# Talk:Resident Evil 6

inb4 a new addition to the main article regarding that the 6 looks like a giraffe getting a blowjob by a woman.
it has started spreading as a joke on the internet. KRISHANKO (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on the article. I'm sure others will too. The Moose is loose! 01:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
And I was wondering what the hell was that giraffe supposed to mean. If not for your comment, I would probably never guess :P. Thanks! 84.40.254.176 (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks like you were right; I just had to revert one.-- OsirisV (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

it will eventually have to be put in the article when the logo goes mainstream (and obviously, fox news is on it) KRISHANKO (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

So Leon, as we all know, saved Ashley from that village somewhere on the coast of Spain in Resident Evil 4. In the trailer for Resident Evil 6, we see him facing off against the zombified president--Ashley's father. So Leon's obviously in the White House, where the president and his family live, but we don't see Ashley. Where is she? Did she die? Is she trapped in her university in Massachusetts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.95.18 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC) 
-
its kinda funny how this man has stayed in office for seemingly 3 terms.
he was probably the president during RC, and in his re-election shut down umbrella, and now he is (seemingly still shown as president. 
many (yes, weasel talk because there is no information) fans theorize the blonde with the merc is ashley.
i reject this theory because... what would ashley be doing wherever the game takes place? KRISHANKO (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, according to Degeneration the president of 1998 resigns (the US were Umbrella's main customers in bio-weapons, remember). The introduction to Resident Evil 4 suggests that Graham is new to office in 2004 - presumably that resignation screwed up the system, because he's being protected in the Autumn (not after November as only "President, elect"). We can't confirm when the game takes place - somewhere between 2008 (literally ten years after Raccoon City) and 2013 (ten years after the five-year Raccoon Trials end) - considering how each official source is different. Hell, we don't even know if Ashley would be in the game since a lot of websites (rely-on-horror, for example) backed out of that in favour of IGN's assumption - Sherry. Unfortunately, IGN failed to provide an adequate citation (an insider, apparently) and their wiki displays either names, depending on which page you're on.-- OsirisV (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
do take into consideration that he said "long friendship" to leon, and that takes me back to leons epilogue from re3. thats why i thought graham was president during RC. KRISHANKO (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Capcom has since settled the matter - it takes place in 2013, and the President is an individual unrelated to Graham, who recruited Leon into the "secret military agency" (the original script doesn't confirm them to be the Secret Service).-- OsirisV (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The Blonde Girl is actually Sherry Birkin in the new trailer realised yesterday, leon says "Sherry?" and she answers by the name.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon5555555 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC) 

Nintendo and Capcom are working a lot closer together as of late, especially releasing a number of high-profile games for the Nintendo 3DS, including two exclusive Resident Evil games, and with more 3DS Resi games to be expected in the future as well. (Source) Considering the release date of Resident Evil 6 in late 2012, it should not be surprising if Capcom would announce the game is coming for the Wii U at some point. What is really surprising is them not announcing a Wii U port alongside the other HD console versions at all! This should be an interesting note.
There was also a time when Capcom attempted to see what would Resident Evil 5 look like on the Wii, using the Resident Evil 4 engine. Of course, it did not really out-shine the HD variants, but it still looked impressive for a Wii game all the same. It was really a shame it was just an experiment on Capcom's behalf, and not an actual decision to port the game for Wii. Hope(N Forever) (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

RE4 was experimental, yes. Its gameplay was reviewed and found to be too complex for the Wiimote. As such, the Chronicles titles were changed to be on-rails, first-person shooters. I'm not sure if Capcom's thinking of porting RE6 to the Wii U; the issues are likely to remain present, and I'm not sure gamers would be as interested in an on-rails version of RE6, even if it ends up as a linear room-to-room game.-- OsirisV (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Whilst the Wii U does indeed support the Wii Remote, the console has a different standard controller, which is more or less based on the traditional game pad controller. Besides, even the Wii itself is not always about motion-gaming, considering it even has its own traditional controller, despite the fact it is not standard. Hope(N Forever) (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
It was in an interview - they thought RE4 was too hard to play and so decided that any other Wii games of the series would be more simplistic in their gameplay (eg. Chronicles turning into an on-rails shooter). You did bring up something interesting - why not just use the Classic Controller? It looks like Capcom only thought about motion sensors for the games. I admit that I haven't looked into the Wii U's specs very much and apologise. My argument was based around motion-sensored gaming and not the more conventional game pads.-- OsirisV (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems that Capcom recently announced that they have no plans to bring the game for the Wii U at this time. Then again, the game is still being released very late in the year, which leaves a long period of time to reconsider. I bet they might change their minds after E3 in June. Hope(N Forever) (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The real enemy is called Carla Radames and it is named as "Ada Wong Clone" 
here is the info and it is also in Capcom's official blog and RE wiki 
http://www.relyonhorror.com/latest-news/resident-evil-news/resident-evil-6-leaked-character-list-from-a-few-months-back-seems-to-have-been-real/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon5555555 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC) 

The RE Wiki says nothing about Radames except that Ada read up on her at one point. The picture shown on the page doesn't look anything like Ada, at all http://residentevil.wikia.com/Carla_Radames . The entire "clone theory" comes from unblurring a name in this photo and pretending it's somehow related to Ada. So my statement that Ada's the antagonist stands.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.26.56 (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, this was in a rumour about a leak back in January, just before the game was announced officially. It said stuff like Wesker's son appearing in the game and there being a "Carla Radames", who was a duplicate of Ada Wong. However, because it's a leak we can't confirm any part of it until Capcom makes it official (either through their gameplay videos, trailers or through game's release), so we can't confirm what was part of the initial leak (and was confirmed) and what was fanon added in by random Forum users as part of a joke.-- OsirisV (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

how come theres no section for the game being released in poland a few days ago? KRISHANKO (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you actually back it up that it's real? There's been some really-neat Halo Reach fakes released in 2010. Further, is anything more than "the game was leaked in Poland" necessary for this article? Both points are why there is no section on it. We're not a gaming site with a rumour-mill section that buzzes about everything; read IGN for that.-- OsirisV (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, it's legit. [1] Spartan198 (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Relyonhorror isn't exactly reliable considering its tabloidal design (huge rumour-mill section). According to a couple users at Project Umbrella and a few message board sites, Relyonhorror is believed to have faked that 2011 "leaked logo" in order to gain a larger viewership. As much as I dislike them for their AMY review (reducing the Plot score because of the Gameplay defeats the purpose of having multiple scorecounts) and having not recognised the existence of Survival Horror as being more than a generic Action game, you should consider IGN as a more legitimate source.-- OsirisV (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Here's the IGN source confirming the leak: [2]. Also, I'm wondering if NEOGO is considered a reliable source for this information considering the leak, since they reported it first. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not really familiar with them. Odd... why is IGN saying that it's a German copy of the game, when the screenshot displaying subtitles shows characters not present in their alphabet? Funny, even the Polish language doesn't even use a "z with grave". Looks like someone in the translation department screwed up when they should have used a "Z with dot".-- OsirisV (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
NEOGO is the official website of NEO Plus. Also of course it's not a "German copy", IGN is being idiotic as usual. The box is in German, though (and oddly). You should just read the original article, instead of some Chinese-whispers retellings. Oh, and if by "translation department" you meant this of Cenega, and not IGN, it's simply the Polish letter ż and it's all fine (and ź also exists, but "że" has a ż). --Niemti (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Due to the nature of the game - four long campaigns not chronologically distinct - I feel that we should consider re-writing the section to focus on these campaigns, as a general Plot summary would be hard to write. Why I think it would be hard to write is the point that they are not chronologically-distinct, with some parts occuring months before others, yet alongside other campaigns. Simply structuring it as "Meanwhile, in Leon's campaign...", ignores the concept altogether, making it particularly-confusing when the section is expanded after launch: Leon meeting Jake earlier in the campaign than vice versa gives the impression that Jake's campaign takes place over a few days. That, in itself, leads to further problems when Chris' campaign involves exploring Edonia some six months prior to Leon's campaign. Overall, I'm saying we should consider restructuring, but I won't do it unless I know there's some agreement to it.-- OsirisV (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the problem is being able to source what happens considering the game has yet to be released. If the story arcs are not connected, we could just give a paragraph to Leon's, a paragraph to Chris', etc.Tintor2 (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

There are multiple instances of edit trolling in this article.  I think it needs to be locked from general editing for the time being.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.110.129 (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC) 

Really? I haven't seen any of that giraffe stuff for weeks.-- OsirisV (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not just the giraffe stuff. Various times have I seen genre get switched around and every so often I will notice a sentence that makes a claim that the game sucks. It's just little things trolls like to do. It has become a problem and I think a lock may be necessary if the instance does get worse. Otherwise, if things mellow out a lock shouldn't be necessary. But that's just me. LegendaryDarkKnight45 (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this article deserves to show how bad fans over the world are reacting to this game. 
http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/resident-evil-6
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/resident-evil-6  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.155.3.4 (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC) 
The article will have an appropriate reception section in time, but rushing to something or simply saying something can be a very bad edit, or even tantamount to vandalism. Be patient. Incidentally, it is not being bashed completely, as you have stated. The reaction is 'mixed' not 'negative. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
He meant the massive trolling in the so-called "user reviews". --Niemti (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Well, I don't think we need take such reviews into consideration, given the amount of language that can be used (and believe me, I've seen some of them and they would make many people wilt). --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Problem with Metacritic users, it's near impossible to gauge what is legitimate outrage and what is just "trolling", not to mention the fact the many low scores were there BEFORE the game was even out. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I just thought, since Mass Effect 3 got a similar reaction, we should consider it. Also, just played Resident Evil 6, kinda disappointed :(  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.155.3.4 (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that that should really be taken into consideration. One, the user reviews (and professional reviews in general) are all just opinions of an individual or group all being placed onto some number scale. Two, It's not like you see somebody give the game a 2 and suddenly it should turn you off by it. It's all opinions. It's not like there wasn't a game you've played that you enjoyed and yet many considered it "sucked". Or say there was one from the opposite side. It's really nothing new. Call of Duty, Battlefield, Final Fantasy, etc. all have their fans and haters. It's just the trolls make their opinions more verbal than fans do when something is dead-on popular. LegendaryDarkKnight45 (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much, in a nutshell. The only time this form of backlash has been used in an article is when there has been coverage and for more specific reasons (see Portal 2). Stabby Joe (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
As I said, it's Internet trolling. It's China-Japan crisis related, btw. --Niemti (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

All the more irrelevant then. Stabby Joe (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually the bad Mass Effect 3 user reviews are actually not included in that article. The part that is covered is the negative reception that user had for the game's ending and that got a lot more significant coverage from reliable sources that these user reviews have. Unlike the Mass Effect case government agencies such as Better Business Bureau in the US or the UK's Advertising Standards Authority have not weighed into this dispute nor has bigwigs from Capcom have responded to this whereas Bioware's co-founder and CEO Ray Muzyka did in the ending controversy. The two cases are not comparable. This is more comparable with the case of Diablo III where the consensus was not to add user reviews.--70.49.83.129 (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
That said future reviews from reliable sources may very well cover some if not all of the points that were mentioned in the user reviews so in the end the section could have all the same info save for mentioning the user reviews.--70.49.83.129 (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Also one of the reasons I added the Hiroyuki Kobayashi comment was not just it being a developer response but an acknowledgment of "fan reception" being an apparent issue. I'd consider that more a point of reference than trolls on Metacritic. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That right there is relevant enough to add I think. But the reason I think reviews from users (especially on sites like metacritic) are irrelevant is because they are simply complaining about a game that not only they spent their money on to get knowing full well what to expect from reviews, but also that they could've spent that money on a game that they know would've been a better buy. Complaining about a game you bought (or got as a gift, as in someone else bought it) is like going to a restaurant and ordering that chicken burger when there are 11 other meals up there and complaining that you simply don't like that chicken burger and you think that restaurant ripped you off. It was your choice completely and the people who put it together worked hard on putting together. There are tons of other great games out there on the PS3, don't dwell on one... especially if you saw it coming. That's how I see it at least, call me crazy but I just find it all silly.LegendaryDarkKnight45 (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
They're not even "complaining about the gamne", it's CHINESE TROLLING. How many times should I repeat it? --Niemti (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't saying it isn't. I'm just simply stating that aside from trolls that (yes, "that") have nothing better to do with their time, there are a good stream of people who really are complaining about the game. But in reality there are complaints given about all games in any way, shape, or form. And it really shouldn't be considered because it's nothing new, but also I see it as in the scenario I explained above. However if a director/producer/whatever does make an announcement regarding the reception that it has been getting, then the announcement itself is relevant enough to be placed here. But this is through my eyes, others have their opinions as well. LegendaryDarkKnight45 (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Problem is the linked interview does not mention Metacritic. Developers can hear negativity through multiple channels; emails, official forums, review comments, blogs etc. Where they heard "the fans" (even some professional reviews could be as such) isn't mentioned except that a developer heard and commented, that is all that is needed. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
True. And developers do have networks that allow them to get all their feedback from various means. He wouldn't have to be specific because it is clear that there are legitimate feedback responses that are from disappointed people. I just live by this motto, "Don't dread with that where trolls tread". Places like Metacritic are crammed with trolls and it should come as no surprise to anyone. LegendaryDarkKnight45 (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm adding in this section so that we can come to a proper consensus regarding what genre to define this game as. 
On the one hand, we have the 'dramatic' crowd, who say that because the developers did not intend it to be a Survival Horror title, it should not be defined as such here. To this group, saying that the game is a Survival Horror title goes against the conventions of the genre; the intentions of the developers and would be considered simply original research. 
The other side, in support of 'Survival Horror', maintains that the series itself is of that genre, and that all reviewers define horror games as 'survival', regardless of whether or not the titles actually conform with the original description (as is the case of Resident Evil 5).-- OsirisV (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The obvious question would be what are reliable sources and Capcom calling it. If Capcom and all other reliable sources are calling the game Survivor Horror and Dramatic Horror is a term created by people on Wikipedia or people on message boards because they think that this game is not Survivor Horror and that they know better than reliable sources then Dramatic Horror should absolutely not be used since it would be a obvious disregard for WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT and likely several other policies and guidelines. If, on the other hand, Capcom reclassified this game as Dramatic Horror and reliable sources have followed suit with that change the genre Dramatic Horror should be used for obvious reasons as well. Too sum my point up if the first case is true Wikipedia can't create a genre or arbitrarily decided a game is part of a genre when reliable sources say otherwise but if the second case is true there is no problem with Dramatic Horror and it should in fact be used.--70.49.83.129 (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually it may be a bit easier if someone can list where the term Dramatic Horror came from and who is using it because it will be easier to know if the term should be used here.--70.49.83.129 (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Capcom is the one that came up with this new genre. The thing is however, dramatic horror redirects to... survival horror. And it mentions dramatic horror at the end of the intro: Starting with the release of Resident Evil 4 in 2005, the genre began to incorporate more features from action games, which has led game journalists to question whether long-standing survival horror franchises have abandoned the genre. Still, the survival horror genre has persisted in one form or another, though with Resident Evil 6, Capcom has called this departure "dramatic horror." So my guess is that the genre survival horror is in a constant development, and that's why Capcom decided to go for another choice of words. Still, except for Capcom itself, I haven't heard or read 'dramatic horror' anywhere. So unless GameFAQs, GameSpot, Kotaku etc start using the term dramatic horror, I don't think we should either. --Soetermans. T / C 07:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I wrote that in because I didn't feel that 'Dramatic Horror' would survive as an independent article, being that there is only one game referring to itself as that.-- OsirisV (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Exactly my point, right now it isn't an established genre by itself. But to recap: Capcom considers this game to be another genre, while video game websites and reviewers consider it to be another survival horror - doesn't this mean that by WP:WEIGHT we should just call it survival horror? --Soetermans. T / C 14:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Not necessarily; IGN's reviews to the pre-RE4 games usually call them 'Adventure games'. That doesn't mean we should, say, compare Resident Evil 2 to Uncharted 3. In fact, those IGN reviews actually demonstrate that back in the late-'90s and early-'00s, a lot of reviewers didn't consider Survival Horror to be an actual genre, and merely another Action/Adventure game that Capcom decided to coin a spooky-phrase to. I can provide you with such URLs if you think that would be necessary.-- OsirisV (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for my late reply. I believe you of course, no need to go look for ye olde reviews. I think we should get some more input from WP:VG maybe, see if the community has some good advice to share. I'll make a new topic there. --Soetermans. T / C 11:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Forgot to mention that I directed them over here, no need for two discussions :) --Soetermans. T / C 11:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Use what reliable, secondary sources are calling it. So not Capcom. Also, it's fine to include more than one genre definition: both "survival horror" and say "action adventure" are not mutually exclusive. bridies (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Ditto. Use what secondary sources say, not how Capcom promotes it. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't much care what's decided, just as long as people stop changing it! I don't know whether I'm coming or going. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
(reply to nobody, just stacking a comment) Switching a couple of words around does not suddenly bring a recognizable genre into existence. Unless and until 'dramatic horror' becomes a genuinely recognized grouping then it shouldn't be used that way. As others said, consult the sources, resist recentism. As an aside, it doesn't have to be either survival or dramatic horror - there are other genres such as action adventure and third-person shooter which the game could be described as without any new genre being necessary. Someoneanother 16:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I also support the use of more than one genre definition and the use of secondary sources. Both the survival horror and action adventure genres are not really exclusive. We should not use how Capcom promotes the game as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed on not taking Capcom's words as the definitive answer on the issue. With any creative work of fiction or art, I think New Criticism is the best approach to take. The intention of the author/creator/developer/designer is not only unnecessary but it's usually unhelpful. They have more motivation to POV-push than anybody. -Thibbs (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Agree with others, no such thing as Dramatic horror, they can call it Hip-Hop-Horror all they want, it's still a survival horror genre game. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I think it's safe to assume that RE6 is basically an Action/Adventure game with zombies, sadly. --Arkhandar (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Unless such assumptions are made by reliable secondary sources, that is original research and unsuitable for inclusion. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
As many have said before, go by what secondary sources are saying. Capcom is rather biased in most scenarios regarding the game; they're trying to sell it. As such, we shouldn't go by their buzzwords.  Sergecross73 msg me  05:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah and to dig in a little deeper to the question here, I think it is very appropriate to mention in the development section that Capcom had been trying to go for a revolutionary new "Dramatic horror" feel. Sources would be required of course, but Capcom itself would be a fine source for that statement. The problems only come when we use Wikipedia's neutral voice to say that that's what the final product turned out to be. When it comes to what the product is (rather than what it was intended to be) we have to go with non-primary sources. -Thibbs (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I think it was Capcom who invented the whole "survival horror" thing, but the difference is that "dramatic horror" is only used by them for now. It's not a proper GENRE, right now. --Niemti (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Should we take into account that pretty much any 'horror' game is referred to as 'Survival Horror' by reviewers, regardless of the game's actual features? The initial description for 'Survival Horror' is usually given as a "predominantly horror-based plot with gameplay relying on survivalist strategies of ammo-conservation", though games like Resident Evil 5 and Dead Space 2, which have little "survivalist" concepts in them other than "don't get killed by that guy", have still been referred to as such by reviewers.-- OsirisV (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Also, can we go with calling it a Survival Horror game, but including the remark about Capcom not branding it as such?-- OsirisV (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Except it is not "survival horror", it is (third person) action.[3][4][5][6][7] In fact, we can quote the opposite "this is no survival horror game"[8], "Capcom has abandoned any pretense of the survival horror genre"[9], "it’s no longer a survival horror game"[10]. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Probably action-adventure, third-person shooter (just "horror video games" in the categories). --Niemti (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
But apart from "survival horror" versus "third-person action-adventure" issues, it's like I said earlier: I think you could make some sort of claim regarding what Capcom was trying to present or what Capcom's goal was in the development section of this article as long as it's properly sourced, attributed, and given proper context. i.e. you can't say "Capcom created a dramatic horror game[1] that reviewers claimed was just a third-person action-adventure[2]", but instead you'd have to say "Capcom's goal in developing this title was to create a new 'dramatic horror' genre,[1] however critics reviewing the final product regarded it an example of third-person action-adventure.[2]" It's certainly appropriate to mention the developer's intentions but we shouldn't use their claims as proof of how it actually turned out. -Thibbs (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, pretty much. In dev section or in reception, or both. --Niemti (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Use "survival horror." Using available approved sources: Edge tagged "action," "adventure." EGM still calls it "survival horror," contending that the term's more about psychological aspects than the gameplay.  OXM calls it a horror-shooter. Verdict: The critical disagreement on genre itself is notable. All articles note the RE series' synonymity with "survival horror"—the game still fits within the rules of "survival horror" (even if barely) and should be listed as such alongside its notable aforementioned caveat. Until Capcom gets its wish and popularizes the "dramatic horror" neologism or we get our wish and a RS publishes on this very topic, we have to go with what we have. czar · · 06:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you people heard there is a popular rumour floating about stating that Resident Evil 6 will have a follow-up game called Resident Evil: Final Hope (which is supposedly akin to Resident Evil 5 Gold) and that it will follow a story centred around Claire Redfield? Additionally, rumour states that this game will appear on all current HD platforms (PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, Wii U, and PCs) with the Wii U version having exclusive GamePad features, and is supposedly going to be the "best" version of Resident Evil 6. The follow-up game will also provide clues to a potential Resident Evil 7 sequel or something. Source - also includes details about other believable future Resident Evil releases Hope(N Forever) (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, relyonhorror has been known to report unsupported stories around the time they need extra hits. At least provide a source from a major publication relesed prior to rehorror.-- OsirisV (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The article currently states that the Windows version is in development, this has now finished and the game is due for release on 22-March-2013, this is stated in the summary but not the main article.  I believe is would be appropriate to include this information in the main text or at least wait until the 22nd and update the article.
Therealmadferret (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Can someone add reference to this in the Downloadable content section as it is currently absent. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 09:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Unless there's a reliable source (Playstation or Capcom) I think the writer got the date mixed up with another game; quick Google research suggests this is the release date for the Origins collection on these consoles, not RE6.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.146.225.12 (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 

They've been re-rated in Korea and Australia according Gematsu. Personally, I wouldn't include in the article until Capcom makes an official announcement. Jonny2x4 (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Resident Evil 6/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 04:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll take this one as well. I always like reviewing big titles like this one. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@AdrianGamer: just pinging to make sure you haven't forgotten! JAGUAR  16:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I will finish the review tomorrow. AdrianGamer (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
The ninth instalment of the Resident Evil series - Should be the ninth "main" installment in the series.
Done. JAGUAR  12:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The lead needs more information about the game's gameplay.
Added. JAGUAR  12:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The developers define the game's genre as "dramatic horror", although promotional materials for the Japanese version still classify the game as survival horror. should be moved to the next paragraph about development.
Done. JAGUAR  12:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Isn't the main point of criticism is that the game is no longer a survival horror game? This should be included as well.
Added. JAGUAR  13:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
You should mention that the three campaigns intersect at some points, 4-player co-op is possible.[11] These campaigns seem to have different styles as well.[12]
The opening sentence mentions that they're interwoven, but I've added the rest. Thanks. JAGUAR  12:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The game is twice as long as RE5. The article should mention that.[13]
Added. JAGUAR  12:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I think that Agent Hunt and Mercenaries mode should be split and moved to a new paragraph in the gamepaly section. There should be more information about the two modes. For example, Mercenaries mode on PC has a mode called "No Mercy".[14] It has a timer, melee kills add time etc. There is some more information on "Agent Hunt" in this source as well.
Added more and brought it into its own paragraph. I thought the Agent Hunt source was a bit short and vague, but I expanded it to the best of my understanding. JAGUAR  12:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The game's control is more updated. You can now move and shoot in this game, slide, roll etc. in this game[15]
Added. JAGUAR  13:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Different characters have different abilities. This should be mentioned.[16]
Added. JAGUAR  12:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The game features a lot of QTEs. This should be mentioned as well.[17]
Added. I didn't know what QTEs were! #noob JAGUAR  13:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Certain enemies drop skill points when killed, which can be picked up and spent on upgrades such as increased weapon effectiveness or specific ammunition drops - You can remove your companion character as well.[18]
Added. JAGUAR  13:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
During the game, there are non-linear events that require different approaches, such as shooting at zombies, prying through a door, and attempting to locate keys in a vehicle - Unclear. The examples listed don't seem to match with the description.
I've removed this sentence because it's already covered in the source which describes the game's new innovations. JAGUAR  13:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
There is also a stamina bar, and something called quickshot as well.[19]
Added. JAGUAR  13:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
You should mention that the screenshot is depicting the game's Agent Hunt mode.
Added. JAGUAR  13:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The plot section is a bit too long.
Cut a bit. JAGUAR  13:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The 2 sources in the plot section seem unnecessary.
Removed. JAGUAR  13:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
and two large BOW's  - What is "BOW"?
I'm not going to pretend to even know, as I removed all mentions of it! JAGUAR  13:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Ada is killed by an assassin, and then she aids Leon and Helena. It seems like that something is missing.
I couldn't find this in the plot section, so I'm not sure how to proceed. JAGUAR  13:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
When they meet up briefly, Chris reveals to Jake that he was the one who killed his father, but Jake resists the urge to kill him, saying that there are more important things than his want for revenge - Does not sound like something important.
Removed. JAGUAR  13:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Haos makes one last attempt to kill Chris but is killed itself by a powerful lightning charge from Piers - "itself" is not needed.
Oops. JAGUAR  13:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The development section seems to be way too short for a major release like this.
Sources familiar with the project indicated that the series would return to its roots and be "brutally scary" - Rumors should not be mentioned. It is obviously not true, in this case.
Removed. JAGUAR  13:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The character of Jake Muller was also designed to attract new fans to the series - According to Famitsu, Jake is a character that was "designed to be someone today’s young people can empathize with"[20]
Altered. JAGUAR  21:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
On 10 April 2012, a second trailer was released which detailed the game's plot, and also revealed that the release date had been pushed back from 20 November 2012 to 2 October 2012 - The game's delay is more important than the trailer. I don't think the trailer should be mentioned.
Removed. JAGUAR  21:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Resident Evil 6 was re-released on PlayStation 4 and Xbox One with all DLC on 29 March 2016. - The title's name should be in italic. It should have some graphical updates. The article should reflect that.
Done, fixed. JAGUAR  21:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Development of the game started in 2010. [21]
Already mentioned in the first sentence, but thanks for the source - added. JAGUAR  21:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
There are a lot of sources about the game's development.
Who Else Is Making Resident Evil 6?
Resident Evil Damnation (Marketing)
Why Capcom Brought Zombies Back For Resident Evil 6
You Can Replay Resident Evil 6’s Crossover Battles
Resident Evil 6 Goes Gold
Classic RE models returning
Developing Resident Evil 6
G4TV interview
GamesRadar interview
How Resident Evil 6 Happens
Future of the series
Resident Evil 6: Capcom ‘pressured to live up to Resi 4 standards’
Metro interview
Resident Evil 6 Interview with Hiroyuki Kobayashi
Siege mode
Survival horror's market too small
"Totally Different"
Copies were stolen
Four hours of cutscene
Sales target should be moved to the section about the game's sales.
Done. JAGUAR  19:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Development section does not mention the PC version release date.
Added. JAGUAR  19:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Source 31 does not cover anything mentioned in that paragraph.
Added sources. JAGUAR  19:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
GameRankings should not be used per a recent consensus.
I hate this. Removed. JAGUAR  19:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the reception section's topic sentence is The game's storyline and themes were praised by critics, but then the paragraphs covers things from graphics, AI, to controls.
Rephrased. JAGUAR  19:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
A reviewer from Game Informer stated that despite the game's minor flaws - Examples of "minor flaws"?
He didn't say, so I rephrased this. JAGUAR  20:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
while Destructoid cited Resident Evil 6 as not only a "step back" for the series, but a "step back for commonplace, unassuming action-shooters" - Did he mention why?
Added. JAGUAR  20:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
ScrewAttack included it on their 2012 list of top ten Capcom mistakes - Did he provide a reason?
I've had to remove this entirely because I couldn't access the reference at all. JAGUAR  20:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Despite the slow start and negative reviews, - "mixed" reviews.
Fixed. JAGUAR  20:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Capcom blamed "inadequate organizational collaboration" for the game's poor sales. [22][23]
Added. JAGUAR  20:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
What about the future of the franchise after this colossal disappointment?
Reboot possibility
Legacy: Resident Evil 2 Remake 'progressing'; Resi 6 feedback being 'taken on board', says producer
Citation style is a bit inconsistent, with some being incomplete. Should be "XXX" instead of "XXX.com". Source 13, 19, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 59 have citation problems.
I should have them all sorted out. JAGUAR  20:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if source 26 is reliable or not. Here is a better alternative.
Replaced. JAGUAR  20:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Is XboxAchievements a reliable source?
Removed. JAGUAR  21:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Source 42 is dead.
"Cannot display due to robot.txt". Great. Since it wasn't being used in the body, I removed it. JAGUAR  20:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


### Overall
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list corporation: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

The article is well-written, but it is missing a lot of information. The lead does not summarize the entire article, and both the gameplay and development section do not have enough information, and the scope of the reception section is too narrow. I am going leave the article on hold for a week. When all the issues mentioned above are addressed, the article should be good to go!  AdrianGamer (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review AdrianGamer! It took me a very long time, but I should have all of the issues addressed. I've made use of the sources you have given me, and in such expanded the development section and clarified the reception section. JAGUAR  20:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
With all the issues fixed, the article is good to go! However, if you intend to further improve the article, I think expanding both the development and the reception section would be a great idea. Anyway, Resident Evil 6 is now a . Congratulations! AdrianGamer (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the thorough review! I've never played this game, nor do I plan to judging from the negative reception! I agree about the expansion, I will do that if I plan to take this to FAC. JAGUAR  15:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I removed the 'Sequel' section. Resident Evil 7 is not a direct sequel to Resident Evil 6 and will focus on another set characters.[24] RE7 will be set in the same universe and will be canon. Resident Evil Revelations 2 is probably a closer sequel to Resident Evil 6, as it actually focuses on characters from the main RE story-line. Moreover, the RE3, RE4 ,and RE5 articles do not have a sequel section. The continuity of the series should be mentioned in  the main article. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk   18:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Adngel: 
Agree, RE7 is too disconnected to be considered a RE6 sequel, and there are not reason to mention it specifically nor consider it like sequel: 

Because it was not the next RE game released, as before there were Resident Evil Revelations 2 and Umbrella Corps which is also cannon and happens between RE6 and RE7.
It neither was the direct sequel as RE7 ignored all the plot of RE6 and huge part from R7 saga story in general. It neither develops characters nor tie up loose ends, and the story it present, it´s an external and isolated incident which takes its conclussions inside the own game and DLCs, without influence anything else.
It was aimed to a total different crowd ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwBDtp7R6aM )
It uses a quite different genre and gameplay. As it also uses a different quite mood and artistic style.
Over that, in June of 2017 was released a CGI movie Resident Evil: Vendetta on exclusive cinema events, this movie aimed to follow the Resident Evil 6 path and during its presentation during the Tokyo Game Show 2016, the own producer Hiroyuki Kobayashi, described it like the Resident Evil 6 sequel which was going to be loved by the Resident Evil 6 fans. Such presentation can be watched between the extras the bluray version.
If the mention of Resident Evil 7 persists, I think it will more accurate do the same with the other games that were released in the same period, (specially Resident Evil Revelations 2 which was an more direct answer to the RE6 feedback and RE: Vendetta which is much more related to RE6 than RE7 or Umbrella Corps).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adngel (talk • contribs) 23:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC) 

This article has a done a very solid job at describing Resident Evil 6 in great detail. All information has proper citations and reliable sources. The sources are interviews and other articles relating to the game. The viewpoints are very neatural I don't feel any sort of bias from reading the article which is really great. Music reviewers really could take a lesson from everyone that's contributed to this page. Everything in the Article is related to the topic.
Suggestion 1: for an addition to the gameplay mechanic: Further describe the J'avo enemies by stating that during the game, they're susceptible to transformations based on the locations of their injury. Making them a harder threat to deal with than regular zombies
Suggestion 2: The reception job does an amazing job talking about the game's reception to the public. However If I were to make a suggestion here I'd say it'd probably be worth while to add a few more quotes or testimonials for examples of what those have said about the game. 
Suggestion 3: The article definitely feels like it has a lot more room for pictures and other screenshots from the game. I think the article has a few good pictures but there could've been more to further illustrate different elements in the game. 
Welshtor (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Resident Evil 6. 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/20120203051658/http://www.gamerzines.com/xbox-360/news/resident-evil-6-demo-xbox-360.html to http://www.gamerzines.com/xbox-360/news/resident-evil-6-demo-xbox-360.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/resident-evil-6/reviews/resident-evil-6-review-6397338/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121007072651/http://uk.gamespot.com/news/capcom-resident-evil-cant-please-everyone-6397591 to http://uk.gamespot.com/news/capcom-resident-evil-cant-please-everyone-6397591
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150208030840/http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/business/million.html to http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/business/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.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 21:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Resident Evil 6. 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://www.webcitation.org/65OOE5Chc?url=http://www.1up.com/previews/resident-evil-5_2?pager.offset=1 to http://www.1up.com/previews/resident-evil-5_2?pager.offset=1
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120713233324/http://www.1up.com/news/op-ed-no-hope-left-resident-evil-ocr to http://www.1up.com/news/op-ed-no-hope-left-resident-evil-ocr
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 06:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Resident Evil 6. 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/20121003182058/http://www.1up.com/previews/resident-evil-6-demo-double-take to http://www.1up.com/previews/resident-evil-6-demo-double-take
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 15:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)