Talk:Resident Evil 5

Heat leading to mirages etc

This has been confirmed as no longer being in the game in an interview with one of the developers. I unfortunatly don't have the reference on hand, but I'm sure someone else does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.252.133 (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Does it really matter if there's contraversy or if there's racism or not? It has sparked some interest an atleast deserves a spot in a trivia section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaze5567 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, since trivia sections aren't supposed to be in wikipedia articles, I guess that means it's kept out. DurinsBane87 (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the comments on here have stated that the racism controversy is just one non-notable person on a non-notable blog stating concerns about the potentially racist content. However, recently Newsweek games journalist N'Gai Croal has stated in interviews [2] "Wow, clearly no one black worked on this game." further commenting "this imagery has a history". Croal is clearly notable, given that he has a Wikipedia article, as is Newsweek. It may be worthwhile at this point to put a mention of the controversy in the article. 24.218.218.197 (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because he's notable, doesn't mean we should document everything he says about this game.--Atlan (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. So we're just getting to a point where it's not being mentioned because you guys just don't want it mentioned. The controversy is being mentioned on the Game Theory podcast with Gary Whitta and Colin Campbell, editor of Next Generation Magazine. You have editorials in The Village Voice discussing it[3][4] and countless blogs are discussing it [5]. But hey, if you guys don't want to mention it because you disagree with the notion, don't let the fact that it's actually very notable stop you. 24.218.218.197 (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I would totally support adding a 'Racism-Controversy' section to this article... On the condition that a notable, well-known news source picks up the story. All the sources that you have mentioned come from blogs and podcasts, which fail to meet Wikipedia's standards for being reliable sources. A section backed up by the opinions of comments from 'notable nobody' (The people may meet WP:N, but the general audience does not know of them) would just end up getting ridiculed and removed by delete-ists unless there was a larger, more substantial argument/claim/opinion from a well known News Group (ex CNN, Fox NEWS, NY Times) or organization. I would advise waiting for the issue itself to gain more mainstream attention, if it ever will. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  16:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Dallas Morning News (among others) has picked up the story so I've re-added the section to the article. Please keep in mind notability requirements are strictest for articles themselves, but notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. Well cited and pertinent sections certainly have a place in this article. Sсοττ5834^talk 20:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My two cents: I don't think the accusation of racism is really that relevant anymore (or whether it was in the first place). I think N'Gai Croal (or some other writer) simply criticized that the imagery in the preview could be misinterpreted out of context and some people did blow it out of proportions. The context of the game has since changed since there's more racially diverse enemies and Chris has an African partner as well. Jonny2x4 (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2009 (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)

The picture of the eyes is Sherry from RE2. Its been said by someone from Capcom in an interview that the girl in the trailer is Sherry Birkin. Which makes perfect sense because of the fact that Leon made a deal with Wesker that if he gave up Sherry to Wesker, then he would give Leon a job as a government agent (and so goes on Resident Evil 4). If you do the math from Sherrys age in RE2, to what her age would be in RE5, it also fits perfectly to what the girl in the tube looks like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.116.253 (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2008 (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)

Play.com says the game will be released on 28/3/2008 but this is no doubt wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.216.225 (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Residentevilnews.com says the realease date is october 1, 2008. Gamespot also says that the release date is in october as well. This could possibly and most likely be the right release date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redfield X (talk • contribs) 21:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the previous comment in this topic, as well as the disclaimer at the top of this page. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  21:30, 26 March 2008 (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

It's been discussed. Last I heard there was ONE blog claiming rascism. Hardly notable. DurinsBane87 (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• oh god, why again? just because it has black enemies in an obviously rundown african slum? this way we can say that re 4 was also racist in that it portrayed the spanish as zombie cultists in brutal horror like villages, but i never heard anyone complaining about that.

I don't think that's how it will play out. Based on the trailer, here's how I speculate the storyline starts out: A westerner is witness to a African village conducting a ritual to exorcise a demon-possessed boy, which he judges to be abhorrent and interferes to release the boy. Upon doing so, he also unleashes the forces of evil that possess the entire village and constitutes the scenario for the arcade battle that pits him against everyone in the village (who just happen to be black) because it would be necessary for the storyline. It remains to be seen whether political correctness will force the characters to become racially ambiguous by the time of the final release, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if everyone comes out a medium shade of tan. Landroo (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to remind everyone, we have previously discussed and resolved this matter in this discussion's archive page. Unless something major happens (see archive), there is no real need to carry this discussion on. ;-) Thanks. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 08:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the first sentence of this paragraph needs changing, the issue is not a white man killing black enemies, rather it's the number of stereotypes of 'darkest africa' present. Such as enemies in grass skirts with shields and spears ala the Zulus, one scene with implied rape of a blond aryan woman by a group of black men etc. Therefore, the first line is innacurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.252.133 (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone pointed out the fact that the concept of Zombies (though like most media RE's zombies are descended from George A. Romero's mythos, which is somewhat different though still related) originally comes from African mythology, which puts things somewhat more in context. AKLR (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have never read that that's what the developers had in mind. So no, no one has pointed that out. Also, the issue is not with them being zombies, but them being racial stereotypes.--Atlan (talk) 09:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

PC Version?

I removed the section on the PC version per WP:V (Google Translate is not considered reliable for translating non-English sources). The source was a Brazillian website (Gamevicio), along with a Google Translate version of the page. I've also done some Googling and so far it seems Capcom has not confirmed a PC version. I'd be happy if anyone who can understand Brazillian could read the page and see if:

• The site can be considered reliable and notable
• If it is, if the page actually confirms a PC version.

L337 kybldmstr (talk) 04:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You may replace it. The page confirms a PC version. As for reliability, it quotes Keiji Inafune as stating there will be a release for PC, PS3 and Xbox 360. It is in Portuguese but I had it translated. I'll let you take care of it as I'm not a Wikipedia member. 72.49.200.87 (talk) 05:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC) Joshua

If Inafune himself said it, then why have no other publications picked it up? Sorry, but I find this hard to believe.--Atlan (talk) 12:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's an English translation of the Website, [6] The website itself does not look like an reliable source, as it is a blog. Furthermore, I cannot seem to find another source that confirms this on Topix or Google News. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 18:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

As I've already stated and I'm getting to repeat myself. The english translation reveals the Portuguese original to be quoting Inafune as stating there will be a PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 release for Resident Evil 5. The link you provided with translation just reassures what I stated above. What are we even discussing anymore? We know what it says. 208.102.181.15 (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC) Joshua

As for Biohazard 5 coming to the PC, I don't know what is so hard to believe about that. All four numbered/canonical titles, Resident Evil, Resident Evil 2, Resident Evil 3 and Resident Evil 4 were ported to the PC. Ubisoft & Capcom entered a deal wherein for the next couple of sequels, beginning with Resident Evil 4, Ubisoft would be given the job of porting the canonical Resident Evil titles to the PC. This includes Resident Evil 5 and Resident Evil 6, if there is going to be a 6. 208.102.181.15 (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC) Joshua

Joshua, Wikipedia’s policies do not allow us to make assumptions without properly finding legitimate sources to back them up. Fan blogs are not considered a reliable source since anyone can post information on them, regardless of it is false or true. For example, over the summer some blogger used a fan-edited website to basically guess the cast of RE5 – Needless to say, these predications were way off. For reasons like that, we are better off getting information directly from the official source (Capcom, Sony, Microsoft), or a legitimate publication (Game Informer, IGN.com, 1UP.com) that reports information that came directly from the official source. While I agree with you that RE5 will likely follow in the steps of its predecessors and eventually land up as PC game, we cannot simply add it without an official source. Please see (WP:Cite, WP:RS, WP:OR). --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 01:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. May I also say, well argued. You provided ample evidence and research to argue your case. So I'm with ShadowJester, let's not add anything until we have a reliable source to do so. 208.102.181.15 (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Joshua

Thanks for understanding. :) --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 02:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

How about now? http://www.mcvuk.com/news/32222/Street-Fighter-IV-dated

Release dates include the platforms they release on. RE5 for the PC it is. DRaGZ (talk) 06:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It does not really confirm that there will be a PC-installment for RE5, it merely states some platforms. Perhaps this would be different if the aforementioned link, along with other sources, explicitly stated that Capcom was going to put the game out for PC in a more substantial manner. Thanks for providing a link though. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  06:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

So we're not allowed to extrapolate conclusions? Just want to be clear on such things. DRaGZ (talk) 07:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. An encyclopedia article is not the place for guesswork. From this IGN article: "We asked Capcom if they planned on eventually releasing a PC version, to which they said it wasn't being considered at the moment." That was October 9 and the last thing Capcom had to say about it to this moment.--Atlan (talk) 11:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a preview in german gamestar magazine. from what is says summer 2009. 24.11.36.244 (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

My Recent Edits

I removed the brief sentences pertaining to new Famitsu interview, as I feel they do not offer much substantial information. They simply state information that is previously stated in the article, ex the directors' emphasis on light contrasts. Additionally, The Sentence pertaining to the Resident Evil: Extinction also only offers limited information - but would be useful if we choose to make a "Marketing" section. If anyone wants the need to re-add the information, feel free to go-ahead. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  21:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the "Marketing" section

I think that my deleted info about the DVD and the movie stuff would be useful to make this section. Plus in coming months a lot of info about RE5 is expected to be released. And probably that wont be useful for expanding another article's part. Even RE4 had a powerful marketing campain, I remember've seen it even on the TV. We need to stay alert about this kind of news. So you have my vote ShadowJester RG4ever (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, We'll make the section once more information comes out. I'm sure XBL and PSN will include more RE5 features as times progresses. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  20:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

What's the point af adding this paragraph? Certainly none, because it's just a matter of personal opinion. I could've thought RE4 was racist because Leon killed spanish (not that I think so, just an example), yet there's nothing of it. Wikipedia is a source for facts not for opinions from bloggers, don't you think? -- CrushNush 22:24, 14 May 2008 (UCT)

This article does not make a claim that Resident Evil 5 is in any bit racist. It does however state that a Newsweek editor claimed the trailer contained elements that could be viewed as racist. Basically it comes down to the fact that we can verify/support with clai/observation from the editor with a reliable source. Scroll up to the first controversy discussion - LURK MOAR :P --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  22:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of controversy about the game. Many sources have covered it, and Jun commented that the game was not redesigned because of it. It is therefore notable to include. Wiki does not take any sides, it just presents the controversy. ScienceApe (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Damn right! There is a big controversy worthy of note. I'd say refusing to make this clear is a clear sign of bias in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreadwins (talk • contribs) 06:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The controversy is covered in the article. Thanks for replying to a half year old discussion though.--Atlan (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

black female character

I am aware that the same people that consider the game "racist" would consider this word offensive. But you should be aware that using the words afroamerican or ¿non-caucasian? could be consider offensive as beeing a way of avoiding say black 190.51.133.165 (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Now in what comes to style ¿non-caucasian or black? come on

There's no official citation that says she's black, African, African American, or even Afroamerican. Read upper disclaimer. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  17:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I’ve yet to see any official citation that says Chris Redfield is Caucasian but he has been labeled as such because he simply appears to be so. Why there is this consensus effort to avoid calling Sheva black or African despite her African accent and appearance being that of a person of African decent is beyond me. There is no more justification in keeping her from being called black or African than there would be to not label Chris Redfield white or Caucasian. Siddhartha21 (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Redfield has been refereed to as "white" by various media sources, the one specifically referenced in this article: ([7]). However, I cannot seem to find anything official. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  17:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, Redfeild sis only described as 'an apparent Caucasian' due to the fact the sentence is based on N'Gai Croal's description of the E3 footage in question. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  17:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the argument that Chris Redfield is only referred to as Caucasian in the context of the racial controversy hence not explicitly regarded as such, just for the sake of argument why should Sheva be explicitly described as non-Caucasian? Why not just describe her by her irrefutable traits such as her darker skin and African accent which was mentioned in the recent August issue of Game Informer magazine? Siddhartha21 (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Game Informer only [openly] speculated/suggested she "South African". Read through the archive of the discussion page; using physical features and other details are solid enough to verify actual claims in this article (see WP:NOR). For all we know, Sheva could be Persian or Indian - unless there is something reliable out there that confirms it, it's original research. The information can most definitely be added to the article when something reliable comes up.Also Sheva is never mentioned to be a 'non-Caucasian' character, the article specifically states, as well as a non-Caucasian female character who assists the protagonist. a claim given by Ref #30.

Actually it refers to the character in question as "ethnically ambiguous". I'll change it. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Stating that's she's "ethnically ambiguous" is no less speculation than the statement about her "South African accent" Siddhartha21 (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

How so? Has a source confirmed her race? Until someone has, there's no legitimate answer. The term "ethnically ambiguous" is a remotely encyclopedic/politically correct way to express what is known. Using terms like "sounds like...", "seems like...", or "appears to be" is considered speculation, and should be avoided. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  22:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There really is no justification in calling her “ethnically ambiguous” while ignoring a major clue pointing to what her “mysterious” ethnic background may be, i.e. her most obvious physical trait which is her dark skin. Siddhartha21 (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, given that she looks like a person of African decent, speaks with what “sounds” like an African accent and has been “officially’ acknowledged to be an agent of the West African branch of the B.S.A.A. and is generally referred to as African in various online media outlets such as Joystiq.com’s Justin McElroy who is quoted as saying “The biggest surprise of the day actually had nothing to do with the walkthrough, but rather in the new trailer, during which Chris is joined at the very end by an African woman packing a pistol.” , I think it’s reasonable to conclude that she is in fact African or at the very least an “apparent African” the same way Chris Redfield is an “apparent Caucasian”. I also feel that given the facts that we know for certain about her clueing is in on what her background may be, the description of “ethnically ambiguous” is at this point unnecessarily vague. I suppose that considering that Capcom hasn’t literally held up a sign and spelled it out for us the designation of “apparent African” is equally appropriate in this context. Siddhartha21 (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Your claims are still based on speculation; Sheeva is not officially “African” based on the arbitrary opinion of a writer. The writer's opinion is probably just as official or absolute as yours. While I agree with you that Sheeva is most likely African given some of the evidence presented, It's just our opinion. The fact that Redfield is labeled as an 'apparent Caucasian' is the opinion of N'Gai Croal, which is referenced specifically in the section and only used within that context. The wording of the section does not (or should not) be taken as an official description – rather as an issue/opinion in question, which itself is a fact (referring to the existence of the Croal's statements).

Capcom has a way of throwing slurve balls at their fans. Last year at this time, everyone was 99.9% certain the Billy Coen was going to be the game's protagonist, until Capcom officially announced it was going to be Redfield based on footage from the game's first trailer. I'll say what I said then, and suggest waiting for something official, clear, and indisputable from Capcom or the game itself. One could probably look the trailer frame-by-frame and list 100 reasons why Sheeva is African – regardless of how persuasive the claims are, they are original research, and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  21:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said Sheva has been “officially” declared African or even that she should be regardless of the abundant evidence that suggests she is. You seem to be making two conflicting arguments here stating on one hand that Chris Redfield being referred to as an “apparent Caucasian” as long as it’s within the context of what a particular unofficial online blog writer regards him as while at the same time rejecting even any “unofficial” suggestion from online media sources that Sheva may be African. Chris Redfield and Sheva are both mentioned in this section under the context of the racial controversy in this section of the article so why then do you feel the thus far non official “apparent Caucasian” designation for Chris Redfield is appropriate based on the “arbitrary opinion” of a writer but not when Sheva is referred to as African by the same outlets? If you still object lets just describe her simply as a “dark skinned female” for now to make it more of a general description as there is no speculation there. Siddhartha21 (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sheva?

Chris' partner shouldn't she be added to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.62.118 (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Zombies or Granados??

Been reading through the talk file.

Based on offical trailers and game play video located @ Gamespot.com, it seems to me that the human beings that Attack Chris and his helper are a cross between a Granado and a Zombie. Seeming intellegent and when the heads pop a parasite seems to come out. BUT enemies look seemingly undead and have a jaw that looks like a throw back to Blade 2.

Just wondering if it would be appropriate to list whats been featured so far with the public video or do we wait for a magazine/interview to report this?

Any Thoughts??

BlackScreaminMachine (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)BlackScreaminMachine 08-26-08

I believe Capcom has recently stated that the new enemies in RE5 are neither Ganados or the Zombies from the past installments. I'll try and dig up some sources to back this up.-Adunian Prophet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.185.0.247 (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The new trailer shows some cloaked being turning one of the villagers in the game into a badguy, by some means that looks like it could be revolved around a parasite. So this parasite could be the plagas from RE4, even though Ada gave Wesker a fake one. They will release info sooner so just sit tight and wait for now. --'The Ninjalemming' 16:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've heard/read them called Majini. I might be able to find an article on this.--Sherwood-Nightshade (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

cool, sounds like a mystical name if you ask me. Which you arn't! --'The Ninjalemming'' 14:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wii Petition

ShadowOne333 (talk · contribs) has persisted on adding content about an obscure ‘Wii Petition’ despite two 3RR warnings and a specific explanation of why the content should not be added. Thus, I feel it rather necessary to discuss this matter here, as a community, to obtain a proper Consensus that reflects WP’s rules, and stop this edit warring. Does anyone feel there should be mention of this Wii Petition? I stated my views and rationale towards this topic in the aforementioned link. Thanks. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  23:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't think it's notable. There are fan petitions for all sorts of stuff. It may get a mention if it is reported by reliable/notable sources (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_III#Art_direction_and_design).Mr T (Based) (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As Mr T said it isn't notable. Petitions never are notable regardless of the amount of signatures. I don't even think they should be mentioned even if it has a reliable source. Since when is Wikipedia a list of petitions? And when I think about it it's kinda just advertising to sign.--Megaman en m (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Petitions can be notable if they get anywhere, like make developers do something that customers want. Other then that they are not something that should be cited in a encyclopedia --'The Ninjalemming' 18:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Petitions have been noted in other articles i.e: Visual_basic and that one got nowhere. -NeF (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well if it is a big enough petition it could be mentioned. I see that petitions have been used elsewere but you also have to think that are petitions relevent to be added, and remember that it could just be advertisment to sign as previously stated by megaman. But it could have a quick mention if it is writen right and in the correct place, also people have to agree for it to be put on there, a vote may help if you want to try one. --'The Ninjalemming' 19:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Albert Wesker will return.

please fix the picture its covering the words above it.--Lbrun12415 15:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Collectors Edition, Japan Only?

I have heard that the collectors edition of this game will only be available in Japan, is this true, and if so, noteworthy? 72.183.9.129 (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

should probably give it a quick mention. :) Byakuya Truelight (talk) 09:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Game stores like Gamestop are taking pre-orders for the collector's edition, so I don't think this is true.--Sherwood-Nightshade (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Linkspam

I did the research, and the links are reflinks like Outwar and Kings of Chaos. [8] I can't believe a major company would stoop this low. I mean, it's bad enough that they're still using flash video websites. --68.161.181.14 (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Demo

You people need to make a final decision on this demo thing... I keep seeing edits done that remove then add and edit it. If you can't make up your minds then you should have this page locked until the games release. --Dragon Lizard Reptileus (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversy - In favor of adding section

• I support adding a new "controversy" section to article. It seems like pretty straightfoward reporting. Including that the game has been questioned or accused by diff sources of being racist, is not at all the same thing as affirming it is racist. The allegations have occurred, are noted in several sources, and the term controversy is an appropriate section.

Also, it deserves a seperate section because despite RE 5's rating, some parents, grannies, friends spouses & other adult players will inevitably consider gifting the video game without having played it themselves or seen gameplay. Adult gamers who look RE5 up in WP want to know about these and other game CONS as well as the PROS.

Since Resident Evil 5 features shooting to kill primarily Black and now Hindu-looking people, in shanty towns settings and mock ups of India (especially after the recent bombings), it is certainly likely to embarrass the unwitting guy or gal who brings it to the average social gathering.

BTW, I'm a fan of the franchise (except this version - yuck). My time spent as a westerner in Japan taught me the Japanese can be remarkably naive about their own bigotry to all other non-Japanese, including other ethnic Asians. (More often it seems like complete ignorence or insensitivity about acceptable behavior outside of Japan, rather than intentional nastiness.) It's little surprise that the game marketers thought a quick fix to adjust the game against the emerging charges of racism towards Blacks, would be to simply add a Black female shooter, and to add shuffling East Indian-looking bad guys to "diversify" the game's black zombie population. Hitting the game makers on the nose with a rolled up wad of cash would probably help. 63.226.210.22 (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding your personal commentary to the article doesn't seem like "straightforward reporting" to me. It's also disallowed by WP:OR and WP:POV.--Atlan (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, Atlan. Please note there's no intention on my part to add personal commentary to the article.

What I mented on the discussion section seems pertinent to the topic. Also, adding rational perspective to topics that get people steamed up seems in order. However, I think I'll take your advice. 63.226.210.22 (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The controversy section wasn't merged into the development section, only to be turned into a separate sub section again days later. The earlier version was an NPOV representation of the Newsweek item. That which you added didn't seem to stem from an updated source, but rather your perception of how events have developed in the mean time. As rational as your perspective (which IS personal commentary) may be, it is against policy to add it, as I said before.--Atlan (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Remember that in the newest trailer it is shown that they are doing evil against their will, and as Wesker is in it we can blame him, also remember that the location my be significant in the actual games. I think a well writen "controversy" section could help the article though. Oh and as a last thought I don't know what why so many people were making a fuss (I am not trying to be racist here) but in all of the previous games they have been killing white people, whether living or dead, as soon as they change ethnicity people thought they could be being racist even though they obversely weren't. I mean come on, why can't they use other skin colours, it would be stupid having a game set in Africa with all the evil people being white just to try and make sure they weren't being racist. Oh and the African women who helps chris looked far to developed to be put in just to satisfy people. Last thing, remember to sign your posts, and not consider the wiki to be an advertisment site and just use facts.

--'The Ninjalemming' 19:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I find myself inclined to keep the controversy section merged into the "Development" section. The comments about racism in the game should not reflect any user or critic's personal opinion, but rather convey facts to the reader, and allow them to make up their own decision. The two major references pertaining to the controversy from the game's trailer simply document the first allegation of Racism in within the mainstream gaming community, and comment from one of the game's producers. A controversy section would seem better if there were more reliable sources/information that could be added that expands the article, or if another controversy surfaced. Furthermore, I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Controversy and scandal, which discusses using the word "controversy" within articles, and when it may or may not be appropriate to use. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  13:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. --'The Ninjalemming' 14:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I shuffled around the "controversy" text because "controversy/scandal" sections are strongly discouraged now. — Realist² 02:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say something about my recent edits - sorry for delay in explaining them here and thanks for not knee-jerk reverting the big change I made.

I did read the above comments about how criticism/controvery sections are discouraged. However, what I have introduced is something quite different from a controversy section. Rather, it is a focused section on one particular controversy that arose during the marketing of the game which has a defined beginning middle and end. Separating it out from the main time line therefore makes for easier reading. Also, it assists in a neutral presentation since all of the facts surrounding the controversy, including the accusations and the responses, are in one place.

The problem with a general controversy section is that it can be a dumping ground for all of the different criticisms that have been made of the game. Particularly with a game like this, there are likely to be many (violence, gore, etc) and creating a section to cover them all would, I agree be a bad idea.

I hope that what I have done can be seen as a middle ground between inviting unbridled criticism of the game while nevertheless separating out from the rest a specific series of events that occurred.

Of course, if the racism issues erupt again once the game is released, a different structure might need to be found. GDallimore (Talk) 15:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I find that giving the controversy it's own section, violates WP:DUE here, especially considering its size. I'm not going to outright undo your well intentioned attempt at improving the article, but I do think this isn't the right way the handle the racism issue. I'd value more opinions.--Atlan (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Demo Release Date?

Why does the Demo release date change from Jan 2nd to 5th? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanpage19 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The demo for it was released today for the PS3; if someone would like to add it. -- Gouryella (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's already there.--Atlan (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Lighting feature

On the article, it still states that "If Redfield moves between bright and dark areas his eyes will have to adjust, causing the player to briefly lose some sight.", however, according to Capcom (Or their official forums, at least), this feature has been scrapped. I also saw nothing of the sort in the Demo. Can anyone confirm this is still the case? Dengarde ► Complaints 01:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've heard the same thing. I checked the source for the lighting effects and it actually says nothing about it, so I removed that part of the text. It would be nice if we had a reliable source saying this feature was scrapped though.--Atlan (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Does the "Accusations of Racism" part still need to be there?

Well after playing the demo, I noticed that there aren't only dark skinned villagers to kill, and there are a wide variety of other races (or at least it looks so) to fight. I really don't see what relevance the Racism part has on this game anymore, because few people are even mentioning the races anymore. Not to mention that the end of the racism paragraph sort of ends in a "Capcom is just trying to mask the racism" type of sentence. I won't go ahead an delete it because that's not my place to do so, but I'm just asking everyone to consider removing it. Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.98.108 (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, as I wrote in the above section a few hours ago. Its outdated and no longer relevant in my opinion. Jonny2x4 (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Get rid of it. Belasted (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I can see where you are comng from but it is still part of the games history and an important bit of information, it doesn't matter if it isn't sid about any more it happened so it should have a part of the article;if you want to edit it and make it horter that is fine in my opinion as less people think about it but other games with controvisies in still have it mentioned even if the game is old. This is probably completely irrelevent but it is lke getting rid of somethin about history on wikipedia such as a certain war or even a battle because 'no one talks about it', it is still releven no matter how old it is. Well that is my opinion, but we still probably need more peoples thought's on subject so wait a while longer to see, say two more days. --'The Ninjalemming'' 19:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be commentary from notable sources, and it doesn't look like the issue is going to fade away, judging from the Eurogamer hands-on comments. This has stirred notable amounts of discussion, whether one considers it a load of bullshit or not. Keep it.Mr T (Based) (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's notable enough for inclusion in the article. It's just that the way it is done now, with its own (quite large) section, violates WP:DUE. This section should be trimmed down.--Atlan (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well so far it is three for three, so wait for one more day and then we will decide. --'The Ninjalemming'' 17:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually we should try and shorten it before coming to a final decision, it will show us what it would look like and then give us a good idea of wheather it is still approperate. I better not be talking in a discussion that's dead in the water. --'The Ninjalemming'' 19:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a vote, I don't care that it's "three for three" (I'm aware of your canvassing at User talk:Xeno). The article needs to comply to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines if we want it to be good and balanced. Right now, this section is anything but balanced.--Atlan (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I knew that, I just wanted to make it seem unbiased and wanted to make it feel that peoples opinions were taking note of, as to not cause any disrupts to the community thing;sorry about the canvassing, I didn't know you couldn't do it, I wanted more people's opinions on the matter, won't do it again unless it's necessary. I will try to shorten it as much s I can but I am pretty usless at trying to get the inportant information out, so if you have time can you tell me what is making it unbalanced, other then the thing at the end. --'The Ninjalemming'' 21:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There's some new stuff on this at Eurogamer. Blend Games' assertion that accusations of racism are a thing of the past are obviously a bit wrong.Mr T (Based) (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

New Characters.

Shouldn't the characters Sherry Birkin, the Women in the Red Dress and the person in the bird mask be mentioned here to? They seem to be important seeing as they are in many trailers. --Dragon Lizard Reptileus (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Give them a mention if you wish but make sure your statments are backed up by references. I havn't seen many Resi 5 trailers but 'The woman in the Red dress' sounds suspiciously like Ada from Resi 2 and 4, we'll see. --'The Ninjalemming'' 14:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Capcom (Or rather, the mods on their official forums), the woman in red is a blond known as Allyson. She also makes several mentions on Experience Kijuju, which is a promotional blog made by Capcom following a character in Kijuju, known as Adam. Don't know if Adam is in the actual game though. Game informer has also mentioned one more new character, known as Josh, who you have to escort though the mine levels of the game. Dengarde ► Complaints 20:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I haven't seen Birkin in one trailer, never mind in "many" trailers.Daymeeee (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't know that, and neither do I, nor he. Sherry was 12 in RE2, and the story of RE5 takes place ten years later, so Sherry is now 22. I find it doubtful that ANYONE could recognize her in the trailers right now, being ten years older and with no concrete facial structure to recognize.Dengarde ► Complaints

I naturally assume that until someone is said to be in the game, any unknown characters in trailers are just that, unknown.Daymeeee (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As long as there is no reliable source stating any of these characters are in the game, they won't be mentioned in the article.--Atlan (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There is this, and the only suggestion I've seen that it's incorrect is that it's old. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire -past ops) 23:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Everytime 137.99.151.100 removes the link, I will simply put it back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrisonBreakguy (talk • contribs) 18:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/46048.htmlDaymeeee (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

AMiB. The problem wasn't that the source was old. The problem was that it was an unreliable secondary one. The Famitsu issue it cites never actually stated that Sherry was in the game. It should be Weekly Famitsu by the way, but the article doesn't even bother mentioning the issue number or date. Jonny2x4 (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you live in Japan? I know you speak Japanese. Either way, just leave it until March 5 unless you can find a link to that Famitsu article.

I don't live in Japan per se, but I do frequent Famitsu.com a lot, which republishes most of the articles they published in their magazine. Give me a moment and I'll find it. Either way, none of the Japanese sources I've read actually stated that Sherry was in the game (not even the Japanese Wikipedia article). Jonny2x4 (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you're lying but there really isn't any evidence per English magazines that contradict the info. And most of us don't speak Japanese.

Strafing

The game will lack strafing.[13] - What does strafing mean? Can somebody clarify this in the article. Thanks. — R² 15:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Strafe#Gaming.--Atlan (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. — R² 15:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)