Talk:List of strategy video games

Expansions[edit]

I like how the list is organized, where one asterisk (*) is used for single games or series titles, and two for series games. However, expansions are also given two asterisks, thus placing them at the same level with the main game. I think this might be confusing to most people; I suggest adding three asterisks for expansions (as I did with the Total War series):

*''[[Total War (video game series)|Total War]]'' series
**''[[Shogun: Total War]]''
**''[[Medieval: Total War]]''
***''[[Medieval: Total War#Expansion pack factions|Medieval: Total War: Viking Invasion]]''
**''[[Rome: Total War]]''
***''[[Rome Total War: Barbarian Invasion|Rome: Total War: Barbarian Invasion]]''
***''[[Rome: Total War#"Alexander" expansion|Rome: Total War: Alexander]]''
**''[[Medieval II: Total War]]''

which produces:

Total War series

I think this is clearer, and might be a good way to present the expansions. Any comments? · AO ^Talk 22:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds good. I might not go back and fix them myself; so if you spot any expansions please expand them. SharkD 22:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I'll probably be back tomorrow to help some more. · AO ^Talk 00:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also treating game remakes in the same way as expansions. SharkD 19:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New section[edit]

I added a section (as well as a category) for MMO strategy games. SharkD 05:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-genres[edit]

Should I add sections for strategy sub-genres, such as 4x games and grand strategy games? SharkD 04:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but add them as sub-sections, that way its not confusing. · AO ^Talk 17:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't add them as subsections, as there are both real-time and turn-based examples. SharkD 20:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Progress[edit]

I'm slowly going through every strategy game in the MobyGames database and either adding them to this list or to the Puzzle games list. I'm currently at letter G in the alphabet. I would appreciate some help. Please pick a letter of the alphabet (after G) and double-check them against this list. SharkD 21:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got as far as letter M and am thinking of quitting. SharkD 18:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By all means don't sicken yourself. Thanks for the work you've been putting in.QuagmireDog 23:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously - can you stop? What good are you doing by simply using another website's data and reproducing it here? Many games you've probably listed as belonging in RTS aren't actually RTS but turn-based. If you had any experience playing these games instead of merely copying their titles, you'd know this. This is why Wikipedia is ultimately defeated, since it's users like you who freely edit without having the experience of playing the games themselves. 99.226.181.149 (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List too large[edit]

Is the list too large? Should it be split into several lists? SharkD 18:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At some point I'd say definitely, the puzzle/maze section in particular has identical purpose to some individual lists on the 'list of video games by genre' list.. thing which I've been fiddling with recently. QuagmireDog 23:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though before exploding lists further perhaps several of us interested in videogames and these lists in particular could disucss the roles of each individual list, how and why they should overlap (if at all) and also what exact function the list of videogame genres should be filling. I got a good idea from the talk page there, and got stuck in since there were so many spam ELs, redlinks, messed-wikilinks etc, but I'd like some input. QuagmireDog 23:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're saying. SharkD 23:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pfff, another tard wiki[edit]

Just put your favorite game, just say that "hey... my *overhyped game* is also a strategy game because he have some minor strategy stuff, so it's must be in this list".

Please, use the common sense, half of the games listed are not a strategy game but take SOME ASPECT of strategy. Or you could add almost any game since almost any game require to use a strategy to win (for example Pac-Man). --Magallanes 22:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Tactical shooters? Not exactly strategy... · AndonicO ^Talk 22:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used MobyGames as a guide when adding games to the list. All the games listed here belong to the Strategy category at MobyGames.SharkD 05:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do us gamers who have played these games a favour and don't pilfer another website's list to create your own here, without having had some gaming experience to know which game is which. Some if not many of the games here listed as Real-Time strategy aren't. Hearts of Iron for one isn't a genuine real-time strategy game. Rise of Nations is. If you're going to include Rome: Total War as an RTS, which it is, then do use a favour and remove Hearts of Iron and similar junk which has completely different game play.99.226.181.149 (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SharkD, instead of copying and pasting (a highly unimaginative activity itself) from one site to another, if you actually played these games you'd realize that the list you're compiling is incorrect. Check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uf1vOP_TrB0&NR=1 for Hearts of Iron. Does this game look like it belongs with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZEmhxXuu5o&feature=related ? I thought not. One is definitely real-time, the other isn't. So take a cue from the majority of people complaining about this list and maybe play the game first before reproducing incorrect knowledge. It helps with credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.181.149 (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a good laugh in reading your sanctimonious comment (You could behave more constructively by providing references to the red links instead of removing them). Hey bud, you could behave more 'constructively' by actually having the experience of playing the games first so that you know where they belong instead of simply asininely stealing Mobygames information! Dumbass! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.181.149 (talk) 04:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of red links[edit]

You could behave more constructively by providing references to the red links instead of removing them. The games (for the most part) don't suffer from lack of notability--they've been released by commercial entities and reviewed by gaming publications. SharkD 05:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't really see the point of removing red links from a list, which should rather be complete. Maybe this should be undone. What do other people think? Spitfire ch 02:42, 23 October 2007 (CET)

Fine, whatever. Lord Dreamy ^§ 00:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lord :) Spitfire ch 09:08, 23 October 2007 (CET)

Is the point of a list to be accurate or "look good"?[edit]

I don't believe "looking good" has significant weight when making edits to the list that correct misleading organization. This reversion was made on the grounds that it "looks better", even though the prior edit undid a presumptuous listing of Super Army War as belonging to a (fictitious) Rescue Raiders series. The latter was released by Sir-Tech in 1984, the former by Atlus in 2005. Though there are clear resemblances in gameplay, they do not form a series of any sort. I should think that it is more important to be accurate than pretty on WikiPedia. D. Brodale 00:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what about the one game that, because of your edit was removed? Lord Dreamy ^§ 02:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No game was removed. I'm really not sure what you're talking about. D. Brodale 02:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look in the diff, on games' entry was removed. Lord Dreamy ^§ 02:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was Super Army War. Lord Dreamy ^§ 02:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn how to read a diff. Super Army War was lifted out from beneath Rescue Raiders and properly sorted alphabetically. It was never removed, and it's still on the list if you would happen to look. D. Brodale 02:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list should be accurate and not accomadate 'spiritual successors'. SharkD 04:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pfff...Colobot listed as a strategy wargame...you kill some ants and control some vehicles(but not all together) and it's a wargame?...never seen such an idiotic list on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.136.144 (talk) 13:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

half of you mooks who are filling this list haven't probably touched these games in the first place. Which is why most of the real-time strategy games you've listed are incorrect. So as the first poster aptly asked, people here are filling the list to look good instead of doing so based on experience.99.226.181.149 (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List too inaccurate[edit]

The sub-lists in this article are too inaccurate. Especially the RTS section is unaligned with other strategy games articles and a great number of its entries are miscategiorised. I think it would be better to transclude the specific (better, more accurate, more informational and sortable) tables of strategy games into this article rather than multiply the lists. Also, the Europa Universalis and Svea Rike games should be recategorised in their articles. Miqademus (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that the very name of this page is strikingly inaccurate: several of these games are NOT video games. That certainly applies to the "grand strategy" section. Those are "computer games." Solutions: rename the page "List of strategy video and computer games"; create two separate pages; or, split the page into two sections. To me, the ideal would be to rename the page and then divide so that there is a clear distinction. (Gil1970) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gil1970 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more. This is the problem with Wikipedia. Too many self-righteous individuals who feel they can merely steal another site's information, copy and paste it here and feel good about themselves for having contributed a list of sorts. Half of the games listed under RTS aren't even RTS games. Before you retards copy and paste another website, do everyone a favour and PLAY the game first to know about it's about. Or at least youtube the game if you're too lazy and get a sense of what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.181.149 (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the procedure of the video games project to consider "computer games" to be "video games". Maybe it would be useful to distinguish between PC games and console games, but this can be done (nearly) just as easily by sorting the tables by "Platform". SharkD (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sort by date[edit]

These games should be in some way also sorted by date. I dont think many people would be interested in playing the older games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.133.113 (talk) 07:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Individual lists[edit]

I've started splitting the lists into individual articles. I'm also adding more info and sorting them chronologically (i.e. by date). SharkD (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting on the TBS list, which will take a while since it's a long list. Then I'll review the Uncategorized section and see if I can reduce it in size. SharkD (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]