Strategy games in decline?

[Josephus]

Hoping this link works cause I'm doing it on the phone and I'm old.

The gist of this IGN article is that a recent study shows that most gamers are not interested in strategy games anymore

I wonder if the complexity and lack of decent manuals has anything to do with it? Frankly I find, for instance, that I never quite learned to play Victoria iii. And to this day I have no idea how to launch an air attack from an aircraft carrier in HOI 3.

I'd rather have a handy manual beside me when I play than watch gamers on YouTube.

Anyway. Old man rant over.

Here's the link

This

[Syt]

I think, overall, strategy (unless it's cozy/casual games) is always a bit of a niche, because the majority of players will be more into more "direct" games like shooters, platformers etc. that can be more intuitively grasped.

That said, I think the lack of manuals is not an issue (though many games still have manuals on Steam, like Shadow Empires and other Slitherine titles). Technology has gotten to the point where you don't need a tome of a manual to explain what the cryptic two or three letter abbreviations on screen stand for, or what each of the symbols mean etc.

In theory, this can all live in game. We have tool tips, nested tool tips (which Paradox introduced with CK3 and kept in Vic3 and which I love), tutorials, and games can include a reference library about game concepts, units, techs, etc. (think Civilopedia in the Civ games).

However, some developers are really shit in providing this information in game. I think Vic3 is a great example. Yes, you had a tutorial, you had tool tips and information, but either you had to hunt it down in the UI to find it, or it wasn't exposed in the first place, leaving you to wonder what effect your actions had. It's gotten a lot better (e.g. explaining which countries are likely to join/oppose your diplomatic plays and wars), but I feel it's still not on the mark.

Also, there are still successful strategy games. They may not be sitting at the top of the charts, but successes are there. I think of Paradox's latest releases Age of Wonders 4 is by far the best and most polished (also, not developed by them ). Baldur's Gate 3 is an RPG, but the combat is a tactical turn based affair with lots of options and interactivity, and it's wildly successful (and I think they're a pretty good example of providing you with the necessary information via tool tips, using "examine" on enemies to know their strengths/weaknesses etc.). But yes, they're no Fortnight, or Call of Duty, or or GTA in terms of mass market appeal.

Finally, I think - at least for me - it's also a matter of being inundated with games. 15, 20 years ago I would have thought nothing of knuckling down and learning a complex game for a week. Before digital distribution access to games was often whatever was at your local shop; and I also had less money. Nowadays, if a game doesn't click right away it's much more tempting to move on to the next thing or go back to something that's familiar.

[Valmy]

Besides the RTS craze in the 1990s I cannot really think of a time that gamers ever really were interested in strategy games. It has always been a niche product.

[crazy canuck]

Hoping this link works cause I'm doing it on the phone and I'm old.

The gist of this IGN article is that a recent study shows that most gamers are not interested in strategy games anymore

I wonder if the complexity and lack of decent manuals has anything to do with it? Frankly I find, for instance, that I never quite learned to play Victoria iii. And to this day I have no idea how to launch an air attack from an aircraft carrier in HOI 3.

I'd rather have a handy manual beside me when I play than watch gamers on YouTube.

Anyway. Old man rant over.

Here's the link

This

The article provides an explanation which is consistent with other research related to the negative cognitive effects of social media.  Add the dramatic decline in gamers wanting games with strategic choices and decision making.

Since the effects of social media include decline in attention span and reading comprehension, I don't think adding something for players to read will help.

[crazy canuck]

Did anyone actually read the article before commenting on it? 

[Syt]

Did anyone actually read the article before commenting on it? 

Has that ever stopped us before?

P.S.: I also feel that gamers are much more critical these days. If a game is not "perfect" it will be torn apart mercilessly, even if otherwise people would just enjoy it for what it is (unless it's completely broken). Certainly an outcome of online culture that tends to amplify (perceived) flaws even if they only would affect a small percentage of players, either due to min/max playstyle or other outliers. Not saying that customers should accept any slop that companies put out, but I feel the perfect is very often the enemy of the good in gamer circles. See also negative Steam reviews from players who of 4-digit play times on games ragging on some "out there" requirements that most casual players won't care about.

[crazy canuck]

Did anyone actually read the article before commenting on it? 

Has that ever stopped us before?

P.S.: I also feel that gamers are much more critical these days. If a game is not "perfect" it will be torn apart mercilessly, even if otherwise people would just enjoy it for what it is (unless it's completely broken). Certainly an outcome of online culture that tends to amplify (perceived) flaws even if they only would affect a small percentage of players, either due to min/max playstyle or other outliers. Not saying that customers should accept any slop that companies put out, but I feel the perfect is very often the enemy of the good in gamer circles. See also negative Steam reviews from players who of 4-digit play times on games ragging on some "out there" requirements that most casual players won't care about.

Please read the article, you are all well off the mark regarding what the researchers measured and the reason they have for the data they found.

But I suppose by not reading the article you have all confirmed it's thesis.

[Syt]

Well, I have read it, and yes, things are getting more fast paced. Though the reference to Social Media, I feel there's a growing resistance to it (esp. with e.g. Twitter getting flooded by useless bots). However, a caveat as comment by the study author on Quantic Foundry's site: https://quanticfoundry.com/2024/05/21/strategy-decline/

Just a quick clarification that we didn't ask gamers if they're interested in "strategy games". We asked them how interested they are in long-term thinking and planning when playing games. So this gets at gaming motivations specifically rather than interest in playing/buying specific game titles. For example, you can play Sims 4 very strategically if you choose to even though it's not a "strategy game". Similarly, you can play Civ VI reactively and just watch the world burn in disaster/zombie mode even though it's a "strategy game".

So it's possible that the "core strategy crowd" does what they always do, but that players who play other games focus less on planning/strategizing in their titles (and genre mixes are all over the place these days, anyways).Then again, I've always more been what the writer calls "reactive" in strategy games which is e.g. why I get on with CK3 so well) while others bemoan the lack of strategic depth/challenge.

[Josquius]

I wonder if this is linked to the average age of gamers growing older, kids increasingly not taking up "proper" gaming, and older people just not having time for Strategy games? - certainly my case.

The lack of manuals in games sucks for sure. Even in games where they're not needed they were always wonderful side reads. But then physical media in general is being killed.

[Syt]

I wonder if this is linked to the average age of gamers growing older, kids increasingly not taking up "proper" gaming, and older people just not having time for Strategy games? - certainly my case.

The lack of manuals in games sucks for sure. Even in games where they're not needed they were always wonderful side reads. But then physical media in general is being killed.

On their site they say that their survey is mostly attracting PC/console players (not many mobile players) and that the demographics (age, gender, core vs hardcore gamers) have remained quite steady.

[Valmy]

Did anyone actually read the article before commenting on it? 

Yes. It was very short and did not really reveal enough information to be compelling. I even went over and read the Quantic article it was quoting.

But my point still stands. And it is the same alarmist shit about how we have no attention spans that I have been hearing about my whole life. I find the idea that in 2015 roughly half of gamers were big strategy fans very laughable whatever their survey data says. Strategy was never this big thing except for that one weird era.

[Tamas]

Shouldn't we use sales numbers to gauge this instead of some study?

[Syt]

Shouldn't we use sales numbers to gauge this instead of some study?

Gameplay metrics would be more useful, I think. You can buy 100 games and never play them. Would be more interesting to see what people spend time on.

[Tamas]

Shouldn't we use sales numbers to gauge this instead of some study?

Gameplay metrics would be more useful, I think. You can buy 100 games and never play them. Would be more interesting to see what people spend time on.

Good point and I agree, although I could argue that if they buy the game there's interest in the genre of the game

[Tamas]

Ok, I don't like the article.

The metris:  Destruction, Excitement, Competition, Community, Challenge, Strategy, Completion, Power, Fantasy, Story, Discovery, and Design

It seems like "strategy" refers to preference to devise complex long-term plans and see them to fruition. Now first of all, if you like doing that, then that may translate to you as Excitement, Competition, Challenge, Completion, Power.

Secondly, I am much more often than not a reactive gamer like Syt. Under these metrics I might not score high on Strategy despite having spent most of my life playing those kind of games near-exclusively.


I think such a study is entirely useless for gauging interest in strategy games, it seems much more useful in arriving at pre-determined conclusions.

As Syt suggested, these people should look at generating repors from playtime statistics readily available thanks to Steam. But then, the less subjective your metrics are, the less control you have over the results and narrative of your study, so I kind of understand not wanting to do that when you make a living out of doing studies.