Talk:Close Combat (video game)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Indrian (talk · contribs) 15:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Classic series that does not get enough attention. I will gladly do this review. Comments to follow. Indrian (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

 * ✅Citations are generally avoided in the infobox when the material appears elsewhere in the body, as it does in the case of the release date here.
 * Fixed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Gameplay

 * ✅"in contrast to the isometric visuals used in strategy games such as Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness" - Is this really significant enough to mention?
 * The uniqueness of the top-down visual style was noted regularly in the sources, and not-rarely contrasted against the isometric visuals of the day—particularly Command & Conquer and Warcraft II. I felt that this frequency, combined with the relative difficulty of explaining to the uninitiated that "top-down" does not apply to things like StarCraft, justified the reference to Warcraft here. Without a contrast, it would be very hard to convey what "top-down" actually means. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I am convinced. Indrian (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅"This artificial intelligence (AI) system allows even an unattended squad to continue fighting and using strategy" - "Using strategy" is a vague descriptor that does not really convey what actions the soldiers are taking on their own.
 * ✅"and units will often disobey poor orders" - Also vague. What makes an order poor?
 * I've expanded the paragraph on soldier AI with more detail, including an example of poor orders. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find a source about what soldiers actually do when left to their own devices—the vagueness of the strategy sentence was/is a reflection of the sources. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅We don't want this to become a walk through or a game guide, but could you maybe include some information on how combat unfolds tactically? As I recall these games have a different feel from other RTS games of the era in that conventional squad-based tactics work better than just randomly clicking blobs of units across the map.  A few words that capture some of this spirit would flesh out the section.
 * I'd subconsciously assumed that calling it a wargame would handle that aspect, but you're right—readers will believe it plays by RTS rules. Done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅"or engage in a long-form campaign to claim France" - There was still a lot of France left to claim after the end of this campaign.
 * Fixed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Development

 * ✅So we have some contradictory information here that comes in part from the organization of the section. First, we are told that the game was originally called Beyond Squad Leader and started as an adaptation of the Avalon Hill board game.  Then, further down, the article states that the game started as Project X, which entered development before the Avalon Hill deal, and was then adapted to become Beyond Squad Leader.  This section should be rearranged to follow the rough chronology of starting work on a new game for Three-Sixty, breaking with the publisher and signing a deal with Avalon Hill to adapt Squad Leader, and transforming Project X into Beyond Squad Leader.
 * Good point. This came about as a result of my late-breaking discovery of a source related to Project X, which I tried to include with minimal disruption of my previous work. Fixed now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * ❌"According to Emrich, Zabalaoui remarked that this event was "purely a business decision" and that there was no ill will between the companies." - There is never any ill will is there in any business breakup, just like every CEO resigns to spend more time with his family. This is just standard breakup language that is probably corporate spin.  I would leave it out.
 * I understand the issue of corporate-speak, but I feel this is important because of the unusual nature of Close Combat's development, and the explicitly public fighting that occurred between Rose and Zabalaoui in the run-up to this decision. I don't necessarily believe what Zabalaoui is saying here—but it's a key, public part of the picture of that era. The same goes for the Microsoft line lower down, since Zabalaoui was not exactly known for public diplomacy: his break with Three-Sixty was followed by a long editorial in PC Gamer in which he accused Three-Sixty of business fraud, in detail. It caused such an uproar that PC Gamer seems to have gotten into legal hot water, and the editors printed a long rebuttal from a Three-Sixty high-up in its following issue. Tempting as that was to include, it felt off-topic for this particular article (I might revisit it in another article later on)—but that gives you an idea of the context here. I really think the two diplomatic lines, bogus or not, need to stay for the sake of a complete picture. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't entirely agree with this, but I am certainly not going to fail the article over it. It may be something that surfaces again if this goes to FA, but then again it may not.  Certainly, its portrayed accurately and sourced properly. Indrian (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Early Sequels

 * ❌"Later that year, Zabalaoui said that Microsoft had been "a terrific publisher", and that Atomic had "parted company [with them] as friends who may some day work together again." - And there it is again. Isn't it nice how everyone is always such great friends after a breakup? ;)
 * Very true, but see above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As above for me as well. Indrian (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Overall, this is a great article, and I see no reason why it will not be promoted. Therefore, I will place this nomination while my concerns are addressed. Indrian (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and kind words. I'll work on these issues today. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the review. I've taken a stab at your concerns. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Everything looks great! I will go ahead and promote.  Thanks for making this so easy! Indrian (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Likewise. I appreciate the painless review! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)