Classification of 4X Games

[Mezmorki]

DISCLAIMER #1: No classification system ever going to be perfect. I recognize this reality. That said, thinking about classification of things (games in this case) can still be useful for developing short hands and generalizations.

DISCLAIMER #2: A helpful way to think about classification is based on Wittgenstein's Family Resemblance[www.philosophy-index.com] concept. If we imaging a family, all members of the family have certain features/attributes that they share with some other members of the family, such that you can tell they are a family generally having such and such traits - yet not every member of the family expresses each of those traits or in the same way. So it is with something as nebulous as game classification!

Onto my actual post:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I’ve been reading through wikipedias list of 4X games, which needs a little cleanup (but that’s for a different topic/time!). One thing that it reminded me is that there is a fair amount of wiggle room in what people consider to be a 4X game. Yet, there are some titles that left me scratching my head a little bit.

Do people consider the Total War games to be 4X games? Certainly those games are quite different from a Civ game or a MoO2 game, yes? Likewise, what about Sins of a Solar Empire? It comes across way more like a traditional RTS game – yet has all the elements of a MoO2-style 4X game otherwise. Is Sins being a 4X game (or not) different from Star Drive (also real-time) being a 4X game or not? What is it that makes the former feel more like an RTS with 4X elements and the latter a full 4X that just plays in a real time? What about Heroes of Might and Magic? Certainly it is a turn-based strategy with 4X elements, but is it a “full 4X” game like Alpha Centauri might be? Or is it a 4X-lite/RPG hybrid? What does that mean for Age of Wonders, or Warlock, or Disciples?

So here’s where you all come in …

I’d love to do some brainstorming on nailing down some language or terms to “try out” for articulating some of the nuances in sub-styles of 4X games. I’m happy to take a first crack at it.

“Basic 4X Game”
In the purest, most minimal sense, a 4X game does each of the X’s and little more. There must be some element of unknown geography/landscape to eXplore. There must be a system for eXpanding your zone of control over explored geographies. You must be able to eXploit resources in your zone of control. And these resources are used to build up force in order to eXterminate the opposition in some manner.

I think a “pure 4X game” must do the above, but does not need to do anything more than that to qualify for the 4X genre. It’s a pretty big bucket. BUT – it does mean that certain games (Total War Series?) don’t really qualify as a 4X-game, in particularly because there is not really an exploration element at work (correct me if I’m wrong here). Does that mean that Europa Universalis or Crusader Kings are likewise not proper “4X games” but merely have many shared elements?

“4X-Civ Games”
I’ve often found myself using the “4X-Civ” label to talk about 4X games that layer on the traditional civ-inspired empire management and development elements. So you take the basic 4X game definition above but add in some combination of the following: diplomacy, technology/research, city and empire management (upkeep, happiness, culture, policies, etc.), espionage, leaders/heroes, wonders, trade, tactical combat, etc.

For me, the “4X-Civ” label applies to most the classic “4X” games we think about: Civilization series, Master of Orion, Sword of the Stars, and so on. But again – what does this mean for something like Sins of a Solar Empire? 4X or RTS?

“RTS/4X Hybrid”
A proper hybrid between a RTS style game and a 4X game. There is no separation between the tactical combat space and strategic space of the game (see Sins of a Solar Empire) and exact placement of developments matters. Fundamentally, these are designed to be played as REAL-TIME games with all the tensions, micromanagement, and so on that usually comes with it.

I think something like Distant Worlds or StarDrive, which are intended to be played in a pausible real-time fashion, are proper 4X-Civ games and not RTS/4X Hybrids. What do you think?

“Geopolitical Games”
Geopolitical Games are those that have many elements of a 4X or 4X-Civ games, yet generally lack some fundamental defining feature (e.g. no exploration). Often times the goal of “extermination” is not the real goal, and there are other objectives that the game is designed around. Europa Universalis, Crusader Kings, The Last Federation and similar games seem to fall into this geopolitical camp.

“Heroic 4X Games”
These are games that may have all of the basic 4X trappings, yet the focus of the game is often on controlling one or more heroes as a primary means of interacting with the game world and the 4X systems. In some cases, the player is presumed to be the main “hero” in an RPG-like fashion. Examples: Heroes of Might and Magic, Disciples, Age of Wonders, Warlock (?). Or maybe this is just the "fantasy" take on the 4X-Civ concept?

EDIT:
“Strategic Campaigns”
This is a bucket for games like, I think, Total War series or the Dawn of War expansions where the primary gameplay occurs in tactical space (often real-time), yet there is a light 4X aspect to a strategic campaign. Often lacks exploration elements.


That’s my initial list of ideas to get the ball rolling. I’d be curious to know what buckets others would be drop the following games into:

- Warlock
- Disciples
- Star Ruler
- Warlords
- Total War games
- Sins of a Solar Empire
- Imperium Galactica
- Dominions
- Empire Earth
- Rise of Nations
- Heroes of Might and Magic
- Lords of the Realm
- Europa Universalis
- Warlords

[Sassafras]

This is pretty interesting, I've played quite a few 4X games, but never knew exactly what the genre meant. Based on your first "barebones" definition, Age of Empires falls into the category, something I didn't expect, even though I've played it for years.

Genres are always kind of wonky in video games though (Ex. Nobody calls Portal an FPS, even though it technically is).

[Mezmorki]

Yes .... traditional RTS games do fall into the "Basic 4X" box.

I think this is why I've taken to calling what we typical call "4X" games "4X-Civ" games instead. The 4X bucket at its simplest is really encompassing! Then again - I don't think the original intent of the term was to be so encompassing. Part of 4X is about scale too ... you are managing a whole empire/civilization across a big area. Most RTS games are too small scale focused to really fit that frame, even though mechanically the basic 4X elements exist.

[marlowe221]

In very general terms, in my mind the genre is divided into 3 main groups - Fully turn based, Turn based with real time combat, and Fully real time.

I tend to think that within those groups different games will have things that they share in common with each other. But when it comes to looking at a fully turn based game vs a fully real time game, I think there are more differences than similarities.

[Mezmorki]

Marlowe - Hmmm, yes that's one way to slice things, although is that a very useful what to do it?

If you put Master of Orion on one end of a spectrum and Warcraft 2 on the other. Where would you put Sins of a Solar Empire and Distant Worlds? Would you cluster those two games together (both real-time, both space empire building, etc) down on the RTS end? Sins and Distant world are both real-time yes, but they are both quite different from each other.

[WabbaCat]

I have never considered seperating 4x games between RTS and TBS... I dont feel the distinction reflects on 4x itself and more on the games flow.

I can see where your going with this however... for the purposes of catorgorizing, there certainly are quite a few differences going from one game to the next.

[Mezmorki]

And to be clear, my RTS/4X Hybrid category is reserved for 4X games that fundamentally look/feel/play more like a traditional RTS game. Sins of a Solar Empire feels this way to me - where StarDrive or Distant Worlds do not (and in fact encourages you to pause the game frequently). Haegemonia, Imperium Galactica 2 ... are these RTS/4X hybrids?

[Nasarog]

Interesting. In my minds eye, I don't distinguish beyond tbs/rts, fantasy/sci-fi/quasi-historical, and space/terrestrial.

I guess there is 4X and 4X-lite, but's that's it.

[Icemania]

To me, there are no classifications. If it's 4X and a good game is all I care about. That said celebrate the diversity in type of games.

Speaking of which, I often wonder if Football Manager is 4X-lite, particularly if you start a team in the lower divisions and work your way up. The amount of time I've spend iin some past lives exploring the worldwide player pool, exploiting weaknesses in other teams, expanding my squad and stadiums and eventually exterminating the opposition is almost embarrassing.

[WabbaCat]

is there any theme clause in 4x to make that title not count? Maybe a stipulation on keeping extermination in context of killing off races/civilizations? please? I will seriously die alittle inside if it counts.

(sarcasm,... but only a bit)

[Nasarog]

The closest a sports title can come to a 4X type of game would be Blood Bowl. When I say close, I mean in the lore.

[Warmacblu]

Originally posted by Nasarog:

The closest a sports title can come to a 4X type of game would be Blood Bowl. When I say close, I mean in the lore.

Kotaku has a review of "Football". They argue that it is a strategy game and the more I think about it, calling it a 4X is not so much of a stretch.

[marlowe221]

Originally posted by :i69:Mezmorki:

Marlowe - Hmmm, yes that's one way to slice things, although is that a very useful what to do it?

If you put Master of Orion on one end of a spectrum and Warcraft 2 on the other. Where would you put Sins of a Solar Empire and Distant Worlds? Would you cluster those two games together (both real-time, both space empire building, etc) down on the RTS end? Sins and Distant world are both real-time yes, but they are both quite different from each other.

To be perfectly honest, I am not sure if it is a useful distinction or not. I know that I tend to LIKE the turn based games more than the real time games.... :)

But to answer your questions, yeah - I think Sins and DU would definitely sit on the same end of the spectrum, that being on the RTS end.

For me there is something fundamentally different between the TBS and RTS 4X games. Unfortunately, I am not sure that I can articulate that difference at this point, though I have been thinking about it a lot lately and may even write about it if I can get some coherent thoughts together on the subject.

I know that I certainly don't approach the RTS games in the same way that I do the TBS games when I am playing them...

[Troy]

I feel the same way you do, marlowe. But I'm not sure I can articulate it either. :(

[WabbaCat]

I understand the difference in approach...

in a TBS I tend to keep an eye out for tells, or any small piece of intelligence that will give me an edge or hint at a weakness. Squeezing the most out of every turn is a liberty easily taken.
In a RTS your time is limited and usually better spent focusing on preping for your attacks and defences, often predicting off little to no knowledge other than past experiences.

Its a good point.
But I am not sure thats cause to differentiate within the same genre... certainly theres TBS games that need to be approached differently than other TBS games? and same with RTS. It's essentially the same thing... it could be said that the only reason RTS 4x games dont have this approach is simply because the developers havent bothered to make an RTS that plays like that.

[marlowe221]

Well one difference for me is that I seem to have a much harder time planning ahead in the RTS games as opposed to the TBS games. That's on both the micro and the macro level. I find that I spend most of my time in a TBS game acting and most of my time in a RTS game reacting. That is not necessarily a bad thing and the RTS games can certainly be fun - but it is a significant difference in my eyes.

Another interesting thought I had is that I actually think that the TBS games move at a FASTER pace for me than the RTS games. I really like Crusader Kings 2, for example. But I can play that game for 2 hours and realize that not much has actually happened in the game because I have spent 90% of my time with the game paused.

Meanwhile in a TBS game I tend to make more progress in the same amount of time. Sure, some turns take longer than other turns but I am going to be hitting that "End Turn" button on a fairly regular basis.

Look, I just wrote half of my next eXposition! ;)