Talk:Resident Evil 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Resident Evil 4 article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] Reception and Awards Gone?

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

[edit] 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)

==

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

YaBoiKrakerz

[edit] 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

[edit] 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 CitrouillesTally-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 CitrouillesTally-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 CitrouillesTally-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 CitrouillesTally-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 CitrouillesTally-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 CitrouillesTally-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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] difference between versions

The article mentions differences between versions, but it doesn't mention the fact that in the Japanese version Ashley's mammaries do not bounce and jiggle but in the other non Japanese releases Ashley's mammaries do bounce around and jiggle. JayKeaton (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 CitrouillesTally-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))