Talk:XCOM: Enemy Unknown/GA4

GA Review
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)
 * 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)

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.


 * - 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)