Originally Posted by b_scott
The breaking weapons only makes it more like those games you listed - more realistic.
I can totally believe that Zelda is more fun that a lot of other games for a lot of people. If you like open world exploration and you hate cutscenes/story elements, then Zelda is going to stomp on any of the rpg's on the xbox/ps4/pc. Probably in the same way where people play minecraft for 100's of hours, whereas I can't even play it for 10 minutes without getting bored.
The weapon thing though is definitely not realistic. I've seen in other games:
a) weapon gets worn down and does way less damage, but can be repaired
b) weapon gets worn down and breaks, but can be repaired at like a blacksmith
c) weapon can be repaired, but if you let it get too low then it will break and be unrepairable (very few games use this)
but never Zelda which is weapon breaks with very little use with no repair option. So in those other games, if I hit a tree over and over, a) is the typical outcome or possibly b). In zelda if you hit a tree with your sword it just breaks and is gone forever. In real life, if I was to hit a tree with a sword, which would it do?
a) get dull and eventually do less damage to tree?
b) get worn down and possibly break, but could be repaired at a shop?
c) break after a few hits and thrown away, never to be used again?
Obviously, a) or b) is what would happen 'realistically'. C wouldn't happen, even 1000 years ago. It's very frustrating to have to 'horde' my best weapons and use crappy ones just to save them for boss battles and such. I can think of no other game in the past 20 years where I've had to do that.
They made all kinds of awesome design decisions in the game, but that wasn't one of them. And maybe if it was the wooden weapons that only broke, it would make more sense. The metal ones though doesn't add up.