Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Real-time tactics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Genre classification -Blitzkreig II

[edit]

Blitzkrieg II being somewhat verbosely called a "real time simulator of WWII battles on company regimental level" rather than "real-time strategy" in a review.

  • "Verbosely", weasel word, the opinion of an editor.
  • "Rather than", again, editor opinion. In the cite given, the genre is listed as strategy and the description "real time simulator of WWII battles" being just that, a description, not a genre classification.
  • "Strategy", its strategy, not RTT, why is it even in this article?

This article was recently classified as a C for the Video Games Portal, citing weasel words, unqualified language and lack of citations. The article is stagnating. Despite other editor's efforts to address these problems, the usual suspects just revert every effort and the article sits there. If there is a genuine will to push this article forward, it will not come from instant reverts and attack sections on the talk page such as this. Alastairward (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that source does not say in any way that the game is "Real-time Tactical." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The review also says, "Blitzkrieg 2 is the sequel to the highly acclaimed tactical game of WWII from CDV. In this game you will command the forces of Germany, the United States and the Soviet Union is the vast and diverse actions they fought during the World War Two years." As for whether this amounts to a genre classification, I would just like to point out that the article is rather clear regarding these sorts of things being rather indeterminate. Also, I object to the "usual suspects" remark. I don't think insults are necessary here. SharkD  Talk  21:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not enough. You are deciding that what they meant was a genre classification. That is not clear and is trivially against policy. Statements made in the article must be directly supported by the sources. When the genre classification says "strategy" that is how we label it. Also, you're hardly in a position to comment about insults. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With regards Blitzkrieg II, it reads a lot better now thanks, but there could still be some trimming done. Taking that sentence; "Games of the genre have also been described as "real-time combat simulators" and "military strategy" games, with Blitzkrieg II being called a "real time simulator of WWII battles on company regimental level"
  • Games of the genre? Which ones? Links? Cites?
  • "Blitzkrieg II being called a "real time simulator of WWII battles on company regimental level"". Again, that's a description of that one game in particular, with close reference to the mechanics of gameplay. It's not a genre or type, just a review.
The "usual suspects" remark BTW is in reference to the edit history of the article, which is free for all to see. Alastairward (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if the game is classified as such it's worth mentioning as something that comes close to defining a genre. SharkD  Talk  00:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, look back at the classification review of this article and the mention of unqualified remarks. How is this "defining a genre"? Is every "real time simulator of WWII battles on company regimental level" an RTT? When tactics and strategy were already mentioned, the description of the game mechanics confuses things. Alastairward (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the comment in question is to emphasize that descriptions and terminology vary. As for whether a genre in general is defined by its gameplay characteristics, I don't think that's entirely relevant to the article in its current state. If I were required to answer, then I would say that, yes, gameplay mechanics definitely make good candidates. Further, in the case of a "real time simulator of WWII battles on company regimental level", I would say it is more relevant than not. SharkD  Talk  02:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the definition of original research: when an editor interprets the sources. We are only allowed to say statements that are directly supported by the sources. We can't interpret game mechanics and then put our label on the game based on those mechanics. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit of a problem with the articles that come under the RTT remit. A certain editor is changing game articles to fit with edit summaries that go along the lines of "it's got this game mechanic and another game mechanic, ergo its RTT." Asking someone to take the word of an editor that in this case its important, is why this article had (and I'm not sure why it doesn't still) an essay tag.
In any case, why does this game deserve such treatment and no other? Why not pull out a brief review or description of each game listed and say why its RTT? Alastairward (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are applying equal "interpretation" when you say a game can't be RTT because four more articles call it "real-time strategy" than "real-time tactics". And, to say that these sorts of comments do not amount to an attempt at classification or genrification also amounts to original research. Or do you have some sources that say otherwise? Could you be correct? Maybe. But please provide some evidence. SharkD  Talk  09:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources listing Blitzkrieg II as real-time strategy or "strategy.": [1][2][3][4]

Googling also shows that most sources refer to Sudden Strike as "strategy" or "real time strategy." [5][6][7][8][9] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some very selective use of sources in the related RTT games articles. Miqademus, an editor with frequent reverts to this page, roundly rejects their use in favour of his/her own analysis. It makes it very frustrating to edit here if you're not one of the "owners" of this article. Alastairward (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like original research to me. Over the next few days I'm going to go through every statement in the article and make sure it is directly supported by the source. If it's not, it's gone. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One observation: you're basing your justification on the assumption that "strategy" and "real-time tactics" are mutually-exclusive. This is also original research, and needs to be supported by reliable sources. And, as I said earlier, there are a number of reliable source cited on Chronology of real-time tactics video games that haven't been migrated over here yet. If you'll look you'll see a number for Blitzkrieg and Sudden Strike. SharkD  Talk  10:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An observation about your observation, what is original research is what appears on the pages of Wikipedia. Any ideas that an editor has are ok, as long as they're supported with cites when applied to an article. Suggesting that an editor is performing OR in their own head is utterly irrelevant to the article.
Also, each article on Wikipedia should be capable of standing on its own. We shouldn't have to hunt for citations in other articles. Alastairward (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss changes before implementing them, please?

[edit]

Let's please discuss individual changes/issues on the Talk page while the article is undergoing RfC, please? These sorts of contentions edits while the article is undergoing discussion aren't very constructive. What are your changes, and why do you want to change them? In addition it may be helpful to place each one in its own section. SharkD  Talk  09:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had such a request from another editor (see above) and they simply used it as an excuse to revert and then add a statement to the talk page that basically asked me not to edit again. I don't think that really helped. Why not take a look at WP:BRD, someone was bold enough to change the article and add new information, revert and discuss that first. Alastairward (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how I see it. It looks to me as if the editor actually thanked you[10] for bringing the issue to the Talk page. SharkD  Talk  10:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I can detect irony, Miqademus was very unhappy that I was daring enough to edit an article that they appear to own. Discussion with that particular editor was largely irrelevant in any case, he/she was quite happy to ignore discussion and third opinions and revert anything I tried to do with any RTT related articles. Alastairward (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information in articles needs to be directly supported, literally, not implicitly, by the sources. And I do not need your permission to edit the article. Find some reliable sources that actually refer to RTT as a genre of subgenre. I'm considering nominating this article for deletion as it is. Oh, and FYI, it's especially contentious and disruptive for you to remove tags when so many statements in the article are disputed for good reason. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC again

[edit]

Material is being removed based on "lack of reliable sources", but this is based on the assumption that "strategy" and "real-time tactics" are mutually-exclusive, which also requires reliable sourcing. SharkD  Talk  10:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you're asking for an RFC on your opinion of other editor's opinions? It might help if you had a diff at least. Alastairward (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. And any opinions that appear in the article have been sourced. SharkD  Talk  11:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AzureFury provides valid arguments and supports his removals. However, he fails to recognise that media covering video game industry does not have a clear consensus governing sub-genres or secondary genres of games. Articles do not use precise, wikipediaic terms when describing games. Google hits do not illustrate reviewer opinions. For example, [http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/february02/strategygames05/ GameSpy Strategy vs. Tactics section] does not say "RTT", but it is really obvious they do mean it (see reply in sources below).
I believe AzureFury should express his views in sectioned talk, as proposed before in "Discuss changes before implementing them, please?" SharkD can then reply before changes are already made. Most importantly, this gives outside opinion on the matter.—  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  15:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Shark's comment that "the assumption that "strategy" and "real-time tactics" are mutually-exclusive... also requires reliable sourcing." This is simply not true. *I* am not making any claims in the article. I am deleting material. Deleting material does not require reliable sources at all. Including material does. The burden of evidence lies on you to establish that the statements present or being added to the article are explicitly supported by reliable sources. It's as simple as that. Anything that you infer or make up is by defintion original research and will be removed. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You think that personal opinion doesn't matter at all. However, personal opinion as motivation behind changes matters a lot here on Wikipedia. SharkD  Talk  04:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Motivation, perhaps. But it is not enough for justification. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Support keeping sources and removal only upon concensus. I support inclusion of sources that do not directly specify RTT as a "genre" or "sub-genre". Most every reviewer is going to define games in broader, precise terms ("This game is real-time strategy...") and weaker sub-genric terms (".. with tactical unit control elements."). Do not expect the reviewer to say "This game's genre is tactical war game and sub-genre is real-time tactics" -- nobody would read his articles. RTT is essentially defined by small-scale tactics separated from large-scale strategy; if the reviewer identifies this, then it is a pretty good indication that he considers the game under RTT flag. And "sub-genre", surely, is most descriptive term to use for WP.—  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  15:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I posted on the WP:VG talk page I broadly disagree with this. To make a claim that Game X was important to RTT genre one must have a source which makes that claim explicitly; this is obviously not possible if the genre is not mentioned. Trying to make it fit using a rationale such as "RTT is essentially defined by small-scale tactics separated from large-scale strategy; if the reviewer identifies this, then it is a pretty good indication that he considers the game under RTT flag" is original research. I'll happily chip in on specific cases should they posted here. bridies (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my statements are pretty much OR. As pointed out by you, I am synthesizing sources - i.e. if A said "RTT is unit tactical combat" and B said "unit tactical combat is used" then B is talking about RTT. I should not have done that and I stand corrected.—  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  16:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite correct. At worst the article bends things a bit in cases where Article 1 says, "Real-time tactics games A, B and C have features X, Y and Z", and Article 2 says, "Z-type games A, B and C have features X and Y." SharkD  Talk 
"Do not expect the reviewer to say 'This game's genre is tactical war game and sub-genre is real-time tactics' -- nobody would read his articles." This raises the problem of sources being influenced by their readers and not being reliable. I.e. they may just be saying something because they think their readers will like it. Or, for that matter, the Bible or any other foreign work since they were not written in English. SharkD  Talk  03:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may be, but it doesn't change our policy on original research. If this topic is so notable that it deserves to be mentioned in this encyclopedia, some reliable sources must have talked about it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is with AzureFury's individual deletions from the article. I'll go through them one by one:

1. Remove Blitzkrieg II - more sources call this game "strategy" not "tactical" [11]
Saying that because more sources call a game "strategy" the game is then not RTT is a perfect example of synthesis IMO. SharkD  Talk  06:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trivially untrue. Deletion can never be synthesis as it makes no claims in the article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion: The source says While A&A will be a true RTS, rather than the real-time tactical gameplay along the lines of Blitzkrieg or Sudden Strike which supports the statement. The rationale more sources call this game "strategy" not "tactical" is vague and speculative and is at most a WP:UNDUE consideration. This would be negated by saying "GameSpy said that..." but I wouldn't agree it is necessary. bridies (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I talked about this below. If the sources conflict, we should look at the generally accepted definition of RTT and see if it really applies. We don't do original research on Wikipedia, but it's impossible to write a good article if we don't try to comprehend what all the sources actually mean. 99.231.248.190 (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Delete mention of Rome Total Realism, personal attacks are not a substitute for reliable sources [12]
This is a clear indication of bias in my opinion. Calling two sites considered reliable by the project as guilty of "personal attacks" should make it clear where it is AzureFury coming from when deleting things from this article. SharkD  Talk  06:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You defend your personal attacks with a personal attack? Ad hominen, again. Attack the argument, not the man. Find reliable sources criticising RTW's historical accuracy that are not promotions for RTR and then we can discuss whether or not it would be proper weight to include it in the article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. The claims are supported by reliable sources. bridies (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let me go looking for some sources praising RTW's historical accuracy. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Gamespy review praises RTW several times for historical accuracy.
  2. Game Revolution says the focus is on historical accuracy, and "If it's good enough for the history channel, it's good enough for you."
  3. Gamezone recommends RTW for history fans.
  4. Thunderbolt says RTW is "accurate and grounded".
  5. Arm chair general says RTW has "unprecedented depth, style and historical substance".
  6. Games Radar, "Rome doesn’t disappoint in fanatical attention to historical accuracy."
Again, this is a WP:UNDUE consideration. If you want to add those sources, then do so. bridies (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, I want to remove this debate about RTW's historical accuracy entirely. Leave it to the game's article, rather than try to cover it in one sentence in a list. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I might agree it would be better covered in the game's own article. On the other hand it's not like the article is overflowing with (valid, cited) content. I think it would depend on how prominent a game RTW is within the genre (and thus how much space it warrants within this article), which I'm not really able to comment upon. bridies (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would hazard a guess that it's the most successful series, commercially. Combat Mission or Close Combat may be better known among wargaming "grognards", or not. Some series such as ALTAR Interactive's UFO series and Apeiron's Brigade E5 and 7.62mm derive from turn-based equivalents such as X-COM or Jagged Alliance. SharkD  Talk  04:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but when the only sentence that ever refers to the game criticizes it, we give that criticism WP:UNDUE weight. Therefore, we either devote a small section to discuss RTW or we leave this debate to the game's article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some would argue that not mentioning historical inaccuracies gives WP:UNDUE weight. In fact, that's the exact point made the source. SharkD  Talk  18:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And some would argue that for a game, it is extremely historically accurate considering how fun it is and its inaccuracies only stand out because of the level of historical detail. But this is besides the point. At this moment in time, if we wanna debate about weight, more sources praise it for historical accuracy that criticize it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would help to follow the model set out in the game's article itself. Unfortunately, there isn't much to go on. For a C-class article, it's probably better to err on the side of too much referenced information than too little. If this article should ever go further, we can decide what's an appropriate weight to give to these sourced statements. (Is RTW even important to the genre, let alone its historical accuracy? Did it influence any future games? Did it draw more fans to the genre?) 99.231.248.190 (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Delete ref, source at no point refers to RTT as a genre or subgenre, but actually as an attribute of the subgenres Real-time and Turn-based [13], Delete supposed different name which is not supported by source, no connection is made between "Real-time tactics" and "fixed-unit real-time sub-genre." [14], Mark Walker never refers to RTT as a genre or subgenre [15]
The actual quote from the article is: "It was during this time that Bungie and Microsoft helped spawn the fixed-unit real-time sub-genre. ... By and large real-time strategy games are long on strategy and short on tactics. ... Of course there are exceptions. Most real-time exceptions come from the fixed-unit side of real-time gaming. Games like Close Combat, Ground Control, and Shogun are good examples of real-time games that reward sound tactics." The specific term "real-time tactics" is not used. But I don't think there's much cause for confusion about which sub-genre is being talked about here. This piece cited by the article makes a clear link between RTT and "fixed-unit real-time gaming". SharkD  Talk  06:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to get WP:OR. This is not a debate. This isn't a matter of whether or not I or anyone else finds your argument convincing. Your statements have to have been made by the sources, not implied by the sources. This is true of every article on Wikipedia, even one in the boondocks such as this. You may see stuff like this slip through into articles all the time. But that's only because rules on Wikipedia typically don't get applied strictly when only a few editors are editting a non-controversial topic. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an alternate interpretation of what the article is saying? SharkD  Talk  04:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with AzureFury here. The article places the genre divide between "real time" and "turn based" and possibly also "wargaming" and otherwise. There are parts where he discusses the difference between "tactics" and "strategy" but it is not at all clear that the author is drawing genre distinctions and indeed seems to be limited to gameplay elements or "attributes" if you will. bridies (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree he doesn't discuss the genre distinction at length - and doesn't make one at all for turn-based games that are "tactical" - I think he's placed significant emphasis on the distinction by mentioning the genre and providing examples. I also disagree that focusing upon the lapse in terminology, WRT the article calling them "fixed-unit real-time" instead of RTT, is very productive in this case. SharkD  Talk  15:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR is a lot more constraining than you realize. Technically, we're not even allowed to include syllogisms in the article. There was a huge debate about modifying WP:OR so that if a source states A, which mathematically implies B, we would be allowed to include B in the article using the source that stated A. The proposal was rejected. They used an example I brought up, actually, during part of that debate here (search for "Turk"). The point being here, you feel that your inferrance is obvious and justified. I'm saying that it's still original research, and I do think different conclusions could be drawn from the source. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, is there any disagreement that he is referring to real time tactics when he says "the fixed-unit real-time sub-genre"? It raises such issues as being able to cite Isaac Newton for his work on differential calculus simply because he referred to it as "the method of fluxions and fluents" instead of the current, approved term. SharkD  Talk  04:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A reliable source at some point made the connection between differential calculus and "the method of fluxions and fluents." If this connection was only made by an editor, it would be WP:OR and against policy. You might consider posting this at the no original research noticeboard if you're unconvinced by my understanding of policy. They'll probably tell you the exact same thing I'm telling you. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! And, as I already pointed out, the point-counterpoint article draws the connection between "fixed-unit real-time gaming" and RTT. SharkD  Talk  18:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That dialog mentions games without resources, both with fixed units and limited units. It mentions RTT but does not define what it is. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOR doesn't mean that we assemble articles entirely out of quotes from other articles. We have to read. We have to understand. We have to (gasp!) interpret. If one source mentions that X is A, and another says A = B, then X is B. If we can find other things that support that -- X has P, and P is a feature of B -- then that reinforces our understanding. This isn't original research or synthesis. It's how people with a brain understand that "moist" and "damp" mean the same thing. ... of course, there's the "what if the sources conflict" issue. 99.231.248.190 (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. The following examples are not "efforts to distinguish RTT games from conventional perceptions of the RTS" [16]
Using words like "in the classic sense" and "true RTS" are a pretty clear indication IMO that there are conventions held by people somewhere that are being ignored. Rewording "from conventional perceptions of the RTS" to just "from RTS games" might be OK though.
That's exactly what it is. Your opinion. See above comment. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I asked earlier, do you have an alternate opinion of what is being said here? SharkD  Talk  04:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support removal per AzureFury. Adding in one's own statements commenting on the sources is original research. bridies (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested earlier to rephrase the sentence to "efforts to distinguish their games from RTSs". Statements like, "While A&A will be a true RTS, rather than the real-time tactical gameplay along the lines Blitzkrieg or Sudden Strike", and "Close Combat was never an RTS in the classic sense since resource gathering and other typical factors played no part in the game" seem to support this. SharkD  Talk  14:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source is definitely trying to make some kind of distinction. It's just a matter of how we phrase it. The safest thing is to use the language in the article itself. "Sources have distinguished games with real-time tactical gameplay from the RTS genre." Something like that. 99.231.248.190 (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


5. This quote is attributed to one member of the team. He lacks notability and thus we can't include his opinion. [17]
This could be reworded to "According to one developer..." It's important as a window into development and publishing. SharkD  Talk  06:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is missing the point. We don't quote Bob Developer on Wikipedia. See WP:NOTABILITY. If he was the lead developer, maybe it could be justified considering the low level of notability on this topic in general. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be misinterpreting WP:NOTABILITY. The policy is in respect to whether a topic is deserving of an article. When it comes to inclusion within an existing article, WP:VERIFIABILITY is the relevant policy. SharkD  Talk  04:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABILITY is not applicable here. The relevant question is whether he is reliable per WP:SPS as an "authority" or whether the game he is connected to is important enough to the genre/article as to warrant using primary sources connected to it. I don't have time to read further, maybe later. bridies (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may be thinking of the wrong policy, but I know that we don't insert the statements of just some guy into Wikipedia. He has to be notable, or an expert. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He has to be reliable, not notable, unless an article were created specifically about him, in which case he would have to be notable, but could be totally unreliable. SharkD  Talk  03:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Self published sources are allowed in small amounts. They can't establish the notability or importance of a concept, but they can be used to verify small facts. You'll even see that in some of Wikipedia's best articles. If attribution is a problem, we can say "developer X said ..." 99.231.248.190 (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Random bit of uncited original research. [18]
Not OR since it's attributed to the developer. But it was never referenced properly either. SharkD  Talk  06:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The notability problem remains. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See above. bridies (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genre questions

[edit]

Here are some hypothetical questions regarding genres in general:

  1. Source A[19] says, "It was during this time that Bungie and Microsoft helped spawn the fixed-unit real-time sub-genre. ... By and large real-time strategy games are long on strategy and short on tactics. ... Of course there are exceptions. Most real-time exceptions come from the fixed-unit side of real-time gaming. Games like Close Combat, Ground Control, and Shogun are good examples of real-time games that reward sound tactics." Source B[20] "Point - CounterPoint: Resource Collection vs. Fixed Units" links fixed units (and related features) with RTT. Can both sources now be used with respect to RTT titles?
  2. What if an article were to say something like, "Game XXXX has all that fans could expect in terms of role-playing gameplay." Is it calling the game a role-playing game?
  3. Does a mere mention of the name of the sub-genre constitute it as being distinct from its parent genre? SharkD  Talk  07:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 is the definition of WP:SYNTH.
2 would not be necessary as we could find some source explicitly calling the game an RPG. Further, this is not a good example as many sources use the word "tactics" and "strategy" interchangeably. There is no analogous situation for RPGs.
3 So far I have only seen one source to ever refer to RTT as a subgenre, explicitly. That makes me question the topic's notability. Perhaps the whole article should be merged into Real-time Strategy. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to look at that vg portal classification again. A "C". Reasons have been listed for that grade, why not address those instead of some made up issues. Alastairward (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't be robotic about this stuff. Sometimes all the sources say the same thing. But sometimes the sources conflict, and some outright make mistakes. So we use some kind of basis to figure out which sources we trust. One thing we can't do is make the sources say something that they don't (e.g.: that games never referred to as RTT are somehow RTT). But what's reasonable is to look at alternative names for RTT (e.g.: a source that says "the real-time tactical genre is sometimes also called the tactical wargame genre" -- I'd say "fixed unit subgenre" qualifies as outlining the same subgenre as RTT), and keep those games under the same heading as RTT. For everything else, there has to be some give and take. Sometimes we have to look across the sources to what the heck an RTT is, and say that it makes source X right to call it RTT, and source Y wrong. Usually that's better than being really liberal (any source that mentions RTT makes that game into an RTT) or conservative (anything ambiguous is excluded). ... all that aside, this article shouldn't really be about individual games anyway. It should be about the subgenre. The only time you really need to mention individual games is if you're talking about the history. If you can't find a source that explains why the game was important to the genre's development, then you probably don't need to mention it at all. 99.231.248.190 (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, but Wikipedia's policy on original research says,

If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is what we call original research. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented.

If there aren't many reliable sources talking about this topic, then Wikipedia should not cover it in excessive depth, if at all. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. So just because a few people have claimed this is a subgenre, doesn't necessarily mean we should cover it as so on Wikipedia. I think most of the obvious original research has been removed. There is nothing preventing the information from being re-inserted once reliable sources for it are found. Indeed, secondary sources as you mention would do this article a great service in the future. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anon, "But what's reasonable is to look at alternative names for RTT ... and keep those games under the same heading as RTT", is a blatant plea to use original research. As AzureFury quite rightly says, if the sources aren't there, just don't say it. Alastairward (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are putting words into my mouth. No one is saying that we should add unsourced information or read into the source something that is not there. I'm talking about merging two related topics. If we had an article on "hot" and an article on "warm", and a source that says "hot = warm", we'd put it all under the same heading. We just wouldn't insert our own thoughts. But we'd certainly summarize all the scholarship on hotness and warmth under one heading. It would be absurd to have separate articles for "real-time tactics", for "real-time tactical wargame", and "fixed unit tactical subgenre of RTS". We'd keep it all under one article, no matter what we decide to call it, because we'd be able to find scholarship that equates all those things together, and demonstrates that it's important. 99.231.248.190 (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting we merge other articles into this one, or this article into Real-time Strategy? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying this article is already the product of a merger of ideas. It's not simply a collection of quotes from any reliable article that mentioned "real-time tactics". It's about a subgenre of strategy game that happens to be in real-time and happens to emphasize tactics with a fixed number of units, rather than bigger strategic issues of where to fight. And the sources support that's what it is. 99.231.248.190 (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like the definition of WP:SYNTH to me. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like something we do even in some of our featured articles. Also sounds like you're not here to build a consensus. In which case, why are you here? Homieclown23 (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh, no, that's not something we do in featured articles. See that would be allowing original research, and the policy is called "no original research." Pretty unambiguous! You seem to imply that "build a consensus" means "allow people to do whatever they want with an article that they claim ownership of." Wikipedia is maintained by adherence to guidelines and policies. Wikipedia is not anarchy. It is true that if editors can agree that a rule would interfere with the improvement of the encyclopedia, they can ignore it, but I don't think that is applicable here. Again, I've only ever seen one source ever specifically mention Real-time Tactics as a genre or subgenre. That really says something about the notability of the topic. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Real-time tactics. 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) 00:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More games

[edit]

Should Sydicate be added to the Futuristic section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.47.79.141 (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Real-time_tactics&oldid=1197980491"