Talk:Strategy game
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Mid | This article is on a subject of Mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. | |
|
CVG To-do:
|
||
Contents |
[edit] Overhaul
This article could need from an overhaul, especially to synchronise it with the List of computer and video games by genre#Strategy page/section. To build on what I'm thinking of, it would benefit from a little discussion on genres and relations between them, war- and non-war strategy games, etc. Mikademus 08:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- There is also the Computer and video game genres#Strategy page to consider. Seems things are getting a little confused, but the strategy sections of these three articles (including this one) are at least quite consistent, which is more that can be said for some of the other genres... Mikademus 18:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Diplomacy
IMHO, Diplomacy is not a war-game, because the battle-model is highly abstracted (all units are the same strength, 2 units beat 1 unit everytime etc.)
[edit] Grand strategy
I removed the following text:
- Grand strategy games allow players to have both large strategic games, and smaller tactical games together. The best example of this series is the Total War series where players recruit and move armies, spies and diplomats on the world map, but then control the ensuing battles with an entirely different interface and commands.
- The tactical portion of these kinds of games are usually a derivitive of real-time strategy, but many also have a close resemblance to war gaming. Turn-based is possible, but no examples of such are well known.
First, the definition is imprecise. There are many games where interface for strategic games and tactical battles is different. HMM, Masters of Magic, UFO, Ascendancy, etc., etc. It's unclear what definition is implied here and a quick google didn't turn up any definite examples of usage of this term. Also, in games listed above the tactical section is turn-based. But the Total War games are not "a derivative of RTS", they are RTS, but a very specific more realistic sub-genre. It's also not clear how can something which has "a close resemblance to war gaming" not be a turn-based game. For all these reasons I think the text should be removed. If anything like this is to be put back, we need to
- have a reference to the usage of the term
- have a clear definition
Paranoid 20:34, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] City Building
The city building games section is still considered a stub, if possible, please improve on it. --Tohlz
- That kinda goes without saying, doesn't it? ;-) I did a copyedit on it. Here's a few tips on editing:
- You don't need to wikilink to articles using underscores. For example, instead of doing this:
- [[Types_of_games|types of games]], you can just do this:
- [[types of games]]. The wiki software knows to add underscores and capitalizes all words in links (so "types" would automatically changes to "Types").
- Sign your posts. I added your signature to your post above, but you can sign by using 3 or 4 tildes (~~~ or ~~~~). The latter is preferred, as it also adds a timestamp.
- Don't capitalize any but the first words in section headings. For example, "City Building" should be "City building". However, if the word is normally capitalized, for example, if it is a proper noun, it should be capitalized in the heading.
- You don't need to wikilink to articles using underscores. For example, instead of doing this:
- HTH. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:11, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
Game of strategy is a stub that covers the same topic. Since this article is much larger, it should be the merge destination. Seahen 00:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The focus of the Strategy game article was really the computer games and only gave peripheral attention to other forms. The Game of strategy article really focused on the what the purpose and objective of a general type of game. I feel that what was said in one wouldn't necessarily apply in the other.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Game of strategy is more like Abstract strategy than Strategy game. Maybe those articles should be merged instead? Percy Snoodle 09:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'd agree with that. --Rindis 16:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I concur. I also think that this article should be made computer-game specific, and the other bits perhaps moved to the "Game of strategy" article? Mikademus 10:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm leery of creating too much division between computer and non-computer games when talking about broad subjects that apply to both. Of course, I also believe that computer games could learn a few things about game design from other types of games if they'd stop ignoring their existence, so I have som POV here.... --Rindis 16:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Rindis, I personally don't think a distinction like that would be good. I would only agree if it was renamed Computer strategy game, but even then I don't see why the two subjects can't be merged to give a proper overview of a strategy game, espeically since the intro talks about board games being one of them. Strategy games have been around much longer than computer games have. Radagast83 17:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Real time strategy
Wasn't Homeworld a RTS? And wasn't it quite popular. I am going to add that to the popular RTS game list because it still is. Bobo10512 05:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
