BrianC's XCOM: Enemy Unknown review

I worked through a fair few edits to your base review as it was. You can compare the two to see the difference.

The aspect that stuck out the most was your paragraphing. Every supplied paragraph only consisted of a sentence or two, which made the entire thing read like a list of bullet points rather than a complete review. The points you were making were quite organic and flowed into each other's discussion fine, so employing such a choppy narrative serves no purpose. I've tightened the entire thing up while still keeping the points you were trying to make.

Also worth noting that some of those points weren't really review material, but served more as a FAQ on how beginners should start the game. It's sometimes difficult not to take this path, but it shouldn't be your core argument, nor should suggesting fixes. The game is as it is - it's your job as a reviewer to tell a potential gamer why you liked or disliked it. That being said, I understood a lot of the review because I've played the game in question. Try to keep in mind that the ideal reader is someone who has not played the game at all and has little prior knowledge. You talk about some things under the assumption that the reader will know, for example, exactly what a Thin Man or Floater is. I've tried to fix the most obvious instances of this.

It's not all bad; you show a solid understanding of why you think various aspect of the game have failed and have communicated that strongly. Have a read through both your original draft and the edited version here and see what aspects of both you prefer and try to work towards that in future efforts. Any questions, let me know.

I appreciate the edits you made as it kept the original points of my review. The only grammatical error I saw was towards the beginning, "I've tried the original UFO Defense, so [I] have experience what the old games demanded of the player."

The reason for the weird paragraphing was something I picked up on while reading some popular reviewers (like Yahtzee or Jim Sterling) and most Steam reviews. People seem to prefer spaced out "points" rather than blocks of text. I got into that habit of formatting it for the reader's sake.

I'm a little confused on what points were and were not review material. I understood how the normal vs. classic bit could come off as more of a "How to learn to play" guide." It was meant to point out the problems of both difficulties and why I couldn't find something in the middle to satisfy me.

What I'm not so sure is why is suggesting fixes not a part of the review. Maybe it's a pet-peeve of mine but I despise when people say something is a problem but do not offer a solution instead. When I do offer some constructive criticism, it should, hopefully, not simplify the mechanic or issue but point out 1) why the current system is lacking and 2) why this solution would make it better.

I think my suggestion for various aiming calculations based on weapon-types is a good example.

As for thinking the reader knows everything I'm saying, yeah, I'm aware of that issue and I typically catch myself doing that. The instances here were more of a problem of trying to condense my thoughts on a Steam review.

Thanks for replying. Once I'm back on a platform more stable than my mobile phone, I'll fix my unfortunate typo. I'll also update the review so it's linked to the account you've created to make your reply; it's still your work, so you should have complete control over it, and be free to make any edits you deem necessary.

I'll expand on mechanics fix suggestions. I think that in normal practice it's near obligatory to offer fixes when you're being critical about something, but it's not an aspect I've ever found comfortably fits into reviewing as a whole. Some of that is because it's extraordinarily unlikely that Firaxis is going to stumble upon your review and rework their entire ballistics engine. It's also easy to slip into the realms of fantasy booking and spend more time talking about things that aren't present in the game but you'd rather were. It's of little help to your core audience, who it helps to envision as completely ignorant. That said, as someone who has sunk a lot of time into XCOM, I agree that it's a stupid design choice to have some weapons react exactly the same sans an accuracy slider at certain ranges.

That is true, I really doubt Firaxis will see it. It's ironic that some of my suggestions for improvement are in XCOM 2--a way to train recruits to get their classes outside of missions and an overwatch setting with some area (Kill Shot skill).

I find it easier to use them to be critical of a game and it makes it easier to talk about one thing in relation to another (ex. Overwatch into the aiming system problems.) But I can see where you're coming from.

(The text came out somewhat illegible. Must be an iOS formatting issue like on YouTube.)