Talk:4X

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	CVG Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article is on a subject of low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
CVG To-do: edit  Gaming Collaboration of the week: Kirby Super Star Expand: New CVG Articles, Normality, Pac-Man World 2, Operation Flashpoint: Elite, Call of Juarez, Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar, Ford Street Racing, Betrayal at Krondor CVG Peer Review: List of F-Zero titles, Kya: Dark Lineage, Wii Remote, Dynasty Warriors 4, The Sims 2, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Kirby's Dream Land, Electronic sports, Fire Emblem, Dante (Devil May Cry), The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Final Fantasy XII, Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit), Classes in World of Warcraft Cleanup: Age of Mythology, Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, Betrayal at Krondor, List of Nintendo trademarks Merge: Deletions / Essential articles / Magazines Assess and Prioritise articles (Log)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Strategy games, an effort by several users to improve Wikipedia articles on strategy games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	SG Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
Strategy games To-do: edit  Create: Close Combat: The Russian Front • Close Combat: Battle of the Bulge • Close Combat: Invasion Normandy • List of units and buildings in StarCraft Expand: HeroQuest (board game) • Boku (game) • Qubic • Death Stacks • Entropy (board game) • Fitchneal • Five Field Kono Copyedit: Crossings (game) • Gonnect • Quoridor • Company of Heroes • Dark Reign • Myth (computer game) Cleanup: Abalone (board game) • Age of Mythology • Battle Realms • Outlive • Stronghold (2001 game) • Fleet Command • Combat Mission (computer game series) Cite Sources: Colonization (computer game) • MacHack (chess) Update: List of strategy video games More...

Contents 1 Does Trade Wars qualify as 4X 2 Defining Features of 4x Games (July, 2006) 3 What should be in the list of examples? 4 No list of 4X games 5 origin of the term 6 Survey on the list of 4X examples

[edit] Does Trade Wars qualify as 4X

While doing research, I came across this entry and it seems to me that Trade Wars should be included as an early example of a 4X game. It was originally released in 1986. It is normally described as a Space Trader. It is pseudo-turn-based (realtime with turn limitations). Players build a base, explore, trade, engage in combat with other players, and upgrade their ships, bases, etc. If this gameplay is not consistent with the pure meaning of 4X, feel free to remove reference to this game.

To further illustrate, Trade Wars includes these "X" elements.

Explore: A typical universe is 1000 to 20000 sectors and players must explore sectors looking for suitable planets for production, ports for trade, and optimal locations for a base.

Expand: Players secure areas of space by building and upgrading Citadels on planets and placing fighters and mines into sectors. This is necessary to establish trade routes and defend against enemy players.

Exploit: Through trade, players earn Credits which are then used to purchase ships, hardware for ships, and to build and upgrade Citadels. Also, colonists are a resource used to build up production on planets, creating product for trade as well as fighters for defense.

Exterminate: Victory in Trade Wars means eliminating all enemy Corporations (always other players, as there was no AI in this game). Ships use fighters to attack other ships, ports, planets, and sector defenses. Other hardware devices can aid in combat operations, including a Photon Torpedo, Interdictor Generator, Mine Disruptor, etc.

For more information, see Trade Wars 2002.

[edit] 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?

[edit] What should be in the list of examples?

Why aren't their anything but Sci-Fi 4X games listed? I'll add some. Likewise, how isn't Alpha Centauri a 4X game? Manhatten Project 2000 22:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What about the X-series from EGOSOFT ? Worth mentioning under SciFi imho. Quote: (from Egosoft) "Trade Fight Build Think" --Miko|(talk)|(Sandbox) 11:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, I haven't played it, but it sounds more an Elite-clone to me. But that raises a good question. How does one define a 4X game? Is it just Civilization Clones? I mean, almost any strategy game has these features, in one way or another. Manhatten Project 2000 04:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Since when are StarCraft and WarCraft series considered 4X? Why not add the Command&Conquer games while we are at it? Seriously, I strongly oppose this list. While they may be masterpieces by their own right, Master of Orion and StarCraft just don't share a similar, let alone same, gameplay concept (and I'm not referring to one being turn-based while the other is real-time). I'm going to remove these games both from this article and 4X games category if someone does not come up with a good explanation.

For definitions of 4X, here are Glossary of RTS terms and PC Strategic Games FAQ. Take care --Xasf 15:26, 12 July 2006 (GMT+3)

Interesting link. I added your link as a reference... SevenMass 15:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

4x is a subcategory of Strategy games. It includes some RTSes and some TBSes. (But not all TBSes are 4x games. Some do not have a component of exploiting resources, or exploring a map.) If you have to explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate, it's 4x. The 'craft' series definitely fit that: you explore the map, plop down buildings to expand your reach, exploit the minerals/trees, and exterminate your opponents.

Examples of non-4x strategy games: Panzer General or Advance Wars qualify, in the TBS category. I'm not as familiar with RTSes -- but I suspect the Tycoon series would be examples of games that are both real-time AND strategic without being 4x. Tropico would also qualify. But I think the average gamer thinks of RTS as being necessarily 4x.

Truthfully, Age of Empires might be a better example of 4x RTS gameplay than Warcraft. --65.95.156.225

Are you aware that by dumbing down the 4X concept you are including almost every RTS title? The first RTS I've played, Dune II, also had the same basic aspects you've named for Craft series and so did its countless followers, so let's list every major RTS title ranging from Command&Conquer to Total Annihilation as 4X, shall we? No, we shall not. The existence of fog of war, the ability to mine resources and build new structures and kill your opponent in a game does not make that game 4X. 4X games show a much deeper gameplay than building a barracks and producing soldiers and a broader scale than a handful of little bases fighting over a piece of land. Hence the vast majority of them are turn-based titles, and while RTS 4X games exist (like Imperium Galactica) Craft series with their basic and classic C&C game style are definitely not among them. I strongly suggest that you read the links I've provided above.

Anyway, I'm tagging the example section with an factual accuracy template and I'm going to call in a vote. Take care --Xasf 08:40, 13 July 2006 (GMT+3)

No need to be so confrontational. I'm pretty sure we can get to the bottom of this. I mean, get mediation if you think it will help, but I think we'll be able to resolve this quite easily. The key question becomes, then, what are the salient differences between Imperium Galactica and 'Craft? To say 4x is 'deeper' isn't really an empirical definition that gets us anywhere. And to say Civilization is a better example or a more typical example of what comes to mind with 4x gameplay is not to say that other games are not fundamentally 4x. We need a differentiator. -- 65.95.156.225

I apologize if I sounded too harsh (and on a second look, I think I did), I certainly didn't meant to. The main problem is that there is no concrete definition of 4X genre, as far as I know it was coined for space-based "colonize this planet, research that technology, establish a fleet and conquer the universe" type turn-based games, but (reasonably enough) expanded to include titles like Civilization. In general, 4X games can be said to require more micromanagement of the factors like the morale and work distribution of the population on individual settlements than reflexes you would need for a reaver drop or 4th-pool rush in StarCraft. Therefore, their adoptation to RTS genre is usually quite difficult. To quote the RTSC on such a RTS-4X title (Conquest): "Conquest is the classic outer space 4X turn based empire building genre expressed as a genuine RTS. A usually incompatible combination that seems to work this time - for once. (Imperium Galactica would be another example) (...)". I want to point out that I haven't played these two titles, I read a review about Imperium Galactica somewhere and thought it could be interesting as an "untraditional RTS" but never got to actually trying it out.

To pin down a solid definition of 4X is challenging at best. But here is another quote (from PC Strategic Games FAQ) which I think can give an intuitive understanding of 4X: " (...)the player must research better technology, build base improvements, and micromanage the individual bases. A common flaw of 4X games is its ability to quickly become overwhelming from its micromanaging. After the 10th base expect to spend a lot of time taking care of small details." One wouldn't expect to get lost in micromanaging the little details of 10 bases in a Craft game since the "bases" are just a bunch of buildings and don't have any little details to micromanage once the player decides where to place each building. I mean your Factory or Spawning Pool won't stop working just because you neglected it, or your SCVs won't go on a strike because they want more social rights :) One wouldn't even build 10 bases in a Craft game..

While I can't come up with an encyclopedic definiton for 4X, I hope I managed to share my intuitive view on the genre and why I feel including Craft games is inconceivable. Take care --Xasf 08:34, 14 July 2006 (GMT+3)

Hey no problem, and I'm glad we can have an intelligent discussion about something most people shrug of as entertainment and distraction. And I think I understand what you're saying. To follow that logic to its conclusion, then... Warcraft and Civilization might be similar in three of the X's. Exploration and Extermination are quite similar, and Expansion has significant similarities.

The most salient difference, then, is Exploitation (assuming that this article is 4x, and not 5x. e.g.: Experience is not part of the standard definition.) Yes, both Warcraft and Civilization have a component of Explore, Expand, and Extermiate. But Civilization's 'exploitation' is much more intricate, for all the comparisons you made.

I'd love to be able to put this discussion in more concrete terms. I think it would be a great addition to the article, under a discussion section, perhaps. We would take the "craft" games off the list, and out of the category. But we would mention the "craft" games in the discussion section, to contrast with 4x games, and thus give the reader a more concrete definition. (Maybe even contrast 4x with other strategy genres.)

What do you think? -- same anonymous guy, July 14.

I think it sounds just fine, while we still can't pin down a definition set in the stone, this is a start -and a good one- by drawing a line somewhere.. I won't have much time for a day or two, so don't hesitate to get started and I'll just chip in when I get the oppurtunity. Take care --Xasf 04:23, 16 July 2006 (GMT+3)

You know, this might put us in the realm of original research (seeing as the only articles out there seem to focus on fuzzy definitions)... but I think the relevent difference between 4x and your regular RTS is actually the number of *obstacles*. Follow me for a second here.

WarCraft and Civilization both involve exploring a map, expanding your control of the map, exploiting resources on the map, and exterminating your opponents. (Uh oh, sounds like we're back at square one, right?) But in WarCraft, you can explore beyond your continent pretty much the first moment you build a ship, whereas Civilization will delay that until the advent of modern ships. WarCraft will let you pretty much expand as quickly as you want so long as you are able to defend it, whereas Civilization has mechanisms like corruption and maintainance to make this more difficult. Both systems let you exploit resources, but only Civilization has the concept of regular upkeep and creates an economic system where you can really bankrupt yourself, not just run out of resources. Both have extermination, but only Civilization has any real diplomacy of consequence (beyond allies and enemies).

In other words, maybe what makes a 4x a 4x isn't that it has each of the 4x's. It's that each of the 4 x's are developed with their own internal obstacles. In other words, we describe a 4x not in terms of the gameplay, but the obstacles in the gameplay.

The first alternative is to maybe try to zero in on the "Exploit" category, and talk about the obstacles in there, like morale and balancing the economy.)

The last alternative, which is the most contraversial, is to focus on the fifth X: experience. That's EASILY the big difference between StarCraft and Sid Meier's Alpha Centaurii, except that it's not a part of the conventional definition.)

I'm going to try to put something together for the last alternative. Why? Because we already have something about the 5th X in there, and it might be better organized around this principle of trying to define the genre. -- Anonymous, July 16

[edit] No list of 4X games

We do not want to turn this into a complete list of 4X games, do we!? Or even a semi complete one. SevenMass 18:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Inbetween all the discussion about craft and AoE games being 4x or not, I'd like to re-state that this article should not become a listing of 4x games, after all, wikipedia has 4X games category for that purpose! -- SevenMass 11:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. After resolving the current dispute, we can further narrow down the example list and add some more content to the main article to take care of that. Take care --Xasf 17:08, 14 July 2006 (GMT+3)

Why doesn't the 4x games category list include Dominions? Especially since the article on Dominions (II) describes it as a 4x game.

[edit] origin of the term

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