Hacker News Reader

Comment by safog | Hacker News Reader

Crux of it seems to be:

> It asks a lot of the player, and takes a while to work it out. You have to play it once in order to understand what's going on. You have to be willing to spend time with it, and that’s not where most gamers are these days.

However, there's plenty of games like this being made today. Paradox games all require hundreds of hours of playtime before you feel even barely competent at the game. Stellaris is one of the best games in recent memory for me. CK3 just came out and is pretty popular.

I don't think gamers today are more / less patient than gamers 30 years ago. You just have a larger, more varied audience but the type of people that are attracted to strategy gaming still exist in good numbers.

View on HN

> Paradox games

One brand!

Look at Jon Shafer's experience with At the Gates. A Civilization designer. Changed too much, and got 3/5 star averages. A one-man show, a literal indie game, comparable in resources to Civilization 1. This is what Meier is talking about. Tossed out of Paradox, for that matter.

Firaxis's Beyond Earth has barely 1 person who played at least 1 minute for every 10 that bought the game. 9/10 buyers just handed over money out of nostalgia, never playing a minute, nostalgia was and remained the only compelling association with that product.

Okay, was it a bad game? Who knows, hardly anyone played it. That's the crux of what he's saying.

We've barely covered just Civilization-adjacent products.

Anyway, it's preposterous - that Sid Meier has never heard of Paradox, that he's unaware of their success, and that he hasn't contemplated it. It isn't about strategy games as a whole, it's about new games, about new experiences and changing 30% of the formula every year instead of 3% of it.

> Firaxis's Beyond Earth has barely 1 person who played at least 1 minute for every 10 that bought the game. 9/10 buyers just handed over money out of nostalgia, never playing a minute, nostalgia was and remained the only compelling association with that product.

I bought Beyond Earth for full price at launch out of nostalgia for Alpha Centauri (of course).

Unfortunately it had many flaws: - Much less interesting art direction and characters than Alpha Centauri. - Gameplay was very one note, with little meaningful deviation from a few defined paths. - On release, when you finished the game it showed a "finish game" button which unceremoniously dumped you back to the title screen. No opportunity to see stats or review your empire.

My impression was that it was rushed and had a limited budget, and I never felt like revisiting it. As sibling comments note, there is a sizable niche of mostly PC gamers looking for meaty experiences, and I believe Beyond Earth failed on its own merits.

> One brand!

That’s Strategy (and I don’t know if it’s true even there as most Strategy is RTS and I prefer turn based). There have been many deep and complex RPGs released, Pathfinder: Kingmaker, Underrail, and Age of Decadence come to mind.

> Okay, was it a bad game? Who knows, hardly anyone played it.

Well, those who did play know it. And to me it was essentially a dumbed-down Civ V that, to make it worse, didn’t have the same amazing modding community behind it.

At the Gates had its own share of problems that wasn't just because it changed too much.

> Firaxis's Beyond Earth has barely 1 person who played at least 1 minute for every 10 that bought the game

It is common for a lot of people to "buy" games on steam that they will never play. Especially with less popular games.

There are a lot of extremely complex, demanding, and unique systems-based indie games which are very successful.

I think you have it backwards - At the Gates is a case of a game simply not being up to bar despite the recognizable name behind it (because the competition has gotten so fierce!), rather than people not bothering with complex games unless they have a recognizable name behind them, and only then for nostalgia reasons.

At the Gates isn't particularly novel, the problem with it was that it was boring. It is very similar to Thea: The Awakening but with a slightly different focus. Thea was developed by a couple of people on their free time and made them enough money to go full time for their next title, so it wasn't that At the Gates lacked budget instead it lacked a skilled game designer. Jon Shafer might be great on an AAA title with already decided direction, but it doesn't seem like he understands what makes a game fun.

> has barely 1 person who played at least 1 minute for every 10 that bought the game.

What's that number based on? Feels like taking some telemetry more seriously than it should be.

> Okay, was it a bad game? Who knows, hardly anyone played it. That's the crux of what he's saying.

I played it a few times when it came out. I had been looking forward to it. Unfortunately it was unbalanced with very obvious exploits. Maybe they fixed it later but I gave up on it.

Exactly. Europa Universalis 4 feels to me like Civilization on steroids. Less tech progress, but far more intricate, detailed mechanisms to understand. Even the most complex version of Civilization is pretty simple by comparison. And yet EU4 is very popular.

(Should I give Stellaris another chance? I got it when it just came out and was disappointed, but I imagine they put a lot of work in it since then.)

The problen with Stellaris is the 101 add-on pack sold seperately. It feels like they are milking the customer and getting all add-ons can be very expensive.

I'm used to that from Paradox and I'm fine with having to pay extra for more features and more options, but I would have hoped the basic game itself would have had a bit more game in it. I had fun with basic EU4 and basic CK2, until eventually I decided I wanted more, and paid for it. Basic Stallaris seemed to be devoid of any content. I mean, there were some events, some planets had an interesting resource, but it was nothing like the lively piece of history in action that EU4 and CK2 are.

But maybe it's gotten better since then. I tried it pretty early.

The DLC thing is annoying, and is a serious problem for EUIV, but for Stellaris the biggest dealbreaker for me was that each patch or update completely changed the game. Totally altered X/Y/Z, did away with transportation methods, total 180.

So then you have to relearn everything. And it's a slow paced, very abstract game to be begin with so it becomes a slog.

EU4 has also had a few of those updates. Not every update changed everything, but some did.

I don't really have a problem with that, though. These games, especially a new one like Stellaris, are also a search for the right approach to the game they want. Sometimes they realise (based on feedback most likely) that they took the wrong approach and have to make dramatic changes. Would you rather they abandoned the game and release a new game that does it right, or that they update the old one? I quite appreciate Paradox's approach. You get way more value out of the game than with most other games. And if they did that with Stellaris, that gives me hope, because the initial version of that didn't work for me.

And if you really prefer the old version, you can just continue playing that.

Also its important to add that a lot of the DLC content ends up in future patches.

They dont fix bugs only, they actually improve the game. For free.

There is so much detail in stellaris that i feel like i owe them the $10 some bucks when a good DLC comes out.

The amount of writing that goes into anomalies alone is worth probably a couple of books

The genre wouldn't exist without those add-ons. Since the market for grand strategy games is small this is their way to be profitable. That is how paradox sells all its titles.

Stellaris is a grand strategy game with random maps. If you go into it expecting a normal space 4x similar to masters of orion it is easy to get disappointed since many of those aspects are weak. Instead think of it as HoI or EU4 in space and it makes a lot more sense.

I went in hoping for EU4 in space, but instead I got glacial Master of Orion. That was my disappointment.

Maybe it would have been more interesting if, like in EU4, the galaxy was already populated. Maybe that's indeed what it is in newer versions, but not back when I picked it up.

Well, I quit Civilization on Civilization 3 because it was too much for me to handle. Same for Sim City at some point. It got more and more complex every version to the point it wasn’t much fun for me anymore.

So I “wasn’t there” 20 years ago already.

Civ 4 was the greatest Civ. Civ 5 and beyond tried to turn it into some kind of board game.

"Death stacks" happen in real life. e.g.: every human battle ever, including Normandy in WW2, I don't know why Civ 5 chose to remove them.

Civ 5 and 6 have nice features but it's no longer Civ to me. Plus, the excessive amount of $60 DLCs are a no-no.

I think the death stacks make it too easy to just steamroll over the opposition. One military unit per hex makes it more tactical. It works for me.

Civ 4 has ways to prevent excessive unit stacking. Mounted units, catapults, artillery and air strikes cause collateral damage. Nukes make death stacks useless.

I think the game was fine the way it was.

And still is, isn't it? I don't think they changed Civ 4. Nothing wrong with different people liking different games.

> Civ 4 was the greatest Civ.

Alpha Centauri enters the room ;)

Alpha Centauri was a great game. Its spiritual successor Civ Beyond Earth was not.

I spent most of today playing Civ6 which was on sale (I’m on vacation)

I played the tutorial and then one and a half games against the AI.

It took 8 hours and not much happened. It had a fairly overwhelming UI and was really slow for each turn (even on fastest speed, tiny map, two players).

I’ll probably never play it again, it wasn’t fun.

Perhaps Civ6 just isn't your thing, but your experience could also be exactly what Sid Meier describes: You have to grasp the different mechanics to get to the fun, strategic part of the game - which takes a while. Like in chess, where learning the game doesn't end, but actually only really starts once you know the basic rules of piece movement.

As a non-native speaker, I sometimes have a similar experience when reading English books written in a rather ornate style, i.e. where I don't know some of the vocabulary: I can follow along just fine, I get the story arc etc., but the book just isn't fun because lacking the vocabulary I can't grasp the fine details of the atmosphere, the character descriptions etc.

I think a big difference between Civ games and chess is that chess has very easy-to-learn mechanics. There are only a half dozen different pieces and the rules are pretty simple. A beginner can start playing almost immediately and have fun from the start. I think Civ’s mechanics are several orders of magnitude more complex.

Yes - chess has a relatively simple and limited ruleset, the complexity comes from the combinations possible.

Civ6 has a crazy amount of complexity to do basic actions - the complexity comes from the UI and all the rules, each city has a ton of things to build which each take many turns, there’s multiple skill trees of unclear benefits, there’s governments and policies, where you can build and what you need to build isn’t clear. During all of this kind of tedious action nothing interesting is happening.

I’d guess there’s a baked in assumption that people playing are already familiar with the game. The tutorial and in game recommended actions were not great.

I don’t mind some complexity (I like KSP, Starcraft) - Civ6 feels like a bad design problem.

> Civ6 feels like a bad design problem.

Definitely! Multiple core mechanics are downright broken. Religion for example is a complete waste of time, as it has practically zero consequences outside of the mechanic itself. I can routinely beat the game while completely ignoring religion.

Playing against a lot of AI opponents is part of the fun. I would start on some easy mode on a standard map with the standard number of opponents and city states . That will be much more representative of the actual game experience.

I've been playing Civilization V for ten years. I'm skeptical they're going to be able to build a new Civ that will pull me off of it. I consider it the nearly perfected version of the franchise (opinions widely differ of course). Maybe in another ten years. Everything I've read about Civ VI indicates the overall gameplay is inferior (although obviously not graphically), there's no great reason to move on to it.

I'm still playing Age of Empires and Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance, so I may just be trapped in a time vortex.

Personally, I prefer a small map, to have some more players to interact with. Only one opponent seems boring to me as well

It may be stage of life too. RPGs seemed like work to a younger me. Yet that younger self got bored with action games and made mods and mini games for years.

Now I have less free time but enjoy the feeling of progression in lighter RPGs like Deus Ex.

Audiences change over time among with the game offerings.

Yeah, if a game looks like Excel today with lots of charts and stats, I won’t play it. Don’t have the patience anymore.

I only play games that require minimum investment. Ones I can play 10 mins at a time with resolution. Stuff like Fifa or racing games for example. The only game I invested serous time in completing in the last 5 years was GTA on iOS. They just suck up too much time that is better spent on other stuff like spending time with family or exercising. I'm really surprised at how many dedicated adult gamers there seem to be these days, especially employed ones, as I don't know where they find the time.

I only exercise in ways that require minimum investment. Ones I can do 15-30 minutes at a time with resolution. Stuff like HIIT or 5k runs for example. The only exercise I invested serious time in the last 5 years was a half marathon. Exercising just sucks up too much time that is better spent on stuff like spending time with family, or unwinding with a video game. I’m really surprised at how many dedicated gym members there seem to be these days, especially employed ones, as I don’t know where they find the time.

No doctor ever advised playing more video games. Exercise is a requirement for good health, especially for the more sedentary job types. I've noticed a lot of these types of comments popping up on HN recently. They aren't constructive. Instead they are willfully ignorant and don't add anything to the conversation.

So first you malign my choice of how I spend my leisure time with an implicit “my hobby is more wholesome than yours” and now you call me ignorant? I had hoped to add to the conversation by holding a mirror up to your silly “my hobby is better than your hobby” comments by highlighting that there is no “right” amount of time to spend on relaxing and taking care of your well-being.

As I’m sure you are aware, mental health is an important component of overall well-being, and you will find that doctors have prescribed treatments involving computer games in a wide ranging number of studies since their popularity began to grow in the late 1980’s. Picking one well cited example at random from a 30 second Google search https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.0026... .

“No doctor ever advised playing more video games” is such a broad brush statement as to be useless to refute. It is factually wrong, and the first statement in our sub-conversation that truly deserves the label “wilfully ignorant” - you can learn more about the topic with a few minutes of searching for “video games therapy”.

You are likely aware that not everyone is neurotypical. Some people come alive in their creativity in a video game but struggle to communicate face to face, or struggle with the fine motor control to draw, paint, or write. Video games like Minecraft can become effective communication channels. Doctors and researchers can and do prescribe video games as therapy ( https://psychcentral.com/news/2019/01/28/therapeutic-video-g... ).

I never maligned your hobby. I enjoy video games too. That's why I play them.

Did you read your comments? Your posturing was obvious and embarrassing

They are constructive at least by pointing out that there is a segment of the population that finds physical exercises boring, not pleasant at all. Work, not recreation.

> No doctor ever advised playing more video games.

No doctor ever advised reading more thermodynamics textbooks either. And that's because it's out of scope. Most of medicine deals with the body. A smaller part deals with emotions. There is no branch of medicine concerned with cerebral skills.

Exercise enhances cerebral capacity. More to my point is that exercise is a necessary maintenance activity. It can also be a hobby

I think this is perhaps the worst comment I’ve seen on ycombinator.

Not only do you start with a double negative which is both hard to read and an incorrect statement, but you then ironically don’t add anything meaningful to the conversation.

Edit> he edited his comment

You run half marathon with no previous exercising except 15-30 long HIIT and 5km runs? Frankly, bullshit. There is quite jump from 5km run and half marathon. Half marathon does require serious training investment. This quite apparent nonsense. Even as you are trying to make analogy, you are just showing how absurd the theory is.

And also, people dont spend as much time exercising as they spend gaming, not unless majority of that gym time is pure socialization. Body would not handle it for majority of people.

But yes, the few individuals that do exercising related activities all the time do have those interfering with jobs and families. With families complaining about about that and with people who decide to cut down on exercising for that reason.

That's a pretty weird thing to call bullshit on, even if the analogy wasn't a true one. I completed a Tough Mudder, which is 10 miles plus obstacles, with no HIIT or running training, only some biking (commuting) and yoga. Bert Kreischer is an overweight comedian, likely alcholoic, with no training regiment, and he completed a full marathon in 5h33m.

> Bert Kreischer is an overweight comedian, likely alcholoic, with no training regiment, and he completed a full marathon in 5h33m.

That is really sort of thing you should not do.

I guess you can walk most of marathon, marathon distance is not some kind of unachievable hike. But as of actually running it, you should not and would not manage to run.

If you pick the right pace, most healthy individuals can run half a marathon. Your knees will explode, you may get injured, but you can do it.

> Your knees will explode, you may get injured, but you can do it.

Ok, I took the whole "your body is likely to get damaged forever" thing as "can not and should not run".

And also, healthy non trained individual wont run half marathon. May walk majority of it, but wont be able to actually run that distance.

I ran a half marathon on sand with no training, find a pace you're comfortable with and stick to it. Knees were fine, delayed onset muscle soreness the next day was extreme but passed. (had I not had to turn back because of a river mouth I would have gone further)

I found the same, when we had kid I realized that games I used to play are really not made for people like me. It just was not compatible with the baby. And gaming culture I was encountering at the time was ridiculously hostile to the idea of easier low investment game and offensive to people who voiced such wish.

> I'm really surprised at how many dedicated adult gamers there seem to be these days, especially employed ones, as I don't know where they find the time.

Judging from people I know, they get time because they either dont have family/social life or simply dont spend time with them. If they have kids, they expect partner to deal with all child related care and housework, not really interacting with their children.

If you are alone or divorced, having hobby that actually immerse you and eats your time for hours is not a bad thing.

For some, gaming time replaces the time that could be spent watching TV/etc.- it's another way to spend leisure time, and IMO, gaming is probably better for your mental health than watching 3 hours of the news /etc.

My experience is the opposite, it got less complicated. It's not challenging anymore because it's becoming easier to play. Maybe because the internet made playing it less complicated because of the information available or I know the game play too much and there's nothing new to challenge my knowledge of the game.

Civ 2 ranks among my most played games ever, but I skipped Civ 3 and 4 entirely, only to pick up Civ 5 and 6 again. I like 5. 6 not so much.

Civilization is in a weird space. It's too complex now for many gamers and way too simple for the gamers who grew up with strategy games.

Agreed - an extreme example being Dwarf Fortress. :)

And popular games like Factorio or Satisfactory are far from simple. Also, in many survival games you can loose results of many hours of gameplay in an instant.

Minecraft is another example. Until a recent version there wasn't even a build-in recipe book, you had to either discover them by yourself or search about them online.

That was back when the number of recipes was less than half of what exists today.

Most of the problems we have today are signal to noise problems. The signal to noise ratio of nearly everything has gotten worse, but the raw numbers have gotten better. There is a huge market for people interested in very complex games, but that market is 1) already pretty saturated since there are already a good number of complex games available. This is to include all the old ones, (such as Civ 1-5, or whatever we're on currently) which are generally still fun to play. And, 2) Since the market for people who love complex games is a tiny fraction of the (now enormous) general gaming market, it can feel quite futile. In fact, I suspect that gaming in the 80s on PC was so niche, that the percentage of people who could learn a Civ type game was much higher than it could possibly be now. Especially if you consider smart phone games.

Further, this is just true in general. People say "games are so bad now," when what they probably mean is "per capita, most games are terrible because the market is so huge." However, there are more and better games available today than in any time in history. Again, this is true because for the most part all the old games remain available. You could extend this to almost any kind of media: books, movies, TV, music. There is simply MORE of everything, and so the mainstream center-curve feels more estranged.

Yep, CK3 is in the top ten games on Steam, hitting almost 100,000 simultaneous players most days: https://steamcharts.com/app/1158310

Interesting someone bought it on Steam for 50 EUR, given XBox Game Pass for PC subscription (despite the weird naming) lets you have it for a fraction of that price (together with a dozen other good names, e.g. the new Flight Simulator and Wasteland 3).

I bought it as a signal to Paradox, to keep making such games, even though I don't have time at the moment to play the game.

Various Microsoft game/whatevers on PC were such a shit show in the past (while on consoles it was great) I am probably not alone in just ignoring everything that comes out of microsoft on PC.

lets you have it^^^^^borrow

For comparison, Call of Duty: Warzone regularly gets 30 million players.

Ok, 100K simultaneous online players is nothing to sniff at for any game. That's a success, that's a hit. Might not be a triple platinum mega hit but a hit nonetheless.

Absolutely. It's a huge achievement. However, in a discussion about the tastes of gamers and whether or not there's as much appetite for complex games today as there was when Civ was released, it says a lot that CoD is more than 100* as popular.

Warzone is also:

1. Free to play. 2. Marketing budget in the 9 figure range. 3. Comes from a long established series with ~20 games. 4. Available on all platforms.

I'd be willing to bet there's more of an appetite for complex games today than when Civilisation was released from an absolute standpoint, just that there's also more people playing games in general so from a relative standpoint there's less.

Pac-Man was probably also more popular than Civilization. Hardcore complex grand-strategy games are simply not as accessible to as many people as more mainstream games, but Paradox proves there's definitely a market for it.

Are you sure?

COD sold 75-80 million copies [1]. Getting 30 million regularly implies that one of third of them are actively playing at the same time. That seems rather unlikely

[1] https://www.gamespot.com/articles/call-of-duty-warzone-sees-...

Call of Duty Warzone is free, the referenced stat was for last years COD title.

Paradox Games, Football Manager (not FIFA), etc - I don't think the market has died at all. There will always be a lot more players who play the mass-market games of course.

I have hundreds of hours into Deep Rock Galactic, and I still play it almost every day. And I'm no anomaly - and there are plenty of games in a variety of genres that players stick with for hundreds of hours.

Maybe Civ needs a little touch up in modern design - maybe the first playthrough is quick and easy, but "willing to spend time" with a game is definitely not a problem.

DRG is action coop run-based game. There is no complexity in it. H5 is tighter on resource management but it can't compare with grand strategy where plays could long for hours.

Which is exactly part of my point. I can play DRG for hours at a time, and it's a pretty one dimensional game. So there's no reason why something as complex as CIV can't thrive. His point that players don't have the attention span or a willingness to commit to a game these days is just wrong.

I think it's clear that there are complex games today that require a big time investment and thinking, but that section isn't the only relevant one, I think.

> In the book, Meier reminds us that the bestselling games of 1998 were Civ 2, Warcraft II, Myst, Command & Conquer and Duke Nukem 3D. Aside from the last, all require more thought and engagement than the [redacted] that dominate gaming today.

To avoid picking and choosing, what are the bestselling games of 2020, for comparison? How would we even determine that?

That's where I think he's saying things have changed. Four of the top five best-selling games of 1998 were more thoughtful, while today he offers up "Candy Crush" and "Fortnite" in contrast.

As I write this, the best-selling games of 2020[0] seem to be: Ghost of Tsushima, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, Paper Mario: The Origami King, The Last of Us: Part II, and Animal Crossing: New Horizons. If that's not a perfect comparison, maybe throw in the top paid app on iOS: Minecraft.

In terms of being one of the top five games, he's clearly right. There's not much room for something like "Civilization" on that list.

But that might be the wrong way to think about it. If I sell X units in 1998 and it makes up 25% of all units sold, and then I sell X units in 2020 and it makes up only 0.1% of all units sold, that might seem like what I'm selling is much less popular, but in fact I'm selling just as many. It's the overall market that has grown up around me. In my hypothetical example, it has gotten 250 times as large. In reality, it might be even more extreme than that.

Something like "Civilization" today might not be a best-seller the way it was 22 years ago, but that doesn't mean there's not a market for it.

[0] https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/top-10/video-game...

Yeah factorio hits a similar note and similar late bedtime routine for me.

Not sure if Stellaris is a good example though.

It might be hard to master, but I've had a lot of fun with my first game already, so it's easy enough to get into (I don't like 4X games usually and I hadn't even played any RTS/Sim games for many years).

I think the point was more "you're in for some work if you want to enjoy it properly". But if we're simply looking at the "playing to beat it/mastering aspect", then you're right.

Yeah. Well designed strategy games can capture the attention of even not great gamers. I've played like 50+ hours of slay the spire and I think I've won like 5 times, but I enjoy it nonetheless because the design is fantastic and the complex mechanics explain themselves.

I think most of the players playing Grand Strategy are veteran players who have been playing since the early Civs. I think Meier's point is that if grand strategy wasn't already an established genre then he wouldn't be able to make Civ today

One of the goals for CK3 was to dumb CK2 down in order to reach a wider audience. I honestly would not describe any of the newer Paradox games as complex (yes, even Stellaris).

CK3 has more systems out of the box than CK2 when it came out.

CK3 just just looks simpler because its presented in a lot better/cleaner way. (and the fact, that CK2 wasn't as complicated as EU4)

Hey don't forget Vicky II, which is mostly a complex spreadsheet simulator with sliders and a map.

My friend, let me introduce you to a game called Aurora 4x

here is some gameplay[1][2] and forum where development happens [3] . There is c# revrite comming ...

  [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXqBYDSno7w
  [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77mvpSvVu10
  [3]http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php

Have you played CK3? It's definitely not dumbed down.

I find it hard to imagine a Paradox game that could not be described as complex. Maybe some are not quite as complex as others, but they're definitely complex. Especially compared to any version of Civilization.

Maybe not, but they're vastly more complex than any Civilization game has been.

Paradox has been trending casual over their past few titles as well though. Hearts of Iron IV is far less sophisticated than HOI III for instance.

I think that's a trend that's reversed. From what I've seen of it so far, Crusader Kings 3 has the same depth and complexity as its predecessor.

It'd be a stretch to consider any of these games even remotely casual. I haven't played HOI3 or 4, but if they're as far on the extreme complexity end as EU4, then toning down on unneeded complexity may well be justified.

The goal is not complexity for its own sake; it has to serve a purpose. Some of the complexity does, some of it doesn't. Revisiting some of those assumptions for a new version makes a lot of sense. That said, these big Paradox games have a tendency to accumulate a lot of complexity over the years.

A lot of the complexity in EU4 consists of artificial mana mechanics, which HOI4 also has. HOI3 and Victoria II have complexity due to the underlying complexity of the simulation.

I agree with what you're saying here, and Paradox is a good example. Hearts of Iron IV has a solid modding community, and while it can have a steep(ish) learning curve, that's sort of the point. That variety of what can happen in-game helps keep gamers coming back for more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com