Talk:4X/Archive 2

message: JA2 is an interesting hybrid. It has all the Xs, plus a roleplaying element. SharkD 15:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jagged Alliance 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  Does Trade Wars qualify as 4X 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inappropriate Classifications 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: He's not talking about SotS, though. See my above post. SharkD (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Could you cite at least one source that says this? SharkD (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Removal of Sins of a Solar Empire

message: 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)
thread_title: Proposal to remove the entire "Examples" subsection