But the weapons mean nothing if you have to not use them in order to keep them. Weapons shouldn't break. They should lose effectiveness, even 50% effectiveness, but you should be able to shine them/cast a rejuvenation potion/some sort of process that uses consumables to get them back to 100%. How are you gonna have a master sword that breaks? That's dumb as hell. The only weapons that should break are wooden weapons.Magabro5382 wrote:I believe the low ammo count may be a deliberate design choice.
Has anybody played Zelda: Breath of the Wild? One of its most controversial mechanics is breakable weapons. Pretty much any sword will break in a dozen swings or so. And I'll admit that that kind of sucks when you lose your best weapons, but I believe there are a few good reasons why the game was designed this way: 1) you're forced to experiment with all weapons in the sandbox and 2) cool weapons are often the rewards you get for exploration and challenges -- and it wouldn't be as rewarding to get a weapon you already own.
I believe low ammo is the Halo Infinite equivalent to Zelda's breakable weapons, they don't want you to carry a shotgun and a sniper rifle for the whole game and when you manage to get your hands in one of your favorite weapons it will feel special.
I do remember Halo CE very much being the pistol & AR the entire game and then only swapping out the AR for a sniper, shotgun or rocket launcher, but mostly just those 5 the entire game. I do agree with that aspect, but Zelda was bad game design because it destroyed the concept of progression.