Talk:Resident Evil 2

message: Someone put "Quake" as the game engine, I chagned it to custom, until such time as it's properly researched, the right answer and cited, please do not change..   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.205.44.2 (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Game Engine

message: In the article it says william birkin released the t-virus, but i remember it as being the g-virus, he injected himself, then smashed it, where it then leaked into a drain. Am i right?
i agree Birkin did release the G-Virus into the sewer NOT the T-Virus.  as i remember it and i also checked the game to make sure, birkin injects the g-virus into himself after hes attacked by the umbrella soldiers and the soldiers take his G-Virus.Birkin while contaminated by the G-virus goes after them and kills them leaving Hunk alive. while the soldiers were attacked the G-virus containers fell to the floor and broke and leaked out the virus, the rats then ate the virus. someone who refuses to play the game keeps vandalizing the article and keeps putting that Birkin released the T-Virus instead of the G-Virus. this same IDIOT is now adding his personal comments in the article itself. Does anyone agree with us that it was the G-Vrius that william leaked? or was it the T-Virus? please put your ideas here thank you Dick Grayson 21:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand the confusion, but the narrator in the "B" scenarios and just about every official source from Capcom refers to the events of the game as "T-Virus outbreak", NOT the G-Virus outbreak. Jonny2x4 04:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: There was more than one Outbreak. The outbreak caused by Marcus had reached Raccoon, evident by the Raccoon General hospital files and the P-12A Incinerator Facility burning infected corpses. Birkins destruction of a t-virus capsule and the spread into the local drinking water supply merely made the citizens inevitable deaths a lot sooner.-- OsirisV (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  William brikin, in the sewers 

message: I've noticed that every "official" site in the External Links division leads to a foreign language alternative. Might I suggest leaving that to Wikipedia's Japanese alternatives and producing some outlets for our English readers? - AWF
:We could just warn people what language it is before clicking on it.-- OsirisV (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Official Sites

message: I was going to write something on this version, but I'm unsure if anyone is keeping it off of this site or not. It's pretty extensive otherwise. Thaddius 00:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the entry. --Thaddius 14:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Game.com Version

message: There was a popular april fools joke that circulated on the internet saying that if you beat the game with just using a handgun with one clip and a knife,you would unlock a secret character.I think the character's name was Akira.He was a giant sausage who would say "Sausage" whenever he shot. The Diablo article has a similar section about a fake secret.
:Is this in any way related to the Tofu character? I've unlocked that guy in the N64 version. --Thaddius 15:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are thinking of "Akuma" from the street fighter series. A magazine pulled an April fools day prank saying he was a hidden character, with soem time consuming requirements to unlock causing a lot of players to spend a ton of time trying it :)  75.129.96.93 (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

text: I'll put up a screenshot if I can to prove it if it is the tofu chracter. --Thaddius 16:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here they are. I used an emulator and cheats to take these (hence the clock being stuck at '16' and the way Tofu stands out) but if you enter the GS code 800E10EF 0049 it will give you the 'Tofu Survivor' mode mentioned on the main page.     He does say something like 'sausage' when attacked, but it's unclear. Hope this helps at all. --Thaddius 17:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular community April fools joke 

message: The section mentioning the substitution of Elza Walker for Claire Redfield states that it made more sense.  Yet, with the article's admission of retention of basic characteristics, plus Claire's relation to Chris making absolutely no difference in the story until Code: Veronica, I don't understand how this is the case.  If anything, the change during development was done merely for the sake of doing it.
Reply: The reason for changing Elza to Claire was to give the game a further connection to the first one since no characters from the first game (save an unlockable Brad) actually appear in the game. Van Redd 17:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, Claire being Chris' brother is the reason she comes to Raccoon City in the first place. He has gone 'missing' and she is looking for him. She even finds his diary in the RPD and realises that some time after the events of RE1 he left the city to begin an investigation into Umbrella. At the end of Resident Evil 2 she declares that she still intends to look for him. Paper Butterfly (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding changes of RE 1.5 --> 2 

message: Anyone remember back when RE2 was first released, int he back of the booklet they had a contest where the winner was given a walk-on, non-speaking role in the RE film? The entry form is included in the back of the Playstation, original RE2 instruction book. Does anyone have any information on what happened with the contest? Should this information be included in the article? --Jazz Remington 19:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember there being a similar contest in Nintendo Power for The Mask 2, which didn't realy happen until recently in the case of Son of the Mask, but there was also a cartoon series in between that. The point is, I think after all that time they either did not announce a winner, compensated the winner in some way, or simply sent them a letter saying they weren't going to be in the movie. It doesn't seem possible that they would sting along some kid for so many years... --Thaddius 04:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of Son of the Mask: "The sequel, originally planned shortly after the first movie, even featured a contest in Nintendo Power magazine to win a small part in the film (it is unlikely this prize was honored so many years later)." This was pulled from that article. It seems the author came to the same conclusion I did. --Thaddius 04:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie contest 

message: I put Ada and Sherry back in the "playable characters" section, because they are infact playable and should be there.
-October 25, 2006
-MidnightClub
:They're not playable in the traditional sense, in which you get to choose them like you do with Leon and Claire, but are only playable during key portions of the game. You could make an argument that Ada is unlockable in Extreme Battle, but still. Jonny2x4 17:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ada and Sherry Removed? Why? 

message: Normally, plot sections are too long. This one is waaaay too short. Somebody able to fix that (I have never played the game, so it won't be me). Ingolfson 21:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: on Evilresource.com   I saw a "news update" saying there was to be a wii-ported version of BioHazard 2. the "evidence" is linked here.OsirisV (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: BH2 for Wii?

message: Haven't got a clue if this is allowed or not but I've done it for some of the reviews.  E.g. http://psx.ign.com/reviews/504.html takes you to a 404, whereas http://web.archive.org/web/19990429091320/http://psx.ign.com/reviews/504.html takes you to the review.  Thought this was better than just providing a non-working link and then having it and the content it sources removed.  Advice?Mr T (Based) (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done this several times, as the alternative is to remove the source, as I see it.  It isn't ideal... but the world is what it is, rather than what we want it to be.  sinneed (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as long as it's okay.Mr T (Based) (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References via Wayback Machine 

message: This new section is not very well written and seems much too long.  I am going to flag it for improvement.  Or kill it.  sinneed (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not insulting the editor who wrote it, but it's poor.  Far too long, it doesn't really summarise events but presents them in step-by-step fashion making it difficult to render down to a summary, and spelling, grammar and tone ("Just when things could not get worse", "not knowing that another battle was about to begin."etc) are lacking.  I dunno what was wrong with the previous summary, apart from the fact that it didn't mention the ending.Mr T (Based) (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I attacked it with my editorial pruning shears, and Mr T corrected some of the errors introduced (mine or other editors... thank you Mr T).  I have left it flagged for possible clean-up, and it could use some more sourcing.  Any improvements are, of course, welcome.  sinneed (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pruning it, what needs sourcing, the various plot events? Is the game not the source for those?Mr T (Based) (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New and VERY LONG plot 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#List. Geoff B (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  IGN a reliable source. 

message: Technically, it WAS Resident Evil 2 before being scrapped, and I think it is imperative we at least include a separate section for it if there won't be an article about it anytime soon. I think people would appreciate more information on it as I can assume that it is searched for often within Wikipedia, however, there is little information on it. Last Best Hope of Humanity (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The main problem has been the lack of reliable sources discussing it. Geoff B (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should there be more detailed information on Resident Evil 1.5? 

message: lolwut? --Asperchu (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a problem with the sourced information in the article, please try pointing it out here, instead of just trying to remove it.  Geoff B (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: NOT A DOG. --Asperchu (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement does not say Leon is a dog.  Read it again, and pay a little more attention.  Geoff B (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How can one "base" a human character "on" a dog. Tell me. (In during mistranslation of a Japanese text.) --Asperchu (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hair colour, eye colour, mannerisms, facial expressions, etc etc.  Why not work it out for yourself instead of having other editors do it for you?  Geoff B (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Leon has facial expressions of a dog. That's interesting, tell me more. --Asperchu (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Basing human characters on pets or other animals is a common practice; cut back on the snarkiness. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT to me. I'm not going to tell you any more, Asperchu, I think you should work it out for yourself and stop being flippant.  Geoff B (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Yeah I was going to ask about this, but you all explained it quite well. I think I took it a bit too literally. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  " For example, Ohishi based Leon on his bloodhound" 

message: Since I noticed that this was up for GAN, I thought I'd mention that numerous print reviews for the game may be found in the Online print archive. They are as follows:
*Computer Games Magazine
*Electronic Gaming Monthly (Dreamcast)
*GameFan (N64)
*Game Informer (N64)
*Game Informer (PlayStation)
*Next Generation Magazine
*PC Gamer UK
I realize that you already have quite a few reviews in the Reception section, but a wider base of sources never hurts. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for finding those. As you said, the reception section is pretty meaty already, but I'll see if I can find some additional tidbits to add from those. Prime Blue (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I just realized that I'd found a couple of previews, too. Here they are: Next Generation Magazine, Electronic Gaming Monthly. Hope they're useful. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference material 

message: Here I’d like to discuss the ideal format for the “releases and ports” section. I signed up recently to Wikipedia precisely because I was dismayed at how lacking the RE2 ports section was. I was used to other pages, like RE4 and RE1, which lists each port as its own heading, which I found extremely useful for quickly understand the history ports for each game.
First, I’ll note that RE2 has one of the most confusing and complicated port histories in all of gaming. So this topic can get messy, since the subject matter is messy. For this reason, I separated each port into its own section since nearly every port has distinctive traits not found in the others. I’m of the belief that headings and subheadings should break up content whenever possible to allow the reader to find what they want as fast as possible. A section for ports is great, but a section for each port is better so the user can skip ports the user has no interest in (just like any other article where a user wants to know some but not all information about a topic).
Wikipedia is not a guide. This is true. But Wikipedia should present information in a logically and orderly manner. The prior version of the ports section didn’t list ports in chronological order. I say chronological is the best since it informs the reader by its very formatting. That seems obvious and I doubt anyone would contest this point.
It has been pointed out that same ports don’t warrant their own sections. It’s true that some ports are not as important as others, based on whatever standards. For instance, the Game.com version of RE2, it isn’t even able to be played anymore to my knowledge and reviewers panned it and generally nobody cared about it. But to be neutral, it needs to be reported (and for the sake of completeness). So in the prior version, the user was forced to read about it in the prose since it wasn’t separated from the rest of the more important ports. In my version, it has its own heading and can easily be skipped. This seems like a good thing to me.
I looked up a bunch of random articles on Wikipedia to see if they broke topics down into small subsections. For instance, the Chemistry article has many subsections containing only a few sentences. Anyway, that’s just one example.
And what about those who read a section but later forget and have to come back to it? I find myself frequently coming back and re-reading Wikipedia pages. Well, say I read about the Dreamcast port, but want to re-read that section. In the prior “all one section” version, I’ll have to hunt for the Dreamcast sentences amid all the rest. This takes more time and effort than needed. In my version, I can browse to the RE2 page, and easily click on the Dreamcast port subheading at the top. Very nice.
So there are my thoughts. Sub-headings are our friends. They exist for a reason. If we don’t use them because of aesthetic concerns, I question if we are remaining true to the spirit of Wikipedia or letting rules get in the way of informing the reader. Forgive me if I haven’t discussed this properly, I am new here, despite prior rumors. ;) Brumbek (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Releases and Ports – What is the Best Format?

message: Especially in Ada Wong's, where I just made an empty section because the article was so short? --Barry Sandwich (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone use the "Adaptations and sequels" stuff in the characters' articles? 

message: According to the October 21 1996 videotape source, 1.5 was originally shown at the V-Jump festival in July. However, according to "RESEARCH ON BIOHAZARD 2 final edition", released 1998, the first view was at TGS 1996 in late summer/autumn, where the development was so early that they could only show a character outline fighting a horde of zombies in an otherwise black screen (no backgrounds had been finished). A transcript source can be found here.-- OsirisV (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory book sources 

message: I've located an instance of prose being mixed with numericals in the lead: "a team of 40 to 50 people over the course of one year and nine months". I haven't checked if this is repeated in the main body of the article. For consistency, the article should use one of these two. Hula Hup (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency issue

message: I noticed that there hasn't really been an attempt to further update the information surrounding 1.5 section after the game finally leaked last year. Given that we have a fully playable build (or rather, what form of it being playable, anyways), we should be able to incorporate information from that version into it's own article, as for all intents and purposes, the game is it's own thing compared to what we know as Resident Evil 2 today. The only issue I see in giving it's own article, is I'm unsure how one would name the article. While it's been dubbed 1.5 by fans and the media (and to lesser degree, Capcom), I feel it wouldn't properly represent the name, since it was originally called Resident Evil 2. Could we perhaps call it "Resident Evil 2 (Prototype)"?  I don't know, what do you guys think? Mendinso (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we split off 1.5 into it's own article, in light of the leaked build? 

message: The usage of  is under discussion, see the move request at talk:re2 -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "RE2"

message: Someone is remaking the game on Unreal Engine 4. 
* I'm pinging you here since I've deleted the redirect to here. The problem is that this source states that the fan game stopped production and was never released. The question is ultimately whether or not this unmade game would warrant a mention on the main page. It received some coverage around July and August when it was announced, but not really much beyond that. I've no true problem with it being added, but I do think that it should be discussed first. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the fan-remake was in-fact canceled. However, Capcom is Remaking Resident Evil 2 as of August 2015. A source released a few days ago reveled the game will be built from scratch:. Capcom did poll fans about remaking RE2 after seeing the fan interest in RE2: Reborn.. IMO, it's not really worth mentioning... there are probably other factors that lead to an official remake of RE2. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk   14:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ramake 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Resident Evil 2. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.capcom.co.jp/newproducts/consumer/bio2/zapping.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=28624&tab=review
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.capcom.co.jp/newproducts/consumer/bio/bio.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.capcom.co.jp/newproducts/consumer/value/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=38453&tab=review
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5zvYkOJqB?url=http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/business/million.html to http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/business/million.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/Mobile/Resident%2BEvil%3A%2BUprising/review.asp?c=16741
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/resident-evil-5_0_7?page=2
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2009/11/16/game-informer-s-top-100-games-of-all-time-circa-issue-100.aspx?PostPageIndex=7
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=2261&tab=review
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=19932&tab=review
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Crazy as it sounds, Capcom want to create a board game based on RE2.PeterMan844 (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Board game

message: From the article:
 These environments were created with a software program called O2, and each background took two to three weeks to render. 
I can't find this "O2" rendering program, but The Retro Gamer blog thinks the source is mistaken confusing the SGI O2 workstation for Softimage 3.7.  That source also notes 2-3 weeks × 1,250 images would take 70 years to render, suspecting it instead is the total rendering time.  — Dispenser 14:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source is incorrect 

message: Considering a remake of Resident Evil 2 has been revealed and is being developed, would it be a good idea to create a separate article for it in the future, prior to the remake's release date? I think it would be a good idea, unless anyone wishes to make a section for it, of course. GUtt01 (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It will need its own article sooner or later, but let's wait until there's enough information about it. Considering there's now quite a bit of gameplay footage, secondary sources will presumably begin covering it in some more depth soon. Popcornduff (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, there's certainly noticeable differences between the original and the remake that definitely warrants a new article, in that respect. As can be witness in the gameplay footage, the game looks set to feature a totally different style of gameplay, and certainly looks to feature a difference in the plot mechanics - my assumption is that the story will be the same, but how the events unfold will be much different. GUtt01 (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There is enough right now for its own section, but not its own article. How different the game is doesn't warrant a split, but how covered it is in media/sources. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upcoming Remake 

message: RE2 remake won the best of show at game critics award.
http://www.gamecriticsawards.com/winners.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.39.78.108 (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Award 

message: Therefore we can only say a book is being published therefore the text here explains what the book will say and will be removed since the owner is wiping other articles  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetechwizard21 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're saying makes no sense. Why does a book being published about a topic mean that information on Wikipedia gets wiped? As long as this article isn't plagiarizing text from the book, which isn't possible because it was written before the book, there is no problem. TarkusABtalk 15:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resident Evil 1.5 is being made into a book 

message: https://www.polygon.com/2019/1/21/18187446/resident-evil-2-history-capcom-hideki-kamiya TarkusABtalk 21:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huge history article 

message: Since the original RE and RE remake Wikipedia articles includes the year of release in the article title as well as the RE2 remake article, this article should be renamed for consistency.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ki113r2073 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, this page is the primary topic for the phrase "Resident Evil 2", and so per policy, the name should be applied to this page. The reason the original Resident Evil has "(1996 video game)" in the title is because the series as a whole is the primary topic for the phrase "Resident Evil". Multiple pages cannot share the same name.TarkusABtalk 20:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename Article to "Resident Evil (1998 video game)" 

message: Backstab #10https://archive.org/details/backstab-magazine-french-10/page/n47/mode/2up 8.37.179.254 (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews