Talk:Resident Evil 4/Archive 3

Separate Ways

Is there any actual indication as to whether Separate Ways is Canon or Non-canon? -- Aoikumo 21:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. But common sense would indicate that the developers would hardly go to the trouble of exposition, clearing up the story line, characters motivations et al. just to turn around and make it non-canon. Separate Ways also intercedes and interacts with the main RE4 scenario, so how can one argue a rationale of non-canon?Parjay ► Talk 22:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

lol, that's what I was thinking too, but someone keeps changing it to non-canon on the page. so was curious if there was any definate proof not to chnage it back lol. =) Aoikumo 23:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I just left them a message asking them to see the talk page. DurinsBane87 02:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The canon nature of Seperate Ways can no more be touted than the canon nature of Resident Evil Outbreak Files 1 or 2, as several of the events in those games tie in with with the events in Resident Evil 2 and 3, yet offer contradictory depictions of events, dates and locations. The fact that seperate ways has anything to do with the main story of RE4 is moot, as Assignment Ada as well has ties to the main story.Hplovecraftt 02:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The outbreak games were completely seperate games, while Seperate Ways was part of a canon game. There's no contradiction between the two that i noticed. DurinsBane87 03:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's moot whether or not the afformetnioned games are part of another game or stand as their own titles. They all take place within the RE universe. Also, Assignment Ada is generall considered non canon and yet it is part of a canon game, Resident Evil 4. As for the contradictions in the Outbreak series: Various subtle changes have been made to the layout of the R.P.D. precinct featured in the 'Desperate Times' scenario not appearing in Resident Evil 2. Changes include the lack of a third floor, a missing door on the first floor, and a size error in the basement garage (the armory room conflicts with the parking ramp); In the closing cinematic of the 'Desperate Times' scenario, Harry drives the S.W.A.T. van directly forwards away from the front gate of the Raccoon Police Station when leaving with the survivors. However in Resident Evil 3, we see that there is a building directly opposite the front gate of the Raccoon Police Station; If you beat 'Desperate Times' with Kevin, you see a squad car pass by. The people in the squad car are implied to be Leon and Claire of Resident Evil 2. Which also implies that the date when playing this level may be September 29, the day Leon and Claire come to Raccoon City. Though in Resident Evil 3, which takes place on September 28, a day before the events of Resident Evil 2, Jill Valentine goes to the R.P.D. precinct and finds Marvin Branaghs fatally wounded (but not dead) body in the office. At the end of 'Desperate Times' Marvin is seen going into the office after being attacked and bitten by zombies. This could also mean that the date the scenario takes place could be on September 27. A day before Resident Evil 3, and two days before Resident Evil 2 began. If this is so, the squad car may only be a non-canon reference to Leon and Claire; In the scenario 'Below Freezing Point', several doors have been destroyed by hunters. After the survivors escape, Claire Redfield and Leon S. Kennedy venture through the labs. These doors are not damaged during the events of Resident Evil 2; Marvin is seen injured by zombies while waiting for a character to return with back-up. According to Biohazard Archives, Marvin was wounded during a blockade incident; There's even a potential connection to RE4 in that at the end of Outbreak's credits, a movie plays showing the establishment of the Umbrella facility in the ruins of Raccoon City. Two scientists inside the facility discuss the emergence of several mysterious new lifeforms in the ruins. Meanwhile, a F-22A Raptor covertly photographs them without their knowledge. Presumably this is meant to be the beginning of the US government's surveillance of Umbrella which will ultimately lead to their downfall as shown at the beginning of Resident Evil 4.Hplovecraftt 03:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No, no, I understand the continuity screw ups in the outbreak series, I mean continuity breaks in Assignment Ada or Seperate ways. You can't just SAY they arent Canon, you have to have some reliable source that says it. DurinsBane87 03:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Then please feel free to explain to me how it is canon. Assignment Ada clearly depicts Ada leaving with plaga samples in a suitcase, sans the ending everyone is privy to in the RE4 main storyline. Thats a pretty big break. Also, what about the references Ada makes to a "Master Plaga" sample, something which is never ever presented in the main game, both in phrase, text and form.Hplovecraftt 03:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, as I have said, tt's moot whether or not the afformetnioned games are part of another game or stand as their own titles. They all take place within the RE universe. Also, Assignment Ada is generally considered non canon by most gamers, please reference gamfaqs forums for first hand information, and yet it is part of a canon game, Resident Evil 4.Hplovecraftt 03:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't cite a forum, it's unreliable. You have to have a actual source. I don't need to prove it's canon, tha article previously didnt say one way or the other. YOU made the assertion that it wasn't, so you must provide a source or citation. DurinsBane87 03:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, none of us has said that it was canon to begin with, we all have said that there is no real source to say either it is or isn't. forums and such are merely based upon the opinions and theories of the gamers themselves and have no solid basis in actual fact. 204.210.125.131 05:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no "proof" either way. Just common sense. Under your rationales, one can easily argue that RE4 itself hasn't yet been proven canon. Also, on another note, Assignment Ada is most likely canon also - Ada doesn't escape at the end of AA, she finishes the mission, the mini game ends, and we're shown the ending of RE4. If you look, in the main RE4 ending, Ada has the samples she had to collect in AA sealed within the case as she puts in the master sample. And on another note, Hplovecraftt, you need to realise that the gameplay, visual design et al. of a game have no bearing on the canon of a storyline. You reference Outbreak's RPD being different, yet there were lots of visual changes to the RPD in RE3. By your rationale, RE3 would not be canon. What off the Birkin's lab in RE Zero looking different? RE2 then would not be canon. Obviously, you can see your problem with your rationale. Parjay ► Talk 06:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There is another reason that the err... "cannon-ocity" of seperate ways is questionable. It would take someone around 10-30 minutes to complete the first mmission (ringing the church bell) on their first time around. Leon would have finished killing monsters by then and wouldn't had taken half an hour in the village, as that's absurd.

You can't factor real-time arguments into a game narrative that isn't presented real-time. Remember: it's a game. The same reason we have to accept that NPC's can move around puzzle blocks and locked doors without having to find the same items and keys the player does. Parjay ► Talk 16:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure timing is generally ignored in video games. Besides, it explains the altar Leon finds, and why there's an emerald in the puzzle behind the castle instead of the round thing. DurinsBane87 16:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Shinji Mikami

The article quotes Shinji Mikami, the whole "cut [his own] head off" thing, without bothering to mention that that particular expression is a figure of speech, meaning that he would quit his job. The article later says "To date, Mr. Mikami's head remains intact upon his shoulders." Please correct this misinterpretation as soon as possible. 24.34.65.150 20:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeh I added that a good while back, but it's been lost during edits. Parjay ► Talk 21:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

it would seems user ip number 72.82.81.6 made the edit to include "To date, Mr. Mikami's head remains intact upon his shoulders." in fact, it's apparently that ip user's only contribution to wiki -___-; Aoikumo 23:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dialect of Spanish

I see many people complaining about how the Spanish spoken in this game isn't European Spanish. First off, different regions of Spain have different dialects, in the south such as in Andalucía the Spanish is similar to Mexican and other Latin American dialects of Spanish. While in the north they pronounce ce, ci, and z with a lisp and pronounce ll like the sound in "million". Anyway, can somebody tell me specifically what slang they use in this game or how they pronounce things that isn't consistent with European Spanish? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.57.26.44 (talk) 03:29, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

I'm not particularly certain that it matters, unless you can tell me how this will relate to the improvment of the article. DurinsBane87 03:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

it would help pinpoint the area of spain the game takes place in... —Preceding unsigned comment added by REexpert44 (talk • contribs) 05:18, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed a million times. even if you were to nail down the exact dialect without a doubt, it would be original research, and therefore unallowable on wikipedia. DurinsBane87 07:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Andalusian may be more similar to Latin American Spanish than more northern dialects, but it's still WAAAAAAAY different. Nothing in the way they speak is "consistent" with European Spanish (not that it matters anyway as, after all, NOTHING in the game resembles anything Spanish, not even remotely). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.79.129.243 (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Disneyland Castle

I don't know if anyone has notice this before, but tonight I was playing level 4-1 I think, where you are in the castle after assembling the ornaments you go into a second ride to another wing of the castle. Just before boarding the vehicle you can see Sleeping Beauty Castle from Disneyland in the background. I'm really sure it is the same thing, I even looked for a picture to compare it. Anyone has seen this before?--189.156.178.187 07:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Which version of the game are you speaking of?ABK20062 (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Big gap

I don't know if it's just my computer or not, but there's a HUGE gap between the "Gameplay" and "Changes" section, and I don't know how to fix it. Someone care to do fill it? Dengarde ► Complaints 01:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

That ain't just your computer. I'll have a go at fixin' it. Lychosis ^T/C 01:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it looks worse without the gap. Take out the {-} at the end of the "Gameplay" section and then preview it. Looks terrible. Lychosis ^T/C 01:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? Look fine to me. I'll try changing it, tell me if it still looks that way. Dengarde ► Complaints 01:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not really sure that I like the look of it. The way that one line of text snakes its way in between the infobox and the image. If we could fix that, it might not be so bad. I dunno. Lychosis ^T/C 02:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Hence why I moved the image :) Think that's good? Dengarde ► Complaints 02:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Much better, but that one line of text is still bugging me a bit. The whole paragraph is there, but then there's one line of text that sticks under the infobox. Not a big deal or anything, just a bit of a peeve of mine. Would it be possible to make the infobox just one line longer, so that wouldn't happen? Lychosis ^T/C 02:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I removed something that's not entirely true and re-worded something. That should do it. Dengarde ► Complaints 02:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Great, looks a lot better. Hope other people think so, though. Lychosis ^T/C 02:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Resident Evil 4 - Mobile version

http://www.the-horror.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1189

Coming straight out of the latest Famitsu courtesy of CVXFreak, Biohazard 4 has been announced for mobile phones in Japan. Its unknown at this point if it will see a US release. Most likely we will get it in a few months, due to the popularity of the title. You can see the scan below, showing the now blue colored Ganados.

http://www.the-horror.com/imagedisplay.php?img=news/pics/2007%209%2019/01.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.212.201.27 (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Mercanaries?

I couldn't find anything in the article about this additional mode. It is an unlocked extra. I only have the Wii edition from Australia and so am unsure if it exists in other versions.

The idea is you have to kill a maximum number of enemies within a time limit to gain maximum points. There is collectable time extensions to get more time. You also cannot die within the time limit. There are four playable levels. Initially Leon is the only playable character within this extra but others are unlockable after doing well.

Cheers --TInTIn 02:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The Mercenaries is available in all versions of the game. And it's only an unlockable mode, so it's not really worth mentioning here. Dengarde ► Complaints 02:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Story, Jack Krauser

I edited the story part to say "Leon's comrade". or something of the sort. No where in the game does he say they were friends. If I am wrong, correct me and tell me where. Jackkrauser09 (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

After going through the game, it is never said that Leon and Krauser were friends. But one could argue that there seems to be, not a "friendship", but more of a past "battle buddy" relationship between the two.ABK20062 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, Krauser said "Been a long time, comrade", during his first encounter with Leon in the game.Prepsear (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Krauser does say that. Spartan198 (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

Reception and Awards Gone?

Why is the Resident Evil 4 Reception and awards gone? Mariofanatic (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Weapons?

I am new to wikipedia editing, but I personally feel that the Resident Evil 4 page is missing piece on the weapons of the game. Does anybody else feel the same about this?ABK20062 (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That would come under game guide material. A separate weapons article once existed and was deleted. Geoff B (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In this case, a Weapons sections is justified, as long as it aim would be to point out that is a revolutionary upgrade system, which is not found on other games, and that is an important part in how RE4 makes a difference with any other game (valuated by all its awards) Sully76cl (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't really see how the system is revolutionary, there are plenty of games where one can purchase upgrades, but if if an encyclopedic section can be created I'd love to see it. Geoff B (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a good idea to make an encyclopedic section of weapons upgrades. Anyway, is revolutionary in the way that no other game let's you upgrade different aspects of a weapon (firing speed, capacity, etc). If you insist that there ar "plenty", please provide me the name of a few of them, because as far as I know there aren't Sully76cl (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Deus Ex, most of the Jagged Alliance games, the Ratchet & Clank games, Metal Arms, Quake 4, Parasite Eve 2, etc etc. It's a very common gameplay mechanic. Geoff B (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to add a section to state that weapon's system in RE4 was revolutionary, please be sure to cite a reliable source, ex: GameSpot, IGN or 1-up. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 17:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Weapons

There are several weapons in the game, even hidden ones! Someone must fix this.

YaBoiKrakerz Check out my articles on the Broken Butterfly and Red9, more forthcoming. Kurtz69 2-12-09

Resident Evil 4 Mobile Part II

A question is posed. Where is the section on Resident Evil 4 Mobile edition and why has it been removed from the article? There cannot be any doubt that a mobile edition is being produced, Capcom has already shown it off and YouTube has several videos with footage of the mobile edition, furthermore, IGN has an article on the mobile edition and so do countless other sources. I will be seeking to replace the mobile edition as a valid supplement to the article, it's certainly valid to those who will be purchasing and playing the mobile edition. 74.215.100.143 (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC) J

Merging the list of weapons

On its own, the topic doesn't assert any separate notability, but the information would be good for this one. Nothing from the lead is necessary. The quote from the producer is would fit here. The weapons will be summed up in a paragraph or two. The controller is technically already covered. Some of the reception can be integrated with general gameplay reception. The references from the toy section can possibly be used for merchandise. TTN (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The less than a week old article asserts separate notability and works much better as a separate sub-article and is still in the process of being built into a GA level article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The age has nothing to do with it. This type of article is never going suitable as a split without substantial information that actually separates the topic, making it so it is impossible to fully cover it in the main article. Otherwise, each video game could potentially have up to twenty sub-articles depending on how many trivial bits you can find. Absolutely nothing there justifies a split, and if you were working on this instead, most of that information would be here. Bringing this to FA status would be much more important. TTN (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The age means that we do not yet know how good the article can be and we should give it some time. None of us are prophets or in the possession of crystal balls. Thus, saying "never" is without basis. The article already has substantially information that makes it work as a sub-article. Moreover, there is absolutely no good reason whatsoever why an online-encyclopedia that contains elements of specialized encyclopedias should not have multiple sub-articles. This main article would be incredibly long if the sub-sections on characters, creatures, and weapons (all three of which can be developed in their own right) were just merged. Wikipedia makes for a more valuable reference tool if it contains thorough coverage of notable topics that are well-referened. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Work should be done on the main article before sub articles are worked on. Splitting out is the way the process works with fiction, so that allows time to actually see if the topic is suitable. I said that it never works without actual separate information, not just never. Pretty much all of that information is going to have to be placed in this article at some point, making that entirely redundant. You may think that every topic down to the main characters left shoe is suitable for an article, but you must at least be against redundancy. Seeing as all three of those articles would amount to six total paragraphs, and seeing as the sections are still going to have to contain at least four paragraphs in total even if those are suitable articles, length has nothing to do with it. This is one main topic, and everything can be contained here. TTN (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The main article was created a few years before the sub-article's creation. If the section in the main article internally links to the sub-article then there is no need for the information to be duplicated in the main article as the sub-article provides more focused information concerning this particularly notable aspect of the game. By the way, sometimes a main character's shoes apparently are notable enough for an article. Probably not the case with Resident Evil, but just as the shoes serve as a major plot element of Wizard of Oz so too can weapons serve as major aspect of an action video game the merit more coverage than is justified in the main article. The casual references necessary in the main article to the controller need not extinguish the value of providing more in-depth coverage about the topic elsewhere. All encyclopedias have some degree of overlap. An article on the history of Macedonia will naturally overlap with the article on Alexander the Great, but that does not make either article less useful. Finally, the article we are discussing here is not even titled and nor is it a "list of weapons." Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No, this is still going to require a detailed summary of the weapons, and reception information on them. Everything important is still going to be here. It's just going to have a link to repetitive information. This is just an unfortunate case of people going "Ooh, pretty numbers in brackets" instead of actually thinking of organizing the information in useful ways. Overlapping in this case would be to link to a series article to show similar gameplay elements between the games of the series. This is just silly organization that is only being brought upon by your eccentric views on organization. TTN (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith aside, even Judegsurreal777 who is hardly an inclusionist suggested that the article could have potential GA status. There is nothing wrong with the main article having a small internal section on weapons, but a link to a larger article that provides readers with more detailed coverage. That way those who are interested in just learning about the game in general can come to the main article, but if someone is conducting additional research on the weapons, their reception, etc., then they have the option to go on to that article. If nothing else, please refrain from unilateral merging and deleting while these discussions are underway. At least give those of attempting in good faith to see what we can do with article an opportunity to finish our work before the discussions finish and consensus is reached. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I heard my name, so I thought I'd comment. I would normally agree that this type of information should be within the main article, but I think it would be OK to give Le Grand Roi the benefit of the doubt, which I think is what assume good faith means, if he really thinks it can be its own article. I think the article is in critical need of creation info, like how the weapons were developed and designed, since there already seems to be a small reception section. I feel the same as I did with World of Super Mario RPG, which is that it may very well get merged, but lets see. If we give Le Grand Roi time to work on it, we can see what he has, and if he has a Good article, great, and if not, I'm sure he will be reasonable and agree with TTN that it should be merged. That's my opinion anyway. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Judgesurreal777, thank you for your fair and reasonable input. Yes, my main concerns here are that the article was prodded one minute after its creation and nominated for deletion one day later as well. In the course of the past few days, I (as well as Pixelface, The Rouge Penguin, Erik, and GeoffB) have all been able to find a significant number of sources and image to drastically revise the article from an unsources list to a proper article divided into sections with a table, with out-of universe references, an image, external links, etc. Given all that we have accomplished in a few days, I would appreciate at least some time to consult with my back issues of published magazines. If nothing else, we should let the AfD run its course, then we can come back to this discussion, but there really should be no rush as I doubt anyone will reasonably think that while editors attempt to improve an article by finding more out of universe context and sources Wikipedia will somehow degrade in quality. And if consensus does become that a merge would work, then at least we'll have even better quality information and material to merge. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll just talk about my view on the matter. Seeing the list of weapons, I think it's a logical idea at this point. Go ahead and merge them. ZeroGiga (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC) ZeroGiga (Contact) 18:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wandering through, but I'd suggest giving the guy some time to continue organizing and expanding his article. It has potential, even with a limited discussion field, if he can expand it properly enough.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should keep it. It contains a reasonable amount of real world content as well as a lot of refs. Great work on improving the article. The Prince (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Put me solidly in the keep camp. I think efforts have been made to establish notability and should be allowed to continue. For some editors, it seems like no amount of real world information will ever be enough. Ursasapien (talk) 09:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll though my thought in here too is that keeping these separate is a completely fair compromise since the weapons article, while having a lot of overlap in references and some coverage, is still aiming to establish notability, and does avoid the typical trapfalls some editors make with weapon lists (that is, there are no "vital stats" in the table, which is good, not a game guide). I would warn the editors that if either article is taken to GA and beyond, you may be questioned on this split and the quality of the split, so either continue to work to make the two topics sufficiently distinct to avoid a lot of repetition or consider merging to address that issue when you get there, but I do not think that the merge needs to be pressed now, and there's no sufficient cause to even consider deleting of the weapons article in its present state. --MASEM 15:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the merge. We have to take only some information of the article and merge it. Wikipedia is not a Game Manual. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The article however looks absolutely nothing like a game manual and thus a merge would be illogical. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

After looking through the 'Weapons of Resident Evil 4', I can easily see that some editors spent a lot of time to make sure the content was encyclopedic, verifiable, and contained relevant information. While I would support the proposition to merge the article into Resident Evil 4, I am not sure where we could put it. Perhaps one could consider making a page called, Gameplay of Resident Evil 4 or something EX: Gameplay of The Elder Scrolls series. However, until someone devises a better place to put the article, it's probably better left where it is right now. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  20:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wii Edition port?

Seems to be MIA. Should it be put back in, or just have it all merged?

WTF???? It's not MIA, what the fuck are you talking about!?!?!?

YaBoiKrakerz

Where's User:SineBot when you need it. >_> --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 20:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

it was recently edited back in, and it was MIA. look at the change logs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.60.221 (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Source

Found in the Reception section:

Nevertheless, some collective fanbases of the Resident Evil series, feel that the game is not truly a Resident Evil title, due to its swerve away from Survival Horror, to (as Capcom themselves put it), survival action. Some have raised concerns regarding the effect the game in general has had on the survival horror genre, influencing games to depart from more horror themed gameplay to being more action based. For example, Silent Hill Origins was originally designed in a Resident Evil 4 style, with an over the shoulder camera, more emphasis on combat, and the like, which can also be seen in the information surrounding Silent Hill V, which, according to the developers, is going to feature a much more refined combat system. Most of these complaints are minimal however, and, on the whole, the game was very well received.

Nothing writen in that text is referenced. Any suggestions for this situation? --Twicemost (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Because no one has answered since I made this advice, I am removing the text; however, if you can find sources supporting this, you can add it back. The text is left here =) --Twicemost (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

difference between versions

there's a difference in the violence of the us and japanese versions. In the japanese version, dr. salvador cuts your face off instead of your head. Is that true? That would be awesome! Too bad the Japanese think our country hates gore and violence for whatever reason. 209.40.223.136 (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Multi-player?

I've never played any resident evil games, but I own a Wii, and was thinking about getting Resident Evil 4. I search this wiki article but couldn't find any references to the number of players it supports and if it supports online play or Wiiconnect24. This information would be useful for this article. I may add it my self when I get the game (sometime next month) but I thought I mention it here in case someone else already knows and can maybe update the article.

--Xucaen (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If this page contains no references to a multiplayer mode, it's probably fine to assume that there is no multiplayer mode.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 14:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Though now that you mention it, perhaps the article should state how many players can play the game at once. It is meant to inform us about the game, and if a Wikipedian doesn't feel informed about something as commonplace as how many players then the article isn't doing its job JayKeaton (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Characters and creatures

Can someone more familiar with the topic please write a short synopsis of the relevant articles rather than just having the link to the sub-article? Thanks. John.n-IRL 13:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Somebody should merge in Weapons of Resident Evil 4. This article is short and doesn't offer much notable wikipedia-quality information that couldn't be merged into the main article. Randomran (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Somebody should instead restore the weapons article to a previous version that contained near good article quality content. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A previous version wouldn't help at all. The weapons section (on Weapons of Resident Evil 4) was purely game guide content (telling people where to find the weapon isn't suitable content for a Wikipedia article). Other than that, I don't think any major content was ever removed from the article. A merge should happen. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree with the merge. Once game-guide material and other material that Wikipedia doesn't use is removed, the article is largely about the game and not the weapons. It would be better presented in this article. Pagrashtak 19:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree that a merge makes sense. The "bulk" of this article are details that belong and are sourced by a game guide; the notable aspects of the weapons can fit in quite appropriate in the main RE4 article. --MASEM 19:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a merger would certainly help the main game article. It will help provide sources and build comprehensiveness so the article could more easily progress to GA or higher. As far as the list of weapons, I do not think such content is encyclopedic in either the weapons article or the main game article. Also, I believe the large quoted paragraph previously in the "Creation" section really pushes the limits of copyright violations beyond what is and should be acceptable. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

Agreed, its been raised before but any concerns about notability can be handled by coverage in the main atcle(im refering to the special controllers that were released). John.n-IRL 19:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge. The content that is left is best placed in the main article. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have redirected the article as User:Randomran merged the content. None of the discussion page seems required as it mostly relates to that page going for GA. However if some seems relevant I guess it could be brought here? John.n-IRL 03:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It can be moved to an archive of this talk page. We did something similar with the various characters articles on Talk:Characters of Kingdom Hearts. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

Special chainsaw controller

the only game to have had a special edition controller made of typewriters and old ladies

I'm just new to wikipedia, but this just didn't sound quite right. --65.87.242.28 (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Recovered Sample.

We are told repeatedly by other people, that Ada Wong was recovering a sample of Las Plagas. However, i believe that infact what she recovered was a sample of T-Virus. My reasons for this are all present in the game, when Leon and Luis Sera are captured and tied up Leon mentions that he was involved in the Racoon City incident to which Sera replies "That is the incident with the viral outbreak? I think i saw a sample of the virus in the lab'." this is undeniable evidence that there is T-Virus present within the game, even if no one is infected with it.
Again, near the end of the game Leon recovers documents stating that if the Los Illuminados' initial plan fails, then they will send in their "Special Forces" i believe that this is a suggestion that Saddler intended to infect numerous members of the Los Illuminados with the T-Virus and then allow them to run loose as zombies in America. Some may argue that these "Special Forces" may just be individuals infected with the Las Plagas however, the initial plan of the Illuminados was to send individuals infected with Las Plagas into America, so why would a back-up plan(as it was considered by Saddler) involve exactly the same thing?
I now would like to draw attention to the numerous appearances of the supposed Las Plagas sample within the game, it appears to be light-blue liquid kept within what appears to be an air-tight test-tube of sorts at all times. This is perhaps a suggestion that inhaling this sample is enough to cause some sort of harm, we know this is not the case for Las Plagas as the Las Plagas eggs have to be injected into an individual. I would also like to draw attention to the visual appearance of this illusive sample, the light blue colour is quite obviously not the same as the sample that was injected into Leon, which has a more pinkish colouration. With another referrance to the physical appearance of the sample, one can obviously see that it is opaque, the egg injected into Leon was suspended in a transparent liquid, where the egg inside is quite visible. Surely if the sample that Ada Wong saught after was a Plagas sample, we would be able to see the parasite within the test-tube?
My final, although extremely questionable piece of evidence, is when the player has killed the final boss and Leon is forced to hand over the sample to Ada Wong at gun-point, he says "Ada...You, -do- know what this is, right?" I consider this as the characters' final acknowledgment this is a T-Virus sample, Leon is making a referrance to the Racoon City incident, associating the sample with it being the primary cause as to why both characters experienced what they did during their escape of Racoon City.

I appologise for my -very- longwinded rant however, i felt it was neccesary to put my opinion forward on this matter....Mainly because it's been bugging me for a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.12.130 (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, Luis Serra was referring to seeing a sample of the T-Virus at the Police preceint during his staint as a cop in Barcelona, which taken in context with the ending of RE2 and 3 and the prologue to RE4 would imply that a cure has been found to the T-virus, as they would obviously not keep it around for display if a city had to be wiped off the face of the earth to prevent its spread. Secondly, it is implied through Luis' notes, and Separate Ways and whotnot that it is a sort of 'Master' Plagas, which Saddler also talks about and calls 'Our Treasure', which one could surmise is in some way involved in the evident master plagas that reside in such figures as Saddler and Salazar which allow them to not only not be controlled by the parasite, but to control it, and additionally to control those with lesser parasites (Ganados), which is perhaps a bio engeniered ability created from an orgional Plagas. 68.35.125.8 (talk) 08:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought it had been established that Luis Serra invented his involvement in the Madrid police as a cover-up for his involvement in the research of Las Plagas. I highly doubt that even if he ever was a police officer, that he would have been allowed in any foresic laboratories where it would have been held (Why would T-Virus be in a Spanish police forensics lab anyway?). Also, to make "Daylight" the vaccine against T-Virus, you need V-Poison from infected wasps and P-Base. As we don't really know what's in P-Base we can assume that it is well know however, V-Poison requires infected wasps and any trace of T-Virus was supposedly destroyed in the steralization of Racoon City. No T-Virus to infect wasps, no V-Poison, no "Daylight" vaccine; ie. T-Virus = Still a major threat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.7.74 (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

additionally, in resident evil: degeneration, a movie made by the makers of the game, which was intended to be a direct sequel from previous resident evil games, has zombies infected with the t-virus as well as a monster infected with the g-virus. the events of this movie take place a year after resident evil 4, making the theory of ada wong getting the t-virus instead of las plagas dna is plausible. however, i have another theory which cannot be proved until the release of resident evil 5. in resident evil 5, the enemies resemble the ganados, but are not exactly the same. is it not possible that ada wong took a sample of las plagas dna merged with the t-virus? Strobes13 (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

First off, their are multiple Umbrella Facilities. Not just in Raccoon City. Which suggests that their are multiple T-virus samples. Wesker sent Ada to retrieve the sample. That's how he got it in RE5. And in Assignment Ada, you play as Ada, trying to retrieve the sample. At the end of the games Wesker tells Ada, "Their will be significant changes in our world." That's after Ada retrieves the sample. And in RE5, he used the Las Plagas, well he attempted it to change the world as he also claimed their will be great changes. But your point is very interesting however. But the sample was the reason it appeared in Africa. Inoda411onsuchgames (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

advertisement?

I remember a marketing campaign, presented as a news story, where a skull with a parasitic hole in it is retrieved from the ocean. Was that for this game? Does anyone have a link for it? brain (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

survival horror genre?

On the back of the case it says somewhere that it's a survival action game. So shouldn't we change the genre?--Megaman en m (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Might be best to leave it in there, I suspect many reviews and other sources call it a survival horror. Looksl ike it has been discussed before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Resident_Evil_4/Archive_2#Survival_Horror_Vs._Action_Game.Mr T (Based) (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to survival action since that is what it's official genre is (according to Capcom) and what the fans call it.--24.171.1.195 (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

We need more reviews!

There are too few reviews for Resident Evil 4 only for GameCube on the charts, and only two of them, no less! Yet the charts have not been updated! We need more reviews, please! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Only reviews that are discussed within the reception section should be added to the review table. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

about the castle

how could escape the portion in the caslte —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.32.99 (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wii Edition

The phrase below is the first few sentences of the Wii Edition section:

Resident Evil 4: Wii edition was released for the Wii on May 31, 2007 in Japan.[citation needed] It features new controls involving the Wii Remote and Nunchuk, along with the ability to use the Classic Controller or GameCube controller instead.[74] The Wii Remote is able to aim and shoot anywhere on the screen with a reticle that replaces the laser sight found in the other versions. It can also be flicked to use the knife to instantly target an enemy. The Wii edition also includes the extra content from the PlayStation 2 and PC versions, and a trailer for Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles.[75]

The Japanese magazine Famitsu reviewed the game, with two editors giving the game a perfect 10 score, and the remaining pair giving it a 9, resulting in a score of 38 out of 40. The reviewers noted that the game's improved controls offer something fresh and different. One reviewer said that the game offers the feeling of being closer to the action as well as upping the tension. Multiple reviewers agreed that even those who own the original will find something fun and enjoyable in this version.

Why is there no counter point offered regarding the use of the Wiimote, and how the developers turned the two-step action of firing a pistol (point, pull trigger) into a three-step process (point, press and hold A, pull trigger).

Also, the language used for the second paragraph in the quoted text is laughable in its bias. It quotes no review, but reads like a bought review on a mainstream gamer site. I know this is Wikipedia. I know this is group-think at its finest. But honestly, the second paragraph in the quoted text blows more sunshine into readers' nether-regions than it provides any factual information regarding the Wii edition's critical reception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.93.226 (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. It was always three step. If you are going to count "pointing the wiimote" for the wii version, you have to also include aiming with the C stick for the GC version (And right TS for PS2). It doesn't take more effort, it's not like you really need to aim the wiimore, you just move it to control where the gun is aimed. Same level of effort. 209.40.223.136 (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wii edition / Wii Edition

Capcom uses the lower-case e for "edition" in the game logo, on the official site, in press releases, in their most successful titles list and in their financial results. Wii edition is the one to go with. Prime Blue (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Keji Inafune

Should Keji Inafune be added to the designers? He executivly produced the Playstation 2 version. --Olifromsolly (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say no. Including producers and directors of ports would make the infobox too long and confusing. Prime Blue (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed a translation.

This is really a small fix but the translation of Los Iluminados was wrong, it is "The Enlightened Ones". "The Enlightened" is El Iluminado. So I hope no one minds that I fixed it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.83.149 (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wii edition bonus trailer

NTSC-U: There's a bonus video under the EXTRA section (which is the Chronicles trailer). No easy mode.

PAL Multi5: There's a menu item named 'CREDIT' instead of 'BONUS VIDEO' under the EXTRA section. If you select it, it shows 3 pages or 4 (I don't remember correctly 3 or 4) about "Wii edition Team". There're 2 mode, EASY and NORMAL, when starting a new game. Besides, it has a CHANGE LANGUAGE menu item just like the PC/GameCube PAL/PlayStation 2 PAL versions, but does not have a 50/60 Hz selector like GameCube PAL/PlayStation 2 PAL versions.

I just tested both NTSC-U and PAL Multi5 versions on Dolphin a few hours ago. In short, there's no trailer in the PAL version. Not sure 'bout the NTSC-J. I don't have it. -- Livy the pixie (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

One more thing: PAL version does not support classic controller. The game refuses to run and prompts the user the connect the Nunchuck to play. It seems the whole article is written 'bout the NTSC version. -- Livy the pixie (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Zeebo

The "Platform(s)" field of the Infobox includes "Zeebo". However, Resident Evil 4 is not available for sale on either of Zeebo's sites (Brazil and Mexico).

Even the "Release date(s)" field of the Infobox does not specify Zeebo.

If a Zeebo version of Resident Evil 4 does not truly exist, it should be deleted from the "Platform(s)" field of the Infobox.
ProResearcher (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed it, then added it back, as sources suggest it actually does exist. I will take a closer look for some sources when I'm home.--Atlan (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it does exist. There are gameplay videos floating around on YouTube. Be sure to check it out. Postwar (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Resident evil 4 chainsaw controller.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Resident evil 4 chainsaw controller.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Resident Evil 4/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jinnai (talk · contribs) 21:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC) 1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Plot seems to wikilink random terms like U.S. government, but not U.S. Secret Service.

Plot section needs an overhaul. It's very poorly written with tons of mistakes too numerous to list.

Check that again a bit later. ((Done}}

Mostly okay. This could use some checking again because I noticed a heavy use of proper nouns such as "Leon later learns that Jack Krauser, one of Leon's former comrades" instead of "Leon later learns one of his former comrades, Jack Krauser,"

 Done-SCB '92 (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Lots of small paragraphs and subsections (such as in Versions and 2 small subsections for merchandise.

Inconsistant usage of "over the shoulder". At the top its hiphenated. At the bottom its in quotes as not hyphenated. Pick one or the other or better yet don't use it outside quotes (and pick one style for quotes).

Manual of Style compliance:

hyphenated words like "over-the-shoulder" as opposed to "third person" or "one-hit kill attacks" as opposed to "killing blow" or "instant kill attack" (as some ideas), "parasitically-controlled humans" to something else (not sure what but that doesn't flow right). When its used by RSes such as #2 it should be quoted and referenced as that's a non-standard term.

Partially dealt with. The term is linked to first third-person shooter which no evidence there would show that the two are the same subject. If Porbably better to rephrase that first instance to something like ...over-the-shoulder third person shooter..."

addressed-SCB '92 (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"They are significantly smarter and quicker than the zombies from the previous games in the series. " OR not supported by the source (5)

"Dante" does not need a quote.

149 - title is in all caps.

Not sure because you changed some sources, but 132 is still all caps.

 Done-SCB '92 (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

*44 - name in source in all caps.

Sorry. Looks like Hi Corp is spelled with all caps in one instance.

 Done-SCB '92 (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: - waiting for the reliability to be addressed or sources removed.

First and foremost, many titles are improper. Titles should be 'EXACTLY like the page's title, save for MOS compliance.

• 2 - Why is Soptpedia a RS?
• 8 - Why is Gamethink a RS?
• 11 - is outright unreliable as those are user submitted.
  • addressed-SCB '92 (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• 39 - IGN.com is not the name of the publisher. URL =/= publisher.
  • addressed-SCB '92 (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• 53 - GamePro.de is not the name of the publisher. URL =/= publisher.
  • addressed-SCB '92 (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• 57 - Why is Slacknews a RS?
• 70 & 71 - Why is andriasang a RS? Also andriasang.com is not the name of the publisher. URL =/= publisher.
  • Andriasang is reliable, as I stated below, and have addressed the issue-SCB '92 (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• 62 - Why is Cheat Code Centra a RS?
• 63 - Why is Games We Like a RS?
• 68 - Why is Cubed3 a RS?
  • Still not convinced its a RS.
• 74 - Why is Capcom-Unity a RS?
  • reliable as a primary source-SCB '92 (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• 80 - Why is HI Corp a RS?
• 69 & 81 - Why is Justin Elroy reliable?
• 83 - Why is Touch Arcade a RS?
• 85 - Why is PR-inside a RS?
  • reliable as a primary source-SCB '92 (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• 86 - Why is colider a RS? Also collider.com is not the name of the publisher. URL =/= publisher.
• 87 - Why is levelselect a RS? Also levelselect.co.uk is not the name of the publisher. URL =/= publisher.
• 88 - Why is KingZombie a RS?
• 28, 31, 40, 44, 47, 53 & 141 - needs |trans_title=.
• 150 & 151 - no issue # or date.
• 156 - why is UGO Netowrks reliable (it was only recently aquired by IGN)?
• 157 - why is Jim Sterling reliable?
• 181 - why is Leigh Alexander reliable?

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

based on Kamiya's idea to make a "cool" and "stylish" action game. - looks like a trucated quote with the "cool" and "stylish" seperated like that. If those are important, the quote should be used. If they are in seperate sections, then more of the surrounding statements should be used as it otherwise looks like cherrypiccking parts to quote.

Though the developers tried to make the "coolness" theme fit into the world of Resident Evil, needs a citation after the comma since "coolness" appears to be being quoted, it needs a citation at the first punctunation market after.

Ditto for "hook man version", especially if its name is all lowercase.

Australia received an exclusive collector's edition that comes with the game, and a bonus disc with interviews and creator's footage for both the game and previous Resident Evil installments. - no source

76 (now 83) does not seem to support that entire 2nd paragraph in special editions.

No original research:{

Statements that sound like opinions " that aren't backed up by the source such as:

• "The addition of a laser sight adds a new depth to the aiming" - addition from what? How does it add new depth that the other didn't have?
• "Bullets now affect the enemies specifically where they are shot" - now as opposed to when?
• "Another new aspect of Resident Evil 4" - new as compared to what?

End of 2nd paragraph in Gameplay about Wii is making a OR statement in that its asserting the concept was expanded. That needs a source stating it was "expanded" as such and that its linked to the dynamic cut-scenes.

Fixed the last 2 myself. I would still want to know how the first comes to be.

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

System requirements should be removed, at least recommended. That info is generally for advertising and even if its on the box, the "recommended" settings are a biased opinion from a source (the developers) to close to the game to say if they are truely the "recommended" levels. The info is also WP:CRUFT material that doesn't improve the encyclopedia. The minimum system requirements are probably still okay, but should be moved to the infoxbox where there is a field for them (it can be noted its for the PC version there).

Too much focus on different versions and special editions stuff. It looks like a promotion of advertising. The different versions should be covered and pre-order stuff should be condensed. There is repeat info here such as repreating the new content that was mentioned previously in 2 sections and a lot of excessive detail, especially on the SE stuff and treating the mobile versions as wholely unqiue.

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

Fan mods, even fixes, should not be mentioned without RS coverage. It's giving undue weight to them.

Too many review scores noted in tables. Not only does this interrupt prose, it also dimishes more important ratings by promoting less important sources as having equal validity and certain scores as more important than others. Any score covered in Gamerankings or Metacritic should be removed as its being given a kind of double-promotion in the charts. It's fine to keep the info in the prose.

Still too many. There are 2 schools of thought for those I've seen elsewhere, but both of them would reduce them further. The first is when there are tons of scores to just list 1 score for each rank (an 10/5-star rank gets one, a 6/3-star rank gets another and its editorial decision which, though sites like IGN>RPGamer. The second is to not include any sites listed by metacritic or gamerankings. It's a lot better, but imo still too much. That list can probably be collapsed too if the info is listed in the prose.

Dealt with.∞陣内Jinnai 22:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:{{subst:#if: |{{{images}}}| Pass }}

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images havefair use rationales:

The chainsaw image is still under copyright as the primary aspect of the image is a copyrighted object, a specific chainsaw controller, not of a chainsaw in general.

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

File:Resident Evil 4 Ganado village.png - the caption has OR

File:Resident evil 4 chainsaw controller.jpg - while the caption is accurate it what it describes, it doesn't give context or contribute to the article.

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

This is decent, but still not GA level. In addition to comments above, I'd also consider deviding Development into 2 sections, one for the scrapped scenerios and one for the final version. This will help readers distinquish pre-development of the final game from when the actual game began development. This particular aspect is not a part of the GA review though.

I'll give 1 week to fix the issues and address the RS concenrs.∞陣内Jinnai 21:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

If you feel the final result of this review has been in error, you may request a reassessment. If the article failed to attain Good Article status after a full review, it may be easier to address any problems identified above, and simply renominate it.

Thanks for the review, I'll work on it through the next 7 days; I can tell you that according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#General, Andriasang and UGO Networks are reliable sources; and I want to ask, if the system requirements are used for ad purposes, why does this template exist?-SCB '92 (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Legacy. That's mostly why. And the fact no one has really contested it. I can tell you though that the recommeded would be considered too close to the source to be a viable idea of what the "recommended" scope is. Minimum is probablly okay as it could be viewed as though if you tried to run on it below that, its doing so at your own risk. It's also considered a bit biased in general in that those systems tend to list specific companies like Intel, Nvidia, ATI, etc. Which is a form of advertising. For WP, no names should be used unless its abolsutely essential for running without hacks (like the OS).

Also you'll find very little support for system requirements and less so for recommended. There's still enough for the minimum to keep it though.∞陣内Jinnai 18:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Also according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#General, Shacknews (not Slacknews) is reliable-SCB '92 (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

According to this discussion, though not confirmed, Cubed3 is reliable-SCB '92 (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Game engine?

Just wondering if there was any info out there regarding the game engine used for RE4. If so, it should be added. Eridani (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Resident Evil 4/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pedro thy master (talk · contribs) 15:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll start adding my comments on the article in a while. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC) Alright, everything seems great, only a few minor issues.

• Add alt text to the images.
• I see there is no reviews for the HD ports and I found this one so please add it http://www.destructoid.com/review-resident-evil-4-hd-211686.phtml

That's all I can really say, everything else passes. I'll give it a week. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't alt text is needed. --Niemti (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Under my criteria it is, especially if this were to go for FA, which looks possible. Plus it is very simple to add. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It's GA. You can add it for FA. --Niemti (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I fixed many much more burning problems meanwhile, if you check the edit history. --Niemti (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Great. Just add the review score and put it on the chart and I will pass it. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 16:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Only IGN PS3 had it of those already in the table. --Niemti (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Pass. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

What's the original source of this interview?

Q: It's rumoured that the next Resident Evil game for PS2 puts you in control of employees of Umbrella Corp, to see the virus development from their perspective. Is this true? / A: It might be fun to have someone from Umbrella as the main character. If we focus on S.T.A.R.S. as usual, justice is always behind them. S.T.A.R.S. agents have to help-they must 'act good' and cooperation. But since then I've scrapped the Umbrella idea. --Niemti (talk) 05:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This, and any more info on RE4 version 0, which was supposed to be about HUNK on a cruise ship and was being developed for the PS1 as Biohazard 3 (a project that eventually turned into the final RE3 was at first being developed as Biohazard Gaiden - the final Gaiden being only a small GBA game, set on a cruise ship like the original BH3 but featuring Barry) and BH3 team was ordered to start working on BH4 for the PS2. (That might rather mostly go to Resident Evil 3, though.) --Niemti (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Spain confirmed

• We asked Capcom, the Japanese company that made the game, what its developers had intended. Spokesman Chris Kramer told us: "The Resident Evil series has been around since 1996. It was first set in the American Midwest, and since then, it's gone to South America, Antarctica and Spain."
• T.J. Storm, who plays a Delta commander in the game, (...) "Resident Evil 4 was located in Spain, so there were Spanish zombies," Storm said.

Case closed.[1] --Niemti (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Should a characters/cast section be added?

--Niemti (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Ingrid needs to be added to gameplay, maybe to plot

--Niemti (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Android version

The game was also released for Android devices. It was rekeased on Google Play exclusively in Japan and the English version was exclusively released for Samsung devices. Why has it not been added? KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)