From Software Elden Ring - From Software's new game with writing by GRRM

[abija]

You do know what an optimal strategy is, right?

You just rephrased the same argument... just because you did that doesn't mean everyone does that.

And you're walking on very thin ice with that optimal strategy idea. Are you trying to argue games should only reward you with items that fit an already decided optimal strategy? No room for personal preference or experimentation?

 

[Hell Swarm]

Can't you walk in DaS2 base game?

No, vanilla only has the throne ending.

I forgot about that. Did the DLC add the extra ending or is it scholar exclusive? Other than enemy placement and where the DLC items are I think base game has everything SOTF has.

 

[SomeGuyWithAnOpinion]

You do know what an optimal strategy is, right?

You just rephrased the same argument... just because you did that doesn't mean everyone does that.

And you're walking on very thin ice with that optimal strategy idea. Are you trying to argue games should only reward you with items that fit an already decided optimal strategy? No room for personal preference or experimentation?

No. You have missed my point entirely.

My argument is that an optimal strategy heavily encourages players to ONLY use a handful of items. They CAN use other items, but they are at a natural disadvantage, which in a hard game like Elden Ring can make the experience downright miserable. Everyone is going to gravitate towards the more powerful items as a result.

You CAN use the short sword if you want. Just like you CAN use the soup ladle in DS2 or the broken straight sword in DS1. My point is that you basically have to go out of your way to purposely gimp yourself in order to make a significant number of the items in Elden Ring worthwhile. Do you think anyone has ever seriously had a good reason to build around, say, the whip, when building around a sword will provide better damage, access to a lot more ashes of war, and will just downright be better in every possible way?

 

[Hell Swarm]

My argument is that an optimal strategy heavily encourages players to ONLY use a handful of items. They CAN use other items, but they are at a natural disadvantage, which in a hard game like Elden Ring can make the experience downright miserable. Everyone is going to gravitate towards the more powerful items as a result.

At release the sword of light and dark or whatever had really wonky stats to use but melted everything. It and rivers of blood were the defacto weapons people were using all across the community hubs because they were so busted.

 

[Strange Fellow]

The player character is aware of this because he lives in the world where it's happening, and the player is aware of this because he watched the intro cutscene. Again, we're circling back to: why does anyone seek power? The undeniable fact is that people have done it throughout history and it is the basis of many great stories.

Does the character see the cut scene? I don't think it's ever shown they're watching it. I think Dark souls 2 is the only one that shows the narrator talking to the character and that character acting what's said. I checked and it is, every other intro is a narrator over concept art or events the player could never have witnessed.

Elden ring's opening says grace made the player want to go to the Elden ring and become Elden lord. Says nothing about being a murder hobo

We're going in circles now. Per the post you quoted: "The player character is aware of this because he lives in the world where it's happening."

As for the PC's motivation, you can't just say "well I'm role-playing as a coward who would rather sit in a hovel and wank for the rest of his days." That's not how it works. You're playing as someone who wants to restore the Elden Ring/become Elden Lord, and the fact is that there are a multitude of compelling reasons to want that.

 

[Odoryuk]

Do you people forget that Tarnished were literally banished from the Promised Land that the Lands Between once were, and only recently they were allowed to return to get what they rightfully deserve? How is that not a motivation?

 

[abija]

No. You have missed my point entirely.

My argument is that an optimal strategy heavily encourages players to ONLY use a handful of items. They CAN use other items, but they are at a natural disadvantage, which in a hard game like Elden Ring can make the experience downright miserable. Everyone is going to gravitate towards the more powerful items as a result.

You CAN use the short sword if you want. Just like you CAN use the soup ladle in DS2 or the broken straight sword in DS1. My point is that you basically have to go out of your way to purposely gimp yourself in order to make a significant number of the items in Elden Ring worthwhile.

Seems you missed mine.

1. Which items should be left? Some items are good for a build and useless for others. Some items are slightly worse but easier or more fun to use. Some items are average but can beat all encounters, some are super situational but great when they work. How do you gather data to make these cuts? Do we trust their internal testing teams? Focus groups maybe? Tryhard content creators?

2. If you remove the wrong choices what's left of player agency?

Do you think anyone has ever seriously had a good reason to build around, say, the whip, when building around a sword will provide better damage, access to a lot more ashes of war, and will just downright be better in every possible way?

You should try to pick examples that make your point stronger not weaker...

 

[Odoryuk]

Do you think anyone has ever seriously had a good reason to build around, say, the whip, when building around a sword will provide better damage, access to a lot more ashes of war, and will just downright be better in every possible way?

You can't be serious. My second ever playthrough of Dark Souls was bows only because it was fun and I wanted the challenge (don't think I beat Four Kings, though, I ran a lot of builds simultaneously back then). Whips play differently even in Dark Souls with their pretty limited movesets, and in later games they became more fun to use

 

[Stoned Ape]

The fallen leaves tell a story.
The great Elden Ring was shattered.
In our home, across the fog, the Lands Between.
Now, Queen Marika the Eternal is nowhere to be found,
and in the Night of the Black Knives, Godwyn the Golden was the first to perish.
Soon, Marika's offspring, demigods all, claimed the shards of the Elden Ring.
The mad taint of their newfound strength triggered the Shattering.
A war from which no lord arose.
A war leading to abandonment by the Greater Will.
Arise now, ye Tarnished.
Ye dead, who yet live.
The call of long-lost grace speaks to us all.
Hoarah Loux, chieftan of the badlands.
The ever-brilliant Goldmask.
Fia, the Deathbed Companion.
The loathsome Dung Eater.
And Sir Gideon Ofnir, the All-knowing.
And one other. Whom grace would again bless.
A Tarnished of no renown.
Cross the fog, to the Lands Between.
To stand before the Elden Ring.
And become the Elden Lord.

I think the intro gives a pretty clear idea of what the player is supposed to do, to be honest.

 

[Hell Swarm]

We're going in circles now. Per the post you quoted: "The player character is aware of this because he lives in the world where it's happening."

Are you saying a random undead is aware the pygmy stole a lord's soul and created the dark because that's what you're saying here and obviously they don't know this. How would a cinder know the lords awoken and went AFK? They don't, they just get woken up and go and kill Gundir and a bunch of random enemies in the graveyard.

The fallen leaves tell a story.
The great Elden Ring was shattered.
In our home, across the fog, the Lands Between.
Now, Queen Marika the Eternal is nowhere to be found,
and in the Night of the Black Knives, Godwyn the Golden was the first to perish.
Soon, Marika's offspring, demigods all, claimed the shards of the Elden Ring.
The mad taint of their newfound strength triggered the Shattering.
A war from which no lord arose.
A war leading to abandonment by the Greater Will.
Arise now, ye Tarnished.
Ye dead, who yet live.
The call of long-lost grace speaks to us all.
Hoarah Loux, chieftan of the badlands.
The ever-brilliant Goldmask.
Fia, the Deathbed Companion.
The loathsome Dung Eater.
And Sir Gideon Ofnir, the All-knowing.
And one other. Whom grace would again bless.
A Tarnished of no renown.
Cross the fog, to the Lands Between.
To stand before the Elden Ring.
And become the Elden Lord.

I think the intro gives a pretty clear idea of what the player is supposed to do, to be honest.

Gideon Ofnir narrates the opening. We don't meet Gideon until the round table by which point we've already started out quest and we wash up on some beach as a near corpse before that point.. So Gideon could not be telling us of all these people because we don't know any of them.

 

[SomeGuyWithAnOpinion]

Do you think anyone has ever seriously had a good reason to build around, say, the whip, when building around a sword will provide better damage, access to a lot more ashes of war, and will just downright be better in every possible way?

You can't be serious. My second ever playthrough of Dark Souls was bows only because it was fun and I wanted the challenge

So you've essentially accepted my argument wholesale then. Cool. I'll take the victory.

1. Which items should be left? Some items are good for a build and useless for others. Some items are slightly worse but easier or more fun to use. Some items are average but can beat all encounters, some are super situational but great when they work. How do you gather data to make these cuts? Do we trust their internal testing teams? Focus groups maybe? Tryhard content creators?

Well just off the top of my head. Shortsword is objectively worse than Longsword in every way. Has the same moveset but worse damage and worse reach. The only saving grace is that it has lower requirements, but the requirements for the long sword are so low that IIRC all of the starting classes can already use it anyway.

The parrying dagger is literally useless. It has the same parry ash of war that can be placed on any other dagger, and has no special parry frames. Since it offers the same moveset and a lower crit than misericonde and worse stats than many other daggers, the moment you unlock the ash of war trainer it becomes completely obsolete because if you want a dagger to parry with you're always statistically better off putting the Parry ash of war on any other dagger.

Those are just a few off the top of my head. There are many more.

You don't need to watch tryhards, just look at the actual weapon stats. If you want something more subjective, player opinions (well, players that matter anyway) generally conclude that certain weapons are just objectively bad and should never be used unless you're specifically going for a challenge build.

For Ashes it's even worse. The mimic tear gains every one of your items abilities and equipped spells, making it far more versatile than virtually every other summon. There are a few other good ones too, like the elite knights, but the vast majority of them die almost instantly and do very little damage. Sure, they cost less FP, but they almost aren't worth summoning, and the MUCH better ones are only slightly more expensive.

Again, nothing is stopping you from using these ashes. My argument is that the game basically punishes you for doing so by putting you at a disadvantage. In a difficult game like Elden Ring, that's hugely important, because it can mean the difference between breezing through fights and struggling. If I want to use a fun weapon, I shouldn't be punished for doing so - that will only force me to switch back to one of the better weapons if I am having trouble. If the weapons were balanced correctly, everyone would be able to strategize around their weapon of choice and be effective on a level playing field.

Here's a basic analogy. Lets say I offer you two gems. One gem is worth $100. The other is worth $10. Your objective is to make as much money as possible. You may choose either gem, but it's not a real choice because the only correct answer is to pick the $100 gem. The primary objective of Elden Ring is to beat the game. To do so, you need to survive long enough to defeat the (extremely difficult) bosses. The most effective way to do so is to use the weapons that are the most effective for the job - the weapons with high damage and good movesets or effects - and ignore everything else. You may prefer the colour of the $10 gem over the $100 gem, just like you may prefer the whip over the longsword, but objectively your choice is inferior to all the others and will only set you back as a result. Most of the weapons in Elden Ring are usable and can be used to win the game, but are ineffective compared to the other choices. If the game was balanced properly, this wouldn't be a concern, which means players would be able to choose weapons to use based on what they find the most fun or can strategise around the most, rather than what is the most effective overall. Balance allows the game to have depth because players can weight the pros and cons of each weapon and decide which is best for them on a level playing field. By being unbalanced, the weapon choices are mostly boring - choose from a handful of good weapons, or a pile of crap that's barely usable. And of course everyone is going to choose from the good weapons because they actually want to finish the game. There's a reason most people use katanas and greatswords. It's not because most people like these weapons. It's because they are generally the best weapons in the game.

I swear, some people in this community are intentionally dense and refuse to understand even basic game design concepts if they clash with FROM's "perfect" vision.

2. If you remove the wrong choices what's left of player agency?

The idea is that you don't remove anything, you simply rebalance it. This changes a bunch of fake "do this if you hate yourself" choices into actual viable strategies that need to be weighed against each other, giving the game actual depth. Fixing the horrible balance doesn't reduce player agency, it enhances it.

You should try to pick examples that make your point stronger not weaker...

ummm......

 

[Stoned Ape]

I think the intro gives a pretty clear idea of what the player is supposed to do, to be honest.

Gideon Ofnir narrates the opening. We don't meet Gideon until the round table by which point we've already started out quest and we wash up on some beach as a near corpse before that point.. So Gideon could not be telling us of all these people because we don't know any of them.

That's why I said it gives the player the motivation of what they are supposed to achieve rather than the character.

The character would already have a decent knowledge of how the world used to be, he came from the Lands Between after all. He would be well aware of what the Elden Ring and Elden Lord are, he followed Godfrey as part of his army. I'm not sure why he needs to even be told about the guidance of grace by Varre as he would have experienced it before he became tarnished.

There was a wonky theory I read about that suggested the sounds from the background during the intro of the game are the distorted noises (bell, footsteps and roar) of a wandering mausoleum; that the tarnished may be one of the unwanted, beheaded bastard offspring of Marika with their head reattached (which was the Tarnished's dead finger maiden's task). I think the sounds are more likely to be there to give atmosphere to the return of the tarnished from the dead after having their reconnection to grace re-established, though.

 

[Odoryuk]

So you've essentially accepted my argument wholesale then

Read the words you bolded as "I wanted to play the game in a different way" and you'll see that I don't accept your argument. Of course, playing bow–only can be considered a challenge run, as you need to always take care of the amount of arrows you have (so is playing fists only or SL1 only, an epitome of a challenge run), but playing with whips or other different type of weapons does not make it a challenge run, even though a lot of such weapon types are weaker than the current meta. Different weapons play differently (sometimes even if these weapons are in the same category) and that alone can provide hours of replayability

 

[SomeGuyWithAnOpinion]

So you've essentially accepted my argument wholesale then

Read the words you bolded as "I wanted to play the game in a different way" and you'll see that I don't accept your argument. Of course, playing bow–only can be considered a challenge run, as you need to always take care of the amount of arrows you have (so is playing fists only or SL1 only, an epitome of a challenge run), but playing with whips or other different type of weapons does not make it a challenge run, even though a lot of such weapon types are weaker than the current meta. Different weapons play differently (sometimes even if these weapons are in the same category) and that alone can provide hours of replayability

My central argument is that bow only shouldn't be a challenge run because bows should be viable in the first place, just like every other weapon type should be. Again, you've accepted my argument wholesale.

You cannot argue that certain weapons are weaker than others (which you have done) without then also accepting my argument that the game is unbalanced and certain weapon types are less viable than others, which results in optimal strategies, which is bad design.

Thanks again for confirming my point.

 

[Odoryuk]

My central argument is that bow only shouldn't be a challenge run because bows should be viable in the first place, just like every other weapon type should be. Again, you've accepted my argument wholesale.

Oh, I see your point now. Yes, the weapons are different and some are harder to use than the others, and that's what I love about FromSoftware's action RPGs. I guess balancing is important for PvP, but in PvE it's really not an issue if some weapon is clearly more useful than the others, there's plenty of incentives to use other stuff, as I mentioned. I don't think that having fully balanced equipment is good for the series, it would basically turn it into full fledged aciton games, which I am against of

 

[Hell Swarm]

So you've essentially accepted my argument wholesale then

Read the words you bolded as "I wanted to play the game in a different way" and you'll see that I don't accept your argument. Of course, playing bow–only can be considered a challenge run, as you need to always take care of the amount of arrows you have (so is playing fists only or SL1 only, an epitome of a challenge run), but playing with whips or other different type of weapons does not make it a challenge run, even though a lot of such weapon types are weaker than the current meta. Different weapons play differently (sometimes even if these weapons are in the same category) and that alone can provide hours of replayability

Part of his argument is that there shouldn't be "bow" "great bow" and "xbow bow" and then a best in class because you're never going to use the weaker bows so those 3 categories are actually all there is and most falling in them are useless.

The black bow is objectively worse than the long bow. It's weaker, has higher stat requirements and you get it in the capital when you can start with the long bow. It has a better ash of war but you can put the same one on the long bow (with an annoying way to get it, but it exists). And neither are even the best bow when the one archers in the snowfield has higher damage than both of them but needs to be farmed from a hard enemy.

SHWAO is trying to say all of these bows should have 'something' they do special. The horn bow does magic damage, it's a magicians bow. The short bows have faster shots but do less damage and have less range. Serpent bow poisons. What's the point of the black bow since it's just worse than the long bow you find earlier? If you find a weapon it should be something you could use even if you wouldn't in most builds. You should look at it and go "not for me, but cool" instead of "this is a long sword but worse in every way". And that's okay if there's serious game time between upgrades. Going from a normal dagger to the bleed dagger or the black flame dagger is a decent upgrade and that's fine for progression but a lot of the early stuff is just better than later stuff, so it's not like stuff is balanced by progress. There simply is no balance and he feels that is made worse by the games difficulty. When so many victories are clutch wins the damage difference in the Black and Long Bow, let alone the Albernoric bow really makes a difference. Black bow users are punished for... absolutely no reason over the Long bow and they're punished for not farming like wise. If From are pushing the difficulty this far then this sort of imbalance becomes a game changer for many.

(I have vague memories of the black bow maybe firing faster than the long bow but I'm not sure. You can sub the 3 bows for your weapon class of choice and there will be loads of examples.

 

[abija]

SomeGuyWithAnOpinion

I must say I clearly misunderstood.
I didn't expect someone to get angry because all the weapons/items aren't perfectly balanced for performance/ease of use/move set/encounter variety or w/e else is there. You don't have issues with reducing variety and fun in the name of balance because that wouldn't ever happen in an utopia.

We're basically just arguing again how shit is ER compared to imaginary version of ER. Absolutely shit game because it could have been better.

 

[SomeGuyWithAnOpinion]

"there's no point ever imagining how anything could ever be better because the reality is that this is what we have and if you think it could be improved then you must conclude that it's shit and unfixable."

So you're telling me you've never been to a restaurant, had an average meal, and then had a conversation with the people you were with about how there was too much sauce and the fries were undercooked?

Criticism is how we understand things better. And while FROM isn't likely to listen to some random people on a random forum, I'm sure there are game designers here who follow these sorts of conversations and will make better balance decisions as a result, which will lead to better games. And besides, FROM probably isn't reading, but Elden Ring is moddable, so anyone can take this conversation and improve the game.

I honestly don't understand your take. Why are you even bothering to post in a thread about Elden Ring if you don't believe criticism of the game has any value? I never said the game was shit, in fact I've said many times I enjoy it quite a bit. I just wish it was designed a little better and gave examples of things I believed were bad about its balance and design. Why do you have a problem with that?

FROM software fanboys really are braindead hollows...

 

[Odoryuk]

Part of his argument is that there shouldn't be "bow" "great bow" and "xbow bow" and then a best in class because you're never going to use the weaker bows so those 3 categories are actually all there is and most falling in them are useless.

The black bow is objectively worse than the long bow

I would use a black bow if it would fit my character's visually more than any other bows. I admit that I only used crossbows +great bows so far, so I can't say how different is Black Bow compared to the Long Bow, but the wiki says

Acts similarly to a Light Bow, allowing you to jump and shoot and shoot again immediately upon landing. It also allows for quick shooting after rolling and from a sprint.

• Unlike actual Light Bows however, the Black Bow will slow down movement when firing while riding Torrent.

Which I find kinda interesting. A longbow with a shortbow moveset, it would have been OP if its damage wasn't nerfed compared to Long Bow.
I really like it when they do this. If the only difference was in the looks, and it was weaker, I guess that would make it useless, but, again, a visual difference is good enough, but it's not only visual difference

 

[Hell Swarm]

I enjoy that another poster can come in and we can engage in a conversation and actually discuss the game for once. Shows the difference between the good posters and bad ones.

I have personally always felt like 'perfect balance' was imperfect. I like that some options are better than others so players can pick their own difficulty. If we look at Elden Ring PvP for an example if my friend wants to fight me but isn't as experienced I can pick the short sword. Obviously as the best Elden Ring player in the world (I'm not a fag so I don't speedrun) I would dominate him, so I can use a worse weapon and he can use a better than average and we'll have closer fights than perfect balance would allow. There are perks like this to imbalanced and you can build a system out of it that would be rewarding for lore trannies and players if From weren't creatively bankrupt

Every weapon class has a broken/rust weapon. Shorter range, less damage and basically the short sword to the long sword.
If used normally they are a handicap but there are forges (like in the DLC) where you take one of these weapons and upon completing the dungeon you reforge it.
Rusty scythe because Doomslayer the faggot killer. Top tier weapon in it's class.

Everyone wins and From have to do jack shit to make it happen. The mechanics already exist in the DLC. The broken weapons are easy to make since it's just cutting the end off the weapon. Will From do it? Never. Wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle of piss.

Which I find kinda interesting. A longbow with a shortbow moveset, it would have been OP if its damage wasn't nerfed compared to Long Bow.

I recalled that after I wrote it but the same argument applies but now you have short bows being replaced by the black bow. There's never a reason to forfeit range and damage unless you really like fighting on torrent, which I don't think is real.

 

[Silverfish]

Did the DLC add the extra ending or is it scholar exclusive?

So far as I'm aware, it's Scholar exclusive. In fairness, I've never played the PS3 / 360 version of Scholar, that incorporated the dlc's, but not the additional content and remixed enemies, so it's possible the alternate ending is available there.

As for the PC's motivation, you can't just say "well I'm role-playing as a coward who would rather sit in a hovel and wank for the rest of his days." That's not how it works.

Fair enough, but at that point you may as well just say "your motivation is that it's a video game".

We're basically just arguing again how shit is ER compared to imaginary version of ER. Absolutely shit game because it could have been better.

It's not that it could have been better, it's that it's not on par with anything it takes inspiration from.

 

[Hell Swarm]

Fair enough, but at that point you may as well just say "your motivation is that it's a video game".

And then you play as a video game player so your motivation is to sit in a hovel and masturbate to the end of your days!

 

[abija]

"there's no point ever imagining how anything could ever be better because the reality is that this is what we have and if you think it could be improved then you must conclude that it's shit and unfixable."

So you're telling me you've never been to a restaurant, had an average meal, and then had a conversation with the people you were with about how there was too much sauce and the fries were undercooked?

Criticism is how we understand things better. And while FROM isn't likely to listen to some random people on a random forum, I'm sure there are game designers here who follow these sorts of conversations and will make better balance decisions as a result, which will lead to better games. And besides, FROM probably isn't reading, but Elden Ring is moddable, so anyone can take this conversation and improve the game.

I honestly don't understand your take. Why are you even bothering to post in a thread about Elden Ring if you don't believe criticism of the game has any value? I never said the game was shit, in fact I've said many times I enjoy it quite a bit. I just wish it was designed a little better and gave examples of things I believed were bad about its balance and design. Why do you have a problem with that?

FROM software fanboys really are braindead hollows...

Let me elaborate.
The game has a large variety of weapons/items/spells/etc. Those are loosely balanced, to be kind. All of this had a development cost.
When you start asking for perfect balance, I think huge cuts in variety. In your example of whip vs sword, I'm thinking whips are gone or transformed into retextured katanas.
What you actually meant was keep volume and variety the same, just balance every weapon/item/spell/playstyle/encounter. Make it so each and everyone of them has a clear and unique (but balanced) purpose. You just aren't considering the cost at all. I call that utopic.

Ofc everyone wants things to be better but you need to have some realistic expectations. Or at least start your arguments with something like "in a perfect world".
In reality, being so anal about balance removes variety, depth and ultimately fun from games. Something has to give and usually doesn't end with the devs getting funds for 10 more years to make it perfect.
That complaint about the shortsword in a game of this size is not criticism, is nitpicking.

 

[Silverfish]

Ah, we've reached the "it's unrealistic to want all weapons to viable, if niche" portion of the discussion.

 

[Cohesion]

Balance pass hardly requires time - it's more about math and skill/knowledge. Creating items takes much more time than balancing.

Though I wouldn't want sawyer/mmo-like autistic near perfect balance (<5% difference where everything is almost equal).