Have skill/performance requirements in video games drastically increased?

[StayTuned]

Hear me out. Some games are starting to become more streamlined and we have lots of QOL compared to older games. This makes them actually easier on paper.

But overall I think the majority of gamers have become so much better on average, that your performance requirements in games, regardless of how "easy" the game seems to be, have increased with it.

Some examples, of course all anecdotal.

• Average gamer consumes tons of streams provided by semi- to full professionals who treat the game as their work. Intel gathering done by them rules over the plebs.
• Most games get min/maxed almost at release. Either you know the Meta from the start, or you die.
• 20 years ago most gamers were isolated, today we're connected through the internet and have gone from a freak fringe group to pure mainstream
• Equipment has improved massively, to the point where digital natives are born to tech "older" generations of gamers had to first adapt to. Talking 30FPS vs. 60FPS vs. 144FPS, 720p vs. 1080p vs. 1440p etc.
• New generation of gamers seem heavily focused on communication and are more open to talking in video games than me. I can hardly bring myself to use comms in raids. If I jump in on some random first person shooter, the first thing I do is to completely disable comms. You're not a friend of mine, I don't want to hear your voice.

• In COD Warzone, regular average players seem to modify all possible settings just to make them perform better in the game, in contrast to having a good looking game. Turning up brightness to the point of ridiculousness, just to see dark skins better. I just died to the most ridiculous situations and had to quit in frustration because there was absolutely no progress for me.
• For first person shooters in general, most are turning their graphics settings way lower than what their PC could actually handle, just to continuously have 144+ FPS min.
• Hardware like Scuff Controllers seem to be in the repertoire of basically everyone except me when it comes to playing any shooter game on console.
• .... goes on and on.

What I essentially observe is behavior exhibited by professionals or sweatlords of the days, but now everyone is doing it. I can't even call it sweating anymore, because when a lobby full of regular people in low ranks just obliterates me, it's not them sweating. It's me being shit at the game. And the more games I play, the more I realize I'm starting to become shit at all of them relatively soon after starting them.

It feels like playing against that one dude you know who seems to the the Mario Kart world champion, but now everyone is that one dude you know.

Most of the things I listed above seem entirely counter intuitive for me to do. I would never cripple my graphics, or spend hundreds of € just to buy a custom controller to perform 360° no scope on COD. I don't want to listen all day long to a guy who streams games 24/7 and is hyper 25/8.

I think in future I will invest more heavily into Nintendo and some stronger story focused single player games. I have regressed from an ESL participant into a candy crush old guy before I even realized it. Am I reaching?

[The Butt Witch]

Yes, actually. More and more games these days, including WoW, have a steep difficulty curve.

Action games tend to favor the Controller as a control scheme because they have many complicated combos and stuff which aren't doable with kb&mouse.
For me personally, any game that says "controller recommended" in the description is anto-pass because it just means that Kb&mouse scheme is far from optimal, and I'm not using a controller nor intending to get used to using one.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

The # of players of games has increased significantly since the 90's so the amount of "bad" and good would increase. Admittingly that also means the amount of egos have increased to.

[ONCHEhap]

That really,really depends on the genre honestly.

Older genres *usually* tend to be harder than they were because people had two decades to learn how to play them,but even amongst those,it's not always the case.

FPS are a good example of this. You have fast paced FPS that are getting harder by the year,to the point where even the best players from 20 years ago wouldn't stand a chance in them,while you have slower paced FPS like CoD and Battlefield that became insultingly easy thanks to their very low ttk.
Still,CoD players these days are much better than CoD players a decade ago,even if they don't hold a candle to arena shooter players from any period of time(save for the weird first few years when a lot of people didn't use a mouse to aim),so your point still stands here.

However there's a completely opposite effect for the so called "immersive sims" (I loathe this term) that have become easier and easier over the years,and eventually turned out to be the kind of games that are easy enough for game journalists to beat,even though its precursors were usually rather tough games.

That's why it's hard to give a blanket answer here,some genres became harder and their players became better,but the opposite also exists

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Most of them have the easy to play difficult to master curve. Which makes a lot of sense. So people that aren't so good can get though usually to the end. It will take longer and probably won't be as complete of a finish but they will get their hours in and enjoy the game. Then you got the master bounce up that if you really master the game you can be super clean, efficient, and get the stronger endings. Pretty much everyone is happy minus those that feel its important they are the only ones that can finish games because they are so elite or whatever.

[tehealadin]

When people are spending a lot of time playing a particular type of game then they will get better. A lot of people who play FPS games, from what I gather, play them quite a bit. I can't really get into FPS games, and when I do play them, I don't do so enough to get anywhere near good, and because I will typically be playing with more experienced players, I end up a good bit behind them, and I am not into them enough to play catch up. That will push the top end up.

However outside of multiplayer, I disagree. Just look at SoulsBorne/Sekiro. Whilst successful, they certainly do not have broad appeal (this isn't to say not selling as much) compared to many other games/franchises, from where I am looking it seems that this is mainly due to the difficulty. The comparative level of skill required to complete one of these games I feel is much higher than in most other single player games (not talking about PvP), outside of playing optional harder difficulties, but these can normally be turned down to allow anyone to complete it, this is absent in the FROMSOFT games.

[Stormspellz]

in a round about way, FPS is still mechanically the same concept- how ever tech has allowed games to be far more in depth, allowing everything from more precise aiming to FPS, internet speed, and so on. A good comparison would be old school Unreal Tournament vs any modern FP. If remade UT today on using modern computers it would hold up in difficulty

[StayTuned]

in a round about way, FPS is still mechanically the same concept- how ever tech has allowed games to be far more in depth, allowing everything from more precise aiming to FPS, internet speed, and so on. A good comparison would be old school Unreal Tournament vs any modern FP. If remade UT today on using modern computers it would hold up in difficulty

True. I didn't even consider the difference in hardware and ping. Used to play with a normal ping of 60. Today, if it's not <10 you're basically lagging.

[caractacus]

No.

[Usernameforforums]

True. I didn't even consider the difference in hardware and ping. Used to play with a normal ping of 60. Today, if it's not <10 you're basically lagging.

Its impossible for most players to have <10ms ping. To achieve that, you actually have to be either next door or on site. 30-50ms is normal and perfectly fine. 100ms+ is where you should worry about lag.

[Fencers]

Average gamer consumes tons of streams provided by semi- to full professionals who treat the game as their work. Intel gathering done by them rules over the plebs.

This is dubious at best.

About a year ago, my marketing firm was seeking game players who regularly watched or streamed video game content. It was the hardest demo to recruit and only about 2% of our six market base N200 watched streamed gameplay an hour or more a week. Total.

It took months to even get a proper assessment from the statistics department where like Twitch, which is dwarfed by Youtube btw, only accounted for about 1-2 million viewers over a given quarter iirc.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

People won't buy your next game if they don't enjoy the last one.

If people didn't finish your last game, then chances are that they weren't enjoying it.

Therefore, you want your audience to be able to beat your game.

Unless you're running a niche franchise like Dark Souls, which has a niche fanbase that really wants very hard games, you're going to be designing your games around the lowest common denominator. Ie, a noob, someone who doesn't hardcore plays games over and over, who perhaps only buys one game a year, or perhaps have never bought a game before. Therefore, the game needs to be easy enough to be able to be beaten by everyone.

The developers of The Banner Saga learned this lesson the hard way. Their game is a story focused SRPG/TRPG. Basically, Fire Emblem. You had SRPG players backing it on kickstarted, but the average person who bought the game wasn't a hardcore SRPG player. They were just a casual, who either wanted a good story, or liked the artstyle. When the game first released in 2014, the final battle was incredibly challenging. I game overed twice on it, and I really enjoyed optimizing my team and coming up with a strategy and carefully making my moves, and the satisfaction of finally achieving victory. Really felt you were overcoming against all odds. However, half of the playerbase dropped the game at that point. That's a huge amount of unsatisfied customers who will probably not buy the sequels. Which means that's a huge financial loss.

Only half of the game’s players have the determination to get through it, while the other half just switch off. “If they finish that battle they are minutes from finishing the game,” Watson explains. “It’s f**king tragic. They’re so close.”

Link to interview

The devs heavily nerfed the final battle, and while a lot of hardcore players like me complained, in the end was the right business decision and completion rates went up, and more people were inclined to buy the sequels. After TBS1, all of the battles were designed to be easily beatable. For us hardcore SRPG players, sure you can try playing on hard, which adds a few more units to each battle and slightly bumps up the numbers, but there is no getting around the fact that games are simply designed to be beaten by everyone. It's the right business decision.

[Fencers]

People won't buy your next game if they don't enjoy the last one.

If people didn't finish your last game, then chances are that they weren't enjoying it.

Therefore, you want your audience to be able to beat your game.

Unless you're running a niche franchise like Dark Souls, which has a niche fanbase that really wants very hard games, you're going to be designing your games around the lowest common denominator. Ie, a noob, someone who doesn't hardcore plays games over and over, who perhaps only buys one game a year, or perhaps have never bought a game before. Therefore, the game needs to be easy enough to be able to be beaten by everyone.

The developers of The Banner Saga learned this lesson the hard way. Their game is a story focused SRPG/TRPG. Basically, Fire Emblem. You had SRPG players backing it on kickstarted, but the average person who bought the game wasn't a hardcore SRPG player. They were just a casual, who either wanted a good story, or liked the artstyle. When the game first released in 2014, the final battle was incredibly challenging. I game overed twice on it, and I really enjoyed optimizing my team and coming up with a strategy and carefully making my moves, and the satisfaction of finally achieving victory. Really felt you were overcoming against all odds. However, half of the playerbase dropped the game at that point. That's a huge amount of unsatisfied customers who will probably not buy the sequels. Which means that's a huge financial loss.



Link to interview

The devs heavily nerfed the final battle, and while a lot of hardcore players like me complained, in the end was the right business decision and completion rates went up, and more people were inclined to buy the sequels. After TBS1, all of the battles were designed to be easily beatable. For us hardcore SRPG players, sure you can try playing on hard, which adds a few more units to each battle and slightly bumps up the numbers, but there is no getting around the fact that games are simply designed to be beaten by everyone. It's the right business decision.

This is 100% on target. Not only have I worked in game and software development, but I was also specifically responsible for marketing those products. This is so on target for the vast majority of games and I can say that with a high degree of confidence.

A product is ideally positioned when it appeals to four quadrants; Young/Old, Male/Female.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

The thing about "Challenge" is, it should keep you engaged and want to play more not frustrate you and make you feel "...thank god thats over with." Thats not a feeling I want to have but one franchise is VERY intent on doing that.

[Tadkins]

I think in future I will invest more heavily into Nintendo and some stronger story focused single player games. I have regressed from an ESL participant into a candy crush old guy before I even realized it. Am I reaching?

I've been feeling like this lately too. WoW has turned from an MMORPG into an e-sports driven competition that focuses on scores and metas and such. Basically a lot of what you described.

My computer got kind of busted from a botched upgrade attempt (long story) recently and as a result I haven't been able to do much with it. I got back into EverQuest playing on the P99 server and have strangely enough found myself having a lot of fun. Much slower pace that gives you plenty of breathing room, and focuses more on caution and strategy than "gogogo". Basically a nice relaxing MMORPG experience, where the competition/skill levels you find in a lot of other games isn't nearly as prelevent here. I think I've started to kind of become a "gamer boomer" so to speak. xD

[A Chozo]

How do I explain...

It's not that the games are harder, it's just that due to the nature of the Internet, you can keep increasing your own skill and tackling harder content by grouping up with / against people that play as good or more as you. You keep improving.

Before internet you just had to beat your lousy friends and that was it.

[Witchblade77]

this is entirely anecdotal personal experience, but.. I know even as my reflexes have gotten worse, I generally have gotten better in that I understand the games better, how to play them etc.

a few personal examples.

1. Spyro. I loved loved LOVED these games in PS2 era, but I have also gotten stuck in them to the point of never being able to finish them. so when Spyro reignited came out and for PC, natch, I had to have it. I have been playing it on and off and I have gotten sooooo much farther in it than I ever had in the original.
2. ok, fine so maybe remasters may have changed some things. fine. Mass Effect 1. I'm currently replaying it. and I remember just how much harder time I had in it when i played it the first time around. I abused the pause button like there is no tomorrow. I have used it exactly ONCE in my current playthrough and that was to change my weapons. this is not a remaster. its an original game.
3. how about something even more old school. one of my absolute favorite games of all time is Theme Hospital. the original. I bought it off GoG the moment they had it and I then got a free version from EA origin when they gave it away for a month, because why not. as far as i can tell GoG version other then made playable on newer systems - is untouched. it is something I go in and play here and there as well because it amuses me. back when I first played it - I got stuck eventually and couldn't get any further, and I played that game a LOT. last year - playing far more casually, I got several levels faster before I started to feel like maybe I need to reevaluate my strategy.


and here is why I think that its not just my experience. practice makes perfect. the more we play, the better we get. its inevitable. even if you practice casually, just the act of playing semi regularly - is STILL practice. you still improve. slowly. but you do. having guides more easily accessible, helps sure, but.. even back then we had guides. I used to work for EB Games before Gamestop bought them. a whole chunk of the front of the store? was all guides and cheat code books for everything from pc games to various consoles. I still have a shelfful of old guides in our office, for old times sakes. the main difference is back then - you had to pay for those. nowadays, you just go to google.

so yeah the games are getting more complex, mechanics more involved. they kinda have to, to keep up with ever increasing player knowledge.

P.S. to reiterate, you do not have to be watching streams or doing any of that other stuff. just through sheer volume of play over the years, you end up improving, even if its not a primary goal.

[StayTuned]

this is entirely anecdotal personal experience, but....

I guess it's right but if that's true then how come the younger generation is just better at games when in fact they maybe don't even have half of my /played across all games ever?

The answer is really easy: short term investment.

When a new game hits or new content is released, they can spend the time on it. Very dedicated. Back from school, go online, compete immediately.

Meanwhile I'm tired after a 2h gaming session. Can't keep up. Even the frustration builts up.

Honestly I think lots of people maybe even underestimate just how native games are for the young today. Imagine being born with a controller in your hand, basically.

Gamers of yesterday are the parents of today. I don't know a single kid that doesn't own ps4/5 or a gaming PC. Not.a.single.one. When I was a kid, I was the only one I knew with a N64 and later PS2. Like, nobody in class had it.

It gained traction around 1999, 2000. But even then I was mostly alone playing this much all until WoW. But I think I can nail it down to roughy 12 years ago... That's when I believe gaming started to become really mainstream, and I started being outclassed more and more.

On the other hand, story driven single player games is where shit is at for me now. When you can't beat them, leave? Is that how the saying goes?

- - - Updated - - -

This is dubious at best.

About a year ago, my marketing firm was seeking game players who regularly watched or streamed video game content. It was the hardest demo to recruit and only about 2% of our six market base N200 watched streamed gameplay an hour or more a week. Total.

It took months to even get a proper assessment from the statistics department where like Twitch, which is dwarfed by Youtube btw, only accounted for about 1-2 million viewers over a given quarter iirc.

Do you mind providing me with some real data? Because I kinda find that hard to believe. What's the metric for "gamer"? Because I believe I can still outplay at least the total beginners in an old game like WoW. Maybe they don't show any interest in streams. But on the higher end, and especially in more modern games such as Fortnite? I don't trust data that says that those who play those games a lot don't also watch streams in parallel.

The big streamers have hundreds of thousands if not millions of followers, some don't even cross watch so it's even unique subs.

What is your demographic?

- - - Updated - - -

Its impossible for most players to have <10ms ping. To achieve that, you actually have to be either next door or on site. 30-50ms is normal and perfectly fine. 100ms+ is where you should worry about lag.

My ping in most games is between 8 and 16. Now, if that's real or just BS on their part I don't know.

[Witchblade77]

I guess it's right but if that's true then how come the younger generation is just better at games when in fact they maybe don't even have half of my /played across all games ever?

The answer is really easy: short term investment.

When a new game hits or new content is released, they can spend the time on it. Very dedicated. Back from school, go online, compete immediately.

I mean... you literally just proved my point of practice makes perfect. they play and play quite a bit. they practice the games. and they have young people reflexes on top of that.

and it does also help that they have a foundation of knowledge to work off of, so they do not have to figure things out from scratch. the basics are available to them, so they can move on straight to the advancement.

when we started out playing, we were figuring those things out more or less from scratch. and we are STILL better players than we used to be. slower reflexes nonwithstanding.

[StayTuned]

I mean... you literally just proved my point of practice makes perfect. they play and play quite a bit. they practice the games. and they have young people reflexes on top of that.

and it does also help that they have a foundation of knowledge to work off of, so they do not have to figure things out from scratch. the basics are available to them, so they can move on straight to the advancement.

when we started out playing, we were figuring those things out more or less from scratch. and we are STILL better players than we used to be. slower reflexes nonwithstanding.

I don't know if I'm a better player today. Look at how competition is shaping around us, also in classical sport. The professionals are getting younger and younger.

They practice just as much as I did their age, but their results are astonishingly better than mine. Sure, it's all anecdotal and surely there is like a mid 30's dude out there killing it. But many anecdotes make a case.

I stay strong on my point that their benefit is mostly how native all of that tech and games in general are for them.

It's also more socially accepted to be a gamer today than it was 20/25 years ago.