Bosses and Boss fights. What needs changing?

[Lutesque]

8 hours ago, Arniox said:

I hate when people try compare warframe to other, newer games. As if it's a competition. It's not

It kinda is though... 🤔

8 hours ago, Arniox said:

 

I'm saying that the orb fight is really well built for warframe bosses. 

Oh in that case AI agree then....

But it still terrible in General.... We can't all live in a bubble where only Warframe exists 😱...

8 hours ago, Arniox said:

 

I've never played dark souls, or monster hunter world. I've only played warframe as my only PvE game because I only enjoy warframe and wished it had more engaging fights only in the context of warframe. 

As far as Dark Souls is concerned you really aren't missing much.... Infact it's bosses are just as Rubbish as Warframe's.... But Sekiro on the other hand... They got great bosses provided you skip over:  Raging Ogre, Blazing Bull, Guardian Ape, Mist Noble and Demon Of Hatred... Those are some pretty terrible Bosses.

 

[Galuf]

Il y a 7 heures, Felsagger a dit :

DE can't and will never reach HDZ or DS heights. I can't see that happening. Even DR2 is out of their scope. DE designed a vanity project with Warframe. You are absolutely correct. They will not reach those goals at all.

There is intrinsically nothing wrong using the "vanity" approach, it is most of the time correct. In developpment and software architecture there is the notion of separation of concerns. Game engines were designed to be rendering engine at first and hence there was a maket for "gaming companies with S#&$ty devs" there was some added apis over time to make it so you can scaffold everything about a game on them. Generally speaking vanity engines are actually better on the long run for a video game product assuming you have the skills internally to developp your game properly or have decent enough software architect(s) so you know what you should buy to external companies then how to integrate it properly.

This is a big missconception toward gaming industry, most AAA frameworks usages are  big lazy mistakes and companies that produce there own reusable framework are engineering their own downfall, for example Ubisoft Anvil is massive crap, makes all their game stagnate, constantly beeing under technical debt and producing uninspired insipid games and content. Frameworks are imho ok for small out of the box indie stuffs and maybe developped tailored for very high budget titles as a game component(like it as the case for tomb raider) then marketed to other wanabee uninspired AAA ompanies. Very often, companies that developp tooling are actually doing that to save taxes on RnD. Actually everything is RnD in software to some degree and it should be taxed differently.

[Felsagger]

39 minutes ago, Galuf said:

There is intrinsically nothing wrong using the "vanity" approach, it is most of the time correct. In developpment and software architecture there is the notion of separation of concerns. Game engines were designed to be rendering engine at first and hence there was a maket for "gaming companies with S#&$ty devs" there was some added apis over time to make it so you can scaffold everything about a game on them. Generally speaking vanity engines are actually better on the long run for a video game product assuming you have the skills internally to developp your game properly or have decent enough software architect(s) so you know what you should buy to external companies then how to integrate it properly.

This is a big misconception toward gaming industry, most AAA frameworks usages are  big lazy mistakes and companies that produce there own reusable framework are engineering their own downfall, for example Ubisoft Anvil is massive crap, makes all their game stagnate, constantly beeing under technical debt and producing uninspired insipid games and content. Frameworks are imho ok for small out of the box indie stuffs and maybe developped tailored for very high budget titles as a game component(like it as the case for tomb raider) then marketed to other wanabee uninspired AAA ompanies. Very often, companies that developp tooling are actually doing that to save taxes on RnD. Actually everything is RnD in software to some degree and it should be taxed differently.

DE suffers this exact illness. Their vanity project feels uninspired on many areas due to the compromises they made with their engine and business model. They are experimenting this Ubisoft generic looking apparel. 

DE is not on Research and Development at all. They are doing such RnD on other assets like cross safe and scalability for simultaneous platforms. This vanity project focuses too much on 'non gaming' elements such as RNG mechanics and 'time dilators'. 

I wish that Warframe where a game but it isn't. I can't expect more than what we already have. I already decided to move towards other games while this project throws the conclusion of the New War. I want to see where this is heading for the last time including Duviri Paradox. 

Ten years is more than enough for a project like this. I would be looking at games like Horizon Zero Dawn 2, Next generation PS5 titles and few simulators. This was a good ride for what it was. 

[Megalomaniakaal]

16 hours ago, Felsagger said:

The lowest common denominator are the portable phones. Exactly. 

Minimum spec on steam:

• Processor:Intel Core 2 Duo e6400 or AMD Athlon x64 4000+
• Video:DirectX 11+ capable Graphics Card
• Memory:4 GB RAM

So a single core, single thread CPU from 2004, and only 4 GB DDR1 memory. Yeah, it's the phones all right.