Jim Sterling (The Jimquisition)

Not much that I remember. I spent a lot on subscriptions to games like Wo W or Star Wars: The Old Republic, but the microtransactions always felt like a bad deal to me. I eventually stopped playing those games precisely because earning the special currency in the game itself was slow and annoying.

I had to live frugally during the time microtransactions and lootboxes became popular, so what games I did get were second-hand for the Wii. I also resisted getting a smartphone for the longest time, and when I finally did, I got an Ubuntu phone; I only replaced it earlier this year when it fell at just the right angle to actually break. So thus far I've never spent a cent on microtransactions. I honestly wouldn't object to buying cosmetic stuff even if the game is good, but I will not pay for lootboxes.

When I first encountered "pay to win" and loot box microtransactions in games, I knew two things:

1. They are a trap designed to reward compulsive gambling behavior and siphon money from consumers.
2. A lot of people wouldn't take that advice.

I was right on both counts. But I grew up in an era when you bought a game and then owned that game.

Which is not to say that I have never paid for in-game content, but when I do so, it's mainly for two reasons: to show support for the developers of a "free" game (It's good enough that I'll give them some money and get some extra value in return.), or because I'm getting a direct reward rather than a randomized chance at a reward. Even then, I strictly limit myself.

For example, I bought a currency pack exactly once in Angry Birds 2, since I'd played the game enough that it merited at least some compensation. As I progressed, it got grindier and grindier, and I got bored and stopped playing. Same with Angry Birds Epic, although I didn't spend any money in that game once I realized that the grind wall showed up really quickly.

When a game comes out that goes all in on the predatory microtransactions, it can go to hell for all I'm concerned. When a game comes out that locks off progression behind grind walls unless you pay ever-increasing amounts of cash to break through, it can rot in Satan's buggery pit.

Edited by Fighteer on Sep 20th 2019 at 9:53:44 AM

I don't have an exact tally but I think I spent a pretty sizable amount back when I played League of Legends. To be fair this was over a period of playing the game for like 5 years on and off, so it adds up. After their workplace environment got exposed as terrible I don't feel very comfortable giving them money, and I can't play the game much anyway since my internet connection is too unstable.

Jimpression of the Link's Awakening remake:

It's like your favourite pair of Christmas shoes.

The biggest take way from the remaster is that they need to bring "For Frog the Bell Tolls ( aka the game Prince Richard is from]] to the west

So what you're saying is it's a solid 7/10 game. Got it.

Still better than BOTW thanks to not having weapon degradation.

I really hope the next new Zelda game gets rid of that mechanic.

I read they plan on making all future Zelda games open-world now.

As someone who's never played a Zelda game, much less BOTW, what is wrong with weapon decay as a mechanic?

Its frustrating,having a weapon break constantly means your constantly looking for better gear,which gets tiresome

Basically the gameplay loop facilitated by the mechanic is terribad, especially since everything is made of twigs.

Also the Master Sword can break. It repairs itself eventually but it's not even close to the strongest weapon in the game, so it's not like it'd be overpowered. Plus it's just kind of dumb that the Master Sword of all things can break by swinging it at generic mooks.

Edited by Karxrida on Sep 21st 2019 at 2:32:47 AM

Yikes, that's a badly done idea.

Edited by VeryMelon on Sep 21st 2019 at 2:38:07 AM

Basically, you have no way of fixing weapons, so the really strong ones become Too Awesome to Use and you're better off avoiding fights as much as you can if you wanna preserve your weapons.

It's very much a YMMV issue. A lot of people have issues with it but at the same time many people don't mind it.

I think the main reason people dislike it is more of a psychological thing than anything else. People get attached to their weapons and don't want to lose them. The game gives you so many weapon drops it's very unlikely that you'll ever be in danger of running out.

About the main complaint I can see is that because your weapons break frequently you end up doing a lot of menu'ing, but it's not like that isn't a common problem with many RPG's and I don't view it as that big a deal.

Personally I feel the weapon degradation doesn't end up making a big difference either way.

Dark Souls wasn't as bad on this front. Even in DS II.

That's because weapon degradation might as well not have existed. It was very, very rare that you were ever going to be in a situation where your weapons broke if you made a point to repair them regularly at bonfires. Unless you ran into enemies whose attacks rapidly degrade weapons, but those are rare.

System Shock 2 had a similar weapon breaks mechanic,but it made sense in that game because it was a horror

What ulti said, with more dim view on it. It gets far more excruciating on higher difficulties where theres far less resources to work with.

Edited by Dhiruxide on Sep 21st 2019 at 12:20:14 PM

Only game I played with a serious durability mechanic was World of Warcraft, and that was very slowly. That, and Death Road to Canada, but in that game, you're meant to pick up weapons that don't break at all for the long haul instead of the pieces of crap you find everywhere that break easily.

The only weapons that you could rely on was the crowbar funnily enough,and Psi abilities

Eh, the criticism against BOTW's weapon damage system is a bit overblown.

It's true, you can't repair weapons. But the tradeoff for that is that the game drowns you in replacement weapons constantly. As someone who fought enemies constantly and, yes, broke a lot of weapons, I had the opposite problem that everyone complains about: inventory management. Constantly having to stop and go, "I just found fifteen more Infinity Plus One Swords, so which ones do I like and which of the five million Infinity Plus One Swords in my inventory can I chuck out?"

People talk about BOTW like you have to play for ten hours just to find a single weapon that doesn't suck, and then it breaks five seconds later. But that's really not the case. Like, it might be the case if you're constantly avoiding fighting enemies or plundering loot, which are the two main places to find weapons. But if you just play the game like a normal exploration game, you'll be drowning in level-appropriate weapons, no problem.

Breath of the Wild's central thesis statement is that nothing is permanent. Everything changes, everything ends, nothing lasts forever.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Sep 21st 2019 at 4:42:28 AM

I remember a game which had weapon degradation system but it was inconsequential because you'd be rolling in cash late game.

It's also an open world title with a bland world from 2005!

Hard Truck Apocalypse anyone? I actually have some fond memories and liked driving in late game trucks and being a walking armory but AI, blandness of world and lack of variety in missions and adventuring is meh. And the frikken' bugs sigh

So yeah powerful higher tier weapons early on do cost a lot to repair but since Money for Nothing is a thing it's so insignificant you can just stop by a settlement and fix everything by the end.

I'd love a thoughtful and rich remake of it. Seriously, an open world post apocalyptic game where you drive trucks and it's not so well done, it's a shame.

Edited by Dhiruxide on Sep 21st 2019 at 12:56:21 PM

And that's something that Jim strongly disagrees with: that the weapon fragility is overblown. I might as well recite the reasons he gave why weapon fragility should fuck off:

• Firstly, it's almost never realistic or immersive because games tend to depict weapons as being far more fragile than they actually are. He uses Breath Of The Wild as an example of this, as it has each of your weapons survive only a few blows, before falling apart in the middle of combat, and you are constantly having to pause the game to equip yet another disposable weapon from your inventory.
• Secondly, he has a rebuttal for those who say that collecting and managing your weapons adds a challenge, Jim points out that it's not a fun challenge, but an unpleasant chore that takes time away from the fun of fighting, with the only game genre where he thinks it might sometimes be fun is Survival Horror, in which part of the fear comes from the player being intentionally underpowered.
• Third; to those who say that weapon durability encourages you to try different types of weapons, he says that then the game isn't giving you the option to use what you like best, but forcing you to switch all the time whether you like it or not.
• And finally, because it causes players to perverse incentives. In Breath of the Wild Jim eventually started avoiding combat because he knew that enemy drops wouldn't be good enough to justify the effort and damage to his equipment. Whenever he got a weapon he actually did like, it would be Too Awesome to Use and therefore neither a satisfying reward nor a good investment.