Poll of the Day > Geekmasters: Now in 4D

(+) Yeah! (+)

Why does no one know who the hell Bruce Wayne was in Justice League?

Just an observation I had watching it a second time.

Why was i watching it a second time?

Nevermind that. It was just an observation.
---

The Wave Master posted...

Why does no one know who the hell Bruce Wayne was in Justice League?

Haven't seen, but do you mean why isn't Wayne recognized as Wayne (if so, keep in mind most people wouldn't recognize just Jeff Bezos and he's far richer) and why don't they recognize that Wayne is Batman?
---

Here's another RP observation for shadow:

It occurred to me today that it would be amusing to have a group of from 2-5 PCs, where each has to take at least one level of Bard (and preferably different Bard Colleges for each), with the end result being that they're basically a band that travels from town-to-town, performing, and solving mysteries in Scooby-Doo fashion.

I'm dead certain multiple groups have played this concept before, but I have no idea how survivable it is long-term for multiple squishy Bards. Even more so if they're pure Bards rather than multiclasses (which might change how effective their dueling Bardic Inspirations and the like synergize).


---

Zeus posted...

The Wave Master posted...

Why does no one know who the hell Bruce Wayne was in Justice League?

Haven't seen, but do you mean why isn't Wayne recognized as Wayne (if so, keep in mind most people wouldn't recognize just Jeff Bezos and he's far richer) and why don't they recognize that Wayne is Batman?

At least Batman wears something approaching a disguise. How does nobody know that Superman is Clark Kent? At least Batman's cowl like, covers his face and whatnot. Superman's disguise as Clark is just literally a pair of glasses.
---

WhiskeyDisk posted...

How does nobody know that Superman is Clark Kent? At least Batman's cowl like, covers his face and whatnot. Superman's disguise as Clark is just literally a pair of glasses.

Magic hypnosis.

No, really.

http://i.stack.imgur.com/Bdaaz.jpg


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

WhiskeyDisk posted...

How does nobody know that Superman is Clark Kent? At least Batman's cowl like, covers his face and whatnot. Superman's disguise as Clark is just literally a pair of glasses.

Magic hypnosis.

No, really.

http://i.stack.imgur.com/Bdaaz.jpg

Other explanations include the fact he slouches as Clark Kent.

No, really.

This is where I'd post a clip from a comic mentioning it if I wasn't too lazy to find it.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Here's another RP observation for shadow:

It occurred to me today that it would be amusing to have a group of from 2-5 PCs, where each has to take at least one level of Bard (and preferably different Bard Colleges for each), with the end result being that they're basically a band that travels from town-to-town, performing, and solving mysteries in Scooby-Doo fashion.

I'm dead certain multiple groups have played this concept before, but I have no idea how survivable it is long-term for multiple squishy Bards. Even more so if they're pure Bards rather than multiclasses (which might change how effective their dueling Bardic Inspirations and the like synergize).

Bards Bards Bards, a game in the Fear the Boot Convention.
Everyone is bards, it technically exists, was played, and was apparently not that bad.

Honestly, as much as people joke about the all Bards game, it would be fine. It would mostly fall apart for spotlight reasons. Because of their idea of "a bit of everything, but not great at anything", just works if you have the raw number of healing/attacking/spells so you can get by. 5e would be the best way of handling it, because with the subclasses you can diversify at least a little bit, which even just saying "I'm the stabby bard" would mean the world.

It would be much less disruptive than the all-wizard party, or the all-barbarian party, or anything else. It's probably the best way to go.
---

See, the glasses also work as a valid disguise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-id-yhtrrQ" data-time="
---

The Wave Master posted...

See, the glasses also work as a valid disguise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-id-yhtrrQ" data-time="

tbh, the girl in the background looks waaaay too much like Cassie Sandsmark.
---

Downloaded Absolver off the PSN for free today. I'm a sucker for Asian martial arts. I love the old Kung Fu movies from China as a kid, and this gives me that same feeling, but in video game form.

I watched a gameplay video when it was released a few months ago and it looked interesting. I will report back when I have checked led out the game for a few hours.
---

Zeus posted...

Other explanations include the fact he slouches as Clark Kent.

Most modern explanations I've seen are some combination of slouching, speaking with a different tone of voice, wearing clothes that make his musculature less defined, etc.

Even though the "super-hypnosis" thing was clearly one of those old-school Superman powers that are never mentioned anymore, I kinda like that explanation TBH
---

I have even read where Clark blurs his face, moving his face molecules at very fast speeds, or never looks directly at people, so no one ever really knows what he looks like. The face blurring thing is a little weird, but makes sense in a bizarre way. The other thing is that Clark has mentioned that when he is saving people that most people look at the big "S" on his chest, distracting people from looking at his face too.

Overall, he's Superman, and whatever odd power or excuse he comes up with works because we just have to accept it works, and he's Superman.

On a separate note:

My wife says I can't threaten to eat our kitty cats because people may think I'm serious. I'm not....maybe... Anyway, the smaller orange one does not like to use the liter box, and so now I threaten to sell her to the gypsies whenever she is bad, but gypsies don't usually have cats.

I'm asking you geeks. What should I threaten the orange cat with when she's bad?
---

The Wave Master posted...

I'm asking you geeks. What should I threaten the orange cat with when she's bad?

A spray bottle or a vacuum cleaner.
---

The Wave Master posted...

Overall, he's Superman, and whatever odd power or excuse he comes up with works because we just have to accept it works, and he's Superman.

I read part of a comic not long ago, I think it was from the last ten years or so. Clark is having a conversation with someone who knows his identity, and they ask him something like "So, you can never take your glasses off around anyone?" And Clark responds, "I do take my glasses off. And usually people just say 'you know, you look just like Superman'".

I'm paraphrasing here, but the obvious implication is that people are so convinced that Clark couldn't possibly be Superman, that even if they see him without his "disguise", they would just think it's a coincidence. Like people who confuse Katy Perry with Zooey Deschanel.
---

The evil orange kitty is 16 years old. The vacuum cleaner no longer scares her at all.

Plus she is sneaky. She only poops on things when we are gone, or when we are asleep. It's not a cry for attention or anything, she is just being a jerk face. She's always been a jerk face.

I can't get rid of her either because my wife has had this cat longer than we have been together. She would dumpe before the kitty.

I just need something menacing to yell at her when she acts out.
---

Cats live that long? I had a couple and they usually run off and get roadkilled.

Also it's sad that gamefaqs is still asking for my opinion on how to "improve" if it's on the verge of being shut down any time soon.

I think a cat that age might not be able to help it anymore.
---

The Wave Master posted...

I'm asking you geeks. What should I threaten the orange cat with when she's bad?

Taking away her lasagna

Korruptor posted...

Cats live that long? I had a couple and they usually run off and get roadkilled.

It's not even that old for a cat (well, by old cat standards anyway). Many can live to be in their 20s. And, if they live to be 40, I heard their tail splits in two.

Also, if you can't even keep a cat alive, I hope you don't plan on having kids >_>

Korruptor posted...

Also it's sad that gamefaqs is still asking for my opinion on how to "improve" if it's on the verge of being shut down any time soon.

It's nowhere near close to being shut down, unless the feds know that the site is a front for a sex trafficking pizza chain.
---

Quick D&D 5e question for Shadow:

When dealing with subraces in character creation, do subrace bonuses stack with basic racial bonuses, or does specific supercede general?

As an example, Elves have a listed Ability Score Increase of +2 Dex. High Elves have an Ability Score Increase of +1 Int, while Wild Elves get +1 Wis and Drow get +1 Cha.

So that means a High Elf is starting with +2 Dex and +1 Int, right? Or does the +1 Int completely supercede the general Elf bonus, and all they start with is just the +1 Int?

I've always assumed stuff stacks (though that does seem to make it suboptimal to ever play any basic Race and give up the Subrace benefits), but it occurred to me earlier today that I might be doing it wrong and slightly overpowering starting characters (for what that's worth).


Also, on a slightly related note, how do you personally handle character creation in your games? The recommended standard of roll 4d6 and drop the lowest? Point buy? The more harsh old-school roll 3d6 and suck it up, junior? The really harsh, really old-school method of 3d6, plus rolling stats in order, and being forced to choose your class after you see what your stats wind up being, possibly getting screwed over if you're too weak in whichever specific stat you'd need to be effective in whatever class you wanted to play?


---

You get both bonuses, because otherwise it would be silly to have some races get +2, +1 on stats, and some not.
There is a subrace of dwarf that gets +2 str, +2 con though, and those guys are awesome!

It depends on how I want the feel to be, high powered/low powered. Right now I just use the character array, it forces base abilities to 15, but that's fine. 5e is a low number game.
I have actually come around to 4d6d1 or 4d6k3 and then down the stats list, but that's because I've played everything and I want to force myself to try new stuff.
---

shadowsword87 posted...

You get both bonuses, because otherwise it would be silly to have some races get +2, +1 on stats, and some not.
There is a subrace of dwarf that gets +2 str, +2 con though, and those guys are awesome!

And of course, humans get +1 across the board, which is 6 total. Though the argument there is that humans are compensating for not having specific awesomeness or extra abilities by being slightly good at everything (though a lot of settings wind up swinging that back the other way by having "demihuman" races suffer social bias outside of their own communities).

But like I said, the question mostly occurred to me because the book suggests that choosing a subclass is optional, but why would you NOT take a subclass? Not only are you usually giving up at least one +1 ability mod, but usually at least a couple of other benefits.

I forget which online game/character sent my brain down this path, but I think I saw someone playing a character who didn't seem to have a subclass, and I started wondering about it.



shadowsword87 posted...

It depends on how I want the feel to be, high powered/low powered. Right now I just use the character array, it forces base abilities to 15, but that's fine. 5e is a low number game.
I have actually come around to 4d6d1 or 4d6k3 and then down the stats list, but that's because I've played everything and I want to force myself to try new stuff.

Personally, I prefer 17d6k3+2.



Actually, based on my own history with other RPGs I should probably prefer point buy (since almost every other RPG I've ever liked uses it or a variation of it), but I actually kind of like 4d6k3. It does allow the possibility of terrible stats (even if it's less likely than it is with 3d6), and Critical Role does a pretty good job of demonstrating that it can be fun to play a character with a really low stat (Grog's one of the most popular characters on the show with an Int of 6, which he really RPs, even when it's somewhat detrimental). But it also can give you the opportunity to have some truly powerful stats if you get lucky.

Considering my own terrible luck with dice rolls (which may be part of why I prefer diceless or freeform games), I'd probably allow a player who winds up with an overall total of 66-68 points or less (ie, slightly less than standard array) to either re-roll or just default to standard array/point buy, because I don't think a player should be punished just because random chance gave them shit numbers across the board. Especially if they're in a group where another player rolled really well and now have this over-the-top PC who's good at pretty much everything.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

And of course, humans get +1 across the board, which is 6 total. Though the argument there is that humans are compensating for not having specific awesomeness or extra abilities by being slightly good at everything (though a lot of settings wind up swinging that back the other way by having "demihuman" races suffer social bias outside of their own communities).

Or you can get a +1 and a +1 with a feat. Which you can use that feat to give you a +1, so you get +2 something +1 something, and voila, you get to be a bit broken at level 1.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

But like I said, the question mostly occurred to me because the book suggests that choosing a subclass is optional, but why would you NOT take a subclass? Not only are you usually giving up at least one +1 ability mod, but usually at least a couple of other benefits.

Huh, yeah that's a pretty weird and silly to not do.
I guess if the GM is making wood elves, and high elves off the table, I would prefer to be a "stereotypical elf", but that's just because dark elves are so incredibly bad, like holy shit never play them bad.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I should probably prefer point buy (since almost every other RPG I've ever liked uses it or a variation of it)

I generally hate it as well, but I f***ing love Traveller's lifepath system. You just roll up with whatever character you want, watch them go through some sort of adventure, and then once they get close to dying, make them a PC! Just rolling dice and building a character out of what happens is fun sometimes.
I have run more than a few sessions of just making characters in Traveller.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I'd probably allow a player who winds up with an overall total of 66-68 points or less (ie, slightly less than standard array) to either re-roll or just default to standard array/point buy, because I don't think a player should be punished just because random chance gave them s*** numbers across the board. Especially if they're in a group where another player rolled really well and now have this over-the-top PC who's good at pretty much everything.

Yeah, that happened with one of my current characters. I rolled, got some great stats and ran with it. My gf rolled hers, she got worse than she was before, and I can still feel the salt from it.
---

Starting to watch BBC's Terry Jones' Medieval Lives. While the occasional juvenile humor isn't all that funny, it still keeps the material light. Unfortunately, there are apparently only 8 episodes so... meh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMrvE2CwRsQ" data-time="

Kinda feeling like playing an open-world WRPG, but not sure if I want to finally give Morrowind a real go or play through the Skyrim with the Dawnguard expansion.
---

The combat, which is the main part of the game, in Absolver, feels floaty and wrong. Maybe I'm use to faster paced combo combat like Bayonetta, DMC, or God of War, but in this game it is just wrong. The camera and art style doesn't help at all. I get a better martial arts combat feeling from Legend of Legaia, and Legaia 2: Suel Saga.

Remember those games? I enjoyed them a lot, and it stinks we never got a third game in the series.
---

I played a fair amount of the first Legaia. It was interesting, at least. Never finished it.
---

Patrick Stewart is coming back to make more trek!
Plz don't suck like discovery...

https://deadline.com/2018/08/patrick-stewart-star-new-star-trek-series-jean-luc-picard-cbs-all-access-1202440156/

Also never finished Legaia 1, although I loved its system. Never finished Legend of the Dragoon or whatever either.
---

I'm hoping that new Pateick Stewart Star Trek is about his adventures in a Starfleet retirement home, and he and Dr. Crusher argue over him not taking his pills.
---

Dragoon is a pretty good game, but it drags quite a bit near the middle.

If it wasn't for the fun battle system I probably never would have finished it.
---

*returns to topic after being gone from it for a little while*

I did finish Legend of Dragoon, and it was worth it, IMO. That is one game I would love to see remastered, though I would also like to see it re-localized. The translation is ... pretty flat.
---

Metalsonic66 posted...

If it wasn't for the fun battle system I probably never would have finished it.

The battle system is pretty much the reason why I never finished Legend of Dragoon. I hated it so, so much.

Adding timing-based bullshit to turn-based games is pretty much the worst of all worlds.


---

Hmm.
---

Timing based battlebsyatem is why I never finished, "The World Ends With You."

I do not want to slide my fingers all over the screen, touch, poke and rub and roll my fingers until they bleed all while I mkas the action.

Legend of Dragoon did this to a small degree, but The World Ends With You did this to rhe level beyond the next level of that nonsense. I basically didn't make it past the opening level.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Adding timing-based bullshit to turn-based games is pretty much the worst of all worlds.

Lol yeah, fortunately it wasn't too bad.
I actually really liked it. Added more skill but in hindsight i think it should have been optional.

Always give bonuses for doing things right and don't give penalties for doing things wrong with your game mechanics imo.

I liked the timing aspects in Dragoon. I liked how how even the magic abilities (which were tied to items you had to purchase for some reason) had damage multipliers if you press the button fast enough. Also even the Dragoon attacks had a little timing-based thing that determined how many hits you would have in your combo.

I also like the way it was handled in Costume Quest and the Stick of Truth. Though, in the former, it got a little too easy. I never actually played Paper Mario, but most people I've talked to seem to like that system (and IIRC the Mario and Luigi games do something similar).
---

The Wave Master posted...

Timing based battlebsyatem is why I never finished, "The World Ends With You."

I do not want to slide my fingers all over the screen, touch, poke and rub and roll my fingers until they bleed all while I mkas the action.

Legend of Dragoon did this to a small degree, but The World Ends With You did this to rhe level beyond the next level of that nonsense. I basically didn't make it past the opening level.

Think those are bad? Try Magna Carta (PS2) some time, lol. Not only are all attacks timing based, they sort of need to be chained, AND they draw elements from the map you're on whether or not they are successful.

I must have tried to force myself to like that game a half dozen times and I gave up at more or less the same point every single time.
---

My mom told me that if it's too good to be true, it usually is.

Movie Pass is too good to be true, and look what's happened.

If you don't know or care, Movie Pass is or was an unlimited movie theater pass for like 9.99 a month. You got a nice red credit card, with a number and a pin like a credit card, and you just scanned or swiped your card, and bam, you watch a movie.

These geniuses thought no one would see more than one movie a day or a week. They were wrong and the company lost tons of money. Then the cards magically stopped working, or better yet, the movie theaters themselves did not honor the Movie Pass because they would lose money on the percentage of ticket sales. So much backlash.

It's been a cluster muck the whole time. Now Movie Pass is limited to 3 movies a month for the 9.99, and people are ticked off. Not sure how you can be mad when it seemed too good to be true to begin with.

http://m.ign.com/articles/2018/08/01/moviepass-ceo-issues-apology-promises-changes?read
---

On the one hand, people are greedy, entitled assholes when left to abuse a service. This is hardly shocking.

3 movies a month in theaters for ten bucks is still a pretty damn good deal. If you skip the concession stand at the theater, you're still pretty much robbing them blind when all is said and done so I'm not even sure how the changed deal is economically sustainable.

I'm assuming that the gamble is that people are still going to drop bank on soda and popcorn and such (which is pure profit for the theater), but I would think that the kind of frugal people exploiting the system originally were also the sort of people that would already be smuggling in their own snacks to begin with.

I'm still not sure if a service like this is viable in the long term.
---

WhiskeyDisk posted...

On the one hand, people are greedy, entitled assholes when left to abuse a service. This is hardly shocking.

Hence why Communism doesn't really work long-term on a large scale.


---

Can't remember what got me onto knowyourmeme today but it led to a monster wikiwalk, jumping between meme pages, going over to youtube to look at a fail video, and then an image of a car on a tiny island (basically like an irl version of King Kai's planet) sucked me into Pinterest for hours. The internet is a fucking dangerous place.

At any rate, I'm somewhat struck by the immensely impractical (but awesome-looking) fantasy locations people come up, such as a city on a rocky cliff outcrop (that shit ain't going to hold) and another one build directly between waterfalls.

The Wave Master posted...

My mom told me that if it's too good to be true, it usually is.

Movie Pass is too good to be true, and look what's happened.

If you don't know or care, Movie Pass is or was an unlimited movie theater pass for like 9.99 a month. You got a nice red credit card, with a number and a pin like a credit card, and you just scanned or swiped your card, and bam, you watch a movie.

These geniuses thought no one would see more than one movie a day or a week. They were wrong and the company lost tons of money. Then the cards magically stopped working, or better yet, the movie theaters themselves did not honor the Movie Pass because they would lose money on the percentage of ticket sales. So much backlash.

It's been a cluster muck the whole time. Now Movie Pass is limited to 3 movies a month for the 9.99, and people are ticked off. Not sure how you can be mad when it seemed too good to be true to begin with.

http://m.ign.com/articles/2018/08/01/moviepass-ceo-issues-apology-promises-changes?read

It wasn't so much a case as "too good to be true" but "too good to stay like that."

WhiskeyDisk posted...

On the one hand, people are greedy, entitled assholes when left to abuse a service. This is hardly shocking.

Hardly abuse, more like overuse.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

WhiskeyDisk posted...

On the one hand, people are greedy, entitled assholes when left to abuse a service. This is hardly shocking.

Hence why Communism doesn't really work long-term on a large scale.

Well, among other issues... although I guess even those also come down to entitlement.
---

I don't know how Nintendo manages to put so much joy into a game, but Simon Belmont, King K. Rool, 900 music tracks, over 100 stages, and EVO style competitive settings...the new Smash is so hype.
---

I do not care about Smash. They could add a mode where a hot girl comes to sex you up, and I am still sure I would not care about Dmasj or The Switch.

The weapon breaking in BOTW, the lack of a plot in Mario with a Magic Cap, Mario Kart has been the same since 64, and that leaves Octopath as the only gave I'm remotely interested in, and I cannot justify 400 plia dollars for one game. Maybe Metroid Ptime 4 will temp me, but more stages and characters in smash will not.
---

Mario never had a plot. And Mario Kart Double Dash was definitely different from MK64.
---

Metalsonic66 posted...

Mario never had a plot. And Mario Kart Double Dash was definitely different from MK64.

Yeah, that's the thing. Have your likes and dislikes all you want, but shit arguments shouldn't be tolerated. Complaining about the lack of Mario plot or saying MK hasn't evolved in 20 years is just silly.
---

Yes, the gameplay in Mario has varied, which ma7 keep a lot of people coming back, but as I get older I want or rather need, a story to go along with my gameplay. When I was a kid it was more than enough to keep me Interested and coming back, but I will be 40 in a few years, and jumping omto turtles snd Goombas does not have rhe same lasting appeal as it did when I was 8.

As for Mario Kart. Yes, the games are somewhat different, but the terrible rubber banding A.I. and the just the overall vibe doesn't appear to me anymore. I have not played a racing game I was in love with since Burnout 3 all those years ago.

I guess this isn't more of a critique of the games themselves, but more of the fact that as I get older, as i have gotten married, and just grown up, Nintendo hasn't grown up with me. That's not a knock on them to an extent, as they should evolve, but more of the fact that I have changed a deal and they have not.
---

The Wave Master posted...

I guess this isn't more of a critique of the games themselves, but more of the fact that as I get older, as i have gotten married, and just grown up, Nintendo hasn't grown up with me. That's not a knock on them to an extent, as they should evolve, but more of the fact that I have changed a deal and they have not.

There yah go, this is much better. Or rather, they HAVE evolved, just not in a way that merits your attention these days, even if it once did.

As for BotW, it seems it does/would have your interest, but it hinges over one relatively minute game mechanic?
---

Metalsonic66 posted...

Mario never had a plot. And Mario Kart Double Dash was definitely different from MK64.

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

Complaining about the lack of Mario plot is just silly.

Ehh. To be fair, the original games didn't have a plot because they were released at a time when it was almost impossible to integrate plot into games due to technological limitations. And we as an audience accepted that lack of story because we understood there really wasn't much alternative, and we'd never really seen story-intensive games to contrast it against.

But that was 30+ years ago. Since then, games have evolved, technology has improved, and plot has become integrated into most games to at least some degree. We've grown more sophisticated as an audience, and we tend to expect more out of games than we did in the past. We demand they do better because we've SEEN other games do better.

And to pull out my personal favorite cliche when talking about entertainment media, we live in a time when alternative media options are more prevalent than ever before in the entire history of the human race - there are now more worthwhile media options than any single human being could ever hope to experience even across multiple lifetimes. So we tend to specialize - we expect more from each individual piece of media because it has to EARN our attention. And the entire idea of shared pop culture is slowly becoming obsolete, because the children of today are going to grow up in a world where most people HAVEN'T watched the same things or played the same games as everyone else.

I was willing to dump dozens of hours into a game like Super Mario Bros as a kid because I didn't have all that many alternatives. Today, I barely have enough time to play half the games I want to play (watch movies I want to watch/read books I want to read/etc), a game which doesn't hit all of my major expectations isn't even in consideration. And if that's the reason Wave can't justify playing those games, then it's a perfectly valid expectation.

Though personally, I gave up on the Mario games decades ago because I thought the platforming went to absolute shit since the franchise went 3D. And at this point I'm so far out of practice and old enough for my reflexes to start slowing down a bit, to the point where I derive almost no satisfaction from platformers as a genre at all anymore.


---

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

As for BotW, it seems it does/would have your interest, but it hinges over one relatively minute game mechanic?

Also to be fair, weapon degradation isn't really a "minute game mechanic" in BotW, it's a key design choice that influences a lot of gameplay.

ie, the entire point of it is to force you to use weapons you wouldn't otherwise use, so you have a more varied experience, which ties into the philosophy that exploration and discovery are/should be the core motivating principle of the game. But while that will certainly appeal to a lot of people, its also going to be something that pisses other people off.

The real problem is, no matter how much people like to think that the things they love have universal appeal, there will always be people who don't like the same things you do - and indeed, most things are only going to appeal to a smaller subset of potential audience. Even the best-selling games of all time tend to only manage a small fraction of the overall market-share.

(For reference, people act like BotW is the best Zelda game for years and is almost a reason to own the Switch in and of itself, but for all the praise it's only 10 million sold copies - in a market where individual consoles have sold more than 100 million units, and PC gamers make a very large separate demographic entirely. Realistically, less than 10% - and possibly even less than 5% - of all current gamers have ever played it. Part of this is the aforementioned flood of competing media issue, but part of it is that, for all that people who love the game might not want to admit it, there are a lot of people out there who took one look at the game and went "NOPE".)

For one person, weapons degrading might be acceptable because it's what the developer wanted, and because it forces them to experiment with other weapons and not just rely on the most powerful sword all the time. They might even feel like it ultimately makes the experience more enjoyable for them. But for other people, it's going to be an unnecessary pain in the ass, which takes good weapons away from them as soon as they start getting used to them, and which may encourage them to hoard good weapons "for future use" rather than "wasting" them on weaker enemies (see also, the JRPG plight of never using potions and having hundreds of them unused at the end of the game). And even for people who agree that they don't like the concept, there will be some who see it as a minor evil that can mostly be ignored or worked around, and others who see it as a far more significant problem that makes the entire gameplay experience frustrating and annoying.

(See also, the previous comments of how timed pulse gameplay in Legend of Dragoon was a positive for some people, while for me it was the single biggest problem with the game and the reason why I never actually finished it.)

Also worth noting is that the rest of the game certainly plays a role in just how intolerable something is. For someone who loves everything about BotW except weapon breaking, they'll likely be willing to overlook it in favor of everything else. But for someone who is already ambivalent about most of the rest of the game, weapon breaking may seem like a far greater sin, because the rest of the payoff isn't worth the annoyance.

(See also, why I wasn't willing to put up with combat timing bullshit in Legend of Dragoon, but why I was far more tolerant of it in Stick of Truth, in spite of still disliking it. Because Stick of Truth was tickling my fancy in so many other ways on a near-constant basis, while Dragoon's plot never really won me over.)

In the same vein, the magic draw and junctioning mechanics in FFVIII would probably bother me less if the plot of the game wasn't kind of shitty and the main character wasn't a repugnant loathesome little shit.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

For one person, weapons degrading might be acceptable because it's what the developer wanted, and because it forces them to experiment with other weapons and not just rely on the most powerful sword all the time. They might even feel like it ultimately makes the experience more enjoyable for them. But for other people, it's going to be an unnecessary pain in the ass, which takes good weapons away from them as soon as they start getting used to them, and which may encourage them to hoard good weapons "for future use" rather than "wasting" them on weaker enemies (see also, the JRPG plight of never using potions and having hundreds of them unused at the end of the game). And even for people who agree that they don't like the concept, there will be some who see it as a minor evil that can mostly be ignored or worked around, and others who see it as a far more significant problem that makes the entire gameplay experience frustrating and annoying.

Weapon or armor degradation is often a turn-off for me. It's hardly enough to decide if I'll enjoy a game or not, however.

In Minecraft, I have to plan around it on all items, as that's part of the design when I'm doing such a mode where I'm digging and building both (the mode I play least).

In WoW, there are smithies to repair weapons and armor for a price, so I always made sure I made more money than I spent on repairs.

Similar in FFXIV, but in that game I have my crafters all leveled so I just carry the right grade of Dark Matter to repair it all myself; it's much cheaper that way and also more convenient since I can do it almost anywhere.

In Wither 3, since I have the PC version I just installed the mod to turn off degradation. That much alone helped me feel free to explore without having to double back every other map icon or mid-quest, nor waste time or money on repair kits, just to retain the current level of effect that weapons and armor even have.. The game is long enough without that mechanic.

In BotW, degradation happens fast. There is/wasn't (when I played) any real way to repair stuff. It forces you to change over to other weapons, rather than implementing a system where certain weapons are just better for certain situations. If your good or half-decent weapons all break then you are screwed unless there are monster drop weapons on the ground. A few are kind of neat to swing around for like a few minutes, especially if used on our own terms instead of being forced to use them ever, but every one of them is so weak. On the other hand, a few weapons are fairly easy to go back and re-earn, such as certain ancient weapons that I always kept in my inventory for a few slots in case I needed to fight a Guardian or something. In that case I would blow some time on preparations, rather than enjoying most else in the game. (I say most else because ugh... the rain keeping me from climbing almost every time I decide I want to climb) You see, the game's mechanics are not so much a challenge or dynamic use of thought and action, as it's a heavy restriction that actively tries to keep you from enjoying the game at a decent pace. Want to climb, a heavily focused feature in the game? Wait a while in some places, or some something else entirely everywhere else. Want to use that shiny, awesome weapon? It's gone in a few, short swings, so make it count. Honestly, the degradation wouldn't be a tenth as bad if the rate were cut by 40-50%, but the devs went overboard on that.
---