Talk:Resident Evil 5/Archive 1

message: This hasn't been confirmed yet. Billy Coen's name on IMDB doesn't mean he's a main character. He could be a supporting or even just making an appearance. 
GalacticAE 7:06, 13 June 2007 (TC)
:See Wikipedia:Reliable Sources - Both IMDB and Evilunleashed are not reliable sources of information, especially since they are fan edited. We're better off waiting for Capcom's official word. While Van Wormer's website states that he will voice Coen's character in RE5, there's no official source that confirms if he will be the game's protagonist. ---ShadowJester07 01:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, fair enough. GalacticAE 01:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't Coen be mentioned in the article, even if he isn't protagonist? Parjay 19:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When a legitimate source covers it ;) --►ShadowJester07  20:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On a further note, some user has just admitted to messing around with RE5's IMDB page in order to prove a point about its unreliability. Please make sure random editors do not add any of those characters to this article for the time being. --►ShadowJester07  12:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, there is a reference from GS that makes the comparison to the 'protagonist' and Chris, . Second, all your claims are based on WP:Original Research and WP:Attribution, and, with all due respect, hold no validity on an encyclopedia (or at least this one). Your basing your argument on a single clip, at least wait for Capcom to release something else. Second, I could careless as to whoever becomes the game's protagonist; its just a story, not a political election (and even then, I still would not give two shits). Next, Wikipedia itself forbids using IMDB] as a reference. The aforementioned link proves it - a user added two characters with the intent of providing false information. Also, take note this article does not even mention who the protagonist will be - the way it should be until Capcom officially says something. --►ShadowJester07  17:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Welcome to two weeks ago; we've already dismissed using the his site and the screen shot, see talk:Billy Coen. If you're trying to turn this into a debate of why we should add speculation onto an encyclopedia, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies. --►ShadowJester07  06:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Man this guy is relentless, he posted up the same slop on several other URL's, he even has his own blog. Read this little bit why don't you ---> BlindsideDork's Blog.
I can also assure you that he's also the user who posted that same mess in the Billy Coen discussion section. I've traced him to several other URL's like this one, but exposing all of the shit he's written would just be too painstakingly arduous a task.
In anycase, both GalacticAE and ►ShadowJester07  are right, no confirmations on either Billy's, Chris', or HUNK's name have been made official. So the character's identity remains shrouded in a concieveable amount of mystery (despite whatever hints have been thrown out at fans and game analysts). Your speculative comments remain nothing more than what they are, speculations. - Zappy's not happy talk 12:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While reading that part about how it looks like Chris Redfield, I immediately thought it looked like Billy, and in fact came here hoping to be the first one to write about it, sadly (yet in a way very good) I'm not the first one to notice this horrible mistake. C. Pineda 23:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Great news. Too bad that guy's research didn't pay off and he was wrong about being 100% certain it was Billy. That's why we don't allow speculation on Wikipedia. GalacticAE 21:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Amen, GalacticAE ;-) . --ShadowJester07 ► Talk  23:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my goodness... Some very self-important people tell us to DO OUR [ORIGINAL] RESEARCH in all capital letters, and it turns out they're VERY WRONG. (I thought it looked like Chris...) That's funny. Grandmasterka 08:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Billy Coen as protagonist of RE5

message: I'm about to overhaul its grammar and structure.  In my opinion, it's rather difficult to read right now.  I'm going to try to keep all pertinent information, with the exception of the section detailing Wesker's plans for the viruses and Plagas samples, which are being moved to storyline.  Showdown 06:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weapons & Gameplay section

message: "It will probably be more or less action-packed than RE4."
Is this necessary?
:Yeah it doesn't really make sense and that whole paragraph is just speculation anyway.  Changed, but don't know if it should be deleted altogether.  Showdown 06:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mouthful

message: In the infobox it says "Rating Pending But most likely M". I don't think we should guess what the rating will be. That's probably considered original research and should be removed. I agree that it probably will be rated M, but it's not our job to speculate on what the rating might be. Just saying the rating is pending is fine. --Optichan 20:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rating Pending should be fine, too. Rockhound 18:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guessing the ESRB rating? 

message: Perhaps I'm way off base in this, but does it not appear as if certain elements of the article are speculation. Namely, the comments about Albert Wesker combining the T and G Viruses with Las Plagas. To my knowledge, this is not canon, and is therefore original research or speculation. Furthermore, several elements in the Weapons and Gameplay category appear to be speculation as well, particularly the Kendo Gun Shop and Desert Eagle snippets. None of this is cited as having been brought up in an interview or magazine article, and I'm quite sure that the "supervirus" is merely fan myth. I was wondering if anyone would be opposed to the removal of that information pending a citation. GraniteJJ 04:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm for removal of this bit pending citation. Rockhound 18:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With Wesker combining T and G with a Plaga parasite, it could be a possibility, although never stated in RE4.  He does make a brief appearance in Ada's mission, but that's it.  But I'm with Rockhound on this.  Until we know something official, it should be removed.  CardinalFangZERO 20:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation 

message: Shouldn’t this article include information about why the franchise is moving away from Nintendo? 
info from this link gives an idea, I say its worth puting it. http://www.joystiq.com/2005/07/20/resident-evil-5-confirmed-for-ps3-360-nintendo-snubbed/
 
86.142.13.24 18:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The franchise isn't "moving away from Nintendo". There will be a Wii-exclusive RE game alongside RE5. The franchise has split off like this in the past too (Veronica was originally a Dreamcast exclusive, Zero was an N64/GC exclusive, etc) , so I wouldn't put too much significance on the "snub". Kelvingreen 08:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Kelvingreen, it's not moving from Nintendo, especially due to the release of RE: The Umbrella Chronicles. What Capcom might be doing (it wouldn't be the first time either) is put it on these two systems, see how the reception is, get feedback on how to improve it, then release a grandeur-ized version of it on Nintendo, it's been done before, and occasionally in the opposite way. (RE 4, from Gamecube, to PS2, and another version with enhanced gameplay from Ada Wong on Wii.) C. Pineda 00:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a wii title? 

message: Hello, I was wondering if someone could clarify what an "SKU" is, since it's mentioned several times in the first paragraph, and the general public probably doesn't already know what an "SKU" is. Thanks in advance. Power Slave 16:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just the barcode, that's all.  :)  CardinalFangZERO 22:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made a small edit, explaining the acronym on its first use and linking it to an explanatory wiki page, though to be perfectly honest I'm still not entirely sure what it's referring to or what it's purpose is. I think it should be rewritten, if possible. Clarified, and such. Terpoma 01:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SKU? 

message: Unless some of those statements start being cited sometime soon, I have half a mind to remove them. 
Xubelox 20:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weapons and Gameplay

message: Neither this article nor this talk page are the place to speculate about who the protagonist of RE5 is. Speculative comments that don't address the article will be removed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speculation about the protagonist

message: Well, someone changed the mentions of a desert setting to "Strip Bar", so I'm revertiing the page. Oh, and he changed HUNK to "Fat Fat Joe". Sooo. I guess I'll be doing that...  67.142.130.29 08:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Next time just revert it right away. ;) No need to tell us. :) Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: it will take place in a post apocalyptic setting, similar to the movie Black Hawk Down.
That needs tidying up, because it implies that BHD is a post-apocalyptic story, which it clearly isn't. I don't know enough about RE5 to know what to change it to myself, however. I assume that with the changes that have been made to the article, with the reference to a desert setting lost, we're left with something nonsensical. Kelvingreen 21:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Hawk Down? 

message: Im conused as there has been news that the release of RE5 has been pushed back until sometime in late 2008 or 2009 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.166.141.52 (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By News, do you mean the rumor mill, or an actual GameSpot or IGN article. Neither Source has claimed there has been a change in Re5's release date. IGN claims the game will come out on 12/31/07 --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk   21:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release Dates? 

message: these are both used for promotion and as proper screen shots, either rationale makes it acceptable for them to be in this article. --AlexOvShaolin 18:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Because the license specifically states, for identification and critical commentary - meaning some text needs to directly refer to the images in question. This for the same reason one cannot use a random TV screen shot to depict a profile shot of a person.However, if you were to write some commentary in the gallery, perhaps explain what it is depicting in relation to the article's content it should be fine.  See Talk:Brian Urlacher#Images or Image:TomWad.JPG . Also the images have no fair use rationale whatsoever - the tag is not good enough  (although most people wont make a deal abut it unless your nominating the article for GA or FA status. If you feel the images are absolutely needed, you can claim the images in Fair Use because... (See Waddle Image) --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk   18:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the images are part of the game environment description and are direct references. --AlexOvShaolin 18:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'm guessing why that's why they're in a stand alone gallery, which is in a separate section and have no claim of purpose. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk   19:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  screenshots 

message: Not in a million years.  Why is that in there?  The source is bogus, obviously.--68.227.65.46 07:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This game is not coming out March 23, 2007 

message: Should any mention be made of the fact that heat and cold are supposedly going to be an intergal part of the gameplay?
:Its already mentioned in some form. See the 3rd Point in the GamePlay section. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk   22:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gameplay

message: Greetings, Editors. There is a problem with recent information about Resident Evil 5 reported by the citation as coming from Famitsu. The article states, citing Famitsu, that Resident Evil 5 takes place FIVE years after Resident Evil (the first game). Yet, Capcom has said previously that RE5 will "proceed from where Resident Evil 4 left off". Resident Evil 4 took place SIX years after the first Resident Evil. It doesn't make sence that RE5 takes place BEFORE RE4. There is alot of confusion regarding this, and if the translation of Famitsu is correct, Capcom has given contradictory data and RE5 would presumably serve as a prequel to RE4. Hopefully someone will clarify this problem. 72.49.194.69 21:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This 1up article has Takeuchi commenting about the game and saying  it will take place 10 years after the Raccoon City incident. I believe this is the correct information. http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3161378 GalacticAE 21:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronologically Confused 

message: The second picture on this page says it is Chris Renfield, the protagonist of RE5.  While I dont dispute Chris Renfield is the main protagonist, I am not sure that the picture shown is Chris.  He is wearing different clothes than Chris is wearing in the latest preview (the one confirming the main character to be chris), and his hair appears to be a different  cut.  We were told that RE5 would fill in events in Chris's life after the original RE, (and presumably RECVX) so it could be Chris @ two different points in time.  But being as their is speculation of Billy's involvement, and we have screen shots of Chris Renfield looking substantially different from the shot we are claiming to be him, could we at the very least update the pic to a capture fromt the recent trailer?
:That was the old version of Chris from the very first teaser vid.  The current "look" just appears to be tweaked and changed, but you can see that it was/still is Chris.  But I agree, that render of Chris should be replaced by a (properly sourced rationale) picture of the latest Chris design. Parjay 03:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which do you think is better? A, B, or C? I kinda like A and B, but that's my opinion. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk  03:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with B, see his face more clearly, the patch on his arm, and less of his ridiculous arms. Parjay 04:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like A, the lighting is better than B.  Toolucky52384 15:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... it's Chris it says in the new trailer.--Hitamaru 17:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He knows it's Chris, did you read his post completely> ("He is wearing different clothes than Chris is wearing in the latest preview (the one confirming the main character to be chris)")  He's talking about the really old render of Chris, that Capcom aren't using now (ie BSSA, new uniform etc.) Parjay ► Talk  17:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: B is too dark on my computer. I would go with  A or C. Jonny2x4 22:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's too much going on in C. I'd go with A or B. Grandmasterka 21:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest Trailer & Possible Error on Our Part

message: Parjay keeps reverting my edits, but it's confirmed on ebgames. Check out ebgames.co.nz --Willy, your mate 07:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EB Games, Gamestop, and all those other stores practically pull dates out of the air. They've changed the drop date for Metroid Prime 3, STALKER, and several other games until thier official creators confirmed the date. They had a debate something like this on the StarCraft II. We're better off just waiting for Capcom to say something official. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk  14:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I already informed you, EBgames is not a reliable source. Parjay ► Talk  16:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: On what grounds are you saying EBgames is not a reliable source? They, along with their parent company (GameStop) are a multi-billion dollar corporation. They are not some shady, obscure or questionable source. They are not some online website or source either. So I ask, on what grounds? 72.49.194.69 01:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the StarCraft II discussion. EB games is not very accurate when it comes to making statements about a video games release date. Also, the game's producer has stated the game will not likely be released in 2008. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk  02:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It'll still be released on December 1 2007. You may revert it, but you'll have a piece of information missing in the article. And I wouldn't say EBgames isn't a "reliable source", but that is still the cover. I did not put back the NZ edition section, but still it's been confirmed in NZ and AU that it'll be released on that date.--Willy, your mate 03:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, let's take bets on when it actually gets released... You go with what EB Games makes up, I'll go with what an industry magazine tells us. I'm more comfortable with the magazine. It's a reliable source. Grandmasterka 08:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Willy, it hasn't been confirmed for release date in ANY country.  Also, why take the word of EBgames over the word of Jun Takeuchi who's actually making the game? Parjay ► Talk  12:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I never said their word superceded the producers word. That is CERTAINLY not the case. I'm simply asking why EBgames(GameStop) cannot be considered a reliable source? Capcom has already said Resident Evil 5 has been delayed to 2009. I am not argueing that. But for future referance, why is EBgames not a reliable source? 72.49.194.69 14:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well for one, they make up release dates. Parjay ► Talk  15:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Make up release dates? I was told their release dates are what the publisher tells them it is? 72.49.194.69 21:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well whoever told you that they get these dates from some place other than a magical realm of fantasy is either stupid or a liar. They make up release dates on a frequent basis sheerly so they can have a date so people will do pre-orders. They do best guesses, and they tend to be way off more than they are right.Brokenscope 13:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the NZ edition 

message: Why has the image of the woman at the end of the extended E3 trailer been removed? 129.97.231.131 01:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing because it did not have a proper fair use rationale or source. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk  01:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're guessing? Or you know? Because your name is tagged on the change that removed it. 129.97.231.131 01:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yeah. I removed it because it did not have a source or fair use rationale. The image will likely be deleted soon. >_> --ShadowJester07 ► Talk  02:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Girl in Trailer 

message: I checked Sally Cahill's IMDB,it's list that she's Voicing ada wong in BioHazard 5. I don't know if this a Cameo or Main Character also should this be added to the Article Source:http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0128691/
:No, anyone can add to IMDB.  Look at the RE5 page on IMDB for a prime example. Parjay ► Talk  19:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OOOOOO... >.< Damnit. Well i'll keep looking :(.--Hitamaru 20:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof Of Ada Wong?

message: The picture seems similiar to that of RE 4. Possibly i could add to that.
:If you want, but I think we already mentioned its very similar to RE4 in the actual Gameplay section. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk  19:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything can be demo for example Final Fantasy 13's first trailer while showing gameplay,it's not finished. But that game is far from Completion.--Hitamaru 20:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gameplay