Talk:Resident Evil 4

Development History Section

This section needs cleanup badly. It reads like a bullet list without the proper format, and many sections are out of chronological order. Can somebody who knows a lot about the history try to clean it up soon? Konman72 09:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following paragraph from the "Hidden Weapons" section:

Dual Broken Butterfly's (almost) - When Asheley is back with you in chapter 4-1 go back past the maze to the fountain where the crows were and to the left is a locked door with a high open window, get Ashley to "piggyback" on to you and climb in and unlock the door, there are several treasures, money's, ammo's and herb's in the separate chest's around by in the chest on the plint is a Broken Butterly, If you bought a Broken Butterfly at the start of chapter 3-1 then this one will NOT add on as extra ammo but as another weapon, then all you have to do is find space in your inventory and you will have Dual Broken Butterfly's. This also means that you will pick up more magnum ammo and if one runs out then you can use the other one, both of these guns can be fully upgraded separately one after another and once you've done that you've got two very powerful .45 magnum's. so now when you're enemy's are on the ground ask them one question...(oh come on like you didn't see this coming)

It appears to be in-game suggestions for a homage to Clint Eastwood. At best, its in an inappropriate section.

Its really useless, to be honest. 67.39.138.226 15:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Los Iluminados

Heh, not sure if that's how it is spelt, but I'm sure that there used to be a page on this subject, but then was removed, am I right on the matter? Cause it seems like that Los Iluminados would be another organisation to write about as it were, I mean, start a new page based on that organisation. It would definitly seem like a relevent article to begin writting up. Just my opinion really. Drakehellman 22:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Why would you need a separate article? There's nothing you can say that wouldn't be recapping RE4, and if you're going to recap RE4, this is the article where you should do that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Then how come there are articles about Umbrealla Coporation and the Raccon Police Department based on the other games? Drakehellman 22:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Because they appear in multiple games. Those articles aren't very good either, and should probably be merged somewhere, too. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok then and speaking of merging, there is an article on Tom Merchant, not sure if you have seen it, but that article there was propsed to be merged with Resident Evil 4. Drakehellman 23:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Release Dates

All the release dates for the various versions/countries are listed the the information column. Do they really need to be at the top of the article as well?

Rmmiller69 05:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• No, Not really. I don't really know why it's there, usually that kind of information is stated in another section or in an infobox. --ShadowJester07 11:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

King Leon on his Throne

Beware of spoilers!

Anyway, it's right after the hallway with the lasers. Leon finds this red throne and, after picking up the emerald, can sit down in Saddler's seat. The camera pans back and Leon poses like he's bored. What is this an homage to? (Momus 00:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC))

Nothing, It's just an easter egg. :-p --ShadowJester07 00:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I found a sprite [1] from Solid Sharkey's [2] of the same pose. Is it from Castlevania? I've never played the games, myself. (Momus 00:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC))

This may be possible, seeing as the Throne is located in a castle (I mean, Castlevania, castle...).

It probably is a castlevania reference, Dracula usually appears sitting in a throne with crossed legs and a glass of wine in one hand and the other arm supporting his head. Vkeios 05:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably not, Resident Evil is Capcom, Castlevania is Konami. Unless they have a good relationship with each other (like Naughty Dog/Insomniac), they probably won't have reference to a rival's games, especially considering Konami makes Resident Evils main, if not only survival horror competition, Silent Hill Midgitboy 17:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Los Illuminados Part 2

I created a section based on this group, you have any problems with it, you use my talk page.--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 15:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, um, it was already removed once, so creating again, will probabally just get it removed again, though I wasn't the one who removed it. Drakehellman 20:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Graphics Section

Is the Graphics Section really needed? It seems rather arbitrarily placed and contains superficial information. Moreover, the same idea applies to several other sections, GameCube exclusivity controversy, Dialogue notes, and Awards & recognition. Consider deleting, consolidating, or moving them to proper sub-sections. --ShadowJester07 08:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. They're good as is. Ex-Nintendo Employee 08:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion of the move to entirely-3D graphics would fit nicely in the discussion of the new viewpoint in "New Gameplay", while the discussion of the changes compared to the PS2 version would also fit in that section. That'd free us of a two-paragraph section. I'm in favour. Sockatume 01:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

We need at least to move/delete the details of the port differences from the main graphics section. this is mostly duplicated from the individual port sections.Gecks 11:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Should we add at least a note about it's compatibility with Progressive Scan mode?(at least on the PS2 version).207.5.195.216 01:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ada's Shotgun

I've noticed that the shotgun Ada uses in the "Seperate Ways" scenario is not mentioned in the Weapons section of this article. As it's a unique weapon, despite having the same name and in-game description as the standard Shotgun, I'd think it deserves a mention. I'd add it myself, but I currently lack the knowledge of it's make, model, or stats (if its stats differ from the standard shotgun, I don't remember). Musha 12:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's exactly the same as a slightly upgraded shotgun, it just looks different PhotoNikonMan 07:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Handcannon

Uh, can anyone tell me what's so wrong about putting the Handcannon in the "Hidden Weapons" section? It IS a Hidden Weapon after all. 81.153.3.82 21:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is it? I've never seen it PhotoNikonMan 13:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that this article will tell you everything you need to know about the Handcannon. Ex-Nintendo Employee 02:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've unlocked it now, thanks PhotoNikonMan 07:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Special controller availability

The article suggests they are "somewhat rare", which seems to be unsourced and fairly unsourceable- at any rate, there's a stockpile of about 100 of the PS2 controllers in Glasgow alone, and I get the feeling there's plenty more around. So I'm editing it. Anyone want to suggest a source for product unavailability?

It doesn't seem rare to me. I bought one a few weeks ago from Spencer's on clearance for five bucks. Ex-Nintendo Employee 17:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason it is considered rare is because it is not constantly produced. Making it a limited edition product.70.231.229.31 12:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw like 6 in EB ghame's clearance bin... Shoulda bought one...Midgitboy 17:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I bought one for like 6 bucks at Spencer's. Doesn't seem rare to me. Ex-Nintendo Employee 02:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wheres the Triva section?

Um where'd it go? Zerath13

Trivia Sections are usually spliced back into the actual article. --ShadowJester07 23:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There was something about a HP Lovecraft story that was alot Resident Evil 4, I really wanted to find out what it was. Zerath

Check the history. Pagrashtak 20:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I for one am for a trivia section. I addedd that Killer7 is also a Capcom game, but it was deleted later on by Snkcube. In it's own trivia section that would've been much more clearer.--Soetermans 18:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Survival Horror Vs. Action Game

I feel that defining the game's genre as survival horror should be avoided. Looking at how survival horror is defined, [3], much of the game play elements in Resident Evil 4 have more in common with that of action games.

The biggest difference is that Resident Evil 4 has a seemingly endless supply of ammo and health items. Conserving these items is usually where the "survival" element of survival horror games comes from.

Another difference is that lack of puzzle solving in Resident Evil 4. Historically survival horror games developed out of adventure gaming. By removing puzzle elements from the game design, Resident Evil 4 separates itself from the series' adventure ancestors and realigns itself with the philosophy of action gaming.

I recommend that Resident Evil 4's genre be defined as action or more specifically a "horror themed action game” JFactory 05:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I’d like to share a few more notes on this subject.

In the Development History section of this article [4], it states that on the back of the Playstation 2 version’s packaging it reads, “forget survival horror this is survival action”. This implies that the game is “survival action” shifted from the previous Resident Evil games, which were survival horror. I don’t think that survival action is an adequate genre to label Resident Evil 4 because it implies that the “horror” of the previous games has been replaced by action. In reality, I think it’s the “survival” aspect of the game that has been replaced by “action”. Although I disagree with the term “survival action”, I do think that this instance shows that Resident Evil 4 is different enough from the survival horror genre that re-labeling it is necessary.

In Wikipedia’s article on third-person shooters it states that the previous games in the resident evil series were survival horror but Resident Evil 4 is a third person shooter.

The purpose of a genre in this case is to label a game in a broad way so that its general game play elements can be understood before actually playing the game. “Survival horror” is a very specific genre. When it is labeled as a game’s genre very specific game play comes to mind. This is the game play of the previous Resident Evil games, Silent Hill games, Dino Crisis games, and Alone in the Dark games among others. By labeling Resident Evil 4 as a “survival horror” game it misleads those who haven’t played it about the game play involved. This goes against the purposes of labeling a genre.

I previously said that I though it was best to define the game as an action game. I now feel that a much more accurate and helpful label would be a third-person shooter or more specifically a “horror themed third-person shooter”. JFactory 16:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the arguments supplied in favour of the genre being wrong. After playing Biohazard IV, I've found that the gameplay is nothing like the former Biohazard titles, and in fact, the only similarities are the characters and story. Something I found to be rather bemusing is the addition of the typical action sequence button input, which unlike other action games are exclusively one of two combinations. In my opinion, the game feels more like Devil May Cry (which we all know was a failed Biohazard IV prototype) without the melee weapons and the jumping button than like a Biohazard game. So I feel that the genre should be changed to something other than Survival Horror, as the game is far from survival horror. -Emhilradim 11:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

PC Delay

Why is the Resident evil 4 PC Rom always being delayed?

Because making a game is not like ordering a piazza. --ShadowJester07 14:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The release date was changed again, TBA 2007. They should just tell the truth, that they'll release it the day after Duke Nukem Forever.

Is the official PC release date today or was that info on the front page just a load of bull? Vgamer101 22:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This game should have stayed with the GameCube anyway. It's not meant for the PC. Oh and it's Pizza. RammaYB 04:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not "meant" for PC? What about PS2? It's already released and sucessful for that. Resident Evil 4 is too good to be kept a console game. 220.239.88.91 08:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ignore the EB games release date. EB lists things as day/month/year, so 4/2/2007 is Feb. 4 2007, which has past.

I think it's not meant for the pc, because either youll have to aim with the keyboard, get a computer controller, or make the game riduculously easy with a mouse.

Why would you "have" to aim with the keyboard? No-one would dream of using a point+click mouse control aka diablo these days so thats also not a valid suggestion.

Mouse aiming is not rediculously easy - see counterstrike or any PC FPS. Console controllers just make aiming without auto-lock rediculously hard. An analogue stick is cool but sucks for free aiming. The original 3 RE games made aiming too easy anyway. It was essentially 2d aiming, just turn and face the enemy and fire -with 3 angles, up/down/straight. Nothing in my opinion beats the natural comfort of playing a FPS with a mouse and keyboard. Thats why there are hardly any for consoles, without some sort of auto-lock feature. Compare for example SW battlefront 2 PSP/PC versions (which I own both) or any FPS thats been released on PC and consoles. Yes I still play both but the PSP version is a nightmare without using auto-lock. If you tell me you never use auto-lock with console games then I know you are full of it. 203.214.146.24 02:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Just let people aim with a mouse, maybe up the health of enemys to compensata. 220.239.88.91 00:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What about Incubate?

I've looked over the article and haven't seen any mention of Incubate: Incubate. It apparently contains undisclosed information about the Los Illuminados and Umbrella so why not add a section?

Weapons section

Why is the weapons section deleted without any discussion?--Soetermans 11:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding a section like that is basically making the article into a strategy guide. However, Wikipedia isn't a place to write about strategy guides. --Snkcube 05:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, See WP:NOT. --ShadowJester07 15:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

i dissagree i don't think adding weapons is turning the page into a strategy guide.all it is, is a list of in game weapons nothing more nothing less.

I too dissagree, why not at least list the real life conterparts of the in-game guns? I don't think that saying the "Red 9 is a variation of the Mauser C96" helps to play the game better. Just bring the weapons section back.

There is no proof to even verify that a certain weapon is counterpart of an actual gun. Thus violating WP:Verify and WP:original research. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  22:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Other than common sense and visual skills of course.

Your 'common sense' and 'visual skills', no matter how excellent they are, are still original research, and are still not verifiable. Geoff B 14:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is the "weapons section" in the history? I want to see it. and how is a weapons list a strategy guide? you could just get rid of the "original research", and just use the rest. Also, when I saw the red9, I thought that it was a straight depiction of the Mauser C96. PhotoNikonMan 16:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the weapons featured in Resident Evil 4 were on a completely seperate article, so you won't find them in this article's History. I don't think the original research really matters, as it wasn't the reason the article was deleted. Somebody decided it was "fancruft" and sent it over to AfD, where they quickly voted to dispose of it. If I were you, I wouldn't bother trying to resurrect the thing, Resident Evil 4 isn't worth the trouble, anyway :) Gamer Junkie 16:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Then can you point me to where I can find the weapoins section? PhotoNikonMan 15:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I just told you, there is no weapons article anymore. It was deleted and it's gone. Gamer Junkie 22:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that sucks... I wanted to know what the Hand cannon's real-life counterpart was.Kuribo 19:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The Hand Cannon is a revolver, right? I don't have the PlayStation 2 version, but I'd guess it would be something along the lines of a Colt Anaconda or S&W Model 29. Gamer Junkie 21:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

On graphics

The use of primitives with applied surface textures, in place of rendering every single visible object with a variety of lit and coloured polygons, is not some novel technique invented to make RE4 perform better. It's called texture mapping and has been used in 3D videogames for some time now. For example, in the videogame Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty, the surfaces of the lockers are not rendered as an intricate and detailed model of a locker showing hinges, slats, and a handle. It's a flat representation of a door mapped onto a polygonal primitive (a cuboid), with the holes for the "slats" given a transparent colour. More advanced texture mapping allows for textures which can be lit and shaded by environmental light sources in more intricate manners (bump and normal mapping for example), which is rapidly reducing the amount of polygon rendering required for a given level of graphical fidelity. Far Cry made great early use of this approach in allowing them to replicate the appearance of high-polygon models with a smaller polygon count, and it's now pretty much everywhere in PC and console gaming.

Essentially in every game featuring textured polygons, you will have gameworld structures which are represented by textures instead of geometry. You could get into a lengthy discussion about which features are displayed as texturing and which are actually rendered, but that is well without the scope of this article, and is certainly not something special to Resident Evil 4. Unless somebody is keen to go back and detail which parts of the trees in Ocarina of Time are polygon geometry, and which are represented by clever texturing. Sockatume 01:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your change. Resident Evil 4 goes far beyond mere primitives and texture mapping- as you mentioned, texture mapping uses "primitives", which by and large hold a representation of shape. Resident Evil 4, on the other hand, goes far beyond this- forgoing even the primitives themselves in some places- actually going more into the methods used in Ocarina of Time. In that game, in the overworld, while traveling, flat nonpolygonal bushes "pop up" on the overworld. This is the same as in RE4. An example given is inside the church, where the hanging patterns are 2D bitmaps. They aren't polygonal or textured- they have height and length, but not depth. One can easily see it for themselves by rotating the camera around the bitmap to expose that it doesn't have depth. Numerous other examples of this- many of the trees, for instance, the gloves in the island stage before Oven Man. For most players, the nature of these 2D images aren't noticed because they position them in places where one could easily pass them by. As I've said before, these images aren't polygonal. Resident Evil 4 (at least on the Playstation 2, as far as I've seen) also uses extremely frequent use of a doubling technique where a half of an object's texture is drawn, then the texture is merely flipped, creating the illusion of a full object. If you want to go and modify the paragraph in order to clarify it, be my guest, but erasing it is inappropriate. Ex-Nintendo Employee 05:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's polygonal. Even in the most primitive imaginable implimentation it consists of two right-angled triangles sharing a pair of vertices, and in your "flipping" example it's that same surface being viewed from the opposite face (as there is no geometry on the opposite face to obscure the texture). This is something which appears in literally hundreds of games, including a majority of titles from the GameCube's generation. It is not a commment-worthy feature, and it's original research anyway, unless you can find someone in the videogames press who also found it remarkable that a modern game features two-dimensional objects. Sockatume 14:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand just why this is being included. Resident Evil 4 was marketed in a big way on the "unsurpassed visuals" [[5]] of the title- press releases speak of how the title "Utilizes the Nintendo GameCube's technological powers to the fullest", amongst other things. Indeed, the very FIRST Key Feature in the press release marketing Resident Evil 4 was dedicated to giving the appearance that the title's graphical quality was something rather revolutionary. Given the major emphasis that has been placed on the "graphical quality" in this title, it bears contrasting that the shortcuts taken deserve to be mentioned. While it might appear on other games, the large majority of these games don't take their marketing to such an extreme level as Resident Evil 4 did. Ex-Nintendo Employee 23:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually recall RE4 being sold on its graphics any more than any other title was. It wasn't exactly Rise of the Robots. It's irrelevant, anyway. The article is not created to host your views on what the game's merits and faults are. It's to host the concensus. Find me an external source which shares your views and we'll cite it and include it. Sockatume 23:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, am I reading you right - You're saying that prioritising visual quality so that the obvious, important stuff looks better and the incidental detail is "good enough", is somehow a deceptive and insidious practice invented by this game's designers? Do you think that games should be rendered with equal quality out to the horizon? Perhaps we should get over to the PC game articles and start pointing out the evils of normal mapping, as it gives the appearance of a high polygon count model through clever texture approaches. Sockatume 00:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Blanking is removing an article or section wholesale. Editing out material from a section as unsourced, NPOV, original research, or otherwise unsuitable is not blanking, it's editing, whether you like it or not. I'm calling for comment to get this resolved before it turns into a revert war. Sockatume 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What I am saying is what I am saying- please don't put words in my mouth. Resident Evil 4 was hailed (and sold) as a game that was purported to rise above and beyond all other prior titles on the GameCube, one that the company itself stood up and called "unsurpassed". What is somewhat deceptive is the degree to what this supposed "unsurpassed visual quality" was so emphasized, when in fact the number of shortcuts is extensive. It's not just a few things- the entire game is filled with them. If you find a PC game where the "visual quality" is described as revolutionary while utilizing so many shortcuts (and they ARE shortcuts), take it up with that article. When you have a few shortcuts taken (such as the normal mapping), that's one thing, but having a current-gen game that so extensively uses use of duplicate mirroring, FLAT objects (such as the gloves mentioned that are 2D) and other tricks, while hailing itself as being entirely without peer in its field, that is deceptive. Resident Evil 4 placed itself onto a pedestal and exposed itself to that regard. And yes, it WAS sold on it's visual quality- which is one reason the press release (already linked) to calls itself "unsurpassed". Ex-Nintendo Employee 01:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• What I am saying is what I am saying: That's exactly the problem! The article isn't supposed to be about what you're saying about the game, it's supposd to be about what others are saying. No matter how cripplingly insightful your revelations about RE4's graphics are, they don't come from a verifiable external source. They are original research and as such do not belong in there. Sockatume 01:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There you go again, putting words into my mouth. It's NOT original research to point out basic shortcuts taken within the game's design- the game itself is the source, and any idiot can look at the source (the game itself). Basic facts: Resident Evil 4 was hailed as a game that was at the time of its release unsurpassed- in other words, without equal amongst any game prior. Basic fact: The game contains all of the shortcuts mentioned within it. Ex-Nintendo Employee 01:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, putting aside the fact that you don't seem to know what "to put words in another's mouth" means: who catalogued these shortcuts and decided that their use in the game was enough to notably undermine the game's claim of graphical quality? Was it a primary source you can cite? Was it a secondary source you can cite? Or was it yourself? See WP:OR:

"It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material"

"It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;"Sockatume 01:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, insulting my intelligence now, eh? Ssying "I don't know" what words mean is horribly, totally and completely rude and OFF base. You know what, I'll tell you this- I've been involved in Wikipedia for a damn long time. I feel that I've made some pretty good edits and even created several pretty nice articles from scratch, and to be talked down by you is sickening. You remember civility? You know? That thing about COMMENTING ON EDITS THEMSELVES AND NOT ON EDITORS? I've never called you an idiot, never said "you don't know" what a word means. And yet you keep on digging, trying to make me mad. Well you've succeeded in that regard. God, disagreements over an edit I can take (hell, lord knows I'm wrong a lot), but this condescending attitude goes above and beyond. Keep "your" article- it seems that everything people were saying about Wikipedia is true, and I'd rather be jammed in the eye by a monkey holding a stick rather than deal with your nose-looking again. Ex-Nintendo Employee 01:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Don't seem to know. You might know what the phrase means and are merely deliberately or inadvertently using it incorrectly. Who can say? Sockatume 01:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Coming in from the RfC page, and having read the graphics section--and not wanting to get into the interpersonal aspect of the scrap above--I must say that I agree with Sockatume's points. If I were to visit this article without having first seen the talk page, I'd get to the graphics section and think "Huh? Why are they talking about texture mapping so much?" I'd have been more surprised if a game like R4 didn't stick some flat stuff in there.

Of course, that may just be my layperson's perspective on console games talking. I think I'm right about it--but even if I'm wrong, without evidence that this fact about RE4's graphics was remarked on by a lot of people, maybe written up in a gaming magazine or very very very frequently discussed on several prominent message boards, the graphical discussion in the article reads like an essay. Iralith 21:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Apologies to all concerned for losing my temper, but I get frustrated when people fail to understand the argument. I'll give it until the 10th for further comment and discussion. Sockatume 00:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

But hang on, is the "revolutionary" aspect of the graphics in RE4 merely comment in relation to previous entries in the series? In comparison to the static pre-rendered environments of the earlier games, RE4s graphics were a big step forward. Yes, its graphics may be fairly conventional in comparison to games as a whole, but in regards to the RE series, not as much. Kelvingreen 09:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

New date on PC version

7-12-2006[6] and here [7] the second link also states a shipping weight of 2, which at that store means the case is two dvd cases thick. A standard case Ubisoft uses for cd-rom games with 3+ discs.

Walkthrough of RE 4

If anyone wants to add the RE 4 Walkthrough for the wiki web site then allow me to be of aid to you. I've completed both the main walkthrough, the seperate ways walkthrough, and got all the weapons that there are for everyone. The mercenary mode is the only other another I couldn't do.--Zhang Liao 08:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And one would be added in there....why? Captain Drake Van Hellsing 07:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, wiki article about videogames are not walktroughs or FAQs. --Soetermans 21:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Village location

Its obviously Spain right? the accent there is Castillan and their currency is the peseta. The reason why i ask this is because almost every source just limits to say that the location is "somewhere in Europe". --189.135.67.61 00:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Judging by the cultural aspects and satellite screen shot of the village, it's commonly assumed that the "unnamed village" is in Spain. ;-) --ShadowJester07 00:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

One could infer that it takes place in Spain, but there are no sources to back this statement up, and such an inference is technically original research. Capcom says it's "somewhere in Europe," so unless they clarify it, there are no other sources to cite for its location. 206.213.209.31 16:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hiroyuki Kobayashi once said in a GameSpy interview (see here) that the location of the game is NOT Spain. It's a fictional European country in the same way that Raccoon City is a fictional American town and Rockfort and Sheena are fictional European islands. Jonny2x4 22:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The only country to use pesetas as a currency was Spain, so i'll have to say it IS Spain. But please take that back about the castillan accent, not a single one of the villagers sounds anywhere near any spanish accents, they are all obviously latin-american voices (probably mexican). People from Japan (or the USA) figure it's the same thing :)

The unnamed village and country are fictional, any way you look at it, so the location really doesn't prove to be particularly important. It would be important if the location was directly related to the story, but I think Capcom wanted to be careful when creating a plot that centers on anti-American terrorist activity, so as to not imply any such feelings toward America on the part of the country involved. Leebo86 20:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Leebo's got a point there. However, Spain is the only European country where the Spanish language is spoken, pesetas were the Spanish currency and all names in the game are Spanish (Luis Sera, Bitores Mendez, Ramon Salazar), so one can safely assume it is in Spain. But as the game designers kept the real location in the middle, I suggest we keep it the way it is, in "undisclosed Spanish speaking village". --Soetermans 21:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The game's setting is similar to Springfield from the Simpsons, in the sense the producers intentionally left the settings actual whereabouts to draw additional speculation --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  21:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall any point in any Simpsons episode where there's a map of America with a "Springfield is here" sign. In "Separate Ways," there is a map which shows that the village is located on the Iberian peninsula in Spain. --Halloween jack 22:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There have been several episodes of the Simpsons that have shown Springfield from Space, and a few geographic maps, which depicted Springfield near Texas. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  22:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you're thinking of when they mentioned West Springfield being three times the size of Texas (or something like that). The geographical location of Springfield is still unknown.... not that this has anything to do with this game, of course. RPH 22:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As a Spaniard, I can assure that the locations, and most especially the language spoken, are NOTHING like anything in Spain. While the language is, in fact, Spanish, it is NOT any European variety, but a Latin American one (they're mutually intelligible but rather different). Why they decided to use Latino actors instead of Europeans remains a mystery to me (I don't think using actors from Spain would have been much more expensive). So, it doesn't look like Spain, it doesn't sound anything like Spain, and overall, it doesn't feel even remotely like Spain. Also, the peseta is history. 19:50, 11 January 1997 (CET)

Well, the continent is Europe, the language Spanish, the currency pesetas, the Police tunics Policía Nacional uniforms, the maps show the Iberian Peninsula geography, the secondary characters have Spanish-sounding names, there is a character who is a retired Police officer from Madrid... So, despite the bulk of the setting isn't remotely accurate nor realistic, you had enough clues to think that it "is" Spain in the same way that the African country of The Interpreter "is" Zimbabwue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.244.23.200 (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

The whole article needs a good cleanup BADLY.

Seriously. It feels more like a collection of random facts about the game than a truly encyclopedic article. Alot of the sub-sections could easily be merged. A few examples:

• The "Comparison to other Resident Evil games" feels more like a comparison to other game franchises (Diablo this, Beyond Good and Evil that) based on the writer's own experience (which constitute OR) than a comparison with previous Resident Evil games. Drop the unneccesary name dropping of other game titles (already did) and clean it up a bit, and you could easily merge it with the Gameplay section as well.

• Same thing with Graphics (since I consider the graphics to be part of the gameplay). I think comments about the PS2 RAM are something best left at the version differences.

• The whole GameCube controversy section is something that could easily go into the Development section, as well as the differences between each version and such. The Development section seems to have too much Original Research as well. In addittion, the section seems to be written to fanboy-ish (PS2 fans this, GameCube fans that).

• The awards section could be axed. I know It's a really great game, but I don't think everyone is interested knowing every award the game has won. Just mention the notable ones (Best GameCube game, Game of the year) in the Reception section.

Here's a proposed layout for the next version article.

• Gameplay
  • Full model change (mentions the graphics and it changes from the previous games)
  • Creatures (briefly mention the Ganados and how they differ from the zombies, as well as other monsters)
  • Extra features (mention the game's unlockable features)
• Plot
  • Characters and settings
  • Story
• Releases
  • Localization
  • PS2 version
  • PC version
  • Any additional revelant merchandise or product.
• Development (mention how the game was originally planned for the PS2 and eventually became a GameCube exclusive for awhile. Mention the original DMC proposal and the three discarded GameCube betas)
• Reception (mentions of critics feedback of the game and the awards the game received).
• External links

Any other suggestions?Jonny2x4 06:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a good model. It resembles the model used by StarCraft, one of Wikipedia's best Video Game articles. All in all, I like ideas and layout. I think the section could also use some more resources, as eight is not enough for 36kb article. The Cast section could be converted into a "Characters" section, which just has list of main characters and voice talents. Additionally, I hate to be a stickler, but none of the images have any fair use rationale. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  04:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

RE Comparison Link

After reviewing the link/reference one gave to back up the PS2 graphics' section, I think it may not meet Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Reliable sources, given the site reads like a game blog [8][9]. The site's tone, bias towards Game Cube, and really reliability are questionable. The site does not clearly identify the author, and only states "webmaster AT gameswelike.com" as means of contact --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  00:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You might want to try 198.53.60.60's talk page, and inform him. Geoff B 01:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, messaged him myself. Doesn't look like a reliable source. Geoff B 01:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the motivation, though? I agree that the source is not a reliable source, but only as the wiki dictates. The fact that the source may be bias to the Gamecube is really a mute point anyway, as biased source or not - all one has to do is play the PS2 version to see the differences first hand. Again let me point out that I agree that the link provided is not a reliable source. However, it would be desirable to have a "dodgy" source rather than delete and make no mention of the quality differences between the two versions; to do so would just not represent the facts of the released port. Parjay 02:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There are probably more reliable sources on GameSpot or IGN. While I Agree that the GC version has better graphics than the PS2 version, one needs to cite a legitimate source to back up the claim for the sake of Wikipedia's reputation and standards. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  03:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

http://uk.insider.ign.com/teasers/662/662302.html - Insiders only on IGN, it appears. Geoff B 03:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the Gamespot reference [10], which offers two sides on the PS2' graphics. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  04:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep including the info I provided if it keeps getting removed.-198.53.60.60

And I guarantee you'll eventually be banned :-) --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  23:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll get banned for posting facts?-198.53.60.60 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mega Man 5 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

No, for persistently including info from an unreliable source. Why don't you check WP's policy on reliable sources? Geoff B 23:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why? I posted facts.-198.53.60.60

Regardless, the stuff about shrubs is redundant. The ENTIRE environment of the PS2 version is less detailed, not just the shrubs. You keep changing it from a general comment on the detail loss, to this stuff about shrubs - why?Gecks 12:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Because what I posted talks about the downgrade in more detail. Nothing wrong with that.-198.53.60.60

It didn't, though. It removed the general description of the downgrade, and instead used one specific example (shrubs/trees), which read as if that was the only visual downgrade, which is incorrect.Gecks 12:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Even after I contributed that, the article also mentioned the water effects being toned down in the PS2 version. So, there was more information about the visual downgrade than just the shrubs/trees. But this was a while ago, so let's quit talking about this topic.-Mega Man 5 18 May 2007 (UTC)

PC Port Section

Can someone please explain why my revision of the PC port section keeps getting erased? As far as I can tell I am not violating any rules. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.253.48.161 (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Oh please. You've not only inserted a completely outlandish claim (that the PC port is graphically inferior to all the other versions), but you've refused to provide a valid source (some chinese pirate forum speculation is NOT a valid Wikipedia source), and you created several sockpuppet accounts in order to bypass the 3RR rule for your "edit". I'm a stick and a half away from reporting you to the moderation council for your behavior, because I'm sick of it. Ex-Nintendo Employee 13:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, you just made a completely outlandish claim that I've created several sockpuppet accounts without any proof. Reverting the whole section because you did not agree with one line is ridiculous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.253.48.161 (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

It has nothing to do wit agreement or disagreement. It's WP guidelines. Provide a reliable source, and it can go in. Geoff B 15:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Gamespot is definitely not a valid source for a release date and basing the games graphics and performance on a premature pirated release does not belong in this wiki.

To clarify, the concerns over the graphical quality of Resident Evil 4's PC port is a leaked final version (version 1.0) or a released version in China/Taiwan. The version released is not in any way "premature". In this release, the FMVs are pre-rendered and has no mouse support. I do not see why this should not be included in the wiki. Also, GameSpot is a very well known and reputable site for gaming news. Mobygames on the other hand, is not very reliable.

So, because you don't see a reason why it shouldn't be allowed in, it should be included? What about WP guidelines on reliable sources? Are we supposed to ignore them because you do? Geoff B 22:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware self evident facts needed to be cited. Perhaps, every line written in Wikipedia should be cited then? The Chinese version has pre-rendered FMVs, no official mouse support, and no lighting features of the GC/PS2 version. I do not see how you can disagree with that statement.

Because there is no sourcing for it that is valid under Wikipedia's guidelines. If it was "self-evident", then it would have been all over the LEGITIMATE news sites by this time, and if its true then when one of the aforementioned legitimate sites talks about it, then it can go up. Neither you nor your sockpuppets have to this date been able to provide a legitimate source for your assertion. I'm also calling attention to your blatant and repeated violations of Wikipedia's "three revert rule". Ex-Nintendo Employee 19:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia, slightly behind major commercial news outlets in verifying facts.com in ignorance of piratebay serving up 30,000 copies of it. Notagoodname 04:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Woah, sorry about that revert, I thought you posted that statement on the actual article page as opposed to the talk page. I'm on too much cold medicine, my bad :-p --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  04:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I just edited the pc-port -section, adding 2 sentences about the quality of the port. I now see that there has been discussion about should such info be added. I used discussion at Gamespot Forums as reference. I think that screenshots and copy of the e-mail message from Svensson are good enough proof to verify my claims.

I new to editing Wikipedia and it took me 3 edits to get references working. I am sorry if I did something wrong, feel free to edit my additions if you see that there's not enough proof. Buzku 14:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not enough proof. Wikipedia's guidelines as to verifiability are clear. Forum discussions are absolutely NOT a valid source for Wikipedia. Good sources are established media outlets- actual news articles such as Gamespot (NOT gamespot forums), mainstream news, etc. Anyone on any forum can say anything and pretend to be anyone, and self-collected "information" constitutes Original Research, which is also prohibited on Wikipedia. To include any information on this, it must be legitimately sourced. Ex-Nintendo Employee 00:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. There were screenshots to prove the differences though, but I guess that wasn't enough. Lesson learned. Buzku 15:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Screnshots are only as valid as the source. 15:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly, see WP:OR and WP:RS --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough that forum discussion is not a reliable source, but since when do we take the professional media as undisputable gospel? Perhaps we should start quoting FOX news as a source. Don't beleive everything you read. Consensus and peer review suffers the same flaws. Just because something enjoys a majority opinion, doesn't make it correct.

Surely the only reliable source e.g. for a videogame release date would be the publishing company's statement on the matter. Even then its wait-and-see. Gamespot's articles are therefore entirely invalid. 203.217.76.21 02:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Although the sources may never be 100% accurate, they have a methodical approach to research, summarize, and present stories; there is an organized process to weed out inaccuracies and factual errors in every story. Sure, there may be some bias, but that’s life. I highly doubt GameSpot, IGN, or GameInformer would intentionally make up a story to throw off a group of gamers. However, those sources are obviously not the final word when it comes to releasing games. I agree that we should only state the game’s official release date. One can make cited elaboration in another section. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  05:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This just aint right, do we really have to wait for a Gamespot to declare this a lazy, fugly port? Are there no guidelines like "I declare I have played this game and there is no lighting/shadows/fog/mouse" and then cite forums that plenty are posting simlar? It's irritating that I have the evidence right here, but have to wait for media before warning prospective buyers (on wikipedia, natch. I know it's where I look for such reliable scoops) Hope it comes before US release date. WholeFnShow 06:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I do believe someone provided a viable reference [11], but from what I've read from it, there's no mention at all of a lack of either fog, lighting or shadows. The complaints present in the reference article mention a lack of mouse movement, and he says that the increased sharpness "doesn't help" the game. I'll restore the paragraph that the anon erased, but I'm going to modify it to avoid speculating about fog, lighting or shadows. Ex-Nintendo Employee 10:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

New (?) review, IGN in Australia I think. It confirms lack of shaders and lighting, and describes the cutscenes as "vaseline smeared" and graphics generally ... "that looks both dated, and in many ways, inferior to its predecessors" but doesn't mention the fog. Is it up for debate that this is a PS2 port, not GC? Has video cutscenes (lower quality incidentally, to match the decoloured game, but I digress...) as opposed to GCs realtime, and PS2s extras. I'd prefer to not add to the article when the juries out on what stays and goes, but I hope someone less trepidatious and more confident about their knowlege Wikipedia guidelines deems the lack of Lighting and Shaders verified, and that it's a port of the inferior (to GC) PS2 isn't deemed speculative. WholeFnShow 02:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Added. Ex-Nintendo Employee 02:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• As an aside, the developer of the port was previously responsible for several Capcom ports from the PS2 to the PC, but they've not really worked from GC titles AFAIK. So it seems very likely that they were working from the PS2 version. It'd be interesting to see if there's any official confirmation of this out there.

Possible source of inspiration?

There are people on the imdb boards saying that this game was inspired by a direct to video movie called Dagon and loosely inspirated on H. P. Lovecraft's works. Is that correct? The movie depicts a couple of American tourists who arrive at an apparently abandoned village in Galicia, Spain, which is actually inhabited by crazy not-so-human villagers who whorship a fish-like God. There are also some octopus-like and fish-like mutants.--Menah the Great 08:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that film made it as far as Japan, but even if it did there's no way to know if it inspired the designers unless they say so, and it's far from the only film about a secluded little village filled with mutants/aliens/*insert weird creatures here*. Geoff B 12:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, unless we can find a definitive source tying the two together, I'd say no. There are broad similarities, but nothing particularly specific. Lovecraft's fiction is full of isolated villages full of mutants and cultists. Kelvingreen 19:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, this game is not based on Dagon. However, there are several spots which seem to take inspiration from HP Lovecraft's works. -Emhilradim 12:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's worth researching for sources, as they are very alike. Some other film reviewers have picked up on this. http://www.thefilmasylum.com/reviews/dagon/dagon.htm for example mentions it. I'll look into it more when I get the chance. Parjay 14:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Game Boy Advance Cable?

This article on the cable that connects the GBA to the Gamecube lists RE4 as a game that it compatible with it. I don't have my copy of RE4 at the moment (I lent it to a friend who's out of town) so I can't check the back of the game to verify this, so I'm wondering if someone else who has it on hand can. I don't remember this being possible at all. If it is, for some strange reason (a horror game linking with a GBA seems silly to me), this should be mentioned in the article. If it isn't, it should be removed from the link cable article. --Thaddius 16:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not compatible with the cable. Ex-Nintendo Employee 16:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Must've been vandalism. I'll remove it from the article on the cable then. --Thaddius 17:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Wii Port

I Removed the Wii Port section since there were no Reliable Sources to verify the claim. GoNintendo.com appears to be a fan site. Additionally, the GoNintendo states, “Capcom has not made any announcements about a new Resident Evil title”, claiming the quote came from a Capcom Rep. The section stated, “Capcom refused to comment”, when in fact Capcom clearly remarked stated that they have not made any announcements for new RE titles. I’ve looked it up on Google (and also Topix.com), and only come across some Internet Forums and other insignificant things. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  04:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Technically, it wouldn't be a new title, but I agree with the removal 100% unless/until there's a reliable source. Geoff B 07:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

IGN is definately reliable. Guest 03:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

IGN does not have the authority to dictate whether a games will actually be produced. The article claims that numerous foreign sites are flippantly reporting the game's status. There's no actual confirmation from CapCom or Nintendo - Although IGN is a reliable source, its merely spinning unverfied information around a rumor mill. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  00:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Famitsu's new issue may confirm the port; it is said now to have the PS2 version's extras.Infinitys 7th 02:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is going to be a Wii port. The Japanese site for it is up, and it has been conformed multiple times, by multiple sources. Here is the Japanese site http://www.capcom.co.jp/wii_bio4/. I think someone should definitely fix the page.Alegeobla 01:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

New Resi4 Wii trailer

There is a new Resi4 Wii trailer/teaser out, on the Japanese site: Here. Should we add it to the article? --Garfunkle20 23:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wii port will keep Gamecube graphics??? Are you sure?

Lately I've forgotten to keep up with news about this game. Now I read the artcicle and it says that it will indeed keep the Gamecube graphics rather than the PS2 ones. Are you people sure about this? I had been worrying that they might use the graphics of the PS2 version since the extras from it were being added.Link's Awakening 02:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Some comparison shots have gone up somewhere, and they show that the graphics are considerably improved over both PS2 and GC versions, so I wouldn't worry. I'll try and find the shots, but I have no idea where they were. From what I saw, textures and shading had been improved a great deal from the PS2/GC versions. However, I believe that the actual models were less complex in the PS2 version, so I don't know if Wii will have the PS2 models with better textures, or the GC models with better textures. Kelvingreen 20:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Awards

Why is the awards list so huge on RE4, very few other big titles do not have such a list. The list seems to include every little award, as if made by a fanboy...maybe consider to make the list a lot smaller and include only the most important awards?

Actually, there's only a handful you could point to that are 'little'. Most of them are from fairly respected sites or publications, IGN, Edge, etc. Like it or not, RE4 got a lot of awards, a lot more than most big titles, in fact. Geoff B 13:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Australian Release Date?

When will the Wii Edition be released in Australia? Its normally on TBA, but yesterday I checked and it said June 5th, why has it changed? Also why dont Capcom or Nintendo give an announcement yet, its almost nearing launch in Europe and us Australians dont even have a release date?

"Easy" Difficulty Setting

Under alternate versions, one paragraph states the easy version is exclusive to the PAL release, while the bulleted information below the paragraph shows the easy mode, Amateur mode, as a Japanese-only setting. Which is correct? -- JoeTrumpet 10:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)