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
I think old school gamers (such as myself) know the difference between challenging game play and tech limited game play and bad game play. A deep game like Pantheon should be challenging in its game play and make you think and plan your actions and have you live with those choices. Games should not hand everything to you on a plate. A good game does not have to be an easy game.
Take chess; it is a challenge to learn the rules. Once understood, the challenge then becomes employing the best strategy and understanding the best patterns to employ to beat your opponent. It is a game played on a limited surface with limited number of game pieces. The game is limited to trying to beat your opponent. This does not make it less of a challenge to play and win and it is not a bad game. Played at competition level, there are no do-overs, there are no saved states. You make a move and you live with the consequences.
Questing should be complex and involving, devious with twists and turns where some choices boil down to how moral (or not) you want you character to be. Mobs can be challenging in terms of changing their strategies mid fight or employing novel behaviours. Zones can be challenging in terms of events happening that affect you ability to hunt there (e.g. invasions, mobs and weather can all affect whats in a zone). A game can be challenging to play and also be fun.
No, wanting a challenging game is not a dated notion.
I dont think that wanting challenge is dated. But we need to define what that challenge is. When I started playing EQ back in the day, I thought it was the most difficult gameI had ever played, and it was at the time. It remained as such until I quit and moved on. Recently I went and played on a private server everquest game (which was pretty much identical to how EQ was) and absolutely smashed it, im talking not even close to a death in the first 20 or so levels. Had the game changed? No. But I had. I had become better, I had learned from tons of mistakes and have grown into a MUCH better player. Everquest is NOT a hard game and never was, it was just new. It was being played at a time where most people couldnt comprehend the game the way we do now. Everquest is not challenging.
People always bring up games like Dark Souls, because they are infact challenging. But the reason Dark Souls has the reputation that it does, is because of the sheer amount of people that play it and then ragequit before ever learning the various nuances of the game that would allow them to become good. Honestly, thats PERFECT for a console game. Word gets out that its SUPER DIFFICULT and people buy it to try it. Doesnt matter if they play it for 1 day or 10 years. They already paid for the game. That type of challenge doesnt work in an MMORPG, because the whole purpose is to get someone to play and KEEP playing. The challenge in MMOs have to come in different areas, higher end content, more difficult dungeons etc. The general game shouldnt be so terrorizing that people are quitting it before their 1month gametime is up. I have always and still find WoW Mythic Raiding to be challenging. I dont find WoW itself a difficult game whatsoever, but they have sectors of the game (mythic raiding, high end arena pvp and mythic dungeons) that CAN be extremely difficult. I think thats a smart way to handle challenge while not alienating the majority of the playerbase (casual players) like they did in Classic and TBC with raids like Naxx and Sunwell that were near impossible for most guilds.
Porygon said:When I started playing EQ back in the day, I thought it was the most difficult gameI had ever played, and it was at the time.
Do you think that the reason it was the most difficult is that you didn't already know the rules of how the world worked?
It's this reason that causes me to think that Pantheon will not be challenging. Other than the suprise appearance of an NPC with a disposition, all the rules we've learned over the years are being used here. Little to nothing is new.
Vandraad said:Porygon said:When I started playing EQ back in the day, I thought it was the most difficult gameI had ever played, and it was at the time.
Do you think that the reason it was the most difficult is that you didn't already know the rules of how the world worked?
It's this reason that causes me to think that Pantheon will not be challenging. Other than the suprise appearance of an NPC with a disposition, all the rules we've learned over the years are being used here. Little to nothing is new.
Thats exactly what I think. It was the first type of MMO I ever played and I had no idea what I was doing, let alone tactics behind how to properly fight mobs or utilize my abilities the right way.
And, unfortunately, I think the exact same thing. I would bet my life that I will be able to walk into Pantheon and excel without any difficulties. I will still enjoy the game if it turns out to be what it wants to be, but I in no means believe it will be even remotely difficult.
I think it's what people consider challenge that is more the thing.
And that it depends on the person.
While rose tinted glasses are a thing, so are anti-rose tinted glasses - the insistance things could NEVER have been better in the past and people only "thought" so "because they didn't know better". Even with modern knowledge, some games genuinely ARE difficult, even today, just because of high enemy damage, stage layouts, tight timing, and so on. I saw a neat review on YouTube of Remnant: From the Ashes that talked about how it is different from Dark Souls games (to which it is often compared), but went into why Souls games are so "hard", and part of it is that the encounters are not designed to be easy to understand while Remant's bosses are designed so that players can relatively quickly figure out what's going on, after which it's just figuring out how to deal with it. That and the controls are tight, so that you're never thinking, if you die, "Well, the controls just didn't do what I wanted" or the like.
So there are parts of some "challenge" games that are just bad controls or silly high damage, or so on and so forth. But there's also genuine challenge in there.
Flipside is, what is considered challenging depends on the person. Many people avoid leveling crafters/gatherers in MMOS. They will say it's because it's "boring", but it's often that they don't understand them and just don't want to have to learn how to do it right. This is especially true if there's grind involved or actual crafting actions (as opposed to selecting an item and hitting "craft" and waiting for a progress bar to fill). Likewise, jump puzzles are challenging to some while "tedious" or "obnoxious" to others. To some raids are fun, while to others it's an excercise in herding cats and "carrying" "badz".
So what is challenge depends on the person.
However, "wanting challenge" is not a "dated" concept. Most people want challenge rather than a game filled with IWIN buttons. But what that means to them may be different than what it means to someone else.
This also goes into player goals. Some poeple want to be in a world first guild and be the #1 of their class on a server. Some people want to be the first ones with the latest content minion to show off. Some people want to be the best crafter on the server who people seek out by name to make them gear.
.
So in summary, even though I've said it half a dozen times:
"wanting challenge" is not at all "dated", but what people believe is challenge (vs tedium) and what people's individual goals are (that they want to be challenged) and how MUCH they want to be challenged to obtain them - these things are individualistic.
disposalist said: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.
I do want to return to the 80s/90s level of difficulty. I can remember when Contra came out for the regular nintendo. All of my friends were using the Konami code to get 30 extra lives so they stood a chance of getting a little progress. They would say "you have to use it, the games too hard without it." or "it's not a cheat, you're supposed to use it." I wanted to play it without cheating. I spent all my free time perfecting my gameplay at contra to eek out one more level. I started over countless times, replaying from the beginning after 3 deaths were up. Each time I learned a little more, i got a little better. Then one day I no deathed Contra start to finish without using the cheat code. It was a big day for an 8 year old and I will never forget it. I loved those old games. I loved that they were filled with challenges that forced you to be pixel perfect. I loved that they sharpened me against that hard wall of challenge. Yes, eventually I got too experienced and too good to get the same challenge out of those types of games, but for me that didn't detract. When I breezed through ninja gaiden, and tmnt I knew it was because of the skill I had honed in megaman and contra. Eventually though, that challenge laxed from the design end. Game releases were less and less mechanically challenging. By nintendo 64's release, from my perspective, the challenge of games had dropped through the bottom. I got into online gaming simply because I thought that if designers made content designed to challenge 6 people maybe I could low man or solo this content for a challenge. And that is exactly what I did. I soloed. Eventually I connected into the social aspect of MMO's but I spent a significant amount of time in the early MMO scene just artificially creating the old console challenge rating I missed. Over the years, I have watched the MMO scene slink down into consumer driven carebearism. I get that for many people video games are where they come to socialize and get an easy dopamine hit. And I am not trying to stand in the way of that for anyone. There is an inumerable amount of games to choose from for that purpose. But there is obviously a growing pulse of people like me who MISS the extreme challenge. Everytime I see that desire well up into a push for a hardcore, high risk/high reward, challenge driven mmo that push is always met with a group of resistors. They say things like, "Hardcore games aren't popular, nobody likes them." "Why does this game have no map? " "It's too hard to aim in this game." And they push to soften the sharp edge of the challenge I was craving.
I don't think challenge is dated. Most of the kids at my school used cheat codes, magazine tips, and game sharks to take the edge off of those old console games. I think that intentionally choosing to do it the hard way has always been a less populated position and gaming has largely been driven by popularity since the middle 2000's. It's my hope that Pantheon can head it in the other direction.
-Gottbeard-
It's interesting @Gottbeard, you talk about trying early MMORPGs because if they were designed for 6 people then maybe they would challenge you solo hehe.
I understand.
I think Pantheon's return to group-focused balance is fundamental to what I miss from MMORPGs, not only from the social aspect, but from the challenge aspect, though I think hardcore gamers won't necessarily be hugely 'challenged', I don't think that is the end of the world.
As long as, as an experienced gamer, we can perhaps go with a couple less players or an unusual group makeup or go after higher level content (or all three), and get more of a challenge, then that's fine. If having a full group and going after same-level content only means we need to know our class and synergise 'adequately' and just concentrate, then that's fine, we can have a more relaxed session. I'm happy, as a very experienced player, to not be dying regularly to 'average' content with 'average' effort. I like feeling like I'm a 'good' player.
The thing to remember is that the vast majority of players are casual and whilst we don't need to make the game *target* casual players, it does need to be accessible to casual players. As much as the hardcore should be able to go for an above average scenario, the casual should be able to scale it down - take a full group after lower level monsters. Take two groups for a tough dungeon. Etc.
The problem I've found over the years with 'modern' MMORPGs is it was aimed so low (casuals soloing) you struggled to get a challenge from the kind of gameplay you enjoyed. If you wanted to group up with a couple of friends the game was made so trivially easy it was boring, even just duoing was boring, but the stuff made to challenge experienced players was just the same gameplay scaled/turned up high. Not really a 'challenge' so much as a trial? I often never got to the 'end game' where the challenge was because after the main game I was burned out.
Scaling challenge is hard. I've posted on threads about scaling concerned that even systems designed for it, like those employed in Everquest would often be frustrating. Artificial weightings for level difference were weird and unsatifying (like something being practically impossible one moment, then, because you're one level higher, you suddenly have a good chance due to alterations in 'artificial' scaling of resistences, or whatever). I get that it's tough to code and design.
Even with systems that are carefully designed, though, if you aim at the wrong audience in the first place, too low in the case of modern MMORPGs, too high, arguably, in the case of some early video games, then you can't even save that with scaling.
I regularly see people saying "Everquest wasn't challenging" or the like. That we need AI or the like to truly 'challenge' hardcore players. That the game needs to not be 'learnable'. *shrug* Sure, I guess that technically makes it more challenging. But is that what we really want? Do we want to never have that satisfaction of mastering a zone/encounter/dungeon/area? That no matter how good we get at the game, it will somehow up *its* game to keep the challenge 'level' the same?
Not me, really, sorry. I'm quite happy for it to be, as a challenge level, 'like Everquest', but more sophisticated and interesting. I want to have to know my character's abilities, to synergise with my group, to learn the intricacies of the encounters and environments, to even have a bit of endurance and patience for some parts. I want to die if I don't know or I don't try. I want to live if I have made the effort to learn and am concentrating on the game. To properly master those aspects should take months or years if the classes are sophisticated, the group dynamic is complex, the encounters are clever and the zones are many and well designed. Then I'll pick another class and race and area and start again. I'll play with different people. There will be crafting and socialising and lore and other horizontal progression to keep me interested until the next expansion comes along with new classes, races, areas and content, hopefully.
@Gottbeard I started referencing your comment, but wandered off - that wasn't all aimed at you in any way hehe.
To loop back around, I guess when I say I wouldn't want challenge to be quite like 'those games' back in the 80s/90s I mean I've accepted that challenge isn't just about degree or level, but is about type and quality. You can't just design challenge for casual and scale it up for hardcore, or the other way around. It skews the quality. What VR intend for Pantheon sounds good to me and sounds like it will scale well enough for the casual and the hardcore to have fun.
Some will say it won't be challenging enough *shrug* I think some will never be satisfied unless they get to somehow employ dedicated hardcore gamers to control all the monsters hehe. Hang on, isn't that PvP?...
Whilst modern MMORPGs have become way too easy, I wouldn't want to go to the other extreme.
I have multi-player PvP FPS for that adrenaline hit. And there are, these days, quite hardcore roguelikes for the 80s/90s style merciless challenge.
MMORPGs are a different challenge.
Disclaimer - I have not read this entire thread yet so I appologize in advance, but I wanted to put my thoughts down before getting swayed by others :)
I will go read it when I get a little more time though.
From my understanding the reason games from the 80's and 90's had the 3 lives then game over was to get people to put more quarters into the aracade machines. A side effect of that was the challenging game play that you're referring to. So many of us that started gaming back then have memories of beating Mario Brothers without dying, or Contra with a single life, something to brag about. A single mistake and you don't have those bragging rights.
I believe there is a way to make a game challening without having to repeat the entire game if you make a mistake 90% of the way through. Starting over from the beginning was the death penalty back then. We can have so many other death penalties these days that starting over just doesn't make as much sense anymore (for most games). Actually, allowing people to continue from a save point allows games to be even more challenging.
I'll keep it short for now. I guess my main point is that it's a different kind of challenge these days.
Ok, no to go read all 3 pages of posts, haha.
Now that I've read it all I'll just add this.
I very recently started playing EQ again on an emulator server, just to kill some time and to refresh my memory on what I liked so much about it back in the day, and what I'm looking forward to in Pantheon. There's been a lot of talk over the years about how EQ isn't even that difficult of a game, that we were just learning how to play MMO's back then, etc. I can say that the game is as challenging as you choose to make it now that I'm messing around with it again. Sure, you can go around killing green con mobs with almost no risk of death. You can avoid opening that door for fear of what might be behind it. You can play safe and never die. Every encounter can be easy. Or you can go see what's behind that door and risk death. You can attempt to fight a yellow con mob and see how you do (or two?!?). You can attempt to break that camp, or you can choose to avoid that risk.
I think the reason people don't consider EQ a difficult game is because all the info is freely available online, guides, maps, etc. You don't have to go risk seeing what's behind that door because you can just look it up online. You don't have to try soloing that yellow mob because the online guide tells you if you can beat it or not, and how.
Games like EQ, and Pantheon, are going to be as challenging as you choose to make them. What risks are you willing to take? How far will you push yourself? How much info will you simply look up online vs finding out on your own (or with friends?).
No. It's basic to human nature. If there's no challenge then boredom and meaninglessness will creep in.