[phillco]

My favorite thing about Civ is that its creator has kept control over it, and continues to evolve it. We'll probably be enjoying a new Civ in 2026. The charm is that it's the same game in many respects — parts evolve, but the core remains.

This seems unusual; I can point to several popular 90's games that peaked there and never recovered (Roller Coaster Tycoon, Age of Empires II, and arguably SimCity 4 if you include the early naughts). I wonder why; as a player, the Civ model seems preferable (you always have modern versions and new, but not heretical, variety).

[gurkendoktor]

Age of Empires 2 is actually alive (again). A modernised HD edition, a new add-on for it, and also a new add-on for Age of Mythology have been released on Steam in the last years.

That's not really the same as releasing proper sequels, but good enough for me :)

[freehunter]

I waited for years to get Age of Empires 2 on digital distribution as my computer hasn't had a CD drive since... shoot, 2009? And right after it was released on Steam, my PC broke down and I bought a Mac. And AoE2 doesn't work on a Mac. Boo.

[GurnB]

I just played AoE II (HD) on my MacBook Pro this weekend while stranded in a Hotel. What am I missing?

[freehunter]

Huh, Steam doesn't list it as available on Mac for me. Do you have a non-Steam version?

[yen223]

Strategy games in general seem to have hit a slump for some reason.

[frik]

Yeah sadly. More game developers changed to "console first" or "mobile first". Streamlined casual gameplay pay to win / free to play and the lack of a precise input device (mouse) on consoles almost killed the former very popular PC strategy games segment.

Civ, SC and Anno barely survived that trend in some streamlined form or another. I am still playing old perls from Age of Empires, Roller Coaster Tycoon, SimCity, Command & Conquer, Empire Earth, Settler, Industry Giant, etc series. The PC strategy game era I am familar with was between 1990 and 2005. The good thing all software still works and 2D graphics of some titles is good enough and aged better than early 3D graphics. And C&C Generals, Roller Coaster Tycoon 3, Age of Mythology and Age of Empires 3 still look very good, 12-15 years later.

<rant>It's like Crysis 1 from 2007 and GTA 4 from 2008 are still top notch, and can be compared with the best titles in 2015 like GTA 5 PC and AC Unity. No wonder with all the stagnation that highend GPU on 2k is running on just 25% load these days.</rant>

[ascagnel_]

There are hopeful signs that this is starting to change. The 2012 XCOM title has a more console-friendly interface (it plays better with a controller) and has a great mobile port (the iOS version is mechanically identical to the PC game, and is only missing a few maps and graphical flair). Yes, that title is streamlined, but that streamlining sanded off the rougher edges of the 1990s games (especially in the tactical mode, where managing time units was a constant pain).

[frik]

Sorry, but you wrote 180 degree opposite response to what I actually wrote.

The problem I see is a lack of strategy games, especiall real time strategy games that are not trying to clone Star Craft 2 (like 10 SciFi clones, boring!). And the casualization and streamlining of gameplay makes it pointless for real core PC game players. PC games of the 1990s and 2000s had a great PC UI, I don't want dumbed down UIs and gameplay of bad console ports. I want micro management and real time gameplay like in the games mentioned in my previous comment. (The same goes for console players who don't want to do micro management of single small units with a controller, that's why console strategy games aren't very popular and have different gameplay.)

[ascagnel_]

There's a difference between streamlining useless micromanagement and removing gameplay mechanics.

To use XCOM as an example:

The 1994 game featured a time unit stat. You would have to measure out, manually, the number of tiles you would move past, multiply that by four (the amount of TU moving one tile would take), add two if you were kneeling at the start of the turn, subtract two from the available total if you wanted to kneel at the end of the turn, and subtract from the available total the number of TU necessary for the number of shots (or reaction shots) you wanted to take. On top of that, there were three different shot types (an aimed shot that would take up almost all TUs, an auto shot that would take up about half of the available TUs, and a snap shot that'd only take up about a quarter but also maxed out at a 20% chance to hit, making it mostly useless). This process and complexity was not fun, especially since the UI didn't make it easy to count the tiles you'd be moving.

The 2012 removed TU and replaced it with a few systems. For moving, you have a pair of lines that marked a move or a dash. A basic move allows for a shot (either on-command or as a reaction), while the dash would extend range (and could be coupled with a shot based on a class-specific ability). A single character move takes seconds instead of minutes, regardless of the platform. It took an overly-complex mechanic, simplified it, and made it more fun.

Civ 4 vs Civ Revolution. Civ Rev combat is simplified in a bad way -- it's build a giant stack of combined "army" units and whittle away at your opponent, with combat resolved by die rolls and modifiers rather than unit attributes.

It's worth noting that the new XCOM was developed by creating a board game; measuring distance is common in tabletop war games (think Warhammer and its ilk).

In my mind, it's a suitable like-for-like replacement of TUs (you still have to balance movement, exposing the map, etc., with firepower) with an implementation that requires less fiddling with the UI.

[exar0815]

Can just recommend the new XCOM2. A massive improvement, absolutely brilliant game. Gives some hope for Strategy again.

[adwf]

Partly because it's difficult to make them work well on console, but mostly it's just down to numbers.

The article mentions that Civ has sold over 30 million copies over the 25yr life of the franchise, whereas some thing like Call of Duty sells 20+ million every year.

When big games publishers look at that they won't even bother commisioning a strategy game. That's why it's only independent companies like Firaxis and Paradox (who are their own publisher) making these games.

[exar0815]

Depends. There are some really good STrategy games out there. Endless Space/Endless Legend, the Wargame-Series and the Total War titles. Still waiting for Empire II, though.

[vidarh]

I think computing power and graphics simply got to a level where the temptation is strong to invest lots of resources on polish or "scaling up" rather than refining game mechanics.

Many other types of games have suffered similarly when upgrading graphics etc. allowed a lot of apparent quick wins. After all, the graphics and superficial effects are much more immediately visible.

[goda90]

There has been an uptick in large scale RTS lately. Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak, Ashes of the Singularity, Planetary Annihilation, Grey Goo to name a few. They don't gather the big attention like AAA console games but they are still coming out. And of course there are the Pandora Interactive games that are always great.

[baldfat]

Check out the podcast "Three Moves Ahead" it focuses 100% on strategy games. I think there are amazing games out there but they are from independent studios. Endless Legend is the big one but I also love Conquest of Elysium 3 (Forgive me a 'Roguelike' 4X game).

[puzzlingcaptcha]

Starcraft seems to be going strong, Legacy of the Void sold 1M copies the first day, even though the advertising wasn't particularly noticeable (Fallout 4 launched at the same time).

[afterburner]

Check out Paradox's games.

[ekianjo]

Yes, but it's only Paradox recently. There used to be dozens of big publishers of Strategy games before (SSI for example) as well as many minor ones. The genre is clearly verging extinction apart from the big ones remaining.