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......
