# Talk:Resident Evil 4

I found a few resources that say it's called Valdelobos, but I I'm not certain where exactly it's comes from. So is it unnamed or called so but really rarely? BrandtM113 (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The village was unnamed in the original RE4. A screenshot of the map included with the Collectors Edition remake refers to the area as "Valdelobos" or roughly valley of the wolves in English. It's not 100% official... yet. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  20:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering what other editors thought of the revision that reintroduced The Happy Warrior blog and Bounding Into Comics as references in the ports section.
I was responsible for removing those references initially, and I did so because I believe the former violates Wikipedia's rules on user-generated content because it's a substack blog, and the latter violates Wikipedia's rules on bias. More specifically, Bounding into Comics frequently headlines articles with value-laden language, and there's a relatively consistent political slant across their site.
I understand that using a website with a bias/angle isn't inherently grounds for removing a source, but it feels as though the source adds unnecessary weight to information that's already cited by more mainstream outlets, especially when the content itself (censorship in this case) can become politicized and there's no in-text attribution to the source (something like, "the left/right leaning source ___ said ___ of the censorship in Resident Evil 4").
I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia, so I'm eager to hear other viewpoints on this. Thanks!
--Conmcdon721 (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy Warrior Blog definitely appears to be a self-published source and fails WP:SPS. There is an old discussion on the Reliable Source noticeboard about Bounding in Comics, but no official consensus was reached. My suggestion would be to remove the Happy Warrior Blog source, but keep the Bounding in Comics sources unless someone has a strong reason why it fails WP:RS. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  22:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

In en:Resident_Evil_4#"Hallucination"_version, I found VG247.com requoated Project Umbrella's Inteview to Yasuhisa Kawamura. But, I couldn't find why it was called "Hallucination" in Project Umbrella's Inteview.
Could anyone tell me why or where it is called  "Hallucination" ? リトルスター (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not an official name, but rather a name given by developers to refer to a certain early build of the game. This article here from EuroGamer gives some context into the name. Essentially, Yasuhisa Kawamura wanted to make a Resident Evil game that was less grounded in science and instead more focused on pure horror. Kawamura's version would have featured more paranormal elements, such as ghosts and killer dolls, which would manifest through hallucinations. The version of the game did not pan out and was scrapped, with elements being used for Devil May Cry. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  15:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for answering. Even though, I think Project Umbrella's inteview should not be used.
And how about using Eurogamer's article in a Pre-Devil May Cry? リトルスター (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Should we try removing the stylization of the names from other Resident Evil pages since it wasn't needed? 49.151.132.117 (talk) 09:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@49.151.132.117 I'm talking about RE4 stylization that went unnecessarily removed 49.151.132.117 (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
We don't need to cover trivial stylization on Wikipedia, and it should be removed where you see it. Popcornfud (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Weapons of resident evil 4 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 21 § Weapons of resident evil 4 until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:IDIOM, Clichés and idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions.. We should therefore avoid expressions such as "strayed from the series' roots". I removed this and trimmed some other unnecessary elements but was reverted. Popcornfud (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The first attempt was directed by Hideki Kamiya, but the Resident Evil creator, Shinji Mikami, felt was too great a departure, is grammatically wrong and unclear. too great a departure from what? --FMSky (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Sloppy edit from me there. Simple fix: The first attempt was directed by Hideki Kamiya, but the Resident Evil creator, Shinji Mikami, felt it was too great a departure from the previous games. Popcornfud (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the further edits:
so it was spun off as Devil May Cry. "spun off" is jargonistic, and vague — was Devil May Cry a spin-off? Isn't it simpler and clearer to say "this version became Devil May Cry"?
Other versions were scrapped we don't need to say this, because we say in the same paragraph "Four proposed versions were discarded" (and "scrapped" is further idiomatic/metaphorical language).
Mikami took directorial duties for what became the final version is just a wordier way of saying "Mikami directed the final version".
Please reconsider these reverts — they are only restoring needlessly convoluted prose. Popcornfud (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
it sounds better and more fluid, no reason to change anything
You think jargon and redundancy make prose "better and more fluid"? This may be a hopeless cause in that case. Popcornfud (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Should I put a link to Resident Evil 5 as a successor to Resident Evil 4. I know that their stories were not related but the gameplay mechanics, enemies, and bosses look so similar to the ones they used in RE4. Even the Resident Evil 5 wiki page considered Resident Evil 4 as their predecessor. DasKlose (talk) 03:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think sources describe RE5 as a successor to RE4. The games are unrelated. TarkusABtalk/contrib 06:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

That line in the legacy section about RE4 inspiring an era of remasters, and specifically remasters of those games, is a generous reading of that article. The article says RE4 was "An early example of the remastering craze" and "ahead of zombie-crawling pack". Saying it "inspired" those other developers feels wrong to me. Maybe just say it was an early example of HD remastering before they became more prevalent? Or just remove the line altogether? Mika1h (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Good catch. I'd agree it should be rephrased to specify it was an early example of HD remastering rather than saying it inspired HD-remasters of GTA5, Tomb Raider, and Grim Fandango. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  18:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm relatively new to editing, so I thought I'd raise these issues here before making an edit. Hopefully this is the right place to discuss this!
In my opinion, it looks like there are some neutrality and citation issues in the paragraph discussing the 2021 VR release of the game. 
The section refers to "censorship of content". In my opinion, this is both vague and not neutral. Censorship is a bit of a loaded term, and it only becomes clear later in the paragraph what exactly is being 'censored'. 
I would also question the phrasing of "flirtatious banter". Again this is pretty vague. Would a more specific description, such as "Luis' comments about Ashley's body", be more appropriate?
It also looks like citations are missing at several points in the paragraph. The quote from Ivey to "update the game for a modern audience" is missing a citation. The paragraph goes on to state that "changes were made at the expense of continuity and context in cutscenes essential to the game's plot." This is vague, and does not contain a citation. It would be useful to know what specific changes this sentence is referring to, and what context they provide. 
Looking at the overall tone of the paragraph, I think this phrasing would mislead the average reader in thinking that the changes removed important plot-relevant content. I do not think this is a fair or neutral characterisation of the changes made.
Would be interested in hearing what other people think, and what edits would be appropriate. Thanks! Steelrose360 (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, section could use some rewording and citations to better reflect neutrality. "flirtatious banter" is not neutral, It implies reciprocity, also which dialogue specifically is "flirtatious banter"? Why refer to "censorship" and then switch the phrasing to "changes"? It should neutrally refer to changes made in the vr port for the whole section. "changes were made at the expense of continuity and context in cutscenes essential to the game's plot." - "at the expense" is a loaded term here, and what original content was "essential"? I don't see how Ashley calling Leon a pervert is essential to the plot. There should also be a citation for "The VR version was heavily criticized by fans, both in Japan and the West" - I'd like to see an example of this heavy criticism, or this should be reworded. Looking at articles around the time of the VR release, very little hay is made about any of these changes. It feels like this section was written specifically by someone who cares about, and dislikes the changes. "controversy" is also not a neutral term. Madzyzzy (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Why are the "Hookman" and "Hallucination" versions separate in the "Development" section? From my understanding, weren't these two versions of Resident Evil 4 the same game? PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

They are, yes. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
The sections should be merged since they are the same version.[1][2] Skimming back through the version history, all the previous incarnations of the game were in a single section called “scrapped” or “canceled” versions and then broken out into four sections. It may make sense to merge them into one section. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  12:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)