Talk:Real-time strategy/Archive 2

Wow. What happened to the article?!
A year ago or something the RTS article was a very interesting and informative piece of work. Now it has been truncated and neutered, probably in the name of "verifiability" etc into something bland and uninteresting, bordering on worthless. Is is now neither encyclopaedic or worthwhile. Good work, everyone who's contributed by deletion rather than refining contents. You know that increasing amounts of editors are giving up on WIkipedia, including the original founders, because of the wikilawyerish miuse of "no original reasearch" etc mantras that can justify any deletion. This aritcle is one casualty of way. Miqademus 11:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a specific date? I would like to take a look at what the article used to look like. SharkD 19:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I have not seen the previous versions, (and don't care about wasting hours browsing into the history) I pretty much agree with the above. A year or two ago ago, I was amazed that the concept of an encyclopedia that anyone can easily edit worked and produced such quality article. At last, becoming real was the utopia of using internet to share the sum of all human knowledge, instead of merely sharing collection of mp3! Turns out it doesn't work after all. It seems that recently, a new breed of people took over themselves to guard wikipedia, relentlessly deleting and neutering any article they could find, especially on topic they have no idea about, by the use of powerwords such as "Not notable!", "Needs source!", "Not NPOV!", "Wikipedia is not!", "Voted for speedy deletion". I've seen perfectly valuable article disappear entirely without a trace, and it hurt me like the negation of the very thing the deleted article was about. It seems that the only measure of notability ever used is "number of google hit" (that work like that, for article you don't like, say google gave as few hit as . Doesn't matter that anyone trying it will actually see a figure of two or three more orders of magnitude.) If anyone use another proof of notability, such as printed newspapers, they'll consider it so dismissable that not even worthy of replying while heading for the delete button. The combination of "No original research" and "Cite source" means it's not anymore about what is true, but who's the most talented at wikiways. I personnaly think both rule should be removed from their golden stand. And that people should not be allowed to delete more than they add, preferably with some hard wired system. EmeraldSword 18:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent commentary. WP:IAR!  Jav43 16:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

More on the topic of that article, WTF, it doesn't even mention Command & Conquer, which got the genre started, while talking about that 1956 game no ones but elderly nerds heard about, but which I feel had similarity to the genre. I mean, if it comes to that, you might as well mention eigtheen century aristrocrats playing chess via mail as the first instance of multiplayer RTS. But most laughable, if not for the cold horror of what's happening to wikipedia dawning on me, is the banner of that article, "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject." WTFOMG? You can't be serious? What are you expecting? "Hello, I'm Mr Smith, I have a degree in RTS scholarship, see my certificate?" or maybe an Electronic Art executive to show up, who of course, will be entirely NPOV? Or perhaps you think a gosu Korean Pro player will be best suited to write that article? No really, please for the love of all things cute, get to earth with a bit of common sense. EmeraldSword 18:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the turn-based strategy article does mention 18th century chess. SharkD 19:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are doing the people who have improved this page a major disservice there EmeraldSword. The page contained a huge amount of opinion, conjecture and unverifiable information - which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, as we have to have it verifiable else the quality of the site drops and no-one trusts it.
 * Command and Conquer is mentioned in the article if you read it.
 * Anyway, if you think it needs improving, improve it. It needs mroe sources, and if there is any more info to add then please add it with sources.-Localzuk(talk) 20:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you guys happy now? I reverted some of the old edits. There really wasn't that much of a difference as far as I could tell. Mostly, there is a bunch of new stuffed squeezed in, causing the flow of the article to break apart. SharkD 20:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * [Edit] Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant that, over time, the article has accumulated tiny bits of text that break apart the good flow the article had at some time in the past. SharkD 22:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy with that - you have just re-instated a huge amount of original research, violating policy and filling the page with opinion. By all means add stuff in, but not at the expense of verifiability. Sorry. -Localzuk(talk) 20:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry Localzuk, but your revert is precisely the problem everyone is complaining about. Nothing in that text was at all "controversial", yet it definitely added to the flow and readability of the article. I can't find any OR, V or any other violations, so instead of reverting again, please point out precisely what you feel is so agreegeous and we'll discuss it here. Maury 22:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, give me a few minutes and I'll go through and explain every problem as there are a great many. You have violated our policies by re-adding it and it is the person who adds its responsibility to source everything to reliable sources... Also, in response to your 'precisely the problem' I will counter that by saying the wholesale addition of unsourced and POV material is precisely the problem which lowers the overall quality of this site - remember, quality not quantity.-Localzuk(talk) 22:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, here you go:


 * Sorry, have to intersperse due to length:


 * It is common for games to be miscategorised as belonging to the real-time strategy genre. According to who?


 * Oh give me a break. The article points out several examples of games that included several bits of RTS-a-like concepts that have been called RTS, even though they do not meet the modern definition. I personally added one, after writing the article in question.


 * Then source it properly.


 * This is partly because real-time strategy is a vague denomination, giving rise to the assumption that all games involving strategy played in real-time are "real-time strategy" games. - This is original research


 * Why?


 * Because it is not based on anything, no sources, no pre-conditions - just a statement which is opinion. Please re-read WP:OR


 * It is also partly due to the fact that the genre is so commonly recognised and well-established that there is a tendency to classify many different types of games within it. - More original research


 * More why? This statement is a truism. And no, I didn't write it.


 * It plainly is I'm afraid. Unless you can back it up it then it is simply the opinion of its author, and as you have re-added it that means you...


 * For instance, SimCity, which is a city-building game, Railroad Tycoon, an economic simulation game, and games of the real-time tactics genre of military simulations are often classified as "real-time strategy" - Often according to who?


 * Reviewers, commonly. I can't count the number of times I've seen the term applied to a game that does not fit the genre as commonly understood. For instance, Close Combat has repeatedly been referred to as a RTS, when it was actually tactical (for one), and didn't have resource collection et all.
 * Bruce Geryk in his article even has to clarify to readers that SimCity does not belong in the RTS category. Why the need for the clarification if the game is never mis-categorized? SharkD 22:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So sources? We need something to base this on - I requested sources that covered this and had no responses. Just going off your own knowledge doesn't count.

A list of sites clasifying it as RTS doesn't cover this
 * '' 2 of these are forums, one is a dead link and the other uses the ~ symbol which means 'roughly'.


 * I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you trying to say "the two provided references no longer work"? Non-working refs implies nothing other than non-working, certainly not OR!


 * What I am saying is that there are 4 sources that do not support the statement. I am not implying this bit is original research, just unsourced.


 * The genre that is today recognized as "real-time strategy" was the result of an extended period of evolution and refinement. Games that today are sometimes perceived as ancestors to the real-time strategy genre were never marketed or designed to fulfill the current criteria. As such designating "early real-time strategy" titles is a problem because such games are being held up to modern standards. The genre initially evolved separately in the UK and North America, afterward gradually creating a unified worldwide tradition. Source?


 * The games in the article. Utopia is an obvious example, the term "real time strategy" does not appear anywhere in the game materials (which are linked in that article).


 * What you have just said is original research. Yes, the content may be true but it needs sources, plain and simple 'result of an extended period of evolution and refinement' who makes that claim? Some may think the opposite, that current RTS is not a refinement. All I am asking for is sources.


 * Some writers list Intellivision's Utopia by Don Daglow (1982) as the first real-time strategy game. Some? One link doesn't prove this. This violates WP:WEASAL


 * Well, how many links would "prove" it then? Two?


 * One, which made the claim. No number of links that make the claim would cover it as it would be synthesis and therefore original research (ie article A says X, article B says X therefore C - this is synthesis).-Localzuk(talk) 23:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This was effectively the opposite of Utopia According to who?


 * Anyone with operant thinking. If one game has two of the three portions of a modern RTS, and the other has the other one portion, that makes them opposites, by definition.
 * One game has strategy but no tactics. The other game has tactics but no strategy. SharkD 22:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it makes what you just said original research. You have to provide an external source.-Localzuk(talk) 23:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Its success encouraged the development of such games as Stronghold (1993), Warcraft (1994), Command & Conquer (1995), Total Annihilation (1997), Age of Empires (1997), and StarCraft (1998); According to who?


 * According to who, WHAT? Are you complaining about "its success"?


 * That it encouraged the development... Have you got sources that the success of a game encouraged the development of the listed games? Otherwise I would say that this is either unsourced or simply opinion based on the release times of each game.-Localzuk(talk) 23:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * these form a core group of real-time strategy games today more or less recognised as "standard". Again, according to who?


 * The definition of RTS as presented in this article is widely agreed upon.


 * Still needs a source I'm afraid.-Localzuk(talk) 23:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 *  The alias "Eyebeam", a member of the original Dune game design team, says of Herzog Zwei: We were all adicted to Herzog Zwei at Westwood. We played for hours on the SEGA. However, Dune was inspired by more than Herzog .. The whole industry was moving to more interactiviity. FTL had Dungeon Master that took the Ultima and Wizardry games to a new level. We were already doing "what if" games like DragonStrike and Eye of the Beholder. At that time it was all about usability, not just about the character or the story. That was the problem with Dune I, it was just Zork with graphics. We wanted to place the player into the environment and let them create their own story. I always felt that Warcraft was a clone of the original Dune. Virgin at that time had a close relationship with Blizzard. But now, having years to reflect upon it, I think it was a common synergy going through the industry. There were probably five or six development teams thinking about the same thing.  Anyway just my thoughts .. from a guy on the original Dune design team.  - Forums are not acceptable sources as verifiability is not guarenteed.


 * So what? Even if this quote is in error, which I have no reason to believe, so? What fact do you believe is controversial and is no longer being supported to the point that it would have to be removed?


 * It doesn't have to be controversial, it simply has to be sourced properly is all. Please re-read the verifiability policy.-Localzuk(talk) 23:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Because of the generally faster-paced nature (and in some cases a smaller learning curve), real-time strategy games have surpassed the popularity of turn-based strategy computer games. According to who?


 * Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the industry? Or even less? Are you seriously suggesting you consider this comment to be controversial? Are you really sure you understand the policies you are quoting here?


 * That would be original reasearch if it was based on 'passing knowledge'. We need a source. I am challenging it so it needs a source.-Localzuk(talk) 23:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A presently less common criticism is to regard real-time strategy games as "cheap imitations" of turn-based strategy games, arguing that real-time strategy games had a tendency to devolve into "clickfests", in which the player who was faster with the mouse generally won, because they could give orders to their units at a faster rate. According to who?


 * This one, I don't know. Given the paucity of RTS's recently, it's likely no longer true even if it was.


 * So it shouldn't be included then.-Localzuk(talk) 23:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The common retort is that micromanagement involves not just fast clicking but also the ability to make sound tactical decisions under time pressure. Common? Source?
 * The "clickfest" argument is also often voiced alongside a "button babysitting" criticism which pointed out that a great deal of game time, especially in earlier titles, is spent either waiting and watching for the next time a production button could be clicked, or rapidly alternating between different units and buildings, clicking their respective button. Same... Source?
 * This criticism has generally been addressed by improving the game interfaces. Source?
 * The GameSpot article makes some mention of how the interface improved usabilty by reducing the need to return to units and click on them. SharkD 03:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The 'Response to criticism: gameplay adjustments' section contains not a single source and is filled with opinion, weasal words, and also duplicates information from the section above.


 * These problems were all addressed when I went through the article a while back. The article has been tagged as needing sources for almost a year and many of these issues were individually tagged as needing sources. Their reintroduction simply ignores our policies and ignores the time I put in to try and reduce the amount of opinion in this article.-Localzuk(talk) 22:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, sorry for mixing my comments in, but I didn't want to "duplicate and quote" all over. I will conclude by stating that in my opinion many of the complaints you outline above strike me as a missaplication of OR and V. These guidelines and policies are meant to weed out controversial statements from commonly understood reality. That RTS's have certain features, ones that are outlined well in the article, certainly falls into the latter category. That other games have been called RTSs is also painfully obvious. Remember, if someone says "the sun will rise in the east" that is NOT OR nor does it require V. If they say "the sun will rise in the west" then it is OR and you need V. That is why these policies exist, not as a tool to remove any content that doesn't have refs on every sentence. Misapplying these rules can be extremely annoying to readers and editors alike. And that you did so with a "I think you're wrong, so I'm reverting" and then talks about "our rules" certainly doesn't help matters. Maury 22:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I went through and gave my reasons a while back regarding sources. Leaving an article in such a poor state as this is a bad thing and should not be acceptable.-Localzuk(talk) 23:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, give me a few minutes and I'll go through and explain every problem as there are a great many.
 * Oh, joy. Maury 22:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What is that supposed to mean? Am I not supposed to defend my earlier removal of this unsourced information? I'll point out that policy is on my side on this issue - we are trying to improve the overall quality of this site after several years of brain-dumping that got it to the current state of many unverifiable facts being included. These items are not cited and therefore shouldn't be here - a request was made almost a year ago for sources and nothing came of it. Even Jimmy Wales supports the removal of this sort of info There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons-Localzuk(talk) 22:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You were supposed to outline your reasons before you reverted. By doing so afterward you are creating extra toil for us. Also, the information you removed is neither random nor speculation: it is obvious and the consensus. SharkD 23:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? That isn't how things work on this site. People do things and then discuss if questioned. WP:BOLD says be bold, and I was not being reckless by following policy, after having asked for sources.-Localzuk(talk) 23:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR. That stuff that Localzuk is removing, saying it's "unsourced" and "original research"... it's good information. It seems it is generally recognized as true. Here, verifiability is getting in the way of making a good encyclopedia. This is when we cite WP:IAR. I suggest making the encyclopedia better rather than blindly accepting a rigid adherence to formulaic rules. Jav43 16:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What? We should ignore all the policies to allow original research? One of the five pillars of the site? Wow, that is a good use of the policy! Fine, leave unsourced and unverifiable information in the page, information that is in some places simply opinion. I am starting to see that many people don't think that verifiability is that important on this site so am wondering why I am bothering.-Localzuk(talk) 08:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In cases where the information is uncontroversial, yet there are no citations, I think it is sufficient to add tags. SharkD 02:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the disappearing act, I caught a cold on thrusday and I'm just getting back into wiki-ing again.

SharkD, I disagree, uncontroversial information does not even need a cite needed. The citation policy is very clear on this, it's in the very first paragraph of [|V] for instance. The rules on NPOV, OR and V were written to help wiki editors remove material that is controversial. And by controversial it doesn't mean "a topic of discussion", it means "unlikely to be true". For instance, when someone adds material to the article on the Apollo missions claiming they were a hoax set up by the US to distract attention from Viet Nam, we call that OR and remove it. Not because it's OR, but because it's bologna. THAT'S when you demand V and invoke OR.

But that's just not the case here. I think the thread here is pretty clear that the majority of us consider the material in question to fall into the "obviously close to true" end of the spectrum, and that as a result V and OR are being misapplied. That appears to be the bone of Localzuk's contention (I haven't seen any really strong disagreement about the actual material itself). So then we are faced with a difference of opinion, one that transcends the material in question and delves into meta-issues. But given that the difference in opinion is about the interpretation of the rules, it needs to be pointed out that invoking those rules based on one person's interpretation (or another) is the very definition of POV.

And how do we avoid POV issues on the wiki? As SharkD pointed out, the wiki is all about reaching consensus. I believe there is a clear consensus to keep the material. So don't be so upset Localzuk (if you are), if nothing else you've simply invoked the very process that makes the wiki such a wonderful experiment!

Maury 22:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, not upset - I just believe that you are misinterpretting the WP:NOR and WP:V policy.-Localzuk(talk) 23:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And I believe you are misinterpretting them. Precisely why we're all here. Maury 15:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I feel I need to say something here, as it concerns a subject that I love and another one of those for which I feel the quality of the article is threatened because of overly strict interpretations of policies. Localzuk, I think you are taking the interpretation of this policy too far. While certainly some of your fears are justified, and there are certainly some things that need to be sourced, for the most part I think you're just needlessly "rule-thumping" (heh, new term). A lot of the things you voiced concerns about above are common knowledge of anybody who knows much of anything about the PC game industry. The only argument you came up was that "it's not sourced, we need to prove it." You didn't voice any concerns about the content directly, you're just one of an ever-growing breed of "wikitators" who freak out at the sight of a single unsourced statement. WP:IAR was created for a reason. If a strict interpretation of the rules gets in the way of improving the article, ignore them! Open debate (as is happening now...sort of, it's more of an "I'm right, you're wrong" type of thing) can commence from there. Every unsourced statement should be taken at face value and evaluated separately, not lumped into the same group as every other unsourced statement. bob rulz 05:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, there's quite some things going on in this discussion: Localzuk: "we are trying to improve the overall quality of this site after several years of brain-dumping that got it to the current state ... WP:BOLD says be bold" - you mean you and other hard-line interpretors wikilawyering to remove anything not compatible with your personal preferences? The current state of wikipedia is that more and more editors, good editors, are throwing their hands up and leaving wikipedia in disgust over the intolerant, myopic and anal butchering and warring (sorry, "editing") going on. Good intentions or not, fine content is being removed and previously informative articles are neutered. And your edits weren't bold, they were articleocidal and megalomaniac. In responmse to Localzuk, some editors point out "the information you removed is neither random nor speculation: it is obvious and the consensus" (Jav43), "That stuff that Localzuk is removing, saying it's "unsourced" and "original research"... it's good information. It seems it is generally recognized as true.  Here, verifiability is getting in the way of making a good encyclopedia. ... uncontroversial information does not even need a cite needed" (SharkD), "the wiki is all about reaching consensus. I believe there is a clear consensus to keep the material." (Maury), and "Localzuk, I think you are taking the interpretation of this policy too far. ... for the most part I think you're just needlessly 'rule-thumping'. A lot of the things you voiced concerns about above are common knowledge of anybody who knows much of anything about the PC game industry." (bob rulz). Thus, the consensus would indicate, none of the material previously and arbitrarily (if ostensibly justified by a insufferably harsh interpretation and religeously literal attitude toward wikiprinciples) removed from the article were bad: they weren't controversial, uninformative, or esoteric little-known knowledge, and removing it only served to make Wikipedia a worse place. It made me principally give up on this place, so yes, every little article counts. Wikiprinciples are principles, intended to help and guide, they are not laws, even if taken as such by many. The purpose of WP is to document information about virtually everything. By throwing around accusations of "original research" and "verifiability" illustrated exactly the points of the first post of this section, and why WP is fundamentally flawed. It is like programming: good programmers will make good code without needing elaborate framework or methodologies while bad programmers will always make horrible code; good editors will always contribute to improving articles, bad editors can lean on principles, rules and regulations to no end and still only succeed in undermining and destroying. The problem is that the bad editors will rarely, if ever, see or realise what they're doing. Miqademus 10:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well thank you Miqademus for indirectly calling me a bad editor. The thousands of hours of work I have put in on this site was pointless as it was by a bad editor. It doesn't matter that dozens of articles are in a much better state now than they were before I edited them - I stick to the rules, so I must be a bad editor...
 * The issue is that simply filling a page with 'common knowledge' which is actually only common within that community is not improving the article. Unless it is properly sourced, how do they know it is true? Especially when the article is plastered with 'unverified', 'citation needed' etc...
 * I feel that people are still going for quantity rather than quality, which is a bad thing. We are not here simply to document everything, we are here to document everything and source it properly. Until this mindset is widespread, the general quality of the site will not improve and it will continue to receive a general feeling of mistrust from the academic world and others. Why is it generally seen as a bad thing to include WP as a source in an academic paper? Because it is unsourced and edited by random people who may simply be adding incorrect information.
 * So, whilst you may think the policies are holding articles back - it is the policies that are actually improving the site.-Localzuk(talk) 19:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't take this as an insult, Localzuk. Wikipedia will never be citable in academic journals.  It is and will be used for basic background information.  WP:IAR is a rule like any other, with just as much credence as any other, and should be followed as such:  when rules get in the way of a good encyclopedia, we ignore them.  If that means ignoring WP:IAR, so be it.  Working on this project is a question of using good judgment to determine what makes a good article.  Judgment will be stronger and more accurate than a fixed set of rote rules any day -- at least until we have some type of true AI come along ;).  Jav43 19:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Localzuk, for again not directly addressing the problems and lumping everything into the same category. Miqademus, your argument was good and expresses my thoughts very well, but you really could've done without the indirect personal attack at the end. Finally, "common knowledge" and "consensus" are reliable. Not a lot of the content you have addressed is contoroversial or questioned. Yes, sourcing is great. However, we don't need to go overboard with this. Wikipedia has become so self-obsessed with trying to please the academic community that they think that every single piece of knowledge has to be sourced. Of course common knowledge of video games is only going to be known by people who know about video games; that's why we're here to tell people who don't know! bob rulz 05:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, digging up this old topic, I will finally reply to the above.
 * Now, you state 'of course common knowlege of video games is only going to be known by people who know about video games' - in which case, someone, somewhere will have written about it. That is my point. If it is so common (and I don't mean common like 'water is wet' common), then a third party source will have discussed it somewhere. As it stands, all of the above things I pointed out in June were valid problems with the article - as none of them can be confirmed. The thing about me not having a problem with the actual content, just its verifiability is true for some of it, but a good portion of it simply is opinion of whoever wrote it.-Localzuk(talk) 10:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Narrow definition of the genre
This article presents the reader with a fairly narrow definition of what an RTS is. Sure, it's the most commonly agreed upon one, but there are others. Basically, this article only includes games descended from Dune II--e.g., games that use the "harvest, build, conquer" model (to quote Bruce Geryk). However, this definition doesn't take into account games like Europa Universalis that don't have a stylized production economy as well as any tactical combat. The real-time tactics article focuses more on the differences between "strategy" and "tactics" when defining the genres. Games with things like diplomacy and logistics are "strategy" games, and games with unit vs. unit combat are "tactics" games. Games, such as X-COM, can fit into both a "strategy" and a "tactics" category. By this definition, what people commonly call "real-time strategy" would be better called "stylized real-time strategy/tactics hybrids". AFAIK this might be original research; but if sources can be found, I believe some mention of this should be made. SharkD 03:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. Something like SimCity would strictly be real-time strategy, if you parse the term word-by-word:  it is in real-time and it is strategic.  It doesn't fit, though:  it's in the genre of empire-building games.  The "known" or "used" definition of RTS is limited to such as you say:  games where combat-based war plays an important role.  (The original Civilization, if it was real-time, would be RTS; SimCity, although it is real-time and strategic, is not.)  Jav43 16:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I found a source which discusses the issue in part. SharkD 02:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I reworded the introductory section. Hopefully, it explains the situation better. The introductory section also now uses less strong language when discussing exceptions to the popular definition. SharkD 16:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The narrow definition also doesn't account for games like X-COM and Jagged Alliance 2. These games have a real-time strategy component as well as a [edit: separate] turn-based tactical component. SharkD 06:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Game is listed in wrong genre
This article lists Legionnaire (computer game) as an RTS when, according to its description, it would be more accurately described as an early example of RTT (real-time tactics). SharkD 19:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Turn-based vs. real-time
The turn-based strategy article has a short section on turn-based vs. real-time gameplay. Maybe that section should be mentioned in this article? SharkD 02:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I copied the the text to the Gameplay section. I wrote the TBvsRT stuff myself, so it's OK (by me) to simply copy it. SharkD 16:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)