Talk:X-COM: UFO Defense

X-COM: UFO Defense was a Video games good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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
Date	Process	Result
August 15, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed
November 6, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Video games High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Citation Needed?

Under Single play there is a banner that tells us that a citation is needed for the accuracy of the info.

But the citation is the game manual. How can I point out that the information comes straight from the games manual?

You can mail a suggestion directly to me at address nes@iki.fi

No one is going to email you. That is very un-wiki. Just state it came from the manual. What's the problem? <ref>''X-COM: UFO Defense'' Player's Manual</ref>. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed info

I removed the following info from the Sequels section of the article:

However, UFO: Aftermath, created by Cenega, essentially achieves that goal, as it creates a game highly similar to the original (although with a key plot difference that it is set after a catastrophic alien attack) but with simplified base control and real time combat in place of the original turn-based system.

I removed it because Cenega (or Altar Interactive) came right out and stated that their game, though very much like X-COM was not an X-COM game. It wasn't an official part of the series, it just had some similar elements. As a compromise, I added a link to the game (which doesn't have an article as of this writing) to the See also section. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:10, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

AGA version

I've just being playing UFO: Enemy Unknown on WinUAE, the Amiga emulator. If you do a little searching, there's an adf of the AGA version. The graphics are far better than the crappy PC Dos version or the old Amiga 500 version, higher resoultion, more colourful, smoother, etc... the music is also very atmospheric compared to other versions. Download WinUAE and check it out. It takes a while to get the correct configuarion, but it's worth it. I'm addicted all over again...

Image additions

If you look at this version, you'll see that Coolcat added a slew of images of alien ships with their statistics. I reverted them without discussion. This is way too much info for this game and is unencyclopedic. Changes of this sort which have been made to other articles have also been dismissed, so I have precedent. I recommend adding such information to a Wikibook, but not to the main 'pedia entry. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:35, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

PLease do not determine what is encyclopedic and what isnt. I have reverted that back. This is an article about the game and the information I provided is only to that extent. If you are suggesting fancruft you may want to argue to that extent. -- Cat ^chi? 18:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It is my duty (and every editor's) to determine what is encyclopedic and what is not. However, I won't revert your revert without resolving it here first.

I do indeed think your additions are fancruft. I'm a huge fan of the game, but all the statistics and images you added would only be of interest to the hardcore fan. The information would be great for a strategy guide or a walkthrough, but it simply isn't encyclopedic. I don't where it is now, but there is a sister project for all this type of game information. Things such as this and cheat codes are a great place for it, but not an article that is supposed to give a general overview of the game.

Unfortunately, this article isn't very heavily watched, or we'd have more input from other editors on this point. If you like, you can raise the issue on the Computer and video games WikiProject (a project you might be interested in joining). There, other editors who are much more into games than I am can weigh in on the issue.

Thank you for being open to discussing this issue. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:17, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Frecklefoot, while the information is, on some level, interesting, I don't think it's particularly encyclopedic. Now I'm sure you could probably point out some equally bad cases of fancruft that never get's deleted, but I still think that it should be removed. --CVaneg 00:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be removed. I am not keen to have more fair-use material than necessary in articles, and this addition introduces too many. -- Jon Dowland 13:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the information. It'd be fine for a strategy guide, such as a Wikibook, but not a Wikipedia article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:29, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Fan sites

I moved them to the main X-COM article, where they belong. Also the last one had incorrect markup, and I fixed it. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:02, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. You are quite right, that is the best place. I've added a note to the article directing people to X-COM for more external links, so hopefully, people like me won't keep adding them thinking they are missing. ;-) JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Name change

Morwen changed the name to X-COM: Enemy Unknown. While this is the original name of the game in the UK (where it was developed), this article was written about and contains information based on the North American version. For an example, see the scan of the player's manual in the infobox. I'd like to keep it as X-COM: UFO Defense, but I'm not strongly opposed to a name change. But the graphics used in the article should be changed as well.

But more importantly, the article should be moved to X-COM: Enemy Unknown, not just changed in the article. Please discuss here before attempting to move again. A namespace change should almost always be discussed first. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 01:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No they shouldn't. However, since you've stated your opposition to it I'm happy to discuss. I don't see why you merely reverted though - the text before was downright misleading. I've altered the wording again to make it clear what the name of the game actually is, whilst keeping the brand that was adopted for the US release in the article first. Morwen - Talk 07:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are few, if any changes between the original UK version and versions released elsewhere. Therefore, I'd be happier if the article was called X-COM: Enemy Unknown, as not only was this the first and original name, it keeps it contingious with the rest of the series. Mouse Nightshirt 22:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it was originally called UFO:Enemy Unknown, not X-COM at all. I'm not sure what you're arguing for. i kan reed 03:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a redirect page at UFO:Enemy Unknown. Strictly speaking the main article should be moved there, as it was written (and first published, I believe) in the UK under that title. -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 16:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be a concern. Article names should be the thing most likely searched for, and all common names for something should be disambiguated at the very beginning of the article. Preferably, in this case, we'd want to match what references are saying for minimal confusion. i kan reed 18:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian novelization

Is the Russian novelization of X-COM officially licensed?

I highly doubt it. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terror from the Deep

I've removed a claim that Terror from the Deep was a licensed port, as the sources I've found all imply the game was developed by Microprose. Just posting here to verify I'm not missing a reputable source making this claim. i kan reed 23:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A possible Wikipedia project?

I'm thinking of starting up a Wikipedia project page for X-COM - the game is under-represented in the encyclopaedia considering the original's impact on the genre. Articles are reasonably messy too and need some maintenance and referencing done.

If you think this project could work, give me a shout on my talk page and I'll fire up the burners! Mouse Nightshirt | talk 17:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll discuss it here. I don't think this is a good idea, unless it is a temporary project. There's a limited number of articles in this series and there aren't any games being developed for it anymore. After the fixing up is done, there won't be a need for the project any longer. One thing these articles could benefit from would be a footer for each article in the series. Something along the lines of what is used for the Need for Speed and Galaxian series. We don't need a project to develop one. — Frecklefoot | Talk 12:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UFO Defense or Enemy Unknown?

According to the information I've been able to scrounge up, the game was released in the USA before it was in Europe; why is someone making it seem like it's the other way around? 75.88.49.3 17:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I chalk it up to abandonware sites the distribute the windows version released under the later title.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikanreed (talk • contribs)

Here's some info on the titles:

Julian Gollop's bio on the Laser Squad Nemesis website calls the game UFO: Enemy Unknown, with X-Com: UFO Defense used as the alternate title[1].
The original version of the game (v1.0) is called UFO: Enemy Unknown, with no reference to the later title in the manual or in-game.
The v1.2 readme calls the game UFO: ENEMY UNKNOWN.
The v1.4 readme calls it UFO/XCOM: ENEMY UNKNOWN, and the included TFTD advertisement calls it "X-COM: UFO DEFENSE also known as UFO: ENEMY UNKNOWN in Europe".
The title screens of the three DOS versions and the Windows version call the game UFO: Enemy Unknown, and the description of the Windows re-release's executable file is X-COM: UFO Defense Gold Edition.144.138.89.171 13:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was definitely "Enemy Unknown" first. It was developed by MicroProse's UK studio and released in Europe. The US headquarters of MP evaluated it, as they did with all UK-developed titles, to see if it was appropriate for a US release. They finally decided it was, but changed the title first. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a Computer store when the game came out. I'd read about the game and was fascinated. I found out that the UK version was going to be released 1-2 weeks before XCOM, the US version. I managed to snag a case of UFO, the UK release, the day before it released in the UK. I put them on sale 2 days after the UK release, and was told by MicroProse lawyers that I had (illegally) sold the first copies of the game in the US. there were no effective differences in the 2 versions of the game, outside the box art, name & manual.Paganize (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebelstar is NOT X-COM

I snipped out a few lines regarding the Rebelstar release. It is 'not' X-COM, nor does it follow the X-COM storyline in any way, which is already described at the beginning of the article. It's basically a "sorta-related" release since the Gallop brothers do not have the rights to X-COM. TFX 21:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

===============================================================

Original game CD - 1997. Game is called: X-COM:UFO Defense DOS CD-ROM #0-522-40-102 Publisher: Microprose copyright. Mythos Games Ltd and Microprose Ltd. All Rights Reserved. X-COM and MICROPROSE are registered trademarks and X-COM:UFO DEFENSE is a trademark of Microprose Software, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective holders. Rated: Teen Ages 13+ ESRB

This is my CD-ROM of the game with serial number of the CD disk. Version 1 I might add since I know there is the 1.4 patch for this ms-dos game.

Review at Gamespot of game: Dec. 31, 1993 http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/xcomufodefense/index.html

Patch v1.4 Sept.1, 1997

X-COM Collector's Edition (which I also have upgraded to work in Windows turning off DirectDraw or Direct 3D nowadays to make the game play) Nov. 24, 1999 Review at Gamespot: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/xcomcollectorsedition/index.html

Oh, also if it helps since I remember the game on the shelf the game was X-COM:Enemy Unknown but here in the USA it did not catch on at first, and then it became X-COM:UFO Defense within the same box as shown for the game.

Original Concept?

The Gollop brothers originally approached Microprose wishing to produce a sequel to Laser Squad. They had a graphics demo on the Atari ST. At This point their intention was to produce a squad level tactical battle game based on another planet with no extra strategic elements.

Microprose liked the demo but UK publisher Paul Hibbard felt the game should be ‘bigger’ to fit in line with the rest of the MicroProse strategic titles and ideally should have an earth based element. He tasked the development and marketing departments to come up with some ideas to expand the game and present them to the Gollop brothers. Peter Moreland from MicroProse development immediately recognised that there was an opportunity to use many of the elements from a 60’s Gerry Anderson Sci-Fi TV series UFO.

In conjunction with Rob Davies, Tim Roberts and the Gollop Brothers a brain storming session was held and the additional strategic elements were thrashed out including the Geosphere, Interception, Base building, Ufopedia and weapons research, the latter items being adaptations of strategy elements already included in other MicroProse titles such as Civilisation.

Peter Moreland87.114.1.219 15:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We would need a ref for that. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Went to your page... I am a Wikipedia virgin... I couldnt see how to start a new message... When you say you need a ref.. what do you mean? I am telling you the events as I remember them happening. Cheers

Peter Moreland

Dear Peter Moreland,

The problem is, that there is no real user authentification in Wikipedia. So everyone could claim to be you. If you have a personal home page you could write the comment there and add a link to that here. 88.68.195.145 (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. That would be a "verifiable reference", what I referring to above. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move from X-COM: UFO Defense to X-COM: Enemy Unknown

I disagree with this move, because the person who moved it doesn't seem to have his/her facts straight, and I can't blame him/her, it can get confusing. If you read the current introductory text on the game's page, you'll notice it states that it was released as X-COM: Enemy Unknown and later as UFO: Enemy Unknown in the USA and X-COM: UFO Defense on Steam. This is incorrect. Back when it was first released, it was called UFO: Enemy Unknown in Europe and X-COM: UFO Defense in the USA. X-COM: Enemy Unknown is the title for the (European) Playstation version (released later) as per this article on Mobygames: http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/x-com-ufo-defense ; and for visual confirmation, you can check this page on StrategyCore: http://www.strategycore.co.uk/xcom/pg/ufogameversions. Also, X-COM: Enemy Unknown is not the most common name, it is X-COM: UFO Defense. X-COM: UFO Defense is also the official title of the trademark (again, as per USPTO: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=pjve9c.2.7). Finally, I think this could unnecessarily confuse Wikipedia readers - most of the ones searching for the game will know it under either UFO: Enemy Unknown or X-COM: UFO Defense. For those reasons I think it should be returned to how it looked just before the move. I hope I also cleared up some things. :) --Gibly (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. My old CD copy of the game is called X-COM: UFO Defense and I live in the US. I remember reading somewhere that it wasn't called UFO: Enemy Unknown in the US release because there was already a series called UFO. The guideline for video games says to "use the original official title of the game", so that means this article should be titled "UFO: Enemy Unknown". I will fix this now. --Eruhildo (talk) 04:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It threw me an error when I tried to move it because of the redirect existing already. I tagged the redirect for deletion, so as soon as that's done we can move the article. In the meantime I'll fix the intro. --Eruhildo (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Everything should be fixed now I think. --Eruhildo (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he said it should be returned to how it looked just before the move and I agree. Galagahunt (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be reverted back to the UFO: Enemy Unknown title. See also #Move from X-COM: UFO Defense to X-COM: Enemy Unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.41.92 (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bridies (talk · contribs) 06:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commencing review, comments shall follow within the next day or two. bridies (talk) 06:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary comments

Article appears to need a bit of copy editing. I'm happy to take care of this and might get it done later today, or it may be a few days; meanwhile, some other preliminary thoughts:

The main issue with the article is the skimpy reception section. The critical reception in fact does not seem to be covered at all - other than the dubious aggregators - as the few reviews mentioned are at least a year or two after the fact. There needs to be more reviews, at least some of them contemporary and more detail (that is, some critical commentary other than just scores). I'm certain that numerous contemporary reviews can be quite easily acquired for this game; however, if the nominator can't manage, ping me and I can take care of it.
The article is weighted towards the game play section. As a complex RTS, the game may require a sizeable game play explanation, but strongly suggest expanding the reception and legacy info (see above). As an influential classic, this game's reception and legacy info should be most significant.
I'll likely have more comments once I've copy edited or at least gone over the article more thoroughly. bridies (talk) 10:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an RTS. --Niemti (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy game then. bridies (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its legacy is discussed in the series article. English PC reviews from 1994 are extremely hard to obtain; Amiga reviews are plenty and easy to access (AMR) but not representative. --Niemti (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By legacy I just meant the top-100 lists, influence and such. I'm not saying it's lacking any legacy info specifically but that the overall critical commentary needs to be greater. I'll look into PC vs. Amiga reviews. Also note non-English language sources are fine if English ones are lacking. bridies (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My magazines (Top Secret, Secret Service, Gambler) will be absolutely nothing for anyone not from Poland at that time (like, Secret Service is not even in the disambiguation page, and it was the country's best-selling magazine in the 1990s, and supposedly even in all of Europe[2]). Amiga conversion reviews (including for re-releases): [3] --Niemti (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of AMR. The game got at least a couple of 90%+ reviews in Amiga mags so suggest including those if short on PC reviews; the sentiments shouldn't be too dissimilar. Also note that if the game got weaker reviews on other systems (as it would appear to have done on the Amiga and PS), then that needs to at least be mentioned. I have at least one original PC review, give me a day or so to look for others. bridies (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did include Amiga reviews already, and it has always been mentioned. --Niemti (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sceptical about that database's validity as a source, tbh: have posted about it here. But the main issue is again the lack of any critical commentary beside scores. A GA can keep it brief, but there needs to some indication of what was said about the Amiga version and why it got poorer reviews.

Regarding reviews, the Aug '94 review in Computer Gaming World is pretty easy. Google CGW Museum.
Short Game Informer review of the PS version is here. I think I can get the Electronic Gaming Monthly review also.
Regarding non-English reviews, suggest including the Secret Service review. Best-selling games magazine in Europe sounds pretty good; it doesn't need to be popular in English-speaking countries to be a valid source. I can probably get a bunch of French and German stuff also. bridies (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Fails 1a and b. 1a. Prose appears to be better than when I initially looked at it, but still needs copy editing for basic stuff: there's an in-universe style in the plot section, and instances of clunky prose and POV editorialising. The lead is not an adequate summary. Aside from from the point exhaustively detailed on the talk page, there's no summary of the critical commentary on the game (probably because there's very little in the article at all). References lack authors, issue and page numbers for the print sources. There is a swathe of inappropriate links in the EL section, to fan sites, projects and Wikis.
Fails 2 Not by a huge margin but: there's at least 1 error in the article. The Computer Gaming World review is stated as having given 10/10 when in fact it was a 5-star review. This is of course minor and easily fixed in itself, but the lack of a page number here and in other print refs makes one question whether they've been properly verified or if the the info hasn't come second or third-hand from a fan site or some such. The article cites an unreliable source (for our purposes) for the aggregated Amiga reviews. There's also a borderline WP:SYNTH issue detailed on the talk page.
Fails 3 This is the big problem alongside neutrality. The article is good on plot, gameplay and reception but lacks any real information on the game's reception, which should be the crux of a video game article. There is ostensibly a sizeable reception section but it in fact contains long-term "legacy"-type criticism. In terms of contemporary criticism there are only aggregated scores (one of which is redundant as it should be removed for failing WP:RS) and now a couple of cherry-picked quotes.
The nominator correctly states that English-language print reviews are hard to find - while strictly speaking not an excuse in itself - but if one expands to non-English reviews (perfectly acceptable, especially for a European game) there are quite a number of readily accessible reviews. The nominator seemed to imply he already has some. Otherwise, it shouldn't be hard to get some translations of summaries and include some decent info. Confusingly, the (English language) Computer Gaming World review is referenced in the article (for its score), but none of its commentary.
One also has to at least question the nominator's assertion that Amiga reviews are "not representative". Sure, the Amiga range died out while the "PC" lived on, so one would expect to see greater long term plaudits and influence for the PC version. But the system was popular in Europe at the time and the nominator said there was "plenty" of coverage (and not just "easy to access" coverage) coverage, which would seem to indicate weighty coverage. In any case, given that Amiga reviews are easy to come by, the redundant aggregator and cherry-picked quotes (more on this below) are sorely inadequate. Ditto nothing at all on the PS version.
Fails 4 The other big problem is the article's bias. It's remarkably thorough in detailing 35th- and 78th-best ever plaudits, or luminaries citing it as their favourite game, but nothing of any detractive commentary. The very limited contemporary commentary is clearly cherry-picked. I stated in my preliminary comments that positive Amiga reviews could be grouped with positive PC reviews to convey the necessary sentiments, but what makes it in are two quotes calling it the "easily the most original and innovative game in the history of the Amiga" and saying that "everyone loves" it, to counter the (in any case redundant; see above) lower aggregators. I've also accessed some PC reviews and while certainly there are very positive ones, there are also more modestly approving 80-something% reviews, same as the Amiga version. 74% in Germany's PC Player, 88% in the UK's respected PC Gamer (can't fully access these, sadly) and 85% and 86% in Germany's Power Play (I have seen this one). Yes, this game is and was highly acclaimed, but it's not true that there was nothing but raving applause, which is what the article implies.
Stability and ownership issues which I'm obviously involved in, but still: the nominator has reverting changes because - and I quote - "I don't want" it a certain way. If this is the case over minor copy editing and citing, I hate to think what fixing the bias or external link issues will be like.
Fails images Two images in the game play section, one of which is a map of the world.

So that's significant issues against every criteria, including two serious problems; as a result of which I'm failing the nomination. As I said in my initial at-first-glance comments, I'm still happy to help out with copy editing and sourcing content. But having gone through the article more thoroughly, these issues are far too extensive to be done as part of GAN polish up. bridies (talk) 09:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I don't have access to most of paper sources added by other editors which made adding names and pages impossible. So I just one standard used one for all of them (an issue).

I thought the reception was actually the strongest part of it. It's a 1994 (or even 1993, according to many so-called reliable sources) game so it's pretty natural the reception will be more recent than that. And I myself added these "lower aggregators" to precisely show how the scores were (relatively) pretty low on the Amiga (as compared to the PC/PSX scores at GameRankings). I don't have this access to many old PC magazines in English and I don't want to add any Polish ones, because they don't even have Wikipedia articles (I think it would just looks non-notable, possibly imaginary).

The two images are to represent the both Geoscape and the Battlescape, something that so many sources emphasize of being so different (you've got "the world" indeed, and then you've got this extreme closup on a Laser Squad type tactical mission with all-different gameplay too).

I'll look into the other stuff. --Niemti (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And there are PlayStation reviews. --Niemti (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

While WP:LEADCITE does state that a lead repeats what is said (and cited) in the body, it also says: "there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads" and that "editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." Best-ever claims are extraordinary, potentially controversial and need citations whether in the lead or body. Also, synthesising these claims with words such as "various" and "often" is too vague, as is saying that it's listed as "as one of the best video games ever made." What's "one of the best" exactly? Top 3? Top 5? 10? 20? 25? 50? 100? 500? There's a difference between no. 1 and no. 7; no. 7 and no. 12; no. 12 and no. 78. bridies (talk) 10:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usually it's top 100, but sometimes also top 25 (IGN) or just hall-of-fame type articles, and the places are all listed if there are any places. You could just check the reception section, instead of asking. (Also, it's not stated in the article but since you're so curious: CGW '96 special had various lists, top 15 to 50 or maybe 100, I'd have to check it, if it even really matters. And the GameSpot list is confusing, I think 50, but you can count it yourself if you want.[4]) --Niemti (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point being, top-25 and top-100 are very different things and so it needs to be specified for the reader. And that "best PC ever" is an exceptional, potentially controversially claim that needs a citation, even if it's in the lead. bridies (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's all clearly stated in the references, and anyway being #3 on top 10 and #3 on top 100 doesn't change a thing, it's still just being third. And given the sheer ammount of these lists (here it's not even a definitive listing, just a few examples), it's nothing "potentially controversial", it's just stating a fact. Factually. To quote, "UFO: Enemy Unknown comes up again and again whenever talking the best game ever."[5] --Niemti (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're still missing the point. To be clear, I'm not bothered about citations for all the various lists in the lead, but for IGN's claim of UFO being the best PC game ever. This should be mentioned separately in the lead because as I said it's a lot more important than no. 7 or 12 or 78. And it needs a citation because yes, "best PC game ever" is potentially controversial, and it is the opinion of a particular publication and thus needs an in-line citation. The fact that it's on a bazillion lists is a separate issue in that it needs to be more specific: there's a big difference between a top-10 place or a lower top-100 place and it should be clarified. That UGO quote is vague opinion, not hard fact: again, who's to say what "[one of the] best ever" constitutes? One might quote that in the lead but it seems better just to synthesise the several top-10 lists (it being pretty redundant to talk about top-50s and -100s and such for game that got top-10 listings). bridies (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a hard fact. Check any such list (PC), and it will probably be in it - even as it will be soon 20 years from the release. And there's really not much difference of first to second or third, like in some other lists. And as of even being 100th - there are tens of thousands of video games, but only 100 of them are in this top 100. Being even the 100th, it's a huge acclaim. Also as of "top-10 listings", there are just no (or very few) lists for top video games of all times that feature only 10 titles from all the genres, at all (and there's none here, too). 100 is the usual selection, soemtimes it's 50 or 25. It's never, or almost never, just 10. --Niemti (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're either ignoring my point, or you just don't get it. It doesn't matter how many places there are in any particular source list, but the position of this game within them. Now, this article mentions it taking top place in a couple of lists, at least several top-10 placings (regardless of whether it was no 7 out of 10, 7 out of 50 or 7 out of 100; all those make it no 7th best game, fair enough if you want to write "...within the top-10" rather than "..top-10 list"), as well as much lower top-100 placings. By your logic, any of the games which regularly place low in top-100 lists could still have the same claim that they "often are named in lists of the best games ever", even though when one digs into one would fine the accolades to be less auspicious than UFO's. The lead needs to clarify these claims in order to adequately summarise the article (WP:LEAD). bridies (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seems to think that stuff like at 12th place in 2005 ("for us 1994 will always be remembered as the year of X-COM"), and at 21st place in 2007 ("one of the most memorable and perfectly executed strategy games ever seen") is irrevelant to being regarded as "one of the best games ever", I obviously totally disagree. And no, it's not "regularly place low". It's places top (including many 1-3 positions), mid, and (relatively) low on these top 25, 50 and 100 lists. And by "(relatively) low", I mean stuff like being 90th 1UP in 2012, where they say it "remains a masterpiece" about 18 years and many thousands of games later. --Niemti (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not disputing that the game is regarded as one of the best ever, but saying that "one of the best ever" is too vague on it's own. You keep arguing for a point that is not in dispute. You've completely misunderstood what I said about regularly low places; I wasn't even talking about UFO. There will be minor classics which regularly turn up lower down in top-100 ever articles, but won't often or ever be placed as one of the top 20 or 10 or 5. This is why to do the game justice the lead has to state exactly what is meant by "listed as one of the best games ever" i.e top of IGN's list and inside the 10 best of several others. bridies (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IGN's already there and I don't see a need for any more. I also rewrote the whole reception section (once again). --Niemti (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know you don't see it, that's the problem. I'm just implementing another version in the hope it will prove amenable. bridies (talk) 04:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want ANY references there (because why referencing this, which is referenced in the article, but not the other stuff in the lead), and I don't any more examples neither there because I think it will distract from the flow (and also the only other number one being listed currently is the #1 sleeper hit from 1996, which is hardly that much impressive). Oh, and before you ask or point it out, this "If you wish to establish a consensus that a duplicate section is necessary in this article lead, please start a discussion on the talk page" wasn't even put in there by me, it was done by someone else who had removed all references there in first place, and it was done long ago and well before my latest rewrites (the latest one that took place yesterday). Anyway can we move on now? I'm pretty sure the article may have actual faults to point out. --Niemti (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you want doesn't matter. And the fact that someone felt the need to write that indicates a will to add citations to the lead, not the other way around. The notion that a couple of citations will "distract from the flow" is derisory. I fail to see the relevance of the sleeper hit claim. The claim that requires a citation is the claim of this game as the best of all time. If that doesn't need a cite then don't know what does. I'll "move on" after we have some 3rd opinions. bridies (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no " claim of this game as the best of all time". There is a factual statement that is the game widely regarded as one of top of all time (not "the best of all time"), which is a simple statement of the fact. And it is elaborated and well referenced in the rest of the article, because good article leads should contain no references (I've witnessed myself how an ex-GA class article got recently demoted precisely for having references in the lead, among other reasons). And the singling out of IGN's number one positions has been added by you so you can also just remove it if you think it's now problematic. --Niemti (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm talking about the IGN claim and the IGN claim only. And no, it needs to be there for reasons explained about a dozen times above, and yes it needs a cite. bridies (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completely spurious about GAs having no cites in the lead. I quote again from the MOS on leads: "there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." bridies (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're not quite on the same page here, requested input: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Input requested at UFO: Enemy Unknown. bridies (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Oh, and yeah, it got lots of Game of the Year type awards and such, but it was just before the Internet, and also some 18 years ago. So the Game of Ever awards will have to do. --Niemti (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on

Several sources including IGN[6] and GameSpot[7] claim the game was released in 1993 (specifically "Dec 31, 1993" in the US, according to GameSpot). ~~I think~~ I'm quite sure it wasn't, with Gollop himself repeatedly saying the PC version wasn't even ready before March 1994, and I believe the US version arrived there even later. I decided to ignore the date of 1993 altogether, and here I just want inform about it. --Niemti (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GameSpot tends to be terrible with old release dates. bridies (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the fact that it would have made no sense whatsoever to release a game on New Years Eve. I think we can discount that date simply based on how ludicrous it is.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- some links are dead, "PC Gamer's top 100 PC Games of all time". PC Gamer. February 5, 2010. Retrieved 2010-11-15. - is there any alternate source for this? http://www.gamesradar.com/f/pc-gamers-top-100-pc-games-of-all-time/a-2010012911133649022/p-5 Thelux12 (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit

I've started copy editing for basic grammar and such but have been pressed for time today and have only done about half. I should get the rest done tomorrow morning. Aside from the basic grammar and such, here's some points to consider more regarding the tone and style:

Plot section
- I mentioned an in-universe syle. One issue here is the use of dates. The game has a near-future setting, but the dates used are now in the past. So just dropping them in the way the article does makes it seem like it's referring to a real-world historical event, or at least that the game is set in the past. At least clarify this was then a near-future setting.
- And the main issue is the excitable tone, which should be cooler and more detached. E.g. the "secret defense and research paramilitary organization" is pretty ostentatious. "fail miserably", "more and more", "creatures of immense mental power" and such are pretty emotional; suggest either toning it down or quoting from something if you want to include strong subjectivity.
- I'd trim the use of in-universe names, specifically I'd rewrite The nations of the world come to perceive this as a threat and attempt to form their own forces to deal with this, such as Japan's Kiryu-Kai force. However, these forces fail miserably, the Kiryu-Kai not intercepting a single UFO in its five months of operation as The nations of the world come to perceive this as a threat and attempt to form their own forces to deal with it. However, these forces fail miserably, with Japan's force not intercepting a single UFO in its five months of operation.
- A more minor point: "Alien Brain" is in quotation marks, but stuff like Geoscape and Battlescape (in the game play section) is not. bridies (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better now. I'll try and post up some reference material I have; however this will probably take several days. bridies (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Here's the Electronic Gaming Monthly review in brief, for a start. This is for the PlayStation version, but EGM was one of the biggest overall gaming magazines around at the time. Somewhat inconveniently, it uses a panel format, with 4 mini-reviews and 4 scores. Make of that what you will.... Also note the inconsistent capitalisation of X-COM/X-Com/X-com is straight from the source. Anyway:

Andrew Baran, 9.5
Calls the graphics "average, but its in-depth gameplay and terrific strategy will win you over. The difficulty may be a bit extreme, but you can keep going back to it. The range of missions and the diversity keep it fresh"... notes that the other reviewers prefer the PS mouse, but says "I like the controller better." Then says: "X-com's a must buy. There is so much to do, you really get your money's worth. You can keep playing this one for months. Hard as hell, but great."
Mark LeFebvre 9.5
If you could afford to buy one game for the PS over the next year, X-COM would be it. It has it all and then some! The PC port has the same look and feel as the original, especially when accompanied by the new PS mouse." Some hyperbole about it being like 5-way blindfolded chess. Calls it an "extremely addictive title."
Mike Desmond 8.5
Also says the graphics make the game look average "At first glance", but says: "The game is like chess with a pulse. In-depth strategy and varying enemies with different attributes are what makes this game worthwhile and fun to play. The interface is tedious and difficult to use with the PlayStation controller, but the PlayStation mouse makes it easier. Any person who likes strategy games will fall in love with this title."
Sushi-X 8.0
This is the lowest score but the sentiments are pretty similar to Desmond's tbh. Also, this one is less than ideal as Sushi-X was used as a pen name for a load of writers over the years. I think this was during David Siller's time but I'm not sure there's any way of knowing.
Full cite: Electronic Gaming Monthly Jan 1996 (issue 78), p. 38 13:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridies (talk • contribs)

Okay, well, do you want to take a shot at incorporating some of that into the article? Like in maybe one paragraph? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fan-made utilities and remake that allows this game to run on Windows 7 and 8

Should we create a new section for:

XcomUtil
UFO extender: allows the game to run on Windows 7
OpenXcom: complete reprogramming remake with many new options.

Tuanminh01 (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on UFO: Enemy Unknown. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.mythosgames.com/ufoenemyunknow.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on UFO: 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://web.archive.org/web/20111026175106/http://www.next-gen.biz/features/making-x-com-enemy-unknown to http://www.next-gen.biz/features/making-x-com-enemy-unknown
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090308022717/http://www.lasersquadnemesis.com/AboutUs.htm to http://www.lasersquadnemesis.com/AboutUs.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gameinformer.com/april96/xcom.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121103113149/http://www.ugo.com/games/xcom-enemy-unknown-features to http://www.ugo.com/games/xcom-enemy-unknown-features
Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/july01/top502ase/
Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65NO5FXXr?url=http://www.edge-online.com/features/100-best-games-play-today to http://www.next-gen.biz/features/100-best-games-play-today
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160309200739/http://gamestar.ru/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, 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 01:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on UFO: 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://web.archive.org/web/20090901002618/http://uk.psx.ign.com/articles/150/150686p1.html to http://uk.psx.ign.com/articles/150/150686p1.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 06:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on UFO: 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 04:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New reference

An article in Wireframe, where Gollop talks about difficulties of testing the game: [8]. It may be enough for a paragraph. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exact release date

The 4th March 1994 edition of the Burnley Express lists UFO: Enemy Unknown as an upcoming game, to be released on the 23rd March. The info is on page 2 of the paper ("Corner Club", the kids section). https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000672/19940304/007/0002 Analog Kid (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]