# Talk:XCOM 2

"while criticism was mainly directed at its poor performance on many computers.[46]"
I believe that this is improved quite a bit. I can attest to that myself, it runs very smooth on a gtx 670 on a wqhd screen with medium to max settings. I hope someone can find a good source to reference this. Would a statement from the producer plus forum where many people report improved performance be sufficient in this case? PizzaMan (♨♨) 23:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:XCOM 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 14:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I know firsthand how much it isn't fun to wait more than two months for a GA review.  So, I have some free time and I'll be glad to review it for you.  Expect a review today, barring any complications.  Red Phoenix talk 14:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Lead:

Gameplay is split between turn-based combat in which players command a squad of soldiers to fight enemies, and strategy elements. So what are the strategy elements for?  Don't leave us hanging in the lead.
Players manage and control the operations of the Avenger, a commandeered alien ship that is used as a mobile base for XCOM, commanding the engineering and research department of the base between missions. I'd split this up into two sentences.  As it is now, the last clause is confusing; who's commanding the department?  Is it players, the Avenger, or XCOM?
The game engine is Unreal Engine 3.5 and artists drew inspiration from sci-fi movies including Elysium and Oblivion when creating the game's aesthetic. These two things don't seem to be connected, so I wouldn't put them in the same sentence.
Gameplay:

The game is played from a top-down perspective and is a turn-based tactics title in which players issue commands to a squad of human soldiers to eliminate the aliens in a map and dependent on missions, complete secondary objectives. This sentence is a bit messy; it's a lot organized in an awkward way.  It also is a bit repetitive; think of "game" and "title" as being the same word but "title" as WP:ELEVAR.  May I suggest a rewording?  "Played from a top-down perspective, the game uses turn-based tactics in which players issue commands to a squad of human soldiers to eliminate the aliens in a map and, dependent on missions, complete secondary objectives."
Soldiers be instructed to move, attack or both depending on their available action points. I think you're missing a word here.
Soldiers in the squad can be permanently killed by enemies and their bodies can be carried back to extract their equipment should the player deem it necessary to abort the mission.[13] If it is deemed necessary to abandon the mission, a soldier can carry wounded soldiers to extraction where they are revived upon leaving the map.[13] This all reads a bit odd because we're introducing aborting the mission, then explaining it like we haven't talked about abandoning with live soldiers instead of dead ones. Can we reword it?  Maybe something like: "Soldiers in the squad can be permanently killed by enemies. If it is deemed necessary to abandon the mission, a soldier can carry wounded soldiers to extraction where they are revived upon leaving the map.  The bodies of killed soldiers in the squad can also be carried back to extract their equipment."  Check me for accuracy before just using my wording outright, but that's a little smoother reading.
Plot:

I would advise trimming back the whole plot section a bit, at least. According to WP:VG/PLOT, "Plot sections should generally be no more than approximately 700 words, to retain focus."  Your word count is 732 words, and it reads as even a bit longer with the "Story" subheading.  I get that the 700 is not an absolute, but it's best not to push the threshold without good reason to do so.
Development:

Firaxis Games, the developer of XCOM: Enemy Unknown, and its creative director Jake Solomon, returned to work on XCOM 2, which had a shorter development time that Enemy Unknown, The developers inspected players' feedback from the 2012 reboot. This is all one sentence (no period), and even if there were a period before the capital letter, it's still a really bad run-on sentence.  I'd break it up a bit.
Solomon described the game's development as a more liberating experience than making the previous game because the team had amassed an audience and no longer need to be held up against the original X-COM games. Which original X-COM games?  We haven't really talked about the series to this point, so it comes out of the blue.  Are we talking about some of the 90s releases or Enemy Unknown?
Adding to the guerrilla nature of XCOM 2, XCOM's technology is no longer on par with that of the aliens and thus has to work with 'old world' weaponry. This reads more like a plot or gameplay element.  Could this be moved or reworded to make it more like a development aspect?  It certainly doesn't read as a lead sentence to a paragraph on development.
The developers found fewer than 30% of players finished the first game. Why?  Or if there isn't a reason why, what did the developers do to address this?  It needs to follow immediately after; don't make us look for the facts.
Despite the game's difficulty, the team wanted to encourage players to play more offensively so they added valuable loot drops, time-sensitive objectives and the idea of "concealment", in which recruits can ambush the aliens, forcing players to take more risks during gameplay. This sentence runs on; split it up.  I'd do so right at the "so they added valuable loot drops..."
Players can achieve variability through the strategic gameplay of the Avengers, in which players need to determine when and where to move the mobile headquarters, what to research and what areas to liberate first.[32] Players need to consider the consequences of performing actions. Completing a side-mission that nets players additional resources may mean the aliens may have made further progress with their Avatar Program. Like one of the sentences above, this reads more like gameplay than development.  Move it up or tie it in better.
Release:

I wouldn't start two consecutive sentences with date including day, month, and year.  Maybe do a little blending and start the second sentence with "Several days later, on May 25, ..."
2K collaborated with merchandise maker Project TriForce... "Merchandise maker" is a very broad term here.  Can you be a bit more specific?
Firaxis announced the game would only be released for personal computers because of the company's expertise in developing PC games. Firaxis believed making XCOM 2 a PC-only title would allow them to introduce new features such as procedural levels and that developing for a single platform is simpler. Two issues here.  First, I wouldn't start two sentences in a row with "Firaxis".  Secondly, on the second sentence, the last clause is worded awkwardly.  Is it that developing a game is simpler for one platform, or specifically XCOM 2?  I'd just split the sentence.
Reception:

Between the prose and the review box, we have a discrepancy on are we using "GamesRadar" or "GamesRadar+".  Let's pick one and go with it.
Add some sentence variation throughout the whole section.  We're in a very bad bog of "this person from this place said this...".  I would check out some other quality video game articles and look at their reception sections on how to break out of the repetitiveness and improve the sentence fluency.
The bugginess issues at the end of the main section are really more relevant to the Release than the Reception.  I would move it up.
Any more recent sales figures?  That's cool if it sold half a million in the first week.  Do we have any more recent numbers to add to it?
Images:

Although it's not usually a GA requirement, I'd suggest adding alternative text to both images for accessibility.  It's a quick and easy fix, and it's just a good thing to do for people with poor Internet access or who don't have good vision.
Sources look good and solid, mostly from WP:VG/S.  Situationally reliable sources appear to fit the criteria for use.  No issues here.
@OceanHok: This is a pretty good-looking article.  Some quips and a few things that need a look, but I think you can get it straightened out.  I'll put the article on hold for the time being. Red Phoenix talk 15:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Red Phoenix: - Thanks for the review! I think I have fixed all the issues you have mentioned above. I think the technical issues is part of the reception because it is raised by reviewers who stated that they have harmed the experience. 2K didn't release any more sales figure. OceanHok (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
All right, I think we're looking good.  You may want to highlight the technical issues more in reviews aside from the two mentioned, then, just to make this clear, but I'm okay with it staying where it is if that is the case.  On sales figures, I'm also good where we're at, but maybe this might help?  It has a count of Steam-only sales through 2016, putting XCOM 2 sales at over 1 million units sold and over $51 million in revenue.  In any regard, I would say we are at a point that meets the GA standards at this time, so I'll be glad to pass the article.  Nicely done.  Red Phoenix talk 14:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The article says “supplies can be gathered by excavating alien debris from the avenger, and intel can be collected by making contact with the resistance in other regions.” 
Firstly, it seems odd to declare excavating the avenger as the primary source of supplies, that honor should go to supply drops from the resistance. And there are many other ways of procuring supplies, such as completing most missions, performing avenger scans, trading at the black market, and more.
Also from what I understand, making contact with other regions doesn’t provide intel, it costs intel. Phoenix51291 (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. And does it make sense to say something about building radio-relays decreses intel cost for nearby regions and increases supply income? L10nM4st3r (1) (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)