Why I Believe Warframe Will Never Become A Great Game.

[Silvershadow66]

it almost reminds me of Politicians in a news conference giving vast amounts of information without really giving any information at all.

 

And do you know why that is? Whiny demanding players who can't differentiate between "conditional statements of what is being thought about as a possibility" and "a firm and absolute promise that something will be added in the next update which is definitely coming next week".

 

Every game follows the same pattern, the Devs tell the players a lot of specifics but don't promise when things will arrive or in which order, some players raise a s%%%storm when something does not make it into the game, Devs start to realise that telling people anything vaguely specific about what they are thinking of doing just ends in rage and bad PR because people lie about the context of what they said. Devs stop being specific.

 

Some people seem unwilling to accept the truth that in game design not every idea is practical to implement so plans have to be changed as development progresses. Not every idea that looks good on paper works well in a game, even if its simply for reasons of poor performance and not everything is a simple as it may seem when its first proposed, some things have a lot if impact and need a lot of code changes and testing.

 

 

lets hope Warframe does not go the same way the Roman Empire did.

 

You mean it will be around for centuries and dominate a large part of the world?

Edited January 22, 2014 by Silvershadow66

[General_Krull]

No. I'm just against negativism and counter productive arguing. If you hate this game so much, why are you here? Would a person that doesn't like football go to a stadium and rant about how football is stupid and useless? Seriously, "nothing to be thankful for"? You are playing their game from your own initiative, DE didn't come to your house and said "play our game or else", they are improving the game very fast compared to any other game you want to mention, yet "nothing to be thankful for"? yeah, they made this game to make you feel bad, why should you thank them 

And now you ignore my arguments entirely, classy. 

I am playing this game because I want to, yes. It doesn't mean anything though. And I don't hate the game, I want to see it get better, improve. If you accept everything without questioning it will not get better ever. 

And the game hasn't actually improved or even changed that much in the past year. Core game is very much the same, only numbers are different. And how are other games being updated slowly relevant in anyway? We are talking about warframe here.

[bodyshk]

And now you ignore my arguments entirely, classy. 

I am playing this game because I want to, yes. It doesn't mean anything though. And I don't hate the game, I want to see it get better, improve. If you accept everything without questioning it will not get better ever. 

And the game hasn't actually improved or even changed that much in the past year. Core game is very much the same, only numbers are different. And how are other games being updated slowly relevant in anyway? We are talking about warframe here.

 

I don't accept warframe as it is, i just don't claim it's the worst game out there. Do you honestly think warframe will get better because you keep providing arguments to how and why it's a S#&$ty game? That's quite an interesting view on the matter. That's how things get done: just find as many reasons as you can to show how bad it is. 

 

 

Edit: also: i'm sorry, but how did i ignore your arguments entirely? I honestly missed that. ._.

Edited January 22, 2014 by bodyshk

[h3d0n1St1k]

What?!  You mean the game where even the gaming websites see and note everything wrong with it? The game can't pull new players and can barely retain old ones. What is so good about it?  I like the game and I can hardly make myself play it.

This game is on top 20 more played games on steam for almost a year, i don't now what are you talking about.

[General_Krull]

I don't accept warframe as it is, i just don't claim it's the worst game out there. Do you honestly think warframe will get better because you keep providing arguments to how and why it's a S#&$ty game? That's quite an interesting view on the matter. That's how things get done: just find as many reasons as you can to show how bad it is. 

I never claimed it's a S#&$ty game, don't put words in my mouth. I said it's mediocre. You know what it means right? And if you don't point out where it's lacking how on earth would they know what to improve on? I even said why the things I pointed out are lacking! I don't understand why you are trying to shoot down feedback, do you want this game to fail?

[Silvershadow66]

This game is on top 20 more played games on steam for almost a year, i don't now what are you talking about.

 

5th most played PC game for 2013 on Raptr (also number 5 for most played update for U10 and number 5 for new IP).

[bodyshk]

I never claimed it's a S#&$ty game, don't put words in my mouth. I said it's mediocre. You know what it means right? And if you don't point out where it's lacking how on earth would they know what to improve on? I even said why the things I pointed out are lacking! I don't understand why you are trying to shoot down feedback, do you want this game to fail?

Shouldn't feedback be comprised from pros and cons? Evoking only the bad aspects of the game doesn't make a complete feedback. When you take both into account, it doesn't sum up to a mediocre game. The bad parts are mediocre, not the game itself. Besides, it's far from complete, wouldn't it be appropriate to call it mediocre only when they say "well, we're done, this is the final product". You can't say a book is mediocre by reading the first 2 chapters.

 

Also: want this game to fail? Why would it be relevant what I want? It's not about what i want, it's about what it actually is.

[Sidathe]

I never claimed it's a S#&$ty game, don't put words in my mouth. I said it's mediocre. You know what it means right? And if you don't point out where it's lacking how on earth would they know what to improve on? I even said why the things I pointed out are lacking! I don't understand why you are trying to shoot down feedback, do you want this game to fail?

Well. What do they do good? Or is nothing good, and everything involved within is mediocre? :v

[Letter13]

You're just trying to find reasons. You want this game to be bad. Reality doesn't change based on your perception.

I wouldn't go that far. It's not really nice to put words in other folks' mouths.

That being said, Krull does have some points that I can agree with. The AI is pretty Clem'd up (Super Clem). While I wouldn't agree on older weapons being left useless (I still find the boltor, boltos, etc quite fun), a lot of older weapons (as well as some newer weapons) feel kinda 'meh' and could do with overhauls/rebalancing. I can't agree that there's "No Lore" but there is a lack of overall story/plot--where are we going? What is our goal? Also the new user experience needs a LOT of work to prevent alienating new players.

Shouldn't feedback be comprised from pros and cons? Evoking only the bad aspects of the game doesn't make a complete feedback.

While I can somewhat agree, I think that pointing out the parts of a game that need work is more important than praising the good parts of the game. Pointing out the bad parts doesn't mean having to say things like "X is crap. Y is S#&$. DE you suck" (this is NOT good feedback), rather it would be more prudent to say "I don't like how X and Y are implemented, and here are my ideas on how to fix it" (which is GOOD feedback).

[General_Krull]

Shouldn't feedback be comprised from pros and cons? Evoking only the bad aspects of the game doesn't make a complete feedback. When you take both into account, it doesn't sum up to a mediocre game. The bad parts are mediocre, not the game itself. Besides, it's far from complete, wouldn't it be appropriate to call it mediocre only when they say "well, we're done, this is the final product". You can't say a book is mediocre by reading the first 2 chapters.

 

Also: want this game to fail? Why would it be relevant what I want? It's not about what i want, it's about what it actually is.

But why would I want the good parts to change? There's no reason to point out the good when the bad needs their full attention. And the bad parts do in fact drag down the whole game. They don't exist in parallel reality they are part of the game. Parkour would be good but it's unreliable, Fighting enemies would be good but the AI is dumb. Do you see where I'm going with this? The bad parts affect the good parts.

And are you saying I shouldn't offer feedback because it's a beta? Am I not allowed to have an opinion because it's a beta? And actually if the book fails to capture me by first few chapters then it is a bad book. Saying "this game is really good after x hours" is pointless. Why should I suffer trough multiple hours of not fun content to get to the good part? It should be good from the start.

 

 

Well. What do they do good? Or is nothing good, and everything involved within is mediocre? :v

I think the concept is good, war torn system filled with different factions fighting for power, if they fleshed it out more like show us the civilians caught in the middle of it just trying to survive or the actual grineer slave colonies, or corpus indoctrination temples or even corpus civilians, it would be awesome. I also think the art style is pretty damn cool, corpus gas city looks nice and I really liked the cicero crisis forest. Also frames look pretty awesome, with some exceptions.

[bodyshk]

Why should we relate to the lore so much? They've said multiple time (paraphrasing) "guys, it's far from done, we did not actually implement the lore yet" and the negative feedback the community gives sounds more like "well, you didn't implement it, but it's bad!"

Edited January 22, 2014 by bodyshk

[Sidathe]

1: But why would I want the good parts to change? There's no reason to point out the good when the bad needs their full attention. And the bad parts do in fact drag down the whole game. They don't exist in parallel reality they are part of the game. Parkour would be good but it's unreliable, Fighting enemies would be good but the AI is dumb. Do you see where I'm going with this? The bad parts affect the good parts.

2: I think the concept is good, war torn system filled with different factions fighting for power, if they fleshed it out more like show us the civilians caught in the middle of it just trying to survive or the actual grineer slave colonies, or corpus indoctrination temples or even corpus civilians, it would be awesome. I also think the art style is pretty damn cool, corpus gas city looks nice and I really liked the cicero crisis forest. Also frames look pretty awesome, with some exceptions.

1: Parkour could do with a little work...or maybe maps that actually require a lot more of its use. :P Something to get it more involved than "Smash X off wall with giant sword," or "Gun X, Y, and Z from wall in succession...then smash A with a really big sword." Corpus and Grineer could do with their own AI. Kind of feel like the Infested are in a strangely good place of being swarming killing machines. Not sure if that's what they are or should be, but it kind of feels good there.

 

2: Yes. Corpus Civilians. I demand more bleeding things! >:D

[General_Krull]

Why should we relate to the lore so much? They've said multiple time (paraphrasing) "guys, it's far from done, we did not actually implement the lore yet" and the negative feedback the community gives sounds more like "well, you didn't implement it, but it's bad!"

But Lore is bad because it's incomplete and some of it makes no sense.

 

1: Parkour could do with a little work...or maybe maps that actually require a lot more of its use. :P Something to get it more involved than "Smash X off wall with giant sword," or "Gun X, Y, and Z from wall in succession...then smash A with a really big sword." Corpus and Grineer could do with their own AI. Kind of feel like the Infested are in a strangely good place of being swarming killing machines. Not sure if that's what they are or should be, but it kind of feels good there.

 

2: Yes. Corpus Civilians. I demand more bleeding things! >:D

I would like AI to work together more often, for example shield lancers making a wall and normal lancers standing behind them taking pot shots and troopers being faster and more aggressive. Infested are in a good place yes, they just need to be able to climb everywhere so you can't just "climb on a table" to make them useless. Oh yeah, and make enemies react powers, like try to go around them or avoid them otherwise.

[drunkpunk222]

Its great game already!

[JerryMouse13]

Honestly I'm getting real tired of people saying the AI is 'dumb' or S!*t. 

 

For what it is the AI in Warframe is in fact reasonably competent when left to it's own devices, the biggest problem it faces at the moment, is it's wonky path finding, and a few priority flaws. I would honestly say that in terms of complexity and decision making it's equal to, and in some ways better than, games like Mass effect.

 

The problem is that unlike those games where the enemy AI is capable of surviving small mistakes, the enemies in Warframe are laughably easy to kill on an individual basis, so their first mistake is often their last. Unlike so many other PvE games where a single enemy can pose a legitimate threat at higher levels, the average Grineer, and Corpus mooks are mortals fighting on the battle field of gods. We outclass them in every way, firepower, defenses, mobility, decision making, they simply have no reasonable hope of killing a Tenno on personal basis (additionally Grineer and Corpus architecture is not made of conveniently placed waist high walls). 

 

More complex AI is far more valuable in games with small numbers of incredibly powerful enemies, it is of less value in games with vast hordes of mooks.

 

 

Could there be more synergy between individual enemy units? Of course, but that's not a problem with the AI 'intelligence' it's a problem with the overall design of the enemy factions at the moment. There very little to actually coordinate when each enemy is just another rifleman. We need enemies that have focuses other than combat, smarter AI doesn't solve monotony. 

Edited January 23, 2014 by JerryMouse13

[General_Krull]

Honestly I'm getting real tired of people saying the AI is 'dumb' or S!*t. 

 

For what it is the AI in Warframe is in fact reasonably competent when left to it's own devices, the biggest problem it faces at the moment, is it's wonky path finding, and a few priority flaws. I would honestly say that in terms of complexity and decision making it's equal to, and in some ways better than, games like Mass effect.

 

The problem is that unlike those games where the enemy AI is capable of surviving small mistakes, the enemies in Warframe are laughably easy to kill on an individual basis, so their first mistake is often their last. Unlike so many other PvE games where a single enemy can pose a legitimate threat at higher levels, the average Grineer, and Corpus mooks are mortals fighting on the battles field of gods. We outclass them in every way, firepower, defenses, mobility, decision making, they simply have no reasonable hope of killing a Tenno on personal basis (additionally Grineer and Corpus architecture is not made of conveniently placed waist high walls). 

 

More complex AI is far more valuable in games with small numbers of incredibly powerful enemies, it is of less value in games with vast hordes of mooks.

 

 

Could there be more synergy between individual enemy units? Of course, but that's not a problem with the AI 'intelligence' it's a problem with the overall design of the enemy factions at the moment. There very little to actually coordinate when each enemy is just another rifleman. We need enemies that have focuses other than combat, smarter AI doesn't solve monotony. 

But Mass effects had bad AI too.

[Parinirvana]

Every review site gave Warframe 5-6. And I agreed

[bodyshk]

But Mass effects had bad AI too.

oh man, you're really pissed at the AI. To support your argument, could you provide an example of a good AI? I'm trying to see why you think the AI is so bad. You can just give an example of the AI of a different game, you don't have to write a small article describing every little thing.

 

also: not saying mass effect didn't have bad AI >.>

[(PSN)wintersandman]

I would like AI to work together more often, for example shield lancers making a wall and normal lancers standing behind them taking pot shots and troopers being faster and more aggressive. Infested are in a good place yes, they just need to be able to climb everywhere so you can't just "climb on a table" to make them useless. Oh yeah, and make enemies react powers, like try to go around them or avoid them otherwise.

We must have different AI between the PC and PS4. Infested get me on top of things. Some ignore me but leapers and chargers find me on top of tables. 

Normal Lancers and other grineer actually hide behind the shield lancers. They aren't in phalanx formation but the still do provide cover. Thankfully punch-through makes it trivial. The shockwave moa's always try to knock you down first thing. They don't wait. 

[bodyshk]

We must have different AI between the PC and PS4. Infested get me on top of things. Some ignore me but leapers and chargers find me on top of tables. 

Normal Lancers and other grineer actually hide behind the shield lancers. They aren't in phalanx formation but the still do provide cover. Thankfully punch-through makes it trivial. The shockwave moa's always try to knock you down first thing. They don't wait. 

That happens on the PC as well. Literally the same thing. He must be referring to something more.

[Amazerath]

One thing I do want to make clear, this has nothing to do with feeling I'm entitled to something that I did not get nor am I saying that I dislike the game because I do like the game, what I am saying is DE, IMHO, seems to be ignoring core things that should be done instead of giving out nice shiny things to distract the community while they try and figure out where the heck they are going. Also my analogy of using the Roman games to distract the populace from problems in the empire is valid with the Roman Games being the shiny things we are given at each major update, and the problems being distracted from would be not fixing RNG, no LORE, New Player Experience etc. 

 

This statement has already been addressed by DE. The reason why they keep adding new stuff instead of just focusing on tweaking and fixing is because they believe that the number one reason for people losing interest in a F2P game is "lack of updates". It makes a lot of sense to me, but everyone is free to agree or disagree with their policy.

 

There is one thing I will say, though. From our perspective as players everything is very simple and obvious. Nothing seems to make more sense then to simply stop adding stuff and focus on fixing things. But then there's a whole world of things that we know very little about because we are not part of DE. Most of us don't even work on the game development industry (myself included).

 

Now I'm not saying that the DE folks are perfect or that they always make the best choices. They've made their share of mistakes in the past, in the present, and will probably make a few more in the future. But I've never seen them trying to hide those mistakes or trying to blame someone other then themselves for them. And I believe people who have that kind of attitude should not be compared to certain tyrants of the Roman Empire.

[ParadoxDreams]

oh man, you're really &!$$ed at the AI. To support your argument, could you provide an example of a good AI? I'm trying to see why you think the AI is so bad. You can just give an example of the AI of a different game, you don't have to write a small article describing every little thing.

 

also: not saying mass effect didn't have bad AI >.>

 

Has anyone played FEAR or the sequels? Not quite sure about the later ones but the original has quite good AI for a shooter. Mainly due to really good pathfinding scripts I think.

[sewens]

AI isn't simple to pull off. That being said I dont see how AI is a big problem in this game when most problems that cause players to fail aren't related to it. The only problem Warframe's AI is the fact that all enemies are a single hive-mind with perfect aim that can never lose sight of you and have no fear. This makes stealth near-impossible.

 

If anything is a problem it's the lack of goals for players to follow aside from grinding for carrots and sticks.

Edited January 22, 2014 by sewens

[General_Krull]

oh man, you're really &!$$ed at the AI. To support your argument, could you provide an example of a good AI? I'm trying to see why you think the AI is so bad. You can just give an example of the AI of a different game, you don't have to write a small article describing every little thing.

 

also: not saying mass effect didn't have bad AI >.>

I would say halo:combat evolved had great AI for it's time. I don't know how much of it is scripted but they actually reacted if someone near them got sniped, they felt aggressive and worked as a team. Other halos had pretty good AI too. Not perfect AI but good.

[TheImmortalHotDog]

Warframe is great, not perfect.