Talk:Resident Evil 5

Latest Trailer & Possible Error on Our Part

The second picture on this page says it is Chris Redfield, the protagonist of RE5. While I dont dispute Chris Redfield 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 Redfield 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)

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)

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)

I like A, the lighting is better than B. Toolucky52384 15:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

... it's Chris it says in the new trailer.--Hitamaru 17:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

B is too dark on my computer. I would go with A or C. Jonny2x4 22:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There's too much going on in C. I'd go with A or B. Grandmasterka 21:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I photoshoped image B to make it brighter and smaller. Here's the scaled down original version, and the new one. What do you all think? --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 22:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! Parjay ► Talk 23:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

E3 Trailer Racism Controversy

Hello, I've noticed that there has already been a conversation about the Racism Controversy and while I've understood why it has been removed, I'd still like to propose to put a section called E3 Trailer Racism Controversy for the following reason:

While I completely agree with you that the entire game shouldn't be accused of gratuitous racism, I still think that a section should be dedicated to the public reaction to the E3 trailer, for a purely informative purpose. After all, whether or not one considers the E3 trailer as racist, it is a reality that it has offended a lot of people all over the world (especially people who don't know the context of the game series and only see a white man entering a village and getting assaulted by blood-thirsty Africans that he has to gun down).

Personally I'm sure the final game will be free of any racism and even have a deeper meaning, not unlike a Metal Gear Solid game. And when that time comes, I think it would be a shame if there was no little trivia about the public reaction to the E3 trailer 2007.

PS: If you need an official news website to back it up, here is a link to Foxnews: [1]

Regards, Patrickharboun 23:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's just not notable; it all boils down to one opinion on a blog by one person - that's hardly a notable "public reaction" nor is it "reality that it has offended a lot of people all over the world". Parjay ► Talk 23:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. The majority of that "Racism Controversy" section is one man fighting tooth and nail to put a "Racism" section in the article. That guy aside, most people who care seem to be against him, myself included. Personally, I think that one person searched all over the internet for someone else who shared his view on the trailer. Or maybe he was just looking for an argument. I'm sure he's bound to show up here saying something like, "HEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLL YEAH!!!!!" or trying to push his opinion on other people, again.--Sherwood-Nightshade 00:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the other editors. To begin with, all the articles are mentioning one person, who is apparently a non-notable and outspoken blogger. Furthermore, it seems like blogger has never played a modern video game before, let alone a Resident Evil title. It seems like the racism issue would be more worthy of inclusion had well-known figures actually mentioned it. Anyway, for what’s best for the article and Wikipedia, it’s best to leave it out for know. As Sheerwood stated, we believe the person who originally posted the content was a Troll, or in non-internet jargon, someone who just wanted to create debates and disorder by intentionally posting controversial material. The content has not been deleted, but archived. There’s a link in the upper right hand corner. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 02:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

To me, the only racists here are those who believe that a white man fighting african zombies is different from the american zombies or spanish ones featured in the previous games. Those who single out various ethnic groups instead of treating everybody equally are the true racists. Just my two cents. --Dez26 17:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dez26 (talk • contribs)

I normally don't care enough about things to contribute in the Discussion page, but I'm lending the much-needed support to keep this rubbish out. I agree completely with Dez26, Parjay, ShadowJester07, and Sherwood-Nightshade, especially in the case of a game that's involved the exact same scenerio in The United States and Spain (albeit referring to them as ganados (literally translated to English as livestock), with their master forcing them to work manual labor in mines (furthmore, under their own free will at the time)), but there's a hypocritical double standard when it takes place in Africa. I'm with you guys 100%. EctoplasmOnToast 05:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal opinion should have nothing to do with this. I don't think it should be added, but that's because it hasn't really been covered by more substantial news and verifiable sources. Still, if it were, then whether or not you personally feel that the contraversy is justified makes no difference. Most gamers find Joe Lieberman, Jack Thompson and Hilary Clinton's crusades against violent/sexual games to be nonsense, but it's still at least mentioned in the Grand Theft Auto, Bully, and Mortal Kombat pages. King Zeal 12:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree strongly with King Zeal... I was going to post something like that. Grandmasterka 12:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, my opinion on the matter is of no relevance. What matters is that it's been a single blog entry, with the opinion of a single person no more notable than I am, with many conclusions drawn that can't be verified until the game is released sometime in 2009. ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." EctoplasmOnToast 13:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Racism?? Wasn't RE4 made up of killing Spaniards?? Big deal, it goes from "el grr" to "yo, grr".Chocolatecow 04:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem is that it has been mentioned by multiple reliable sources, I've seen it mentioned in at least three english magazines that would count as reliable sources - so yes it should be mentioned in a factual manner. The arguments put forward here that it's not racism are irrelevent, we don't take sides in an article, we just report the facts as reported by good sources - good sources exist for this constroversy, so we report. --Fredrick day 09:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many sources reported the story, it still boils down to a non-notable member of Joe Public writing one blog article on their site - which is certainly NOT a controversy. Take that the blog article also states inaccuracies, how can it be taken as reliable at all? Not forgetting that it's making rash assumptions about a game that isn't even out yet, so no verifiability. As EctoplasmOnToast stated previously: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." Parjay ► Talk 13:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's notable because it's reported by multiple sources, a number of articles directly about the matter were in notable magazines were written about the affair and Capcom released a number of rebuttals about it - it's irrelevent that the original blog is incorrect or bias - those things often are. Hell the only reason I ended up at this article was that I'd been reading about it in games magazines and wanted to see what summary wikipedia had about it. It's also irrelevent how incorrect it was about the game content, just that it kicked off a debate. No original research is required to source the capcom rebuttals or the magazines articles - your reply is pretty must red-herrings and misdirections - that or a misreading or misunderstanding of policy. --Fredrick day 14:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Capcom rebutted this? When? You're the first person to ever bring it up. Otherwise, as previously mentioned, notability does not solely stem from how many notable sources information has, the actual information has to be notable too; otherwise we'd have about sixteen billion ridiculous articles on the wiki about trivial subjects and people. When it boils down, it's still one blog entry by a normal blogger, an un-notable person; why take one person's opinion as fact? The author of the blog used original research to write their article, as like previously mentioned, the game is not out yet; she is assuming that we don't also kill 'white enemies'. The game isn't out, so it's unverifiable either way; hence original research on her part. Take this for example: what if someone wrote a blog entry detailing that RE5 is racist because it contains no Martians. This blog entry is reported by the same sources as you mention. By your rationale, it would then have to be added to the article. Parjay ► Talk 15:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to get this - it's irrelevent what's in the blog, how notable the blogger was, how they came to their conclusions or how much original research they used. What is relevent is that it spurred a significant number of articles about the matter by notable media about the claims, about how it could be seen within the context of racism within gaming and the rebuttals by Capcom (I'll dig out the magazine during the week, it's in my one of my other houses) - that's the notable bit of the story - that it kicked off a debate about racism in the resident evil games (covered by multiple reliable sources) and racism in the gaming industry in general). --Fredrick day 18:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, as mentioned by many users here and in the archived topic, it's non-notable. It wasn't a controversy, full stop, and it kicked off no debate - sources merely reported it, nothing further happened. You won't find your Capcom rebuttals, as they don't exist. It was an non-issue. Parjay ► Talk 19:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I see - you are calling me a liar. --Fredrick day 19:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I'm simply stating that there were no rebuttals by Capcom. Parjay ► Talk 19:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have heard about the racism controversy many times and in fact I just saw it on the television so I thought I would come here and see what Wikipedia has to say about it. It wouldn't matter if someone homeless guy on the street burped out the word "racism" while watching the RE5 trailer in a store window, the fact is that all forms of press around the world HAVE talked about it and they HAVE debated it by comparing RE4 to RE5 saying that the Spanish racism is just as bad, and that having the Spanish guy in RE4 say things like "Ay yi yi" is really quite racist. The tv just had guys talking about RE5 calling the choice to have white guy in black village with a gun as "irresponsible" and "deeply racist". I do not understand how you guys think some guys blog started this media storm or even why it matters if his blog started it, shouldn't a media storm be notable enough? JayKeaton 21:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If the storm gets a notable response, such as Capcom scrapping and re-making the game (like they did TWICE with RE4) due to the racism claims, then yeah, it probably would. But right now, it's just a bunch of unsourced speculation, no matter HOW much media it got. Unless the claims result in something big, as in a response from Capcom, or a lawsuit from Jack Thompson (which I wouldn't be surprised), theres nothing to say. Dengarde ► Complaints 22:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversy doesn't NEED Capcom to react to it to be controversy. Since when does Capcom get the final word over the presses criticism of its franchise? Do you work for Capcom and are trying to protect the image of your latest blockbuster? JayKeaton 07:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)'

You're right. It doesn't. But what it DOES need is something to actually support it. And last I checked, it doesn't have that. Unless the "controversy" become well founded, it's not notable unless Capcom responds. Dengarde ► Complaints 00:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Female character image

I got a pic of her eyes on YOu Tube, anyway we can add this to the artical?

[eyes] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.139.54 (talk • contribs)

That doesn't look like a useful image to me. It's also too low-res.--Atlan (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What about this one?

[eyes] Kabishen 01:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't see anything wrong with it. So long as you upload it with the proper rationale, and maybe do a bit of resizing.--ReynoldsWrap (talk) 20:30, 02 October 2007 (UTC)

Rita

Look on outbreak file 2 suporting characters and when you get to rita it says she is in re5

I don't know what your saying though.... 72.49.194.69 04:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Joshua

Im saying why dont we add her name to this article. it says on outbreak file 2 suporting characters that she will be in re5. i doubt she is the woman in the end of the trailer but we should put something on this article to say shes in re5. but then again it doesnt show a citation so she might not be in re5 anyway. DeadWood 16:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed it a while back. No one, ever, has mentioned Rita in RE5. Why would she be? Parjay ► Talk 17:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

isn't Outbreak a spin off? not oficial canon :)--Hitamaru 22:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If the game says she'll be in Resident Evil 5 then that's the same as Capcom (who produced the game) as saying she'll be in RE5. It doesn't make sence as to why she would be and why does Outbreak File 2 even mention Resident Evil 5?! I think I'm confused. If you can cite a verifiable source, then feel free to add the info. Remember, citations people, not editorial opinion. 72.49.194.69 19:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Joshua

No game says Rita will be in RE5. Someone added speculation/vandalism to the File 2 article, it was removed, forget about Rita.Parjay ► Talk 20:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Parjay. Seems like someone else is confused about it. 72.49.194.69 21:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Joshua

I Didnt think she would be in re5 anyway seing as outbreak isnt really part of the actual series in a way. bit like dead aim and survivor. DeadWood 10:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Right. Those titles are not even canon anyways. 72.49.194.69 07:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Joshua

Thats what i meant. DeadWood 11:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually Resident Evil/Biohazard:Survivor/Gun Survivor is canon according to the opening scene of RE0, but still RE:Outbreak may or may not be canonical... you never _{—Preceding unsigned comment added by unknown user}

Sherry Birkin

Volume 220 of Electronic Gaming Monthly basically confims that Sherry will in fact make an appearance, and will be playable. If this is reliable, it should be added. What do you think? HeroOfVirtue 01:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

EGM? I'm not so sure...I never trusted them since they said Sonic was in Super Smash Bros. Dengarde ► Complaints 01:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That was an April fools joke. EGM is considered a reliable source. However, if this information was in the rumors section (I haven't read issue 220), it obviously isn't reliable. --Atlan (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I know it was an April fools joke, but look at the uproar it caused >_> Anyways, if anyone can confirm that it isn't a rumor, them by all means, add it. Dengarde ► Complaints 14:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it was at the end of the Silent Hill cover story, at the top of pg. 80. HeroOfVirtue 16:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

They're definitely not reliable, remember all the stuff about the FFVII remake? Kabishen 01:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is being stupid.

Would someone add This link as a cite for the Demo to be released with Extinction? I can't figure out how without stretching the page. Thanks Dengarde ► Complaints 18:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried to add it. However, I'm running on a wide-screen display, so I'm not sure how it would look like on a standard monitor. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 22:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine on my standard monitor, at a 1280x1024 resolution.--Atlan (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Same. Thanks. Dengarde ► Complaints 03:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Notice that this is not a demo, Capcom has already said it would not be interactive. It is infact a trailer, if that qualifies as a demo then so be it.

Release Date

According to GameStop.com RE5 will be released on January 1, 2008.

Just thought I would let you guys know so you can do more research to confirm this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.69.203 (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

...no. It's been pushed back to 2009. Gamestop is using a placeholder date. Dengarde ► Complaints 16:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Besides that, release dates according to retailers are generally not reliable.--Atlan (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversy..

Isn't there controversy surrounding the theme of this game?? Some have considered the content borderline racist. I think a Controversy section is in order. Gamespot's website