Strategy games are dead, says Civ publisher dude...

Status
Not open for further replies.
@Li3n

@Li3n

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/interview-christophhartmann-2kgames/082216

Some highlights:
Last year 2K announced cult turn-based strategy series Xcom was to return – but this time as a first-person shooter. Fans recoiled at the apparent bastardisation of their beloved series, but Hartmann says there’s good reason for the change of direction.

He explains: “The ‘90s generation of gamers all love Xcom and we own the IP, so we thought OK, what do we do with it? Every studio we had wanted to do it and each one had its own spin on it. But the problem was that turn-based strategy games were no longer the hottest thing on planet Earth. But this is not just a commercial thing – strategy games are just not contemporary.

“I use the example of music artists. Look at someone old school like Ray Charles, if he would make music today it would still be Ray Charles but he would probably do it more in the style of Kanye West. Bringing Ray Charles back is all fine and good, but it just needs to move on, although the core essence will still be the same.
Click to expand...
And yeah, Bioshock 2 failed because of the timing, not the fact that it was an obvious cash grab and did nothing new...

And then he says this:

It’s a part of 2K that Hartmann is proud of, as he says pumping out sequels is one way to kill a franchise.
Click to expand...
Now that's classical irony...

EDIT: Heh, anyone know if this is true: "And from a business standpoint SCII has outperformed Take Two's entire portfolio, well, except for Civ that is"
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
I like turn-based strategy games. Too bad they aren't around any more. Other than Civs, that is.
 
ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

Heh, anyone know if this is true: "And from a business standpoint SCII has outperformed Take Two's entire portfolio, well, except for Civ that is"
Click to expand...
Sounds about right to me. I have no idea how much Civilization 5 sold, but taking two other popular games sold by 2k Games.

BioShocks last reported sale milestone was 4 million in 2010.
Borderlands last reported sale milestone was 3 million in 2010.

StarCraft 2 last reported sale milestone was 4.5 million in 2010. (It's release year)

Be aware that StarCraft 2 came out one year after Borderlands and THREE years after BioShock. We all know how much they love screaming at BioShock for being such a success and abusing that any chance they can these days (not knocking the game, as I love it, just pointing it out), and yet it was overtaken in less then a year by a strategy game. This is regardless to the fact, and I am confident of this even without the numbers, that Civilization is probably the best selling franchise they have.

The guy seems really out of touch, he either is a "FPS head" that does not want to believe a game outside his genre can do better, or he is just trying to do damage control for the people that made the choice to alter Xcom by making up bullshit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jay
Jay

Jay

Complete bullshit. What is with all these HAMS in creative control at all these major game dev studios?

I'd pay good money for a GOOD Jagged Alliance 3 game.
 
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

I hate to tell the guy, but many of the strategy game players that were out there in the '90's are still looking for strategy games...

I miss good flight simulators. I don't mean the Lucas Arts... fly through this invisible tunnel and everything will work games either.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Dave said:
Ugh. HATE RTS games. Hate them.
Click to expand...
When you say you hate RTS games, do you mean you hate games like the latest offerings from the Command and Conquer series? Because yeah, those suck. Even Supreme Commander 2 was horrible. But Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance and Company of Heroes are different animals. And all too often these slightly older gems are overlooked because all the most recent forays into the genre haven't panned out.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
I mean almost all RTS I've ever played. You know the ones - you are building something while the AI pulls something out of its ass that should be impossible at that level, then attacks offscreen so you have to find out where you're being schooled.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Dave said:
I mean almost all RTS I've ever played. You know the ones - you are building something while the AI pulls something out of its ass that should be impossible at that level, then attacks offscreen so you have to find out where you're being schooled.
Click to expand...
Sounds like Command and Conquer.
 
ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

Dave said:
I mean almost all RTS I've ever played. You know the ones - you are building something while the AI pulls something out of its ass that should be impossible at that level, then attacks offscreen so you have to find out where you're being schooled.
Click to expand...
This is actually one of the things I love about SC2, they made it so the AI can't "cheat". I remember people making AI versus AI matches where one computer would build a certain build order, and the other computer would build a different one. Once they clashed and the "losing" computer realized he had a build that was going to get schooled, he attempted to build the counter to that force only to get overrun once the other computer "discovered" his base.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
Hrm. I wouldn't argue that strategy games are dead, just that its a dwindling market share and often has to get a little gussied up to attract the gents.

Civ and Galactic Civ and Sins of a Solar Empire have all done well. Then there's the Total War franchise whose last release (Shogun 2) really kicked some tail. Heroes of Might and Magic has dwindled, but this was almost entirely due to poor AI and poor design.

I think the hardest thing for strategy games is that the AI is incredibly important and incredibly complex, moreso than any other type of game, while at the same has almost no presence on the screen. So sometimes you end up with releases like Heroes, where they effectively abandon the AI and simply try to make the whole thing look prettier, and what you end up with is an unplayable mess.

However on the other side you have games like Gal Civ and Hearts of Iron, where the AI and balance are masterfully crafted, but the game is unapproachable by younger players because it is overwhelmingly complex and has few to no shiny bits.
 
Vrii

Vrii

Dave said:
I mean almost all RTS I've ever played. You know the ones - you are building something while the AI pulls something out of its ass that should be impossible at that level, then attacks offscreen so you have to find out where you're being schooled.
Click to expand...
This is why you play against people, instead!
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

Vrii said:
This is why you play against people, instead!
Click to expand...
If he can't take on the AI playing against someone good at the game isn't going to end any better...

Necronic said:
Heroes of Might and Magic has dwindled, but this was almost entirely due to poor AI and poor design.
Click to expand...
Number 5 actually sold at least as well as #4, if not better (what with the expansions actually adding factions).

And number 6 seems ok (they really need to fix the loading graphics in stages bug already)...
 
Frank

Frank

Dave said:
Civ Sales.
Click to expand...
Couldn't find this info on that site. Is that just retail or does that count online? I know most charts do not count digital downloads in sales. So often we hear about PC games underperforming at retail and how much better console versions do and they NEVER take into account Steam, D2D etc.
 
Vrii

Vrii

@Li3n said:
If he can't take on the AI playing against someone good at the game isn't going to end any better
Click to expand...
People don't pull out impossibilities, though. If someone comes and attacks you with something, you know that you can do the same, and just have to figure out how they did it.
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

Vrii said:
People don't pull out impossibilities, though. If someone comes and attacks you with something, you know that you can do the same, and just have to figure out how they did it.
Click to expand...
No, they just pull stuff that they use to combat those impossibilities and win 100% of the time against the AI.

(aka it's annoying because you know it's a cheat, not because you can't overcome it, which is what your argument looked like).
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

Vrii said:
That's not how I read Dave's post. We're approaching this from two completely different angles.
Click to expand...
Well my post was pointing out that if Dave is bothered by the AI having to cheat i doubt he'll enjoy playing against people that find beating a cheating AI boring and lacking challenge...
 
Denbrought

Denbrought

@Li3n said:
Well my post was pointing out that if Dave is bothered by the AI having to cheat i doubt he'll enjoy playing against people that find beating a cheating AI boring and lacking challenge...
Click to expand...
The human element makes it enjoyable. I personally prefer playing chess with other people, even if over the internet and with no face-to-face or chat, than vs. a computer. Same applies to most strategy games.
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

Denbrought said:
The human element makes it enjoyable. I personally prefer playing chess with other people, even if over the internet and with no face-to-face or chat, than vs. a computer. Same applies to most strategy games.
Click to expand...
But Dave's statement wasn't about that (and the chess thing works well as a counterpoint, seeing how the computer can't cheat without breaking the game there) but about how the AI rolls over him... sure it cheats to do it, but that's because it would have no chance otherwise against people that know how to play... and suggesting playing against people that handle the AI's cheating easily is not going to help him not get steam-rolled...

But sure, he can tell himself that at least it was a fair beating... but i'm guessing if that was enough he would have skipped the AI... and if he's using it to learn then his complaint is invalid as beating a cheating AI is a standard skill for anyone playing the game well...
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

I'm honestly surprised that no one has mentioned Dawn of War 1 or 2 yet. Both have been successful enough for multiple expansions.
 
C

Chibibar

the problem (IMO) is that these games require people to THINK! I notice that the new generations of gamers doesn't like that. You don't see many games that takes a while to get going (strategy) or something similar. It is all about "shooters"
 
D

Dubyamn

Honestly I have no idea where this guy is getting his facts. I love the turn based tactical genre. I have had X-com installed on every computer I have used since I discovered it in college. I have 5 different copies of various Fire Emblems and I damn near lost friends over hard fought games of Nintendo Wars.

I will of course buy the new X-com game but only because I want them to keep the IP alive. But I doubt it'll be a great game at best I'm hoping for some fun that I will consider a decent buy before I put it into my sleeve of discs and remember it only when I open the sleeve looking for better games that I want to play again.
 
Chad Sexington

Chad Sexington

Chibibar said:
the problem (IMO) is that these games require people to THINK! I notice that the new generations of gamers doesn't like that. You don't see many games that takes a while to get going (strategy) or something similar. It is all about "shooters"
Click to expand...
People say this about all sorts of things all the time. "People don't like movie X because it makes them think." "People don't read classic literature because they have to think." "This generation just wants to turn off their brain and rot it with TV." And so on. Clearly it's not true. Sure, things with mass appeal, easy and base sell to a broader audience, but the audience for things that are of a different kind and involve deeper or more abstract thought exists, always has existed and always will exist. It just isn't the majority -and so what?

Every generation thinks the one after it is stupider, lazier, more crass, less moral, etc etc than their own. But we grew up hearing the same kind of nonsense rhetoric from our parents about TV and video games rotting our brains. "Gaming generations" are going to make the same mistake. "When I was young, we didn't have save points! Kids today don't know how easy they've got it!" "When I was young we played Civilization, none of this easy stupid Crysis nonsense!" Blah blah blah. Strategy gamers might be in the minority but that's not new and it's not the fault of 'stupider' games that don't make you think, they just have broader appeal in part due to their ease.
 
Covar

Covar

Chad Sexington said:
People say this about all sorts of things all the time. "People don't like movie X because it makes them think." "People don't read classic literature because they have to think." "This generation just wants to turn off their brain and rot it with TV." And so on. Clearly it's not true. Sure, things with mass appeal, easy and base sell to a broader audience, but the audience for things that are of a different kind and involve deeper or more abstract thought exists, always has existed and always will exist. It just isn't the majority -and so what?

Every generation thinks the one after it is stupider, lazier, more crass, less moral, etc etc than their own. But we grew up hearing the same kind of nonsense rhetoric from our parents about TV and video games rotting our brains. "Gaming generations" are going to make the same mistake. "When I was young, we didn't have save points! Kids today don't know how easy they've got it!" "When I was young we played Civilization, none of this easy stupid Crysis nonsense!" Blah blah blah. Strategy gamers might be in the minority but that's not new and it's not the fault of 'stupider' games that don't make you think, they just have broader appeal in part due to their ease.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top