Strategy is not hip

[glen55]

https://www.ign.com/articles/gamers-are-becoming-less-interested-in-games-with-deep-strategy-study-finds
        
      

 

[Redwolf]

https://www.ign.com/articles/gamers-are-becoming-less-interested-in-games-with-deep-strategy-study-finds
        
      

 

It is too bad that they only give fluffy numbers.

I would be interested to know whether the absolute number of gamers with an interest in strategy stayed the same, and this groups lower percentage is caused by casual gamers joining the gaming market.

[Anguille]

Sad

[Jarhead0331]

Makes perfect sense. As the population gets dumber with less attention span and more entitled to being instantly gratified, so too shall the quality of recreation and entertainment diminish.   

[Grim.Reaper]

Totally non surprising to me, believe strategy players always have been in the minority compared to the other genres.....

[Old TImer]

Makes perfect sense. As the population gets dumber with less attention span and more entitled to being instantly gratified, so too shall the quality of recreation and entertainment diminish.   

I was going to comment on the general "dumbing down" of the populace, especially in the US.
Talking to my grandchildren about their subjects in school makes me want to cry.  They don't
even teach cursive writing anymore.  When did this happen?  Very depressing in general.

[jamus34]

Waiting for the big screen release of "Ass"




(For you Idiocracy fans)

[solops]

You know, I like creamy peanut butter best. Crunchy peanut butter just seems so...ummm...busy and complicated.

[Skoop]

Waiting for the big screen release of "Ass"




(For you Idiocracy fans)

With the way the 2024 election is going, I wouldn't be surprised if 2028 election will put the Terry Crews idiocracy character in the White House.

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

Strategy's been on the decline since the late 90's, I'd say.  Wargames, flight sims with 100+ page manuals, and Civ type games  were the norm until Windows 95 came out.  Once PCs became easier to use (no more DOS 6.22 boot disk fiddling to free up memory), the hobby became more accessible and you got less nerdy types entering in.  Eventually, they dwarfed the numbers of us hard-core nerds and game developers followed the market.

Once console games took off and cross platform ports became the norm, it was all over.  I don't know if we hard-core enthusiasts are staying at the same numbers or declining as we grey out of the hobby, but we're definitely a niche market.  (Even worse in the boardgaming community these days.  Wargamers are a niche within a niche).

I still remember living in Japan and getting my hands on a copy of PC Gamer.  They were raving about Worms, Warcraft II, and Homeworld.

I eagerly bought a copy of Homeworld from the import store.  Installed it, played it for about 2 hours, decided it was just an RTS click fest with green HP bars, and deleted it in disgust.  Sold it for a loss the next week.

I realized that I was no longer the target audience for gaming media like PC Gamer and I'd have to stick to niche developers.

Interesting that Homeworld and Warcraft are now remembered as deep strategy titles as I can still recall grogs railing against them (me included) for being dumbed down click-fests.

[Jarhead0331]

^Very interesting and thought-provoking perspective.

Intriguing to think that "our" numbers have not really changed.

What about viewing the changes within the industry from the developer perspective? If "our" numbers have remained relatively constant, why wouldn't developers continue to make the same kinds of complex games to appeal to the traditional crowd. In other words, following the logic from your post, wouldn't the influx of new gamers with different tastes simply result in more developers making games to suit those tastes, rather than a sum total decline in the kind of complex strategy games we love from the Golden Age?

[ArizonaTank]

^Very interesting and thought-provoking perspective.

Intriguing to think that "our" numbers have not really changed.

What about viewing the changes within the industry from the developer perspective? If "our" numbers have remained relatively constant, why wouldn't developers continue to make the same kinds of complex games to appeal to the traditional crowd. In other words, following the logic from your post, wouldn't the influx of new gamers with different tastes simply result in more developers making games to suit those tastes, rather than a sum total decline in the kind of complex strategy games we love from the Golden Age?

It may be just that developers themselves are following the same trend. Less interest in actually designing and developing strategy games. They design/develop the games that THEY want to play.

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

^Very interesting and thought-provoking perspective.

Intriguing to think that "our" numbers have not really changed.

What about viewing the changes within the industry from the developer perspective? If "our" numbers have remained relatively constant, why wouldn't developers continue to make the same kinds of complex games to appeal to the traditional crowd. In other words, following the logic from your post, wouldn't the influx of new gamers with different tastes simply result in more developers making games to suit those tastes, rather than a sum total decline in the kind of complex strategy games we love from the Golden Age?

My guess is that it costs a lot more to produce bigger games with high end graphics, sound, voice acting, etc now than it did in 1995.  If the market size hadn't appreciably increased, you can't make a profit.   I recall that was the reason Microprose fave when they stopped making flight sims.  I guess that's why only Russian companies still develop them.  Their production costs are low enough yo warrant it.

We still have companies making wargames, but compared with AAA titles, the gfx and interfaces seem remarkably dated.  John Tiller games look pretty much the same today as wargames from SSI did in '97.

[Jarhead0331]

^Very interesting and thought-provoking perspective.

Intriguing to think that "our" numbers have not really changed.

What about viewing the changes within the industry from the developer perspective? If "our" numbers have remained relatively constant, why wouldn't developers continue to make the same kinds of complex games to appeal to the traditional crowd. In other words, following the logic from your post, wouldn't the influx of new gamers with different tastes simply result in more developers making games to suit those tastes, rather than a sum total decline in the kind of complex strategy games we love from the Golden Age?

It may be just that developers themselves are following the same trend. Less interest in actually designing and developing strategy games. They design/develop the games that THEY want to play.

Ah-ha! So the developers are getting dumber!

[Old TImer]

There is still enough good stuff out there to keep me busy.  Command Modern Operations,  Campaign Series Vietnam, some of the SGS titles, the Tiller games.  Also Microsoft Flight Sim for some real
time sink.
It may be niche but there's more good stuff that I don't have time to play than ever.