# Talk:Aliens: Colonial Marines

The reference to 'Edge remarked that the game's Colonial Marines are in an inappropriate context because in the film they are depicted as Weyland-Yutani's private army and tasked with fighting Alien creatures. However, in the game, the Colonial Marines fight Weyland-Yutani's other private military armies.' is valid (in the sense that they said it), but is contrary to the actual film. The Colonials Marines are shown to be independent of 'the Corporation' ('Well, I believe Corporal Hicks has authority here. This operation is under military jurisdiction.') It's a reference, but entirely contrary to what the film actually shows... Roche-Kerr (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The EGM-Reviewer Brandon Justice admitted to having written the review before even having played the game and thus the review is not a true review that should be mentioned here since it doesn't reflect the true reception of EGM regarding that game. Since the part of the article deals with the actual reception of the game, this PR piece shouldn't be mentioned. Justice also made clear that his perception is not really based on his thoughts about the game, but is rather weighed against the opinion of other journalists, making his review basically worthless since it's not the objective analysis it should be:
"I wrote this review weeks ago for our latest print issue, long before I saw any other publication's score."
Here's a link to the site where his statement can be found:
http://www.egmnow.com/articles/reviews/egm-review-aliens-colonial-marines/#/
77.183.208.247 (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you link me to that actual comment as opposed to the review? Although if he only said "I wrote this review weeks ago for our latest print issue, long before I saw any other publication's score." as you've quoted then thats irrelevant and changes nothing Adycarter (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I've updated it as best i can, however i have a feeling that there is little bits of information missing from it here and there, if I have missed anything could someone add it in, Thanks AJFurnell 11:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That should do it. ;) JAF1970 (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The developers in the GI article state quite explicitly it takes place after Alien 3. JAF1970 (talk) 05:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

People originally mistook mentions of this game to mean Gearbox was working on a new Halo game - which they aren't. Should that be included in the article? 125.238.132.199 (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's irrevelent to the game itself. JAF1970 (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is a EuroGamer article being used as a reference for the release date? I mean, that's probably the Europe release date, but everything else points to October 2008 for NA. Someone may want to fix that, unless there's is a source showing a 2009 NA release (the original date before being moved up to 2008). 71.14.141.219 (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've rated it a C class. As informative as expected, nicely laid out, bit concerned that it depends so much on one source, but don't think this can be fixed until release.Yobmod (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.vgreleases.com/GameIndex-a.aspx
listed as march 2nd and 27th for USA and europe. I Cant add to references:(((  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.73.216 (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC) 

Gamestop says it will be released 11/5/11... Leland A. M.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.202.216.26 (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This article will be incorrect until a more solid source than a developer for the game shows up then. 
Lorin Wood from Gearbox said "Hi guys. No Fury 161 last time I checked" and "Hey guys, Regarding the Fury remark, I've been on the project for some time and I've never been assigned any design work for that facility, nor was anything ever mentioned. If it was in the original script by the writers it was probably removed some time ago as it really has nothing to do with the objective of the game, which is to be a colonial marine and shoot critters in settings established in the second film.". 
http://gbxforums.gearboxsoftware.com/showpost.php?p=1433943&postcount=393
http://gbxforums.gearboxsoftware.com/showpost.php?p=1434620&postcount=415

The article says "The events of the game are set after those of the film Alien 3.  A Colonial Marine search and rescue team has been sent to investigate the U.S.S. Sulaco in search of Ellen Ripley, Corporal Dwayne Hicks, and the rest of the missing marines who were dispatched to LV-426."  However, during the events of Alien3, it's clear that the Company knows exactly where Ripley and Hicks are and would not need to search for them.  It would make more sense if the game was set between Aliens and Alien3 because at that time the Company would not have known what had happened to the Marines and a search team would be warranted.  Anyways, the link is dead so I can't check it myself and I can't find anything else about it.  Anyone have any info about this? —  Mr. Van Tine (t – c)  16:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the Game Informer cover story sets the time period as being between Aliens and Alien 3 (I have the physical copy, but not on me at the moment to verify). Anyway, in Alien 3 the Weyland-Yutani Corporation doesn't know where Ripley is until the Fiorina 161 prison complex contacts them after recovering the EEV. Recall that in Aliens Carter Burke is running the military operation largely under the radar of Weyland-Yutani: he ordered the colonists to investigate the derelict based on Ripley's testimony, and is trying to clean up the resulting mess while simultaneously smuggling Alien embryos back to Earth so that he may save face with the company and profit off of them (Ripley pieces this all together after Burke traps here & Newt in the lab with the facehuggers...she mentions that there is no rescue ship coming because Burke never informed Weyland-Yutani about their mission). Much of the action of Colonial Marines, according to the Game Informer article, takes place on the Sulaco post-launch of the EEV; clearly at this point Weyland-Yutani doesn't know what became of Ripley or their team of marines, and only finds out once they receive communication from Fiorina 161. I'll dig up the Game Informer when I get home and try to make better sense of this. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
That makes perfect sense.  It's just the line "The events of the game are set after those of the film Alien 3" that confused me. —  Mr. Van Tine (t – c)  18:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and change the article to reflect the description posted on the official website http://www.gearboxsoftware.com/games/aliens/
Which states:
"Aliens: Colonial Marines begins with an ostensibly abandoned ship, the U.S.S. Sulaco, recovered in orbit around LV-426. Players crew."
Since cannon holds that the Sulaco was destroyed by fire after the events of the 2nd movie and before the 3rd began. Also, the colony on LV-426 was destroyed in the thermonuclear detonation of the atmosphere processor, thus leaving nothing to be 'explored' by the marines. I also removed the citation that stated it was a post Aliens 3 game. That citation was 3 years old. The games website is much more current.Coradon (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted your edit.  There is a lot wrong with your thinking.  First your edit referred to Alien 2 which is something else all together.  Secondly, there is no indication that the fire in the beginning of Alien 3 destroyed the Sulaco, only that their was a fire in the cryogenic compartment.  Third, the colony was depicted as being destroyed, this didn't destroy the entire planet (LV426), although game material does refer to the Hadley's Hope colony as being a game area (we'll see how they justify this).  Fourth while the citation may be old, it is still accurate according to the game's official site which you suggest using.  Fifth, cannon is largely irrelevant, if Gearbox and Fox want to ignore parts of what is depicted in the movies they can, they can set it whenever and wherever they want. --Daniel 17:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't there news on this? I've been trying to find it, but all I've manged to find is mentions that it HAD been cancelled.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.157.235 (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 

Go to http://66.194.172.6, set your birthday and enter "father" as the hostname to see an extended trailer. This might be worth including in the article as it seems to be featuring gameplay.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.63.113.61 (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC) 

Why was my edit deleted? Aliens vs Marines multiplayer has been confirmed! Don't believe me? Then go to YouTube. Anyway, I redid my edit. FangSylux (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

And I reverted it. You replaced sourced text with unsourced claims, which is unacceptable. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. "Go you youtube" doesn't cut it. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Unsourced claims? Uh...maybe that's because it wasn't from anything, I didn't just copy and paste if that's what you're implying. Do it however you like, my point still stands, there IS Aliens vs Marines multiplayer! The information there is outdated and needs to be updated. FangSylux (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Once again, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
If YouTube isn't a reliable source, then do you want me to find a 'legitimate' source? Fang (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Simply saying "Don't believe me? Go to Youtube" doesn't cut it. Please read WP:SOURCES and WP:RS. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Can you not read?! I'm asking you, do you want me to find a source and cite it OR are you happy with the (outdated) information that is already there? Sorry, I don't want to get on your bad side. And thank you for those links. I have some experience with wikia (I'm admin on a wiki) but I am fairly new to Wikipedia and as you can probably tell, I am rather inexperienced. Fang (talk) 10:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you need to find a reliable source and cite it. That's why I pointed out the verifiability policy multiple times. Regardless of whether you think the info is outdated, replacing sourced statements with unsourced claims (as you did) isn't acceptable. Sourced statements trump unsourced ones, every time. --IllaZilla (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Man, I love finding such eloquent reasons why Wikipedia is amazing, and its community the epitome of revolting. There is no collaboration, only one-upmanship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.76.233.161 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by that, but in reference to the discussion re: multiplayer I must repeat that the standard on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: "Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability. Unlike some encyclopedias, Wikipedia does not try to impose 'the truth' on its readers, and does not ask that they trust something just because they read it in Wikipedia." FangSylux removed reliably-sourced text from the article and replaced it with a claim that was completely unsourced. I simply asked him/her to cite a source to support the change. He/she was either unable or unwilling to do so. It's a very simple request, and I don't see how it's "revolting" or constitutes "one-upsmanship". --IllaZilla (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
It is revolting because it lacks compassion. Not everyone has the time nor the inclination to shepherd Wikipedia. These persons who visit Wikipedia for enrichment however do have good hearts and wish to see it grow and strengthen. All they have are ideas and knowledge, it is up to the editors to take all of these into account, no matter how trivial or minute, and use their experience and wisdom to weigh and integrate them. It should not be a solo-venture of who could give the greatest display of researching prowess. Maybe you do not fit my stereotype of a Wikipedia editor, but the above exchange certainly does fit the stereotype of the stifling process an article goes through.
So in that spirit, I will bridge half the distance: here should be a suitable source Wikipedia could use http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/04/04/the-multiplayer-pulse-of-aliens-colonial-marines. 50.76.233.161 (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with IllaZilla. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned, because the game has completed developement, it had working LAN and everything
And it's not a first person shooter, the aliens are playable *altho we werent allowed to only the staff were)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.51.24.36 (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC) 

BootHammer | 6.5/10
Computerdoc275 (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Protection of this article has expired. Subject to the policies on consensus, verifiability, and neutral point-of-view, you should be able to make the requested edit yourself. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The article states that you find his corpse, but I never found it. Where is it at?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manderinesauce (talk • contribs) 23:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC) 

On 30th of April, Polygon announced a lawsuit against Sega and Gearbox for wrong advertising. They claimed the game presented before the release was very different from the version post release and made people prepurchase a game that was not how people thought it would be.

This video shows it well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lGXDM3LGnk
78.124.99.104 (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://sgcafe.com/2013/01/aliens-colonial-marines-release-month/
Triggered by \bsgcafe\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done.  No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This section starts with, "Aliens: Colonial Marines has received mostly positive reviews" (with citations referencing the aggregate score sites listed in the stat box to the right), when the aggregate scores are less than 5/10. That strikes me as akin to saying, in a room with 4 females and 6 males, "The room mostly contains females." Maybe the text is older than the scores? 2601:C:AB80:3D1:BE5F:F4FF:FE35:1B41 (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism originally introduced with this edit, which was repaired piecemeal by another IP the following day, but - apparently inadvertently - restored earlier today.  All should be well now. —Cryptic 14:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticism needs a cleanup. As owner and player, its quite good
Alien 2 story ... except (I am sure this can be backed up by gaming websites
and magazine reviews)
- Games is sooo linear and scripted that its buggy. E.g. I shoot canisters
near Armoured Carrier in a mission and they dont explode until approached, killing me.
It was supposed to shoot from relative victinity to start the sequence
- Game is very hard on easiest level. While they shoot you faster on higher difficulties,
additional health/armor or different system needs to be introduced. Coupled with no
real save system  - but checkpoints that save your current health and ammo status, it makes it dull, have to replay same parts time to time. This is a big downer.
- AI is very low, lower then in Quake. Enemies easily get stuck and are often too dumb,
or for example, your friends constantly shoot you with friendly line of fire. For NPCs it takes a lot more work to kill enemies etc. AI is saddest thing in game.
178.220.188.222 (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Aliens: Colonial Marines. 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/20120920061728/http://e3.nintendo.com/games/ to http://e3.nintendo.com/games/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605192545/http://gbxforums.gearboxsoftware.com/showthread.php?t=122193 to http://gbxforums.gearboxsoftware.com/showthread.php?t=122193
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130215062946/http://uk.gamespot.com/aliens-colonial-marines/reviews/aliens-colonial-marines-review-6403683/ to http://uk.gamespot.com/aliens-colonial-marines/reviews/aliens-colonial-marines-review-6403683/
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) 20:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

What is a "PMC"? That term is used multiple times in the article without any explanation. Maybe it's known to someone who has studied this franchise in detail but there should be something here to fill in the gap.
Also, what is the status of the section headed "Stasis Interrupted"? Where does that story come from, where is the reference to back it up?
TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 13:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aliens: Colonial Marines. 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/20080217133713/http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200802/N08.0213.1711.09335.htm to http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200802/N08.0213.1711.09335.htm
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) 05:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Aliens: Colonial Marines. 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/20120213055742/http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/2012/02/10/aliens-colonial-marines-ps3-original-cast-members-confirmed-release-delay-explained/ to http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/2012/02/10/aliens-colonial-marines-ps3-original-cast-members-confirmed-release-delay-explained/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130413051229/http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/review/aliens-colonial-marines-ps3-review-i-got-signals-i-got-readings-in-front-and-behind/ to http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/review/aliens-colonial-marines-ps3-review-i-got-signals-i-got-readings-in-front-and-behind/
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) 11:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aliens: Colonial Marines/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: TheJoebro64 (talk · contribs) 23:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I've always liked Alien (not the third one or those crappy Predator crossover movies, those don't count). This looks like a very interesting article. Expect comments by the end of the week. JOEBRO64 23:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead
I'd link to science fiction film in the first sentence.
Done
It was published by Sega and released for the Microsoft Windows...—I think you can cut "and released for" from this sentence, as being released is implied by "published".
Done
Could you be a bit specific as to what a "Colonial Marine" is? Wikipedia is geared to a general audience so this could possibly confuse readers who aren't familiar with the Alien mythos.
Added fictional military unit
...released for the Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3, and Xbox 360 platforms—Similarly, I would trim "the" and "platforms".
Done
Upon release, Colonial Marines...—"Upon release" is unnecessary because most, if not all reviews are published when the game is released.
Removed
Do you think linking "unanimously negative reviews" to List of video games notable for negative reception would help? Most games listed there (like this one) do this.
I don't think so because the reliability and subjectivity of that article is highly questionable. While the game is certainly considered a disappointment, reviews were actually not that bad and some were even positive. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
its technical issues—"Issue" is a WP:EUPHEMISM.
Replaced with technical problems
Gameplay
See my note about "Colonial Marines" above.
Added fictional military unit
Scenarios include Team Deathmatch, where both teams must kill as many opposing players as possible, Extermination, where Colonial Marines must detonate bombs in egg-infested areas protected by Aliens, Escape, which involves Colonial Marines completing objectives to reach a destination while being assaulted by Aliens, and Survivor, where Colonial Marines must survive attacks from Aliens with limited health and ammunition resources for as long as possible. The modes should be split by semicolons because each item in this is actually a complete sentence, so using commas would make the entire thing a run-on.
Done
Alien ranks unlock new abilities for Alien characters. Such as?
Added "combat abilities". I don't think it's worth going into greater detail because they are simply a set of melee attacks, each with their own attributes. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Plot
prior to its arrival at...—This is a WP:EASTEREGG.
Removed
Development
considerable amount of pre-production—If my understanding is correct, hyphens should only be used in "pre-"/"re-" words if it creates ambiguous meaning.
Removed hyphens
view Gearbox and Timegate disagreed with. All other instances of TimeGate capitalize the G.
Fixed
How much of the game was actually made by Gearbox is highly questioned. Questioned by whom?
By TimeGate. Fixed. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
However, without considering Gearbox's pre-production time—See my previous comment on the hyphen in "preproduction".
Fixed
Marketing and release
The game was officially announced—If my understanding is correct, general consensus is that official is an unnecessary qualifier. In most contexts no one will assume these things were unofficial if you don't specify.
Makes sense. Removed. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Colonial Marines would be released in Spring 2012 ... fall 2012...—WP:SEASON.
Fixed
Is there a reason the Wii U version was canceled? The source seems to indicate that it was canceled in favor of Shoot Many Robots and an unspecified project, but I just wanted to double-check.
The source does not clarify why it was canceled. I suspect it was canceled due to the game's negative critical reception, but I couldn't find a reliable source to back it up. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Downloadable content
but it is unclear who assisted Gearbox with the development of Stasis Interrupted. Could this be worded a bit better? From my experience "it was", "it is", etc.-like statements are considered unclear.
Replaced with "but it was not confirmed if they contributed to the development of Stasis Interrupted" --Niwi3 (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Reception
See my comment above about linking to the list of video games notable for negative reception.
Replied above
Electronic Gaming Monthly, the only notable publication which gave the game a very positive review—This strikes me as a bit WP:ORy and WP:NPOV. Furthermore, it is probably incorrect: The Guardian, which is certainly notable, gave the game 4/5 stars.
Removed "the only notable publication which gave the game a very positive review" part. Also, I added The Guardian review to the reviews table and to support other statements in the prose. Nice find. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major works: "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized".
Done
References
All good.
Miscellaneous
Just as a general note for the entire article: I noticed instances of both American and British variants of English being used (i.e. "per cent" and "cancelled" but also "criticize" and "license"). I know this probably wasn't intentional, but I'd pick one or the other.
Went for American English because it's an American game. For some reason, I thought "cancelled" was American English. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Expect a completed review by Monday. JOEBRO64 22:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Niwi3, that's it. A few blips here and there, but overall this is a well-written and thoroughly interesting read. Nice work. JOEBRO64 00:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
@TheJoebro64: Thank you for your review, really appreciated! I'm currently at work now, so I'll address the above issues once I'll get home. Regards --Niwi3 (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I have addressed all the issues and left some comments above (some of the issues were fixed by Popcornduff, who copy-edited the article). Let me know what you think. Thanks --Niwi3 (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
@Niwi3: Alright, looks good! Passing. JOEBRO64 21:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The lede section is giving prominence to the AI problem existing in the game at release, while hiding that there is a known fix for this problem. A reader who just skimmed through this part of the article would leave with the impression that playing the game today in single-player mode would suffer from this bad AI. 
I know that this misconception is corrected in the body, where it explains the fix as covered by reliable sources, but the lede should stand on its own as a neutral short version of the article. Either give the AI fix the same prominence in the lede to avoid the unbalance, or remove both and let the reader read the full article to find about this subject of the AI problems existing and release. Diego (talk) 08:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I expanded the lead with more information. However, the fix doesn't neccessarily address critics' concerns about the game's artificial intelligence (implying so is original research). --Niwi3 (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, the addition to the lead section shows a more balanced description of the gameplay. Diego (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted that the game’s script continues the lore established in ACMTM from 1997. Notably the “blue on blue incident avoidance” established in the ACMTM. These being the Legato and Shinyo Maru. Also the “conflicted responses” of Bishop 341B from Aliens 1986. It’s detailed in various places online if you search for “nefarious Bishop 341-B.”
85.148.213.144 (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)