game is the moment I retrieve the Master Sword.

I found the sword in BotW, but couldn't pull it. So I made it my life's mission to go farm shrines nonstop until I had enough hearts to pull the sword. It worked, I obtained it, I was excited. I went to fight a guardian. The sword made a deep, powerful hum and took on a charged blue glow. It hit like a gunshot and ripped the thing's legs off effortlessly. I could feel the true power of the sword in my hands, and it felt incredible. I loved that moment. That single isolated moment in time is one of the finest experiences I've ever had in a Zelda game. All my effort had been worth it.

Then I fought a fucking snow lizard and the Master Sword snapped like a twig and took a ten minute nap.

I became irrationally angry. I hate this fucking game for ruining what should have been one of my all-time greatest gaming memories. Now when I think of fighting that guardian, I automatically think about that lizard.

TheOtherMike posted...

Hard disagree. "I want to do this thing that's entirely counter to the design and structure of the game" is an invalid criticism, and again, doesn't actually explain what's "bad" about the mechanic or how it impedes gameplay.

"I want to do this thing that's entirely counter to the design and structure of the game" is entirely valid if the player doesn't find what the game was designed to fun.

Why can't you understand that people can just prefer one thing to another? These are games we're talking about. If a person doesn't like it they don't like it, you don't need to defend it like they're attacking you by disliking it.

COVxy posted...

But you're explicitly playing the game incorrectly. You're supposed to use weapons like they are disposable. Kill 3 enemies? Throw your weapon at the next and pick up a new one, etc.

The durability in BoTW sucks, if you are playing expecting and planning to use a single weapon for a long period of time. Then you play the game in a way that item durability impedes.

But if you play the game as expected? The play style works really well.

With Valheim, durability impedes. It is explicitly meant to impede. With BoTW, it's literally designed not to impede.

I agree with you to an extent. But it's perfectly valid to not like the "correct" way to play the game, especially if you expect something different based on past installments.

the dungeons and shrines are completely worthless

As a BotW discussion goes on longer and longer, the probability that it becomes entirely about weapon degradation approaches 1.

TheOtherMike posted...

Hard disagree. "I want to do this thing that's entirely counter to the design and structure of the game" is an invalid criticism, and again, doesn't actually explain what's "bad" about the mechanic or how it impedes gameplay.

you can extrapolate from that that the person has some issue with the game's design, then, no?

isn't this what this whole thing is about?

also, I've already explained why I didn't like it; I can't remember if I said it was necessarily bad, but I gave reasons as to why I didn't enjoy the mechanic.

Sounds like you didnt enjoy the game the way developers wanted it to be played. And thats ok.

true, you can't accommodate for everyone.

but it ended up being a huge success, so it is what it is (so I can see this returning in TotK )

Valjackal posted...

No traditional dungeons and breakable weapons are the two main criticisms levied against it.

^This. The weapon durability especially annoyed me.

scar_the_1 posted...

I agree with you to an extent. But it's perfectly valid to not like the "correct" way to play the game, especially if you expect something different based on past installments.

Yeah, that's fair, though I think that's a different complaint than "weapon durability sucks". More like "i don't like the core gameplay style".

codey posted...

"I want to do this thing that's entirely counter to the design and structure of the game" is entirely valid if the player doesn't find what the game was designed to fun.

No it isn't, especially when no one can actually explain how it's a detriment to the game.

codey posted...

Why can't you understand that people can just prefer one thing to another?

I understand that perfectly fine. What I don't understand is why no one can articulate why they hate weapon durability in BotW. I don't understand why people say it ruined the game. I don't understand why it's basically the #1 complaint about the game when objectively it's 100% a nonissue.

boxoto posted...

you can extrapolate from that that the person has some issue with the game's design, then, no?

isn't this what this whole thing is about?

Yes.

No.

boxoto posted...

also, I've already explained why I didn't like it; I can't remember if I said it was necessarily bad, but I gave reasons as to why I didn't enjoy the mechanic.

Yes, you did. You wanted to hoard boomerangs for some reason. I suppose that's something, and thank you, but it's really obscure and I doubt most people complaining about durability are doing so because they want all the boomerangs.