Jump to content

Talk:4X/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Note from nominator (Re GAN)

Nominator's note: this is my first effort to promote a good quality article. I'm aware the article can always stand to improve. I solicited the help of outside editors to do some copyediting, but I didn't get as much help as I would have liked. I've tried to change all the sources to ones that are widely considered reliable, but there has been some resistance to removing some references. So I've decided to be WP:BOLD and nominate in spite of this article's few weaknesses. I am optimistic that with a little patience and a lot of constructive criticism, this article is not very far off from GA status. I'll be doing whatever I can to address your criticisms. Thanks! Randomran (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:4X/Archive 5/GA1

Featured article status?

This article just hit "good article" status. I'm going to take a closer look at the FA requirements over the next few days and bring the article up to that standard. I think it's already there in a lot of ways. But we'll see. Randomran (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the GA - well done! But do you really want to let yourself in for a FA review? Everything I've ever read about these says "PITA". -- Philcha (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The article has come a long way. It's very well researched, and pretty well written. I figure, why not? Sure it will be a pain to change some of the more pedantic concerns. But usually it's not so bad if you just shut your mouth and trust the wisdom of these reviewers. My strategy is to choose my battles very carefully. Randomran (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I would go for it, I think it could make it through, with a lot of work done on the way. I would peer review it, again if you have already beforehand though. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Good advice. I've nominated the article for peer review. Yet again. Randomran (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Copy-editing

As promised, I tentatively started a draft in which I've edited the article for style (I'm not concerning myself with content, as I don't have time currently to do the research). However, I feel hesitant about including it, as a lot of removal of material is involved. I feel that a lot of points are being made that aren't relevant to the article, or were just added because you found a reference that says it. I'll reply later when I have soething more concrete. SharkD (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Images

I notice the section about tech trees once again has the FreeOrion image, which I replaced with one from Civ 3 because at thumb size the FreeOrion image has too little contrast for the structure to be visible , and it's pretty hard to read when enlarged - it's not even good at full size when you play the game. So why not use the Civ 3 tech tree image?

mid-1990s OS/2 version of Gal Civ

I also notice that in "History" the image of the mid-1990s OS/2 version of Gal Civ has been replaced with one of Sid Meier. While I think Meier has a fair claim to be considered the greatest game designer of them all†, I think the OS/2 version of Gal Civ was more relevant because: it shows the birth of another long-running series that has always been highly regarded; the article is about "4X" in general, not about the Civ series or Sid M.

†My other nomination would be Blizzard, for consistently high success with the -Craft series and Diablo, but I think Meier should win by half a length.

The point about Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg needs to be resolved vey soon, as it is in danger of being deleted as an orphan. -- Philcha (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the article was tagged as using too many copyrighted images on its way to featured article status. So I swapped out these images for free / open source images. The Gal Civ image is pretty useful, and would probably have a stronger fair use justification at an article about Gal Civ. In this article, it's there as decoration. In the Gal Civ article, it would be more necessary. Randomran (talk) 09:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Why did I bother producing a FUR for Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg? This is just another instance of why I'm disillusioned with the review process for games. The review by diktat approach leads at best to a triumph of style over substance. For a contrast, I enjoyed working with the reviewer on Kimberella (GA - look out for the running gags), and the reviewer was complimented by a "mentor" for the "... best of all, collaborative GA review on this article". I've also had similar enjoyable experiences on chess articles, e.g. Alexander Alekhine (GA). The reviews I've mentioned also took less elapsed time. -- Philcha (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
It's tough. The fair use rationales aren't based on quantity, but quality. We don't absolutely need the Gal Civ image to explain the history section, as opposed to the screenshots that are meant to illustrate gameplay concepts. The review process can really stink sometimes, but I'm choosing my battles. Randomran (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Even right now, I'm trying to justify the use of Civ 2 in the lead as opposed to a freeware game. Again, it's about necessity -- arguably, I could illustrate the same concept with a free image. But I think that's a very narrow interpretation of fair use, and I'm trying to argue that this also helps to explain the notability of the civilization series as an example. Just figured you'd appreciate an update. I expected this kind of scrutiny to come, and while it's not ideal it's not killing the article either. Randomran (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced reference?

With respect to http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/galacticcivilizations?q=Galactic%20Civilizations in this version, the source does not seem to support:

  • "As a result, several games have attempted to address these criticisms by reducing micromanagement."
    One review even states "gamers who prefer to meticulously oversee things rather than execute them directly have something to look forward to."
  • "Commentators generally agree that Galactic Civilizations succeeds, particularly through its use of programmable governors."
    It would be better to state which or source specifically to the reviewer(s) since none of the listed quotes on the site state anything about "programmable governors".

Jappalang (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the reference in the lead -- I think that was just a slip-up in trying to summarize the body. In the body, I've tried to be more specific about which reviewers offer which comments about micromanagement. I hope that helps! Randomran (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

FA Status

Congratulations to everyone who helped this article reach FA-Status, from the most detailed research to the smallest copy-edit. We all did our part nicely! I have no idea what the next step is, but I guess we'll keep updating the history accordingly. (I get the feeling that Sins of a Solar Empire will get a few awards, if it doesn't get overshadowed by a release for StarCraft II.) Randomran (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Less bloated

The article is a lot less bloated now than it was before. Congrats! SharkD (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Some comments

"Gaming authorities such as 1UP.com have stated that 4X games are distinguished by their greater complexity and scale,[8] and their intricate use of diplomacy beyond the standard "friend or foe" seen in other strategy games."

Have 1UP published academic works on the topic? What justifies the moniker "authoritiesfapfapfap"? I thought they just review stuff and hand out prizes. Also, the word "authorities" is plural, yet there is only one reference to support the statement.

Also, I'm surprised Trade Wars is not mentioned. SharkD (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you think would be a more appropriate word than "authorities"? We use other words like "writers" and "reviewers". We tried to avoid over-using those kinds of words. Randomran (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe "Reviewers at 1UP.com..." or just "1UP.com has stated...". You could also just drop the "who" in the sentence entirely. I.e. "4X games are distinguished...". SharkD (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I went with sites, since the four sources in that statement are all gaming websites. "Authorities" was a little too formal. Randomran (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Even better. SharkD (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Konquest

Just came across this game. I'm not sure whether it could be called a 4X game. All the planets are initially visible (kind of like Space Empires, except without the inter-system travel), so the "Exploration" part would depend on what sorts of things are discovered when first visiting a planet. I.e. these could include: alien races/artefacts, resources, enemy installations, etc. SharkD (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be more like a simple turn-based strategy game than a 4X game. Although the line is blurry. The best thing to do would be to find research. Randomran (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Fact dispute

I placed a dubious template after source 15 upon reading the reviewers comments. It is my belief that the statement is not adequately supported by the source as there were multiple reasons cited for the low, middling and high scores, including interface and more notably AI problems (including enemy AI noted). As the AI when listed without that can include the enemy AI using that to support the statement is also dubious.陣内Jinnai 21:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Diplomacy image

Last time I worked on this we got a lot of grief about use of FUR images, including a diplomacy img from Gal Civ or SE IV. Now the artcile has a diplomacy img from SoaSE, which is an RTS-4X hybrid. To avoid controversy, the article should use an img from a mainline 4X game, e.g. the one that came in for so much griping. --Philcha (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


I'm going to have to throw my two cents in and say SoaSE is much more of a hybrid than a 4x. While the main author here evidently holds SoaSE in great esteem (which I can't disagree with, it's a very innovative game) SoaSE also seems to lean more to the RTS than the 4x side of things, which makes it a bit less appropriate here. I'd also appreciate some MORE distinguishment for SoaSE in this article: it is in fact a hybrid. Now that said, I went out, bought it, and played it, and enjoyed it as a result of this article and the author's high esteem thinking it WAS a rather innovative 4x with some RTS, instead of the other way around, a heavily leaning RTS hybrid. I'm not saying it has a lot of 4x elements, but it certainly isn't primarily 4x.

Chronological list

I copied and extended the table in List of strategy video games and created a new list: Chronology of 4X video games. You might want to check over it to see if there are any games that shouldn't be listed. SharkD (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

strongly suggest adding this chronology to the main page for 4x games —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.203.56 (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

What, no Total War?

I also notice a distinct lack of the rather popular 'Total War' series. Creative Assembly pretty much own the 4x world right now, it would be remiss not to at least mention them. --69.92.84.59 (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; especially since Shogun: Total War combined economic management and flexible diplomacy with turn-based strategy and real-time tactical battle in 2000, six years before Sword of the Stars. The article at present seems to have a narrow sci-fi/space empire emphasis.--Solicitr (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I would go further stating that this article is written and maintained by either fans of Sword of the Stars or employees of Kereberos itself. I added S:TW in but it was deleted by the Sins of a Solar Empire douchelords who have turned portions of this into pretty much an advertisement for the game. Please note, Sins of a solar empire was NOT the first 4x game to have real time combat, Shogun Total War came out long before. What's more "the genre was refreshed by the appearance of Sword of the Stars[64], featuring a combination of a turn based strategy part and real-time tactical combat phase, both in 3D. Sword of the Stars was the first 4X game to offer a physical simulation in battles. Other unique features combined with reliable support enabled Sword of the Stars to quickly grow a loyal fan base." This is a ridiculous fanboy statement, especially in light of Total War's dominance of the 4x genre for the last decade. This article is written and maintained by fans of Sword of the Stars. littlemute (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The section could use work but there is an RS albeit a weak one (since it's a news report from before the game even came out rather then some sort of overview of 4X games establishing the significance of SoaSE to the 4X genre) establishing the connection of SoaSE to the 4X genre as well as another ref establishing SoaSE as an apparently significant strategy game (but still not establishing it as significant to 5he 4X genre. In other words, while there is some risk of WP:Syn and as I said while the wording needs work, it isn't a case of complete cut WP:OR if there is a WP:RS establishing some connection of the Total War games to the 4X genre, and hopefully establishing them as significant to the genre or at least significant there may be merit to mention them here. They don't belong solely because editors feel they belong or feel they have features other later games are known for. Nil Einne (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I was also suprised that rome: total war was mentioned, but shogun wasn't (since it was the first and the series and (apparently) it came out before sword of the starts. Is there a reason given why it was deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.90.226 (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Idea:

How about having a sub-section for each of the 4Xs; for example:

  1. Exploration: briefly describe such things as Fog-of-war, Line-of-sight and obstructed view in relation to exploring unrevealed territory.. Mention typical unit types with specialized characteristics (scout, explorer, spy, etc.)
  2. [Etc.]: . . .

There is already a bullet-list, but since this article's title is 4X, perhaps more attention should be given to the Xs, and a little less to which games are/aren't "4X", etc. Besides, with a concise explanation of each, a reader can decide what game(s) "qualify". Also: moving some otherwise extraneous info from other sections to here, would tidy-up the other sections a bit.

I would DIY, but, this wouldn't look right unless all 4 Xs were done at the same time -- and I don't want to mess too much with a page that currently has 'Featured' status.
~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"4X" used in advertizing and/or promotion.

There aren't any examples that I can veritably cite at the moment, but the term '4X' has been used by game producers in ads, promos, packaging, etc. (This should remove ambiguity as far as definition for those specific games). I know Sid uses the term in promos, etc. Providing an example or two for this article might help as far as defining the term, and provide some etymological background. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Two minor issues

I had a couple of minor issues.

  • "These four elements of gameplay have been described as phases which often overlap." The article fails to explain the use of the word "phases" here. Does this mean a phase (as a subcomponent) of each game turn, or a phase (as an interval) of the full game?
  • "...can demand several minutes to play a single turn." Is a maximum of several minutes typical? This seems pretty short to me. I take it a game can consist of hundreds of turns? (Example given: (12 hours/game)/(2-3 minutes/turn) => 240-360 turns.)

Any ideas? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I already tried to address these -- I caught your comments after the FA nomination closed. I rephrased the point about phases in the "Definition" section, and added a comment about the number of turns in the "Absorbing gameplay" section. Hopefully that adds more clarity. It may be a few copy-edits between having the ideal amount of clarity and flow. Randomran (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
That works. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as the length of time for each turn is concerned, is the distinction pointed out between single-player and multi-player games? ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Campaign / mission / scenario

This sentence: 4X games do not typically feature a campaign or scripted narrative, as this would interfere with the freedom of building a massive empire over multiple hours of gameplay.[18] cites a review of a single game. In my experience, many, if not most, do have a mode for campaign(s); or sometimes individual missions/scenarios. Often, these are included in an expansion pack; or can be downloaded as player-created scenarios, etc. The use of "feature" in the sentence might be accurate, but is somewhat weasel-deceptive. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

X1 : Exploration

Okay, I'll start the ball rolling, re: Idea: (above):

Exploration:
The player begins on a map which is largely unrevealed, except for the area within the line-of-sight (LoS) of the starting unit(s). The map must then be explored by units that enter into unexplored areas. The unrevealed portion is usually referred to as "fog-of-war"(FoW), even in games which do not feature combat. Sometimes a unit's line of sight is defined by a simple radius, but usually the game allows features such as mountains to obstruct a unit's view, and provide distinctions such as increased visibility from hilltops. There are typically units which are specialized for the purpose of exploration, having increased LoS or improved mobility, are less hindered by terrain, or sometimes are invisible to most opposing units. These units include scouts, explorers and spies. Some games allow revealing portions of the map by other means such as acquiring maps from other players.

Sorry about cluttering this page with a draft, but as an non-registered user, I don't have a permanent sandbox or whatever to link to. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Age of Empires?

You explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate. Why isn't it included?

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.152.230 (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Because they are primarily a series of Real-time Strategy games, albeit with some 4X elements as you rightly point out, assigning a genre is rarely a black & white proposition. -Oosh (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Classic Empire

I'm surprised that Classic Empire isn't included on here. It is the first 4x game, predates Civilization by nearly two decades, and includes nearly all of the features found in later games. 14.201.88.100 (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Nobody uses 4X as a term

They are called "Civ-style" or "Civilization-style" games. Nobody calls them 4X style games, that is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.221.255.62 (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The term "civ-style" doesn't properly descibe space 4x games which make up a significant part of the genre. "4x" is very much used in regards to those games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.39.2 (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Europa Universalis series?

I think Europa universalis series should be included in this article,particlarly in the history of the development of 4x games. Could some "historian" fill that part please? EU3 is as good as Civ4 for many niche players and deserves a mention here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.83.61 (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

See above. If you can provide RS establishing them as connected to the genre and hopefully as significant to the genre or at least significant then sure. However your opinion of how good the games are is irrelevant. Nil Einne (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

EU is a great series, but is a prime example of the Grand Strategy genre, not the 4x genre. EU includes all of the "X"s in 4X, but is much more complex and detailed, as are the other Paradox Interactive games running on similar engines. 14.201.88.100 (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Also surprised not to see a mention of the EU series here. Anyway, here are some sources mentioning EU as a 4X game: [1] [2]. – Elisson • T • C • 16:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

List / Table of Games in Class

Would this article benefit from the addition of a list or table of games that meet the criteria for inclusion in this class of games?

For Example:

Title Developer Publisher Genre Year Released Year Last Updated Latest Version Still in Production Platform(s) Mode
Example Example Example Example Example Example Example Example Example Example

Zentinal (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I think Category:4X video games sufficiently covers it and what you propose ventures in to WP:GAMETRIVIA territory. -Oosh (talk) 03:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
No WP:EMBEDed lists, thanks... bridies (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on 4X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 4X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions

Hi, while I was reading through this, it seemed like the opening to the article was probably a bit too long for the initial summary, and some things were repeated several times throughout the article. Additionally, it seems as though some games are mentioned a bit too frequently throughout the article (particularly Galactic Civilizations and Master of Orion), and the layout could really use some condensing and re-ordering overall. This doesn't seem even close to Featured Article status anymore.216.113.160.68 (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

First Person?

Is there such thing as a first person 4X game? *Dual Universe* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:9200:1D0:8856:5208:B526:57C2 (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Complexity

4X#Complexity Currently: "4X games are known for their complex gameplay[16][17] and strategic depth"

  1. I added ",though they can be played (and won) by complete and utter morons."
  2. What does "complex gameplay" and "strategic depth" actually mean? I'd consider them weasel words in this context.
  3. suggestion: The complexity of 4X games is created by the sheer number of possible decisions the players can take. As with chess the initial possible decisions are not that high, but they stack. As each player's task involves taking the best possible decision, the player must "see" all possible decisions and then choose the best one.
    1. In case the game contains a more complex technology tree the player must at least know each technology's effects, its costs and its prerequisites. E.g. some player's of Civilization IV claim the stratagem of "Civil Service sling shot" (sling shot as in gravity assist not the actual thing…) to be a good one for many starting situations. User:ScotXWt@lk 14:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Chess can be considered a "complex game". Yet it lacks a technology tree, it lacks concealment, it lacks rock-paper-scissors-Spock-lizard-characteristic, etc. In case one would introduce concealment to chess, would this make this game more complex or less complex? How is "gameplay complexity" measured?

Assuming we measure "complexity" by "number of possible moves", a game like Civilization IV certainly contains more possible moves/decisions then chess does. So technically speaking it could be called more complex then chess. Then again, maybe it is so complex, that most players don't bother with the complexity, but simply take decisions based on the current phase of the moon. Especially the concealment takes a lot of complexity out of any game. User:ScotXWt@lk 14:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 4X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 4X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 4X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

History section isn't helpful.

It doesn't tell me when this term was invented. I've never heard of it before, so I presume it's pretty new. Yet the history section makes it sound like it's as old as video games. 124.190.192.20 (talk) 08:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The first section explains the origin of the term (in 1993). The thing is that there were games before the term was actually coined that are now considered 4X games, and thus the history section starts earlier than that. --Masem (t) 12:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Game list up to date?

Judging by the last time this section was updated, I was wondering if an update of influential 4X games in the market. Or if a simple list of prevoyant 4X games would be worth introducing. --EnigmaticWikiwriter (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EnigmaticWikiwriter.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:4X/Archive_5&oldid=1155012084"