They've turned you into something inhuman, and you no longer have the right to choose. You have committed yourself to the behavior accepted by society and have become a small machine for good. I see this clearly. It is nothing more than the operation of the conditioned reflex at the edge of the consciousness domain. Music, sexuality, literature and art must all be sources of suffering, not pleasure.
Not long ago, we watched a short documentary called "Return to the Golden Age of Strategy." There are a lot of familiar people in the film, like PDD and TeD, who recall some of the early millennium, there are bits and pieces about strategy games — to be honest, it's a bit sentimental.
This sentimentality stems from two questions: "Are you still playing a strategy game now?" "Do you think the strategy game can go back to its pomp and circumstance?" ”
And it is precisely because of these two questions that the theme of this "weekly topic" is derived: Has the golden age of strategy games passed?
So, in the present moment, when this strategy game is becoming more and more niche, we want to discuss with you, has the golden age of strategy games really passed?
Location:
Although it is a pity, the golden age of strategy games has indeed passed.
Strategy games are actually a pretty big category. Broadly speaking, board games such as Go and chess, and card games such as poker and mahjong, can be counted as strategy games. But if you want to count these, it's endless. Therefore, most of the time we often say that strategy games refer to strategy games.
In this way, strategy games are really not popular now. Belonging is an occasional boutique, but the overall trend is in the middle.
After all, strategy games have had a period of recognized "domination.". Especially after hooking up with the new concept of "e-sports", at its peak, there were few games that could be compared. After the turn of the millennium, there have been a large number of excellent strategy games, the "StarCraft" series, the "Warcraft" series, the "Age of Empires" series, and the "Red Alert" series, which are among the best. With quality and publicity at the same time, strategy games are unrealistic, even if they want to be low-key.
As for how the strategy game has declined, it is nothing more than the emergence of strong competitors and the change in player demand. On the one hand, more and more types of games that domestic players can contact, naturally they will not limit their attention to strategy games; on the other hand, players' attitudes towards the difficulty of the game have changed greatly, and the difficulty of getting started is low, and the easy-to-operate games have become more popular. And strategy games that require a lot of thinking and practice are naturally difficult to attract new players.
From frugality to luxury, from luxury to frugality. When players get used to the current game mode, the strategy game wants to return to its former glory, which is nothing less than a fantasy.
However, there are still a large number of players who are obsessed with strategy games. In addition, feelings are also the killer of many strategy game IP, if there can be a strategy game that adapts to the needs of the times, it is not impossible to regain the favor of players.
And this, it depends on how many brushes the makers of the strategy game have.
Lianpo:
I also watched the documentary – to be honest, as someone who also played "Age of Empires" and "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" around the turn of the millennium, it was a bit emotional.
"Now, are you still playing strategy games?" With "Do you think the strategy game can go back to its pomp and circumstance?" "These two questions, in fact, I have always wanted to find an opportunity to talk to you.
In essence, these two questions share the same theme as the "Golden Age of Strategy Games" that today's "Weekly Topic" is trying to discuss: What happened to the current strategy games?
To answer this question, we have to start with the mainstream strategy games currently on the market - in short, the mainstream strategy games in the current market actually have an essential problem, they are under the premise of The Simulation Game, neither simulation nor strategy.
If we look at these types of strategy games from a deconstructed perspective, you can see that they are essentially a To do list – you just act according to the game's set of agency, whether it is internal affairs, exploration, expansion or combat, the core idea is only to improve or compete in pure numerical terms within a fixed framework.
Under this premise, the numerical value determines half of the game experience, and the other half of the game experience comes from bad, painful, cyber agency animal-style mandatory social networking - in the documentary, PDD also mentioned this, frankly "that played I look tired" - this is also the problem of the current strategy game, in the case of the game content is valued shackles, the so-called social behavior to increase player stickiness.
And when numerical and forced social domination of strategy games, to borrow the phrase from PDD, it is "today's strategy games are too inflexible, too unfree" - most of the current strategy games have lost the things we used to pursue when playing strategy games: free city construction, judgment of the left and right battle situation, battlefield action with a sense of operation and battlefield decision-making with tactical significance.
But fortunately, there are still people who are willing to make some changes in this pool of stagnant water.
I took several Of Re-Empire tests – mostly because of the demands of my job, but what's interesting is that after going through a few tests, I realized one thing: Return to Empire is not a "conformist" game.
In any case, if you want to make some money in a mainstream market, you have to do something mainstream. But "Return to Empire" has chosen a not-so-easy path - I mean, at a time when the golden age of strategy games has passed, as the successor to the "Empire" IP, "Return to Empire" did not choose to simply slip on the money flow, but in many details, to follow the details from the "Golden Age" -
Just a few examples.
For example, in "Return to the Empire" to attack the city, I really need to break through the city gate before I can enter the city, and then I need to annihilate the enemy troops defending the city before I can complete the capture - you know, in the above-mentioned games, the capture of the city is just to lay a fixed point, without any "how I captured the city" concept;
And the map, in Return to the Empire, is not just a flat land with different resources, it has a real topography, I once operated an army ambushed under the woods, successfully completed a raid - in most games of its kind, this kind of operation is almost impossible;
Of course, being able to ambush the army meant that my march was completely free. In Return to Empire China, I can really drag my army at any time, let the superior army on the front line, the inferior army retreat to the rear to rest or carry out long-range attacks - even, I can also manipulate the warrior to release skills at any time to change the situation, such as Julius's "triumph", high AOE damage, which is simply a key skill to reverse the situation on the ranged battlefield.
And these, just the details I observed in the previous "Return to empire" tests, certainly do not represent the whole picture, "Return to empire" will not be perfect (the overall slow pace is the problem that has been exposed in the previous tests), but after the game went online yesterday, I still downloaded the game to experience.
The reason is actually quite simple, because it's really rare. I don't know if these details from the "Golden Age" will attract players, but there is no doubt that "Return to Empire" still chose this somewhat difficult path compared to the rough method of direct skinning.
It's always emotional.
Now that I think about it, the reason I was expecting Return to Empire may not be as simple as I really wanted to play it — I just went back to that summer.
preserved fruit:
Someone once said to me, "When you play games, think more." ”
At first, I didn't actually agree with that. For me, games are just a kind of entertainment, and sometimes when I am bored, I look forward to those brainless games that can continue to pass the level and give me a sense of accomplishment. When I was a child, at the beginning, I was exposed to the glorious "True Three Kingdoms 3", even if I later borrowed a game console to play console games such as "Pokémon", and came into contact with online games such as "Dungeons and Warriors" and "Crossfire", I also felt that they were not as happy as "True Three Kingdoms 3".
I can rely only on the three buttons of ordinary attack, charge attack and invincible skill in "True Three Kingdoms 3", you can rush forward without a brain and kill all four sides, why should I contact those games that require thinking, choosing, judging and planning? Not to mention that in terms of "brain draining", strategy games are even more than puzzle games.
After all, the key to the difficulty of puzzle games is whether the game's guided design is qualified, followed by the difficulty of the various types of mini-game puzzles it contains. Fundamentally, it was designed to allow players to experience the joy of solving puzzles. Strategy games are different, strategy games require players to strategize, win thousands of miles, and finally successfully defeat the opponent, it is designed in order to allow players to enjoy the process of the game. Whether it is an online game or a stand-alone machine, this essence will not change.
So, why did it fall? Quite simply, because playing strategy games, think more. Only when you think about it more, you will play easily and win - unlike the intense feedback brought by the car gun ball, it is instead in a lively atmosphere, emphasizing calmness. Under the premise that this essence has never changed, with the increase in the overall number of gamers, the proportion of players who emphasize entertainment is getting higher and higher, and strategy games are naturally no longer the opponents of various popular games on the market.
However, there is no problem with entertainment, and there is no problem with strategy games, and they do not correspond to the same sense of feedback.
Therefore, strategy games will not be eliminated, leaving aside the core players who love the game, even if it is an "entertainment player" like me, occasionally can not resist the temptation of "Age of Empires", "Total War", "Civilization" and other games, pointing out the temptation of planning - veterans will not die.
Lower middle:
Before the "Old Man Ring", I did not think that the sales of soul games could reach 12 million, which is a terrifying number, which is especially terrifying under the background of 60 knives in the United States and 299 yuan in the national area. In my mind, strategy games, like soul games, are now a niche enough category, soul games burn to the sky, so strategy games have a chance to recast the glory?
Possible, but not great.
Strategy games are a word of the past, and the other day, my friend and I tried the latest Age of Empires 4 – we like to play everything that can be online, even if the game is not so fun, companionship always provides us with enough fun, strategy games are especially suitable for online.
Age of Empires 4 was fun, we played from 7 p.m. to 2 a.m., and even though we couldn't help but quit the game, we still thought about the development and confrontation strategies of the different camps; when to spend resources to deploy fortifications; and "fight, how to fight."
Age of Empires 4 is certainly fascinating, and we envision the glory of strategy games in the history of games, so we will experience it. Even if we hadn't lived through the golden age of strategy games, we could still feel the beauty of each system interlocking, like a spinning gear in a quartz watch.
Age of Empires 4 is really tiring to play, and a game has to be played for at least an hour and a half. While part of the reason is because novices are unfamiliar with the game system, this length of time is obviously too long compared to the "Howling Abyss".
We love video games, so we're willing to keep trying, and those that are still fresh to us. But what about the many more "Howling Abyss" players who have never experienced strategy games?
They are the "majority" of the market.
Before the "old man ring" became a "hit", there was also "Only Wolf" that was briefly out of the circle because of "playing iron" a few years ago, but when was the last hit of the strategy game?
So, this is a paradoxical question — not the strongest spear and the strongest shield, but the chicken or the egg first.
Friends, let's start with an egg-laying chicken.
Virginity Song:
Has the golden age of strategy games passed?
Games will always be a unique art driven by technology. It must be admitted that in the golden age of strategy games more than a decade ago, other types of games in the same period, such as action games and role-playing games, were limited by the technical level at that time, and the expressiveness that could be displayed was very limited. More than a decade later, the expressiveness of these types of games has made a huge leap forward. And strategy games, it seems that the old works are more classic.
We can't say that the upper limit of strategy games is lower than other types of games, but the era of strategy games must be in the past.
But I guess it doesn't matter if we don't have to care, or be harsh on when the golden age of strategy games will come back. What matters is whether there are still companies that insist on making strategy games, and whether there are still new ideas and gameplay that are constantly being developed to meet the preferences of current gamers.
Today's game market is in an era of a hundred flowers. Strategy games must also have their own place.
Small salted fish roe:
The golden age of strategy games is indeed over, but this has nothing to do with strategy games themselves, but rather a certain necessity of the development of the times. With the level of science and technology getting stronger and stronger, the types of games are becoming more and more colorful, more and more people playing games, and everyone has their own love for turnips and greens. Gradually, strategy games have become one of the many popular game genres, and their popularity has naturally not returned.
However, while today's strategy games are not as grand as they were in the previous golden age, this does not mean that strategy games have declined. On the contrary, its vitality is still very strong, and it continues to attract many new players into the pit. Classic works such as "Civilization" and "Age of Empires" can still often be seen in mengxin posts. Because in a sense, the fun of strategy games is irreplaceable - it is the ultimate embodiment of game balance, whether it is a reasonable combination of resources, or combat brainstorming, the fun that strategy brings to players is quite superior. It's just that it's hard to have the pomp and circumstance of everyone playing strategy games now.
As for whether strategy games have a chance to once again set off the golden wind of the times. It can only be said that feng shui takes turns. Usually, every era has a chosen darling, MMO, MOBA, chicken eating, and so on – maybe, next time it's a strategy game.
Space Brown Bear:
I always say that the strategy game "day by day" is actually not very cold. It's true that this may be a relatively common statement, but it's never been the case, and it's not necessarily true.
It depends on how you define "brilliance."
If "brilliance" is a transcendence of the past, then the golden age of strategy games may have just begun. A strategy game of the Age of Empires 4 level may sell more in the first week than in the previous first month or even the first year. "Civilization", "Romance of the Three Kingdoms", "Nobunaga's Wild Hope", the sales of these old strategy games are also relatively stable, and they are rising year by year.
But if you insist on comparing yourself to all games, then "Brilliance" does not exist. Don't say it's not possible now, even 20 years ago, when real-time strategy, grand strategy and wargames were popular, strategy games were not the top. At least, on a sales level, that's it.
Compared with the historical sales of the "Diablo" series, Blizzard can continue to do "StarCraft 2", which is basically to continue the feelings of fans. If you change to EA, don't say a sequel, maybe even the development team will give you a cheer.
The truth is, strategy games have always been niche. "Fire Emblem: Wind And Snow Moon" sold for 3 million, and IS directly opened champagne. "Civilization 6" this kind of historical sales exceeded 10 million, that is to the entire category of guangzong yaozu.
Strategy games have always been like this, and it may be a little serious to say that it is half dead, but it is certainly true that the waves are not alarmed. It's not so much that it's declining, but rather that the entire strategy game genre has matured and entered a period of decay. It desperately needs a new form, like MOBA, Billions of Zombies, or Total War, to accommodate the increasingly complex player needs.
For example, for me, Ark of Tomorrow and Horse Racing Lady can also be a strategy game in the sense of the word, as long as it is fun, which is not bad. What exactly is a strategy game, and whether we should define it as a dead thing, an old thing with a sense of historical mission, is a very practical and subjective question.
But if you insist on answering willfully, will strategy games usher in a golden age, then as a strategy game enthusiast, my answer is definitely "yes".
As long as we are here, we will always "will".