# Talk:Resident Evil 3: Nemesis

The [Show] button is over the release date year, anything we could do? Don't wanna change it to "Sep 22, 1999", looks bad

UBCS Survivors:
"During her escape, she encounters three surviving members of the Umbrella Biohazard Countermeasure Service, Carlos Oliviera, Mikhail Victor and Nicholai Ginovaef." - What about Tyrall?
You said three and surviving members hes dead.
Look here it says he is dead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minor_Resident_Evil_characters#Tyrell_Patrick

Jill never meets Tyrell in the game. Only Carlos (and Nicholai) does. Jonny2x4 05:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"The city's fate is resolved in the game's finale. The US Government, after hearing of unsuccessful efforts to avert the T-Virus infestation, orders the destruction of Raccoon City. At this point in the game, the player has exactly fifteen minutes to escape the city before the missile strikes."

Ithought Raccoon City gets blown up in part 2, part 3 being a prequel to part 2....

"----The Game Takes Place 24 hours before resident evil 2. But ends 24 hours after the end of Resident evil 2. The part in the church where Jill is unconcious is supposed to be the lost time where Resident evil 2 Takes Place. The city never explodes at the end of 2.. Just the Train.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tool-apc (talk • contribs) 22:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 

For a Wikipedia page, it's somewhat lacking in quality. The plot page (while kept neatly brief), still omits a lot of worthy facts. How come no one mentions that Nicholai was a traitor, etc? It just seems a bit poor-ish not to have that in. Wikia has better pages than this! Come on, this is no good...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.168.144 (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 

Most of the reference tags are for the reviews. Can anyone provide any websites to use? All I know is that the Resident Evil Wiki is not allowed; as are all wikis, due to the nature of a wiki's editability.-- OsirisV (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

... needs major rewriting. I only understood what happened because I read the novel. Lots42 (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The novel itself is pretty much the same as the game, but with the addition of Trent to Carlos' story.-- OsirisV (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
It's hard to make sense of a game that makes as little sense as this one. Geoff B (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean in the sense of the alternating plot points? The Archives confirms the canon storyline.-- OsirisV (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
No, no, it's not a problem with the article really, it's more to do with the fact that the game does't make a lot of sense.  :-)  Geoff B (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
As in you didn't understand a certain aspect? Or do you mean that you find the general plot unrealistic (eg. the military launching a nuclear-tipped missile on one of their own cities)? You can ask me; I'm the admin of the Resident Evil Wiki - it's my job to help.-- OsirisV (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the ports section to its own section like the other RE pages, such as RE1,2,4. I greatly prefer each port having its own sub-section as well, for ease of navigation. Reply here if there are concerns. I personally think this formatting standard should be in the video game guidelines for Wiki pages, but that's another topic. Brumbek (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Resident Evil 3: Nemesis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 20:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'm jumping into here, as this article comes recommended as a reasonably easy pass, though I have yet to see it for myself. I'll be back for a review in a day or two. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


### Review
Generally good, but spotted a few things:

This is optional, but removing the brackets formatting from around the cover art so it automatically fits within the infobox might be advisable.
Removed --Niwi3 (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
"Unlike previous Resident Evil games, Resident Evil 3: Nemesis was designed to have a more action-oriented gameplay." - the "a" is redundant within that sentence. It should be removed.
Removed --Niwi3 (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
"...created by Umbrella for the sole purpose of eliminating surviving STARS members, who are first-hand witnesses of Umbrella's unethical and illegal experiments." - This is purely optional, but I would think the word "illegal" would also cover "unethical". As I said, optional. You can leave it as is if you prefer.
I agree. The simpler, the better. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
"When Carlos leaves the hospital, a large amount of explosives explode in the hospital's main lobby." - in what way is this relevant? Also, if it is relevant, two "eplo" words so close together looks a little odd. Maybe "detonate" rather than "explode".
I agree. I never understood what the point of the explosives scene was. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
That's all I really saw. Once these issues are address/explained/decided upon, I would be happy to pass this article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful review, really appreciated. I think I have addressed all the issues you had with the article. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs to be fixed. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
No, that was everything. Glad to be of help. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi everyone,
The other day, I took out a sentence from the lead: "It is regarded by many as the last canon Resident Evil game", assuming it wasn't sourced. @82.132.216.121 undid my edit, and pointed out that it actually is sourced. However, it is sourced by an interview with Shinji Mikami from 2001 and I'm not sure what it actually means. How many is many? And what are the consequences? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The interview is preceded by the magazine's own introduction, covering Mikami's career (specifically Resi). OPM is a solid source. 82.132.228.151 (talk) 06:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
How does the canonical part come in? Does OPM consider RE3 the last canonical one, or do they say that many people think so? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The latter. The publication doesn't express any opinion ("...many consider it [RE3] to be the last legit title in the Resi canon"). 82.132.228.151 (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Why? Most games don't have the rule in wiki.180.217.107.153 (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

It comes down to enforcement. Not all pages on Wikipedia are being monitored, and not all have been improved to the quality this one has. Your suggestion makes sense to include for modern games that are released across several platforms simultaneously, but not Resident Evil 3. This is because Resident Evil 3 was originally released for the PlayStation. The ports to other systems were released later and garnered less attention than the original release. Wikipedia is not a statistics database, so let's keep the scores to a minimum and only include the original release scores to supplement the text. The text in the re-release section stands on its own and does not need scores to supplement it. TarkusABtalk 15:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
@TarkusAB: So. Is this (RE1) obviously your target to be cleaned up? Is there any difference?180.217.107.153 (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes that is one such article that needs to be cleaned up. Unfortunately editors are volunteers and editing takes time, so no one has gotten to it yet. TarkusABtalk 15:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
@TarkusAB: I think you should make your sense a rule. maybe here (Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games)
It's better than your personal judgment. So I don't accept your words, unless it's a rule right now.180.217.107.153 (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Video_games#Limiting_review_score_tabulating TarkusABtalk 17:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with TarkusAB. The reception section is about the original PlayStation version. Per WP:NOTSTATS, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and things should be put into context. The Re-releases section already discuses the critical reception of all the later versions and doesn't really need a reception table, per WP:DUE. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed that I'm not the only one who's been trying to add a "Possible Remake" section to this article. However, my question is if a simple statement from one of the developers that they "might" make it is enough to warrant a whole new section. It makes the article look less serious and more like a fan wiki.Jonipoon (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's actually a problem. In my opinion, if we had that statement under the Re-releases section, it would confuse readers a bit because a remake is not a re-release of the same game, but an entirely different one like a sequel. That said, if you have a better idea of where to have that statement, feel free to share. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
This is now confirmed, but I don't see the need for a separate article just yet because there's basically nothing else known about the game that doesn't already exist within the section. Also, the article, once ready, should go to Resident Evil 3 instead of Resident Evil 3 (2020 video game) per WP:NCVGDAB. We only did Resident Evil 2 (2019 video game) because the original game didn't have a subtitle to disambiguate itself as this game does. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I think the remake is actually notable. In fact, the sooner we have an article for it, the better. An editor already created the Resident Evil 3 (2020 video game) article, which needs to be moved to the Resident Evil 3 page ASAP. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
It's not a case of notability, it's a case of a stub article not needed to exist right away per WP:VGSCOPE #2. However, an editor on my talk page proposed a dev section, which was my main issue with the first version of the article. An article just having announcement info and a release date (I'm not counting the lead/infobox, which only summarizes what's already there) was just not enough to warrant an article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I disagree, stubs can be notable and can be helpful to avoid confusion. The sooner we have an article, the less disruptive edits we will have. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Stubs with more content than just "game was announced on this date and will release on this date", yes. Otherwise, that can just belong on a section of another article. In any case, the article has more than that now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Notability is not about content, but sources and their primary topic. In any case, good work with the article. --Niwi3 (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)