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. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | 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 (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:

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)

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)

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. 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. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | 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 talkedits 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. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | 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. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | 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:
 * causing a strong and harmful need to regularly have or do something
 * 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 talkedits 12:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with 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. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | 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 one 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 ).

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.

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)