This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Resident Evil 2 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Resident Evil 2" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Resident Evil 2 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 8, 2012. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Someone put "Quake" as the game engine, I chagned it to custom, until such time as it's properly researched, the right answer and cited, please do not change.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.205.44.2 ( talk) 21:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
According to moddb, the engine would be Renderware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.228.210 ( talk) 21:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
It's a completely custom engine used throughout all the PlayStation iterations of this series. Renderwave did exist back in 1996, but it was a Windows exclusive. Not even the PC ports make usage of Renderwave bits, in fact all the RE games run in some sort of graphical emulation with increased internal resolution. -- 151.45.252.204 ( talk) 19:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The characters, when in the "Danger" state, make no such use of their weapons as canes to help themselves along. The person who initially wrote that may be confusing the fact that while holding a weapon in that state, since the character's arm is doubled across their stomach and they limp so low to the ground, that it seems like they are using the weapon as a prop even though that is not the case, since the weapons can be de-equipped at any point and the characters still move the same in that state without them.
In the article it says william birkin released the t-virus, but i remember it as being the g-virus, he injected himself, then smashed it, where it then leaked into a drain. Am i right?
i agree Birkin did release the G-Virus into the sewer NOT the T-Virus. as i remember it and i also checked the game to make sure, birkin injects the g-virus into himself after hes attacked by the umbrella soldiers and the soldiers take his G-Virus.Birkin while contaminated by the G-virus goes after them and kills them leaving Hunk alive. while the soldiers were attacked the G-virus containers fell to the floor and broke and leaked out the virus, the rats then ate the virus. someone who refuses to play the game keeps vandalizing the article and keeps putting that Birkin released the T-Virus instead of the G-Virus. this same IDIOT is now adding his personal comments in the article itself. Does anyone agree with us that it was the G-Vrius that william leaked? or was it the T-Virus? please put your ideas here thank you Dick Grayson 21:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
oh ok thanks man for the information Dick Grayson 04:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree that Birkin put on his own body the G-virus in order to ger revenge (from Umbrella who sent soldiers to steal his work) and oufcourse in order save his life, but the MAIN outbreak was from T-VIRUS!!!
More specificily from the original diaries, from res:nemesis the T-virus released by the UMBRELLA DISPOSAL FACILITY(last chapter from nemesis), where due to extreme increase of the infected bodies who needed disposal, the silos, where full.
So those infected dead bodies just burried,or most of them thrown at the raccoon city sewage system.
Due to this some workers appeared the first symptoms of T-VIRUS infection.
Here i have some facts from Original Diaries:
-After canceling their previous game due to illness, the Umbrella SEWAGE PLANT worker, Thomas, easily beats the R.P.D. night watchman at a game of chess. The watchman observes that Thomas does not look well, and that the Umbrella worker never ceases talking about food.
Also the outbreak didnt start from dr.Birkin, cause when he is mutated to an enormous infected beast, the city was already started to be 'on fire'.
Part of the Outbreak may have been caused by the Factory but the virus was also stated to have been spread by infected rats (some of the smashed vials after Birkin attakced clearly contained the T-Virus and we see some rats uhm "drinking" it i suppose you could say)who attacked civillians.-- NobleServent2 20:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)NobleServent2
Bravo team was sent in to investigate some grisly murders in the Arklay Mountains region outside of Raccoon City. These grisly murders were all because of T-Virus and the events were even before Ecliptic Express attack of Marcus and arrival of Hunk's team. As Albert Wesker mentioned in his first report "The freak murder incidents had occurred in the forest near the mansion started
it all. The mansion was Umbrella's secret BOW laboratory and it was clear that
the in development T-Virus was the cause of the murder." So we can say that there was something going on before the major events. As a result the mansion and the labratory have been destroyed by STARS long before the assasination of William Birkin and there was no outbreak yet. The suitcase you are talking about was including both G-Virus And T-Virus samples. Two different colours of tubes can be seen around the rats. G Sample's tube was purple for sure as we know from the game.
This is explaining what green tubes are. T-Virus Samples. Sure thing the major event which triggers the outbreak is the underground facility attack and carrier rats.
[1]
SinanDC (
talk) 04:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that every "official" site in the External Links division leads to a foreign language alternative. Might I suggest leaving that to Wikipedia's Japanese alternatives and producing some outlets for our English readers? - AWF
I was going to write something on this version, but I'm unsure if anyone is keeping it off of this site or not. It's pretty extensive otherwise. Thaddius 00:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I added a few details to the "Nintendo 64 version" section. I added the info inside the ###:
"Ported by Angel Studios and released in 1999, the Nintendo 64 version was produced primarily as a forerunner for the unreleased N64 version of Resident Evil 0. The N64 version was based on the original Resident Evil 2 and thus, does not contain the Extreme Battle mode. However, it does contain force feedback via the N64 Rumble Pak, ### a high-resolution graphics mode via the N64 Expansion Pak, full surround sound via Factor 5's MusyX (previously known as MOsys FX) sound drivers, ### and several exclusive additions not found in any of the later versions (including the Nintendo GameCube version):
First Person Controls...
Since the N64 uses cartridges instead of optical discs, several compression techniques had to be used in order to fit all of the game's voice acting and FMV sequences into a 64MB (512-Mbit) cartridge (for more details see September 2000 issue of Game Developer magazine). Because of this, there is a noticeable drop in quality in scenes and dialogue compared to the original PlayStation version and certain "duplicate" FMV scenes were also removed, resulting in continuity errors such as Leon and Claire getting off on the wrong side of the police car in the 2nd Scenario and Ada speaking to Annette in Claire's voice. ### Still, this was quite a feat for Angel Studios and the Nintendo 64. ### "
There was a popular april fools joke that circulated on the internet saying that if you beat the game with just using a handgun with one clip and a knife,you would unlock a secret character.I think the character's name was Akira.He was a giant sausage who would say "Sausage" whenever he shot. The Diablo article has a similar section about a fake secret.
It's actually called a magazine, not a clip. I just wanted to clear this up in case someone decided that this warranted inclusion in the article at some point in time. Bald Chihuahua
Tofu is a normal unlockable mode in the original version of RE2. Similar to the Hunk scenario, except as a block of Tofu. 75.129.96.93 ( talk) 08:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I just registered moments ago. I have never personally altered any wiki content, and would prefer not to do so with my rather sloppy style I have been reading wiki articles for educational gain for nearly two years. I have played this game dozens of times, and know it backwords and forwards. However, as I was reading this article I found that in certain sections, such as the the character bios contain information that seems to be relevant enough to the plot to be spoilers. A prime example is in Ada Wongs description it directly indicates she is a spy, and gives her exact motives. Also the Hunk profile, also gives aways the entire FMV scene in which he is relevant. Which I can tell from experience from my play throught of the game plays a significant role in alluding to the plot at that point in the game.
I hope this is a valid discussion as it is my first, Thank You all for your hard work.
The section mentioning the substitution of Elza Walker for Claire Redfield states that it made more sense. Yet, with the article's admission of retention of basic characteristics, plus Claire's relation to Chris making absolutely no difference in the story until Code: Veronica, I don't understand how this is the case. If anything, the change during development was done merely for the sake of doing it.
Reply: The reason for changing Elza to Claire was to give the game a further connection to the first one since no characters from the first game (save an unlockable Brad) actually appear in the game. Van Redd 17:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Anyone remember back when RE2 was first released, int he back of the booklet they had a contest where the winner was given a walk-on, non-speaking role in the RE film? The entry form is included in the back of the Playstation, original RE2 instruction book. Does anyone have any information on what happened with the contest? Should this information be included in the article? -- Jazz Remington 19:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I put Ada and Sherry back in the "playable characters" section, because they are infact playable and should be there.
-October 25, 2006 -MidnightClub
Normally, plot sections are too long. This one is waaaay too short. Somebody able to fix that (I have never played the game, so it won't be me). Ingolfson 21:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I wrote a quite detailed(not too detailed) summary of the two scenarios sets quite a while back but someone deleted it.Why?The summary present was and is woefully inadaquate. Playboyoreo ( talk) 23:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
RPD Page gone? What happened to the page that listed a bunch of the RPD officers and thier current status, along with the unit's history, vehicles and weapons? Could someone tell me what happened to it?
Would it still be in the history because I want to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger02147 ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
How far is it back in the History, I just want to see it, you don't have to put the section back-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.7.49 ( talk) 10:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thanks man, but there was a page linked in this one telling about all known RPD officers and the department.
on Evilresource.com I saw a "news update" saying there was to be a wii-ported version of BioHazard 2. the "evidence" is linked here. OsirisV ( talk) 12:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Haven't got a clue if this is allowed or not but I've done it for some of the reviews. E.g. http://psx.ign.com/reviews/504.html takes you to a 404, whereas http://web.archive.org/web/19990429091320/http://psx.ign.com/reviews/504.html takes you to the review. Thought this was better than just providing a non-working link and then having it and the content it sources removed. Advice? Mr T (Based) ( talk) 17:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
This new section is not very well written and seems much too long. I am going to flag it for improvement. Or kill it. sinneed ( talk) 20:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#List. Geoff B ( talk) 15:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Technically, it WAS Resident Evil 2 before being scrapped, and I think it is imperative we at least include a separate section for it if there won't be an article about it anytime soon. I think people would appreciate more information on it as I can assume that it is searched for often within Wikipedia, however, there is little information on it. Last Best Hope of Humanity ( talk) 04:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
There's actually a whole lot of information about this game in many websites including "BioFlames" and "The Horror Is Alive". Hopefully, I'll get around to making an extensive page about the game some time in the future. It could definitely use some acknowledgment here on Wiki. Keiji Dragon ( talk) 04:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I know. I meant within the Wiki. Although I definitely agree that it deserves acknowledgment on Wikipedia of all places. I was surprised that there wasn't even a section within this article talking about it. Last Best Hope of Humanity ( talk) 10:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
lolwut? -- Asperchu ( talk) 13:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Since I noticed that this was up for GAN, I thought I'd mention that numerous print reviews for the game may be found in the Online print archive. They are as follows:
I realize that you already have quite a few reviews in the Reception section, but a wider base of sources never hurts. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 06:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
As pointed out before, indiscriminate lists of differences are not what a Wikipedia article is for. Also, as per the video game project's guidelines, lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts, as well as exhaustive version histories are not allowed. Beyond that, embedded lists are not appropriate here because they merely repeat what is already said in prose, the rest being trivial and/or unexplained information that leaves the reader oblivious to its meaning (cheats, technical details etc.). Some of the points added are not backed up by the references used, others use unreliable self-published sources such as GameFAQs contributions, or are not sourced at all. The graphic and sound quality of the individual versions is explained in great detail in the reception section. The version name of the PlayStation rerelease is spelled Dual Shock Ver. as seen on the game's title screen and box covers, and "many" already is a potential POV word, which is why it is to be avoided.
The only thing that could potentially make sense here is a table with ticks and crosses, but this would also require additional reliable sources to be provided for the individual features, as the content in an FA may not deduce anything from other parts of information. Unless more editors agree that such a table is vital to the article, the prose-only version remains as the one supported by the FA reviewers. Prime Blue ( talk) 14:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
From the behavior, the time the account was registered and the other circumstances mentioned in the investigation, there was every reason to believe you are a sockpuppet of G-Zay. And there's only two disruptive editors involved in Resident Evil articles that would come into question otherwise, namely JohnRamirez and Asperchu. There is no other way than to use abbreviations in longer edit summaries, but it's not like the reasons were not explained to you on talk pages. Furthermore, it is hard to assume good faith when you engage on talk pages as a purported new user, yet keep reverting and reinstating the same mistakes that have been pointed out to you previously.
There were so many problems with those edits, it would be hard for anyone other than a copy-editor not to revert, the bulk being:
So if you think my edits are a problem, you should first prove that you're not a sockpuppet and then stick to the project's guidelines as well as community consensus rather than just trying to start an edit war – if anything, that'll make you less credible. Prime Blue ( talk) 13:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Here I’d like to discuss the ideal format for the “releases and ports” section. I signed up recently to Wikipedia precisely because I was dismayed at how lacking the RE2 ports section was. I was used to other pages, like RE4 and RE1, which lists each port as its own heading, which I found extremely useful for quickly understand the history ports for each game.
First, I’ll note that RE2 has one of the most confusing and complicated port histories in all of gaming. So this topic can get messy, since the subject matter is messy. For this reason, I separated each port into its own section since nearly every port has distinctive traits not found in the others. I’m of the belief that headings and subheadings should break up content whenever possible to allow the reader to find what they want as fast as possible. A section for ports is great, but a section for each port is better so the user can skip ports the user has no interest in (just like any other article where a user wants to know some but not all information about a topic).
Wikipedia is not a guide. This is true. But Wikipedia should present information in a logically and orderly manner. The prior version of the ports section didn’t list ports in chronological order. I say chronological is the best since it informs the reader by its very formatting. That seems obvious and I doubt anyone would contest this point.
It has been pointed out that same ports don’t warrant their own sections. It’s true that some ports are not as important as others, based on whatever standards. For instance, the Game.com version of RE2, it isn’t even able to be played anymore to my knowledge and reviewers panned it and generally nobody cared about it. But to be neutral, it needs to be reported (and for the sake of completeness). So in the prior version, the user was forced to read about it in the prose since it wasn’t separated from the rest of the more important ports. In my version, it has its own heading and can easily be skipped. This seems like a good thing to me.
I looked up a bunch of random articles on Wikipedia to see if they broke topics down into small subsections. For instance, the Chemistry article has many subsections containing only a few sentences. Anyway, that’s just one example.
And what about those who read a section but later forget and have to come back to it? I find myself frequently coming back and re-reading Wikipedia pages. Well, say I read about the Dreamcast port, but want to re-read that section. In the prior “all one section” version, I’ll have to hunt for the Dreamcast sentences amid all the rest. This takes more time and effort than needed. In my version, I can browse to the RE2 page, and easily click on the Dreamcast port subheading at the top. Very nice.
So there are my thoughts. Sub-headings are our friends. They exist for a reason. If we don’t use them because of aesthetic concerns, I question if we are remaining true to the spirit of Wikipedia or letting rules get in the way of informing the reader. Forgive me if I haven’t discussed this properly, I am new here, despite prior rumors. ;) Brumbek ( talk) 02:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Especially in Ada Wong's, where I just made an empty section because the article was so short? -- Barry Sandwich ( talk) 00:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
According to the October 21 1996 videotape source, 1.5 was originally shown at the V-Jump festival in July. However, according to " RESEARCH ON BIOHAZARD 2 final edition", released 1998, the first view was at TGS 1996 in late summer/autumn, where the development was so early that they could only show a character outline fighting a horde of zombies in an otherwise black screen (no backgrounds had been finished). A transcript source can be found here.-- OsirisV ( talk) 20:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I've located an instance of prose being mixed with numericals in the lead: "a team of 40 to 50 people over the course of one year and nine months". I haven't checked if this is repeated in the main body of the article. For consistency, the article should use one of these two. Hula Hup ( talk) 17:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that there hasn't really been an attempt to further update the information surrounding 1.5 section after the game finally leaked last year. Given that we have a fully playable build (or rather, what form of it being playable, anyways), we should be able to incorporate information from that version into it's own article, as for all intents and purposes, the game is it's own thing compared to what we know as Resident Evil 2 today. The only issue I see in giving it's own article, is I'm unsure how one would name the article. While it's been dubbed 1.5 by fans and the media (and to lesser degree, Capcom), I feel it wouldn't properly represent the name, since it was originally called Resident Evil 2. Could we perhaps call it "Resident Evil 2 (Prototype)"? I don't know, what do you guys think? Mendinso ( talk) 12:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
If there's significant coverage beyond forums of people obssessed with an unreleased game from 1997. -- Niemti ( talk) 15:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The usage of RE2 is under discussion, see the move request at talk:re2 -- 70.51.200.101 ( talk) 03:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Someone is remaking the game on Unreal Engine 4. [6]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Resident Evil 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Crazy as it sounds, Capcom want to create a board game based on RE2. PeterMan844 ( talk) 04:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
From the article:
These environments were created with a software program called O2, and each background took two to three weeks to render.
I can't find this "O2" rendering program, but The Retro Gamer blog thinks the source is mistaken confusing the SGI O2 workstation for Softimage 3.7. That source also notes 2-3 weeks × 1,250 images would take 70 years to render, suspecting it instead is the total rendering time. — Dispenser 14:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Considering a remake of Resident Evil 2 has been revealed and is being developed, would it be a good idea to create a separate article for it in the future, prior to the remake's release date? I think it would be a good idea, unless anyone wishes to make a section for it, of course. GUtt01 ( talk) 07:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
It is now being referred to by Capcom though as a "re-imagining" and not so much a remake. Dutch pop music fan ( talk) 20:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
RE2 remake won the best of show at game critics award.
http://www.gamecriticsawards.com/winners.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.39.78.108 ( talk) 01:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Therefore we can only say a book is being published therefore the text here explains what the book will say and will be removed since the owner is wiping other articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetechwizard21 ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
https://www.polygon.com/2019/1/21/18187446/resident-evil-2-history-capcom-hideki-kamiya TarkusAB talk 21:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Since the original RE and RE remake Wikipedia articles includes the year of release in the article title as well as the RE2 remake article, this article should be renamed for consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ki113r2073 ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The prototype is a notable cancelled game in its own right, and there are numerous fully fledged articles on it. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] The fact that there is now a playable version makes it even more relevant. It's basically a totally alternate game that was ditched and rebuilt by fans. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 12:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
The proof is in the pudding that a very lengthy article can be made.
Backstab #10 [1] 8.37.179.254 ( talk) 13:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Resident Evil 2 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Resident Evil 2" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Resident Evil 2 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 8, 2012. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Someone put "Quake" as the game engine, I chagned it to custom, until such time as it's properly researched, the right answer and cited, please do not change.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.205.44.2 ( talk) 21:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
According to moddb, the engine would be Renderware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.228.210 ( talk) 21:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
It's a completely custom engine used throughout all the PlayStation iterations of this series. Renderwave did exist back in 1996, but it was a Windows exclusive. Not even the PC ports make usage of Renderwave bits, in fact all the RE games run in some sort of graphical emulation with increased internal resolution. -- 151.45.252.204 ( talk) 19:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The characters, when in the "Danger" state, make no such use of their weapons as canes to help themselves along. The person who initially wrote that may be confusing the fact that while holding a weapon in that state, since the character's arm is doubled across their stomach and they limp so low to the ground, that it seems like they are using the weapon as a prop even though that is not the case, since the weapons can be de-equipped at any point and the characters still move the same in that state without them.
In the article it says william birkin released the t-virus, but i remember it as being the g-virus, he injected himself, then smashed it, where it then leaked into a drain. Am i right?
i agree Birkin did release the G-Virus into the sewer NOT the T-Virus. as i remember it and i also checked the game to make sure, birkin injects the g-virus into himself after hes attacked by the umbrella soldiers and the soldiers take his G-Virus.Birkin while contaminated by the G-virus goes after them and kills them leaving Hunk alive. while the soldiers were attacked the G-virus containers fell to the floor and broke and leaked out the virus, the rats then ate the virus. someone who refuses to play the game keeps vandalizing the article and keeps putting that Birkin released the T-Virus instead of the G-Virus. this same IDIOT is now adding his personal comments in the article itself. Does anyone agree with us that it was the G-Vrius that william leaked? or was it the T-Virus? please put your ideas here thank you Dick Grayson 21:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
oh ok thanks man for the information Dick Grayson 04:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree that Birkin put on his own body the G-virus in order to ger revenge (from Umbrella who sent soldiers to steal his work) and oufcourse in order save his life, but the MAIN outbreak was from T-VIRUS!!!
More specificily from the original diaries, from res:nemesis the T-virus released by the UMBRELLA DISPOSAL FACILITY(last chapter from nemesis), where due to extreme increase of the infected bodies who needed disposal, the silos, where full.
So those infected dead bodies just burried,or most of them thrown at the raccoon city sewage system.
Due to this some workers appeared the first symptoms of T-VIRUS infection.
Here i have some facts from Original Diaries:
-After canceling their previous game due to illness, the Umbrella SEWAGE PLANT worker, Thomas, easily beats the R.P.D. night watchman at a game of chess. The watchman observes that Thomas does not look well, and that the Umbrella worker never ceases talking about food.
Also the outbreak didnt start from dr.Birkin, cause when he is mutated to an enormous infected beast, the city was already started to be 'on fire'.
Part of the Outbreak may have been caused by the Factory but the virus was also stated to have been spread by infected rats (some of the smashed vials after Birkin attakced clearly contained the T-Virus and we see some rats uhm "drinking" it i suppose you could say)who attacked civillians.-- NobleServent2 20:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)NobleServent2
Bravo team was sent in to investigate some grisly murders in the Arklay Mountains region outside of Raccoon City. These grisly murders were all because of T-Virus and the events were even before Ecliptic Express attack of Marcus and arrival of Hunk's team. As Albert Wesker mentioned in his first report "The freak murder incidents had occurred in the forest near the mansion started
it all. The mansion was Umbrella's secret BOW laboratory and it was clear that
the in development T-Virus was the cause of the murder." So we can say that there was something going on before the major events. As a result the mansion and the labratory have been destroyed by STARS long before the assasination of William Birkin and there was no outbreak yet. The suitcase you are talking about was including both G-Virus And T-Virus samples. Two different colours of tubes can be seen around the rats. G Sample's tube was purple for sure as we know from the game.
This is explaining what green tubes are. T-Virus Samples. Sure thing the major event which triggers the outbreak is the underground facility attack and carrier rats.
[1]
SinanDC (
talk) 04:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that every "official" site in the External Links division leads to a foreign language alternative. Might I suggest leaving that to Wikipedia's Japanese alternatives and producing some outlets for our English readers? - AWF
I was going to write something on this version, but I'm unsure if anyone is keeping it off of this site or not. It's pretty extensive otherwise. Thaddius 00:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I added a few details to the "Nintendo 64 version" section. I added the info inside the ###:
"Ported by Angel Studios and released in 1999, the Nintendo 64 version was produced primarily as a forerunner for the unreleased N64 version of Resident Evil 0. The N64 version was based on the original Resident Evil 2 and thus, does not contain the Extreme Battle mode. However, it does contain force feedback via the N64 Rumble Pak, ### a high-resolution graphics mode via the N64 Expansion Pak, full surround sound via Factor 5's MusyX (previously known as MOsys FX) sound drivers, ### and several exclusive additions not found in any of the later versions (including the Nintendo GameCube version):
First Person Controls...
Since the N64 uses cartridges instead of optical discs, several compression techniques had to be used in order to fit all of the game's voice acting and FMV sequences into a 64MB (512-Mbit) cartridge (for more details see September 2000 issue of Game Developer magazine). Because of this, there is a noticeable drop in quality in scenes and dialogue compared to the original PlayStation version and certain "duplicate" FMV scenes were also removed, resulting in continuity errors such as Leon and Claire getting off on the wrong side of the police car in the 2nd Scenario and Ada speaking to Annette in Claire's voice. ### Still, this was quite a feat for Angel Studios and the Nintendo 64. ### "
There was a popular april fools joke that circulated on the internet saying that if you beat the game with just using a handgun with one clip and a knife,you would unlock a secret character.I think the character's name was Akira.He was a giant sausage who would say "Sausage" whenever he shot. The Diablo article has a similar section about a fake secret.
It's actually called a magazine, not a clip. I just wanted to clear this up in case someone decided that this warranted inclusion in the article at some point in time. Bald Chihuahua
Tofu is a normal unlockable mode in the original version of RE2. Similar to the Hunk scenario, except as a block of Tofu. 75.129.96.93 ( talk) 08:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I just registered moments ago. I have never personally altered any wiki content, and would prefer not to do so with my rather sloppy style I have been reading wiki articles for educational gain for nearly two years. I have played this game dozens of times, and know it backwords and forwards. However, as I was reading this article I found that in certain sections, such as the the character bios contain information that seems to be relevant enough to the plot to be spoilers. A prime example is in Ada Wongs description it directly indicates she is a spy, and gives her exact motives. Also the Hunk profile, also gives aways the entire FMV scene in which he is relevant. Which I can tell from experience from my play throught of the game plays a significant role in alluding to the plot at that point in the game.
I hope this is a valid discussion as it is my first, Thank You all for your hard work.
The section mentioning the substitution of Elza Walker for Claire Redfield states that it made more sense. Yet, with the article's admission of retention of basic characteristics, plus Claire's relation to Chris making absolutely no difference in the story until Code: Veronica, I don't understand how this is the case. If anything, the change during development was done merely for the sake of doing it.
Reply: The reason for changing Elza to Claire was to give the game a further connection to the first one since no characters from the first game (save an unlockable Brad) actually appear in the game. Van Redd 17:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Anyone remember back when RE2 was first released, int he back of the booklet they had a contest where the winner was given a walk-on, non-speaking role in the RE film? The entry form is included in the back of the Playstation, original RE2 instruction book. Does anyone have any information on what happened with the contest? Should this information be included in the article? -- Jazz Remington 19:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I put Ada and Sherry back in the "playable characters" section, because they are infact playable and should be there.
-October 25, 2006 -MidnightClub
Normally, plot sections are too long. This one is waaaay too short. Somebody able to fix that (I have never played the game, so it won't be me). Ingolfson 21:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I wrote a quite detailed(not too detailed) summary of the two scenarios sets quite a while back but someone deleted it.Why?The summary present was and is woefully inadaquate. Playboyoreo ( talk) 23:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
RPD Page gone? What happened to the page that listed a bunch of the RPD officers and thier current status, along with the unit's history, vehicles and weapons? Could someone tell me what happened to it?
Would it still be in the history because I want to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger02147 ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
How far is it back in the History, I just want to see it, you don't have to put the section back-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.7.49 ( talk) 10:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thanks man, but there was a page linked in this one telling about all known RPD officers and the department.
on Evilresource.com I saw a "news update" saying there was to be a wii-ported version of BioHazard 2. the "evidence" is linked here. OsirisV ( talk) 12:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Haven't got a clue if this is allowed or not but I've done it for some of the reviews. E.g. http://psx.ign.com/reviews/504.html takes you to a 404, whereas http://web.archive.org/web/19990429091320/http://psx.ign.com/reviews/504.html takes you to the review. Thought this was better than just providing a non-working link and then having it and the content it sources removed. Advice? Mr T (Based) ( talk) 17:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
This new section is not very well written and seems much too long. I am going to flag it for improvement. Or kill it. sinneed ( talk) 20:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#List. Geoff B ( talk) 15:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Technically, it WAS Resident Evil 2 before being scrapped, and I think it is imperative we at least include a separate section for it if there won't be an article about it anytime soon. I think people would appreciate more information on it as I can assume that it is searched for often within Wikipedia, however, there is little information on it. Last Best Hope of Humanity ( talk) 04:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
There's actually a whole lot of information about this game in many websites including "BioFlames" and "The Horror Is Alive". Hopefully, I'll get around to making an extensive page about the game some time in the future. It could definitely use some acknowledgment here on Wiki. Keiji Dragon ( talk) 04:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I know. I meant within the Wiki. Although I definitely agree that it deserves acknowledgment on Wikipedia of all places. I was surprised that there wasn't even a section within this article talking about it. Last Best Hope of Humanity ( talk) 10:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
lolwut? -- Asperchu ( talk) 13:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Since I noticed that this was up for GAN, I thought I'd mention that numerous print reviews for the game may be found in the Online print archive. They are as follows:
I realize that you already have quite a few reviews in the Reception section, but a wider base of sources never hurts. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 06:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
As pointed out before, indiscriminate lists of differences are not what a Wikipedia article is for. Also, as per the video game project's guidelines, lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts, as well as exhaustive version histories are not allowed. Beyond that, embedded lists are not appropriate here because they merely repeat what is already said in prose, the rest being trivial and/or unexplained information that leaves the reader oblivious to its meaning (cheats, technical details etc.). Some of the points added are not backed up by the references used, others use unreliable self-published sources such as GameFAQs contributions, or are not sourced at all. The graphic and sound quality of the individual versions is explained in great detail in the reception section. The version name of the PlayStation rerelease is spelled Dual Shock Ver. as seen on the game's title screen and box covers, and "many" already is a potential POV word, which is why it is to be avoided.
The only thing that could potentially make sense here is a table with ticks and crosses, but this would also require additional reliable sources to be provided for the individual features, as the content in an FA may not deduce anything from other parts of information. Unless more editors agree that such a table is vital to the article, the prose-only version remains as the one supported by the FA reviewers. Prime Blue ( talk) 14:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
From the behavior, the time the account was registered and the other circumstances mentioned in the investigation, there was every reason to believe you are a sockpuppet of G-Zay. And there's only two disruptive editors involved in Resident Evil articles that would come into question otherwise, namely JohnRamirez and Asperchu. There is no other way than to use abbreviations in longer edit summaries, but it's not like the reasons were not explained to you on talk pages. Furthermore, it is hard to assume good faith when you engage on talk pages as a purported new user, yet keep reverting and reinstating the same mistakes that have been pointed out to you previously.
There were so many problems with those edits, it would be hard for anyone other than a copy-editor not to revert, the bulk being:
So if you think my edits are a problem, you should first prove that you're not a sockpuppet and then stick to the project's guidelines as well as community consensus rather than just trying to start an edit war – if anything, that'll make you less credible. Prime Blue ( talk) 13:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Here I’d like to discuss the ideal format for the “releases and ports” section. I signed up recently to Wikipedia precisely because I was dismayed at how lacking the RE2 ports section was. I was used to other pages, like RE4 and RE1, which lists each port as its own heading, which I found extremely useful for quickly understand the history ports for each game.
First, I’ll note that RE2 has one of the most confusing and complicated port histories in all of gaming. So this topic can get messy, since the subject matter is messy. For this reason, I separated each port into its own section since nearly every port has distinctive traits not found in the others. I’m of the belief that headings and subheadings should break up content whenever possible to allow the reader to find what they want as fast as possible. A section for ports is great, but a section for each port is better so the user can skip ports the user has no interest in (just like any other article where a user wants to know some but not all information about a topic).
Wikipedia is not a guide. This is true. But Wikipedia should present information in a logically and orderly manner. The prior version of the ports section didn’t list ports in chronological order. I say chronological is the best since it informs the reader by its very formatting. That seems obvious and I doubt anyone would contest this point.
It has been pointed out that same ports don’t warrant their own sections. It’s true that some ports are not as important as others, based on whatever standards. For instance, the Game.com version of RE2, it isn’t even able to be played anymore to my knowledge and reviewers panned it and generally nobody cared about it. But to be neutral, it needs to be reported (and for the sake of completeness). So in the prior version, the user was forced to read about it in the prose since it wasn’t separated from the rest of the more important ports. In my version, it has its own heading and can easily be skipped. This seems like a good thing to me.
I looked up a bunch of random articles on Wikipedia to see if they broke topics down into small subsections. For instance, the Chemistry article has many subsections containing only a few sentences. Anyway, that’s just one example.
And what about those who read a section but later forget and have to come back to it? I find myself frequently coming back and re-reading Wikipedia pages. Well, say I read about the Dreamcast port, but want to re-read that section. In the prior “all one section” version, I’ll have to hunt for the Dreamcast sentences amid all the rest. This takes more time and effort than needed. In my version, I can browse to the RE2 page, and easily click on the Dreamcast port subheading at the top. Very nice.
So there are my thoughts. Sub-headings are our friends. They exist for a reason. If we don’t use them because of aesthetic concerns, I question if we are remaining true to the spirit of Wikipedia or letting rules get in the way of informing the reader. Forgive me if I haven’t discussed this properly, I am new here, despite prior rumors. ;) Brumbek ( talk) 02:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Especially in Ada Wong's, where I just made an empty section because the article was so short? -- Barry Sandwich ( talk) 00:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
According to the October 21 1996 videotape source, 1.5 was originally shown at the V-Jump festival in July. However, according to " RESEARCH ON BIOHAZARD 2 final edition", released 1998, the first view was at TGS 1996 in late summer/autumn, where the development was so early that they could only show a character outline fighting a horde of zombies in an otherwise black screen (no backgrounds had been finished). A transcript source can be found here.-- OsirisV ( talk) 20:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I've located an instance of prose being mixed with numericals in the lead: "a team of 40 to 50 people over the course of one year and nine months". I haven't checked if this is repeated in the main body of the article. For consistency, the article should use one of these two. Hula Hup ( talk) 17:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that there hasn't really been an attempt to further update the information surrounding 1.5 section after the game finally leaked last year. Given that we have a fully playable build (or rather, what form of it being playable, anyways), we should be able to incorporate information from that version into it's own article, as for all intents and purposes, the game is it's own thing compared to what we know as Resident Evil 2 today. The only issue I see in giving it's own article, is I'm unsure how one would name the article. While it's been dubbed 1.5 by fans and the media (and to lesser degree, Capcom), I feel it wouldn't properly represent the name, since it was originally called Resident Evil 2. Could we perhaps call it "Resident Evil 2 (Prototype)"? I don't know, what do you guys think? Mendinso ( talk) 12:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
If there's significant coverage beyond forums of people obssessed with an unreleased game from 1997. -- Niemti ( talk) 15:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The usage of RE2 is under discussion, see the move request at talk:re2 -- 70.51.200.101 ( talk) 03:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Someone is remaking the game on Unreal Engine 4. [6]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Resident Evil 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Crazy as it sounds, Capcom want to create a board game based on RE2. PeterMan844 ( talk) 04:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
From the article:
These environments were created with a software program called O2, and each background took two to three weeks to render.
I can't find this "O2" rendering program, but The Retro Gamer blog thinks the source is mistaken confusing the SGI O2 workstation for Softimage 3.7. That source also notes 2-3 weeks × 1,250 images would take 70 years to render, suspecting it instead is the total rendering time. — Dispenser 14:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Considering a remake of Resident Evil 2 has been revealed and is being developed, would it be a good idea to create a separate article for it in the future, prior to the remake's release date? I think it would be a good idea, unless anyone wishes to make a section for it, of course. GUtt01 ( talk) 07:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
It is now being referred to by Capcom though as a "re-imagining" and not so much a remake. Dutch pop music fan ( talk) 20:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
RE2 remake won the best of show at game critics award.
http://www.gamecriticsawards.com/winners.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.39.78.108 ( talk) 01:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Therefore we can only say a book is being published therefore the text here explains what the book will say and will be removed since the owner is wiping other articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetechwizard21 ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
https://www.polygon.com/2019/1/21/18187446/resident-evil-2-history-capcom-hideki-kamiya TarkusAB talk 21:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Since the original RE and RE remake Wikipedia articles includes the year of release in the article title as well as the RE2 remake article, this article should be renamed for consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ki113r2073 ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The prototype is a notable cancelled game in its own right, and there are numerous fully fledged articles on it. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] The fact that there is now a playable version makes it even more relevant. It's basically a totally alternate game that was ditched and rebuilt by fans. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 12:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
The proof is in the pudding that a very lengthy article can be made.
Backstab #10 [1] 8.37.179.254 ( talk) 13:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)