Talk:4X/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Defining Features of 4x Games (July, 2006)

I've taken the liberty of pulling the "fifth X" out into its own section, and elaborating why this might actually be the defining feature of a 4x game. It can always use a good proofread, to fix grammar, and remove excessive wordiness.

However, the more that I think about it, maybe the defining feature of a 4x game is actually the scale. And I know this has been said before, but that was before I actually took a closer look at the numbers. You can see that just in the "Fifth X" section I added -- comparing between 86 technologies (CIV4) and 12 buildings/upgrades (WC3). It makes the difference MUCH clearer, IMO.

It's conceivable that we could do a similar number comparisons for the other X's, especially on how the player exploits their economic wealth, and the number of bases that the player expands to.

I'd love to be able to do this without getting into comparing specific games. But I do think the specific numbers are extremely helpful. The average reader ought to be able to read this article and understand the difference between a true 4x game and other strategy games that happen to involve exploring/expanding/exploiting/exterminating.

Thoughts?

Looks good. I've done some refinement to root out weasel words and did a little rephrasing but that's all. The scale thing also sounds fine, I think we can create a section mentioning the difficulty of finding a solid definiton for 4X (actually we already have something like that) and then include all of our "definition efforts" like 5X and scale under that section. Take care --Xasf 09:38, 17 July 2006 (GMT+3)

Made a pretty huge update. Hopefully you can help refine it again. If anything looks really questionable, don't delete it, but tag it, and I'll see what I can do about fixing it up. One of the keys here is that I seperate between the 4Xes, other gameplay conventions of 4X games (like the tech tree), and then the key differentiators that make 4X games different from Starcraft and Warcraft and so on. As you might imagine, the key differentiators are where things get fuzzy, because they encompass some of the things that have come up in our debates. -- Anon, July 18

Once again I did a little rephrasing and weasel-removal, but the section in general was sound. I think we made a pretty good progress here, the article is far better than what it was when we first started. Congrats to all involved parties :) Take care --Xasf 09:51, 19 July 2006 (GMT+3)

I'm pretty darn pleased, myself. Other than a few cleanups here and there, I can't imagine I'll want to do anything with it for a while. Hopefully some other enthusiastic people can pick up from where we left off.

Something that does stand out, though. Maybe we should kill the list of 4X games at the bottom. That's what the category itself is for. (Maybe adopt some of them into other parts of the article, most notably the History section?) -- Anon, July 19

There's an interesting mention of the fifth X here: http://archive.gamespy.com/interviews/february02/moo3/ ... not in the way this article says, though. It's tough to find sources.

'5X' sounds more like marketing propoganda than an actual genre of game, perhaps work should be done to better differentiate between 4X and 5X?

From a new Wikipedia contributor: I posted an update (under IP address 70.171.231.70) to the Difficulties of Definition section which was rapidly undone without comment. I'm wondering if anybody knows why. You can read my changes for the details, but IMHO the issue of detail/scale is the most important issue which separates 4X from RTS. But, since I'm new here, I tried to be polite by putting my opinion on the end of the list of possibilities. Please note that I'm very new to this, so if I have committed some faux pas or whatever, be gracious. :) Russl5445 (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

origin of the term

Does anyone know the origin of the term? - Pwbrooks 14:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Similar(?) genre

There's another genre of strategy games called 'Grand Strategy' (they have their own category, here). I am wondering whether or not these games fall in the 4x genre? Risk (game) is an example of a 'Grand Strategy' game. SharkD 04:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Risk wouldn't be an example of a 4x game, because there is no exploration. Moreover, they minimize expansion by having it occur as a 'pre-game'. And exploitation is non-existent, with armies being automatically generated based on how well you exterminate. However, that is not to say that some grand strategy games might be 4x games. It's a question of finding one game that would qualify. 65.95.156.90 22:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. SharkD 00:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Neologism?

Is the term 4X a neologism? Not that this is the defining characteristic, but I haven't heard the term before. I'm not trying to say that the article doesn't cover the subject well, but my question is the term itself notable. The primary notability criterion is whether or not the subject has been the subject of multiple independant works. I looked through the references and there weren't any, so I slapped the tag. Don't get me wrong, I like the article, I just think that we need to stick to wikipedia policies and guidelines before the article gets deleted. McKay 04:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There are 3 websites in the reference list that define the term 4x games in a similar manner. (though not all exactly the same) they are: RTSCs' Glossary of RTS Terms, PC Strategic Games FAQ, And Moby Games. (I just added the last one) SevenMass 19:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the term 4X is indeed a neologism, though I don't know of any source that confirms this, this is merely my own conclusion by looking at the definition of neologism and seeing how it applies to 4x SevenMass 19:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, those references show that it's not really a neologism as far as wikipedia is concerned, but wikipedia would be concerned with the reliability of those sources. Can we get more reliable references? Something like IGN, or GameSpy or another reputable publication with articles about the 4X Genre? McKay 20:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is a review at IGN. Quote: "For those who don't know, the 4x genre lets players run entire empires, using the four X's -- expansion, exploration, extermination, and exploitation -- as guiding strategic principles. Whether it's the historical past, an inventive fantasy world or a star-spanning sci-fi future, the 4x game is strategy at its highest level. Empires are won and lost based on shrewd diplomacy, speedy technological research, sound economic management, and ruthless military action." SharkD 20:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is a GameSpot article. Quote: "This feature chronicles science-fiction-themed games that are often referred to as "4X" games: 4X, meaning explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate. Starting with a limited number of resources, you colonize new planets and star systems, build ships, research technologies, and spread your influence across the galaxy. Because this genre traditionally focuses on space exploration, we've excluded Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri and Alien Crossfire, since they're essentially terrestrial 4X games like the Civilization series--but with science-fiction themes. To fall into the space 4X category, you have to be able to go from planet to planet. Given such broad criteria, it's perhaps surprising how similar many space 4X games have been in their approach to design." SharkD 20:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is another IGN article. Quote: "Hey, we at IGN love our Battlefield 2 like everyone else... but there's something to be said for staying up all weekend as we explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate one more time. With hundreds (or maybe thousands) of hours logged over countless matches, can you really trust anyone else with something as important as the history of man? (...) Whether you've played Civilization since 1991, or whether you're just now finding out the magic that is the 4X Strategy genre, we're here to guide you. You'll get tips on each of the 4Xs, plus a breakdown of all the different ways you can get there. "Exterminate" may not mean by the sword, after all... I always heard Alpha Centauri is nice around this time of year!" SharkD 21:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is a developer diary that mentions the term. It's not really relavent (to this discussion), but I thought it might interest you anyway. SharkD 21:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Good work, Let me clarify. The Wikipedia Notability guideline requires "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There is no entity which qualifies as the "4X" entity, so independent doesn't really apply. Ign, and Gamespot are reliable sources, moo3 probably isn't. As far as significant, '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive. In this case, the second one (gmespot history of space empires) address the topic directly. General guidelines require "multiple minor sources or a single major source" a major source would be like a book (in this case a book about 4x games) the articles you reference would be considered minor sources. My personal rule of thumb is 2, others like more. 3 should satisfy most. You've got the gamespot article definitely, so if you ask me you're half way there. Keep up the good work. McKay 21:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Does Moby Games not count? OK, funny enough, the Wikipedia article on Moby Games also has this annoying notability tag, but when someone resolves that... SevenMass 17:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice the mobygames reference last time, as I look at it, I don't quite know if I'd call it a good reliable source. It appears as if it's a tertiary source, and WP:N definitely prefers secondary sources. So, because I realize my requirements are a little lax, I'd request an additional secondary source. McKay 19:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Restoring "Definition" and "Other typical features" sections

I'm restoring these sections to pretty much the state they were in before 65.95.141.69's edit of 02:23 on 4 July 2007 (i.e. to the state following user:SevenMass SevenMass's edit of 11:47 on 30 June 2007), because:

• The title "Advanced definition" is a complete misnomer and "Other common features" would be a better title. The section does not try to present a definition and AFAIK there is no widely-agreed "advanced definition".
• "Criticisms" makes it sound like specific sources have attacked either the way the definition is formulated or the viability of the concept. It provides no evidence to support such implications and "Difficulties in definition" is a more accurate title.
• Material has been cut from "Difficulties in definition" which I think are useful to the reader: Moby Games' additional criterion; the fact that some RTS games offer at least as large a tech tree as maany recognised 4X games.

I admit that there might be better ways to organise "Difficulties in definition", but re-organisation should not throw away informative content.Philcha 18:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

reverted it to the other version. There is a basic definition, but other distinguishing features are outlined in the advanced definition. 4X games are not just distinguished by the 4 X's, but by their complexity, their use of diplomacy, the victory conditions, the internal obstacles, and the "experience" of managing an empire rather than having total god-like control.

if the heading "Advanced Definition" is insufficient, I would recommend replacing it with "Other Distinguishing Features" as they are likely more important to the definition than the 4X's themselves. Additional criterion from Moby Games would aptly fit under this "Advanced Definition" heading, if not one of the specific subheadings such as "Scale" or "Peaceful Victory". 69.158.140.52 07:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me amend my earlier remarks. Obviously we both care about this article being in its best condition. If it's time for the basic organization / table of contents to be changed, then let's do it. But let's work it out and discuss it here first before doing anything so drastic. To me, there are a few basic parts of this article:

(1) The basic definition (the 4Xs)

(2) Problems with the basic definition and how the 4Xs can be found in other strategy genres

(3) Features common to all 4X games that distinguish them from other strategy genres (complexity, peaceful victory, 'experience' of a manager rather than a god)

(4) Features common to all 4X games that can still be found in other strategy genres (technology tree...)

(5) The origin of the definition and its notability

(6) History of the genre

(7) List of games

Especially looking at 1-4, I feel as though the current table of contents are best suited to explaining those different features of the genre. But if you would propose another format, then let's do that. Otherwise, I believe any new content would fit in this format. If you find another common feature to all 4X games that distinguishes it, put it in the Advanced Definition. If you find another common feature to all 4X games that is still in other strategy genres, you can still put it in the Other Common Features section. If you believe those categories fall short of our needs, then let us discuss it. 69.158.140.52 17:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, there is no recognised "advanced" definition - where recent articles define "4X", they use the same terms as Emrich orginally used in the early 1990s (except for Moby Games, see below). The items in what is currently titled "Advanced Definition" and used to be correctly titled "Other typical features" are found in most but not all "4X" games. Many are long, but Spaceward Ho! is meant to be fairly short (the authors have described it as a "beer and pretzels" game). The size and complexity of other "4X" games depends a lot on the size of the map - on small maps you get a tactical slugfest with limited scope for research or advanced economic development. Diplomacy matters only in single-player games (one human vs a number of AI players), but some players prefer multi-player games against human opponents and in these situations diplomacy is irrelevant or is forbidden by the hosts. Peaceful victory is often impossible if diplomacy is impossible; and Moby Games' inclusion of peaceful victory in its definition fails because Age of Empires offers 2 peaceful victory conditions and Moby Games was trying to exclude Age of Empires. Some games have tried, with varying success, to minimise micromanagement - Galactic Civilizations apparently successfully, Master of Orion 3 either not successfully ("the damn governors keep doing the wrong things") or far too successfully ("just keep clicking 'Next turn'") in the opinion of many reviewers and players.

Finally the "5th X" was a marketing slogan for one game, Master of Orion 3, which had a very mixed reception. It's an interesting footnote, but not part of any definition.

Hence I will restore the section "Other typical features" (title, content and context) in a week unless I see convincing arguments that there is a consistent, universal and widely supported "advanced definition".Philcha 17:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. "Other typical features" is better than "Advanced Definition". SharkD 22:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. I'm trying to maintain the difference between common features that distinguish the genre (distinguish it from chess, or starcraft), versus common features that may also be found in other forms of games (like the tech tree). You're saying that there are no such features, because there are always exceptions.

We agree they are common features. I would like to try to offer some distinction between features like the tech tree that will never distinguish the genre, as opposed to something like complexity which may not differentiate 100% of games but does differentiate 90%. I think the best way to do this is with categories -- whether we rename them. Although I'm open to other suggestions.

As a side note, the 5th X is included in there not because it really proposes a 5th X, but because it describes an existing convention within the genre: that there are human limitations on power. You are not a god. There is often civil unrest, or certain things out of your control. While MOO3 tried to develop this idea further, this idea of playing a manager with limited powers is somewhat common to the genre.

Does that make sense to you? I only ask that we discuss further before making any serious edits to the structure. At least until we reach an impasse. I think we can find a compromise though that is better than what we currently have, and satisfies both of us. 69.158.140.52 05:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I just received a message on my Talk page: "Let me know how you'd like to distinguish "common features" that are commonly found in other genres (e.g.: technology tree), and "common features" that are more distinguishing (e.g.: non-teammate diplomacy, peaceful victory)."

I'm sympathetic to the idea because it matches my mental image of "4X". But unfortunately I don't think the evidence supports it well enough. Non-teammate diplomacy is irrelevant or often forbidden in human-vs-human 4X games; and Age of Empires offers peaceful victory conditions but AFAIK most people (notably Moby Games) exclude Age of Empires from "4X".Philcha 23:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You would agree, though, that there's a difference between a feature like the technology tree that's found in a lot of different genres, versus non-teammate diplomacy which usually differentiates 4X games from other RTSes or strategy games. Although I'll admit there are exceptions.

If having two separate categories (Common Distinguishing Features versus Common Non-distinguishing Features) doesn't gel with you... perhaps we could have a single "common features" category, but try to have a line under each feature that clearly and succinctly states how "distinguishing" that feature is? 69.158.139.180 00:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there are too many exceptions and too few 4X games for you to be drawing specific distinctions like these.SharkD 00:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"... a single 'common features' category, but try to have a line under each feature that clearly and succinctly states how 'distinguishing' that feature is" sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. In this case I think a compromise is appropriate because the border between 4X and other game categories is not black-and-white. We may have to tweak the 'how distinguishing that feature is' comment in each case because in some cases there many shades of grey, notably for tech tree. I would also be happy to order the sub-sections so that the features which are most typical of 4X and least common in other games come first, though I admit that's fairly subjective.

Re SharkD's "too many exceptions and too few 4X games", I think that's a good reason for not having separate sections "Common Distinguishing Features" and "Common Non-distinguishing Features", because separate sections create an impression of clear-cut boundaries. But games do form a spectrum, and I think that various features are associated with various parts of the spectrum and that the article would be helping readers by making them aware of the fact.Philcha 13:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not my first choice, but I'm persuaded by your logic and that this isn't a site for original research. It's not up to us to figure out which features are quite distinct, and which features are more fuzzy between genres. Until an article really clarifies this, we should simply list common features in 4X games. And where possible, highlight a feature that is (1) missing from some typically 4X games, or (2) present in several non-4X games.

My only other comment is to keep these sentences short, snappy, and consistent -- so that readers can quickly conclude for themselves which features are more distinct than others. If I have some time, I might even start making some changes today. If not, this weekend. 69.158.139.180 18:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I took a first crack at it. It will probably take a few more edits to clean it up and clarify the nuances. 69.158.139.180 23:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just had a look. Most of it reads pretty well, but there are still some things I'm not so happy about:

I think "Other conventional features ..." should follow "Classic Definition", because it's additional material about what consitutes a 4X game.

The section currently titled "Characters" is unsatisfactory in several ways. "Racial Advantages / Disadvantages" would be a more informative title. The sentences (inherited from some long-ago version) "These bonuses suggest that an empire's destiny is grounded in the values of its people, or at least the values of its leadership. In 4X games, the state becomes the main actor in shaping historical outcomes, and the state is only concerned with its state interests. This resembles the realist school of international relations, which contrasts with other schools that emphasize common goals between states, or the goals of non-state movements" are a particularly speculative violation of Wikipedia:No original research; and they're inaccurate, for example many of the racial traits in Master of Orion 2 are genetic rather than governmental (i.e. if you conquer a planet full of Psilons you get great researchers, if you conquer Klackons you get great farmers and industrial workers); so these sentences should be removed.

The section "Criticism" within "History of Definition" reads too much like original research, unless someone can provide references to instances of such comments (especially "not a workable genre"). That's why I preferred the title "Difficulties in definition".

Section "Empire Setting" should be re-titled "Empire building". And it should point out that some non-4X games, e.g. Imperium Galactica features empire building via conquest rather than pure extermination.

Under "Tech tree", the need for specific buildings to do various types of research is typical of non-4X games (Starcracft, Age of Empires, and their descendants), while in 4X games the only prerequisite is to have researched earlier techs. Note that some 4X games do require research buildings (Space Empires series, Ascendancy), but these can be used to research anything. Also the clause "and players have to traverse many branches before they can reach the most powerful abilities at the end" is an inaccurate generalisation because it applies to Civilization but not to Master of Orion.

"Game Length and Time" contains material which should be under "Tech tree". And the comment about the number of epochs in Age of Empires etc. misses the point - 4X games often take days to complete.

I'm sorry, but the closer I read the current version the more I think my last edit (22:26, 9 July 2007) presented a much more coherent structure and was also more accurate and had far fewer sweeping generalisations. I therefore propose to revert to that version, but would then look for material to incorporate from the current version and from this discussion.Philcha 22:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think you guys are going overboard into the realm of Original Research with the generalizations. SharkD 22:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

We've made a lot of progress. Why should we revert to something from a month ago? I think we'd lose much more than we'd gain. I'm all for compromise, though. Tell me which generalizations you'd like to see toned down or removed. (Right off the bat, I see the "Game Length" generalization as offering very little, and could be amputated completely.) Let's discuss, rather than doing sweeping reverts. 69.158.142.57 18:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

69.158.142.57, I understand your reluctance to see the article reverted. But the problem is that, while I was sympathetic to some of your ideas, as I read your last edit in more detail I found several inaccuracies, over-generalisations and structural issues. So I'm sorry to say that I don't think the recent changes are actually "a lot of progress".Philcha 01:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

But if the problem is inaccuracies and over-generalizations, doesn't it make more sense to just correct or remove them than to revert passed numerous edits? Either way, I'd like to hear which over-generalizations and inaccuracies need correcting. 65.95.140.140 04:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I got fed up with listing them after about 6, and that's the point at which my attitude changed from sympathetic to "revert". In addition I think the previous version had a better structure.Philcha 22:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm strongly opposed to a revert, for not just the edits I've done but other additional edits. List whatever grievances you have. I'm sure they'd be my grievances too. They can probably be fixed easily. 65.93.222.213 02:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Venn diagram

Here's an idea to help improve the clarity of the article. How about a Venn diagram? There's a few commonly raised non-4X games, since the definition is sometimes vague.

• 4X is a subset of the strategy game genre
• The set of 4X games includes some which are turn based and some which are real time
• Turn-Based Games like Risk are not usually considered 4X games (no exploration)
• RTS games like Starcraft are not usually considered 4X (although this is confusing for a lot of people)

Derisive term

A term used for 4x games, especially the multi-layered ones with very complex tech trees is "dip and twiddle", coming from how the player 'dips into' the game and 'twiddles' various things then sits back and watches to see what happens. The term has been used extensively by "PC Gamer" magazine.

Please provide a reference. SharkD 22:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather, please provide detailed information on the reference (issue number, author, date, some quotes) that we can use in the article. SharkD (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Long playing times

Quote: 4X games usually last longer than other strategy games, possibly taking days for a single player game while multiplayer matches are sometimes known to span weeks. This is part of the intended design. For example, one Master of Orion II strategy guide makes it clear that in a large galaxy with a low-tech start one does not expect serious warfare before about turn 110.

The MOO2 example doesn't seem to fit here. Turn 110 will be reached after 2-3 hours, and games won't last weeks. MOO2 is a pretty fast 4X game compared to SpaceEmpires etc. McLar eng 20:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to bog this section down with too much detail. There's quite a wide variation in 4X game times, e.g. Spaceward Ho! is meant to take about 30 min. But most 4X games take over 2 hours and some a lot longer; while relatively few RTS games take much over an hour, top players on ladders try to win in under 15 min because they can't afford to play several long games per week ([1]) and serious warfare starts in 8 to 30 min (depending on the map, etc).Philcha 23:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Racial advantages / disadvantages in non-4X games

I reinstated the para stating that racial advantages / disadvantages are not exclusive to 4X games and citing Empire Earth because: other sub-sections of "Other typical features" compare with non-4X games; it helps readers if they know what is a fairly reliable / unreliable indicator that a game is 4X (cf. non-conquest victory conditions, which is also an unreliable indicator, because Age of Empires has that feature).

I suggest anyone who agrees / disagrees with the inclusion of the para should state why in the Talk page, then we can look at the results and reach a conclusion about a week from now. Philcha (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Racial advantages are present in so many genres (role-playing games for instance), that stating that it "isn't exclusive to 4X" is kind of stupid. By setting 4X up as the template to judge other genres by, you make it look more important than it really is. SharkD (talk) 06:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't intend to set 4X up as the template to judge other genres by, but simply to make the point that racial advantages / disadvantages are not exclusive to 4X games - while some of the features in this section are much more likely in 4X than other genres, e.g. diplomacy, gamplay more important than graphics. Philcha (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Civ IV Beyond The Sword/ Civ IV

There are some small errors in my eyes. First, in a mod included with Beyond The Sword, Final Frontier, You can colonize another solar system by using a colony ship. This does not fufill a victory- that would be too easy. The first to build a Space Station is the team (or person) that wins. Second, It has a Time Victory. Third, You can win also by concentrating your cultural influence, when 3 of your [Team's] cities have the biggest cultural influence, you win. The cultural dominance is misleading. That's actually a conquest-style thing, like The Settlers [IV]: Rise of an Empire --121.72.79.63 20:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you please explain. Philcha 15:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to

In the Civilization series one can win by being the first to colonize another solar system. Later in the series, one can win by becoming the planet leader (via United Nations or the Apostolic Palace in Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword) or by dominating the culture in the country by means of reaching a fixed percentage of the world population and surface.

I am simply pointing out a few errors. The information is slightly incorrect, but Final Frontier (Point 1) could possibly be excluded- It is a mod. (Note the IP appears to be changed-I am the same person that posted the original, check the contributions of this signature) --121.72.71.239 (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation 15 Has No Link

Just a heads up for everybody, citation #15 has no link. Anybody know where it goes? Cpuwhiz11 (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check the revision history. The article probably linked to a source which got lost in one of its revisions. SharkD (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I tracked it down to mid-Sept 2007 and found that it links to a download page (freedownloads.com) which reads like a blurb, so I removed the ref. Philcha (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Reinstated "Moby Games' attempt fails ..."

I've reinstated the statement that Moby Games' attempt to narrow the definition by adding a "peaceful victory" criterion: Moby Games state that they are trying to exclude Age of Empires, but AofE does offer peacewful victory conditions (see AofE manual). That's not OR. Philcha (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent choice of images

65.95.157.129 has chosen an excellent set of images to illustrate the article - varied and well-matched to the adjacent text. Thank you! Philcha (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. You've done some great edits here too. There've been some rough patches of disagreement, but nothing we couldn't work passed to improve the article overall. (In the meantime, I'll be staying anonymous.) 67.71.0.31 (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any chance you can find a tech tree that is easier to see than FreeOrion's, which has very poor contrast. For example the "what do I need to research in order to get tech X?" screen from Civ II or something else from the Civilopedia? Or perhaps you could brighten up the FreeOrion screenshot. Philcha (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Truthfully, I just trolled around the other video game articles for images. FreeOrion seemed to do a good job of capturing the "tree" structure with nodes and links. But I'll try to keep an eye out for something better. If you find something, please do change it. 65.95.156.135 (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference-spamming

From the lead:

"4X" is now used quite frequently in articles about games which follow a similar pattern.^{[6][1][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]}

This is completely unnecessary. If sources all say the same thing, we should pick the best ones and delete the rest. It is not required to add eight different citations to the same assertion. These should be distributed throughout the article more evenly. Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would reduce it, but not to one. Maybe three. The long list is meant to support that "many" articles refer to X as Y. Technically, it's a case of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, as none of the articles specifically say, "Many articles call games 4X" or somesuch. I don't find it particularly insidious (probably because I agree with it; and, at least, some references are provided, so you can check the facts) or care all that greatly, in any case. SharkD (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This arose from a previous discussion(!) in which someone insisted on applying a "not notable" tag to the article, which would have put it at risk of deletion. At one stage that focussed on how widely the term "4X" was used. I wouldn't mind if someone picked the 3 or 4 best ones, provided that they comment out but do not delete the rest (in case we have another notability debate) - in fact it would be a good idea to include in the HTML comment "do not delete, may be needed if notability of 4X questioned again". Philcha (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep. This is to pre-empt anyone who would try to add a "not notable" tag. It's also to prevent an edit war over what is or is not a 4X game. Given the choice between an unreferenced article that could lead to edit wars, or something that tests the limits of WP:SYN, I'll take my chances with the latter. 65.93.223.67 (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not either-or. The resources can be distributed more evenly, and must be if this article is to improve. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Or they can be included in external links. Citing a half dozen articles doesn't support the "many" or "frequently" word. This is a judgment call unless you've got a reliable source stating this. There are literally tens of thousands of game reviews out there, 6 don't support that kind of assumption.--Crossmr (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've bundled into 1 footnote all the citations for uses of "4X", except those that are also used elsewhere in the article. (I didn't know this technique when I first included all these refs). Philcha (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Other common features - Technology tree

I noticed that this article was bumped up to B class recently. Good job to everyone who's gotten it this far. I've started citing statements in this article, and tweaking the wording to be more representative of the research that's out there. I'd really like to see another video game genre article make it to GA status. These genre articles don't get enough love.

One section that jumps out at me, though, is the tech tree section. It seems tough to verify. It looks like a bunch of numbers. It says that 4X games have longer tech trees than other strategy games, but then says that it doesn't, and then keeps on pulling out numbers for no apparent reason. I'm not sure how to handle this section. What point is it trying to make?

I guess what I'm getting at is that it may need a rewrite to make a real point, before I just start verifying random numbers. Anyone agree / disagree? Randomran (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

... I'm also having some trouble verifying the "constraints on growth and warfare" section. I don't doubt that a lot of it's true. But that doesn't eliminate the need for references. Obviously, I could reference the actual examples. But more than that, I'd need to reference the basic point: that 4X games have other "internal constraints" besides your opponents. Randomran (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on the onerous task of upgrading refs.

Re tech tree, I could never work a better way to describe the situation that wouldn't get out of proportion to the rest of the article. So I'll list what I think are the main points here (I'm watching this article, a so I can respond fairly quickly if there are any points you'd like to discuss):

• In every recognised 4X game that I've ever played, what buildings you have only influences how fast you can research and build, not what you can research and build. In the RTS Command and Conquer series there's no research, but you can only build the more advanced units if you have a Tech Center / Battle Lab. In Total Annihilation (incl TA:K; also RTS) there's also no research - but more advanced units can only be built at more expensive factories, and some advanced buildings can only be started by advanced builder units form the advanced factories. In the Age of Empires series and offshoots like the Empire Earth series (RTS again): what you can research depends on what buildings you have (different techs require different buildings) and on your epoch; you can only go up an epoch if you have at least 2 buildings that were first made available when you entered your current epoch. so at least all the 4X games I know are consistent in not caring what buildings you have.
• The epochs business is a little more complicated. At first sight it looks as if the Civilization series requires you to go up an epoch in order to research some more advanced units (and other techs); the most visible indicator of this is that you get an end-of-turn turn announcement, "The X civilization has entered the ... Age", and the icons for your buildings change. But that's just a cosmetic feature: there are no "advance an epoch" research projects in the tech tree; but in Civ’s very complex tech tree (see below) the tech whose discovery triggers the "new epoch" messages are prerequisites for more advanced units and buildings.
• 4X tech trees are more diverse in structure. Those of the Master of Orion and Spaceward Ho! series consists of several different research subjects, and theoretically you could research all the way to the top level in one subject but neglect the rest. The Space Empires series is similar, except that when you research to a certain level in 1 subject (or sometimes 2) a whole new subject is revealed (and you can still research further advances in the ones that were available before). The Civilization series has the most complex (as does a mid-1990s 4X game, Ascendancy), where each non-basic tech has 2 prerequisites, and that limits how far you can research in 1 area while neglecting others.
• Balance between civilian and military techs. In many RTS games tech advances are almost exlusivley military (e.g. StarCraft). But in most TBS and some RTS games the research and production costs of top-end military techs are so high that you have to build up your economy and research productivity first (RTS - Age of Empires, Empire Earth, where one of the most significant costs is going up an epoch; TBS - the Civilisation series and Master of Orion series). But this is not a universal rule - in the Age of Empires series and offshoots you need to research economy-enhancing techs in order to research and build advanced units at a reasonable rate.
• In some non-4X games, e.g. Starcraft, the basic units continue to be effective all the way through the game. In most 4X games an advanced unit will usually beat more than its production cost in significantly less advanced units. What counts as a more advanced unit varies: in the Civilization series new types of unit become available after certain advances and there's virtually nothing you can do to improve existing lower-tech units; in Master of Orion II and Master of Orion III you can build e.g. battleships from the start, but can refit existing ships to take advantage of new techs; I think Alpha Centauri (in the Civilization series) might have borrowed some ideas from the MoO games, but I'm not sure.

Of course all this is WP:OR and only applies to the games I've played.

Re "constraints on growth and warfare", the sources are usually the game manuals and screens. The Civilization series has exceptionally detailed manuals (especially Civ I; the Civ II manual often seems to assume you know Civ I pretty well) which make clear the constraints presented by unrest and internal politics. The Master of Orion and Master of Orion II manuals are almost equally explicit about how strong a constraint pollution is.

But that raises another point generally, about why I described upgrading refs as an "onerous task". The original reviews and strategy guides for many of these games are long gone (and sometimes useless, see Alan Emrich's critique Decline of Guides). Where the games are still played, the real expertise resides at forums such as masteroforion2.blogspot.com and CivFanatics (and similarly for non-4X games; e.g gnug.org for Total Annihilation). It might be very difficult to get better refs. Good luck! Philcha (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Response: Thanks for getting back to me. I agree this will be difficult. The good news is that a good 75% of the article has been referenced at this stage. The bad news is that the last 25% is proving very hard. So far I have been very careful to reference material rather than deleting unreferenced material. I don't want to delete useful information just because I haven't been able to verify and cite it yet. But if push comes to shove, we might actually improve the article by deleting a few statements. So let's talk specifics:

• I see you added a reference to Strange Adventures in Infinite Space as a short 4X game. But it's not a 4X game. It's more of a short action adventure game. (It's kind of like a roguelike in space.) The game involves exploring and extermination but you don't really build an empire or settlements or anything. I was going to quickly scrub this part but since you added it I wanted to see what you had to say.

I referenced the article by the Strange Adventures in Infinite Space developer to illustrate how some developers deliberately aim for beer 'n pretzels timescales. If you prefer more 4X-specific refs HotU: Stellar Conquest III, Moby Games: Spaceward Ho! IV for Windows, HotU (again): Deadlock are what I got from 5 pages of Google results ("4x game beer pretzels"); in this case also replace the existing HotU ref for Spaceward Ho! 3 with the Moby ref for Spaceward Ho! IV.

Done Philcha (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• I noticed your attempt to clarify the quote from the "difficulties with definition" section. But you seem to have made the quote LESS accurate rather than more accurate. I was wondering what your rationale was since I'm trying to stay close to what the references actually say.

Do you mean Moby Games? That page says (bottom of section): "For purposes of this game group, games where primary gameplay focuses only on eXtermination without any other possible victory conditions (my emph) are excluded from this game group. This means games such as Age of Empires, War Craft, Command and Conquer, Heroes of Might and Magic should not go here." I think "includes the requirement that it must be possible to win without exterminating all opponents" is a fair summary of that. Or are you concerned about something else? Philcha (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Onto the technology tree. You're right that a lot of that appears to be OR. But a lot of it also happens to seem true. Would you feel comfortable re-writing that section to cut to the safest and most useful facts? I could reference individual numbers (who's the longest, who's the shortest, who's the widest or most "complex") but I think it's starting to cloud the article. Maybe a quick statement about "game ?? has one of the longest technology trees, at ?? techs" would be useful and relatively easy to reference. I *might* be able to reference a statement like "4X games tend to have more non-military techs than other strategy games", although I'm not so sure. Either way, I'd like to trim this section down to what's true of all 4X games rather than getting clouded in lots of examples.

IMO the ony 2 facts I'd consider safe in my list are that in the 4X games that I know: there's no dependency on specific buildings; advanced combat units slaughter much larger numbers of less advanced units. There are too many exceptions to the other features. Philcha (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• The constraints section runs into a lot of the same problems as the technology section. I can definitely reference the individual constraints in each game. But I'm not sure this is even useful. Why are we going into all kinds of detail about constraints? Isn't this like a section on all the different kinds of health-systems in action games? I'm really tempted to scrap this whole section. This seems to fail any kind of notability test. I'd like to get away from example-spam for the sake of example-spam.

Here I strongly disagree. It's very different from health-systems, e.g. Master of Orion II and Civilization II have quite specific rules about how quickly units recover from combat damage, and they also have internal constraints on production and, in the Civilization series, about how warlike you can be. In the Civilization series discontent is a very strong constraint since you have to allocate some citizens as "entertainers" rather than workers, tax-gatherers or scientists (at the highest difficulty level every citizen after the 3rd is discontented unless you do something abut it; that's really severe). Also in the Civilization series, the Senate can force you to make peace and prevent you from starting a war (applies only to Republican and Democratic governments, it's part of they price they pay for their advantages in research and cash flow). Finally the last internal constraint in the Civilization series is corruption: the further a city is from your capital, the more of its output is lost to corruption (depends on your government type). In the Galactic Civilizations series AFAIK (based on reviews, I haven't played it): your political partly can be voted out of office; since the different parties have different bonuses (e.g. production, cash-flow, research) this can turn your strategy on its head. In the Master of Orion series, once you allocate more than a certain number of your population to industrial work an increasing % of output is lost because it has to be spent on pollution control (the threshhold number varies depending on various features of each planet, and on your pollution control techs). In non-4X empire games the only constraint on how fast you extract resources is that too many "peasants" get in each others' way (applies only to games with the "peasants take resources back to the town hall" model; does not apply witih practical limits to the Command and Conquer series, where you can operate as many ore miners as you like, provided you can avoid congestion problems; does not apply at all to Total Annihilation, where resources are extracted by buildings and the main constraint is the relative scarcity of metal deposits on almost all maps); there's no pollution, corruption or internal politics. My biggest concern about the internal constraints is that I'm only aware of them in 3 game series. Others might know better. Philcha (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

PS Might be a good idea to put this in a footnote - it's all in the manuals, but a bit long for the main article. Philcha (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This article had a lot of great information to start with. By adding a lot of references, I think it can get to GA maybe even FA status. The "original research" problems are the last remaining challenge in my opinion. I definitely appreciate your work so far. Randomran (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Response #2: Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. A few things:

• I'll see about removing the reference to Strange Adventures in Infinite Space, since that's not a 4X game. But the others will be quite useful. I'll try to improve the references when I find time. Good job on fixing the beer and pretzels references. Much better!

• Yes, that's the reference I'm talking about. First, you leave out the part about "the focus of the gameplay". Second, the change in wording you've used changes where the bar is set. The reference excludes games where victory involves any extermination, whereas your wording would only exclude games where victory involves total extermination. It's the difference between victory tied to successful war and victory tied to total genocide. I know you're trying to clarify. But sometimes a subtle change in wording can change the whole meaning of a statement. I think it's better to defer to the actual reference.

I think you might want re-read Moby Games,especially "... gameplay focuses only on eXtermination without any other possible victory conditions ..." - extermination is allowed, provided there are other VCs. Philcha (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• That's extremely helpful. Would you mind re-writing the section to reflect those two "safe" facts? Leave the references to me. I'll post again if I run into any trouble. Minor update: I may already have a reference for RTSs and buildings. Isn't google a wonderful thing?

Will do. The ref's good news, well done! Philcha (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm, I see what you mean. Constraints do seem to be a distinguishing factor between 4X and other strategy games. But I'm having a lot of trouble referencing the over-riding context of the section. The examples are only useful if we can establish the opening statement: "In most strategy games, the only obstacles between the player and victory are the opponents[citation needed]; gameplay is simplified to allow players to focus on "what matters", which is usually the military aspect of the game. In some 4X games, however, there are other constraints as well:[citation needed]" ... I'll try to keep digging for references I guess. But there aren't a lot of articles out there that compare 4X to RTS (let alone TBS to RTS). Let me know if you have any other ideas. I'd hate to lose such a useful generalization.

See my response to your previous post (I don't know how we escaped an edit conflict, since we're posting to this thread at such a rate - oh s***,I shouldn't have said that!) - that gives examples, and they're solidly based on the manuals. I suggested that response might make a good footnote. But don't overestimate the importance / generality of constraints, as I only know 3 series of 4X games in which they're important - admittedly these 3 are probably the most highly-regarded 4X series. In my last post I forgot to mention the SE series, which also gets a lot of respect (I forgot SE in my previous post). Discontent is a factor there, but it's very mild. As far as I can see in SE III the ony significant cases are: newly-conquered planets riot, but you get can full 100% productivity from them in about 5 turns; and your homeworld starts the game rather grumpy, which I think is to prevent you from cranking productivity to over 100% in order to build your first ships extra fast. Philcha (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Get back to me whenever. Randomran (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There one section I'm very unhappy about - "Depth of gameplay" currently focuses on UI features, but my own impressions from experience and reading are that "Depth of gameplay" in this context generally means careful planning is important (especially compared with Starcraft, where mouse speed and other Actions Per Minute factors are vital - see Micromanagement (computer gaming)), so you may lose a game because of a poor decision some time ago rather than reacting too slowly in the last few seconds; and it sometimes also refers to the variety of strategies for winning or at least gaining the upper hand (e.g. diplomacy and espionage as well as pure thuggery). I'll look for refs on this and I'd be grateful if you would too. Philcha (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I tried to find evidence that 4x games are complex and most of the evidence I found was more at the design level rather than the gameplay level. One thought that I had was to just have a general section about "complexity" and merge in a few other sections. Long playing times would fit under complexity as well as micromanagement. These topics all seem to be related. I think I remember a few references mentioning these all at the same time. (For example they might say that the game takes a long time because there's lots of micromanagement due to deep gameplay.) Because that's how references deal with this subject, it might even make the article easier to reference. What are your thoughts about merging a few sections together and dealing with complexity as a single topic? Randomran (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll think about that tomorrow - I'm revising the tech tree section now. Please remind me if I forget. Please don't do anything yet, as I think I disagree with your suggested re-structure - but it needs more thought than I can give it right now. I'd be interested to see the refs you've found - and the more work we can get out of each the better.

PS it's interesting that you're finding so many refs after I thought I'd done a good trawl. We must have very different ways of asking Google. Philcha (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply: I'll definitely leave the tech tree section and the "constraints" section alone for the time being. As much as the constraints section needs work, I think deleting it or scrubbing it would be too aggressive. Let's try to salvage as much as possible. Two more things:

1st draft of tech/ research doe, needs lot of polishing and some citations. I'm turning in (I'm in UK). Philcha (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Do you have access to those game manuals you were talking about? That would be really helpful for referencing the constraints section. Still, I'd like to try to find references for the general statements more than just finding a bunch of specific examples from specific games. The only one I could find was for "operational ranges", if you look at the section now. You'd be surprised what an article on a specific 4X game can say. There's sometimes a nugget of gold like "this game is like most 4X games in that it involves ..." That's often a good place to get the generalization you're looking for.

"Do you have access to those game manuals you were talking about?" Yes, but I hope you're not going to want page numbers. For one thing many of these games are now only available via budget labels like SoldOut and paper manuals are not usually supplied with these. Most of these manuals are just PDFs, and there's no guarantee that the pagination is the same. In a few cases (e.g. Call to Power) the budget-label version's manual is web pages (HTML files), and these have URLs rather than page numbers; but these URLs are accessible only via the user's hard drive, not via the web. And the Civ manuals are big, I don't fancy trawling them for refs.Philcha (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• And on the mobygames reference, that's exactly my point. The reference excludes games where the only victories involve some extermination, whereas you exclude games where the only victories involve total extermination. (A victory that might involve extermination but not total extermination: capture the flag, have the highest score based on war at the end of a time span, successfully defend your base, etc.) When you say that 4X games let you "win without exterminating all opponents", you might be misleading people that "capture the flag" or "defend your base" are sufficient victory conditions to make you a 4X game! You're excluding fewer games than the quote from the reference, as far as I can tell. And even then, rephrasing it in such a way would constitute original research. Do you understand the difference in meaning that I'm seeing? Randomran (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm basing my interpretation on the phrase "without any other possible victory conditions". IMO that means I don't have to worry about Moby's rather odd and IMO much too broad definition of extermination: "Extermination requires the total elimination of an opponent or to subdue the opponent under your direct or indirect control (ie. vassal, puppet, etc.) via armed conflict or diplomatic devices".

Your points about "capture the flag" , "defend your base" etc. look valid and only further refute Moby's attempt to pin down the definition of 4X. For example the "Scenarios" section of the Starcraft game start-up menu has a number of these oddball missions. That's no problem for the article, which takes the line that a rigorous definition of 4X is impossible because of the way in which games have developed since Emrich coined the term. A long-ago version of the article pointed out that RTS games were only emerging at that time, and I think I may reinstate that point. Philcha (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply Thanks for all your help.

• If you can access those manuals, see what you can find in terms of useful references. But don't waste too much time. Like I said, specific examples are only so useful. We want more general statements that can only come from reviews, let alone full on genre summaries.
• You've made some useful edits in the tech tree section, but some are unnecessary. Remember: the key to upping the quality of this article is verifying and referencing everything. The more information we add, the more information we have to reference. I'd like to cut most of the stuff about size because I don't think it tells us anything. Same thing with the stuff about how easy it is to navigate some trees and not others. Leave all the differences between the tech trees to a main article on technology trees. The most useful stuff is just what you found... RTSs tie research to buildings, and the comment about game balance / unit strength. Much cleaner and easier to reference.

I was getting tired, so the tech tree section is currently a brain-dump. Once we agree on what it should contain, I'll polish the presentation. Philcha (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The stuff about size IMO makes a valid point, that research is a much larger element of most 4X games (except beer n pretzels games) than of most non-4X games (except multi-epoch epics). But the stats currently quoted are meaningless because they compare apples and oranges. I'll deal with that. Please reind me if necessary. Philcha (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The item about how expensive advanced research is reinforces the importance of research in 4X games.

I agree about moving as much detail as possible into technology tree, but I think "4X" should at least point out that 4X tech trees vary in complexity. Philcha (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• As for the "difficulties with definition", that's exactly my point. It's only your interpretation of what mobygames said so it's technically original research. Remember, the original quote is "primary gameplay focuses only on eXtermination without any other possible victory conditions". Defend the base still focuses on extermination, just that it rewards you for resisting extermination. Capture the flag still focuses on extermination, just that you have to exterminate a particular settlement rather than EVERY settlement in the game. I know "primary gameplay" sounds pretty vague, but it also does a good job of excluding RTSs with "oddball scenarios" (oddball scenarios are not primary gameplay). In your effort to clarify it, you re-interpreted it to only mean total extermination, such as outright conquest victory. I'd like to go back to something closer to the actual wording in the reference. Avoid WP:OR at all costs.

As I said before, I think the key points about Moby are: "without any other possible victory conditions"; the fact that, however you interpret Moby's words, it fails to exclude AofE. I'm following your principles about using the bits that avoid minefields here. Philcha (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Good idea on putting the 4X definition in a historical context. I think that's something you should add to the history section, with a shorter comment in the introduction.

I'll try to find the old version that had that point (there was a ref to the timimg of RTS) and patch it in. Then we need to think about the most effective way to use it. IMO that's to explain why Emrich's definition ran out of steam, but we can discuss that later. Philcha (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Found it, patched it into "Difficulties in definition". Philcha (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are the areas of need that I see. The "difficulties in definition" reference, the tech tree section, the constraints section, and maybe a slight improvement to the history section. 64.231.194.68 (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And the "depth of gameplay" section, which IMO talks about completely the wrong things. I'll start looking for good material on "depth of gameplay". Philcha (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I need a break. "Depth of gameplay" still bothers me, because I can't find refs for the fact that in 4X games you're more likely to lose as a result of a poor decision many turns ago (or many minutes ago, for RT4X) than as a result of being slow on the mouse in the last few seconds. To me that's much more important than the number of screens the UI uses. Since it seems your approach to googling is different from mine, I'd be grateful if you'd have look. Philcha (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to distinguish up-front (possibly in the intro) between "full-size 4X" (e.g. Civilization, Masterof Orion II; all are TBS), "beer-and-pretzels 4X" (best example Spaceword Ho!, still going strong after over 10 years and now at v 5; TBS) and RT4X. Then aim most of the article at "full-size 4X" (still the largest sub-genre by number of games) and add separate, shorter sections for "beer-and-pretzels 4X" and "RT4X" (see sub-thread below - there are more than I thought, and earlier). Otherwise almost every section needs some qualification, especially for "beer-and-pretzels 4X". Philcha (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

RT4X

I think we also need to create a section "RT4X" - Sins of a Solar Empire is getting a lot of attention (most usable "4X" hits on Google point to SoaS), and Starships Unlimited (no Wikipedia article!) may have pioneered this sub-genre; and RT4X currently redirects to 4X. Sorry for the scope creep, but I can't abide FAs that meet all the formal criteria but are actually fairly useless because they don't cover the topic well (no names, no pack drill). If RT4X flourishes it may merit its own article within a few years, but in that case 4X would still have to contain enough to whet readers' appetites and to satisfy a Wikipedia guideline that articles should as far as possible be self-contained. Philcha (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, "RT4X" is not really a genre, it's a marketing/promotional term associated with one title. If and when it becomes established as a genre term within the gaming community we should cover it as such, but in the meantime I feel we should be very careful about when and where we use it, making it clear that for now it's only a recently-coined neologism. For example, in a discussion of real-time 4X games, we might say something along the lines of, "Several real-time titles, such as Pax Imperia and Starships Unlimited are considered 4X games; Ironclad Games introduced the term "RT4X" to describe the real-time 4X gameplay of Sins of a Solar Empire." --Muchness (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the term "RT4X" was apparently coined for the promotion of Sins of a Solar Empire, but IMO that does not disqualify it as a genre. You've cited 2 others, Pax Imperia (1993, 1995) and Starships Unlimited (Win 95 compatible so probably first version late 1990s; latest version apparently 2003); and Imperium Galactica (1999) is similar. Genre names only appear when there are already successful examples. "RTS" was coined to promote Dune II (see History of RTS Games), but Herzog Zwei (1989) is now regarded as the founding member. "4X" was coined in 1993 but Civilization (1991) was already well-known.

In fact you've provided more reasons for treating "RT4X" as a genre or at least sub-genre, because you've increased its membership from 2 (my original post) to 4. Philcha (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm referring to the term "RT4X", not the various games that have implemented 4X gameplay mechanics within a real-time engine. I don't object to covering real-time 4X games in this article, although presenting them as an established genre without providing reliable independent references identifying them as a genre may constitute original research as a synthesis of facts. What I do have reservations about is using the marketing term "RT4X" to identify these games at this time, because this usage of the term has not (yet) become sufficiently established in the gaming community to satisfy WP:NEO. Neither "RTS" nor "4X" would have warranted encyclopedic coverage at the time they were coined, but it's fine for us to have encyclopedic articles on them now because they're firmly establish gaming genres with multiple reliable independent sources documenting their history and usage. It's possible (in fact I'd say it's likely) that in due course RT4X may become an established genre term, and at such time the term will warrant similar treatment. --Muchness (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sins of a Solar Empire Review says ""The grand idea of RT4X works. It's not entirely new - the Europa Universalis games have been doing similar things for years." Starships Unlimited: Divided Galaxies describes Starships Unlimited as " .. a 4X game (eXplore, eXploit, eXpand, eXterminate). The game is a mix of real-time and turn based action. For the most part the game runs in real-time but when decisions need to be made the game will pause whereas when you are caught up in battle the game transforms into turn-based action." Those are independent reference for the phenomemon I mentioned that the genre exists before it's named, and for the legitimacy of including the Europa Universalis games and Starships Unlimited. Philcha (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The article can certainly benefit from covering examples of games that have combined real-time and 4x gameplay features; this is relevant, verifiable and encyclopedic content. Additionally, I don't object to grouping them as a sub-genre, though ideally we ought to provide reliable references describing them as such. My concern here is using the term RT4X outside the context of SoaSE, before such usage has gained widespread currency in the gaming community. --Muchness (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of stuff going on over here, but I can say with certainty that there's no need for a separate section here. This earns a brief mention (SOASE has marketed itself as a RT4X game). But there's no need to treat it as its own genre. There's not enough content to provide a new section, forget a new article. All we'd be doing is writing an article about Sins of a Solar Empire. And, low and behold, there already is one. (I'll make comments on some of the other changes later.) Randomran (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice (smugly) that "The most blatant addition to the formula in EE3 is that it has sprouted a whole new game mode which overlies the entire single-player experience, a turn-based world domination affair which sees you gradually branching out from your starting region to take over the entire planet" (Empire Earth III preview, Oct 2007). So EE3 is also combining 4X and RTS elements, though in a different way from SoaSE. Looks like "RT4X" will soon been an established term, and possibly with the same difficulties of definition. Philcha (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't used the term RT4X though. I think it's safe to say that information about real time 4X games should just go in the 4X article for now. But it will be interesting to see what happens in the next year or so. Maybe this is the start of a new genre. But it's not for us to decide. Randomran (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you notice I was teasing? "I notice (smugly) ..." was meant to be the clue. Philcha (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL... I apologize. My sense of humor isn't what it should be these days. I'm pretty busy. What am I even doing on wikipedia? Very good question. I'll be safe in a week or two though. Randomran (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Original research

To Philcha (and everyone else)... there have been a lot of good edits over a short period of time. It's hard to comment on them all. Most of them are helpful. But a lot of them compound the article's difficulties with original research and unreferenced statements.

If you make 10 observations, you might be able to find a reliable source that can confirm two of your observations. But you might have to let go of the other 8 observations, no matter how true they may seem on the surface. It's always good to generate new observations and put them into the article. That's how articles grow. But after a while, you also have to be willing to admit that you're making an observation that nobody has ever made before: an original observation. As useful as it is, that stuff just doesn't fit on wikipedia. It belongs on gamespot or gamasutra. (For example... Creating a sub-genre section for short 4X games strikes me as original research. Maybe I'm wrong and there is research out there that says this is an important distinction. But I just haven't found it. And I've read a lot on this subject over the past few days.)

I think we'll be able to cite some of these observations you've made. But I'm skeptical that we'll be able to cite all or even most of them. Google is a powerful tool. But I think you're taking a very specific search strategy, where you're trying to reference individual statements. I'm more trying to find statements that relate to the broad categories. (For example, you might be looking for a statement that says that 4X games have more research options than RTS games. Me, I just troll EVERY 4X article I can find and look for any generic statement about "4X games usually ...". And from that, I might find 2 or 3 statements about tech trees.)

The key sections: depth, research, and constraints should be seen as a brainstorm for the time being. But like many brainstorms, a lot of the ideas will have to be filtered out. This will depend on our ability to cite the many useful observations you've made.

You've added some good info. You've referenced some of it, and some of it we'll be able to find references for. But if we want this article to reach GA status, we have to be prepared to let certain observations die even if they seem true to us. If we're the first people to make this observation, we've crossed the line into original research. Randomran (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sins of a Solar Empire advert?

Sorry, but when reading this article I see it as <in some part> an advert of Sins of a Solar Empire. "Sins of a Solar Empire are regarded..." "Sins of a Solar Empire is also entirely played..." "The makers of Sins of a Solar Empire...". Gash... it's even more fun when compared to Masters of Orion III which is, according to this article "boring or frustrating", when in fact MoO series is leading 4X game series. I can find also opinion according to which SoaSE "combines everything improperly and streamlines" (here), lol.

SoaSE is quoted mainly as a recent example of 4X. Galactic Civilizations isn't that recent any more, and the reviews I've seen of Sword of the Stars and Lost Empire have been less favourable than those of SoaSE, so they are not so useful as recent examples.

Metacritic's summary of reviews gives SoaSE 88%, which is very high for a game - 4% higher than for Master of Orion II, which is generally regarded as a classic of the 4X genre. The review you quoted is by far the least favourable (60% - the rest range 80-96%). The available evidence indicates that SoaSEis at least a worthy recent addition to the genre.

Disclosure: I do not own SoaSE and have no financial stake in the game or the companies that developed and published it :-) Philcha (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

One reason SOASE comes up so much is because it is very "self conscious" of the fact that it's a 4X game. SOASE actively tried to be a 4X game in real-time. Hence, a lot of articles about SOASE discuss what it means to be a 4X game, what features you need to have, and so on. Interviews and articles about SOASE are very useful because they do a good job explaining what 4X games are.

That said, I agree with you that maybe we could reduce the number of examples of specific games in the article. But that's a very minor goal at this point. Randomran (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Moby Games.

I've not read the above discussion (don't have time to do it now, but I'll get around to it soon), but I have a question. Why is Moby Game's definition given so much attention? Do they have a trademark on "4X" or something? If so, it should be mentioned, and if not, then I think more than just one publishing company's definition should be used. · AndonicO ^Engage. 16:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If you know of other articles that provide good definitions, or other useful material, please add summaries and provide citations in footnotes.

Moby Games have put more work than anyone else we've found into defining "4X". Their failure of their attempt to clarify the definition highlights how difficult this is, because developments in gaming since 1993 have blurred the boundaries. 4X does cite several other articles that provide sketchy definitions, usually as part of games; but these articles are mainly cited in footnotes because they don't analyse the term "4X" in any detail. Philcha (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'll try to find other definitions as well. · AndonicO ^Engage. 13:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for offering, but you may find it difficult to get additional useful references - see the 4X Notability debate. Philcha (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Depth of gameplay

Some parts of the version as at 00:19, 18 April 2008 need tidying up, but I don't think the meaning should be changed. Here's a table that presents the version as at 00:19 18 April 2008, Randomran's edit of 17:19, 18 April 2008 and what I propose, then I'll give some reasons.

00:19 18 April 2008	17:19, 18 April 2008	Proposed
4X games typically provide a wider range of ways to gain the upper hand than than most other genres: trade, diplomacy —including bribery— espionage, and sabotage—even if the player's ultimate goal is total conquest. Long-term planning is vital. Hence, 4X games usually require players to use a much larger amount of information, and to manage more aspects of an empire than most other genres. Research, diplomacy, and the economy must all be constantly tended to by the player. Each layer of gameplay can become intricate enough to resemble a minigame of its own, such as ship design in Galactic Civilizations II and Master of Orion, or tactical combat in Space Empires IV. Some 4X games even offer a separate screen display for managing battles, or a separate screen for each settlement; many also have separate screens for diplomacy with each player. This is in contrast to most RTS games. Dune II, which arguably established the conventions for the real-time strategy genre, was fundamentally designed to be a "flat interface," with "no additional screens." 4X games are typically complex, and include various rules. For example, Civilization IV was designed as a composite of several simple systems, which combine to create complex results..	4X games are typically complex and include a multitude of rules. There are usually a wide range of strategies that players must tend to. This includes research, trade, economics, diplomacy, and espionage. Managing this range of strategies requires long-term planning. This combination of strategies is responsible for the complex gameplay typical of the genre. Civilization IV was designed as a composite of several simple systems, which combine to create complex results.. Sometimes a layer of gameplay will become intricate enough to resemble a minigame, such as ship design in Galactic Civilizations II and Master of Orion, or tactical combat in Space Empires IV. Some 4X games even offer a separate screen display for managing battles, or a separate screen for each settlement. Many also have separate screens for diplomacy with each player. This is in contrast to most RTS games. Dune II, which arguably established the conventions for the real-time strategy genre, was fundamentally designed to be a "flat interface," with "no additional screens."	4X games typically provide a wider range of ways to gain the upper hand than than most other genres, including trade, diplomacy, espionage, and sabotageThe player must pay constant attention to these and to research and the economy, even if the ultimate goal is total conquest. Long-term planning is vital. This combination of strategies is responsible for the complex gameplay typical of the genre. It also means players must use a much larger amount of information to manage all these aspects of an empire than in most other genres. As a result most 4X games provide additional screens to through which to control research, diplomacy, the development of colonies and, in some cases, tactical combat; and sometimes these become intricate enough to resemble a minigame. This is in contrast to most RTS games. Dune II, which arguably established the conventions for the real-time strategy genre, was fundamentally designed to be a "flat interface," with "no additional screens."

• The "wider range of ways to gain the upper hand" is the driving force for this section.
• I think "even if the ultimate goal is total conquest" is important - for example SotS and SoaSE are recognised as 4X games but their only victory condition is total conquest; yet the sources make it clear that research and economic management are vital in both and that diplomacy is important in SoaSE.
• "Long-term planning is vital" is pretty bald because that's the the way it's presented at RTSC (the author understands 4X games pretty well but doesn't like them much). Elaborating on that would probably be OR, and you know how flexibly I interpret WP:NOR. If you can provide another reference that says more about long-term planning I'd be delighted, since IMO one of the big differences is that one lapse can lose you an RTS while in 4X the decisions that win or lose the game are made quite a long time before the end (in game set-up if you're a race design grognard in MoO2 or Stars!). But at present we have plenty of refs for complex strategy and only 1 (RTSC) for long-term planning.
• The fairly complex UI that's typical of 4X now flows on from the previous stuff quite nicely (IMO).
• I don't like "multitude of rules" up front or even at all, as it makes 4X sound like a tax return. But then I like 4X games; others may think the "spreadsheets" aspect should be made plain so that readers can easily decide whether 4X is for them (I suspect that's why blog.wired's review of SoaSE starts with so many apparent negatives; but their reviewer gets to balance that with the headline "Sins of a Solar Empire Sinfully Good", which Wikipedia does not allow us to do). Philcha (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

PS I don't think MoO2 retroview is a good source. It makes at least 2 errors (the Silicoids are not Subterranean, see game manual; Creative is not hugely over-powerful, especially after the developers increased its cost in the race design budget, see MoO2 Strategy Guide). And it's grossly over-optimistic about MoO 3 (OK, that's hindsight speaking; but how many new readers of 4X will make allowances for that?) Philcha (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for putting a lot of time into this... here are a few thoughts

• I see what you're getting at with the leading sentence of the section. My impression was that "complexity" was the driving force for this section. I tend to see articles like a newspaper... you state the basic point of each section at the start. I don't think "variety of strategies" quite explains the whole of this section. But I also see how you might find the phrasing "multitude of rules" to be too negative. How would you feel about rephrasing "This combination of strategies is responsible for the complex gameplay typical of the genre" to become a new introductory sentence? I think that would describe the section best.

I meant that the complexity is caused by the variety of means of getting the upper hand, and above all by research because advanced units murder less advanced units. Perhaps "Tech tree" should precede "Depth of gameplay" - the sequence "Tech tree" -> "Depth of gameplay" -> "Long playing times" and "Micromanagement" looks very logical to me.

Yes. This is what I'm getting it. I definitely think it's fair to tie the complexity to the variety of strategies. But the section should start off with that idea right away. State the main point: "4X games are known for their complexity, due to the wide range of means of gaining the upper hand ..." That's the basic thought. Not necessarily the wording I suggested. (I have no real opinion on changing the order of the subsections as of yet. Feel free to try some things out.) Randomran (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Aren't espionage and sabotage synonyms? A lot of 4X games don't really make this distinction anyway. I dropped sabotage for efficiency's sake.

OK. Philcha (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• I understand why you're including "even if the goal is total conquest" now. It sounded to me like you were saying that all 4X games are about total conquest. But I also think the statement is unnecessary. If it's true of most 4X games then it's true of most 4X games... no? Usually you add qualifiers like that for exceptions. No need to add a qualifier here because there's no notable exception.

I think SotS and SoaSE are notable exceptions because their only victory condition is total conquest (see Moby's attempt to define "4X" above and "Peaceful victory conditions" below), yet the reviews say that diplomacy, trade, etc, are important in these games. In any case "The player must pay constant attention to these (trade, diplomacy, espionage) and to research and the economy, even if the ultimate goal is total conquest" makes sense to me - to build military forces capable of total conquest you need a strong economy & research, and it's no use having good military (or other) techs if your rivals steal them. Philcha (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

But they aren't exceptions. They're the rule. (And the rule is that 4X games involve a variety of strategies.) I don't think we should take the mobygames definition too seriously or give it more time than it deserves. Doesn't the article pretty much demolish the mobygames definition anyway? It's enough to say that 4X games require players to manage a variety of strategies. Randomran (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• I like that you're trying to reduce the use of examples. Just a small concern about research though. You can't quote one source on one game and say "most". I try to scam the system a little by inferring "some games" from one game. If I find three games that do one thing, I might be able to say "several" or "many" (but not most). In this specific case I found one game for a few different instances of the same idea (separate screens) and combined them together with a lead-in to make a generalization. Which also leads me into my next point...

I think "most" is valid, because it applies to all the "4X" games that I know or have read about: 4 commercial Civ versions + Call to Power and Alpha Centauri, 2 MoO versions , 2 Space Empires versions, Gal Civ (I haven't tried Gal Civ II or paid much attention to reviews of it), SoTS, Ascendancy, Stars!; even "beer-n-pretzels" Spaceward Ho! has separate research and ship design screens. Put that in a foot note with "see game manuals" and there's your source. Philcha (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Very good point. With a few more references I'd support "most". Don't agonize over reading the manuals or anything. Just put in a few proper references for manuals and we're there. Also, no need to actually describe what each manual says (Civ 4 has this, Civ 3 has that, MOO2 has this). I like that we're trimming the excessive use of examples. It would be enough to say "Most 4X games have a separate screen for diplomacy[ref][ref][ref], managing colonies[ref][ref][ref]..." Randomran (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's consistent with your view on placement of refs, with which I sympathise. But I don't think it works in this particular case, because each ref would have the same basic wording: "<list of games> have separate $0 screens, see game manuals" where $0 is a parameter representing screen type. Rather than duplicate this for each screen type, it's better to handle it all in one footnote, which also makes it easier to point out that even Spaceward Ho! has separate research and ship design screens. Philcha (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm also trying to be a bit of a stickler for proper research and citation. Sometimes it's not good to put a reference at the end of a sentence because it obscures the fact within the sentence that you're trying to reference. Sometimes references are better within the sentence so you know where each fact comes from. It's better for readers (and future editors) if they can easily click on a reference to look-up and cross-reference any fact that they find interesting. I might suggest something of the form:

• "For example, Civilization IV was designed as a composite of several simple systems, which combine to create complex results.[14] Sometimes a layer of gameplay will become intricate enough to resemble a minigame, such as ship design[15] or tactical combat.[2] Some 4X games even offer a separate screen through which to control battles,[8] the development of colonies,[9] or diplomacy.[10][11]"

Privately I sometimes think the same, and so apparently do the authors of Wikipedia:Cite#Ref_tags_and_punctuation. But in practice everyone seems to use the Chicago Manual of Style's system of putting ref tags after punctuation, and I've even seen GA / FA reviews where reviewers complain about failure to follow the Chicago rules - tho I think these rules are irrational and the ref should be as close as possible to the text it supports. There are some points on which I'm prepared to take on GA / FA reviewers, but this one would be way down the list. Philcha (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's take a wait-and-see approach. I feel like we're close to a GA/FA nomination here. We both agree that it's often useful to reference the individual facts rather than the sentence. Let's do that and if someone holds that against us let's cave in and do it the chicago way. Randomran (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Also I think readers will have trouble with run-on sentences. Semi-colons are probably bad. Maybe that's my bias? It doesn't hurt to break it up now and then.

Fair enough. Philcha (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise, I agree. We need a better intro sentence, the "long term planning" thing is probably best left there in a more "bald" way (until we can find more refs), and you've improved the flow overall. Hopefully we're close to pinning this section down. It was one of the toughest ones for sure. Randomran (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it's tough to write something that's reasonably balanced and complete but fully supported by the available refs. And it did need serious restructuring. Philcha (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it's tricky. Especially for genre articles. I've really been trying to push the WP:video games project to pay more attention to these and improve their quality. I have a good feeling about this 4X article and I think it can show that a GA-quality video game genre article is possible. And how to get there. Randomran (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, the coffee break's over, it's time to get back to work:

• We'll try the refs your way (non-Chicago), and I promise not to say, "I told ..." (oops!).
• What do you think of my suggestion to move "Tech Tree" before "Depth of gamplay"?
• Then we need to resolve the wording of "Depth of gamplay". (See my comment above about a single ref for multiple screens).
• What's next on your hit-list? Philcha (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'll be ready and willing to adapt to get this article to GA/FA.
• As for the order of the subsections I'm not really sure. I'm not against changing the order. I see "Micromanagement" "Long Playing Times" "Depth of Gameplay" and "Technology Tree" as all being related: 4X games are typically very involved. I'm not sure what order makes sense. So long as we introduce the reader to one concept at a time. Maybe it's good to introduce the reader to research before we start talking about how long/involved it is. Let's give it a shot.
• I know the references now are very specific. A few talk about diplomacy screens and a few talk about combat screens. Only a couple actually make the "minigame" comparison. That's why I imagine a wording such as "a separate screen for X[1][2][3], Y[4][5][1], or even Z [6][2][4]." If a game manual supports more than one fact we can recycle it (that's why we use citation tag names). If we can support the same facts with the same three sources repeatedly, then yeah, we can just say "X, Y, or Z.[1][2][3]" Or were you talking about the wording of the whole section?

I didn't write the minigame comparison, so I don't know how it got there. I'd as soon remove it as I think it's an exaggeration and removing it makes the rest so much easier to reference becuase they're all plain facts backed up by the manuals. The only 4X game I know to which the "minigame" comment might apply is tactical combat in the Space Empires series. But I wouldn't want to use that as an example of anything except perhaps poor design; besides the fact that it's untypical (see "Reduced emphasis on combat") I remember a SE III review that described SE III tactical combat as "torture" (and I agreed); although that's now link-rotted, I'm sure I've seen something similar for SE IV or SE V. To put it in perspective, MoO II has tactical combat that allows at least as much scope for clever tactics but takes much less time because the mechanics are so much better. I know that last statement is OR; I won't include it. Philcha (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• When I first showed up to this article the two weakest sections were "Technology Tree" and "Constraints on Growth and Warfare". I know we can reference the specific examples of "Constraints". The problem is referencing the basic thesis of the section: "4X games a player's actions are constrained by technological and social features". The section looks like it was clearly written AS original research. If it wasn't original research you wouldn't have to back up your point with examples. You'd back up your point with a reliable resource. That sucks because the section is actually pretty insightful and seems true. But the standard for inclusion in wikipedia isn't truth. It's WP:verifiability. Every time I stare at this section I'm only led back to the conclusion that we should delete it and hope that some clever journalist or game designer makes the same observation in the next few months. Hey at the very least we've kind of touched on these complexities in the "depth of gameplay" section ... other than that "Technology Tree" has improved a lot and at most I'd want to shorten it a bit. But tightening up the language of the article is probably best left until the end. (and I feel like we're close! but maybe I'm too optimistic). Randomran (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Constraints on Growth and Warfare" is true and verifiable (manuals) for some very notable 4X games: MoO series, Civ series + Call to Power and Alpha Centauri, Gal Civ series, Space Empires series. It's not true of SotS, Ascendancy or Spaceward Ho! I don't remember anything about such factors in any Stars! guides (so it probably doesn't apply to Stars!, because its fans are real grognards). Don't know about SoaSE. I think we can back up a statement like "Many 4X games have internal constraints, including some very notable series ..." And I can't think of a non-4X game that has similar features. Of course if someone produced a clearly non-4X game that would considerably weaken the point, but I hope proof of omniscience is not a requirement for editing.

Meanwhile I'll move "Tech tree" before "Depth of gameplay" and then word "Depth of gameplay" as I proposed (3rd column in table above), but without the "minigame" comment. Philcha (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep the mini-games thing. It's been referenced and seems like a useful distinguisher for the depth involved in 4X games (as compared to RTSes). Same thing with how Civ 4 was designed as a bunch of interacting systems. I think that's a good contrast with Dune II which was designed as a flat interface. It's kind of comparing apples and oranges (gameplay versus interface) but I think it communicates the spirit of the section: that 4X games are just more involved and detailed than other strategy games.

OK, grudgingly and for now. The fact that we can find a ref doesn't mean it's correct, see for example the errors I found in MoO2 retroview. Philcha (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the "constraints" section is WP:SYN. Referencing the individual constraints without referencing the overall thesis (that 4X games have lots of constraints) is probably a violation of that. Obviously we can reference the individual constraints. The challenge is if we can reference the overall thesis. If we reference the overall thesis then we don't need the examples. If we can reference the examples but not the thesis then the section violates WP:OR and WP:SYN. In my personal opinion it wouldn't be a huge loss to scrap this section. Most strategy games have constraints. If we can't find a resource that talks about the special constraints of 4X games it's probably because it's not a notable way that people distinguish 4X games. Randomran (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep it for now - 4 very notable 4X series have such constraints, and I'm not aware of such constraint sin non-4X games. I'll see if I can find some refs. Since our approaches to googling appear not to overlap, I'd be gratefil if you'd have a look too. Philcha (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I just did a lot of digging. I turned up only two quotes of interest. First from a not so reliable source but it's still pretty good... it talks a bit about the differences between a few 4X games in terms of how they manage the expansion phase. It specifically talks about operational ranges and hostile planets. I've already tried searching a few times though and I really don't think I'll be able to turn up much more. It's a useful fact that can be included somewhere (maybe when we talk about expansion and exploration in the main definition?). I'm pretty much ready to give up on "constraints" as its own section though.

I found a second reference that might help us in another section. This reference It basically hints that the difference between an RTS and more 4X oriented gameplay is the emphasis on building and research. It's a bit of a stretch in the interpretation but with the right wording I think we could avoid the stain of original research. Randomran (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Diplomacy

I've jsut noticed we have 2 sections about diplomacy: "Diplomacy" within "Difficulties in definition" and "Diplomacy with non-teammates" in "Other typical features of 4X games". Since we also have non-extermination victory in both, that's not a problem per se, but we need to do something to justify the presence of both. I'll edit "Diplomacy" within "Difficulties in definition" to point out that diplomacy may be a defining feature as even SotS, SoaSE (victory only by conquest) and the "beer-n-pretzels" 4X game Spaceward Ho! have it. Philcha (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Difficulties in definition

Review.

Sorry for the late peer review, I've been busy.

• "One of the best known examples of the 4X genre is Sid Meier's Civilization series, which has sold over 8 million copies." This should probably be at the end of the lead, not in the first paragraph, where the genre in general is being explained.
• "Many typical features of 4X games had appeared earlier, in board games and in 1970s computer games." Needs a reference. Although, it is preferable if the lead is not referenced at all (provided the information in it is referenced further down).
• The lead should be longer, and should mention all the important points in the article (see WP:LEAD).
• The "Definition" section shouldn't have subheaders; the topic is narrow as it is, and the subheaders create choppy paragraphs and sentences.
  • The "Classic definition" subsection should be made into writing, rather than a list.
  • The "Difficulties in definition" subsection rambles too much.
• "Most games which are widely recognized as being of the 4X genre have most of the features described below" in the "Other typical features of 4X games" section: avoid telling the user to read further down.
  • "However, these features are not regarded as part of the genre's definition, because few 4X games offer them all, and some non-4X games also include some of them. In particular, the " beer and pretzels" sub-genre of 4X often omits or reduces features that are common in the "full-size" instances" in the same section; this is awkwardly stated, I suggest a more direct, less rambling explanation, maybe just one sentence.
  • "Empire setting" is a stub; either expand significantly, or merge.
  • The "Technology tree and research" section contains several short paragraphs; merge where appropriate (they're all on the same subject, anyhow).
  • "4X games typically provide a wider range of ways to gain the upper hand than than most other genres, including trade, diplomacy, espionage, and sabotage. The player must pay constant attention to these and to research and the economy, even if the ultimate goal is total conquest. Long-term planning is vital. This combination of strategies is responsible for the complex gameplay typical of the genre" in the "Depth of gameplay" section. The first sentence is okay, but needs to be followed by a more detailed explanation. As it is, "the player must pay constant attention to these [what does "these" refer to? A bit vague.] and to research and the economy" and "Long-term planning is vital" are the only specific mentions, but are hardly enough to follow it up with "This combination of strategies is responsible for the complex gameplay typical of the genre."
  • "Long playing times" is a stub section; either merge, or delete (giving only a short mention, where appropriate).
  • This quotation in "Micromanagement" should not be given without mentioning who said that (or the website, at least): "A common flaw of 4X games is its ability to quickly become overwhelming from its micromanaging. (Later in the game), expect to spend a lot of time taking care of small details."
  • The "Peaceful victory conditions" should be made into one or two paragraphs, rather than a list. Also, if possible, generalize rather than give so many specific examples (else give fewer examples).
  • "Diplomacy with non-teammates;" expand or merge.
  • "Reduced emphasis on combat;" expand or merge.
  • "Constraints on growth and warfare" should be a paragraph, rather than list.
  • The "Races" section (previously "Racial advantages," I just renamed it) should provide more information; as I understand, this is a very important aspect of the genre.
  • "Less emphasis on graphics" is a short sentence... and not a very important one. Delete or merge.
• "The fifth X: eXperience": is MOO3 the only example of a 5X game? If so, I suggest deleting the section, and briefly mentioning that a spinoff "5X" genre was created.
• In "Early years," the list should be a paragraph.
• In "Golden age," there's too much focus on the RTS genre; the same thing could be said in fewer words. The parts that do refer to 4X (only about half of the section) read like a list.
• "Examples of 4X games" is not needed; I'd recommend deleting the whole thing (it would take me near-infinite amounts of time to find the MOS page that says such lists are unhelpful in articles, sorry). Maybe merge with List of strategy video games, and then link to that.
• "See also" sections are discouraged. Most of those articles are already linked to in the main text: add in the rest, then delete the section.

Overall:

• Years should not be linked, unless they form part of a date (ex: do not link 1996, unless the day and month are given).
• Grammar can improve throughout.
• Don't give so many examples of "such and such game has x feature, and y gameplay style;" it's better to be more specific: "Most 4X games have x feature, and some expand on it, by including y gameplay."

Hope that's helpful. · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A cursory glance by Jappalang: (copied here so it remains easily accessible - Philcha (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

• The lead mentions Alan Emrich as the originator of the term. However, Classic Definition fails to mention its conceptor. I would suggest giving a short version of how Emrich coined this term in the Classic Defintion section.
• I feel the "Victory without extermination" and "Diplomacy" sections come across as original research. It is not the lack of sources but rather... why is the article making MobyGames out to be an authority on classifying video games? I certainly see no reliable sources stating MobyGames as such.

MobyGames is apparently the only site that recognizes the blurring of the original boundaries and tries to deal with it - unsuccessfully when it was written, and even less unsuccessfully now that the conquest-only games Sword of the Stars and ("RT4X") Sins of a Solar Empire are widely described as 4X games. I'd be delighted if someone could provide other sources that recognize and try to resolve the definition problem. Philcha (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Nix the "popular" pre-fixes in the examples section and trim them down. We have a category for 4X games and having the "popular" tag is likely to ensure fans to add their favorites in there.

Agreed. Philcha (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Suggestions: Have a look at Playing Video Games: Motives, Responses, and Consequences by Peter Vorderer, Jennings Bryant and Game Creation and Careers: Insider Secrets from Industry Experts by Marc Saltzman.

Thanks, I will! Philcha (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Jappalang (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I just had a look.

Game Creation and Careers: Insider Secrets from Industry Experts by Marc Saltzman was not showing any pages relevant to "4X".

Playing Video Games: Motives, Responses, and Consequences by Peter Vorderer, Jennings Bryant s howed me page 12, which, intentionally or otherwise, is written as if HoMM and the ...Craft games are the exemplars of "4X". That is 180° contrary to how the term is used by reviewers, bloggers and forum posters. A book may say the sun rises in the West, but that just means I won't cite it. Philcha (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Civ01.png

The image Image:Civ01.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Civ2.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Acting on the peer review

We've had a number of helpful editors do a peer review of this article. They've all caught many different issues with this article. Rather than tackle all of them, I've noticed three important things:

• All three reviewers agree (and it is wikipedia policy) to not have a list of examples. That's what categories are for, and that's what list articles are for. I've already taken the liberty of replacing this with a link to list of strategy games.

Good idea in principle, but the "4X" section of list of strategy games contains games that are not generally regarded as 4X, e.g. the HoMM series, the Total War series. Philcha (talk) 06:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• All three reviewers agree that the "difficulties with definition" should be shorter. Mobygames seems to get undue weight. I think the best solution is to shorten this section substantially.

That would be misleading. There was a problem of definition even before SotS (no peaceful victory) and SoaSE ("RT4X") complicated matters. If we de-emphasis this, either we simply present readers with a definition that has obvious flaws or we wind up saying "experienced players recognise one when they see it" - neither of which is satisfactory. Presenting a flawed definition without comment would damage the article's credibility and possibly Wikipedia's. It would be better to look for other sources that recognise the difficulties in definition. Philcha (talk) 06:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• One reviewer pointed me to a general wikipedia policy against using lists in articles. There's a few moments in the article where we use lists (the history section, the classic definition section) that can be rewritten as paragraphs. Having no real opinion on this, I think it's better to go with policy and rewrite them as paragraphs.

And there's also policy that gives guidance on the use of lists. I know a bit about Web usability, and most usability guides favour the use of lists, and use them - starting with the grand-daddy of them all: How Users Read on the Web. I can provide many other "citations" for this if needed. Even GA reviews and FA reviews are generally presented as lists - are they saying "Do as I say, not as I do"?

I suspect the bias against lists is an excessive desire to look like a hardcopy encyclopedia ("encyclopedics envy"?). If so, it's irrational: Wikipedia is designed to be viewed on a screen, so hardcopy constraints (paper & printing costs, weight) don't apply.

I've just looked at the 3 lists in 4X. 2 of them are arranged to highlight the 4 Xs (one is the definition),and this is easier to see in list format. The 3rd is the list of peaceful victory conditions. At one stage it was arranged in the other way, i.e. each item was a peaceful victory condition followed by games that offer that option. Whichever way it's arranged, I think it's more readable as a list. Philcha (talk) 06:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

After that, it's mostly a lot of suggestions for rephrasing and dropping irrelevant information that we'll have to tackle one by one. I think our best strategy is to tackle these three less contentious issues first. I've already taken care of one item on this list of three. I'll look at the other two later this week if someone else doesn't beat me to it. Randomran (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"tackle these three less contentious issues" implies that there are more contentious issues. What are they? And why are the reviews not all published on this Talk page? Philcha (talk) 06:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying so quickly. For the record, all the peer reviews can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Peer_review/4X. Contentious is probably the wrong word for the other suggestions that I haven't highlighted yet. I meant to say that these suggestions are more difficult and will take more work. And to address your first comment, someone else will have to take on the list of strategy games as more information becomes centralized there. As of right now that information is no longer a problem for this article.

As for the mobygames definition, I appreciate that the 4X's are insufficient to describe the genre. But devoting a dense paragraph to another bad definition does nothing to help this article. Not only do we spend too much time on it, but we keep on mentioning "4X games with conquest only" throughout the rest of the article as if it's a useful subcategory when we know that it's inconsequential. A good rewrite would de-emphasize the mobygames definition and dismiss it with barely a mention, rather than explaining it in detail, using examples to explain it, and then using even more examples to dismiss it. We have three peer reviewers who say that mobygames is given undue weight, and that this part of the article is needlessly muddled. That's a consensus.

As for the lists, I appreciate that some information is more usable as a list. But none of these lists qualify as usable. The worst list is in the history section, since it's really just a paragraph in disguise. Another bad list is the list of examples of peaceful victory conditions. I agree with the peer reviewer who said we don't need so many specific examples anyway and should stick to generalizations. The list of "constraints on growth and warfare" shouldn't be broken down into the 4 different X's since that's original research, and could easily be rewritten as a paragraph about constraints in general. The only list of decent quality is the definition itself. But then each bullet point should be shorter if it's to actually be more usable/readable. I plan on salvaging the list of 4X's but tightening it up a little.

That should take plenty of work for now. The article can incorporate the more detailed suggestions later. Randomran (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done at least a preliminary edit on most of the lists. I'd like to give them a copyedit eventually. But with so many suggestions in the peer review, it's better to leave it until the article is more stable. Before we get into the more detailed peer review suggestions, we still have to deal with the most common peer review criticisms:

• tighten up and cite the first list of the 4X's (which I agree is better in list form); and
• stop treating the mobygames "victory without extermination" definition as anything but a flaw to be dismissed quickly and concisely.

I'll try to tackle those later this week. Just as an aside, the old lists were very hard to cite because of how they were organized. But it became easier to cite these facts when I had the flexibility to re-arrange the information. That's because a lot of the research out there mentions these facts in no consistent pattern or context. Another bonus is that we're getting closer to GA status. Randomran (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Early years

Removed "fact" tag re board games. A few more citations: Armageddon Empires; MOO 3 Designer's Diary: December 2000 And if you like irony, try Sid Meier's Civilization: The Boardgame.

Removed "fact" tags re space opera games and earth-based empire-building TBS - refs already there! Philcha (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The references you just mentioned are better than what's in the article currently. A forum post may contain true and useful information, but won't meet standards of reliability. One reference doesn't even mention anything to do with 4X games and is almost completely irrelevant. Also, there's no need to go into specific examples of board games in the actual article. It's enough to state the main point: board games have influenced 4X games. With references, of course. Randomran (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Which are better than what? There are 3 sets in the article. Philcha

Re forum posts, the good ones are more reliable sources than the big name online mags - see Why video game reviews suck: part one, Why Videogame Journalism Sucks; conversely, some of the most respected commentary comes from self-published sources, see for example Why No Lester Bangs of Gaming? For an example of problems in "big name" sources, spot the error in PC Retroview: Master of Orion II; for bonus points explain why it's surprising to see such an error from that particular author. (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You're focusing on truth, not reliability. Unfortunately there's a lot of good information on forums, and a lot of dumb or simplistic information on news sites. But we don't rely upon forum posts, no matter how useful, interesting, or true. See WP:SPS (and WP:RS in general). Specifically, I like the resources you used on the talk page, but the two sources I linked to are pretty bad as far as wikipedia policy go. Randomran (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hold off for a bit, this issue is under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games, heading "One suggestion...". Philcha (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I managed to reference almost everything with more reliable sources. So even though you told me to hold off, I couldn't resist once I found a few good references and figured it wouldn't be a big deal if I didn't remove any information. The only details I couldn't reference were mentioned in the Tea Leaves blog, which I left in for the time being. I think you're right: we ought to be able to use the blogs of experts if we can establish that they are actually experts. But if we can't make that argument then we should err on the side of policy. "Wait and see". Randomran (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept your "de-listification" (and the neologism), but I think it's now slightly less clear what influenced what. I'll check it out. Thanks for finding some more refs! Philcha (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The previous list format had the advantage of making clear the different earlier genres that contributed to 4X. I've re-edited the prose version to make this point explicit. But I hadn't realised that SimCity was a contributor - nice find! Philcha (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You found the citation details for the original Emrich article - great work! Philcha (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I went back to the chronological version. That's just how "history" sections are done. Plus the references don't really talk about different categories of influence on the whole genre. The references talk about specific influences on specific games. Hence it makes sense to have a paragraph about Civilization followed by a paragraph about Master of Orion. I definitely saw some useful information you added, though, and I incorporated some of the details of the board game that you mentioned (diplomacy, technology). When we're done this major revision, I think we can summarize the "influences" in the lead of the article. (BTW, I also found the Emrich reference by name, but I've still never seen it up close. I think it would be really helpful to see his original definition or description and would really improve the article.) Randomran (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll discuss this in a few days - I'm currently busy trying to get Alexander Alekhine to GA. Philcha (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Re "I went back to the chronological version. That's just how history sections are done", not necessarily. The formula that seems to work best for top chess players is to block the text by themes and present the playing record in tables at the bottom, see e.g. Alexander Alekhine.

Re something else that we dicussed elsewhere, comment #10 at Tealeaves' 4X: Master Of Orion is by Troy Goodfellow - some serious people hang out at the Tealeaves blog. It's closer to peer-reviewed than most "big name" mags.

Re board game influence in general see Armageddon Empires Review - "It's a 4X game ... Esentially, it's a glorified boardgame. Like most of its peers, really. But while most turn-based strategy games are glorified boardgames, Armageddon Empires makes it explicit. It actually shows you the dice as they roll, for example." I'll leave your comments about specific direct influences as is, but the intro sentence about types of influence goes back in. Philcha (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay adding that sentence back in. My concerns are just about using proper references and trying to maintain a proper chronological flow. "Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob..." Also, I'm ready to go to bat for Tea Leaves. I know it might not meet normal standards for self-published resources, but the stuff is just too smart to dismiss it outright. If we get to a GA nomination and someone tries to knock it, we'll tell the video game type people to look at it and judge it on its own merits. Worse comes to worst, we have to find a more reliable source. But not yet. It's good for now. Randomran (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove the folowing? Philcha (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Cross-fertilization between game genres continued, for example some aspects of Master of Orion III were drawn from the 4X board game Twilight Imperium, first released in 1998.

• I didn't. See "golden age". I also added a quick reference to Civilization being adapted back into board game form. Randomran (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

How did I miss that? It occured to me that you might have moved it. Poisonally I think it's more informative when placed with other material about influences, but it's no casus belli. Nice find about Civ being adapted back into board game form. I've italicised "Sid Meier's Civilization" as that's the board games title, to avoid confusion w Tresham's 1980 Civilization board game. Philcha (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Board games

I now have 2 refs for board games described as 4X: "Master of Orion III - Designer's Diary December 2000". {{cite web}}: horizontal tab character in |title= at position 40 (help) and "Starfall - A good, classic 4X game". - plus the more generic Armageddon Empires Review (quote in previous thread). IMO we should seriously re-consider re-scoping 4X. We should invite contributions from WikiProject Strategy games, which covers both board and computer games. Philcha (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to see it. But for now, I think the safest idea would be to have a section purely about board games. Mention a few notable board games, the influence on computer games, and perhaps some key differences. Keep in mind that the terminology was coined less than 20 years ago to describe computer games. So we'd be more talking about 1970s-1980s games that have taken on the 4X label in retrospect, or more recent board games that have been influenced by computer games. If the section were to grow to something unmanageable, I might suggest splitting the section or peppering the article with mentions of board games all over the place. But I think we should at least try to deal with this topic in one section and keep the article a bit more clean. Randomran (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree the label "4X" was applied retropsectively to some board games, but then so it was to Civ - and Twilight Imperium came after the term "4X".

I think the evidence I've seen supports: widening the scope the definition in the intro and elsewhere to include board games; maybe a bit more in the history. Most of the article is about defining and common but not defining features, and the technology makes little difference to that. But I'm not a board games enthusiast and my knowldge of 4X board games is limited to the refs I've found. I think we should put the GA review on hold until we get input from WikiProject Strategy games, and I'll request it in a couple of days unless you (or anyone) presents strong counter-arguments. Philcha (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not opposed to adding information on board games to the article. And since the lead summarizes everything in the article, it will necessarily be in the lead too. My concern is more about organization and strategy. I think it's smarter to put all the board game information in one section first rather than start peppering the article here and there. If one section is short enough, then we keep the article more organized. But if the section becomes too long and we need to split/merge it with the rest of the article, it's still better that we started with one section since it will be easier to see repetition/clutter and minimize it. (Of course, I'm okay with what we're doing in the history section, since you can't talk about the history of computer games without talking about the influence of board games.) Randomran (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to get an idea of how big this sub-topic will be. Sometimes it's useful to consult an unreliable source. Even if some of the information is wrong, it's wider than what you might find from reliable sources alone and gives you a sense of how broad the topic is. So I consulted the user-generated tags at boardgamegeek. There's only 15 board games that have been described by users as 4X. I imagine that number could only go down if we only relied upon what reputable board game journalists/scholars/designers have talked about. That leads me to believe that there isn't a lot of research on this, and it can be dealt with in a single section with a couple of paragraphs. (Of course, we should be flexible if the section starts to drag on too long.) As for what the section should include:

• A comparison to 4X computer games: "4X board games are identical to computer games except A, B, C." OR "4X board games are different from computer games, but share A, B, C." (whichever is shorter / more readable. Not both.)

• A few notable 4X board games. A few. Either because of their influence, popularity, or whatever gets mentioned by reliable sources.

• Any history that is distinct from computer games. (To the extent that board games and computer games influence each other, I agree that we should include it in the main history section like we're doing now.)

• Any other key topics covered by reliable sources. And nothing else.

Let's not go cluttering up the entire article with bits and pieces about board games until we can identify the scope of this new sub-topic. Randomran (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I had in mind. Philcha (talk) 08:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I think "That leads me to believe that there isn't a lot of research on this" is a huge non sequitur. I'm no expert on board games, and your use of a "first cut" survey approach, while sensible, indicates that you're not. We need input from people who know more about board games than the very little knowledge that the 2 of us have between us. Philcha (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not trying to make any hardline assertions. All I'm saying is that we should assume that this can be dealt with in a short and clean section until shown otherwise. That's to keep this article organized. I agree we should consult more authoritative resources, even if that's just the strategy games wikiproject. Feel free to do some digging. Randomran (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a request at WikiProject Strategy games. Also at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games#4X_and_board_games. If we hear nothing within a week we should just go for GA. Philcha (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Games timeline

Board and Card Games Timeline omits a lot (almost all those used in the "History" section of [4X]!) but may be useful for others tracing the history of various game genres. E.g. Tactics II seems to have been the "first influential commercial wargame." Philcha (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Just found Timeline: Video Games Computer Gaming Timeline: 1889-2007 may be better - and yes, they mean 1889! Philcha (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This is juicy stuff! Not sure it helps this article. But I know it could help a lot of articles about specific games, and a few of the essential articles. Randomran (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you fancy a go at History of video games? We've collected a fair chunk while working on 4X. Philcha (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an intimidating task, but I'd definitely be interested in adding some of the information you discovered. Right now, I'd like to focus on the 4X article. But in the longer term, sure! Randomran (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Emrich article

I'm happy just to have found it. It's good to validate a lot of what we've already said. A lot of it deals with MOO itself and isn't too useful, but I'll quote a few parts just because I think you'll be interested:

• Sex joke: "... we've probably all been suckered into opening a card that had the word 'SEX!' on the cover ... Well, if you were attracted to this article by its title, you've fallen for it again."

• The definition: "I give MOO a XXXX rating because it features the essential four X's of any good strategic conquest game: EXplore, EXpand, EXploit and EXterminate. In other words, players must rise form humble beginnings, finding their way around the map while building up the largest, most efficient empire possible. Naturally, the other players will be trying to do the same, therefore their extermination becomes a paramount concern."

• Comparisons: (1) Quote: "Masters of Orion combines many of the best elements of strategic space game classics like SSG's Reach for the Stars and Interstel's Armada 2525. Although the lead designer, Steve Barcia, stated he had never played these computer titles, his grafting of what are essentially the best elements of each of these strategic space games' designs is uncanny." (2) ... Emrich compares difficulty levels, and resource management to Spaceward Ho! (3) Emrich compares MOO to Civilization in terms of providing fun and fascinating gameplay. (3) Compares tactical combat to Armada 2525 and King's Bounty. (4) Quote: "MicroProse Producer Jeff Johanningman initially described MOO to me as "Civilization in space." Well, Jeff, it's not. However, if that's what it takes to get people to take a look at MOO so that it doesn't get lost in the shuffle of strategic space games, I can forgive the marketing hype. (After all, I tried to lure readers in with an XXXX rating in this article's title.)"

• One more 4X observation: "economic development is the cornerstone of success in this game, as in every, "4-X" classic."

I don't think we'll end up using every last game comparison, especially since they're more Emrich's observations than direct influences. But the sex joke thing might actually be an interesting and encyclopedic tidbit about how the definition came about. His original definition is outright quotable for being the first. And the observation in the middle that all 4X games emphasize economic development helps us establish that there's more to the genre.

Someone will claim the sex joke is un-encyclopedic, but the "XXXX rating" line should be quoted, even if it makes some readers think of beer and others of Terry Pratchett's Four Ecks. And as you say, most of the game comparisons are Emrich's observations rather than the developers' inspirations.

But "economic development is the cornerstone of success ..." is a gem, especially when backed up by "building up the largest, most efficient empire possible" (so it's not just about mining yet another mineral patch, as it is in Starcraft). Excellent find! How did you get hold of a copy? Philcha (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That's in addition to the need to reduce the weight given to MobyGames's lousy definition, and to make the basic definition more readable. I'll look at the definition section soon, before we get into the more copy-edit stuff that came from the peer review. Randomran (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe Moby Games's definition as "lousy", perhaps as "50%" successful" (the diplomacy part). We need to avoid an outcome where either we simply present readers with a definition that has obvious ambiguities or we wind up saying "experienced players recognise one when they see it" (yes, I copied these words from above). We might have to ask others to look round for sources on the definition issue. BTW economic development and efficiency won't help in definition, as these are major elements in Age of Empires and its clones. Philcha (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I definitely wouldn't remove it altogether. But take a look at the peer review and you'll see that everyone thinks we mishandled this section and gave mobygames undue weight. I think we should raise the additional mobygames criteria and then dismiss it quickly. We take too long to make a simple point. At least when it comes to the 50% that is unsuccessful: the victory conditions part. I won't remove it completely, but I think we can get to the real point quickly: that there is one failed attempt to distinguish 4X games from other games. Randomran (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the Emrich resource, I asked around. :) Randomran (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Good ole chutzpah :-)

Diplomacy as a defining feature is OK - it looks valid, and has has other sources beside Moby Games.

The para about victory without extermination has about doubled from its original form, and can be reduced back to that, e.g.

The definition of Moby Games' "4X" category includes the requirement that it must be possible to win without exterminating all opponents. This criterion is explicitly meant to exclude games such as Age of Empires, WarCraft, Command & Conquer, and Heroes of Might and Magic from the 4X genre. However both Age of Empires and Heroes of Might and Magic also offer other victory conditions.

I think that covers it concisely. Philcha (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. When I get around to it, I'll probably use that (or something very very close to it). Randomran (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Done it. That way you'll take a more detached view when you get to it. Philcha (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you made a mistake? You edited the peaceful victory conditions section under the common features section, rather than the victory without extermination section under the definition section. Randomran (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I made a mistake! Fixed it now, thanks! Philcha (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Good work! I'll take a closer look at it before the week is out, if not sooner. Randomran (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources (games in general)

Some sources I've picked up while researching 4X that probalby ought to go on the "Reliable Sources" list:

• Tea Leaves: Games - a blog, but "the stuff is just too smart to dismiss it outright" (Randomran). Comment #10 at Tealeaves' 4X: Master Of Orion is by game designer Troy Goodfellow - some serious people hang out at the Tealeaves blog. It's closer to peer-reviewed than most "big name" mags.
• Troy Goodfellow's blog
• Tacticular Cancer - cited by Troy Goodfellow
• Soren Johnson's blog - Johnson worked for several years as a designer with Firaxis.
• BoardGameGeek - Soren Johnson cites it
• Trent Polack's blog - Trent Polack is a programmer at Stardock and has in 2002 published a book that is still in Amazon's catalogue as of May 2008. His A Glimpse into Modern Real-Time Strategy is cited by Troy Goodfellow.

I'll add others as I find them, with reasons. Philcha (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I decided to jump in on Tea Leaves, first and foremost. I started a discussion here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Boldly_added_TLeaves.com and boldly added it to the wikiproject's list of reliable sources. If someone objects, they'll have to do it at the talk page. I'll make sure of it. I don't mind if people eventually turn this site down, but they'll have to do so on an accurate balance of its faults and merits. Randomran (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Related genres

I think removing these was a mistake. If I were a new reader I wouldn't want to go hunting through the text for the wikilinks. Philcha (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

They're pretty much right there up front in the lead, though. Not to mention there's the video game genres template, with 4X games near those related genres. If you really insist they're necessary, I trust your judgment to revert. But I think these kinds of "see also" links are generally frowned upon. Even if we keep it now, we may need to drop it in the future to reach GA status. Randomran (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't share your reservations about "see also" links, but you're quite right about the video game genres template doing the job.

While looking at the foot of the page I thought the gameplay terms could do with a critical examination. spam and tank rush look out of place to me, although one might consider hordes of small Alkari ships in Master of Orion to be "spammage". OTOH the others look relevant, including "rush" which is known as "blitz" in the MOO 2 community, and "build order" (an important topic in MOO 2 and Civ IV, as noted in one of the footnotes).

BTW I see no need for separate Rush and Tank rush articles; in fact Tank rush refers to zergling rushes in Starcraft and zerglings are not tanks. Philcha (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Boldly merge tank rush into Rush (computer and video games). I will back thee. As for the others, we'll try to incorporate them into the article organically when the content is more stable. Otherwise, we'll drop the ones that seem irrelevant. Randomran (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed the merger and invited discussion: that's the recommended procedure; the merge is non-trivial, since Tank rush is fairly large, and I have quite a pipeline of work (Emanuel Lasker in progress; rewrite World Chess Championship; outstanding issues and work in the History of IBM mainframe operating systems set of articles, which I've left untended for far too long; possible restructure of articles about Cambrian and Ediacaran life, if another editor's proposal at Talk:Cambrian explosion gains momentum). Philcha (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)