This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of apps on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AppsWikipedia:WikiProject AppsTemplate:WikiProject Appsapps articles
I found a few resources that say it's called Valdelobos, but I I'm not certain where exactly it's comes from. So is it unnamed or called so but really rarely? BrandtM113 (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was responsible for removing those references initially, and I did so because I believe the former violates Wikipedia's rules on user-generated content because it's a substack blog, and the latter violates Wikipedia's rules on bias. More specifically, Bounding into Comics frequently headlines articles with value-laden language, and there's a relatively consistent political slant across their site.
I understand that using a website with a bias/angle isn't inherently grounds for removing a source, but it feels as though the source adds unnecessary weight to information that's already cited by more mainstream outlets, especially when the content itself (censorship in this case) can become politicized and there's no in-text attribution to the source (something like, "the left/right leaning source ___ said ___ of the censorship in Resident Evil 4").
I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia, so I'm eager to hear other viewpoints on this. Thanks!
It's not an official name, but rather a name given by developers to refer to a certain early build of the game. This article here from EuroGamer gives some context into the name. Essentially, Yasuhisa Kawamura wanted to make a Resident Evil game that was less grounded in science and instead more focused on pure horror. Kawamura's version would have featured more paranormal elements, such as ghosts and killer dolls, which would manifest through hallucinations. The version of the game did not pan out and was scrapped, with elements being used for Devil May Cry. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 15:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for answering. Even though, I think Project Umbrella's inteview should not be used.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Not moved.WP:SNOW The nominator's understanding of precedence and when to disambiguate is flawed. The Sonic game articles are titled so as not to confuse with the franchise page. The 2005 game is clearly the primary topic, with a hatnote for the remake being appropriate. TarkusABtalk/contrib19:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not sure how I fall on this yet. The recent explosion in pageviews for both pages is due to the 2023 remake. On one hand, it might benefit us to have each game at its own dab to better determine which should be the primary topic, but the newer game being a remake of the original might imply there is historical significance for the 2006 game, so this feels like a good chance for a move debate to figure out where we should land. ASUKITE15:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See the Demon's Souls page. I'm pretty sure it's consensus that the original video game should be primary over a remake, given one was based off the other. RE4 original is also popular enough that there is no pressing reason to overrule that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I was hasty opening this, but that RM seems to show there is a pretty strong trend (also giving examples for RE2 and Shadow of the Colossus. I will Oppose this as well. ASUKITE15:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The Sonic example doesn't work, as it's not disambiguated that way because of each other, but rather, the fact that 10 individual articles have the exact title "Sonic the Hedgehog". To use a similar counter-example, Sonic the Hedgehog 2 is the Genesis game rather than a disambiguation page. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While there's a counter-example within my experience (Dead Space (2008 video game) and Dead Space (2023 video game)), that one's also got to differentiate between a mobile game and series article of the same name without subtitles. Here the original RE4 is the primary and there's little to no ambiguity with other articles, as per arguments above. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Comparing this to the "Sonic the Hedgehog" situation is like apples and oranges because those titles represent "Sonic the Hedgehog (video game)", not "Sonic the Hedgehog", and situations like Thriller (song) (primary topic for a disambiguated title) don't happen often. Otherwise, the current situation is that a title with no disambiguation represents a video game title, so we should try to determine if there is a primary topic for the title with no disambiguation ... which seems to be the current setup. Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The situation at Sonic the Hedgehog is different and not applicable here. That situation comes from the fact that "Sonic the Hedgehog" is the exact name of 2 separate games, the overarching series, and a character. It wouldn't be necessary here without the advent of a Resident Evil 4 series (unlikely) and Resident Evil character (impossible). Sergecross73msg me19:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per MOS:IDIOM, Clichés and idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions.. We should therefore avoid expressions such as "strayed from the series' roots". I removed this and trimmed some other unnecessary elements but was reverted. Popcornfud (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sloppy edit from me there. Simple fix: The first attempt was directed by Hideki Kamiya, but the Resident Evil creator, Shinji Mikami, felt it was too great a departure from the previous games.Popcornfud (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the further edits:
so it was spun off as Devil May Cry. "spun off" is jargonistic, and vague — was Devil May Cry a spin-off? Isn't it simpler and clearer to say "this version became Devil May Cry"?
Other versions were scrapped we don't need to say this, because we say in the same paragraph "Four proposed versions were discarded" (and "scrapped" is further idiomatic/metaphorical language).
Mikami took directorial duties for what became the final version is just a wordier way of saying "Mikami directed the final version".
Should I put a link to Resident Evil 5 as a successor to Resident Evil 4. I know that their stories were not related but the gameplay mechanics, enemies, and bosses look so similar to the ones they used in RE4. Even the Resident Evil 5 wiki page considered Resident Evil 4 as their predecessor. DasKlose (talk) 03:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That line in the legacy section about RE4 inspiring an era of remasters, and specifically remasters of those games, is a generous reading of that article. The article says RE4 was "An early example of the remastering craze" and "ahead of zombie-crawling pack". Saying it "inspired" those other developers feels wrong to me. Maybe just say it was an early example of HD remastering before they became more prevalent? Or just remove the line altogether? Mika1h (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. I'd agree it should be rephrased to specify it was an early example of HD remastering rather than saying it inspired HD-remasters of GTA5, Tomb Raider, and Grim Fandango. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 18:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality and citations regarding 2021 VR release
I'm relatively new to editing, so I thought I'd raise these issues here before making an edit. Hopefully this is the right place to discuss this!
In my opinion, it looks like there are some neutrality and citation issues in the paragraph discussing the 2021 VR release of the game.
The section refers to "censorship of content". In my opinion, this is both vague and not neutral. Censorship is a bit of a loaded term, and it only becomes clear later in the paragraph what exactly is being 'censored'.
I would also question the phrasing of "flirtatious banter". Again this is pretty vague. Would a more specific description, such as "Luis' comments about Ashley's body", be more appropriate?
It also looks like citations are missing at several points in the paragraph. The quote from Ivey to "update the game for a modern audience" is missing a citation. The paragraph goes on to state that "changes were made at the expense of continuity and context in cutscenes essential to the game's plot." This is vague, and does not contain a citation. It would be useful to know what specific changes this sentence is referring to, and what context they provide.
Looking at the overall tone of the paragraph, I think this phrasing would mislead the average reader in thinking that the changes removed important plot-relevant content. I do not think this is a fair or neutral characterisation of the changes made.
Would be interested in hearing what other people think, and what edits would be appropriate. Thanks! Steelrose360 (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, section could use some rewording and citations to better reflect neutrality. "flirtatious banter" is not neutral, It implies reciprocity, also which dialogue specifically is "flirtatious banter"? Why refer to "censorship" and then switch the phrasing to "changes"? It should neutrally refer to changes made in the vr port for the whole section. "changes were made at the expense of continuity and context in cutscenes essential to the game's plot." - "at the expense" is a loaded term here, and what original content was "essential"? I don't see how Ashley calling Leon a pervert is essential to the plot. There should also be a citation for "The VR version was heavily criticized by fans, both in Japan and the West" - I'd like to see an example of this heavy criticism, or this should be reworded. Looking at articles around the time of the VR release, very little hay is made about any of these changes. It feels like this section was written specifically by someone who cares about, and dislikes the changes. "controversy" is also not a neutral term. Madzyzzy (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]