Jump to content

Talk:Resident Evil 4 (2023 video game)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Mechanics"

[edit]

Generally, when discussing how video games are played, the word "mechanic" is used to describe a specific gameplay feature that the player uses to interact with the game itself. Specifically, in this article, there are two places that I have seen where it is really the only word I can think of being applicable in the article. First, the usage of "struggle mechanic", there really isn't anything else that can go after struggle or before it, because that's what it is: a new feature in the game that allows for players to escape from the hold of the villagers and other enemies by 'struggling'. Second, the usage of "parrying mechanic", it's essentially the same reason as the first example. It's a specific thing that the player can do.

As for why we shouldn't be using "system" instead of "mechanic", this is because the word system generally implies a much larger group of mechanics, an example being an ability system for individual characters, rather than a single thing that a character can do.

I'd love to hear everyone else's thoughts on this, these are just my opinions on how these words should be defined and used. ― TUNA × 16:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Mechanic" is video games industry jargon and not the most WP:PLAINENGLISH phrasing.
To me, both of those examples you cite read more simply as "system", ie "parrying system".
I think the phrase "struggle mechanic" is particularly odd, in honesty. I would probably rewrite the sentence entirely: "When grabbed by an enemy, the player can now press buttons or equip the knife to escape." Popcornfud (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking through the citations on this page and others that talk about similar things but are not cited, and they all seem to use "mechanic" rather than "system" for these two examples. However, I do agree that "struggle mechanic" is a pretty rough phrasing. I'd rewrite the sentence as: "When grabbed by an enemy, the player now has the option to repeatedly press a button or stab the enemy to escape." ― TUNA × 17:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly undid the revert because it was just a plain overuse of the word 'mechanic(s)'. I think Popcornfud has a good point with WP:PLAINENGLISH, it's better to just describe how something works than to call it a "mechanic" of some sort. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Side note, I think it's pretty amazing that this is the first discussion about RE4 (safe for some vandals/unconstructive IPs that is). Kinda shows how stable this article already is, despite the recent release. Great job everyone! soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Audience response subsection not appropriate

[edit]

The content in the "Audience response" section and the way it was written is inappropriate, biased, not really about general audience reaction, non-constructive or relevant, and no evidence has been released yet to support the claim, neither by Gao nor the media, not a photo or screenshot nor any form of example of so-called harassment or any comment, she erased almost completely her social media content and chronology before releasing the claim of harassment or attacks, and in the last post she published and still available she received exclusively non-harsh and contained criticism for her performance, before disabling the comments but leaving available the ones already posted. Sources don't provide any proof, any evidence of these attacks, this is not a political or socio-political platform, we can't take people's or media's claims as facts and absolute truth even when they don't provide evidence. Thank you. 151.34.54.249 (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'nough said. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean enough said? You just proved my point, you only shared a lot of sources that report Gao's statement as a fact but without showing any evidence, no screenshot nor any example of the comment, and why erasing all social media activity and so also the evidence before releasing the statement? Plus, as I said, it's not material for general audience response. 151.34.54.249 (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia just reports what sources say. We can't do anything more or less than that. Popcornfud (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least it should be written in a different way and with a section renamed. 151.34.54.249 (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're not about to do some investigating of our own here, that would be original research and is not allowed. Reliable sources mention it in clear relation to Resident Evil 4, so it's only logical we mention it here. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should be renamed "Controversy" and should be also added that Gao erased all her social media activity and with it all the comments before releasing the statement, as even the same sources say. 151.34.54.249 (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're not supposed to be calling sections 'controversy', as that is a vague description. Some people were horrible online to a voice actor, that's not a 'controversy'. There's no need to mention that Gao deleted the comments, that's not the point here at all. You seem to be trying to cast doubt on the situation, we're not about to do that. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is doubt on the situation (just look at all the comments below her last post on Instagram), and yes, it is a controversy, and we don't even know how many horrible people harassed her to make it a relevant matter because we don't have any screenshot or even a random example written manually, and yes, the fact that she erased her social media activity before releasing the statement is fundumental and crucial and could change everything, we can't just ignore that and pretend it's not relevant. And with all due respect, you shared a source that literally said at the beginning "Fandom was a mistake". 151.34.54.249 (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not familiar with Wikipedia yet, your own opinion doesn't matter. We go by reliable sources and that's it. The text won't be altered because you don't trust the narrative. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But this is a contradiction, because the same sources mention that Gao erased her social media activity before releasing the statement. And reliable sources has become pretty relative nowadays, especially considering what these sources wrote recently on other arguments other than Resident Evil 4: Remake. No matter how reliable you consider them, if an article doesn't show or share any evidence like a screenshot or a link to a social media post, especially regarding so serious accusations, it doesn't make it a fact or to be taken as indisputable truth. Information should always be questioned using common sense. 151.34.54.249 (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now I have to think you're kidding me, because my last edit was written properly and neutrally and citing literally the sources that were also reliable and supporting Gao, you said it, they just have to be sourced, I just followed your indication, and it's true, Resident Evil is a Japanese franchise with a due Asian cast. Also, you used the word "bullshit" when you messaged to him, very inappropriate, so now I have to deduce there's not only hypocrisy but also an unprofessional bias, also I have to consider certain words to users as some kind of threat. I didn't do anything wrong. 151.18.171.87 (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not kidding. You're IP hopping, the discussion can be found here: User talk:151.34.54.249. You are POV pushing and claiming to be neutral, you're questioning reliable sources and changing wording to fit your own opinion of the story. That will not be allowed. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't question reliable sources, I literally cited them. My personal opinion on the story doesn't matter, I just tried to write a complete and fair overview of the story without questioning the sources. 151.18.171.87 (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is important here is that Gao was harassed online by some people. You thought it was necessary to add "On April 2023, she published an Instagram post that received words of support to her, non-harsh and contained criticism for her performance and also comments from people doubting of her reliabily". Again, "non-harsh" isn't proper English and "comments from people doubting of her reliabily [sic]" is making her sound questionable. It is not neutral and inappropriate. I've made my point several times now, you are saying WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You don't have to understand, you don't gave to agree but you will have to WP:DROPTHESTICK. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She CLAIMED she was harassed by some people. We don't have photos or screenshots of this supposed harassment, everyone preserves it as evidence. 151.18.171.87 (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious you don't understand Wikipedia policy. I think you need to go and read the policies that have been linked here again, if you haven't read them properly already. It will explain why Wikipedia can't make the changes you want. There's nothing else that can be done. Popcornfud (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just still using basic common sense, saying she claimed to be harassed is just being fair because there is no evidence. Plus, the entire section is not even appropriate because not only it's not the response to the game in general, but it's a section that seems to consider the opinion of some trolls relevant and the same trolls as being the audience. 151.18.171.87 (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What word should be used besides "supposedly" in a topic regarding grave accusations unsupported by actual evidence? Gregory Speck (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Popcornfud, seeing Gregory Speck is a brand new account, the first they did was get involved in this discussion and leave a very long edit summary like our IP hopping friend here, I'm calling WP:FOWLPLAY. It's two in the morning where I am, I'm off to bed. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 00:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, who are you? Gregory Speck (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to Soetermans and the private message he sent me, and thank God it seems I'm not the only one disagreeing with a particular and problematic edit, though probably for different reasons, I didn't "vandalize" Wikipedia, someone else vandalized it before me and I was just fixing it and I even explained it accurately after the edit, if you've read it, it's obvious that there is some kind of bias here and I must take the message I received as some sort of intimidation. 84.222.66.55 (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, buddy. Just leave the article alone, would you. Thanks. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I smell sarcasm here and also even more intimidation. Don't call me buddy, please, and don't tell me to leave an article alone if I feel and know an edit is problematic or unconstructive. 84.222.66.55 (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have a keen sense of smell. I am telling you are going against consensus and basic guidelines. You are removing properly sourced content. Do not do that. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're in no position to "preach" to people on removing "properly sourced content", Soetermans, especially considering how I edited the content in a fair and proper manner and without even going against or contradict the sources. People here explained accurately the reasons why the subsection is problematic (starting from the title) and you simply reverted their edits without leaving any explanation but private threats of block. You even went further by having the entire article blocked. This is clear unprofessional bias and your current position on Wikipedia should be revised a lot. Protecting unproven content and treating it as an undisputable fact just because sources say like so without exposing any evidence, reverting edits of more users without leaving explanations and even intimidating and threatening them of block, using words like "bull*it" and even inappropriate sarcasm towards them, contradicting yourself, there's a lot here. 151.68.70.136 (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are wilfully ignorant of Wikipedia's guidelines (again, WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT), something I don't have the time or the patience for. It is edit protected from the likes of you, trying to enforce your POV pushing bullshit, trying to question the narrative of a person that was harassed online. You are WP:NOTHERE to help Wikipedia but to further your own agenda. Find another hobby. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here the one who wanted to push an agenda, that's you, and it's clear like the light of the Sun, I was the one correcting a subsection to make it fair and neutral because it lacks sources exposing actual evidence (so stop saying she was harassed online like there's undisputable certainty, she CLAIMED she was harassed online, because there's no evidence of that, not a screenshot, not a photo, not an example of any comment, and she erased ALL her social media activity before making that claim), and you're exposing yourself even more. And continuing to use words like "bulls*it" to anyone questioning you and the reliability of an article does not show you in a better position. 151.68.70.136 (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fun fact: you can write bullshit online. There's not even an asterisk required! We follow reliable sources and that is it. Not your own interpretation of those sources. WP:DROPTHESTICK. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an interpretation, it's a fact, not any of those sources, reliable or not, presented any evidence like usually these sites and magazines do, not a screenshot nor a link, so it's just common sense writing that she claimed she was harassed online (without questioning anything just saying she claimed) until an actual evidence is presented, that's how real world works. 151.68.70.136 (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This not the "real world". You won't be allowed to cast doubt on reliable sources. Am I not getting through to you? This is not ever going to happen. WP:DROPTHESTICK and move along. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the wording be changed from "she was harassed" to "NAME OF THE SOURCE HERE reported she was harassed"? If there's any policy against that, please do tell. MightyWeirdo (talk) 10:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guidance is WP:VOICE: If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
I am seeing multiple reliable sources (eg [1],[2], [3], [4], [5]) using the word "harass" and none disputing it. Insisting that there was no harassment appears to be a WP:FRINGE view not shared by reliable secondary sources so I don't think we need to cushion the statement. Popcornfud (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay on answering. I think you may have a point here. While I have doubts about their reliability, I'm not going to try to push my viewpoint on Wikipedia, regardless of what I think. Sorry if I made you waste your time detailing some obvious thing. MightyWeirdo (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Resident_Evil_4_(2023_video_game)&oldid=1205045022"