Talk:4X

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.

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?

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.

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)

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)

origin of the term

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was remove. There is a clear consensus after discussing the issue in more detail. Take care --Xasf 10:55, 19 July 2006 (GMT+3)

Survey on the list of 4X examples

I think "classic RTS style" games like StarCraft and WarCraft do not belong in the 4X category which (rightfully) includes titles like Civilization, Master of Orion and Imperium Galactica; and I hereby propose their removal from the list. --Xasf 08:50, 13 July 2006 (GMT+3)

*Support - Lets not go for what we "think" it is, lets just go for what our sources say about it! The 2 known sources both make it pretty clear "4x" is (EDIT: mostly) about TBS games, and not RTS. If anyone opposes it, come with sources that support you. -- SevenMass 19:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't we have a problem here, if Imperium Gallactica is considered a RTS *and* a 4x game? I'll pretty much agree to any concrete definition that works (e.g.: can be applied with any consistency). 65.95.156.225 20:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, then maybe I should read the sources again. (I don't know anything about "Imperium Gallactica" though.) I guess I should be more bold in my edits and less bold in my comments. :P -- SevenMass 23:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Still, I think it would be the most encyclopedic to find sources that can answer our questions. -- SevenMass 23:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

After reading Xasf' plea above (posted 08:34, 14 jul 06) and after re-reading the 2 sources, I decided I'll support him anyway. Imperium Gallactica is mentioned as an exeption to the rule. (unless more sources show up that contradict this) -- SevenMass 11:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

*Support - I'm with both of you, now, after reading Xasf's plea (posted 08:34, 14 jul 06). Although I would hope that we can translate some of our discussion here into a concrete definition. Above, I suggested that maybe the best way to do this IS by contrast: taking the "crafts" off the list of 4x games, but mentioning them in a discussion section, to show what 4x is by comparing it to what it's not. -- Anonymous (July 14)

*Support - I agree. Warcraft and similar RTSs are not 4X. Manhatten Project 2000 06:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

Stupid, bureaucratic use of Notability tag

Who put a Notability tag on this article? Most of the literature about computer games consists of the game manuals, reviews, publisher's Web pages and enthusiasts' Web forums - and the Web pages are usually available online for only a few years. So it's unrealistic to expect the same level of references as for a scientific, literary or historical topic. Very often the rules of the game as stated in the manual are the ultimate authority, i.e. the games is its own citation. Nevertheless computer games sell many more copies than scientific journals, and "4X" is a term which the great majority of game-players recognise and which describes an important genre. Some one needs to re-think the Notability criteria for computer games, and possibly for other rapidly developing, technology-driven aspects of popular culture - otherwise Wikipedia risks looking like a stuffed shirts' club.

There's a related problem in the definition of "expert" in relation to computer games, since there are no recognised academic bodies in this field. In fact most players would recognise as an expert someone who has a good track record in tournaments (mainly online) and / or made several well-received contributions to forums, FAQs or strategy guides. That does imply a degree of peer review, but not as formalised as the "apostolic succession" system of academia. Philcha 00:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, and yet, I see McKay's point too. I believe what McKay is asking for is something like a well know computer gaming magazine (preferably one that distributes on dead tree's) that did an article on "The history of 4X games" or "Everything you ever wanted to know about 4x games" or something. I do know there are gaming magazines that did such articles on God games or TBSG's and some of them mentioned the term 4x in passing. (Though I think 4x has become more widely used since most of these articles where written) From that perspective, the sources McKay asks for aren't an unreasonable request! In other words, not exactly "academic papers" just something that can serve as a powerful verification.

On the other hand, most "gaming magazines" nowadays just review/preview/hype games and rarely bother with extensive articles on the history of a certain genre, though it does happen, but not to often. In this case, I wouldn't vote against lowering the threshold to simply proving that the term is widely used and well known, using dozens of references where the term is mentioned, even if only in passing. SevenMass 22:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Seven sums it up nicely. The term must be notable. I think showing that the term is in wide use by reliable sources would be acceptable. Dozens of references would be required. McKay 15:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dozens of references to what? Emerich defined the term, everyone accepted his definition and there's been little debate about it since.Philcha 01:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I could understand tagging the article with a maintenance tag of the "article lacks sources" variant, but calling the noteability of a popular genre into question merely spells our the ignorance of the user doing so. I know Wikipedia is based on the idea that anyone can edit articles, but for the love of human intellect, I don't edit articles if I don't know what I am talking about. 82.135.13.29 15:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's harsh. Please be WP:CIVIL.

For the record, I wasn't saying that the topic wasn't notable, I'm saying that the article doesn't pass the notability guidelines established for Wikipedia. Either the topic is notable or it isn't. If the topic is notable, then references need to be added to pass the notability guidelines. If the topic is not notable, then the article should be deleted. The presence of the tag doesn't mean the latter has to occur. If you don't want the latter to occur, then add sources which show notablity.

You propose adding a maintenance tag of the "article lacks sources" variant, but the problem isn't that the article lacks sources, but that the article fails to pass the notability guideline, which is a different problem. McKay 15:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't say that the topic wasn't notable, but you called the notability into question. Doing so demonstrates your ignorance on the topic. Besides, your argumentation is nonsense as the reason why the article doesn't pass the guideline is the lack of sources meeting the criteria of the guideline.

It's not that I don't understand what you're trying to say, it's just that what you're saying isn't sensible. Using Template:Unreferenced could easily have served the same purpose without causing any controversy. Also, I doubt your alignment is lawful good. It's clearly lawful asshole. 82.135.13.29 16:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

First, please try to remain civil. Second, the article has sources, so it obviously doesn't qualify for the Template:Unreferenced tag. This article doesn't meet the WP:Notability guideline, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." specifically the "significant coverage" phrase, which WP:N shows as meaning: ""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. That is the criterion not being met. Is something about this not sensibile? McKay 17:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

While I deplore 82.135.13.29's incivility, he / she makes a good point. The Notability tag paves the way for deletion of an article, and deletion of an article about a popular computer game genre would be ridiculous. The WP:Notability guideline also states that there may be exceptions to the requirement for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and I believe 4X is such an exception because of its importance in computer gaming and the difficulty of finding independent, reliable coverage.

Even so, there are authoritative sources for individual games, namely the games' manuals. They don't need to contain the label "4X" any more than a picture of a cat needs a caption "cat".

The definition(s) of "4X" are as well referenced as they are ever going to get. I searched the Web for "4X game" before editing the article and found only vendors' promotional pages. I suspect it's much the same for many aspects of popular culture. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia should exclude them.

It's harder to find references to support other generalisations about "4X" games, for example about their length, size and complexity - the manuals don't usually mention such things, reviewers often don't play games for long enough before publishing, fan forums take them for granted. I suggest we simply wait and see what comments and / or changes are presented by other readers.Philcha 01:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This Google search might provide better results. SharkD 01:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"I searched the Web for "4X game" before editing the article and found only vendors' promotional pages." -Philcha and "I think showing that the term is in wide use by reliable sources would be acceptable. Dozens of references would be required." -McKay. (in reply to my earlier proposal to lower the requirements even more in this case) While a single use of the term in some random add probably doesn't count as a reliable source, the fact it is used in many adds, in many discussions, on forums, but also in columns in tech- and game magazines, (always only very shortly, and in passing) should prove the term is in wide use, and well known. A single Google search comes up with many results... SevenMass 10:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a proposal on how this proof should be used in this Wikipedia article? Does the Wikipedia, or maybe even other encyclopedia, already has a precedent? SevenMass 10:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no precedent for things like this. The policy WP:NOT states that wikipedia is not a dictionary, so we don't really have a good guideline for terms, except for the general notability guideline. Most other categories have alternate criteria. If they've received major rewards or something, they're generally considered notable. I did say "I think showing that the term is in wide use by reliable sources would be acceptable. Dozens of references would be required." and I think that that's a good guideline, but ads don't qualify as reliable sources. Discussions, forums, and similar "user postings" shouldn't help for notability. Usage in dozens of tech and game magazines should suffice. Because of forums and discussions, a google result shouldn't be trusted. Just my thoughts on the matter. McKay 15:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How many dozens of references? 2, 3, 4? Even two dozen means the bottom of the page is going to have over 20 references doing nothing more than demonstrating that the term is in wide use. Three dozen or four dozen and the list of references is going to start rivalling the length of the article.124.183.60.249 16:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really, there's over a couple dozen games in the list of 4X games at the bottom of the article. I do think finding articles about 4X games would be a better solution.

Bit of a break here: I remember some years back there was a PC Gamer article on 4X. I haven't had any luck finding it.-Wafulz 13:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

cool, if you could find the article, that would certainly help its demonstration of notability. McKay 16:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The notion that the 4x genre isn't notable is depressingly ignorance. Civilization, one of the premier 4x games, is also one of the most famous computer games of all time. Wikipedia needs to get a clue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Note the discussion isn't that the 4X genre isn't notable, but that it doesn't currently demonstrate its notability. McKay 16:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• If that's the case, then I'm not sure that the "notability" tag is appropriate. In particular, if the problem is a lack of documentation, then cite that as the complaint. Consider the article on Spam (electronic). That article has been criticized for lacking sources, but its notability certainly isn't in question. --Alan Au 18:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

SharkD, thanks for suggesting the alternative search. It gave me 6 good refs to vendor-independent online articles which make it plain what "4X" stands for. I have therefore removed the "Notability" tag.

I have also removed the "Sources" tag since, as I said above, the ultimate authority for each game is the manual and the name of the game is usually sufficient citation.

I have put this article on my watch list and will remove the the "Notability" tag if it is re-applied, and will remove the "Sources" tag if that is re-applied without an adequate explanation in the Talk page about what kind of references are allegedly needed for which parts of the article.Philcha 19:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

On Spam:

1. Spam (electronic) didn't deserve the "no sources" link, because it had over two dozen sources.
2. Even if it didn't, this book is enough to satisfy the notability guideline.

The fact of the matter remains, we have sources, but none of them give "Significant coverage" to the "4X" topic. None of them. No one has even claimed that it does. the Notablity tag is appropriate, and I will re-add it, because it fails to meet that guideline. McKay 19:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

McKay says "... none of them give 'Significant coverage' to the '4X' topic. None of them." To back up such a claim McKay needs to read all of each of the quoted sources in full and explain why, in each individual case, it fails to give 'Significant coverage' to the '4X' topic. Without evidence of this, there is no justification for for the "Notability" tag and I have removed it.

You have also shifted your ground. In an earlier post on this Talk page (15:26, 25 June 2007) you said, "I think showing that the term is in wide use by reliable sourres would be acceptable. Dozens of references would be required" - which is actually a less demanding criterion. The references I added (8? 9?) make it plain that the term is in wide use by reliable sources. The "Classic definition" section alone has 9 IIRC. I can easily add a few more (using the search suggested by SharkD, which provided most of the references in the first 2 result pages, so adding a few dozen more is not difficult, just boring). So now you also have to explain either: (a) exactly how many references would be sufficient and why one less would be insufficient; (b) how the references fail to show that the term is in wide use by reliable sources.

In case you hadn't noticed, you seem to be the only person in this discussion who thinks that there is any doubt about the notability of "4X".

If you re-apply the "Notability" tag without providing the evidence I have described, all of which is required by the arguments you have used to justify the use of the "Notability" tag, I will initiate dispute procedures.Philcha 21:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm required to show proof that I've read all of those sources? I've been watching and reading the links as you've been adding them. Would you like browser histories, or should I show packet transmission reports from my ISP? There's a guideline called "WP:AGF". And if you want to know why none of them give "significant coverage", see WP:N, and wikt:significant & wikt:coverage. But below, I list all of the current sources. I'll give my reasons why I don't think they have significant coverage (in parenthesis and italics). Note that I shouldn't have to, at least partially because you're being a WP:DICK in not WP:AGF. You shouldn't be issuing demands. This is not your article.
2. Sure, wide use by reliable sources would be acceptable to me. Note that even if we do show that it is in wide use by reliable sources, others may come in and influence this decision, and make a valid claim that it doesn't meet WP:N. But note that we don't have dozens of reliable sources where it's used.
3. Also, few of the sources we have are reliable. I know by saying that you're going to claim that more than few are reliable, so I'll enumerate them for you:
   1. CGW, reliable. (it kinda feels like a "dictionary entry" which would be trivial, but it alludes to an article that might actually give significant coverage. Can we see that one? September 1993?)
   2. Strategy Gaming Online. Probably not?
   3. Deaf Gamers. I'm going to say "no".
   4. RPG.net. probably not.
   5. GamersInfo. probably not.
   6. Strategy Page. No
   7. Taticular Cancer. No
   8. IGN, yes, but we're linking IGN Reviews. It's a user-submitted guide? So I'm kinda iffy on this one too.
   9. Gamespot. Yes reliable, but it doesn't mention the term "4X", it's being used in this article to discus RTSs
   10. Google search for "4X". No way.
   11. MOO2 Guide at Blogspot. No
   12. Faqs.org. No
   13. Apple. Yes (It's a review, and gives all of its content to the game in question, not the survey of the topic at hand)
   14. Gamespy. Yes (It's an interview about one person who likes the term. GS hints at how the term might be considered a neologism. It spends a paragraph discussing what 4x is. 1 out of a hundred? that seems pretty trivial. They spend more time talking about the "5th X" than the "4x"s)
   15. same apple link as above. I'm removing
   16. same gamespy link as above. I'm removing
   17. Rakrent/RTSC. No
   18. same faqs.org link as above. I'm removing
   19. MobyGames. It's user contributed, sure, it's an established wiki-like project, but using it to establish notability? Maybe.
   20. Georgia Institute of Technology. Yes. (While he does mention (and define) the term. The subject of the paper is AI, and Strategy Games.)
4. So, that's 4 reliable, 5 iffys, and 6 maybeys. Any way you look at it, we don't have doezens of reliable sources yet.
5. The notability criterion is not a strict criterion, there is a lot of discussion from people who say that the notability criterion is too weak, and allows far too many articles. WP:BLP doesn't apply here, but the discussions about how WP:N is far too lenient abound. I need to give you a number? 24 is the number I give. Why? Because that's what WP:CONSENSUS on the page has determined. Seven first mentioned "dozens" and no one has disagreed with that request. You yourself have even mentioned it on multiple occasions. 24 is the smallest number such that it's amount is a plural dozen. Any less than that and we wouldn't quite have dozens so the WP:CONSENSUS (a wikipedia policy which can supercede WP:N) would not have been met.
6. The references we have don't show that it's in wide use, it's a frindle, definitely a neologism, it's WP:OR until someone a secondary source has written about it. Why is it that MobyGames doesn't have a genre for it? It's just got a group. Criticisms of Wikipedia's validity abound. We should probably come close to emulating following our own rules.
7. Oh, and you're wrong. SevenMass said that "the sources McKay asks for aren't an unreasonable request!" (emphasis in original). Also Wafulz made reference to a possible PCGamer article on 4X, which implies he's in favor of at least supporting the rules. He didn't criticize my placing of the tag at all.

Having done all that you request, and more , I'm adding the tag. Please make a better effort to WP:AGF, especially when I'm Ignoring the rules in consenting to allow a more liberal criterion than what's in WP:N. McKay 22:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason it's not a genre on MobyGames is that it's a subset of the Strategy genre. 124.187.156.150 02:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The only way I can see to handle this is to reproduce McKay's last post (22:40, 28 June 2007) with my responses in italics.

1. I'm required to show proof that I've read all of those sources? I've been watching and reading the links as you've been adding them.
   The default behavior in Wikipedia is to accept citations. Refusals to accept them need to be justified.
   There's a guideline called "WP:AGF".
   That cuts both ways
   And if you want to know why none of them give "significant coverage", see WP:N, and wikt:significant & wikt:coverage.
   WP:N says, "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." I've already stated that I think computer games are an exceptional category and suspect the same is true of other fast-developing, technology-led categories in popular culture. WP:N also links to Notability guides on specific categories, including Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors)! I think Wikipedia needs a specific guide for computer games, to take accounts of several facts including that some games continue to be played by significant numbers of people after most of the online articles have vanished (e.g. Master of Orion II, Starcraft).
   But below, I list all of the current sources. I'll give my reasons why I don't think they have significant coverage (in parenthesis and italics). Note that I shouldn't have to, at least partially because you're being a WP:DICK in not WP:AGF.
   That cuts both ways too, especially following your "Please be WP:CIVIL."
   You shouldn't be issuing demands.
   You're demanding the application of the Notability tag.
   This is not your article.
   Did I say it was?
2. Sure, wide use by reliable sources would be acceptable to me. Note that even if we do show that it is in wide use by reliable sources, others may come in and influence this decision, and make a valid claim that it doesn't meet WP:N. But note that we don't have dozens of reliable sources where it's used.
3. Also, few of the sources we have are reliable. I know by saying that you're going to claim that more than few are reliable, so I'll enumerate them for you:
   1. CGW, reliable. (it kinda feels like a "dictionary entry" which would be trivial, but it alludes to an article that might actually give significant coverage. Can we see that one? September 1993?)
      So you concede that CGW is reliable.
   2. Strategy Gaming Online. Probably not?
      Not what? Not reliable? Why not?
   3. Deaf Gamers. I'm going to say "no".
      No to what? It's a very competent review, well written and covering all of the standard headings (gameplay in all its aspects, graphics, game setup options, lack of multiplayer option). It's well up to the standard of reviews in the big-name online mags such as Gamespot. And it gives the standard definition of "4X".
   4. RPG.net. probably not.
      Not what? Why not? This is an extremely thorough review. And it gives the standard definition of "4X" (last paragraph).Philcha 03:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
   5. GamersInfo. probably not.
      "Probably not" means you're not sure. Since the Wikipedia default is to accept citations (WP:AGF), the burden of proof is on you and you've failed to carry it. The article is a conversation by two people who plainly know what they're talking about, there's an explicit discussion of the meaning of "4X" and Ironclad Games feels so confident about the widespread understanding of "4X" that it calls Sins of a Solar Empire a "RT4X game".
   6. Strategy Page. No
      I'll concede that one, it's a sales page.
   7. Tacticular Cancer. No
      No to what? Why not? It states that the games compared are 4X games - no definition, but that implies that the term is widely-understood. At various points in the text it refers to typical features of 4X games, e.g. "Apart from building and deploying fleets and using diplomacy, the economy is another cornerstone of the 4X genre." The article is clearly written by someone with considerable knowledge of 4X games set in space.
   8. IGN, yes, but we're linking IGN Reviews. It's a user-submitted guide? So I'm kinda iffy on this one too.
      Iffy? You're not sure? If this is a user-submitted guide, I hope they paid the user well because it's the work of a pro - thorough, well-structured, and concise but clear (which requires real skill in the use of English, plus quite a lot of hard work).
   9. Gamespot. Yes reliable, but it doesn't mention the term "4X", it's being used in this article to discus RTSs
      You missed the point of this ref. It's purpose is to support a statement about the historical context in which "4X" was first defined, not to say anything about 4X per se.
   10. Google search for "4X". No way.
       Can you suggest a better way of showing how the term is currently used?
   11. MOO2 Guide at Blogspot. No
       You missed the point again. This ref is purely to support a point about the length of 4X games. Or do you not like the fact that it's hosted by Blogspot? Look around masteroforion2.blogspot and you'll see that it's probably the best centre of MOO2 expertise in the world. I said earlier in this discussion that "expert" in the context of computer games means winners of tournaments and writers of well-regarded guides, and by those criteria most contributors to masteroforion2.blogspot are demi-gods.
   12. Faqs.org. No.
       You missed the point again. This ref is purely to support the point about the number of colonies / settlements / bases you need to build in 4X games.
   13. Apple. Yes (It's a review, and gives all of its content to the game in question, not the survey of the topic at hand).This ref was included by someone else to illustrate a point about "multiple layers of gameplay". It's irrelevant to the notability of 4X.
   14. Gamespy. Yes (It's an interview about one person who likes the term. GS hints at how the term might be considered a neologism. It spends a paragraph discussing what 4x is. 1 out of a hundred? that seems pretty trivial. They spend more time talking about the "5th X" than the "4x"s)
       And provides a first-hand account of the origin of the term "4X". Maybe I should link to it in the "Definition" section.
   15. Same apple link as above. I'm removing.
       Yes, I should have removed it when I changed all the refs to inline.
   16. Same gamespy link as above. I'm removing.
       Ditto.
   17. Rakrent/RTSC. No.
       Why on earth not? It defines "4X" quite thoroughly, and makes some very valid points about aspects of gameplay nd about gameplay takes priority over eye-candy in 4X. It's an under-used resource in the 4X article and I'll remedy that - thanks for drawing my attention to it.
   18. same faqs.org link as above. I'm removing.
       Another casualty of my re-organising the refs. But this one may be better as it's to a specific location in the FAQ - I'll check.
   19. MobyGames. It's user contributed, sure, it's an established wiki-like project, but using it to establish notability? Maybe.
       Maybe - so you're not confident about rejecting it. In fact this page contributes to the definition of "4X" by using the presence / absence of victory conditions other than total conquest to exclude some games discussed (and excluded) in the "Difficulties of definition" section of 4X. Thanks for making me read this one in more detail - the article should make more use of it.
   20. Georgia Institute of Technology. Yes. (While he does mention (and define) the term. The subject of the paper is AI, and Strategy Games.)
       Yes.
4. So, that's 4 reliable, 5 iffys, and 6 maybeys. Any way you look at it, we don't have dozens of reliable sources yet.
   See my comments above on your assessments of reliability. My analysis: 11 support notability; 1 should be removed as it's a sales page; 4 are irrelevant to notability but support other points in the article; 3 are duplicates; and the Google link will be contentious but what's a better way of showing how people are using the term currently?
5. The notability criterion is not a strict criterion, there is a lot of discussion from people who say that the notability criterion is too weak, and allows far too many articles. WP:BLP doesn't apply here, but the discussions about how WP:N is far too lenient abound. I need to give you a number? 24 is the number I give. Why? Because that's what WP:CONSENSUS on the page has determined. Seven first mentioned "dozens" and no one has disagreed with that request. You yourself have even mentioned it on multiple occasions. 24 is the smallest number such that it's amount is a plural dozen. Any less than that and we wouldn't quite have dozens so the WP:CONSENSUS (a wikipedia policy which can supercede WP:N) would not have been met.
   I understand the reasons for WP:N and agree with its objectives. But I've already stated why I think the basic WP:N criteria don't fit computer games and a category-specific guide is needed.
   Your reference to WP:CONSENSUS re "dozens" is correct but, as 124.183.60.249 pointed out (16:50, 27 June 2007), too many references just to establish notability would be silly. I suppose we could create "Further reading" for offline refs not used inline and "Other links" for web pages not cited inline - but that would make the page less useful by swamping any useful additional material in items included just to satisfy a notability criterion. And under WP:CONSENSUS there is no doubt that the topic is notable.
6. The references we have don't show that it's in wide use, it's a frindle, definitely a neologism, it's WP:OR until someone a secondary source has written about it. Why is it that MobyGames doesn't have a genre for it? It's just got a group. Criticisms of Wikipedia's validity abound. We should probably come close to emulating following our own rules.
   "Frindle" is a neologism I haven't heard before. "4X" is 3 years older than "frindle" and 12 years older than "iPod".
   You'll have to ask MobyGames why they don't have a genre for "4X" just a group. It may be a consequence of their taxonomy, a bit like some of the classification dilemmas in biology (see Species problem). But the citation from MobyGames gives the classic definition of "4X" plus a criterion for excluding some of the games discussed in the "Difficulty of definition" section of 4X.
   While I was drafting this 124.187.156.150 (02:09, 29 June 2007) said 4X is a subset of MobyGames' "strategy genre.
7. Oh, and you're wrong. SevenMass said that "the sources McKay asks for aren't an unreasonable request!" (emphasis in original). Also Wafulz made reference to a possible PCGamer article on 4X, which implies he's in favor of at least supporting the rules. He didn't criticize my placing of the tag at all.
   After ".... the sources McKay asks for aren't an unreasonable request" SevenMass said, "In this case, I wouldn't vote against lowering the threshold to simply proving that the term is widely used and well known, using dozens of references where the term is mentioned, even if only in passing." The only point where this differs from what I've been saying is "using dozens of references". I'd like to know whether SevenMass really does want to see useful references outnumbered by refs added solely to establish notability.
   If you want to count heads: I'll count SevenMass, Wafulz and SharkD as neutral; 82.135.13.29 and the anonymous author of "The notion that the 4x genre isn't notable is depressingly ignorant ..." plainly think the use of the Notability tag is wrong and 124.183.60.249 supports the use of a MODEST number of references to establish notability.

Having done all that you request, and more, I'm adding the tag. Please make a better effort to WP:AGF, especially when I'm Ignoring the rules in consenting to allow a more liberal criterion than what's in WP:N.
As I said before, WP:AGF cuts both ways.
Ignoring the rules takes precedence over all other rules, including WP:N. We've already discussed the "more liberal criterion" and I agree with it except that I share 124.183.60.249's reservations about adding too many refs just to support notability.
Unfortunately I don't agree that you've done all that I requested, because you didn't read the 4X article or the references carefully enough. You went though the references mechanically without considering their context, and therefore commented on 4 which are not relevant to the notability of 4X; and you missed key points of or simply did not appreciate the credibility of several which are relevant.

OK, I'm speaking as myself now. I'm removing the Notability tag, and will raise this matter as a dispute if the tag is applied again without better reasons. Sometime in the next few days I will also review this discussion as it's made me realise that some of the resources are underused.Philcha 03:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. "4X" is a dictionary-like term. I definitely think that 4X meets the wikt:WT:CFI, the term probably should be added there. It's a means of categorization.

You continue to fail to WP:AGF . I have read the 4x article, and all of the references. The intent of my reading through the sources was to determine if any of them assist in establishing notability. Yes, I commented on 4 that are not relavant to the notability of 4x, I also clearly stated that I did that. You keep putting the onus of burden upon me ("prove this", "read all of X"). The Burden should not lie upon me, it should rely upon you. I claim that none of the reliable sources give significant coverage to the term in question. When I do go through the sources, at your request, and say why I don't think they're reliable or provide substantial coverage, you criticize me for being mechanical. If you think any of the sources are both reliable and give substantial coverage to the topic, please tell me which ones, I honestly can't find any in the list that meet the notability criteria.

Based on your last posting, it appears as if we don't really have consensus on the "dozens". The more I do research, the more I think that, given the current state of the article, it is not notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia. Yes, WP:N is a guideline, but as I've mentioned above, most think that the guideline is too loose. Making it more loose in this case seems to violate WP:NOT, specificially that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. "proving that the term is widely used and well known," does not show notability. It satisfies the criteria for inclusion at wiktionary, but not here. Many people think that the Pokemon is an area where the WP:N criterion is being thrown out the window. I tend to generally agree, but I think it's a great thing for comparision. Personally, I hate pokemon, but I'm familiar with "Grass-type" pokemon... Does it have an article? No, it's included in the Pokémon types article.

So, I think we should revert to at least satisfying WP:N. Games like StarCraft and Master of Orion have no problem meeting that criteria. If this term is so widely used, maybe we should find someone who has written about the "genre". McKay 15:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

4X is no more a dictionary-like term than First-person shooter or Tactical role-playing game. It is a video game genre, a subcategory of strategy games, just like FPS is a subcategory of action games and TRPG is a subcategory of role-playing games. SharkD 16:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct, all of those terms are dictionary terms. Some dictionary terms are suitable for inclusion in wikipedia, WP:N is the current guideline for inclusion. McKay 17:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for being civil about the discussion, but at the same time I find the whole thing rather absurd since my impression is that "4X" is being held to a higher standard than articles about other similarly-notable topics. In the interest of moving forward, I'm sending this to WP:CVGPR so we can generate more discussion. --Alan Au 21:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken, I'm not holding it to a higher standard than other similarly notable topics. I'm just enforcing the guidelines presented by the community. Sure, I'll bet that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but I can't possibly patrol all two million wikipedia pages. I'm doing what I can to make these articles better. The existence of another page that doesn't properly satisfy the notability criterion, doesn't mean that this page should exist. Also, now that the notabiltity tag is gone, no one seems to care about asserting it's notability, so I'm going to re-add it, as that's the only way that the issue will be resolved. McKay 17:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Saying this isn't notable is pretty ignorant. I'm not sure what kind of sources you're looking for. This terminology is widely used in the community, among the gamers themselves. It's even used by the developers! If you're expecting us to find a New York Times article with the headline "4X Games Revolutionizing Video Games" or a book called "4X Games inside and out", yeah, fine, this isn't notable. But you're essentially recommending this article for deletion on what's starting to look like a crusade. Do we need to get a moderator? 69.158.140.52 19:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you need to take a nice read through WP:N. I'm not on a crusade, I'm trying to follow the rules. Please stop the Personal Attacks. While I admit that the term has been used before. Saying it's widely used is probably not correct. It isn't nearly as widely used as it's peers (FPS, Platformer, Shooter). Feel free to get a moderator. I don't regret any of my actions here. The burden of proof lies upon those who wish to keep the article. McKay 16:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"Saying it's widely used is probably not correct." Uhoh. Of course you will always just adjust your cardinal notability measure. You are just trolling, when you don't propose a cardinal notability measure for ALL game genres. Your othercrapexist excuse is just a red hering.McLar eng 17:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Is "troll" a personal attack? The burden of proof has been met: the genre is in wide use in the strategy gaming community, and has been used by one of the founding fathers of the genre! I'm not sure what your beef is. Perhaps one of your articles got deleted for its lack of notability and now you're taking it upon yourself to ruin the hard work of other people. I do not car.Either way, please leave this article alone, or we'll be forced to contact a moderator. 69.158.140.52 17:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed a cardinal notability measure! WP:N. The primary notablity criterion. gamespot writes articles about RTSs "has been used by one of the founding fathers of the genre"? What you mean, is that the guy who coined the term has used it on multiple occasions. That's not widespread use. All that shows is that he loves the term and uses it. That's hardly independant, but it's a good source. Can we find more reliable sources that use it in this manner? Yes. Let's do it. McKay 17:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What's exactly cardinal there??? So Gamespot itself has to write articles about a genre? Have you checked about how many other genres it wrote? You can find the other video games genres here pretty easily. You won't have to read millions pages. So with gamespot article it is notable here? Sounds so absurd. It actually has RT4X as tag for the next forthcoming 4X strategy game. Note that RT4X is a subset of the 4X genre. McLar eng 17:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if reliable sources write an article about a topic, it becomes notable. That is the Wikipedia definition of notability. McKay 18:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

mckaysalisbury's position

I'm leaving this article because it's getting too contentious. Here's my stance. Feel free to take it or leave it.

WP:N is primarily what I'm discussing. Philcha has stated that 11 articles help to establish notability. I strongly contend that. Most of the sources are not reliable sources as per WP:RS. DeafGamers is not "regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." DeafGamers does not have "an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." IGN, GameSpy, GameSpot, CGW, these are reliable sources.

There is the interview with the guy who coined the term. Is it independant? Maybe. They were doing this interview with this guy who used this "4X" term so they figured they should let him define it. Substantial coverage? maybe. While I'm willing to say that we should let that count, WP:N states "sources" in the requirement, and later "Multiple sources are preferred." I don't think that that one source is enough to establish notability. Do we have an argument for notability? Yes. Is the topic clearly notable? Definitely not. Can we improve this? Yes.

Other genres get full treatment in articles, I referenced RTS above. I'm not asking for a different standard, I'm merely asking that the wikipedia guidelines be considered.

There has been some discussion about the use of the term. Use of the term is part of Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion, and shouldn't really be discussed in Wikipedia, while several sources use the term, it is not in widespread use. The Civilization article has the 4x appelation, put there by anons, But as far as I can tell, none of the reviews I could find really refer to the game as a 4X game. Not even for the most recent civ3. Sure, some developers use it, but it's not universally used to describe the genre.

Admittedly, this is OR, but none of my gamer friends had even heard the term, most of whom have played a lot of 4x games. I loved MOO, and have played quite a bit. But I hadn't heard the term before I saw the Wikipedia article on it. I think that if this article were put up on AFD, that there would be a large majority of people (even gamers) who would mention that they hadn't heard the term. Whether they say it's notable or not is a different story, but I think it stands a decent chance of getting deleted on AFD.

Should the topic be in wikipedia? I'm not sure. I go back and forth on it. It reeks of neologism, some people use it, but not many. It's not widely used. Is it a useful term. Yes. I'm probably going to even use it from here on out, but being useful doesn't mean it's notable.

But does the article deserve the notability tag? Yeah, I think it does. Articles get the notability tag when they don't properly assert their notability. (Booster Juice clearly doesn't meet the notability criterion, and the article remains while the information gets added.)

What I'm not a fan of is people saying "there is no justification" for the tag, or that I'm trying to push an agenda, or that I'm on a crusade, or that I'm holding this article to different standards than others, or saying that putting the tag on is "Stupid" or "Bureaucratic", or calling my actions "trolling". I'm trying to make Wikipedia better. This article has improved because I put that tag up, and I'm being the one criticised here.

Have fun. McKay 18:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Good riddance. A term like 4X is notable, not because there's a top-down authoritative book on it, but because it's common vocabulary. The fact that the term is used by the creator of a 4X franchise is just a bonus. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. 69.158.140.52 19:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Jagged Alliance 2

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

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)

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 [2] (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 [3], 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)

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)