“Another potential hypothesis is that the increasing negativity, polarization, intrusiveness, and emotional manipulation in social media has created a persistent cognitive overload on the finite cognitive resources we have,” Quantic Foundry said. “Put simply, we may be too worn out by social media to think deeply about things.”
in other words, we’re burnt out and we just want some escapism …
It’s not just that. Many games these days are so detailed, it’s like having a second job that you don’t get paid to do, but instead pay them to be “allowed” to do. No thank you.
Not sure if this is true. Social media shows a very distorted view on polarization. Past research shows that the vast majority of polarising content (>95%) is generated by a vast minority of users (~6%). It is shown repeatedly that the polarization found in (online) media, differs drastically from every day felt polarization.
Literally “getting off the internet” seems like a valid strategy. I think it is more likely that .odern games hijack native reward systems more than “deep strategy games” do (whatever that means). In fact the gameplay mechanics in most games are still relatively the same, just prettier, faster running. Back in the day we couldn’t have a high FPS shooter with a lot of bang simple because the technology didn’t allow for it. Furthermore games were a niche back then as well. Now games are more mainstream and the relative group is smaller, than the mainstream group.
Are gamers getting older? It would be interesting to see how this breaks down by age.
I’m getting older. I have 3 kids and no time. 10 years ago I had no kids and 3 time. Now when I play, I just put it on the easiest setting and play it like an interactive movie.
Na, gaming is where I can realise great strategy I cant do in real life. I’ve never been at work going “just want to do this” before I go home and sleep
Yeah, I’ve played plenty of Civilization over the years, but I’m married now. I have a kid. I keep a note with what I’m doing because it might be a couple months before I play again. I could play more, but I want to spend time with my wife and my kid. Usually when I take time to play I want to play again the next night, but that’s often not feasible, and then it turns into weeks again.
I started playing Morrowind maybe 6 months back, got hours into the game and was having a good time. Then I didn’t get a chance to play for a month, now I haven’t gone back because I have no idea what I was doing since half the stuff doesn’t seem to be written in the journal, and when it is, it assumes I remember who the person is or where I was supposed to be going. So I just haven’t picked it up again.
To be fair, Morrowind is just that kind of game. It’s been many years since I’ve played it, but I remember it being one of the last truly open world experiences I got from playing games. The plot drops you off in the first city and kind of just let’s you go at it. I remember hours of just wandering until I ended up at the city of vivec, which is the mess of floating pyramid temple lookin jobbies out on a lake somewhere. I didn’t know shit about anything but it was awesome and that was enough for me. Elden Ring almost brings this feeling back sometimes.
It was great while I remembered what was happening! But sometimes your only reference to a quest is something that says “Go out the door, take the third left, and look for an orange door” and you just have no idea even what city you were in when you got that note 😆
During the couple of weeks I was playing it, I didn’t actually feel lost at all. But now trying to return to it just feels more like a chore than a good time. I’m playing Baldur’s Gate 3 now instead, I’m back in the era of quest markers!
You can add map markers with custom descriptions in Morrowind. I use them to leave little “what the fuck am I doing” notes for myself before leaving the game if I don’t know I’ll be back on within a couple days
For real though it can be a hard game to jump back into if you’ve had it on pause for a while. I usually just make a new character at that point see where the new adventure goes. There are so many factions and places to explore no one character can experience the game in full anyway
Exactly! I absolutely love EU4 and am excited about the likely next installment. Unfortunately, I’m less excited about their other recent launches, because the depth of strategy just isn’t quite there.
But then I look around and can’t really find a comparable game. There’s Total War, but y strategy there is pretty weak and more about battlefield tactics than actual grand strategy. Civ exists, but it’s in a pretty different category (and not really my thing; I do like Civ IV though). I own a lot of strategy games, but most are kind of shallow. I love complex games with a lot of moving parts, which yields a lot of variation game to game, and that just isn’t all that common outside of PDX games.
Fill combat width, esp the front line, and ideally the back line (back line is essential in end game)
Keep up on tech, including your mercs - need to rehire every few decades
Choose good battles - terrain matters (e.g. don’t attack into the mountains), stack size matters; retreat if you’re caught in a bad battle
Get some buffs - morale is most important early game, discipline and combat ability starts to matter more by mid game; you should focus on one or two areas to specialize (so idea groups and policies should synergize with national ideas)
Have good leaders - should have high army tradition, so your leaders should all be 2-3 star generals
Usually by mid game, I’m steamrolling everyone and am the biggest great power, even if I started small. Consider watching some streamers/YouTubers, many do a good job explaining things as they go.
For navies:
Watch battles and retreat if you start seeing red on your side - naval battles have a domino effect, so if you’re seeing more red on their side, consider continuing, you might capture more than you lose
Morale is the most important factor here - if you’re outnumbered, check individual ships and leave the low morale and damaged ships in port
If you’re filling combat width, the easy strategy is to get a bunch of heavies - don’t worry about the inland sea malace (heavies are fine in inland sea, galleys suck in deep water), if you can out-gun them, you’ll probably win
Pick your naval doctrine carefully - if you get galley combat ability, consider going all galleys and go over force limit as needed - it’s cheaper to be over force limit with galleys than at force limit with heavies
Naval leaders don’t matter all that much, they can break a tie, but that’s about it; individual ship morale is king in navies
It takes a long time for AI to repair boats, so popping in and out of port can be a great way to whittle down their navy and eventually win - make sure to retreat as needed to not lose boats
If you have naval dominance, destroy their navy entirely (occupy provinces with their boats, engage, repeat until it’s dead)
Don’t fight with light ships, they’re a liability (see 2, they get morale hammered); transport ships are really hardy, so use them as a bullet sponge if you need to fill combat width
Enemy fleet size doesn’t matter at all. You can defeat 100+ ship fleets if you can beat the ships that engage (like 20-30), you just need to get it to start to domino. So commit to either galleys (with galley combat naval doctrine) or heavies, and if you start to lose, retreat, repair, and reengage.
By the mid game, it’s easy to absolutely dominate if you play the early game well. Your goal in the early game is to build a power base, which means:
expand your borders a bit by taking good land - centers of trade, defendable mountain passes, etc
reduce autonomy
get good synergies in your idea groups
border the countries you want to engage in the middle game
build the right buildings
So by mid game, you should be a regional, if not global, power, and your time will be spent gobbling up land and converting wrong religion land. I usually stop playing about 1650-1700 because I’ve usually already accomplished my goals. Late game, the game should be pretty easy, except the 2-3 big powers you’ve neglected all game.
Yeah, pick a big nation, ally another big nation, and only fight battles you know you can win. If you and your ally are big enough, you shouldn’t get attacked.
It’s a complex game, so consider lowering the difficulty if you’re having trouble as a big nation.
exactly what i was going to ask. Uh, when was the last good strategy game? Looking at my steam library…
I have 2000+ hours in factory games, Factorio, Satisfactory, Dyson Sphere… not really strategy but those are solid thought based games released <10 years ago
Then… Age of Empires 4? Civ 6? Both pale in comparison to their predecessors. Cities Skylines 1… but then there’s the whole thing about 2. Star Trek Infinite was a flop and from what I read was just a horrible bland game. Serious, what has come out by big studios in the last 5 years in terms of strategy? I see more flashy graphics than strategy in these recent games.
I really like Victoria 3, it has its issues but I don’t mind them that much. I find much of the criticism is from ppl. who played Victoria 2.
In terms of other new games there is humankind which is similar to the Civ series. It has some great new concepts but some weirdness that I for unknown reasons can’t move past.
I would bet it’s more like “gaming has expanded to a larger market”. Gamers who were willing to fiddle with computers and online gaming, hell, up till the late 2000s are probably also the same type of people who are willing to be patient and fiddle with a complex game and learn where the fun is. Now playing a game is easy as 1,2,3 no matter where you get it, I’m not talking down on anyone, and I don’t care if that’s where the AAA trend is going, just that when the access gets easier the group expands to more and more casual audiences.
Also, console games have always been way more “casual” as those markets expand gamers kind of defacto have a larger preference for casual games.
I was deep into Strategy and lore – preferring games that ate hundreds of hours. Unfortunately these days my available gaming hours are reduced to a mere handful. It’s difficult to remember everything when I can only play sparingly.
Thus, I’ve resorted to smaller indie games that can be enjoyed in a smaller amount of time, with less of a learning curve. I’m a casual gamer now. What can you do?
As soon as some technology becomes so accessible that anyone can use it, the platform becomes populated by morons and it’s essence is diluted by all sorts of rules put in place so the morons can’t damage each other.
Meanwhile I still think there’s that group of folks out there who want to decompile the game looking for lore in the code comments.
There’s a Rat Man den in Portal 2, it’s in a later section of the game after you’ve climbed out of the depths, you can get behind the scenes and there’s a niche with a big fan in it, and Rat Man has built kind of a shrine of coffee mugs. And if you listen, under the harsh electro music and the sound effect of the fan, you can hear a sort of insane jibbering, as if Rat Man is still there raving to himself.
Fans of the game hungry for any more lore or story hints, have put more thought into this sound clip than the folks who made it and put it in the game.
I don’t see the methodology in here, so any influence I could guess is pure speculation. The mentioned lack of strategy games is a possible culprit. This would also prevent people from discovering an interest, as new eyes wouldn’t be on the genre. I’m sure a lot of people discovered they like some RPGs via Baldur’s Gate 3. One I might suggest exploring is that as gaming expanded in audience to different types of people, the new members would proportionately be less interested in deep strategy skewing the average interest as a whole. As a guess, a lot of people who have gotten into gaming via their phone are more interested in things that can be done while focusing on something else or something with a shorter run time than the typical strategy game.
I think those craving strategy were some of the earliest adopters of gaming, especially once those games became increasing popular. It’s no surprise then that their numbers would be diluted over time, especially once you start including mobile gamers (who I think are different enough to not really warrant being compared to other gamers). As someone who played some strategy games in the 90s, it was a wild time:
real-time games like Dune, Command & Conquer, Homeworld, Age of Empires, Myth
turn-based stuff like Ogre Battle, Fire Emblem, X-Com, Jagged Alliance
the ungodly amount of grid-based civil war and cold war games and the beginnings of what could be called grand strategy, such as Panzer General, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Star Wars Rebellion, Europe Universalis (2000 but not really a stretch to include imo)
4X games like Civilization, Alpha Centauri, Master of Orion
stuff that doesn’t fit in anywhere else like The Guild, Majesty, Carrier Command, Battlezone… (might be misremembering release dates here)
We are still getting a lot of good strategy games even in recent years, like The Last Spell, They Are Billions, Beyond All Reason, half the stuff SplattercatGaming covers…
I imagine that there is a lot of cross-over between strategy, city-builder, logistics and sim players especially if you single out Germany lol. All those genres are “shrinking” if you are only looking at them as a percentage of total gamers, but actually they slowly grow all the time.
I have always been the one who goes against the trends, and it looks like I still am. Strategy is one of the very few genres that I like, and if the game has no strategic element to it, I usually don’t enjoy it.
But… I don’t like overwhelming UIs and elements. I like simplicity, few elements and not many options, but a deep strategy.
UI feels like such an art nowadays. With computers being powerful enough to handle more complex simulations, we can potentially have insane amounts of data in a game. And game devs need to figure out how to present that information to the player without overwhelming them.
For example I think Victoria 3 does a pretty poor job of it, while a game like CK2 does an excellent job of it. It can be hard to get right.
I love 4x games, but playing a game of Stellaris for a week or more just to realize that I’ve inescapably fucked up and lost the game is disheartening. I just don’t have the bandwidth to spend 40 hours per match. Yeah, you can make 4x games run a lot shorter, but it usually feels like you’re doing something crazy to the game.
I bet it has to do with the average age of the gaming community getting older. I used to play Civ 5, EU4, CK2 all the time in college, when I have tons of free time and didnt care if I was up until 3 in the morning. Now that I have a life and a job, it takes like a week of 1-2 hour sessions to finish a game of civ 5, and the last time I played EU4, I played for several weeks and didnt even finish.
I really do think it has something to do with improper difficulty scaling. Hopefully, we can see a proper ML-model implemented as AI in a strategy game soon.
I’m in the same boat (as far as free time goes) but I have the opposite outlook. Strategy games, and other games with some amount of crunchy complexity, keep me engaged even when I’m not playing. I can spend some time on wikis, crafting theories, and cooking up plans throughout the week and that keeps me coming back.
I can’t do story games because it’s too easy to forget what’s going on when you spread it out that far. Or there’s online action games (shooters, mobas, etc) but it’s rare that I can guarantee I’ll be on long enough to complete a match.
My problem with strategy games is that they’re too hard to get into. I tried to play civ 5, but they are a thousand mechanics and the tutorials are very bad.
The difficulty setting in strategy games shouldn’t be “how smart is the AI?”, it should be “how many mechanics do you want to manage at the same time?”. That way you can start by playing on easy mode, then the next game on normal, then hard. Instead of that there are 10 difficulty levels and half of them are impossible, the other half you can beat by following the exact same strategy every time.
The difficulty setting in Civilization games has never been “how smart is the AI.” The AI always plays with the same level of “intelligence” (which is almost none). What the difficulty setting controls is how much the AI cheats (which is a ton at the highest levels) and how aggressive it is.
My problem with Civ 5 (as a player of the series since the beginning) is that they’ve added a ton of stuff to the game that doesn’t actually make it more interesting or challenging to play. At the same time, instead of improving the AI to make it more interesting and challenging to play against, they decided to hobble all of the strong strategies from the early games in a way that just makes the game more annoying to play.
The fun part of the Civ series has always been about building the largest, most technologically advanced empire and steamrolling all the AI’s cities. Since Civ 5 this has been flat out impossible due to the changes they made to the game which cause exponential corruption / waste for large empires and the inability to stack units which means large armies are extremely tedious to manage.
Yeah several times I have tried to play Crusader Kings because conceptually its really cool but I just give up every time because I don’t know wtf is going on.
Also this may seem like a weird suggestion but if you like FPS you may like Rainbow Six: Seige. Got over a thousand hours and I’m still cooking up strategies with my gaming buddy. And unlike a true strategy game you can just run and gun when you start out and still have fun and the game will always be balanced because it’s pvp and it will adjust your rank accordingly.
I always preferred Arena style fps games because the varied weapon set means having far greater variety in possible encounters with opponents. Military style shooters feel shallow to me. Skill just means placing shots to the head. There’s no real movement techniques with them
I don’t disagree with your main point, but D&D 5e is a rather shallow rules system. It’s needlessly complicated (15 strength gives you what bonus? How does readying an action work? Can you smite when unarmed?), but it’s not really deep.
Used to play strategy games quite a lot 20 or so years ago. AoE, Homeworld, Red Alert. But I never got very deep into them.
The main reason I don't like strategy games anymore is that most of them simply boil down to micromanagement and actions-per-minute. That is not how my brain works. I hate micromanaging and multitasking. I love planning tactics, doing recon and analyzing the situation (as long as I don't have to do statistical analysis with spreadsheets for that), setting goals and executing plans.
Best strategy game I've ever played? X3: Terran Conflict. Once you set your plans in motion everything works pretty much automatically—you don't have to order your traders or military forces around constantly or set up product batches in your factories manually. You set up parameters by which your assets work, and aside from occasional tweaking and optimization you leave them to their own devices. Instead you concentrate on the actual grand strategy or a single battle at hand or putting out some random brushfire that needs your attention without the worry about your "villagers" standing around idle because they can't figure out there's a fresh patch of fish 100 meters to the left.
Plus you're there, in situ, as an actual participant in the world, not an abstract godhand hovering over the map. First-person strategy. Commanding two task groups steamrolling through a sector from the bridge of your cruiser, sipping coffee as turrets put on a massive fireworks around you is epic.
Games with “deep strategy” are largely not very good.
I still play a bunch of Stellaris and I go back to Age of Wonders 4 pretty frequently. Against the Storm is also addictive as hell. These 3 games have a sense of adventure that keeps them interesting.
I like Solium Infernum - which is pretty new - quite a bit, but it doesn’t have the staying power that those do. On top of that you have misfires like Humankind, Old World, Vicky 3, and the like. “Deep” is one thing, but fiddly and unnecessarily complicated is another… as is being under-developed in important areas like the endgame.
I think gamers are becoming less interested in a genre that has become saturated with dime-a-dozen mediocre cruft.
MOO2 is still one of, if not the, best 4x space games and part of that is how clear cut it is. The systems play together well and it isn’t a bloated mess of complicated mechanics for the sake of being complicated. The depth is very emergent and not artificial feeling which gives it an incredible timelessness
Yeah, there hasn't been a lot of innovation in the genre and what we have is often a buggy mess - that definitely doesn't help the adoption of 'deep strategy'. I love games like what you mentioned but even I get sick of them when I start running into AI or optimization issues, where games devolve into snowballing or boring tedium after the first few hours, when the UI is a frustrating mess that makes me hate every second spent on trying to make it work the way I need it to work.
Or maybe I'm just spoiled by the amount of polish and thought that goes into games like factorio or against the storm.
Add comment