Why Are We Still Putting Breakable Weapons In Games?

thegamer.com:

Folks, this is not a hot take. You could keep your beer in this take on a hot summer day - ice cold baby, I told you. This is a take you may have read before, and either found yourself scoffing in irritation or nodding in agreement. But unfortunately, we need to get on the merry go round again. Breakable weapons are a bad idea, and I can't believe we're still doing it. After it emerged that weapons could be once more smashing in our very fists during Dead Island 2, I need to get it off my chest once more. I haven't liked it in any video game I've ever played, and I think it's strange that the only game we ever talk about having breakable weapons is Breath of the Wild. No matter what the game is, weapon degradation sucks.

There are two types of weapon degradation, and while I hate both of them, I hate the more extreme variant far more. I suppose there are three kinds of degradation if you count spitting on them and calling them a little bitch while they squeal in pleasurable pain, but let's not get into that. Whatever happens between two consenting swords is none of my business. The first form of weapon degradation sees them get worse over time, requiring you to clean, maintain, or repair them. The second sees weapons have what amounts to a health bar, resulting in them poofing out of existence once they take too much damage - or give too much, depending on how they look at it.

Related: Where Are The Wind Waker And Twilight Princess Switch Remasters At?

I want to deal with this second one first, because it's the most frequently occurring form of breakable weapons, and the most infuriating. The idea of these breakable weapons is that they force you to constantly pick up new weapons, keep your arsenal varied, and be less