Talk:Resident Evil (2002 video game)

Ther reception infobox needs to be replaced with a standard one

And updated for a remake (of a remake). --302ET (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, where the fuck is update?

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Resident Evil (2002 video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs) 02:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll review this, Niwi, though it will take a few days so I can familiarize myself with the subject matter. I can only hope to find something wrong with this great-looking article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm sure you'll do just fine. --Niwi3 (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Here are a few thoughts to start out with:

• The article is stable, neutral, well-written, and covers all the relevant bases.
• I'm seeing a number of citations that are in the wrong numerical order, something we are supposed to care about.

I'm not really sure where the issue is. Could you be more specific? Thanks --Niwi3 (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is one example: "Resident Evil was first released in March 2002 in Japan. The US and UK versions of the game were released in April 2002 and September 2002 respectively.[12][11]" I have gone ahead and fixed the spots where this occurs.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Development

• I would seriously consider dropping or at least attributing the statement from Capcom's then director of marketing. I'm not sure it really adds anything substantial.

Added Capcom's marketing director. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• "Despite this, the camera is more dynamic and can track the player at varying angles." I'm not entirely sure what the "varying angles" bit means. Per the source, it sounds like this refers to larger environments that are seen from several distinct camera perspectives as you walk through them. I just want to clarify, if possible, what the difference is here from the PlayStation version.

It means that the camera can sometimes rotate from a fixed position to follow the player. I think it is pretty clear because cameras in the original game are fixed and cannot rotate to follow the player (as far as I know). --Niwi3 (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• For my own reference, are there only two default difficulty modes in the original, rather than what appear to be three in the HD version? Does your source elaborate at all on how Mikami tried to trick players into accepting a harder difficulty? In the HD version at least, I assume that I got an easier difficulty when I said I like my games to be relaxing, rather than strenuous but rewarding. (Might some players be reluctant to say that?)

Yes, the original GameCube version only has 2 difficulty modes at the start (Easy and Normal), while the HD version has 3 (Very Easy, Easy, Normal). By beating the game once, a Hard difficulty is unlocked. The source does not elaborate at all on how the director tried to trick the player into choosing the harder one. This is directly taken from the source: "Interviewer: By the way, why did you make the questions at the beginning of the game? Like climb up the mountain or walking? -- Mikami: I wanted the player to pick the hard way. If I put Easy or Hard, they will pick Easy. I want [Biohazard] to be alcohol, not popular drink like coke." --Niwi3 (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• I assume you mean to say that Capcom hired "new" voice actors.

Yes, fixed. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• The PSU article doesn't appear to say anything about the poor translation of the original game.

Added ref 19. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Reception

• Shouldn't "critical acclaim" suffice? Who reviewed the game besides video game journalists? Was the mainstream press less effusive?

I agree, so I removed the "video game journalists" part. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• "Retrospectively, the game is often regarded as one of the best and most visually impressive titles in the Resident Evil series" sounds like a legacy thing, but I appreciate the line can be difficult to draw.

I think that sentence is the kind of thing that fits well in both sections. In my opinion, it is better to leave it in the last paragraph of the reception section because otherwise the following sentences (starting with "According to Lucas M. Thomas of IGN, the game's graphics...") would seem out of context. Also, the sentence refers to the original GameCube version, so I'm not sure how I could integrate it into the legacy section without overly complicating things. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• You might want to give the month as well as the year for when Capcom revealed those sales figures.

Done. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• You should stick with the last names of the reviewers rather than alternating.

Done. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Legacy

• The addition of analog controls (and an easier difficulty option) in the HD version probably deserves more attention than a vague comment about "additional control options", particularly given the repeated references to criticism of the tank controls.

Added more details about the controls. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• GameSpot's VanOrd doesn't really say, in his review of the HD version, that the game has aged poorly--although he does note a few familiar flaws with the inventory system and backtracking. It would be more accurate to say that he considers the impact of age but finds the game still holds up well enough, or at least that the HD smoothes over the rough edges; the synopsis "Some critics noted that the game has not aged very well, while others considered the HD version to be a solid revival of a classic" is a little bit of a stretch when derived from comments like "A modern re-release must... be like the game we remember rather than the game that actually was, and Resident Evil HD does so admirably" and "Resident Evil, even purely within a modern context, is an engrossing adventure that benefits from tense exploration and clever environmental puzzles." VanOrd, in my reading at least, certainly seems to consider the HD version "a solid revival of a classic".

Tweaked. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Capcom's stated intention to release more HD remasters could also be a "Legacy" of the HD version's success, although I understand that it might be too soon to say so.

Right, I think it is better to wait until we have more details about this. Capcom hasn't confirmed anything yet. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep looking, but that might be it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I fixed all the issues you brought up. Please let me know what you think about the changes I made. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Spotcheck

• "The developers... revamped most of the puzzle designs.[18]" Not in the source.

The source says: "there are new moves and weapons, changed environments, new areas to explore, probably 80% different puzzle designs, and totally unequaled graphics." In any case, I replaced the word "revamped" with "changed". --Niwi3 (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't care about the word choice either way. I guess I missed that because it was relegated to the last paragraph.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Source 19 still doesn't say the translation was poor, although some of the lines they mention do sound like they were poorly translated. Not a deal-breaker, but I would prefer to see something more explicit.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed that part. --Niwi3 (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Other

• Trying to explain how the tank controls work in a digression near the end of the article is, frankly, offputting.

Removed that part. --Niwi3 (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Control Option Type C needs to be covered.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Option C? As far as I know, the game only has 2 control schemes. Also, according to the project's article guidelines, detailing the game's controls is generally considered inappropriate. --Niwi3 (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Your sources refer to the control scheme where you move by holding the R button and steer your character with the analog stick as Control Type C. You should be more familiar with it then me. I'm not asking for specific button arrangements for each console, which is the kind of cruft those general guidelines warn against. The tank controls of Resident Evil--in which you rotate your character by pressing left or right and then press up or down to move in whatever direction you are facing, with no analog precision and no way to run and gun--are a salient distinguishing characteristic of the series and something readers should understand. The article should briefly explain how this control scheme works and note that criticism prompted Capcom to make changes.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I think I have addressed the issue. And I would appreciate you be a bit more specific next time as I don't have memorized all the details of all the sources; I had to go through all of the article's references to find one which supports the addition of the Type C controls. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I am satisfied that this article now meets GA criteria. Cheers,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

here you can state all you objections, if you have any

Instead of trying to own an article and reverting all improvement edits anyone wrote without your personal permission. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

BTW my feeling is the re-releases should be moved into the section Release (to be created) and all the reception moved into the section Reception (from Legacy, which should be only about RE0 and RE4, and also Umbrella Chronicles because it also used Lisa). --AggressiveNavel (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi AggressiveNavel, I'm not trying to own the article and every editor is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia. Just because I am reverting your edits doesn't mean I'm owning the article. The article was recently promoted to Good Article status and I think your edits are disrutive because you are adding bare URLs, adding too many intricate details to the lead, and overall messing up the article's structure, among other things. Also, in each of your edits you don't include a summary explaining what you did and the reason for it. I also disagree with the fact that we should create a release section that includes the re-releases because in my opinion things are better put into context when ordered chronologicaly; info about the original GameCube version should come first, then we can start talking about the re-release. Overall, I find many issues in your edits, so please slow down and add a summary in each of your edits. And please, establish consensus before making a major change. Thank you. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Bare URLs will be handled in short time by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Derek_R_Bullamore who does much better work with them than I'd do so using the automatic system. The GC release info comes first, it's in the same paragraph as the Wii one (just first), it might get it's own paragraph when it's more than just 1 sentence. Heres the list of changes: expanded lead to cover everything in the article, removed overlinking ("spiders" and such) and added few more proper ones instead (mostly to redirects to the list of characters article section), erasure of Rebecca no more (1 short sentence with link to Rebecca's article), Release section now online, expanded Reception including updating infobox for non-GC reviews and more sales info (for the new one), expanded Legacy for additional related games, expanded External Links (Chronicles and MobyGames), various small fixes like streamlining overdetailed Plot intro paragraph, 12 or so new refs for verifibality. You have no WP:OWN right to indiscriminately revert improvements, you need to work with them just like I did with your version without removing even 1 of your references. I respect your work, it was pretty good but way too GC-oriented and then also missing some important aspects even regarding it (like with Rebecca's very existence or RE0 & UC connections) while also a bit too detailed at times (relative intro recap bloat, overlinking). If you want to fill the new references your style feel free to do it. Also, thanks for you work. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

1.8 million has been sold as of December 31, 2016

http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/finance/million.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.166.10.36 (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Resident Evil (2002 video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161201214236/http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/finance/million.html to http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/finance/million.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Needs Wii Reception Chart.

The Wii version needs a Reception Chart. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Legacy

This game is essentially seen as being more canonical than the 1996 game is today. Lisa Trevor is mentioned and seen in subsequent games. People may be mislead into thinking this is just a straight-up remake if nobody mentions that in the article. ChewNaChunkx (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)