Topic: Nintendo + Bethesda = YES!

@Octane Yeah, I knew the weapons broke, I was just wondering if the system for it was better than Oblivion's. Your description makes it sound similar, but from what I have seen and heard it at least sounds like new weapons are easier to come by in Zelda, and although six slots isn't a lot, it is still more than I was able to hold in Oblivion without being over-encumbered, and it sounds like that will improve over the game. Even on the final boss of Oblivion I was forced to just drop all of my extra armor and all of my weapons except for the one I was using and one spare in case that one broke because he kept casting a spell on me to lower my Strength and I would get over-encumbered. If Skyrim dropped weapon durability as @Haru17 said, that is a big plus for me.

@KirbyTheVampire I wrote the above before I saw your post. That sounds great. It sounds like I should (theoretically) enjoy both Zelda and Skyrim a lot more than I did Oblivion. Thanks. If I choose to be a mage, weapon breaking shouldn't matter nearly as much, though, but it's still good that there is a change.

@Xyphon22 In Skyrim weapons don't break and you use smithing only to improve your equipment, there's nothing to repair. In Breath of the wild you cannot repair your weapons (except some of them can be repaired if you bring them to some specific characters) and they break very fast. You can find many weapons around and you have unlimited bombs that you can even improve very soon but the weapons you find around often are very basic. I often used only bombs to fight enemies because I did not want to break powerful weapons and I became so used to bombs that after some time I did not use basic weapons either even if they were easy to replace. Weapons breaking are one of the worst thing of BOTW in my opinion, very frustrating

@KirbyTheVampire ''plus the combat never gets stale because you're always using something different.''

Well, you're using either a sword, spear or heavy weapon. There's not a whole lot variety in that. There's the occasional gimmick, like a boomerang or elemental rod, but the former works a lot better as a heavy weapon and the elemental rods are rubbish anyway.

OP please don't get too excited. They could have released doom first if they wanted to give us that. We know how these things work... if skyrim isn't a minimum million seller which is doubtful we won't see anymore Support.

@Octane Still a lot more variety than in previous Zeldas where you use a one handed sword for the entire game, lol. I see your point, though.

@Qwertyninty No, 'we' don't know anything — you're just pretending to.

@Octane I totally agree. Skyrim has way more combat diversity than Zelda even if the melee animations are worse. Breath of the Wild isn't even the best 3D combat, because Twilight Princess' hidden skills and horseback combat went above and beyond.

@Haru17 guess I should have said history has shown for nintendo these things work a certain way. Time will tell what this is going to be for the switch platform.

@KirbyTheVampire True, but I just don't feel the variety is anything to write home about. In a sense you could also use other items in combat (Boomerang, Bombs, Deku Leaf, Spinner, Hookahot), but I guess those runes in BOTW also work in combat, so I guess they count too, kinda.

@Xyphon22 Hey, glad to see you managed to persevere through Oblivion!

@Haru17 Ewww. VR still sucks and always will by its nature, and Hololens isn't a viable product. Fantastic!

@LuckyLand 1st person has always been one of the key points of Elder Scrolls (and Western RPGs including SMT, which is really a WRPG, not a JRPG.) BUT....the implementation of their 1st person always seemed wrong to me on console. On PC with a mouse it's wonderful. But I couldn't get it working right for me without a mouse on PS3/X360. I'm wondering if the motion controls in Skyrim Switch might give me the good old mouse +freelook I'm looking for!

@Grumblevolcano "I used to be a coffee maker, but then I took an arrow to the knee....."

@NEStalgia I'm the opposite: the fast movement when the camera is linked to a mouse damages my immersion. I think dual analogue stick control is perfect for games like The Elder Scrolls because you can slow pan like you're actually looking through the character's eyes.

Also, I thought the consensus was that the technology behind VR was impressive, but they're still struggling with creating decent-sized games and not making people throw up while they're moving.

@Haru17 The mechanical on-rails motion of analog sticks, to me don't work at all for first person motion. The speed of a mouse can be tuned to be slow or fast. It doesn't need to be like playing Quake where 1/16 inch of movement translates to complete 180deg about facing But because it allows a more natural acceleration and deceleration of movement correlating to real space, it's a more natural MANNER of movement, even if the speed is or isn't realistic for your preference (and can always be dialed down.) First person was entirely designed around mouse play (after it evolved past arrow keys.) It, arguably, has no place on consoles with sticks. But I will power through with it anyway, because, it's Elder Scrolls. (And maybe the "airmouse" joycons will do the trick...)

Edit: The mouse actually lets you pan the camera like you're actually operating a camera on a tripod on a nice smooth, geared, fluid-suspension ball head. Something from Manfrotto or such. The stick is like operating a remote controlled camera, where it stops and starts abruptly.

The problem with VR isn't that the tech isn't "impressive", sure it is. And riding the tilt-a-whirl is fun. But I wouldn't want to do it for 6 hours straight every weekend. It's a fun arcade toy to play with. Sure, it's impressive. But strapping into a bulky headset, tethered by wires, needing the right "room space" to play in (because everyone lives in an Ikea model house), is problematic for anyone but "man cave" aficionados. But the even bigger problem is the last part you mentioned. The discomfort, the needing to ween into it, the fact that some people can't ever ween into it. And the problem that creating "decent sized content" isn't necessarily desirable. Sitting for long extended, frequent sessions with an LED backlit display inches from your retina sounds as wise a recreational activity as chain smoking or buying a 1-year membership to a budget brothel I'm sure it's "safe enough" for short arcade-like experiences. But playing Skyrim of all things and all the time that entails on it seems stunningly unwise for anyone that wants to be able to still see the screen when Elder Scrolls 7 comes out.

I don't think I will ever try VR. I have anxiety issues and I feel uncomfortable if I try to immagine myself with an headset that isolates me too much and makes the illusion of a game look too much real. I can't even take melatonin because it gives me panic attacks (I'm not kidding!), I'm not going to try something like VR, absolutely. On the other hand I don't even feel the need to. I enjoy playing games on TV like I've always done.

Yeah, I still like first-person adventure games more with a joy stick. Not only can you easily pan the camera in a way that feels natural, but you have full control over the nuance of your movement while wasd only gives you 8 directional inputs. That's kind of basic for open world games that are so much about walking and looking around.