Quite a click-bait title, but it's quite an issue, as I see it.
Prompted by a recent report to do with Halo Infinite I'm just feeling the need to give my thoughts and am interested to hear yours.
The report was that Halo Infinite 'mistakenly' enabled the Aim Assist feature/mechanic for PC mouse and keyboard control systems, but are not planning on removing it until they have 'analysed the related data'.
For those that do not play first person shooters, aim assist is something usually applied (only) to 'console' controller systems and helps keep the player 'on target'. To a tuned degree, it actually moves the player's gun sights for them when they get 'near' a target to help them get (and stay) 'on' that target.
Of course in a game where a lot of the whole point is to shoot stuff, this is controversial even applied to console controllers, but is generally considered acceptible, since it really is genuinely quite difficult, for most players, to acquire and track targets in the very timely manner necessary to enjoy a the usually fast pacing of an FPS. Even though all players would be in the same boat, the actual frustrating physicality of the controller is a limitation to the fun that players can have.
There is further controversy in recent years as aim assist seems to be tending toward being more and more powerful and, thus, the argument goes, the 'skill' of players is becoming less and less important in determining the outcome of competitive FPS games. Certainly the 'skill gap' between higher and lower skilled players is effectively compressed. Aim assist has passed the point where it is helpful and into the realm where it is spoiling the experience.
How does this relate to Pantheon?
Well, I believe the issue with Halo Infinite has come about because of - you may have guessed it - corporate greed!
In my not-so-humble opinion, the reason they (343 Studios run by Xbox Game Studios) are clearly tempted to keep aim assist for mouse and keyboard in place is player figures are good. Even though the hard core fans of the game and genre are pretty much outraged, many more casual PC players are enjoying feeling like they are good at the game and those big development studios, ultimately run by big corporations, are quite happy to upset the minority 'core' gamers if they get more players overall and improve their sales figures and balance sheets this quarter.
And that is how this relates to Pantheon. Again, in my not-so-humble opinion, too often are studios willing to water down what would be more challenging, meaningful and satisfying in order to broaden appeal. I would go so far as to say that some projects appear to *start* from a place "what will appeal to the mass market" and not "what will be a good game". Studios with long-time successful franchises and loyal long-time fan bases are happily changing, and ruining, that franchise in order to have wider appeal.
It has been 'a thing' in all industries for a long time that marketing can often have adverse effect on the products being made. Making something 'popular' almost always involves compromise that makes it objectively 'worse' than it's original successful form. We've all seen it time and time again. Maybe because video gaming came from such a 'alternative' place it seemed it would be immune? It always seemed to be more about 'passion' and 'fun' than popularity? Either way, it apparently is not immune. Far from it. It seems corporations have discovered gaming isn't just something that can be effected by marketing, but is pretty much a marketing 'vehicle'.
Just look at Diablo Immor(t)al. A decent game (albeit designed for mobile phone) totally subverted (if one believes the reports leaked from actual technical devs) by cynical money-making mechanics pretty much designed with the intent to 'hook' players on gambling real money. They had a whole, separate monetisation team who warped the whole project. It was absolutely lambasted in all the press I saw and yet was (and is) still a huge sucess.
It is this last part that is the problem, of course. The 'public' buy this mass-marketed, homogenised, often unhealthy, goo and say "Thanks! Love it!".
I am old. I have had home computers and consoles and played video games since about 1980. Gaming to me, even when it was deemed a very nerdy and extreme niche, was a special joy and more than just a time-killer. Over the years, there have been games I like, games I love, but a whole load I haven't and don't and, guess what? That's ok! Developers made games they wanted to make and thought others would enjoy. We had a good variety that meant everyone was catered for and some where more successful than others, but that variety kept coming. Genres developed. Franchises grew. Competition existed but it was pretty healthy for the industry.
Fast-forward and we have VR feeling the need to fill an MMORPG void that has grown over 20 years partly (arguably) due to pursuing mass-market appeal rather than 'quality' (perhaps certain 'qualities' rather than overall quality, but you get the point).
To be clear: I am certain that Pantheon already has enough support to be successful enough to run. I am also certain that it will have much wider and greater support from those that don't even know what a challenging, group-focused, open world MMORPG really looks like. I am also certain it will further appeal even to those that think they wouldn't like it.
*But* there *is* a certain amount of 'bravery' in aiming for what could, by some, be considered a 'niche', these days. What might be considered to include features and mechanics 'off-putting' to some. Not only aiming for what might be 'a niche', but intentionally bucking successful modern trends in the genre. Intentionally avoiding funding from those that might take artistic control and send development another way.
To return to the title: Can VR stave off The End Of Gaming? Whilst "The End of Gaming" sounds somewhat over-the-top, it kinda would be for me if all games become, essentially, the equivalent of 'fast food' and that is sometimes what it feels like is happening.
I guess it's not, though. While MacDonalds has made it harder for independent eateries to survive, they still do. It seems to me that, in some ways, gaming may return to its roots where small indie companies are where people like me go when I want 'a good game'. As with the food industry, sometimes you just fancy a MacDonalds and that's ok, but if you want a more regular, decent, healthy, satisfying meal, you are better off heading to your local independent eatery and if you don't, it might not be there next time you go.
My thanks go out to VR for opening an old school family restaurant not being tempted to open yet another MacDonalds franchise. My thanks go out to other backers for supporting this 'independent eatery'.
I can only hope that more people start seeing that if you just keep going to MacDonalds pretty soon there will be no good independent eateries, but as long as there are enough VRs out there, perhaps we will never reach The End of Gaming.
This is the vid that inspired my post and though it's about FPSs you may find it interesting in the related issues (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB9SzVg7ens)
I wish I could put my thoughts down on paper as well as you. You have just expressed, in words, an emotion that I feel whenever I think about the gaming industry. Well, probably most corporate industry. I also hoped that video games could rebuff that mass market grab and retain its mostly art status. Alas this is not the case.
For these reasons I have almost completely stopped buying AAA titles. There are plenty of great games created by indie developers that will keep me entertained until the end of time. Very rarely do I pay full price (never again sixty+ dollars) for a game. I have the patients of an immortal. I dont have to play the next best thing right now. I can wait for a great sale.
I am tired of being burned by the companies I once loved and trusted. (looking at you Blizzard!) I am also starting to get tired of large companies buying up studios I still love. Although, over the last decade or so, the trend has leaned towards smaller studios retaining most of their developmental independence. The more consolidization of studios the less new ideas and great games will be released.
So my thanks also goes out to VR and other indie studios for resisting the big money and continuing hold on to the integrity of creating the games that will, as Disoposalist says, stave off the end of gaming.
@Disposalist, I agree, at least partially, with many of your points. But I also think you and are missing an important distinction when it comes to things like aim assist. Not all changes which increase mass appeal are dumbing down games. Some of them, like aim assist, are lessening an inherent characteristic gap that can't otherwise be overcome, regardless of how much someone practices.
What do I mean by that? Success in FPS games requires a certain level of twitch response, which, while it can be improved through practice, is still heavily based off each gamer's neurobiology/neurochemistry. A good analogy is basketball. Athletes can practice and become much better at basketball, but it's still their height, more than anything else, which limits how successful they can be.
Some of these things really need to be viewed more like disability accommodations. They allow people who would otherwise be unable to play at a level where they are successful enough to enjoy the game, to meaningfully participate.
Most conversations around this topic fail to recognize that there really needs to be a distinction between the two types of changes made to increase mass market appeal:
As a MMO, Pantheon has much less of a need to level inherent neuro/bio differences, since it's not a twitch-based game nor something that requires 300 Actions Per Minute. But we absolutely do need to understand the distinction if we are to ethically determine what is and is not an acceptable change.
It's the difference between cutting the line(1) vs bypassing the portion of the line that goes up stairs because you're not able to walk and you need the elevator.
(1) line = "queue" for you Brits who love words with 80% silent letters.
My hope is that Pantheon will be a slower paced and more strategic game than many. Meaning that the focus will be on developing the character by getting and increasing skills and gear. Most importantly meaning that combat will be slower paced than in many games and the result will depend more on how good the character is and the quality of the decisions made by the player than upon the reflexes and vision of the player and how fast decisions are made. Whether things will work out that way - we will see.
As long as there are gamers, there will always be a place for challenging RPGs. Probably the most important point regarding Pantheon, is that we are a company of gamers making a game for gamers.
Excellent post, btw. I have always pondered the whole "MMORPGs are dead" theory and reject it. We live!
Good post and reasoning between 1. making it easy and 2. making it possible.
Just anecdotal, back in the nineties when my son was in high school, I would set up a battle server for him and his friends to play things like Star Craft. No, they wouldn’t let me play.
However, my son would brag to his school mates that his dad could beat Mech Warrior with heat enabled. I tried again with Win 7 a few years ago and just could not finish the end game. Reflexes just slow down as we age. But that doesn’t mean we might not enjoy a good game with good party members, no matter how old we get.
Waiting for alpha.
Savanja said:As long as there are gamers, there will always be a place for challenging RPGs. Probably the most important point regarding Pantheon, is that we are a company of gamers making a game for gamers.
Excellent post, btw. I have always pondered the whole "MMORPGs are dead" theory and reject it. We live!
Well, it felt that way for some time, but we can reject it now, thanks to VR! And when I say "we" of course I mean "me" and people like me in the most important old school MMORPG ways, hehe.
"The End of Gaming" is always a subjective thing, I know and I suppose what I really fear, selfishly, is "the end of gaming *that I can enjoy*".
Perhaps more important/relevent to the industry as a whole is "The End *of Variety* in Gaming" or "The End of Anything But Corporate Marketing Designed Games in Gaming"?
Anyway, as I have said before and will no doubt say again, one of the main reasons I so willingly got (and remain) involved with VR is because, between the lines of tenets that also had me impressed, I read that you guys are intentionally and fearlessly bucking the trends in order to fill a yawning gap that gamers like me have been staring into with increasing fear and depression year on year.
Save us, VR, you're our only hope!
Inselberg said:Good post and reasoning between 1. making it easy and 2. making it possible.
Just anecdotal, back in the nineties when my son was in high school, I would set up a battle server for him and his friends to play things like Star Craft. No, they wouldn’t let me play.
However, my son would brag to his school mates that his dad could beat Mech Warrior with heat enabled. I tried again with Win 7 a few years ago and just could not finish the end game. Reflexes just slow down as we age. But that doesn’t mean we might not enjoy a good game with good party members, no matter how old we get.Waiting for alpha.
I can still top the leaderboards regularly in public matches of Battlefield, but when twitchy 'pro' players get involved I suddenly am very average hehe.
I have always prefered games that leant toward tactics being important, though, which is why I prefer Battlefield and it's team/squad/objective/coop-based play to more deathmatch-centric twitch shooters.
I get that fast-paced, twitch shooters are fun to possibly more players. I get that they are more impressive to stream too... I get that a lot of people don't play video games to expend much thought and sometimes I just want to play (and/or watch) a spectacular blast-fest.
The lamentable thing comes when companies *all* start to pander to only the most popular trendy game aspects, and games that other kinds of players prefer just don't get made at all.
Even worse when companies that have existing franchises change them to suit popular trends to try and get their piece of the money pie rather than keep their loyal fanbases coming back.
And just as bad when a beloved genre slowly and surely changes into something that no longer includes much that made it what it was in the first place.
I think VR is clearly set on doing just that. If they were not they would have already signed a deal with EA or whatever company that wanted to shovel out the fast food.
With that said, I think the demand for maps, quest markers, etc will be overwhelming in the end. The psychology of "losing" vs "gaining" money is very very different and even if we get to the finish line it may fall apart 6 months in.
Lets say the year is 2026 and Pantheon launches to a massive initial appeal, but the millions of new players cry out for the standard tropes of the "dead" mmos as they quit in droves. Will VR watch as those millions of players unsub or will they give in? I truly hope they ride out the wave, but watching a company "lose" millions of dollars a month based on an ideal... I think it will break them.
As for FPS games mentioned above, I have not bought a single one that doesn't allow custom maps and servers. Unless they are making an MMOFPS I want to play with a community. See largely the same 50 people every week. Have admins who can ban people from the server. They lost me as a player when they all abandoned that aspect of the game.
Rant on
I stopped reading when I saw console. Console? Computer games are for sophisticated people doing sophisticated things. Con-soles are for... the lesser-thans. it cheapens the ideal. Blackjack was free as bloatware on 1995 hewlette-packard PC's and then they sold hand-held blackjack "consoles" for 1000 X the cost and said ah. Loot boxes? because of console players who paid more for what was essentially a PC build from 10 years ago, Paying for skins? because of console players, What was a venue for artists to do some digital crafting with signatures and charge a reasonable price? became corrupted into NFT's and belittled by Software giants because of con-sole players who did not have the sense to by a proper PC and play proper games on a proper system. Myst was NOT console, you had to be smart and have a memory. Controller? Men in black 2? no Will smith I'm sorry, we had keyboards and mouses, we were >.
Rant off
I think the key is pacing. I think the combat pacing is important. The developed combat pacing should be so established that the players can affect that pacing, or be pleasantly challenged by changes to the pacing. Players should be able to speed it up or slow it down in response to whatever the NPC does, and then once what the NPC does is known, players should be able to speed up or slow down the "camp" or "crawl" at their unspoken pace. The wildcard is Beardo- the dwarfy-boy and his group over there possibly interfering or helping or training or saving your group. AND stop at any time without fear of "missing" something or losing place (not levels- levels and exp will be lost- suck it up) This is what makes the game a joy and not a chore a pleasant pass-time and not a duty. I want to have such a good time with my friends that on multi-group event days I am excited and eager to log on.
Hope so. The biggest issue for me is alot of mmos are doing some things correctly but many aren't. Pvp focused mmos have very little longevity they just aren't made as good. They are quick to create and other then combat have nothing. Then theirs the mmos like lotro great mmo but the quest hubs and giant red circles saying come here really do get old. games art syle is in my opinion incredible. Final fantasy 14 love the switch class on demand system. Game lacks exploration ,hidden areas and climbing its like a amazing first bite and realiziing it was only one bite that was great. Eso combat is a bit rushed , open world provides no challenge , though I like the puzzles, the vista's, and the boss mechanics on vet. It lacks some of the exploration skyrim had and lacks climbing,gliding. Wow other them smooth combat and a wonderful sense of scale became boring fast.The wow token also put so much gold ingame that everything became unaffordable if the player didnt buy tokens. I absolutely loved the huge trees of elwynn forest. I felt as though I was in a world. Sadly flying mounts ruined that later on . Theirs no exploration,hidden areas, , puzzles their is none, and quest hubs are annoying.My favorite wow dungeon was blackrock i absolutly loved the multiple level dungeon and their wasnt another dungeon that compared to it. by mist of pandera dungeons were so streamlined and boring. Wow leveling was too fast i shouldnt gain 6 levels from running one 15 minute dungeon like deadmines.
Ashes really has no chance if it stays mainly pvp focused. If I wanted a pvp game I'd play elden ring collisiums. Hate to bash ashes but pvp without exploration, raids, challenging pve won't be enough. If pantheon can take the good things about these mmos and add them together it will be amazing. Mmo gaming isnt dead it only needs change. Elden ring proved players are open to hard difficulty and I absolutely loved playing ,exploring it. It's not the graphics I desire or fast combat its a challenging world with built in exploration ,adventure that other mmos have gone away from. The team that brings challenge,exploration back to gaming will for sure get my time and money.
Im very excited about a game without a map im sick of games treating me like a little kid that needs to be told everything too do.
Id be playing Embers adrift if they hadnt rushed the launch and finished deveoping that world. It lacks magic and wasnt ready for release though it has some things that sound great such as the sky navigation system. Hopefully they can fix it.
Guild wars 2 good story - fractals fun - love the jumping puzzles loved the verticle zone they made with gliding. its biggest con they stopped dungeon deveopment i accually enjoyed their dungeons. Lacked open world difficulty and map made the world feel small as far as exploring. Devs banned boss trains which were really fun i really enjoyed being part of a group going from boss to boss to kill it. The fractal with the floor being destroyed was incredible it took skill to plan your route and survive.
All of these mmos are doing things right its what they are missing that is so noticible.
Why a company cant take the great things and build upon them i dunno its like they are soo scared of messing up.
The perfect mmo is definitly possible , mmos arent dead i know others have different desires - opinions then myself but i definitly hope Pantheon will be what were missing.
My idea of a pefect mmo below.
Hard open world mixed with easy areas- large scale trees- climbing- gliding- exploration without quest hubs or handholding - no zone map - challenging random boss spawns - verticle zones- multiple lvl dungeons- good gameplay thats smooth - alot of color - biomes - jungles- space - desert. No flying mounts. Areas of some extreme difficulty levels. jumping - climbing puzzles. Hidden areas - puzzles. Multiple level dungeons. Huge dragons and unique monsters and we will be pretty close to the ultimate mmo then its just making it bigger harder and keep exploration alive.
eunichron said:I would posit they are dead, and a handful of indie companies are trying to resurrect them. Whether any of them will be successful remains to be seen.
I won't go with dead as in totally, but outside of an existing IP with massive preexisting popularity and name recognition, the hope that any MMO ever does what EQ did in 1999 or WoW in 2004...yeah, that is dead. But MMOs are played, just by the niche audience each one has endeared itself to over the years. Pantheon's place is the niche market, and that market has a ceiling of maybe 100k or so players, but I think the game's core playerbase over any serious time period will average in the 10-20k range.
The next MMO that will have HUGE numbers is the League of Legends MMO in the pipeline. The existing IP is massive, the MOBA has over 100 million daily players worldwide, there are books, films, streaming series, existing toys/gear/swag, etc. No other studio has that kind of prebuilt publicity, and none has since...well...WoW?
Thus, MMOs, like a ton of PC gaming, have to define what "success" means. For example, a Grigsby WW II deep strategy game is peak awesomeness for hex based wargaming. There isn't a better, deeper wargaming system maybe ever. And that pinnacle of game design appeals to maybe a couple thousand people on the entire planet. From a design, gaming purity and programming achievement standpoint, it's as successful as you can hope. But compared to Candy Crush player numbers? Not so much. =)
IMHO, if Pantheon grabs a steady, faithful 20-25k daily players and holds them for a few years...that is a MASSIVE success for VR. If they stay above 10k, I'd still be pleased. New IP, small studio, small budget, and they'll be pulling numbers off games with 10+ year loyalty.
Serious PC gaming has never died, nor will it. But like classical music, it will never have the numbers that stuff built solely to appeal to the masses will.