If Kilsin feels this isn't on-topic with Pantheon, I'm happy to see it moved Off Topic, but I think it's relevant to Pantheon because it's related to the concept of desiring challenge and the nature of challenge and the kind of people that want challenge.
As we know, Pantheon has "challenge" as one of it's 3 primary foci. Right there on the first web page of the site in caps is "Community, Challenge, Discovery".
NathanNapalm retweeted this Tweet just now: -
https://twitter.com/storymodebae/status/1373053235825500161
Which basically has a short vid showing a young (well, looks young to me!) gamer seeming totally flumouxed and even upset by a 90s video game she is playing being tough and unforgiving. She seems genuinely astounded to see the "Game Over" screen after she's made a mistake presumably after losing her 'last life'. Her comment in the tweet is "Games in the 90s really didn’t care about auto save or our feelings at ALL".
I have to admit, I laughed out loud and almost thought she was being sarcastic/ironic, but I don't know her, so maybe not.
Basically, my Boomer-esque (though I'm not quite that old) reaction to this tweet was "Lol. Yeah? And? You're kidding right? No cloud save = hurt feelings? Lol. And more Lol. Kids these days *rolls eyes* No wonder modern games are so easy and bland. They wouldn't want to upset the poor babies by making them hard. More lols." *shakes head* *grumbles about youngsters ruining everything*
Then, of course, I pulled back from that sarcasm and curmudgeonliness and thought about it a bit and it made me think about Pantheon and the concept of challenge and who wants 'challenge' in Pantheon.
It's a popular stereotype that modern generations (multiple, it seems) are a bunch of entitled snowflakes that get upset at the slightest hardship and expect someone else to be responsible for bailing them out of that hardship, but is that in any way true of them? Enough to effect how modern games need to be in order to be successful?
My initial reaction to this is "No. Look at Dark Souls", but that was some time ago too. I've actually played games with autosave recently and enjoyed that I haven't had to 'go back' after dying and re-do lots of content, but also I've thought it might have been better if it had. I might have taken it more seriously and been more careful and it been more exciting and challenging if I couldn't just blast through it knowing a mistake would cost me next-to-nothing. But is that just me (or at least a minority) because they do keep making games with autosave, these days.
I'm not saying I particularly want to return to game design like those classic 80s/90s ones that gaveyou three lives and you start all over again, but, equally, I think a lot of modern games are spoiled by their ease and would be improved no end by simply being harder. Is precision and even endurance a terrible thing to require/reward in a video game? Are caution and tactics tedious, or at least *requiring* them a step too far?
Personally I believe there are enough 'old' gamers desperate for a challenging old-school game to make it successful, *and* enough 'young' gamers will see that old-school challenge actually does make for a very good game enough to make it even more successful than us oldies alone would make it.
What do you think, though? Especially if you *are* a 'young' gamer and/or follow 'young' gamers.
A lot of what old school gamers think of as challenge was just limitations of the time, in both technical limitations and lack of knowledge of what makes a good game due to it being the “wild west” of the gaming industry. Gamers were more isolated then without Internet, without a vast library of games to pick from so you tended to give it another try. I started in the 70’s with Atari and moved through the ages as each new console came out ect.., I cant say I’m looking for an challenge in my games, I’m looking to have fun, looking to hang out with friends and have a few laughs, That said I don't mind the challenge IF I'm having fun doing it, there has to be balance, especially know with all the competition.
HemlockReaper said:A lot of what old school gamers think of as challenge was just limitations of the time, in both technical limitations and lack of knowledge of what makes a good game due to it being the “wild west” of the gaming industry. Gamers were more isolated then without Internet, without a vast library of games to pick from so you tended to give it another try. I started in the 70’s with Atari and moved through the ages as each new console came out ect.., I cant say I’m looking for an challenge in my games, I’m looking to have fun, looking to hang out with friends and have a few laughs, That said I don't mind the challenge IF I'm having fun doing it, there has to be balance, especially know with all the competition.
Whilst I certainly do not think that everything Everquest (and any old-school game) did was ideal and, yes, some aspects were simple technical limitations, I think most of the fundamental mechanics that made it what it was were totally intentional.
Fundamental things like death penalty were a conscious design choice and have everything to do with the meaningfulness of death, for example.
As for prizing challenge over fun, no indeed! The fun is the key, of course, *but* I have to say that without a high challenge level, in MMORPGs since Everquest (not 100%, but largely), players have not *needed* to group up to meet the challenge and that has resulted in, well, people not bothering with grouping up. I enjoyed WoW for years, but I found the vast majority of the time when I grouped to play with friends the content was so easy it was boring. It didn't need to be that unchallenging for me to have fun with my friends, in fact, had it been more difficult, involving more strategising and downtime, we would have had much more interaction and fun, not less. Often friends would play on their own, because they could. It was more convenient, but of course, less social and, ultimately, less fun.
As you said "I don't mind the challenge IF I'm having fun doing it, there has to be balance, especially now with all the competition". I agree 100%, but I also think the balance has swung *way* too far away from challenge in order to make games appealing to 'the mass market' and people who ordinarily wouldn't play them, because they were too 'hard'.
Games like Dark Souls show that there *is* a market for challenging games and also show that some players will realise challenging is good if given the chance.
There is a balance point there somewhere and that will vary, person-to-person, of course, but I would say that there are a *load* of casual games out there that you can play and barely concentrate on and chat with your friends while playing.
I wonder if it's an 'old fashioned' thing to want the game you play to be a larger part of the experience? I mean, if I want to concentrate on my friends, I will just call them and get together in the pub.
Why play games with friends if the game is absorbing your attention? Hmm. I'm asking myself now hehe, you've inspired me! I guess I take it back to Dungeons and Dragons. That was very complex and absorbing, but you shared that experience *with* your friends and it didn't feel like that was detracting from the social experience, it felt like it was making that experience more intense and exciting and fun.
Getting together and chatting over a board game was fun, of course, but in comparison to something like Dungeons and Dragons was lesser.
I guess I don't always want to be so intense and involved - it's more of a 'thing' to get a D&D game together, but of course, there are plenty of casual games out there. You don't *not* have D&D just because it's often more convenient to play a card game.
To bring that back to Pantheon, I guess I want Pantheon to be like Dungeons and Dragons. I can play Monopoly any time, but I haven't been able to play D&D for many years, like I can play Battlefield with my friends now (and I do) but I haven't had a decent challenging, social MMORPG to play with my friends for many years.
That got waffly hehe. Thanks for your comment - got me thinking!
GeneralReb said: I was asking myself while playing modern easy mode mmo recently whether I truly want what I say I want in regards to original 1999 EQ challenge, thats when I first started playing mmos. I found an example in another genre that solidifies that it is true in my case. Playing battle tech when I first was learning and save scumming I was feeling like things had to be perfect and was actually taking loss harder. In following games going Ironman mode I had so much more fun and rolled with the punches. Everything felt more fulfilling and important. Now I can't play it without Ironman because it feels empty knowing I can reload at any time even if I don't. Anyway back to mmo when I watch the pantheon streams and see the difference from zerg rush as fast as possible mmos I definitely want the challenge back again. However I am not of the generation you speak so.
Good to hear! Yes "save scumming" hehe. I had forgotten that phrase. I can't count the times, playing Baldur's Gate 3 with my dad and Wasteland 3 with a friend, we just say, "this looks tough" and we start to strategise, but quickly say "meh, let's just save it and throw ourselves in there and see what happens, then reload".
Is that more 'fun' than taking it 'more seriously' because when you die you might have to spend more time 'recovering'? I'm thinking no, but hehe, of course, if you can do it, you do it and curse yourself when you die and have to redo even the shortest/smallest amount of content.
I remember playing that game. It's not that old. I played it on super nintendo. She is just a little kid but it is a funny video. I wouldn't consider her a "gamer".
Where I stand as far as challenge that people disagree with is that I feel that the penalty for failure is not only part of the challenge, it should be weighted more heavily than the difficulty of mobs compared to players.
I had a long explanation typed out but I'll leave it alone. It was largely stating the obvious imho. If people don't understand why ^ that is I don't feel the need to explain it.
Yes that is exactly right on CR and death penalty. When you compare taking down Nagafen, early runs of hate/fear wipes, that stuff hurt, but it made it feel like an accomplishment as apposed to guilds zerging a raid 1000 times until they figure out how to beat it. That feels "empty" like I was saying. The speed run dungeon finder stuff is sooo boring to me. May as well play a single player game or an FPS. Man even EQ2 at launch had that shared Group exp debt, that was gnarly hardcore first learning dungeons and before they dropped the ^^^ down on them. (nerfed dificulty everywhere)
Trying to bring all of that back around to the topic... I wonder if it is a matter of the newer generations simply never having felt the feelings that we did? Perhaps once they experience that feeling of conquering difficult content after wipes that hurt, of overcoming real adversity and the real life emotions that a game can invoke, they will see what they were missing all along? Looking back to the first few years of EQ my memories playing with my cousin (whom lived far away) felt as though we were going on actual adventures with eachother. The risk was such that it bonds you with people you play with, it feels like you really survived those things together.
One can hope, but they have to stick around long enough for it. Which is where community comes in, another thing they are Not used to. When you have a community that enjoys helping eachother overcome challenges you may not give up so easily. If you have someone leading your group that says hey let's not give up yet we learned something there and we want revenge/loot! Of course some will rage quit well before that.
No it isn't. It's just that video games nowadays are a much more common pass time and therefore you'll find a much wider array of game to satify different desires for a bigger audience of players with different tastes.
If you want challenging games you'll find them and you'll see young player playing them (Darksouls serie, League of legends or any competitve games, they are extremely popular and played by very young players)
It's just that not everybody plays video for challenge, while before, most games were challenging and only people who wanted to spend the time to overcome the challenge to would play games.
Not to mention, games had a lot more technical limitations and not having save was common, it's wasn't always a design choice to say: "Ok we won't put save in our game because we want it to be unforgiving".
Very often not having a save was simply easier to make and potentially more memory for more levels.
GeneralReb said:... I wonder if it is a matter of the newer generations simply never having felt the feelings that we did? Perhaps once they experience that feeling of conquering difficult content after wipes that hurt, of overcoming real adversity and the real life emotions that a game can invoke, they will see what they were missing all along?...
I hope so (and I think so, for a lot of them).
It will need us old school gamers to be understanding and encouraging and patient and enthusiastic to keep them interested while they grow to appreciate it, but I really think it can happen.
Khraag said:No it isn't. It's just that video games nowadays are a much more common pass time and therefore you'll find a much wider array of game to satify different desires for a bigger audience of players with different tastes.
Okay so this goes back to the OP I think.
How niche is a challenging game considering the current proliferation of gaming amongst essentially the entire population with tablets and smartphones? I agree that the audience is larger than ever in history for gaming overall obviously. It begs the question of will someone that has never had the chance to fail at Mario 3, or likes RPGs but never had to lose in them in order to beat it (save scumming hehe), or most importantly is a WoW player looking for an MMO but doesn't know anything else except post WoW games...
I am optimistic that there are enough MMO players from every generation to support the challenge niche. The last thing I want is to cater to that mass market, but we Should try to bring them in and expose them to the vision / convert them. To me the entire point of this game is the throwback to the ideals of the past. Challenge is one of the tenets for a reason.
@GeneralReb They aren't so niche and the most challenging games (Competitive PvP games) are extremely popular.
Look at DOTA2, League of Legends, Overwatch, Mortal combats, StarCraft 2 or Dark Souls, Battle Brothers, Super Meat boy (if you want a single player games) etc. There are still here.
As for MMOs in particular, their difficulty was shifted from leveling to only present challenge in the end game. And leveling was merely some kind of time sink and extended tutorial for the game and the class you are playing with by incorporating skills little by little.
However those game would still present challenges in the late game, just not while leveling anymore.
Save scumming existed since the save existed in the 90's RPGs (Might and Magic, Fallouts 1&2, Baldur's gate 1&2) so nothing new here.
You'll find challenging game if you look for them, there is no need to force people to play challenging game. Some people play game to chill, I don't see why we should encourage playing difficult game. You like them fine. Many player have enough challenge in other part of their life they don't want to be bothered to spend hours of their time to pass one level in a game.
P.S.: I don't even mention the ressurgence of Rogue-like or Rogue-lite games which are usually pretty challenging and popular.
P.P.S.: Also, players might look for different challenges than the ones you want. Some want to be challenged with their tactics, reflexes, accuracy, adaptability, etc.
@Khraag I agree with your assessments but what this comes down to is "will modern (read younger) MMO gamers play a challenging MMO now-adays". As mentioned in OP one of Pantheon's tenets is challenge.
When you say "You'll find challenging game if you look for them, there is no need to force people to play challenging game" it seems like you are talking about IF Pantheon should be difficult or not rather than if the easy mode players will play it.
Pantheon is supposed to be that challenging MMO. Hey I'm the first in my old age to want to chill and do some solo'n, harvesting, crafting, socializing. However I would like to see the difficulty overall, including penalties, be much closer to EQ1 pre-kunark than WoW. I think the majority of fans are here for the difficulty niche, am I wrong?
@GeneralReb You misunderstood me. I'm not talking about Pantheon because it's been stated by the devs. They want to make a challenging game and most (if not all?) persons here want that.
The original post mentions games in General not just MMO, I too was replying Games and their audience in general.
Khraag said:
You'll find challenging game if you look for them, there is no need to force people to play challenging game. Some people play game to chill, I don't see why we should encourage playing difficult game. You like them fine. Many player have enough challenge in other part of their life they don't want to be bothered to spend hours of their time to pass one level in a game
Sorry Khraag I think I took this paragraph the wrong way then. I guess you were just saying there is nothing wrong with Not liking a game such as Pantheon, and we shouldn't dwell on those types of gamers too much.
Look at Portal. Linear in design in that there was one puzzle to solve and 2 or 3 ways to solve each puzzle. BUT the player had fore-knowledge that the puzzle WAS solveable so there was no potential to be overcome by defeatist reinforcement (what would be called "rage-quit" in an MMO). Same thing with Myst, or Riven.
In am MMO, there are multiple ways to solve the same encounter (notice I didnt say puzzle) partly because puzzle based problems are better designed as a single persons attention/interaction whereas MMO encounters need to be designed with multiple "correct" actions with lee-way for even more "accidental" but equally succesfull actions to win the encounter.
Using DnD as a root game style, I can only comment from some experiences where the campaign was ended almost as soon as it begun because of a bad decision the group made- that we had no idea was a bad decision. Or, well into the campaign and the action/spell details became so complex and picayune it was hard to get into any flow of battle and character at all that it became a chore and the hope was- wouldn't it be nice if there was software that did all this for you so you could just exist in the world, with these limitations already in place, and all you had to do was live and learn in the world and it would just come to you, warts and all.
Having come from this kind of background: you can only cast that if you can see the target and if its no more that 30 feet ahead of you, roll for constitution saving throw for the spell on you and your spell requires a wisdom check by the NPC <- that would take 20min of tabletop game time compared to 5 seconds in an MMO where the software does all that. My perception would not be "this is too hard" but rather "Im just not competely understanding this, I need more time to play around with/to live with this.
Compare the two points of view, one would get frustrated in not knowing and rage-quit, the other persists in the understanding that it just takes experimentation until you get it right- just from living and experiencing and experimenting (Immersing, if you will).
Sop the point is not that it's to hard, but rather how easy are the basics to pick up and how rewarding(wins/endoprhin boosts) and maleable is the gameplay once the basics are understood- Like Backgammon or Go. Go can be very complex. Chess is another where the rules are simple, based on how the pieces move; but the level of complexity that can be achieved in sand-box game play is staggering. I call it sandbox because no two games are rarely identical in play. And thats just two people.
It it not dated, it is just unpopular. When it comes to things like 90s games some of it is just quality of life based on technology.
Majority of your question boils down to: Do people want to win more often or lose more often? You can argue niche games and gamer banter all you want but look no further than phone games to see how super easy games sell the best. The most lucrative games on the market. It is not a new idea though, even in MMOs the easiest levels have always been the early ones to hook you with that feeling of progression and winning.
As time goes forward through gaming for MMOs only we see players win more frequently for those dopamine hits. Level up faster, even faster, skill up, level up in two or three different forms as well for more feelings of progression. Gear progression is slow? Gear up faster, GEAR UP FASTER! I want to see new gear every 15 minutes! You are not weak you are winning! All that progress to stay a winner and winners need to slaughter everything infront of them for proof of winning!
Every day I see people begging for the same systems every current MMO uses and I wonder if I will end up just playing table top games forever as MMOs like most games are purely about "winning" now.
Absolutely take your point, Manouk and, yes, there is a definite difference between 'hard' and 'challenging' as you talk about them.
I have to say, your D&D DM couldn't have been great if you found it a chore hehe, but point taken. No, a game (pen and paper or video) shouldn't have hidden and frustrating mechanics that have you confused and/or feeling like you are struggling against it.
To go back to the young gamer example in my OP, I don't believe she was really struggling with the game, though. Yes, games could be technically frustrating back then, but actually most were, by design, very simple to understand, but often required exacting precision and, notably, patience.
Yes there were technical (and hardware) restrictions that meant you couldn't give players tons of content to romp through, but I truly don't believe that most producers intentionally made games 'hard' so you would take longer to beat them and people would be, thus, playing your short games for longer. It might have gone that way eventually when gaming became much more of a mass market thing, but that is the whole 'modern gaming' movement we are talking about.
Modern gamers may well be a result of modern games. I'm not 'blaming' them, really... Well, somewhat, to be honest (and their parents!), but the industry of course has a huge part of that blame.
I'm going to use "modern gamer" and "modern games" almost interchangeably hehe. There's a chicken and egg thing here that is no longer resolvable I think.
I think the issue with 'modern' gamers is they are not used to having to employ patience and endurance as a 'skill' to beat the challenge of a game.
It seems to me that modern games tend to require much more immediate skills of reactions and dexterity and don't require much strategy or persistence. They also have much more immediate gratification and not much eventual satisfaction.
Old school games much more often required trial and error and delayed gratification.
I'm also going to observe - gpoing off-topic kinda - that modern games tend to be single player and/or require little cooperation. Even so-called multi-player games are mostly PvP, which is still, in essense, every-person-for-themselves and 'single-player' but against other humans.
Some examples of modern but hard games in this thread, thanks guys for the reminders and, yes, things like the rogue-like scene are reassuring, but very much a niche.
It's interesting to hear that PvP and competitve games are thought of as, in some way, the most challenge to be had these days. Hmm. Why does beating another human being have to be the epitome of challenge? I wouldn't say that's a challenging game, I would say that's computers facilitating human opposition, and humans, of course (until we get much better AI) will be the most challenging of opponents.
I think PvP games are outside the scope of my concern in this thread. Don't get me wrong, I like PvP. I play Battlefield *a lot* (I'm think I'm up to something like 2800 hours in BF1 alone and have thousands also in the other versions in the franchise), but I don't like RPG PvP much and also I'm relating this to Pantheon PvE, of course, even though I talk about games and gamers in general.
disposalist said:I think the issue with 'modern' gamers is they are not used to having to employ patience and endurance as a 'skill' to beat the challenge of a game.
[...]
I think PvP games are outside the scope of my concern in this thread. Don't get me wrong, I like PvP. I play Battlefield *a lot* (I'm think I'm up to something like 2800 hours in BF1 alone and have thousands also in the other versions in the franchise), but I don't like RPG PvP much and also I'm relating this to Pantheon PvE, of course, even though I talk about games and gamers in general.
First I'll say that there are no "issue" with modern gamers. There is nothing wrong with today's teens not enjoying the same game (or same game genre) I enjoyed as a teenager.
Secondly, you can't broadly talk about all gamers not being patient and then discards the games that require the most patience and learning curve (MOBA and Competitive games etc.).
An also there are deep strategic elements to MOBA games as well. It's not all about reflexes.
Older competitive games were Unreal Tournament, Quake 3, Counter Strike (Mod for Half life) Pretty much 100% of the competitive games back then were FPS so it wasn't more diverse.
To me, you make a broad statement about all gamers but then narrows and funnels everything towards just one genre: PvE MMORPG.
I'm sorry, but if your topics wants to encompass all gamers, then you'll have to talk about what ALL the gaming industry has become and you'll have to talk about PvP, and you'll see all the young gamers learning will be very frustrated at time but resilient and patient in their learning. Not to mention those games that are actually much harder than any game I had access to.
VR is aiming for social gaming that is challenging, rewarding and fun.
One of the values within social gaming is delay gratification, and therefore delayed gratification can be measured.
Start here:.
Jobeson said:It it not dated, it is just unpopular. When it comes to things like 90s games some of it is just quality of life based on technology.
Majority of your question boils down to: Do people want to win more often or lose more often? You can argue niche games and gamer banter all you want but look no further than phone games to see how super easy games sell the best. The most lucrative games on the market. It is not a new idea though, even in MMOs the easiest levels have always been the early ones to hook you with that feeling of progression and winning.
As time goes forward through gaming for MMOs only we see players win more frequently for those dopamine hits. Level up faster, even faster, skill up, level up in two or three different forms as well for more feelings of progression. Gear progression is slow? Gear up faster, GEAR UP FASTER! I want to see new gear every 15 minutes! You are not weak you are winning! All that progress to stay a winner and winners need to slaughter everything infront of them for proof of winning!
Every day I see people begging for the same systems every current MMO uses and I wonder if I will end up just playing table top games forever as MMOs like most games are purely about "winning" now.
Is this just a modern demographics thing, I wonder? In 'the old days' everyone who was playing computer games was a nerdy geek. You literally didn't have a computer (or even a console way back) unless you were a geeky type. That's definitely a certain type of person. Maybe I'm betraying some kind of prejudice or bias but I would say the kind of people playing video games back then were more academic types that perhaps had more patience for that kind of passtime. In my experience, the kids playing video games were much more often also in the chess club than in the sports teams hehe.
Also, though video games weren't necessarly complex, to operate a computer - and to a lesser extent, a console - could be quite a technical thing.
To bring it back toward Pantheon, add to that a propensity to enjoy fantasy and RPGs, especially if you come from a Dungeons and Dragons background, and you are definitely talking geeky and academic. Those rule books were enormous and not many children would have the patience to read them, nevermind utilise them and have several similar friends.
These days, however, apparently *everyone* plays 'video games'. My mum plays Candy Crush.
@Jobeson You say the question boils down to "Do people want to win more often or lose more often?" and whilst I think that's part of it, I also think it comes down to "Who are video gamers?" and "What are video games?"
We might say "people want dopamine hits every few minutes now", but which people?
I always believed it, but my thoughts are solidifying that the problem is not 'modern gamers' because there is no such animal. My mum is not a 'modern gamer' because she plays Candy Crush on the smart phone I bought her. My dad is not a 'modern gamer' because he plays Baldur's Gate 3 (very slowly!) with me once a week. So many people are playing games now that you can't make a 'popular' game, you can only make a game that targets a certain audience.
I'm so excited about Pantheon because it targets me. Almost exactly in almost every way hehe.
What 'modern MMORPGs' have done is attempt to target as many people as possible and diluted what they were originally about so badly that only the lowest common denominator are still interested and those not for long, because they don't like the MMORPG any more than they like Candy Crush.
I'm exaggerating to make a point, which hopefully you get.
Basically I think there are just as many gamers like me out there. Many more in fact than when EQ had its (pre-PoP) peak. There rose, however, an even larger group of 'casual' gamer. I don't mean that as an insult, or even as a bad thing, per se, and perhaps it is an over-generalisation. What I mean by 'casual' is a gamer without the intensity of a gaming 'fan' about them. Just someone who enjoys some games sometimes.
I suppose it's natural, of course, that the 'casual' gaming majority ends up being the most lucrative market, even if they are perhaps more short term and less loyal (I'm just guessing, but would think they are) in their game 'following', they might actually spend more through in-app purchases and the like *shrug*. Probably.
Does this mean that there isn't money to be made marketing to old fan gamers like me? No, it doesn't, but there is temptation for companies to produce games for *only* the most lucrative market, of course and even if you don't believe it's "corporate greed" to ignore less lucrative (but still lucrative) markets, the effect is the same.
It's kinda like restaurant chains seeing how well McDonalds are doing and deciding to make cheap burgers. People who like a good steak are going to lose out regarding choice, but thankfully there's still money to be made by a good steak house.
Personally, I think, given a *lot* of big companies are 'selling burgers', the competition must be so fierce that I'm doubting it will continue to make sense to *only* go for the mass market. It's short-sighted and lazy, but then, that's another trait of 'big business' these days; only focusing on the quick easy wins to make the quarterly figures look good to the stock holders.
To bring this back to Pantheon and this thread, I'm coming to the conclusion that there are less people wanting challenge *as a proportion* of those that 'play games', but there are way more people that enjoy challenging games and potentially way more that *would* enjoy more challenging games, like Pantheon, but have literally never tried one.
As I've said in other posts; the niche of gamers that know they love 'old school' challenging games will be enough to make Pantheon profitable, but there will be a lot more players that will try it and love it.
There may well be a ton of 'entitled snowflakes' out there that want 'participation trophies' and the not 'have their feelings hurt' by a game (intentionally using annoying, offensive terminology to ironically make the point!) and they may well outnumber the stauch old school heroes (!) but, though VR aren't really taking a risk by targeting us as an audience as there are still plenty of 'us' desperate for years for a 'decent steak' and sick of cheap burgers hehe.
Did I use enough inflammatory language and mix enough metaphors to confuse everyone there?...
Khraag said:disposalist said:I think the issue with 'modern' gamers is they are not used to having to employ patience and endurance as a 'skill' to beat the challenge of a game.
[...]
I think PvP games are outside the scope of my concern in this thread. Don't get me wrong, I like PvP. I play Battlefield *a lot* (I'm think I'm up to something like 2800 hours in BF1 alone and have thousands also in the other versions in the franchise), but I don't like RPG PvP much and also I'm relating this to Pantheon PvE, of course, even though I talk about games and gamers in general.First I'll say that there are no "issue" with modern gamers. There is nothing wrong with today's teens not enjoying the same game (or same game genre) I enjoyed as a teenager.
Secondly, you can't broadly talk about all gamers not being patient and then discards the games that require the most patience and learning curve (MOBA and Competitive games etc.).
An also there are deep strategic elements to MOBA games as well. It's not all about reflexes.
Older competitive games were Unreal Tournament, Quake 3, Counter Strike (Mod for Half life) Pretty much 100% of the competitive games back then were FPS so it wasn't more diverse.To me, you make a broad statement about all gamers but then narrows and funnels everything towards just one genre: PvE MMORPG.
I'm sorry, but if your topics wants to encompass all gamers, then you'll have to talk about what ALL the gaming industry has become and you'll have to talk about PvP, and you'll see all the young gamers learning will be very frustrated at time but resilient and patient in their learning. Not to mention those games that are actually much harder than any game I had access to.
Sorry for any confusion. I did talk about all gamers, but, because we're in a Pantheon forum, want to narrow it to how it relates to Pantheon.
I suppose MOBAs, etc are relevant, if not directly comparable in type, and yes, perhaps I shouldn't dismiss PvP entirely in that some PvP games are strategic and not 'immediate' and that shows some modern gamers *can* cope with needing patience.
Good points.
I do think you're being slightly ageist towards the younger generation of gamers. I'm in my late 20's, WoW Classic was my first proper MMO. To my knowledge there hasn't been any new MMO's like this EQ you all talk about in my time. You just assume younger gamers won't enjoy it when in fact they haven't been given an opportunity. I absolutely loved WoW Classic and to me it is my "oldschool". I am of the hope I will enjoy Pantheon too. I expect to be grouping more in Pantheon than I did in WoW Classic (though a decent amount of time in that game was spent in at least small groups).
Some very good points have been made. Gaming was much more of a niche in the 90's. Nowadays the majority of the population play games regularly in some form or another. Of course the harder-core end of the spectrum will become more of a niche but it does not mean the player numbers are any fewer (just a previously untapped casual market is being squeezed for all the pennies it has got). As Khraag has pointed out absolutely tonnes of younger players play games such as Dark Souls, rogue lites, MOBAs/strategy games which can be very unforgiving.
Just because there hasn't been a MMO like Pantheon released doesn't mean the market isn't there amongst the younger generation. You can't expect teenagers or college aged students to realistically want to get into a 20+ year old game with a tiny playerbase; it needs to be a new fresh product, a.k.a Pantheon.
HemlockReaper said:A lot of what old school gamers think of as challenge was just limitations of the time, in both technical limitations and lack of knowledge of what makes a good game due to it being the “wild west” of the gaming industry. Gamers were more isolated then without Internet, without a vast library of games to pick from so you tended to give it another try. I started in the 70’s with Atari and moved through the ages as each new console came out ect.., I cant say I’m looking for an challenge in my games, I’m looking to have fun, looking to hang out with friends and have a few laughs, That said I don't mind the challenge IF I'm having fun doing it, there has to be balance, especially know with all the competition.
This really says it all and is short, sweet and to the point.