Talk:XCOM: Enemy Unknown

Platform(s)?

Has anybody found out what platform(s) this game will be coming out for? Frohike14 (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This game and many others need to be available individually. It makes no sense to require an internet connection (to steam in this case) for an offline game. Had I known it required this I would not have purchased the game. 32.212.104.223 (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

There is an optionable online, but other then that I have it on PS3, and I know for a fact it is on X-Box and PC Benners88 (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The game is listed as being available on OS X with a port by Feral Interactive, however it is not sold on Steam, nor it's DLC for anything other than Linux and Microsoft Windows. Should this be noted? Was it available on Steam on release and has changed since? Cheers, 60.225.129.14 (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Genres - not RTS, not RPG

I'm going to remove references to the game being an RTS or an RPG. The sources cited for these statements (http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/01/24/dissecting-a-classic-how-to-modernize-x-com.aspx for RTS, http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/01/20/sid-meier-talks-xcom-enemy-unknown.aspx for RPG) do not support those assertions. The strategy element is discussed by the lead designer in the first interview at about 5:45 and "real-time" is not mentioned. Furthermore, this source http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/01/09/first-screens-and-details-of-xcom-enemy-unknown.aspx says "So this is some kind of RTS?" to which the answer is "No". The RPG elements are discussed very briefly in the second interview, but Sid Meier does not assert that the game is an RPG, just that they hope it will appeal to RPG fans because it bears some resemblance to an RPG, which is an important distinction. If there is any actual evidence that the game has RTS or RPG features, then please do share it - but I've not been able to find any so I feel comfortable saying that given the current evidence, including it in the article is misleading. --FangXianfu (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy on balance changing the reference in the header to the game being an RPG to calling it a TRPG to match the sidebar, rather than removing the statement all together. Reading the TRPG article, calling it that is supported by the sources. --FangXianfu (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to add strategy video game to the title and sidebar to replace RTS. It does have strategic elements, it's the "real-time" part that's incorrect. --20:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FangXianfu (talk • contribs)

Of course it's not RTS, but the strategy is not turn based neither - it's pretty much like the original UFO. I think the tactical RPG elements are about how there are these few individual soldiers who get customized, which is pretty much like in (also mentioned) Silent Storm or Valkyria Chronicles. --Niemti (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly! Sorry for taking such a circuitous route in my comments above ;) I think it's at an accurate genre list now - that is, turn-based tactics, for the combat, tactical rpg, for the squad development between missions, and strategy (but not TBS or RTS specifically) for the resource management. Definitely better than saying RTS, TBT and RPG all at once! --FangXianfu (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

MERGE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xcom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.168.88 (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

They're different games, developed by different studios. From this article: " Unlike the previously announced XCOM by 2K Marin..." So no, no merge. --FangXianfu (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

ADHD --Niemti (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Refs are broken

Only 20 of them display for some reason. --Niemti (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I verified. Yep, broke. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 23:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it was just a missing } from the end of a cite web template. --FangXianfu (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Which was your fault. --Niemti (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup, my bad! --FangXianfu (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Play Magazine review score reference

I just restored the source for the Play Magazine review score - it was replaced with a CN template. The source for the score is this page[1] (name=RevPlayMag in the article). Please don't remove the citation again - the score is right at the bottom of the copy, in the same (quite small) font as the section headings. Thanks! --FangXianfu (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Aggregators in copy of reception section

These edits refer: [2] [3]

I don't think there's any virtue in merely repeating content in the copy that's already in the vg reviews template. If there was more to say about the scores - an interesting quote, something to tie the scores into a theme, anything really - then that would be okay, but simply repeating the same stuff defies the point of having the vg reviews sidebar in the first place. Also, repeating it just means it has to be maintained in two places. Hence, I've removed the repetition. --FangXianfu (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:XCOM: Enemy Unknown/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 03:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to do a summary fail on this nomination, as is permitted in the GAN guidelines.

This should not have been nominated at GAN while there is a valid "Needs Expansion" tag on one of the sections. The article is incomplete at this stage, and therefore fails criteria 3a.

Please refile after an expand the section has been made. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Tone section

I've felt for some time like the Plot section needs something about the game's atmosphere as well as the facts of what happens, because the actual plot missions and research are only a tiny part of the experience of playing the game, in contrast to lots of other games. A lot of previews have talked about how the game has a bleak atmosphere, putting the weight of command on the shoulders of the player, not having the advisors ever imply the commander might be making the wrong decision when he, say, lets a country leave the project. I've just put a first stab into getting a summary of that down, but I'm sure it could use improvement! --FangXianfu (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That stuff belongs in gameplay (where it is now). --Niemti (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Needs more nominations/awards

It's that time of the year already. --Niemti (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:XCOM: Enemy Unknown/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 19:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Niemti, I'll be glad to do this review. As it happens, I was thinking of buying this one next week. As before, I'll note any initial issues here that I can't immediately fix, and then go to the checklist. Thanks for all your work. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Pass as GA

I'm happy to say that I don't see any issues that need addressing in this article, and can recommend it be listed as a GA without any further work. I'll do the formal checklist in a moment to make sure there's nothing I'm missing. I've done some minor copyediting, however, so please glance over my edits to make sure there's nothing I mis-corrected. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is good, spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass-- nice work on this one.

Guess the dev section needs to be rewritten

www.polygon.com/features/2013/1/31/3928710/making-of-xcoms-jake-solomon-firaxis-sid-meier --Niemti (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Split/disambiguation

I thought I disagreed at first, but according to the linked article Enemy Within is apparently going to be a standalone game at least on the console versions. If it's a standalone game for at least one platform I agree that qualify it for it's own wiki article. - 175.144.214.162 (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Enemy Within release date

I noticed the release date for Enemy Within is listed here as being the 15th of November, I'm unsure as to whether this is also being released as a stand-alone game and whether this is the date of release for that version, but I just grabbed a pre-order of the DLC version on my copy of Steam and it repeatedly lists the release date as the 12th, not the 15th. Is this perhaps just two different dates of release for two different releases perhaps? Just thought maybe if someone could confirm this isn't just Steam bugging out then the article could be edited to reflect that date. Here's the page I'm referring to http://store.steampowered.com/app/225340/ it seems correct as far as I can tell.Charos (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Runner-up for iPad GOTY

Apple chose XCOM as a runner-up for its iPad game of the year.[4] I didn't add it to the article since I'm not sure if it's notable enough for this game. --Mika1h (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Setting

My esteemed colleague, Bursting Red, added several categories to this article, such as Category: Video games set in the United States, Category: Video games set in Brazil and pretty much every other country where a mission can take place (e.g. Germany, United Kingdom, Japan, etc.). While I don't deny missions can take place in any of these areas, I reject the notion that this game is "set" in any of these areas. The mission "locations" are all very generic and are used interchangeably. There is nothing location- or country-specific about any of them (e.g. one location is a bridge, another a small strip mall, etc.). And in the game, the player may visit any or all of them, not just one of them. The setting for the game is Earth, not just one or a few countries.

This is not a big deal to me, but I wanted to discuss here so we can come to a consensus. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe not all of them, but the ones where your base can be, as well as Canada (SIte Recon, EW Expansion), China (Slingshot DLC), France (Progeny, EW Expansion) and Germany (Tutorial) should be put on as those locations are clear as day on their maps...Especially the first 2 Slingshot Maps. --Ditto51 (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I Agree with Ditto51. --Bursting Red (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I would split the difference. Base locations are interchangeable, but for locations that have specialized events, I would be more open. But there's really no difference gameplay-wise between having base in Germany vs. the United States, other than a little money or a few scientists or engineers. There is no local flavor added to the base depending on where it is. It's always a generic underground location. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Torchiest hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned: "there's really no difference gameplay-wise between having base in Germany vs. the United States" etc. "There is no local flavor added to the base depending on where it is." All the locations are very generic. There's nothing different about a base located in China vs. the US; they look the same. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The areas that are obvious, like the Tutorial and Germany, or Slingshot and China should still be on the page --Ditto51 (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not set in countries, it's set on on tactical maps that randomly happen to be attached to few countries on the globe map. The only real exception is stuff like the intro mission in Germany. --Niemti (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. That being said, I don't have a problem with the current group of settings categories now present in the article. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Addiction

The page spoke about 'the addictiveness' of the game, and quoting reviews for talking about 'how addictive it can be for the player'.

I think this is an unfortunate choice of words. I am aware that video game reviews use 'addictiveness' as a form of praise for games, and talk about their 'addiction' to a game only half in jest. In everyday language, however, addiction has very different connotations, and I think it is best to avoid describing a game as being 'addictive for the player'.

If there actually is a (sourced and relevant) basis for discussing whether XCOM can lead to actual addiction problems, this issue deserves more than a passing reference.

For that reason, I have removed the two references to addiction. I have not touched the quotes, since I don't consider these problematic (Quoting a reviewer describing a game as addictive is quite different from referring to reviews claiming the game is addictive. The former is within the context and language of a review, the latter implies that the reviewer is referring to actual addiction).

Dulkal (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with this edit. No less than three sources call the game addictive in one way or another, and it's accurate to summarize so many similar comments. Plenty of words have multiple meanings or senses, and this is such a case. Merriam-Webster has two definitions for addictive:

1. causing a strong and harmful need to regularly have or do something
2. very enjoyable in a way that makes you want to do or have something again

The number of games described as addictive is vast. The term is widely understood and accepted in the second sense in the video game industry. We report what the sources say, and we are not censored for fear of causing offense. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Torchiest here. "Addictive" does have two meanings and it's clear we're referring to the second version. Plus, we're just reporting what the reliable sources say. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Cover art homage

There seems to be an edit-war going on over describing the cover as an homage to Laser Squad. While I believe it to be true (I mean just look at it!) It would be helpful if we had a source that said so. At the moment though I'm not able to find any sources that are even remotely reliable that say so. Is anyone aware of any potential source for this? — Strongjam (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, I am going to remove it from the edit box again and it shouldn't be added back without a source... It's been challenged on verifiability grounds and the IP editor restoring it must provide a source first. -- ferret (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on XCOM: Enemy Unknown. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121103113149/http://www.ugo.com/games/xcom-enemy-unknown-features to http://www.ugo.com/games/xcom-enemy-unknown-features
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121015084101/http://www.gamespot.com:80/xcom-enemy-unknown/reviews/xcom-enemy-unknown-review-6397898/ to http://www.gamespot.com/xcom-enemy-unknown/reviews/xcom-enemy-unknown-review-6397898/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140626041847/http://gamestar.ru:80/english/julian_gollop_inteview_in_english.html to http://gamestar.ru/english/julian_gollop_inteview_in_english.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Moddability

Under the "Gameplay" section, it's falsely stated that the game would support modding, referencing an article from before release. Following that through leads to another article suggesting mod tools may be released after release of the main game. As it turns out, no such tools were ever released and the game is notoriously difficult to mod: just read about development of the popular Long War mod, made by hex-editing the original under the tight constraint that the size of functions could not be altered. That's definitely not easy moddability. As a result, I've removed that line and added words to that effect along with a link to the long war wikipedia page and a Reddit post by the devs stating how hard it was to mod the game.

82.0.215.94 (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Reddit is not a reliable source. Even if difficult, the article simply claims modability, not easy modability. -- ferret (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

It claims that modding tools would be released for the game. Moddability is having those modding tools, or something like steam workshop, not having to crack it open against all kinds of countermeasures. You might as well claim that the newest Sim City offered offline play, because despite the always online DRM it was possible to hack away the DRM. And that same Reddit post was quoted on Long War (mod), so if you want to go and remove that source, please do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_War_(mod)#cite_note-:0-12. It's a post by the developers of the mod, not just some random user. (Also this is my account, I wasn't signed in before for some reason) Jaredjeya (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I should also add that I found a second, more recent source agreeing with me. http://www.pcgamer.com/the-best-thing-about-xcom-2-may-be-how-moddable-it-will-be/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredjeya (talk • contribs) 02:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on XCOM: Enemy Unknown. 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:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Bl50ffK0?url=http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/2012/09/13/xcom-enemy-unknown-preview-hands-on-with-the-near-finished-game/ to http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/2012/09/13/xcom-enemy-unknown-preview-hands-on-with-the-near-finished-game/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012234013/http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/review/xcom-enemy-unknown-ps3-review-middle-management-has-never-been-so-badass/ to http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/review/xcom-enemy-unknown-ps3-review-middle-management-has-never-been-so-badass/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

New-ish release

• Released on GoG.com last June as the "Complete Pack" with three DLCs; might be worth mentioning (Steam apparently has a similarly named pack).  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

GA Assessment

XCOM: Enemy Unknown

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

(non-admin closure) Result: Delisted. A lack of response (as well as lack of article improvement) meant that essentially no-one was interested in improving the article, so this GA review attracted little-to-no attention; a new revamp from an experienced user is a recommended action to the article. Iias!:,,.:yyI 04:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I have listed the article for GAR because I think it fails 1a and 3a. The article is extremely outdated and the entire reception section is a quote farm. While it is fine for a video game article to be promoted to GA merely months after release, Enemy Unknown happens to be an extremely influential title that has brought a new leash of life to a dying game genre. The article's current state, especially the outdated development section which does not incorporate long feature articles like these ones ([5][6][7][8]) did it no justice. pinging @SNAAAAKE!! and Khazar2:, the original contributor and GA reviewer. OceanHok (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@OceanHok: just a heads-up for the future: GARs should be located in the talk/GA space. I did the page move for you. Also SNAAAAKE!! is CBANned and Khazar2 is retired, so I wouldn't expect them to respond. JOEBRO64 18:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe it's never a new thing for articles about recent things to be promoted to GA or FA status months after the initial release date, but that comes with the consequence of ignoring what happens afterward, the adforementioned influence. New entertainment products get released, have their Wikipedia articles go through the GAN/FAC process months later, but then hardly recieve updates. Articles about old games like JimmyBlackwing's Command & Conquer (1995 video game) do well about the several-years-long aftermath of the game, including significant influence. The UFO: Enemy Unknown article, a failed GAN from 2012, had a well-developed Legacy section for 2012, however it doesn't pay enough attention to its difficult sequel X-COM: Terror from the Deep and its quality should be upgraded too. Otherwise it's seemingly a mostly fine section, but this XCOM one lacks such a thing, and needs it badly. I'm generally not interested in newer games like XCOM: Enemy Unknown, but I'm surprised that they have significantly influenced the games we have on store shelves (and digital ones) today. I guess even people like SNAAAAKE!! turn this into a GA so soon because it's a recent item, but forget about the extreme influence afterward. If this article were not promoted to GA status until 2020, then the development and legacy sections would appear very healthy. «“I'm Aya Syameimaru!”I„文々。新聞“I„userbako”» 01:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

It's been less than two months since my first comment here and little was done to improve the article, we need more wiki-work force. «Iias!:,,.:usbkI» 14:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Delist - Its safe to say that this article needs a revamp. Because of that it should be delisted. GamerPro64 05:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Delist - I guess so. «Iias!:,,.:usbkI» 12:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Now no-one's edited this article since my previous comment in this page. Iias!:,,.:yyI 01:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess nobody's going to rewrite the article until maybe after I end this GA review. Iias!:,,.:yyI 04:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:XCOM: Enemy Unknown/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: A412 (talk · contribs) 18:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll do this one. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@OceanHok: Done with a first pass. It's looking good, the wall of changes is more reflective of the article length than its quality. I've tried to distinguish things that aren't part of the GA criteria or are personal preference, but feel free to push back on anything. Ping me for another look when ready. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

References

As of this revision.

Spotcheck

• [1] - Checks out.
• [6] - Checks out.
• [11] - Is "the Heavy class has area-of-effect abilities" a good summary of the source here? I'm guessing you're referring to rocket launchers being described as "have a large splash radius", but it seems like a picked-out detail.
• [16] - Checks out.
• [21] - Source says "Enemy Unknown allows players to deploy satellites that serve the same purpose", but doesn't mention positioning them over territories?
• [26] - Checks out.
• [31] - Checks out.
• [36] - Checks out.
• [41] - Checks out.
• [46] - Checks out.
• [51] - Checks out.
• [56] - I'm not sure where this source either discusses "premium" or in-app purchases.
• [61] - Checks out.
• [66] - Checks out, although this doesn't appear to verify anything [65] doesn't
• [71] - Checks out.
• [76] - "Commonly" seems like synth/editorializing here, unless a source said that this opinion was common.
• [81] - Checks out.
• [86] - Checks out.
• [91] - Checks out.
• [96] - Checks out.
• [101] - Could we use a post-release source to source the release date?

RS / formatting

• I think [10] and [20] are the same source, and additionally should be cited to Gamasutra as it predates the rename per WP:VG/S.
• [30] is a different source, but same comment about Gamasutra/GD.
• Not technically required, but [8], [24], [25], [47], [48], [90], and [91] have authors that aren't in the ref
• [90] should be marked dead (maybe just run IABot?)
• Everything else checks out.

CV

Earwig is clean besides quotes.

OR

Nothing uncited.

Broadness / focus

I think everything is covered and all expected sections are there. Optional-non-GA-criteria-comment: I wonder if the PC Gamer comment in the first paragraph of reception could be pulled to a Legacy section, if there's other sources that have been written on this topic (it feels like there should be?)

Neutral

Checks out.

Stable

Checks out.

Images

• Infobox: Checks out.
• Gameplay: Checks out. Personal preference thing: It'd be nice to specify that it's a screenshot of the tactical / mission part.
• Sid: Checks out.

Lead

• First paragraph
  • is a "reimagined" version of the 1994 strategy game X-COM: UFO Defense—which is also known as UFO: Enemy Unknown—and a reboot of MicroProse's 1990s series X-COM. - There's a lot of info being presented here, and I'm not sure it all needs to be in the first sentence. Isn't X-COM: UFO Defense part of that earlier series? Additionally, the specific term "reboot" only appears in the lead and the navbox; the second phrase here doesn't appear to be reflected in the Development section.
  • XCOM: Enemy Unknown' -> XCOM: Enemy Unknown
• Second paragraph
  • The game was initially envisioned as an exact remake of the 1994 game but the developers improved gameplay mechanics and introduced improvements to modernize the franchise for a new audience - introduced improvements is vague and partially redundant to improved gameplay mechanics, I'd suggest introduced improvements to gameplay and other systems, or even better if we could be more specific on what was improved besides gameplay.
  • The game uses procedural generation for enemy placement and the development team handcrafted maps in the game. The first part of the sentence feels out of place as a game detail in a paragraph mostly about development.
• Third paragraph
  • Is Windows PC a common term? I think we usually use Windows or Microsoft Windows.
  • In November 2013, Firaxis released an expansion pack called XCOM: Enemy Within and a sequel called XCOM 2 was released in 2016 - Sentence is a bit awkward because the two parts are structurally different, I'd suggest Firaxis released an expansion pack called XCOM: Enemy Within in November 2013 and a sequel called XCOM 2 in 2016 or An expansion pack called XCOM: Enemy Within was released in November 2013 and a sequel called XCOM 2 was released in 2016.

Gameplay

• First paragraph
  • Should turn-based tactics be linked instead of turn-based strategy?
  • Optional: Seems like there's a missing sentence here that transitions the summary of the game into the discussion about maps and levels, along the lines of "The game's single-player mode is a campaign consisting of a series of randomly generated missions."
• Second paragraph
  • Unlike enemy placement, map layouts are not randomly generated. Map selection, with the exception of several quests in the main campaign, is also random. - I'm not sure what's random and what's not about the maps after reading this.
    • Most missions in the campaign occur on maps randomly selected from a handcrafted set; enemies are then randomly placed on these maps. Is this clearer?
  • There is also an "ironman mode", which limits the player to one save. - Is "ironman mode" one of the difficulties?
  • Suggestion: I would move this multiplayer section to the bottom of gameplay. Then the perks are referenced after they're introduced, and the description of single-player elements isn't broken up.
  • single-player perk is a sea of blue.
• Third paragraph
  • Each squad member can perform a limited number of actions before the artificial intelligence-controlled enemy in single-player mode takes its turn. Soldiers can be instructed to move, attack or both, depending on their available action points. - Optional suggestion, as I think it makes it clearer that the player takes their turn all at once: On the player's turn, each squad member can perform a limited number of actions. After all soldiers have performed actions, the artificial intelligence-controlled enemy in single-player mode takes its turn., and then move the part about moving and attacking into the next sentence with all the other abilities.
  • the amount of damage they will incur - I think incur has the opposite meaning, deal seems like the correct word.
  • A full cover is indicated by a blue full icon and a half cover is indicated by a blue half icon -> Full cover is indicated by a filled blue icon and half cover is indicated by a half-filled blue icon
  • Players will sustain injuries from attacks due to the lack of defense - Couple issues here: The player isn't represented in missions, so I think it should be that the soldiers are sustaining injuries. Do units not take damage / sustain injuries when in cover?
• Fourth paragraph
  • As soldiers earn promotions, for each rank they gain, players can select one out of two perks - Can this be grouped with the sentence about gaining experience and promotions?
  • Soldiers can experience panic during a mission -> Soldiers can panic during a mission
• Fifth paragraph
  • yields additional bonus unlockings -> unlocks additional rewards
  • This influences the panic level of XCOM's member nations - what does this refer to? I'd suggest Which situations the player decides to respond to influences the panic level of XCOM's member nations: responding in an area decreases panic while ignoring an area causes a rise in panic and potential for the nation to pull out of XCOM.

Plot

• Optional general comment: This section has a lot of paragraph breaks. Consider combining some of the paragraphs.
• First paragraph
  • most-elite -> most elite
  • Consider linking extraterrestrial, technological supremacy
• Second paragraph
  • Consider linking mind control
• Sixth paragraph
  • Consider linking low Earth orbit
  • most-powerful -> most powerful

Development

• First paragraph
  • Enemy Unknown was the first title Firaxis Games developed that does not to feature the name of Sid Meier -> Enemy Unknown was the first title Firaxis Games developed that did not feature the name of Sid Meier
  • who was the director of creative development but was not directly involved in the game's development - What does this mean? Isn't being the director being involved?
• Second paragraph
  • In 2003, Solomon was given six months to lead a team and develop a prototype for an XCOM game in 2003 - Drop one instance of in 2003.
  • In this early demo, which uses an extensive inventory-management system, players explore a large, open area and eliminate alien threats - For this, and the sentence in the next paragraph about prototypes, I can see the argument to use present tense, but they stick out a lot in the otherwise entirely past-tense section.
• Third paragraph
  • The programming team, who deemed the task impossible due to time constraints and the restraints of Unreal Engine 3 rejected his desire to include procedurally generated maps - comma between 3 and rejected
  • abandoning materials they had develop -> abandoning materials they had developed
• Fourth paragraph
  • factors of both of which were altered, such as the presence of height advantages or covers, or whether AI was flanking them -> which were altered based on factors such as height advantage, cover, or being flanked
  • Gameplay was changed - very vague. Does the source say anything specific?
  • The game limited the maximum squad size to six - While this is probably also true, did you mean to say that The developers limited the maximum squad size to six?
• Fifth paragraph
  • Optional comment: paragraph is quite quote-heavy. Some of the one-word quotes probably don't need to be actual quotes.
  • franchises' major pillars -> franchise's major pillars
  • The game was intended to be challenging - Add a comma so that the ref can go after it, or move the ref to the end of the sentence, in either case because of WP:REFPUNCT.
  • Consider linking permanent death
• Seventh paragraph
  • Again, I think it would be less jarring to use consistent past tense.
  • and believed the only way to achieve this is -> and believed the only way to achieve this was
  • Tabletop games inspired the multiplayer mod - Was multiplayer a mod, or did you mean to write mode?
• Eighth paragraph
  • wanted to modernize designs of -> either wanted to modernize the designs of or wanted to modernize designs for
  • more-outlandish -> more outlandish
  • have been described a "classic big-headed alien" that were conceived as easily recognizable, leading Firaxis to introduce more-outlandish designs in later parts of the game - Did you mean to imply the cause and effect relationship here? As worded, it's saying that sectoids being described as recognizable led Firaxis to make the other aliens weirder.
• Ninth paragraph
  • Same tense comment again.
  • but was significantly shrunk -> but were significantly shrunk
  • the Battletoad, which can -> the Battletoad, which could
  • it is relatable to players -> it is relatable for players
  • The team used recognizable locales and juxtaposed them with the presence of aliens -> The team juxtaposed recognizable locales with aliens

Release

• First paragraph
  • Buyers who pre-ordered the PC version on the gaming platform Steam also - bit repetitive, and was it exclusive to PC+Steam? Otherwise, Pre-orders on Steam also
  • XCOM: Enemy Unknown's playable demo version was released prior to the game's official launch - I would group this with the "available at E3" sentence, or if the two demos are unrelated, I'd make that clearer.
• Second paragraph
  • iOS port is a sea of blue
  • with no in-app purchase - Nonwithstanding my concern that the source doesn't actually say this, -> without in-app purchases
  • XCOM: Enemy Unknown Plus was released for PlayStation Vita on March 22, 2016 - Does anything describe what this was? Was it a straight port with a different name, or did it differ?
• Third paragraph
  • which was titled Slingshot -> titled Slingshot
  • A free DLC titled Second Wave that was released on January 4, 2013, introduced adjustments to gameplay - Either add a comma between Wave and that, or remove the comma between 2013 and introduced

Reception

• General: pick a tense structure. Consistent past is fine, the "reviewer praised [past] the game, saying it is [present] elegant" structure is not my personal preference but ultimately fine, but let's not jump back and forth.
• First paragraph
  • According to review aggregator Metacritic, XCOM: Enemy Unknown received "generally positive reviews" from critics - review aggregator Metacritic is a sea of blue, and I think the usual (and source-accurate) language is received "generally favorable" reviews
  • wrote XCOM: Enemy Unknown -> wrote that XCOM: Enemy Unknown
• Second paragraph
  • XCOM series - Can we choose one of X-COM series or XCOM series and use it everywhere?
  • Kevin VanOrd from GameSpot wrote the -> Kevin VanOrd from GameSpot wrote that the
• Third paragraph
  • regardless of player's actions -> regardless of the player's actions
  • saying he needed to prioritize the use of resources on multiple research projects and construction, though he said resources are never enough to pursue all objectives, meaning players are forced to choose and compromise - Bit wordy. I think we can combine for saying resources being insufficient for pursuing all objectives forced players to compromise and prioritize certain research and construction projects
• Fourth paragraph
  • wrote players -> wrote that players
  • He commended the Ironman mode that which makes - We call it quoted lowercase "ironman mode" in Gameplay, can we be consistent? Also, He commended the Ironmade mode, which makes
  • the loss in the game -> the losses in the game
  • thus encouraging to replay -> thus encouraging them to replay
• Fifth paragraph
  • XCOM: Enemy Unknown was the best-selling video game on Steam during its week of release, and the seventh best-selling video game at retail in its week of release in the UK - Bit repetitive; I'd suggest The week of its release, XCOM: Enemy Unknown was the best selling game on Steam and the seventh best-selling at retail in the UK
  • In the United States, it sold 114,00 copied and failed to enter US monthly sales chart -> In the United States, it sold 11,400 [is this 11400 or 114000] copies and failed to enter the US monthly sales chart
• Sixth paragraph
  • Small preference thing: if you restructure the sentence as "XCOM was selected as GOTY by Gamespy,[ref] Kotaku,[ref], ..." you can avoid having five refs stacked at the end.

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

@A412: - Thanks for the review! I think I have addressed most of the issues. OceanHok (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Food for thought: Long War (mod) is a mod for this game that's not mentioned in prose, and XCOM: The Board Game is, I believe, based on this title as well. Combining the sequel, those spinoffs, the aforementioned PC Gamer source, and the vg247 source in refideas, I think there's enough material for a proper Legacy section. Nothing worth holding up a GA review over though, so, with a small copyediting pass, .~ A412 ^talk! 19:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.