> all three failed at attracting and maintaining new players
This means that they not necessarily were all that great.
They were great examples of what an arena shooter should be. Smooth movement, balanced weapons, well designed maps. The people who had experience with arena shooters liked them. Most new players did not want to get rekt for months on end while they learned the basics, however.
> Most new players did not want to get rekt for months on end while they learned the basics, however.
If that's the new player experience, you done fucked up. Making sure new players actually have fun is a critical part of the game's design. You can't just rely on "...and then new players will have to spend 50-60 hours getting demolished before they start having a good time."
Easing that transition could mean different things -- a campaign, skirmish mode vs bots, full-on PvE co-op mode, automatching that actually works, whatever -- but you do need something effective.
loading story #49203014
Popularity and quality are two very different things. There are many brilliant games that simply didn't get much attention simply because of luck or attention got dragged somewhere else.
Only in the rather reductive sense of “the vast majority of gamers are into other genres now”.
It can also mean the market has shifted which is more the case imo.