Talk:Resident Evil 7: Biohazard

VII or 7?

It's hard to pinpoint whether it's called VII or 7 because the on-screen title has the game stylized as EVII. How clever...Thank you! (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Every single place I can find, including the trailer on the PlayStation YouTube channel and Resident Evil's own channel have it named as 'Resident Evil 7 biohazard'. I think that, at the very least, the article should be called 'Resident Evil 7: Biohazard'. 187.21.129.120 (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, the title seems to use the number 7 officially while only the logo is stylised using Roman numerals as a design feature. It's worth noting that the Japanese logo however uses "7". — Dell9300 (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

OK. It's officially called 7: Biohazard now. I still really like what they did with its logo, though. :-) Thank you! (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Info to add in the article.

According to the Senior Marketing Director at Capcom, the team behind Resident Evil 7 have been working on the game before P.T. came out.

https://twitter.com/OnlyOneT/status/742591710757195776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

http://www.gamesradar.com/many-are-calling-resident-evil-7-the-new-silent-hills-but-its-so-much-more-than-that/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.88.93.248 (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree when they say they aren't copying it.Thank you! (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and recent game articles like Fallout 4 no longer specify the distribution media, whereas previously one would find in infoboxes a "Distribution media" field and next to it a text would say "Optical disc, digital download" but I don't see that anymore, nor do I see game articles listing the system requirements (Windows/Mac/Linux versions only) --Fandelasketchup (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Albert Wesker

I have removed the information regarding Albert Wesker's alleged performance in Resident Evil 7: Biohazard. While the sources given state that someone found data in the game suggesting there will be a character called 'Albert' in Resident Evil 7. There is no further conclusive evidence or official statement from CapCom given whether this will in fact be Albert Wesker.

• One of the sources, TrendMedia is an article that has been almost entirely plagiarized from a small blog - Yibada. Again this article does not offer any official evidence.
• LOD Tech does not even discuss how Wesker was allegedly discovered to be in Resident Evil 7. It mentions nothing about the data-mining nor the fact the leak only pointed to just a character named 'Albert'.
• Two other sources, Playstation Lifestyle and EuroGamer, offers the same claims: A character named 'Albert', assumed to be Wekser.
• The actual data dump from NeoGAF Forums (which is apparently the source of the leak), even states that this is a character just named 'Albert', claiming "LastBossAlbert(NO RELATION TO WESKER, sounds like it's just his guns appear in the game". Almost every instance of 'Albert' in the dump is a reference to an item.

Unless there is something more concrete, Wesker's appearance in Resi 7 is speculation at this point. Three sources based on rumors and speculation do not classify as reliable sources. Rumors and speculative theories from un-reliable sources are considered original research. Wesker could in fact be in the game, but we would need something official and clear to validate this. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  06:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Plot improvement

The plot is missing some very important parts and very important imformation. Please add this mising imformation (i can do it myself anyway) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.166.160.57 (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Is this game supposed to be a semi-reboot?

It has little to do with the other Resident Evil stories at all, in my view.PeterMan844 (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Physical discomfort

"[...] decreased resolution and physical discomfort cited as its chief offenses." What does this even mean? People got physically sick from playing a horror game (which isn't a legitimate criticism)? Or does it mean the game's elements triggered epileptic responses in a large number of people? citation needed please 73.247.148.84 (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Reverted edit

I made this edit that got reverted. I didn't really understand the edit summary in the revert, but I made that clarification because the current wording seems to suggest that the Xbox version supports the PSVR. --uKER (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It is obvious that PlayStation VR does not support anything but the PlayStation 4. No need to clarify. Cognissonance (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It's as if I said "some of my pets are birds and some are dogs, and some of them can fly". Although it's obvious that the ones that are dogs won't be able to fly, there's no need to have this ridiculous wording. Also, the consoles' thing is obvious to us, who are into the subject of matter, but a layman reading that should be led to think that the Xbox One game does support PSVR. --uKER (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Reverted again... by the same user?

Just like in the discussion right above this one, I just made an edit which got reverted for dubious reasons despite a justification being specified in my edit summary. I don't have a problem with you saying the forecast has to be on a separate paragraph, but fixing that would have taken a mere hit of the enter key. You reverting me arguing that "the previous text flows better" (a completely subjective argument) only calls my attention to the fact that it was you who wrote the previous text. My issue with your text is that it says the game was forecast to get a given number of sales, but doesn't specify who made that forecast. For what your text's worth, the forecast could have been made by Billy, who cleans the toilets at Gamestop. Being the second time it's happened, it would be greatly appreciated if you could take it easier with the trigger finger to revert other people's edits just because they've edited what you wrote. Cheers. --uKER (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Resident Evil 7: Biohazard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 03:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Be advised rather than bringing up any minor issues I will just fix them myself. If you're unhappy with any changes I make simply revert them and we can instead discuss the issue here. Also feel free to reply to my concerns as they come in; don't feel like you have to wait for the entire review to be finished. Freikorp (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   Lead

   Some indication of who Ethan is would be nice. Especially since I am familiar with previous RE games (though I haven't played this one) I felt the need to scroll down immediately to find out whether he was a soldier or STARS member etc, but I'm sure all readers would benefit from this, so describing him as a civilian in the lead would be good. Also why is he wikilinked in gameplay yet not in the lead?

   A brief indication of what the 'molded' are would be good. Are they human? I literally have no idea.

   "Instead of being action-oriented" - Maybe clarify that recent RE games have been more action oriented, like "Instead of being action oriented like the more recent games in the series..."

   Gameplay

   Surprisingly this section gives no further clarification to what/who the 'molded' are. Granted some indication is given towards the end of the plot, but readers shouldn't have to get that far into the article to find out what these creatures are.

   "Unlike the more recent Resident Evil installments" - I think it would be helpful to specify a couple of these more action oriented installments.

   "Item boxes may also be used to manage and store items for later use" - Some more clarification of what an item box is would be good. Where are they found? If you put an item in one can you retrieve it from a different item box?

   Plot

   It isn't a requirement to have sources in the plot, but it's a good idea.

   Some more indication of who Ethan is would be nice, or do we never find out any more about him? All I know from the plot about him personally is that he is a man with a missing wife. Do we know where he comes from? What he does for a living? If not, consider specifying somehow that he is not well introduced to the player, rather than just not mentioning anything at all.

   Nothing is known about his life before the game. Feel awkward adding "civilian" or "Texas resident" (Mia has Texas driver's license). Cognissonance (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

   I do think it's important to convey this intentional absence of information to the reader somehow, even if it's something as blunt as saying something like "In 2017, Ethan Winters, a civilian whose background remains a mystery, (...)" . Freikorp (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

   "E-Series bioweapon" - this is just confusing. E-Series? As opposed to say, D-Series? Which we also don't know anything about. What does this mean? I'd consider just dropping that entirely. And "bioweapon" is a bit vague. Can you be more specific? Perhaps calling it a biologically engineered weapon, or bio-engineered weapon? With the wikilink. Does RE7 specifically use the term bioweapon? RE5 uses the term "bio-organic weapon" in game.

   The prose in this section isn't fantastic, but copyediting isn't my strong suit. I won't fail you on the current workding, but consider either going over it with a fine comb or just placing it in line at the Guild of Copy Editors.

   Will do. Cognissonance (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

   Development

   "from The Evil Dead film" - I think this would be better worded as "from the 1981 film The Evil Dead"

   "because its considerable demand for equipment made it unviable for transport" - I feel like I might be missing something obvious, but I don't understand what you're saying here.

   It says in the source that "One problem with the photogrammetry is that it requires a lot of gear - too much to haul around to the US and back, which was a problem for the developer as it's making a game set in Louisiana. As such, Capcom had to do some things the old fashioned way by taking fewer pictures for inspiration then modeling assets by hand." Cognissonance (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

   Release and marketing

   "Over 2,000,000 players accumulated worldwide, with over 200,000 of them being VR users." - In what time frame are we referring to here?

   The latest stat update was on 20 May 2017, but is subject to change. Should I add the date anyway? Cognissonance (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

   I think it's a good idea to add the date. Freikorp (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

   @Freikorp: Just visited the source and it now says 22 May 2017. Seems to be updating itself each day. Cognissonance (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

   Yeah just had a look myself and it definitely looks like a frequently update list. I'll leave it up to you if you want to add the date or not. Freikorp (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

   The source is going to say June 2017 next month and so on. Cannot keep up with that. Cognissonance (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

   Reception

   That second paragraph is pretty massive. It's not necessarily a problem, but can you explain why you've given so much weight to the reviews of Furniss and Carsillo?

   They are simply more substantial because I wrote the section starting with them and had more energy as opposed to the end of the writing session. Cognissonance (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

   "Flashbacks via VHS tapes also received commendation, as it offered him one of his favorite features." I'm confused. Are you saying the Flashbacks via VHS tapes were one of his favorite features? If so, I suggest simplifying to exactly that. I.e He considered Flashbacks via VHS tapes to be one of his favorite features.

   "Capcom gave the game a lifetime sales forecast of 10 million units" - when did they say this? Also try and avoid one sentence paragraphs if possible.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Fact: articles that don't have their sources archived are far more likely to fail GA or FA reassessments due to link rot. It might take years, but eventually a good chunk of those sources that are live now will be deadlinks. It's not required to pass GA, but I strongly recommend you archive all your sources. It is a massive pain to do to this many sources; personally when it comes to stuff like this I set myself short goals, say archive just five references a day. They'll be done soon enough. Personally I now archive all sources prior to GA nomination. If you're not going to archive the sources, at the very least you could add the 'accessdate' parameter to all your 'cite web' references.

   Will do. Cognissonance (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   A couple recent contested reversions but nothing big enough to concern me

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   The cover art image strikes me as too large for a non-free image, and it doesn't need to be that big anyway. It only needs to be as large as it appears in the infobox. Have a look at how big the cover art is on the featured articles Resident Evil 2 and Resident Evil 5.

   Reduced size. Cognissonance (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

   The gameplay image is OK, but I can't help but think you can find a image with better lighting. I can't really tell how good the game's graphics are from this image.

   Found none with better lighting that aren't promotional. Improved the existing image. Cognissonance (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

   Much better. Freikorp (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   I'm not sure if you can justify a non-free image of the engine's logo, or if it really improves the article, but I'm not going to contest it myself

   It's not a GA requirement, but I think it's a good idea to add ALTs for your images

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Well done on the article overall. Placing this one on hold so issues can be addressed. Freikorp (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

All issues have been addressed. Happy for this to pass now. Congrats. Freikorp (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe a separate article for RE Engine?

After the release of Resident Evil 2 remake, there will be two games using RE Engine. I don't think that redirect to RE7 is a correct way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equalent (talk • contribs) 20:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I doubt there will significate coverage on the engine when RE2 remake is release to justify an article. No need to change the redirect since the RE Engine was initially designed for RE7. TheDeviantPro (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Should Banned Footage Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 be included?

A relatively new contributor has recently added most of the episodes from the game's DLCs Banned Footage Vol. 1 and Banned Footage Vol. 2 to the Plot section. Considering the game's later DLCs Not a Hero and End of Zoe, which are longer and more plot-orientated, have only ever been included, should those from Banned Footage be eligible? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Does "stylized as…" belong?

Right now, in a footnote on the game's title, the article includes

Stylized as RESIDENT EVII. biohazard. Known in Japan as Biohazard 7: Resident Evil (Japanese: バイオハザード7 レジデント イービル, Hepburn: Baiohazādo Sebun Rejidento Ībiru), stylized as BIOHA7.ARD resident evil.

My thought is no, per MOS:TMSTYLE: not only does trying to indicate the VII/7 tucked away in the logo run afoul of a guideline against colorization, attempts to emulate font choices, or other elaborate effects, but also the suggestion that When a stylization appears only in a logo rather than within text (in either primary or independent reliable sources), it generally does not need to be mentioned at the top of the article. — in running text, the game is universally referred to as "Resident Evil 7" (or "Biohazard 7"), not "Resident EVII." in some attempt to replicate the logo. For example, the official site only ever uses "Resident Evil 7". With that in mind, I removed the "stylized as…" stuff. However, my edit was quickly undone. So: should these "stylized as" messages be included on this page? — Kawnhr (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Second first-person game in the series?

— Resident Evil 7: Biohazard is a survival horror game viewed from the first-person – the second game in the series and the first main line game to use such a perspective.

(emphasis mine)

Depending on whether Dead Aim counts (the shooting is in first person) it's at least two or three titles (the two Gun Survivor games). I would probably prefer just removing that part as it adds nothing to the article 2A02:908:1068:8500:0:0:0:6B09 (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)