on the trend of gaming

I've had the skeleton of this post written for a while, never got the chance to finish it.  What inspired me to finalize it was this podcast by Artosis.  Artosis is half of the greatest esport commentator duo out there.  There's a lot of talk about what to do with the RTS genre, specifically because so many devs, designers, and managers split of from Blizzard to form Frost Giant studios to make the next generation of RTS gaming.  More can be found in this podcast with Artosis and the Frost Giant team. In the first video Artosis said a couple of reasons why he believes other games are more popular and one of the reasons was "it's easier".  This threw another commentator into a small fit and while I agree with Artosis, there are better ways to put it.  I'm going to expand on why the latest games are trending towards casual, team based play and the primary reasons behind it.

A note about this post, I know all of the ideas I'm covering can be expanded on and talked about in depth.  They are all worth their own post but I'm trying to fit this into a blog post and not a 20 page paper.  This post will focus on game design and motivation, not any META topics to motivate gamers like cosmetics and microtransactions.

The first step to understanding where gaming is at we have to look at why we play games.  Let's briefly look at motivations for gaming. This a study on motivation for gaming that was done at GDC 2019.  It breaks players motivations up into 6 categories, each having two sub-categories.  You'll notice most of these concepts are not tied to any one specific genre of gaming.  I specifically want to focus on that this is what most gamers find "fun" and that most of these categories are non-competitive.  Competitive play can only fit in two sub-categories at best, those being competitiveness and challenge.  There are two reasons I focus on competitive play as a motivation.  Firstly, competitive play is the single largest factor that can keep a game active far past updates and content creation.  The second reason is that player's won't play and get skilled at a game they don't find fun, enjoyment is our primary motivation when playing a game.  Competitive by it's nature is diffuclt and very few players pick up a game simply because it is difficult.  If we want to follow the trend of gaming we're going to have to face the facts.  Trends in the market appear because they sell and companies are not going to frequently attempt to market to such small demographics as "challenging <insert genre here>". 

While fun can help sales and competitive can help its longevity there's one part of gaming that can help both, Modding.  Modding allows for a player base to create their own content and modify the game as they see fit. Some mods can become as popular or more than the base game they're built on.  The best example of this would be the MOBA genre and the rise of DOTA from Warcraft 3.  While Blizzard missed a chance with this game mode it does show how a significant amount of players enjoyed playing a specific aspect of Warcraft 3.  This is immeasurable data for game designers as it shows what you can do with a genre and how popular it could be.  It helps us distil a genre and see it for its individual parts.  In our above example it showed how much players enjoyed controlling one hero while the AI literally throws units at each other.

Modding is a great way to see how gaming has developed in the most natural way, through a type of evolution.  The unpopular mods slowly lose support and die off while the popular ones stay on top and keep advancing.  In the past a lot of these mods have become fully fledged games or were used as inspiration.  The best examples of mods that have become stand alone games would be counter strike, dota, and anything in the survival builder genre or battle royal genre.  The best way to understand these developments is to walk backwards from where the current popular games came from.  Blizzard and other companies often hide their player base population but we can see some activity through steam and streaming websites.  The most popular games based on streaming sites and steam are team based and social (remember motivation) games such as DOTA , League of Legends, CS:GO, Apex, and Fortnite.

So let's try to walk these games back from where they're from originally.  League of Legends came about after DOTA's popularity and as discussed before DOTA was originally a Warcraft 3 mod.  Technically we can trace it back one more step to a Starcraft: Broodwar mod called Aeon of Strife.  It's very clear to see that a MOBA came directly from the RTS genre.  The biggest difference from DOTA and its originally RTS foundations?  No army to micro, no base to macro, teammates have been added and abilities have moved some of the mechanical skill to decision making. 

The next genre we can trace back would be any popular Battle Royal.  Fortnite, PUBG and the later APEX Legends top out for this genre.  They all take their inspiration from a mod in Arma 2 called DayZ that was actually modded again.  The interesting part is that original DayZ mod is a open world survival mod but players got bored that the world was too open and changed it so there's less space and more fighting.  This takes us to Arma 2 which is a unique tactical fps but still built on standard FPS mechanics.  The origin of all FPS mechanics starts with the original arena shooters.  Lets take a look at the differences from the original arena shooter to the modern battle royal. We see the addition of teammates and decision based mechanics, such as building, abilities and randomized loot/equipment.  We also see the map start large but slowly grow smaller into an arena.  An interesting observation is that some high level players in these games will complain about getting attacked by a 3rd party and want to fight each team alone - which would be just like team death match, a common mode in all FPS games.  It really shows the history of where these games came from. 

While FPSs turned into battle royals they also broke off into team based shooters. While I'm casting a wide net here, Overwatch, Valorant and Counterstrike are leaders in this genre.  These games are a lot easier to trace as most every FPS game back in the day had its team based modes or mods that added abilities.  Most FPSs had team deathmatch and CTF modes or mods like the original team fortress in half-life or rocket arena in quake.  Again we see a common thread, the newer games have a focus on teammates, abilities and decision making.  We also see a move towards round based games, or an asymmetric mode like offense vs defense which further helps simplifying a game. 

To learn where gaming is going we have to know where it's been and now that we've discussed that we can pick out some trends.  Most genres are moving in a direction that's more about accessibility and evening the playing field between new players and vets through simpler game mechanics.  From the RTS genre we see it moving away from controlling hundreds of units while building a base to controlling a single unit with no building at all.  In FPS games we see less reliance on aiming with the introduction of abilities and simplifying combat with objective based play.  Another genre that has done this but we haven't talked about are fighting games.  They are making the same changes with simpler combos, larger timing windows and comeback mechanics. More than anything is the transition to team based play across the board.  The change to more social games is two fold, humans are social creatures and our video game experiences are no different than any other.  We enjoy playing games and spending time with other people.  Not only does it lower the stress of playing by sharing a loss but it also provides simplification of a game through siloing.  People will almost always start to fall into specific roles both in life and gaming.  This allows them to specialize and quickly gain skill to stay interested and relevant.  MMOs use this mechanic with the holy trinity of Tank, Healer, and Damage.  

The big question is, aren't all of these changes a good thing?  Most of the time, yes but really the answer is up to you.  As far as the market is concerned, yes, all of these changes have lead to more profitable games.  The communities on average seem to be pleased with each of their respective games.  One issue is that it's very difficult to tell if games are becoming more accessible or more people are playing video games.  My best guess is that it's a little of both specifically with quarantine keeping more people indoors.  This brings us back to our initial talk on motivation and why we play games.  Remember that the in-depth study only had two categories for competitive players, the rest is about game mechanics and making the game enjoyable. That's what it's really about and I can tell you from personal experience that while I love the competitive and challenging side of Overwatch there are days that I can't bring myself to play.  This has never been more true than this year with covid-19.  I was having a very stressful fall of 2020 and multiple nights I'd sit down at my computer and ask myself if I wanted to play Overwatch.  The answer was an overwhelming no, why would I want to play a game that would add more stress to my life?  All the game has is a competitive mode but its not enough to carry it during hard times.

I believe this is the single biggest reason in today's gaming trends - teams.  I mentioned earlier that's what nearly every game genre has moved to and the a big reason why is because of ladder anxiety. Ladder anxiety is a big issue in single player competitive games, where all the responsibility falls on you.  FPS, RTS and fighting games are all classically designed as 1v1 but there are very few, if any single player competitive games that do well in modern times.  The fighting genre hasn't had much evolution in it's gameplay and while fighting games are well known it has always been on the lower side in popularity.  There are only a couple FPS arena shooters still attempting to make it today, Quake Champions and Diabotical.  These are both good games but have a tiny player base compared to other FPSs.  Lastly, the RTS genre have no modern games left.  The last one standing was Starcraft 2 but Blizzard has stopped support for that game last year.  With it's support slowing down many players are moving back to Starcraft: Broodwar. The only other RTS still standing is Age of Empires 2, which is another RTS from the 90s.  It really shows how long a game can last with a proper competitive scene even while having a fraction of its original player base.

The kicker to competitive based games is that there is a skill wall on entry after release.  One reason why high skill games have a low population is that unless the new player is ready to lose for a long period of time they will often quit before getting skilled enough to enjoy it.  Modern games need a proper tutorial and queue system to onboard new players in an enjoyable way.  Without this new blood will not find its way back into the community very easily.

Which takes us all the way around to Artosis's comment.  Are new games just "easier" than the old ones and that's why its harder to get players into a traditional genre like SC2 or Quake Champions?  New games are simpler - but they are designed this way because that's how communities modded old games to enjoy them more.  It's how each genre has evolved into something new to stay relevant in the current market.  The switch to team based play has made games simpler by allowing players to focus on a single aspect and sharing the burden of a loss or the success of a win.  This is all happening while being social and in the company of friends.  Both of these ideas lower the amount of stress on the player and makes the game enjoyable even when losing.  So do people not play a classic RTS game like SC2 because it's difficult?  Yep!  The initial skill needed to play turns people away and doubly so because of it's inherently stressful 1v1 ladder.  It's extremely difficult to climb that first hill and then keep climbing it every time you want to play.  People play games to have fun and while we have many definitions of fun if your game can't be fun while getting better why would anyone pick that game over another with today's choices?  The truth is that the other aspects of these "challenging" games do not make up for the stress or time needed to put in.  The last thing the player base needs to do is take a "Superior" stance and say that people just can't handle the game, even while true it doesn't attract new players.  Difficulty should be marketed as pride for accomplishing the journey and refining your ability to learn and grow as a person.  Sounds a lot nicer than talking down to others.

While I agree that SC2 is difficult and it's the main reason why people don't play, it doesn't mean other games are easier.  Simple and easy are two different topics that many confuse.  Easy means to accomplish without effort, simple means it can be understood.  As a martial artist I can tell you first hand that while boxing is 'simpler' than other styles it doesn't make it less effective nor does it make it easier.  Gaming companies favor simplicity because simple is easy to pick up but can be hard to master. This is key to what makes some games extremely popular.  With a low entry level players can enjoy the base game by themselves or with friends.  Eventually as player's get bored of that they can move to competitive modes to play the game long term.  On the other hand I would consider SC2 or any classic FPS/RTS the opposite.  It's hard to pick up and even harder to master.  It's why we've seen the classic ideas go away to give arise to simpler mechanics.  While I love watching SC:Broodwar today and am excited every time to see the immensely skilled players face off I will probably never play SC/SC2 again.  There's too low of enjoyment for me in the classic genres besides the pride I would get in my own skill.  Problem being is that I can do other things I enjoy more and still take pride in that skill.

I want to end this with some hope for the older 1v1 style games, specifically the RTS genre and how it's going to move forward.  With everyone enjoying simpler games does that mean old complex games are going to go away?  No, like with everything we have cycles and right now we're in a low stakes cycle that has been driven extremely hard by covid-19 and the overall stress in everyone's life.  The cycle will come back when players want to play hard games but they still need to innovate the genre.  For old genre's to make a comeback it needs to be hidden well within modern mechanics that cater to casuals and low stress.  All games will need a low stakes mode, A good example is League of Legends All random all mid mode.  No one takes it seriously but is a good way to still use some of the same mechanics in a risk-free environment.  Another cornerstone of getting non-competitive players onboard is lore.  Overwatch has shown us the degree players will go to play the hero they love and identify with.  Build an environment and reason for players to play your game after a hard days work so they can get lost in it.  Of course there needs to be modding and map creation for the player base.  While microtransactions can fund the game for a bit the amount of intelligence at one studio will never compare to what the community can come up with and produce.  I feel as if Frost Giant has all the old genres on it's back right now which should worry us but then I remember it's made up of members from the old Blizzard team and I start to believe.  Viewership of Age of Empires 2, Heroes of Might and Magic 3 and Starcraft: broodwar have shown me that people still love these classic games and that our younger gerations are starting to discover these gems.  Taking classic games as the competitive mode while building a low stakes PvE/PvP environment and wrapping it in a modern infrastructure seems to be the way forward.