Former good articleXCOM: Enemy Unknown was one of the Video games good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 18, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
January 22, 2013Good article nomineeListed
June 19, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Platform(s)?[edit]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

Genres - not RTS, not RPG[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

MERGE[edit]

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

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)Reply[reply]
ADHD --Niemti (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Refs are broken[edit]

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

I verified. Yep, broke. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 23:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like it was just a missing } from the end of a cite web template. --FangXianfu (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which was your fault. --Niemti (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup, my bad! --FangXianfu (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Play Magazine review score reference[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Aggregators in copy of reception section[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Tone section[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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

Needs more nominations/awards[edit]

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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[edit]

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

Split/disambiguation[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Enemy Within release date[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Runner-up for iPad GOTY[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Setting[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Addiction[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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 talkedits 12:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Cover art homage[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moddability[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New-ish release[edit]

GA Assessment[edit]

XCOM: Enemy Unknown

Delisted in 2020. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]
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.
Categories