Talk:4X/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3 →

Contents 1 Game classification 1.1 Survey on the list of 4X examples 1.2 Jagged Alliance 2 1.3 Does Trade Wars qualify as 4X 1.4 Inappropriate Classifications 1.5 Removal of Sins of a Solar Empire 2 Examples 2.1 What should be in the list of examples? 2.2 No list of 4X games 2.3 Proposal to remove the entire "Examples" subsection 2.4 What is the role of examples in this article?

Game classification

Jagged Alliance 2

JA2 is an interesting hybrid. It has all the Xs, plus a roleplaying element. SharkD 15:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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.

I would have to say "yes". There's lots of online (but not always notable) strategy games that fit the 4X definition pretty well. SharkD (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate Classifications

I strongly object to this notion of labeling a game like Civilization as 4X. 4X is literally about eXpanding, eXploiting, eXterminating and eXploring. Almost EVERY resources-based strategy game satisfies those 4 things, even games like Starcraft. Civilization is a very different kind of game. You have Diplomacy, which is a critical thing that none of those 4 X's cover. There is the concept of peace vs war, and varying degree of relations, not black and white friend vs foe. As an example, in Age Of Empires, you have to explore, expand, exterminate and explore. You have to manage resources, economy, research and armies. Yet as an avid fan of both games, Civilization feels completely different, and that is what this article was trying to explain in vain, that Age of Empires, despite all this, is not considered 4x, and instead starts the article off by saying "Perhaps the best known example of this genre is Sid Meier's Civilization series." As a Civilization Fan, I strongly object to this, esp. using Civilization as their example. It is about building an empire and managing populations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salqadri (talk • contribs) 03:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

We (the ones who write Wikipedia articles) don't do the classifying. We simply report the way it is known. True, Starcraft is not a 4x game, (and neither is Age of Empires) and true, if you take the 4 x' literally, you may be able to argue that Starcraft fits the description. But there are more things like that in life, that have names that don't literally fit what they are. It is still a fact that the term "4x" is used for games such as Civilization and not Starcraft, however inappropriate this usage may be, and it is this fact that this article reports on. SevenMass (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Moby Games (see citation in article) introduced non-conquest victory conditions as a defining feature specifically to exclude games like Age of Empires and Starcraft. (The attempt failed because Age of Empires has non-conquest victory conditions; and Spaceward Ho!, which plays like a miniaturised Master of Orion and is therefore 4X, does not have non-conquest victory conditions). The article admits the difficulty of defining "4X" unambiguously, but that's life (which is also very hard to define). Philcha (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Sins of a Solar Empire

This needs to be removed. The game is not part of this genre. It's a real-time strategy game, with a few 4X features. It does not meet the criteria of the genre. I have played the beta, and their own website admits that its a real-time game. After removing it twice, one of the users keeps reverting so i'm taking it here to discuss. While I wish the game WAS a 4X game, it sadly is not. Your opinions? 75.84.111.15 (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sword of the Stars' Web site and other sales pages such as Lighthouse and Amazonclaim it's a 4X game. One of the user reviews on the Amazon page describes it as a 4X game, as does a blog. I was also surprised to find "professional" articles e.g. at games xtreme and IGN describing SotS as a 4X game. The IGN article also implies that e.g. Homeword is a 4X game. On the other hand Moby Games' definition explicitly excludes RTS games such as Age of Empires. Perhaps the usage is changing - after all the term "4X" is over 14 years old. Such a change in usage would remove a lot of the "Difficulties in definition" (which I wrote!) mentioned in 4X game. My inclination would be to state that the usage may be shifting, and to cover that by: adding a section that says e.g. "The discussion above uses the 'classical' concept of a 4X game, but usage of the term may be shifting ...." and to update the intro to mention this. Philcha (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the IGN article is meant to imply that Homeworld (and Homeworld: Cataclysm) are 4X games. It's just sloppy writing on the editor's part, as it mentions Homeworld and 4X right after each other in the same sentence. While the developers' history in helping develop the older two games is notable when trying to understand the game's gameplay, it's not necessary when considering the 4X aspects of the gameplay. SharkD (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, you're confusing Sword of the Stars (which has already been released) with Sins of a Solar Empire (in development). SharkD (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

While I certainly can understand that article, having played the beta it doesn't feel very 4Xish at all. The 4X concepts it does take are minor, and really just serve as more of a "campaign map" to set up real-time battles. For comparison this is like calling Empire Earth 3, Rise of Nations or Rome:Total War as a grand-strategy game. The usage of 4X isn't changing- if anything a new genre is emerging that should get its own page. There are still many 4X titles being developed (1-2 a year) that meet the full criteria of the genre. 75.84.111.15 (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I sympathise, as I started playing 4X games in the mid-1990s and therefore got used to the "classical" concept, which excludes RTS. But your comments about the feel of SotS would clearly be original research, and the references I gave suggest the meaning of "4X" is changing. Philcha (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Which references are those? SharkD (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So, you're saying that the 4X elements are too minor to consider the game a 4X game? Well, this is worthy of consideration. SharkD (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Can you explain that, please. The professional reviews I cited plainly call SotS a 4X game, and games xtreme mentions some features that are mainstream 4X. Philcha (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

He's not talking about SotS, though. See my above post. SharkD (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've also googled for SoaSE - it's makers describe it as "RT4X" (Stardock, not a company given to outrageous hype). Then I googled for "rt4x" and got more hits that I did for the same term a few months ago - e.g.: greatgamesexperiment; gamespot.com about SoaSE; pc.qj.net, gamingtrend] says "Sins of a Solar Empire represents the birth of the RT4X genre"; [gameguru] ditto; etc., etc. So SoaSE is both a 4X and an RTS game. I think the world's moving to a situation where game categories are just ways of focussing attention on various sets of features, rather than pigeon-holes. And I think there are now enough citeable refs for that to be described as a trend rather than OR speculation. Philcha (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you cite at least one source that says this? SharkD (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There are ways of phrasing it that don't make it OR, e.g. "However more recent sources ..." Philcha (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Examples

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

You are all focusing on the "I can do X so it must be 4X" concept, which is incorrect. In RTS/TBS games as generally accepted, extermination is the end goal in almost all of them, with the other concepts being marginally there to support the extermination. This is but one facet of of a 4X game, where the other X's can be an ends in and of themselves. I imagine this should be the crucial delineation.

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

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)

Proposal to remove the entire "Examples" subsection

Enough examples of this genre are already mentioned in the main text, why do we need to have an entire list of nothing but "examples" ? it will just become a "list of 4X games" but the Wikipedia already has such a list automatically generated by its category pages SevenMass 12:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the role of examples in this article?

There have been a number of edits that have been, in my opinion, factual but bad. I am referring to the overuse of examples, such as "Civilization has civil disorder, Galactic Civilizations has elections, Master of Orion has ..." It turns this article from an encyclopedia explaining a phenomenon to a database for every major 4x game. It's clutter. But it's also factual. So what is the main role of examples going to be for this article?

• to verify that a feature is actually in a number of 4x games?
• to help explain what a feature might be in practice?
• to explain every possible implementation of a feature?

Most importantly, not everyone is going to read this discussion, so the policy needs to be simple and consistent so people "get it". Thoughts? 64.231.193.236 15:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Before I make any useful contributions, I'd like to note that I'll be saving the location of the above message and linking to it when someone next suggests that anonymous editors can't be expected to help in improving the encyclopedia. --Kizor 22:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy requires references where possible to support statements made in articles. In the case of computer games the ultimate authority is the game manual, and the name of the game is a reference to this. Without the examples the statements listed at the top of this thread would be unsupported. I will therefore reinstate them.Philcha 20:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the gesture, although I'm worried that it makes the section unnecessarily cluttered. Right now it is borderline, but the temptation to overload with examples may know no limit. I have seen other articles on video games, for example the Final Fantasy series, and they actually include these as footnotes in the references. e.g.: they state something is a common element in the series, and include a reference. when you click on the reference, and it might tell you that something appeared in Final Fantasy 6 through 12. I think this might be a better way to handle common elements in 4x games, if their main purpose is to verify/support statements. 64.231.193.236 02:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just read Final Fantasy as 64.231.193.236 suggested on 21 Sept 2007, and found that it was nothing like 64.231.193.236's description. Then I checked its History and found very heavy editing in Oct and Nov. So I went back to [1] (after last edit of 20 Sept) and it was as 64.231.193.236 described. IMO the current Final Fantasy is more like the current 4X in style. It's worth looking at Talk:Final_Fantasy: there's been a lot of discussion about its method of presenting facts about different versions; Final Fantasy was proposed for "Good Article" status on 7 Nov 2007, is now a GA and a candidate for Featured Article status. Unfortunately Final Fantasy has been edited a lot since 7 Nov. The last edit of 6 Nov produced [2], which is very different from the current version in content but has a presentation style much more like the of the current Final Fantasy and very different from the version I think 64.231.193.236 was referring to.

The conclusions I'd draw from this confusion are: (A) Final Fantasy has proved too unstable to be used as a model. (B) The version(s) that reviewers approved has / have a presentation style more like that of 4X, so I suggest we leave the 4X examples inline for now. (C) Further proposals to change how 4X presents or uses examples should be discussed with WikiProject Strategy games and WikiProject Video games before such changes are made. Philcha (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You'd do us all a big favor (and help this article a great deal) if you solicited feedback from the wikiprojects. I think your assessment is fair. But I'm also concerned about this article getting overblown with examples (although that remains to be seen). I would like to engage more people in this discussion to see how other articles have handled the use of examples. 65.95.157.129 (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)