Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/4X

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Archive: 4X - Spring 2008

Re-listing this article for further review. Article has been re-organized over the past few months, and reached B-quality status. I've taken it upon myself to reference a lot of the information to reliable sources. I'm interested to hear more detailed criticisms and suggestions, perhaps to prepare this article for GA assessment. Let's be ambitious. Randomran (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC) Here's my comments and such from reading the article:

• Mobygame's 4X definition excludes Starcraft and Age of Empires—but why is their definition of 4X so important?
• I would remove "Examples of 4X games" entirely, since people will just want to add in their own games. If the games are mentioned in the body, that's fine; I just feel that if they aren't, why does it matter?
• WP:RS- what makes "Home of the Underdogs" reliable?

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs's comments raise issues which need further discussion. I expect some of the issues may be fairly common in computer games, and it might eventually be helpful to summarise the conclusions somewhere and link to the summary in e.g. the header block of games' Talk pages.

• There are difficulties in the definition of "4X", largely because of developments in games since the term was coined in 1993. Moby Games tries to deal with these difficulties - unsuccessfuly, which is itself a good indication of how difficult it is to define "4X" rigorously.
• Re "Examples of 4X games":
  • What's wrong with people adding in their own games? If you're concerned that Wikipedia may be used as an advertising medium, I suggest you should trust watchful editors. Such additions in any case will alert us to new developments, which will help keep genre articles up-to-date.
  • Because it's so difficult to define "4X" rigorously, definition by examples will probably help readers.
• There's little point in looking for academic / professional institution sources for game-related articles. Game-related articles often have to rely on less formalised centres of expertise run by gamers who know and care about their subject. I think Home of the Underdogs meets that criterion.
  More generally, we probably need guidelines on the use of "self-published" content in game-related articles - forums, blogs, modders, etc. And that's a tough issue, as many online discussions rapidly degenerate into exchanges of insults (Starcraft vs Total Annihilation discussions are very prone to this) but some are the best centres of expertise about a game (e.g. - Master of Orion II Online).
  It's tempting to say, "Stick to reviews and articles in established gaming mags", but I think that's a dubious policy:
  • I've seen very professional reviews and articles in less well-known sources. For example if Gamespot says one thing about a game and Tea Leaves says another, I'm more likely to believe Tea Leaves. If you look through Tea Leaves you'll see that the authors are experienced computer system designers / developers, know a lot about the theory and practice of UI design (one article cited Donald Norman's book The Design of Everyday Things while commenting on the UI of a game), and know the history of computer games better than most reviewers on big-name mags.
  • There have often been complaints about the quality of reviews in big-name- mags, see for example Why video game reviews suck: part one, Why Videogame Journalism Sucks. Conversely, some of the most respected commentary comes from self-published sources, see for example Why No Lester Bangs of Gaming? Philcha (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As a word of caution, because of the nature of Home of the Underdogs with respect to abandonware, we should only be linking to it in an article about the site itself, or if there is a notable (free/shareware) game there and that is its only known distribution point. Any other use of HotU needs to be avoided to comply with WP's policy on external linking. --MASEM 13:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL says, "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources," and I would interpret that to mean that WP:EL is no bar to my using HotU as a source for the facts that "beer and pretzels" is a common gaming term and that 2 games mentioned in the article are of that type. Or am I missing something? Philcha (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Review by AO.

Sorry for the late peer review, I've been busy.

• "One of the best known examples of the 4X genre is Sid Meier's Civilization series, which has sold over 8 million copies." This should probably be at the end of the lead, not in the first paragraph, where the genre in general is being explained.
• "Many typical features of 4X games had appeared earlier, in board games and in 1970s computer games." Needs a reference. Although, it is preferable if the lead is not referenced at all (provided the information in it is referenced further down).
• The lead should be longer, and should mention all the important points in the article (see WP:LEAD).
• The "Definition" section shouldn't have subheaders; the topic is narrow as it is, and the subheaders create choppy paragraphs and sentences.
  • The "Classic definition" subsection should be made into writing, rather than a list.
  • The "Difficulties in definition" subsection rambles too much.
• "Most games which are widely recognized as being of the 4X genre have most of the features described below" in the "Other typical features of 4X games" section: avoid telling the user to read further down.
  • "However, these features are not regarded as part of the genre's definition, because few 4X games offer them all, and some non-4X games also include some of them. In particular, the " beer and pretzels" sub-genre of 4X often omits or reduces features that are common in the "full-size" instances" in the same section; this is awkwardly stated, I suggest a more direct, less rambling explanation, maybe just one sentence.
  • "Empire setting" is a stub; either expand significantly, or merge.
  • The "Technology tree and research" section contains several short paragraphs; merge where appropriate (they're all on the same subject, anyhow).
  • "4X games typically provide a wider range of ways to gain the upper hand than than most other genres, including trade, diplomacy, espionage, and sabotage. The player must pay constant attention to these and to research and the economy, even if the ultimate goal is total conquest. Long-term planning is vital. This combination of strategies is responsible for the complex gameplay typical of the genre" in the "Depth of gameplay" section. The first sentence is okay, but needs to be followed by a more detailed explanation. As it is, "the player must pay constant attention to these [what does "these" refer to? A bit vague.] and to research and the economy" and "Long-term planning is vital" are the only specific mentions, but are hardly enough to follow it up with "This combination of strategies is responsible for the complex gameplay typical of the genre."
  • "Long playing times" is a stub section; either merge, or delete (giving only a short mention, where appropriate).
  • This quotation in "Micromanagement" should not be given without mentioning who said that (or the website, at least): "A common flaw of 4X games is its ability to quickly become overwhelming from its micromanaging. (Later in the game), expect to spend a lot of time taking care of small details."
  • The "Peaceful victory conditions" should be made into one or two paragraphs, rather than a list. Also, if possible, generalize rather than give so many specific examples (else give fewer examples).
  • "Diplomacy with non-teammates;" expand or merge.
  • "Reduced emphasis on combat;" expand or merge.
  • "Constraints on growth and warfare" should be a paragraph, rather than list.
  • The "Races" section (previously "Racial advantages," I just renamed it) should provide more information; as I understand, this is a very important aspect of the genre.
  • "Less emphasis on graphics" is a short sentence... and not a very important one. Delete or merge.
• "The fifth X: eXperience": is MOO3 the only example of a 5X game? If so, I suggest deleting the section, and briefly mentioning that a spinoff "5X" genre was created.
• In "Early years," the list should be a paragraph.
• In "Golden age," there's too much focus on the RTS genre; the same thing could be said in fewer words. The parts that do refer to 4X (only about half of the section) read like a list.
• "Examples of 4X games" is not needed; I'd recommend deleting the whole thing (it would take me near-infinite amounts of time to find the MOS page that says such lists are unhelpful in articles, sorry). Maybe merge with List of strategy video games, and then link to that.
• "See also" sections are discouraged. Most of those articles are already linked to in the main text: add in the rest, then delete the section.

Overall:

• Years should not be linked, unless they form part of a date (ex: do not link 1996, unless the day and month are given).
• Grammar can improve throughout.
• Don't give so many examples of "such and such game has x feature, and y gameplay style;" it's better to be more specific: "Most 4X games have x feature, and some expand on it, by including y gameplay."

Hope that's helpful. · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A cursory glance by Jappalang

• The lead mentions Alan Emrich as the originator of the term. However, Classic Definition fails to mention its conceptor. I would suggest giving a short version of how Emrich coined this term in the Classic Defintion section.
• I feel the "Victory without extermination" and "Diplomacy" sections come across as original research. It is not the lack of sources but rather... why is the article making MobyGames out to be an authority on classifying video games? I certainly see no reliable sources stating MobyGames as such.

MobyGames is apparently the only site that recognizes the blurring of the original boundaries and tries to deal with it - unsuccessfully when it was written, and even less unsuccessfully now that the conquest-only games Sword of the Stars and ("RT4X") Sins of a Solar Empire are widely described as 4X games. I'd be delighted if someone could provide other sources that recognize and try do resolve the definition problem. Philcha (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is a problem in itself, but you cannot solve it by promoting a site as an authoritive figure when it is not. Jappalang (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Nix the "popular" pre-fixes in the examples section and trim them down. We have a category for 4X games and having the "popular" tag is likely to ensure fans to add their favorites in there.

Agreed. Philcha (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Suggestions: Have a look at Playing Video Games: Motives, Responses, and Consequences by Peter Vorderer, Jennings Bryant and Game Creation and Careers: Insider Secrets from Industry Experts by Marc Saltzman.

Thanks, I will! Philcha (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Jappalang (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive: 4X - Summer 2007

This article has come under recent scrutiny, with one editor complaining that the topic isn't sufficiently sourced to meet the Wikipedia notability requirements. Please see the Talk:4X page for details. --Alan Au 21:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's several suggestsions for improving it:

• I think you've got a good listing for sources for the 4X term and thus the necessity of the page. However, when you talk about defining features of the genre and history of selected games, these are aching for sources. I realize this part's a lot harder, but as written, there's good chunks of the main text that lack sourcing and appear as original research.

By "defining features" do you mean "Classic definition", "Difficulties in definition" or "Other common features"? I've added the ref to "Classic definition". Some parts of "Difficulties in definition" are based on forum discussions (often long, rambling and occasionally uncivil), but the Moby Games citation shows that one reputable source acknowledges the problem, although its attempted solution is unsuccessful because of Age of Empires. Re the "History" section, I agree, but someone else may have to do the work - I'm involved in some other big edits at present.Philcha 23:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This would be the "Other common features" that I was considering.

• In the same vein - I would strongly limit how many features you're calling as "common". You almost spell this out at the top: it's what the 4X stands for. I would be very very scrutinizing of any "feature" outside of the 4Xs unless you can state with verifiable sources that this is in all 4X games.

The lead para of "Other common features" says, "Most games which are widely recognized as 4X games have most of the features described below. But they are not included in any definition because: few 4X games offer all of them; some non-4X games also offer some of them," i.e. no single feature described in this section is present in every game which is widely regarded as 4X. There are refs for many of the features, and the games manuals (referenced by the games' names) are the ultimate authority for the rest. And again I've trawled forums and these are the most commonly discussed features.Philcha 23:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"4x games have *most* of the features", the word "most" here is where I think the problem is. maybe rewrite "Games recognized as 4X games have a subset of the features listed below".

• Make sure sources use appropriate citation templates

All the sources I know of apart from game manuals are web pages, and I think using citation templates for web pages is a sledgehammer to crack nuts, especially since correct use of the simpler external link syntax gives the same layout.Philcha 23:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I know how much of a PITA this is. Unfortunately, if you're going to want this to get get GA or FA, it has to be done. I believe AutoWikiBrowser can help convert raw external links in ref tags to the right WP:CITET format, you would have to fill in a few more pieces.

• I would consider using other genre articles like first-person shooter as a template for some of the latter parts of the article - you want to have selected notable examples (with citations) to describe the history of the genre. The fewer, the better.

I've just looked at first-person shooter and its history section has far more examples; so I'm not sure what you mean.Philcha 23:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

the FPS article has far more descriptive lists and also narrows it down to those games that really have made an impact. Now, my best guess is the # of FPS games out there is much larger than the number of 4X games, so obviously it won't be as long. However, if you can figure out a logical grouping (by history, by genre, or something like that), and move most of what you have as your list into those sections, or if this is not possible, stepping through your raw list there to explain why each one is a notable 4X game, would help to make this section look like its more that just listing things and instead that consideration has gone into it.

• Along the same lines, I would create a category for 4X games, and use that to create the list rather than to maintain a complete list in the article (as anonIP will continue to add examples you probably not want to it).

I see your point about anonIP, but don't know how to create a category for 4X games and suspect that would then entail either looking for articles to add to the category or waiting for enthusiasts of game X to add it to the 4X category. It also creates the risk that someone might incorrectly or dubiously add a game to the category, e.g. Heroes of Might and Magic or Age of Empires. And anonIP can do much worse things that adding inappropriate entries to a list.Philcha 23:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Categories are easy to create and is appropriate for the game types. You can also monitor categories and purge games that don't below easily (again, AutoWikiBrowser helps with this.)

Hope that helps --Masem 02:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - please don't take my responses above as ingratitude. I suspect that the difficulties in definition will make it extremely difficult to get this article to formal GA status, and I'm happy if it simply helps readers.Philcha 23:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That's going to be the hardest part is the non-original research side. Most of what you have is technically fine, but its needs the outside help. --Masem 14:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)