No Zelda, you're not incentivizing creativity.

So I thought about writing an article about Zelda's hot topic as of late, and the idea behind it's crazy weapon durability. However I'm still fresh and early into the game, and well... I haven't seen everything. Maybe some would even suggest I'm in the tutorial levels. So I feel it'd be too early, and even naive, to discuss the entire system. Besides, it's even got some minor positives to go with what is mostly a negative. For example, while some people want a durability meter or some way to know how much life their weapons have left, I'm kind of glad that it's kept a mystery so you aren't gripping onto it's numbers. You'll still be paranoid on weapon use, but not down to number crunching it. Likewise I like the improve weapons like a branch, or bone arms, and how you can throw them at the end of their use. However, while I won't discuss the entire system and mention things like the repair system, the master sword (beyond the knowledge even that is fucking breakable!), there is a defense on the system I've been meaning to address. The idea has been circling around that the durability is a mechanical balance, to get you to keep weapons in rotation, or to use creative strategies. Bombs, physics, throws, etc. Now that's all fair and good to a point, but with Zelda's mentality, we've gone far beyond that point.

Okay so the idea is that when you can't possibly hold onto the idea of weapons being a legit source of combat, your mind starts to grasp other work-arounds and tricks. That's all fair and natural. You'll be looking to the environment, physics, bombs, pick off guys with your bow, etc. Well for starters, your bow & arrow has limits and I've hear implications it can break, so that idea can just fuck right off and become a part of the problem I'm discussing. The problem isn't that Zelda has limitations on it's main set of weapons, it's the fact that you will literally lose the majority of any weapon to any single combat encounter. You'll run in with a tree branch, batter a goblin, break the weapon, take his weapon, break it on the other goblin, decide to use your club on the bigger goblin, and then lose that to. Each in between weapon grab is a a pause in the combat, and a grab at another weapon in the encounter. Now you can use bombs, or physics in the right scenarios to even that up, but my point is those weapons break down really damn quickly. Swords and axes are only mildly closer to a moderate limit, being about able to withstand 3 or so fights maybe. Meanwhile I had a highlighted sword pulled out of a stone like a secret, and it wound up being a rusty sword that broke the next real encounter. That's the case we're actually looking at here.

You've let her down, Link!

Look, this is a subject I know very well. I adore games that empower the user, and gift you with tons of creative options. On the vain, I love all the ideas Zelda: Breath of The Wild has on paper. Heck, just the fact you can pick up and throw your melee weapon at an enemy is kind of hilarious and awesome. It's a small step forward towards the stealth-action traits I love so much from games like Dishonored, MGS, Far Cry 4, etc. Even outside of that awesome circle though, my favorite games include things like Dark Souls, Doom, and R&C. Games where choice, experimentation, and the love of such things are around every corner. Yet not a single damn one needs to restrict your weapon to a freakin' one fight or one enemy beat-down scenario. They have limits, but nothing even remotely close to Zelda's slap on the wrist at every damn swing. To pick on an actual quote here, someone brought up that this was what Zelda needed to get players to enjoy it's crazy wheel of weapon variety. A crazy wheel that doesn't actually look quite as enticing as this, or this, and hell even this game is giving you more of a "wheel" and has it's share of restrictions. Zelda let's you carry like five melee weapons, most of which are going to break on the next guy's head you wack, and yet you're trying to tell me this is the only way to create diverse gameplay? This is the way you've got to be creative!? Sit down boy, we're about to have a talk here.

You cannot force creativity. Limits can breed creativity, but this isn't what a limitation looks like. Limited ammo is a limitation, limited resources is a limitation, but losing a treasure you found forever to smacking three goblins around is a butchering of what it means to even find treasure. That's not a limit, that's cartoonish levels of bad engineering, and an annoyance. I'm hearing it around all over the place, people who are actually experienced with these games are finding that the rewards aren't actually rewarding. Rewards are supposed to be actually cool things you can use, not things that will break forever, or a chore item you have to constantly repair. Yet for some reason I'm still hearing this argument that somehow this is for the better. I'm not sure how, or at what angle people are coming in at this from. Do they really need features to be forced out entirely for others to work? I... don't believe that's the real gamer experience, at least not in this extreme. If people really needed weapons to be phased out for other to set in, Doom players would still be using that terrible laser pistol, Dark Souls wouldn't have all those weapon strategies for advanced and weird elemental stuff, and we wouldn't know the humorous MGS box jokes. We have all these things, and functional games, because players actually like to experiment! I know, shocking. When put inside a creative box, we as human beings interacting in an art medium, are actually quite creative. Between the creativity, challenge, and skill, that's what makes games like Dishonored so fun on youtube. There's absolutely no reason Zelda can't be like that, save for the fact that weapons break if you dare to use them as weapons.

That video above is the result of pure player creativity and skill combined eloquently in an environment that lets your thrive on those two features. Zelda... basically slaps you on the wrist if you were to use any of those items beyond two or three times. That's what I don't get about this argument. There's a difference between balancing limits for core game quality, and restricting the player into things. Restricting you into a hall for a story is fine. Restricting a player into a temple to progress the story is fine. Restricting your weapons for creativity though? It's not creativity then is it? It's just taking away what you can do, destroying things the game tries to tell you to get excited for when you find in a dungeon, and ripping it away forever because... well apparently fooling with physics to watch that boulder or light those barrels for the 10th time is no mandatory. That's not creative. Forcing you to switch from stick to stick is not creative. Breaking your legendary sword just so you might swap to a goblin club that will then break is NOT creative. I don't know why that needs to be cleared up. Tying together a stream of plasma bolts, rocket shots just because it's fun, and trying rune combinations on Doom is. That's why Doom is my game of the year from last year, and why Zelda is getting it's second article of me bitching about it's stupid decisions. It kind of disappoints me that others are out there cheering it's bad decision, and pretending like gamers need their freedoms held on a leash to be considered anything close to fun, and the game is getting 10 out of 10 scores while ignoring basic stuttering problems and artificial limitations both in game and around it (with the wii U pad being useless). Zelda is a good game, but damn does it sure have it's problems stumbling into the open world scene, and there's a lot of angles like this where I'm wondering what the hell Nintendo was thinking.

According to fans, you can only enjoy this if your weapons are made out of paper. I disagree