Now this might be a controversial take. But that's an excellent motivation to make a post about it in order to have another meaningless slap fight over computer games.
I consider Old World to be one of the best 4X made in the last decade and probably also one of the best ever made.
But decline, nobody plays Old World!
Yes, and I think these two facts - being the best and not being played - are closely connected. As is often the case.
To elaborate, OW is the brain child of Soren Johnson (yet another forgettable Swedish name), lead designer of Civ IV, considered by many to be peak Civ. Consequently, Old World feels familiar but it also wildly different to seasoned Civ players. One difference to Civ IV is that Old World is hugely complex but does an excellent job of hiding that complexity. This leads to the awkward situation that players don't notice the amount of depth the game has and believe it's just Civ VI but without the modern era. Not so.
One important difference to the Civ games is the Orders System in Old World. Scoffed at by many, I think it is an excellent addition to the game as it is able to consistently force the player into choosing the least bad from a limited set of terrible choices, without requiring the scope of the game to be reduced (i.e. Polytopia). Choices lead to consequences leading to the coveted emergent gameplay.
The tactical layer is also excellent. There are lots of possibilities upgrading and specializing your units and paying close attention to terrain will lead to real benefits. And you will need every advantage you can get because the AI is probably the best of any strategy game I have seen. It knows how to do tactical retreats and how to exploit terrain bonuses, wounded units or their weaknesses. And it will steal your city sites. 
Then there's of course the dynastic character system. While clearly inspired by Crusader Kings it is not just a copy. The game's still focused on the nation you play and not the characters. You can in fact just ignore it completely if you want to have a more Civ-ike game. However, the character system ties into every aspect of the game, so making intelligent use of the cast of characters you are given will give you the advantages you require in order to beat your opponent.
There's a whole lot more innovations this game has that substantially improve upon the Civ base formula. But I am not going to list them here because I am too lazy.
Mohawk Games has adopted the Paradox business model: Selling lots of DLC. While some cry about that, it allowed Mohawk Games to continually expand and polish Old World since its release in 2020. Every part of the game has been fleshed out and expanded upon since release. Consequently it is fun, it's tight and it is easily the best 4X on the market and one of the best ever made.
Why then is nobody playing it?
Reason number 1: Epic Store exclusive at launch. I am not going to lose words about that one, except that it apparently is the reason that there still is a game today.
Reason number 2: Because it is a very good game. Hiding the complexity and possibilities behind an innocent Civ-like presentation leads to people scoffing at the game for not being engaging enough. The highest rated negative comment on Steam sums it up perfectly:
Honestly, the first half of the game is great. But the tricky part of designing any 4X game is sticking the landing and creating a game you'd actually want to finish, where growing and maintaining your empire late game still feels like a challenge with interesting and impactful decisions instead of something you mentally autopilot your way through in order to get to that victory screen for one reason or another, all while preparing dinner during the steadily increasing load times between turns.
Old world does not stick that landing. If anything, it lands on its neck, snapping its spinal cord and dying instantly.
He is wrong of course, with the exact opposite being true, but it idiomatic of the challenge this game has: You can autopilot through it, if you chose your settings right (or wrong?). The other negative reviews on Steam mostly follow the same pattern, with the opposite of what they're claiming is wrong with the game being true.
You see, Old World is a game designed the right way around. Multiplayer first and single player then just naturally flows from that. Just like in the good old days, when the Strategy Titans still walked the earth and squashed the fledgling Console Shooters under their feet like flies against a wall, when Microsoft Money was still just a whisper on the floors. But i digress.
The game wants you to min/max, hard. It wants you to squeeze out every teeny-tiny 0.6% increase of orders/turn. If you are playing a multiplayer match that is precisely what you want to be able to do in order to carry the game. However you do not have to do that in order to just play the game. But then you're making use of maybe 10% the game has to offer and are going to conclude that there's no difference to Civ IV and it's boring. In this sense Old World is a victim of its own quality.
And also people these day are ******* stupid.
donate to the HQ 
