Talk:Dead Rising (video game)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Open Ended

What happened to the Open Ended section---should this be redone or removed? Chris4682

Kind of unrelated-in the article it says "The storyline may simply be ignored, leaving the player free to just...". Last time I played (it's been a while) you had to do the main story or you'd get a game over. Has that changed with a patch or something, or what? -No account.

No you can still continue after you fail -Megadeth1539

Yeah, like they said. You can completely ignore the story missions if you want. Also, there's a 'mission-free' mode where you wait until 5:00 on the first day to enter the warehouse, and instead of running into Jessie you get the Queen Bee cutscene and cannot activate any story-missions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.91.248 (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed

I removed this sentence: the extended tv spot of Dead Rising has revealed that it was actually a lawnmower, NOT a snowblower

...and changed the text to lawnmower

Signed: Travb (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Putting this in the same section as the lawnmower bit, but some immature person wrote in Kent's entry: "Also when he dies, he asks Frank to "suck my dick.""

Signed: Anonomous 05:21, 6 September 2006 (US Central Time)

Demo

Dead Rising demo just around the corner.

Posted on Tuesday, August 1st, 2006

www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=143688

"An arrival date for the demo has yet to be confirmed, but a spokesperson for Capcom’s Euro arm informed us this morning that news on that should be released shortly - like within the next 48 hours."

Signed: Travb (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Not banned

the rumor that the Dead rising was band in Germany has been debunked by 1up.com [1]. there for need to be changed or removed. --Sinper 09:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Travb/If I had a nickel
Signed: Travb (talk) 09:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

that was called for seeing as i still learning how wikipedia works and that it had a post restriction on it.:|--Sinper 16:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I find that rumour kind of ironic actually. I understand that ther are several other games that have been altered in Germany so that humans that are likely to die are represented as zombies or robots. Seems to me that indictes that Germany is okay with the concept of mass zombie death. Master Deusoma 22:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The Demo

Recently, I discovered the demo on Xbox Live Marketplace as of August 4th. Made the appropriate change. CyborgZeta 12:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Awesome Cyborrg--thanks A LOT! I love wikipedia. Travb (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Go figure, all the blogs are talking about it: http://technorati.com/search/dead%20rising%20demo

...but I can't see it. The blogs all have a link here: http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/d/deadrising/default.htm signed: Travb (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Demo not available for download in Australia/New Zealand?

In responce to -> "This demo is currently available on the North American Xbox Live. However, it is not available in Mexico, Germany, Australia, New Zealand or Asia."

This is not true, I live in New Zealand and I downloaded the demo before buying the game... And no, my console is not an import. I can't confirm if this is true for Australia as well, but I would assume so as I suspect New Zealand probably rides off the Aussie Live server.

Censored in Japan?

The DR demo hit XBox Live in Japan as well, and according to a Japanese blog it's getting censored somewhat -- Capcom cleaned up some of the more violent aspects of zombie killing (namely decapitations). Insert Credit and kotaku both mentioned that it's not going to be possible to accidentally (or, if you're sadistic enough, purposefully) kill innocent bystanders, but I didn't see that in the post.

This is my translation and it may not be 100% accurate, but once more information comes out about the Japanese release (around the end of the September, more than likely) it may be 100% confirmed or debunked.

I didn't get to play the North American demo, but a development version of the domestic release.

I'll updates my report about the game in a few days, but for now here are my first impressions.

I'm not going to be scared by these zombies! ヽ(´ー｀)ノ

The area's surrounded by about 50 zombies, and even though it seemed like it was impossible to make it through, I got 50 kills by just hitting the zombies up close (laugh)

I understand I'm playing a journalist, but why bother taking pictures? (laugh)

I'm REALLY impressed by the dozens of zombies here! ヽ(´ー｀)ノ

Incidently, the domestic version is different from the North American edition; I hear that they're removing some of the more shocking aspects here.

For instance, the loss of body parts... I was able to remove the right arm but I wasn't able to perform a decapitation.

At first, they were going to give it a Z rating, but it seems like they're developing for a different rating now.

However, although I haven't played the American version, it seems they kept in all of the blood! When a zombie was hit with a bench, the ground was covered in it (laugh)

I'm not sure whether these censors will affect the game sales, I'm thinking that the domestic version will do for me.

Here's where I saw it mentioned: [2]

And here's the blog: [3] --Maikeru 22:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Tone?

In the "Save System" section, the tone seems a bit inappropriate for Wikipedia: "Since the main plot quests are on a fixed timeline, getting lost and enjoying yourself in the open world of the mall could leave you playing the initial parts of the game repeatedly (probably more efficiently each time, if that's a consolation)."

I propose removing the paranthetical remarks at the end, and changing the sentence as a whole from the second-person to the third-person. Thoughts? ellF 15:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe I read that sentence word-for-word in one of the review articles; however, as it is not sourced as such, it can probably be removed.FDeziel 11:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

MSP?

I would move for this game to be categorized as a Massively single-player game. Fifty7 17:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The MSP article notes: "A massively single-player" game is one in which player-created content is asynchronously downloaded from thousands of other users' computers", which is NOT a function of Dead Rising. There has been some DLC available (New outfits), but no player-created content. I agree that there needs to be some new terminology to address "big" games like Oblivion and Dead Rising, but I don't think MSP applies here GilloD 15:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

--65.185.108.212 14:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)== Offensive Message? ==

I've heard people mention the message of the game as being: "fat Americans are willing to destroy a city just so they can keep eating" because every fat person in the game is evil, moronic, or both, and almost all of them represent an aspect of American culture (i.e. Rednecks, Cops, etc.). does anyone else agree? and should that be on the article?

Yes, I've also heard people mention that the crazy clown with the chainsaws represents Bush.

How so?

The above is mere speculation and conjecture; if you wish to include it in the page you will need to locate and reference the source of these allegations. Please sign your posts with four tildes (~). FDeziel 11:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's a "message" or not, but there is in fact at least one survivor who thinks with his stomach. I think his name was either Kevin or Randall. You find him in a restaurant, whining about how he is starving to death, completely ignoring the fact that he's surrounded by the living dead. He'll only join you when you give him some kind of food, and when he gets back to the security room, he attempts to get other survivors to join him in going back to the mall to hunt for food, unless you give him more. Annoying? Yes, very much so. Political Message... I dunno. Master Deusoma 22:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"eat to live" vs "live to eat" is definetely an underlying theme here, especially if you see the game through to the very end (the quote after credits, not included to avoid spoilering). With zombies, their unquenchable hunger is one of the reasons why we find them so repulsive. But i think taking it personally as "Capcom hates fatty americans!" is a little extreme. One of the "bigger" bosses even happens to be a rather large man of asian descent. If anything, i think of it as more of a story of first world exploiting third world with its excess, and commenting on a more global view of human nature. [[User:|User:]] 15:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason it can be taken as being directed at Americans is Carlito comparing Americans to zombies when he says "All they do is eat, and eat and grow in number. Just like you good old red, white and blue Americans" Lucas B.-G. --65.185.108.212 14:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Modern zombie horror, since its inception in the 60s, has always been about the mindless consumption of Americans. It isn't just food, it's mindless consumption. Why do you think it takes place in a shopping mall? The "psychopaths" represent all the extremists in the U.S., gun-nuts, religious-nuts, war-mongers, violent criminals, workaholics, etc., and the zombies represent all the rest of Americans, mindlessly wandering shopping malls and slowly devouring any spark of real life.--The Yar 21:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been said in interviews that the theme of the zombies, the American shopping mall, the needing more cows to feed America was tongue-in-cheek. So, it was intentional, so it might be wroth noting in the article. 69.29.217.154 06:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Some Guy

Trivia Section

There appears to be a need to discuss whether or not the 'trivia' section should be included or excluded from the article, given it has been removed and re-added several times by various people. Please discuss this issue here. For what it's worth, please note that a large proportion of Movie entries in the Wiki have extensive trivia sections (though these are often lifted directly from imdb). FDeziel 16:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Tell me, is the trivia relevant to the article? The information is so indiscriminate that there's no way it is relevant. The people putting it back up seem to have no knowledge of the policies and guidelines, and they also appear to be actively adding trivia to other articles. This is an encyclopedia, not a freaking trivia guide. I suggest reading Wikipedia:NOT. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". --TheEmulatorGuy 19:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody actually adding the Trivia seems to be willing to respond, so I'll take a shot at it. Some of the trivial is relevant, some of it isn't. Listing every MegaMan and other Capcom game reference in the game certainly is indiscriminate (which is why I've condensed it to a single point), while noting that the game contains an abundance of references to previous games by the same devleoper isn't. Nor do I think it is indiscriminate to note that the game bears such a striking resemblance to Dawn of the Dead that the developers felt a need to insert a disclaimer on the game saying that they're not connected. I agree that Wikipedia is not a trivia guide, but I think this sort of information is relevant to the article and best conveyed in the current format. A large number of media related wiki entries for media related topics such as Movies, TV, and Video Games (including those at the Featured Article level) contain trivia sections with this sort of information where it is relevant to the article. FDeziel 16:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Characters "Jack" and "Thompson" are mentioned as a jab at Jack Thompson, but the character's name is actually Thomas.

I think the Trivia section is fine. There are a lot of little cameos and obscure Capcom refrences (Jill's Sandwiches) that don't really belong anywhere else in the article, but remain relevant to the game's being. GilloD 15:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

They don't really belong anywhere in the article at all and have no particular relevance to the game's being (at least in an existential way:) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Made this text: #

1. "True Ending" final Frank's scream "Nooo" is a direct reference to Evil Dead Trilogy. Every movie ends with similar "Nooo" by Ash. Last scene for third part Army of Darkness was altered to happy ending, but you still can see it on DVD edition and in comic book.

A little less broken-English GilloD 01:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Added: Controversey/Small Text

I added a small secction regarding the issues with mission text. It seems to have ignited enough a storm to pop up all the news sites, so I figured it should be in here. I Ref'ed the Xbox.com post from Capcom as well. Feel free to tidy it up

Whoever cleaned it up: Thanks :) "Issues" is maybe a better title, although "Controversy" was somewhat deliberately chosen as it leads to larger issues involving SD/HD resolutions in next-gen gaming. GilloD 15:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I still don't completely understand, why didn't they just use regular text in the first place? Did they intentionaly do it as to encorage people to buy HDTV's or is it easier to program the game with a worse text system or what? Zulu Inuoe 05:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

General Cleanliness of the page!

PLEASE use "Show Preview". Over the last day or so I've fixed a couple of unclosed tags, there's a broken refrence (#9) and a ((spoiler)) right at the get go. Little things show up really fast and make it look unprofessional.

For further ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning, the user used (()) and not {{}}.

Anyone know what #9 referred to? GilloD 00:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The 'weapon' section really needs a good clean up imo, Most of it isnt "Fit as an encyclopedic entry". Not trying to offend the author or anything ~asbad

Reviews/ Reactions

I have changed the line about the GWN review score. It was previously 99% but I checked the original review and found it is actually 89%. 67.160.210.240 20:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Story section

There's a great summary of the game's story, but it's in Frank's article. Should it be moved here perhaps? --Oscarthecat 16:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Rating in Germany

It doesn't matter whether Microsoft would allow unrated games to be released on one of their system, the German law wouldn't allow an unrated game to be sold anyway. --84.184.127.145 19:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The game isn't only unrated, it was put on the censorship list B, which means that a court has decide whether it is allowed to own the game in Germany at all, so the police can possibly coviscate all copies.217.231.246.99 15:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Owning the game and importing it from foreign countries such as the UK is absolutely legal in Germany. The only thing that is forbidden is buying and importing the game WITH THE INTENTION TO SELL IT in Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.117.147.211 (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Where's the merge discussion?

I don't see one on this talk page, so I'll take the initiative.

Oppose merge - And I also oppose Frank West's article to be merged into this one. West's article should focus on what the character goes through rather than rehash the storyline. But merging the video game article to the main character's article is ridiculous. - Throw 16:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge - There is only a small amount of information specific to Frank's character in the Frank West sub article. The rest of it is the story of the game which happens to center around Frank West. The two paragraphs on Frank would be better served starting the character section of this article, followed by supporting characters, followed by the psychopaths. The Frank West article should be switched to a Dead Rising Story Article, which wouldn't be a drastic change by any means. Hewinsj 12:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - There's a lot of quality original info in Frank's topic. I say leave it and improve it even more. - Mewtation 21:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - It's a well-made, informative article. Same with Carlio's. - 81.129.37.94 09:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed the Frank West Article Text

I decided to be bold and clean up the bottom of the article. If anyone disagrees with that you can revert it, but give a good reason why. If someone wants to merge these documents, try and discuss it with others and come to concensus about how to do it (perhaps creating a story article in FW's place and adding the two paragraphs at the top of the FW article to the character section here). Don't just add the text from Frank_West_(Dead_Rising)'s edit page at the bottom of this one. As a matter of keeping things tidy there shouldn't be any text added after the external references, and that's too much data to just paste into the middle of this article without either editing it down or posting it in a separate linked article. Hewinsj 19:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL

There is a huge number of external links on this article. Someone who knows more about the subject than I may want to trim them a bit...--Anaraug 02:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Writing tense and spacing

"After that, Isabela would promise Frank that he would get an interview with Carlito who later shoots her out of anger. After helping Isabela, she would join Frank's side and help them stop her brother. By the final hours of the game, if Frank does not stop to see Isabela at 10:00 A.M. when Brock and his Special Forces leave the mall, you would earn Ending C. Otherwise, you would earn Ending A by completing all of the cases. Isabela plays a vital role in Overtime Mode, which unlocks after acquiring Ending A, and completing that would earn the player the True Ending."

Who writes it this way? It's incredibly farking annoying, and if you read around, you'll notice that synposes are written in the present tense. And one space after the period. Please don't write like the paragraph above, it makes things unreadable (really).

Sorry to write on your discussion, but I agree that the writing is unreadable and boring!

Soundtrack listing

I was wondering if its possible to include a list of the songs that appear in Dead Rising, which you can find during the credits of the game? - RVDDP2501 23:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Storyboard?

My friend had an idea of creating a storyboard type of discussion. In which people send in their stories using characters from the game and other users grade them e.g A,B,C etc.

What?

Ranking Board

Unless someone has a reason otherwise, I'm going to remove the ranking board. It is not noteable. --72.43.103.251 15:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

List → Prose

Wow, this entire article is just filled to the brim with lists. This needs a serious, major rewrite. --SeizureDog 12:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've given it a go. There's still work to be done, and I'm not saying that what I've changed is automatically right, but it's a start. The Skoot 12:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have also done a bit of editing to a degree, the survivor notebook section I will be looking to give that its own article, as i believe that it could be expanded, reducing the lists enven furtherWarDragon 01:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks a lot better guys, good work.--SeizureDog 17:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks better (as in the expansion of the article) than a month ago; it is very poorly written. There are still "clunky" sentences, tense-shifts and a few sentences that make little sense. There is a still a long way to go to make this a good article, but I have to applaud what has been done so far. If I get a bit of time, I may do some cleaning up myself. PlumeNoir 18:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC) (Sorry, I forgot to sign in for the above comment...)

Artificial Intelligence section

Firstly, regarding the zombies, they are SUPPOSED to be stupid and unchallenging. It's a staple of the genre (especially in the Romero films) that the real danger comes from the humans, and that the zombies themselves are only dangerous in large numbers. Therefore the AI for zombies is perfectly adequate - move towards target. Obstacle in the way? They will half-heartedly attempt to climb over or around it, but that's as much as one would expect from a corpse.

This statement about survivors; "Most complaints about the survivors were how telling a survivor to follow you, their responses would be to either to; run the other way, run into a mob of zombies just to hit one of them which results in them getting attacked or they keep running into a wall and get stuck." is just not true. A few times pathfinding glitches will occur but they are easily solved via waypoints or a bit of gentle shoving. Most of the time, if you tell a survivor to come, they will come. I've not heard any complaints about the Spec. Ops AI, they seem to do their job quite well and can even adapt to various situations and navigate obstacles quite well. To top it all, the section is completely unverified so if no one objects to it here, then I'll remove it tomorrow. Xzamuel 21:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that the programmers got lazy and simply touched up the zombie AIs a bit and used them for the survivors. Throughout the game, i experienced countless glitches, ie: survivors running into walls/eachother, not responding to commands, glitching on/refusing to climb ledges. The spec. ops apear fine but this is probably because you are not working with them on your side and are used to retarded, easily confused enemies.

Characters and special endings

I'm looking at the major characters in the list, and I see that this section contains spoilers and not marked as such (eg fates of certain characters). Certainly one could mark the character section as spoiler but that would make the entry less encyclopedic. I recommend that the character information be reduced to the basic knowledge (eg, "Brad is a DHS agent that fights alongside Frank." PERIOD), and then information about the fates of the characters can be moved into the plotline synopsis which is already spoiler-marked. --Masem 16:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a stupid idea, but hey, look where we are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.95.230 (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation for Mission Free Mode Glitch?

I cleaned up the writing about the Mission Free Mode. I was just wondering if someone could find a citation for this glitch because I've looked at a number of internet sources and the glitch does not appear to be well known. TheFilth 05:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed this section, because it seems to be misinformation. The game is designed to allow players to ignore the storyline and continue playing in a 'mission free' mode if they want to. No glitch is required. Simply let a case file run out and then choose the option to continue playing. The story, like most other things in the game, is completely optional and that's the way the developers intended it. I also changed a line in the paragraph above to reflect the fact that doing the case files is not mandatory. KyleIII 00:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Change in packaging?

The article has a picture of the warning telling people that the game isn't connected to Dawn of the Dead, which is only two lines tall, is peeling in the lower right corner, and on the image of the cover at the top of the article the warning isn't there. On my copy, there's a black square with white letters four lines tall to the right of the M rating. Should it be mentioned that on later printings they added the warning to the actual packaging as opposed to using a sticker? Takuthehedgehog 05:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The game cover image at the top is from the American version while the picture of the warning label is from the European version. Also it is not a sticker it is made that way —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.42.253.227 (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Oh, that makes sense. Takuthehedgehog 06:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge story in from Frank West article

The Frank West article has a great story summary that probably should be put here on the main DR page to replace the partial one there. However, this would leave the West article a bit lacking, though I see that people are favorable for separate character pages so a full merge may not be warrented. I'm curious if there's any additional fictional bio for Frank (the manual doesn't list any) that would help fill the empty space that removing the story would leave behind. --Masem 22:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Parker Krasney

Removed the reference to "former noted games rights activist Parker Krasney." If this person is real, the Internet sure hasn't heard of him aside from Wikipedia.203.131.167.26 14:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ire

Can we have a note or something about this as a have seen people change this to "fire" so many times, its getting a bit annoying--WarDragon 00:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Lockjaw

Just a quick note- the 'Lockjaw' link in the soundtrack section links to a disambig page, and I doubt that it is by any of the people/groups there. Could someone familiar with the subject deal with it? J Milburn 21:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"transceiver use" section under critiques

Avoiding a revert war: I myself had put a bit in here way back (three months ago?) about the negative feelings of the transceiver problem. It was promptly removed, because unlike the small text issue (which there was no reasonable resolve), once you understood how the transceiver issue worked, you could work around it. While I had cited some major game reviews about it, it still got toasted. Thus, I'm putting forward a discussion: keep this as a critique of the game, or nix it?

(Now, on the separate issue of webcomics being a way to gauge fan appreciation of a game, I would argue that while true, it's not the most reliable source; there ARE game reviews from top tier publications that make mention of Otis' nagging, and it makes more sense to use those than webcomics. If webcomics and forum boards were the only place where that issue was brought up, and it was determined to be an important issue, then sure, use those, but WP preferred less fan-based sources for references whenever possible.) --Masem 01:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If there are specific reviews you can find which specifically mention the issues with the tranceiver in the detail that the webcomics do, I would say by all means they should be included. As far as using "less fan-based sources", how can one expect to accurately gauge fan reaction without using fan-based sources? -- 21:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the article "transceiver use" all I see is an issue which was previously brought-up before, but here it has be given expansion with the joining and inclusion of a previous deleted section "Internet References to Dead Rising". As I read it, out of the entire paragraph all I see is one sentence about the “actual” problems with answering the phone and it is more of an Otis bashing rather than a gaming critique about the "actual" problem. While Otis is apart of the "transceiver" situation, he is easily avoidable due; to his scheduled call system, simply not answer the phone or get to another location. Also the whole transceiver use is integral into the transceiver’s “small text problem” so those two could easily be merged. VG Cats links is not a good example to use as Leo uses the gun and transceiver at the same time contradicting the main point of the text.

Granted that fan media is a good way to judge or gauge a recurring fault in a game, but it is more beneficial for a professional review to highlight this, as they have more creditability. But I would like to raise something, Y2kcrazyjoker4 deleted about a three four months ago a big massive chunk of the “Issues and controversies” section due to it being more of a “nitpicking” section , while that is true and that I complied all those faults from many official media sources without putting links. One must raise if this “fan media” section is to be left up should some of the other section be considered addable? Such as the previous "Setting and Location" as there is overwhelming evidence of a relation with Romero; image on the European game packaging or all the cultural reference that highlights a link with Romero from professional reviews.--WarDragon 12:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Good catch on the VG Cats bit, I'd forgotten about that. Rasmoo... Ramsoo... whatsisname did mention later that he forgot about the inability to fire while using the transceiver. The point of the strip, however, was to highlight how damn annoying and persistent the transceiver's ringing is, and how often the information Otis provides is completely irrelevant and/or useless.

Now as to why it mostly consists of Otis-bashing: the transceiver is where 95% of your interaction with Otis is, or to rephrase, 100% of the transceiver calls are from Otis. The two are all but interchangable.

Also, I dunno what game you've been playing, but there's no way to avoid a transceiever call once it starts, unless some other call pre-empts it. I've gone for a full 15 minutes (realtime) ignoring a transceiever call and the damn thing still kept ringing. It. Won't. Stop. The only reason that isn't mentioned explicitly in the text is because I couldn't find any external sources to back up the specific complaint.

Finally, while the "small text problem" is related to the transceiever issue, it is not the same. There is overlap which should be mentioned, but the transceiver is specific enough to warrant its own sub-section. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 19:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that not saying anything about the transceiver issue would be missing a critique of the game, but here's the point I think I was trying to make.

The small text issue was huge. Industry-wide huge. Basically, while Capcom seemed to backpedal on it, it basically said that Capcom was going to focus only on games for HDTV (prior, and maybe even after, all their statements). This was a huge change in next-gen console gaming. As such, it absolutely needs its own section.

On the other hand, the transceiver thing was an annoyance, but not ground-shaking or such. You can work around it if you just ignore the calls until your hands are free (such that you don't plan on fighting any zombies until the calls done). Thus, it really doesn't need a section. It can get a callout from more standard review places (such as [4]), which are stronger references than fan comics (eg if I didn't know what DR, or the general VGCats setup was, and went to the VGCats strip, I'd still be confused. On the other hand, the textual review nails the point in black and white).

So end of the day, the transciever bit should be part of the general critique of the game, but not it's own section; the small text, however, definitely should. --Masem 00:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yukichigai. You are forgetting why people feel it that the transceiver is annoying, which is Otis. People, like you just said in your post feel that all the information Otis gives you is useless or irrelevant. Considering the main plot is that "Frank, a photojournalist came looking of the scoop of the century" wouldn't you want someone to tell you that there might be a scoop here or there which could break your careers? It called story development. And I will have you know that out of all possibly 38+ from Otis only 6 or 7 are useless, (which is when you go into different areas) the rest informs you about survivors.

Maybe you should have stuck to your 95% (well maybe 97.5%), since both Jessie and Isabela ring you so it’s not totally 100% Otis calls. (Yes, we won't blame the developers for not letting us multi-task like in other games. I know, instead we'll blame Otis. Yes...Otis has magic powers which stop us from moving our arms so we can't do anything. Let all blame him for calling us) That is the only reason that people don't like Otis, the creators set out to be very real in terms of storyline and actions, so Otis is deemed by fans as a escape goat, he did it so it’s his fault.

I know exactly what game I have been playing and almost every ins and out of it. The calls come in at pre-timed intervals. So considering that 2 hours (real time) equates to 1 day (game time) I am not surprised you got so many in such a short time span. Otis only rings you back twice, if you don't answer. Then he will ring with another scoop when the time comes. The way I get rid of the calls is the "8-callson rule", this is where Otis will stop calling you when you have 8 of either/ or combined people and scoops. So if you have 2 survivors with you at all times, and 6 scoops, Otis will never call until one of the scoops times runs out. It can even work if you have 8 scoops. Or maybe I simply ignored it due to how much fun I was having. Considering that a possible one third of the entire small text in this game is from Otis calls it does not overlap it is entangled, just like the cut scenes and the small text when near a weapon.

Anyway Masem you raise a good point about the big “raised” differences between the annoyances.--WarDragon 01:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

survivors

I know this is prboably asking too much but maybe you could put a survivor list down.Just a basic name,time and location kind of thing on a seperate page.82.23.115.54 21:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Because they're not main characters, a survivor list would be too much like game guide material and thus is to be avoided on WP via WP:NOT#INFO. --Masem 22:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Somebody went and put one up anyway... If we decide to keep it.... can we at least make it readable?

New Cooperative Mode

This entire addition is based on Electronic Gaming Monthly's rumor mill, which itself didn't cite a source. I've yet to see an official Capcom announcement on the matter. Being that EGM has a history of both hit and miss rumors, as well as April Fool's Pranks that are in horrible humor... The legitimacy of this Co-op upgrade cannot be accpted under these conditions. ((Unsigned by User:Wildodeelf))

I agree that it might be a hoax, as I've seen nothing else in the gaming literature suggesting this is coming. I think the item does state that it's a rumor and that it comes from EGM, so until someone with more authority says something otherwise, I think it's fair to leave this here. --Masem 12:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A Capcom developer on the official USA Capcom forums posted that it was false. There is no coop in the platinum edition, and there's no plans for coop in the future. Parjay 21:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you get the link for that, and if possible add it in something like "While rumor has stated that co-op will be in the pt edition, a Capcom rep has denied this" --Masem 21:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Scroll down to Sven's post (he is Sr. Director of Strategic Planning & Research at Capcom): http://ww2.capcom.com/BBS/showthread.php?t=10352&page=4 Here's another were he confirms again: http://ww2.capcom.com/BBS/showthread.php?t=13167 Parjay 22:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Perfect, added one of these to the trivia bit. --Masem 23:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Clothes

No mention in the article of the players ability to alter Frank's appearance? One of the main things in the game, surprised its hardly touched upon? Parjay 13:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, other than the Downloadable content, there is only 1 line about the ability to change Frank's appearance. I'd suppose between "Weapons' and "Storyline" would be the appropriate place to put a paragraph on clothing.

I'll research into the number of article of clothing per class. Without preforming research to the point I personally recall the appearance alterations grouped into: Hair (shaved head and hair dye), Hat/Helmet/Mask (Fedora/Megaman Helmet/Servebot Mask), Glasses, Body (I don't recall any free mixable shirt/pants. Will research on it.), and Shoes/Boots. Wildodeelf 03:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have used the Clothing Guide on GameFAQs, in conjunction with my own gameplay to verify the number of unique clothing items in the mall. I've arrived at the following number of clothing present in the mall: 5 Hair alterations (4 dyes, and shaved), 10 (hats/helmets/masks), 6 kinds of glasses, 27 body clothing alterations (confirmed that there is no Pants/Shirt mixables, 7 foot alterations (6 types of shoes and barefoot. This count excludes the blue boxers Frank is forced to change into when captured by the Kent, Brock's Special Forces, or True Eye Cultists. Since it's unavailable to change into them at will.

These numbers are only what is available to change into within the mall, outside of the Security Office. This excludes the initial Hair/Suit/Shoes Frank wears initially (available in the Security Office under the stairs.) It also excludes the 7 body suits, 3 Boots, 2 Hats, 1 Mask unlocked by achievements, the 11 body suits and 1 glasses made available through DLC.

This takes the total to: 6 Hair Alterations, 14 Hats/Helmets/Masks 7 Glasses, 47 body clothes, 11 Foot Alterations. I open discussion on which totals to use in the article. Wildodeelf 06:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Very nice work. I reckon the clothing section should be pretty brief, as there's no reason to list every item for example. I think the best approach would be to start with Frank's default appearance, and then onto how the player can customize each aspect? Parjay 15:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

So, should we include the unlockables and the DLC in that paragraph's count, mention them sepretly, or omit them?Wildodeelf 08:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd imagine including the unlockables, but leaving the DLC to the dlc section. Parjay 11:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay so, that would be the total amount of appearance alterations that where present before the DLC are: 5 Hair Alterations, 14 Hats/Helmets/Masks 6 Glasses, 35 body cloths, 10 Foot Alterations. Again, these omit Frank's starting Shoes, Clothes, and Hair. I'll be back later to construct a paragraph citing that information.Wildodeelf 04:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you ever manage to write content for this proposed section, Wildodeelf? If not I'll add in something brief to get the idea across, as it is there's only one mention of clothes in the entire article. Parjay ► Talk 12:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I had made several attempts to write that section, however I couldn't manage to actually read over what I wrote that incorporated the number of clothing alterations as counted above without getting the indication I was being too specific. Even to the point of almost being a guide to the in game achievement "Clothes Horse." The version I find most acceptable was actually the shortest one I wrote which omitted the counts altogether :

While exploring the mall, Frank can change his appearance by sampling the stocked merchandise. From a wide variety of glasses, hats, helmets, and masks, to tuxedos, and even hair dye and a selection of children's clothing and women's dresses.

That just didn't seem to be suited for its own section, and I suppose I let it pass to the back of my mind after I made that conclusion. Some community member I turned out to be.Wildodeelf 11:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Survivor names

To the anon IP that keeps adding in the survivor names: These names are not important to the understanding of what Dead Rising is to the readers of Wikipedia. The fact that there are survivors in the game and that they need to be saved is important, but who they are and what their predicaments are is indiscriminate information as per What Wikipedia is not - basically, if I had never played the game nor ever planned to but needed to know what Dead Rising is about, the survivor names and additional information does no good to me. There's other places that all this survivor information is better suited (GameFAQs is one, there's gaming wikis as well), but not for Wikipedia. --Masem 17:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Can i ask a question since, people are constantly putting it up can we have anything done about it, or even an alternative. For example, either delete it from existance, or incorperate a few names in the survivor section, for different situations? (Unsigned by WarDragon)

It's necessary to state that there are Survivors in the game; it's a core component of gameplay. The names have no importance on the plot or the game; they're equivalent of Star Trek redshirts. --Masem 13:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait so... a list of survivors is not allowed? Because I was going to make a section on the DR main article of "Survivors", and then have a "Main Article" linking it to another page I was going to make. I was going to have a table with each survivor in numeric order, along with a small picture of each one, their in game description, their number as listed in Frank's notebook, and problably their location in the mall... so I am not allowed to do that?... if so, then damn =\. Honestly half of the reason I look at Wikis is for interesting information. Like usually i'll just enter a random subject of something that I am just curious about, or a movie, or a game, so I can read up on interesting things of the nature. I have always liked reading character bios in games, I guess that's why I want to do the survivor list... oh well lol. Møk3 08:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, falls under the category of game guide. If the survivors were somehow notable outside of the game, or more importantly significantly notable inside the game, then there would be merit for creating a separate article listing them. As it is their backstories are largely decorative and bring no real contributions to the game's plot, save for the few main characters that are already touched on in the article elsewhere. Or to rephrase, you don't really need to know who the survivors are to understand the game or its plot on any level. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 11:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

As a note to the above, a list of Survivors is definitely too much for what is meant to be a general knowledge encyclopedia as well lined out, but there's absolutely no reason to not make this available at video-game specific [www.egamia.com Encyclopedia Gamia], another wiki that's better suited to such information. --Masem 13:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah ok. Thanks. I'll be sure to do that :) --Møk3 22:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What happened?

What happened to the Frank West, Carlito Keyes, and Psychopaths pages? Were they deleted? or what? Just a query --86.130.139.232 01:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The pages were made to redirect here by TTN, who didn't leave much of a reason but as the pages didn't contain much already in the main DR page, I agree with the redirection for Frank and Carlito's pages, though the list of Psychopaths is a bit questionable (it's sorta guide-ish type material but they are main characters....) However, I can't see any reason why this was done. I'm hoping TTN will explain here - there seems to be a large effort on removing list of video game character pages...--Masem 01:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yea what happened to the pcychopath pages. The person who deleleted that should really be the person getting deleted. that article was good.ian turner 20:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

paul

where is paul? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.218.13.19 (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Paul isn't involved in Dead Rising's plot at all, you seem to want FAQ infromation 24.220.33.133 10:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Paul Carson is a psychopath located in the Wonderland Plaza on the third day. Anymore questions relating to DR characters, etc, go to the DR wiki [5] --68.39.181.248 (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Books

i think more shud be mention about the various books in the game??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.255.213 (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Parts of the mall

it may be seen as a guide but should we add a paragraph on the mall itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Cuthberton (talk • contribs) 18:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add a paragraph to say that the mall is a typical suburban mall with a food court, movie theaters, etc. etc., that's fine, but adding a list of each section of the mall or more detail beyond that is too much detail. --Masem 18:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That i shall, please edit if not fitting. Lord Cuthberton —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think my paragraph is to short and needs to have more added or it shud be merged Lord Cuthberton —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Frank West merge

The most important content is already here, and this could possibly use a paragraph of reception on the character. TTN (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep - There has been other discussions about the merge of the article. Here is the discussionlink. Smile Lee (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Question - What does the Frank West article accomplish that the main article does not? I've read the previous two merger discussions and the only thing established is that there was too much plot to throw in the main article, without establishing why that much plot should be here in the first place. Hewinsj (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement - The only problem with the article was the long "story" section. Which, if you check, has been summarized quite nicely. It needs more work, but the organic's article has been improved greatly. Alot of editor's, including myself, have been making sure the article focuses much more on Frank than opposed to the story. If you'd like to help it would be welcome. But, it's turning out to be a good article. Smile Lee (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I'm looking at the article now. With all due respect I think that the text in the Frank West article is great, I just think that it would serve better in the main article without loosing anything.

• The short description of Frank could go into the list of characters because it is only 3 sentences.
• The description of his motivation would be perfect as a "plot" section in the main article under game development. This section is brief and to the point, and summarizes the story section nicely.
• Character Design and Reception would also fit nicely into those portions of the main article.

Finally, this article isn't exactly easy to find. You can only get to it by finding the first mention of frank in the main article, rather than say, the mention of him in the list of characters. I'm not trying to stir up trouble, just trying to have a discussion on this, so thanks for being so easy to talk to. I can help with writing/editing if there is more to add, but if this is all there is to say on the subject it may be better to use this work to help turn Dead Rising into a better article. Hewinsj (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply - I just fixed the problem of the article being hard to find. I added a link to the article in Characters. There is alot more to add on Frank.

• There has been many interviews about Frank West's character design from Keiji Inafune. They are all in japanese though, it is hard to find translations of them. He usually talks about how he made Frank's demeanor, character, to be that of a typical American in search of truth. And he's added that's not how foreigners view Americans, so he wanted to show the negatives of American society through an "American Mall" filled with "America". And add Frank, as a kickstand, to show the side of a "Good American".
• Frank West was well recieved by the homosexual community :S. For reasons I don't understand, but I think that'd be a good mention in the Reception part of the Frank West article.
• The character has been featured in articles, apart from articles about Dead Rising. most were very postive about the character.
• MTV did a segment about him.
• Mega 64 did a skit, which poked fun at the character. Smile Lee (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Development information can easily fit here at this point (look at the pathetically small section currently there), so that doesn't really warrant a split. The gay community has nothing to do with the few websites that choose to make fun of the game mechanic of being able to change clothing. The websites used to "cite" this do similar things with other characters and games, so they hold a very large POV. The MTV thing is an online only thing that uses a split of the previous website for content. It doesn't help. Mega 64 skits have no place in any article besides the Mega 64 article. See the part about South Park in the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Handling trivia for the reason. TTN (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Response - Frank's appeal to the homosexual crowd may have been only due to a game mechanic, but the community had fun with the fact that it was Frank. Are you telling me that IGN, Gamespot, 1UP, have preconcieved notions as critics? On Wikipedia we need published sources, whether or not you agree with them as being viable is up to you. And we can mention Mega 64's skit, especially in a section labeled "Impact and reception". As you can tell, there is no trivia section. Smile Lee (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge - The Frank West article is still largely a retelling of the plot of the game. I again agree to move this article to a subsection of the main article. Include a brief description of Frank and include the 3 pieces of sourced info along with it. There is no reason for this to be in a separate article. Hewinsj 22:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - Anything that Frank goes through IS the plot. This is quite redundant and really not much information needs to be merged at all. Wickethewok (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - I just merged the article. I'm tired of Wikipedia. Smile Lee (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Disappointed that I was unable to help you see any benefit in this, I'd rather not see someone give in out of frustration. That said I'll try to be constructive and integrate this data into the main article. Hewinsj (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• REVAMPED KEEP - I'm back baby! I was just a bit emo for a moment, but I'm a warrior. I just read a comment written on the Frank West article, someone was using it for research. And TTN blatently ignored it, didn't even respond to the person. I thing if that's any indicator, I am going to return to my opinion. P.S. Thank you Hewinsj, it is very kind for you to do that. I'm gonna give you a barnstar. Smile Lee (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note - I have brought the discussion back. With another argument for keep, this article is meant for the game itself, not for plot or character information. And there is only one external article needed, Frank West. The two articles should work together, and they do. And plus, Frank's article isn't even close to being filled with fancruft. Smile Lee (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - While there's a few notable secondary sources for Frank's character, many of the details in the article are extraneous/inappropriate (to wit: the Mega64 bit is a fan-created work, and like most fan-fiction, is not notable and should not be included. Why not, then, include the various webcomics and other jokes on the character here?). The significant details can be included here, we can have a section here about Frank without making the article excessively long and would be easier to maintain the fictional elements of the game in this fashion. If there should be a sequel or different game Frank is in, then it may be advisable to have a separate page, but in general, a character from a single game doesn't usually get its own page. --MASEM 17:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as its own article as it is the main character in a notable game with verifiable information. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. The Frank West article is just redundant to the information on this article. Not every main character is suitable for an article here. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• I would say that we have enough people here to declare a consensus to redirect it at this point. Anyone disagree? TTN (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• I disagree, the Frank West article, in my opinion, does not repeat the information in this article. And if it is merged, then I think it's info needs to be properly merged. 166.128.151.106 (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, expand Dead Rising article to have larger (perhaps separate) section or sub-section on Frank - The big problem is that there is not nearly enough additional information on Frank to really have a good article on him. If there were an additional game or some non-trivial bits of tie-in media (comics which do more than restate the existing plot, for example) then there would be enough information to have a detailed character history and other such things. As it is right now there's very little outside of the game plot itself that we can state. Once there's a sequel or another game in the franchise featuring (or mentioning) Frank there will be cause to have a separate article. As it is, "he's covered wars, y'know" is not enough content to expand into a separate character article. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 06:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• I Agree With Yukichigai I think the article could be kept if more work was put into it. But, I would be more agreeable if we made a complete seperate section about Frank. Because, his current section is more-or-less non-existant, and he was the centerpiece of Dead Rising. There has been tw other discussions about this article here and here. The first "here" is the most recent, it was just before the article was put up for merge. Smile Lee (talk) 06:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Reiterated Keep, even though I'd be happier with a propely done merge, I still think it might crowd this article. I have a distain for crowded articles and infobox-less characters. It destroys the purpose of the darn thing. Am I the only one who likes articles dedicated to a single subject? Or, infoboxes? Recently, things like the [Characters of Kingdom Hearts|Kingdom Hearts characters]] becoming merged is really wierd. I would think Sora would deserve his own article. Smile Lee (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Again. It seems like every time I turn around TTN's trying to merge this article. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge One game doesn't make a character notable for single article creation. Only an out-of-universe impact can merit that. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 19:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• As the Frank West article says, he is in Lost Planet PC.

Um...ok??? THAT makes him notable? ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 19:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the implication is that a significant character spanning multiple games should have their own article. (or at least be part of an article separate from the games in question, e.g. Characters in Series X) While I agree that's true, it's only the case when the character appears non-trivially in multiple games, rather than mere cameo appearances in all but one game as is the case here. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 19:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Unless I'm mistaken: it's 3 keeps, and 6 merges. I think that's a pretty decent consensus, as this has discussion has been around since November 24. I also want to point out: the other 2 that said keep, were asked to come here by Smile Lee, which I strongly feel is canvassing. Check his contributions for proof. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• I would like it to be noted that I left a comment in your talk page defending my actions. And I will state this, as I did in the post I left on your talk page Wikipedia is NOT a democracy. So I do not feel as though this conversation is complete. There has been other discussions about deletions and merges of the Frank West article. And they have all ended in a keep, plus, TTN ended the previous conversation and then promptly started this one. Smile Lee (talk) 08:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • Ah, so let's just keep this discussion up even though majority consensus says merge. You don't have a good enough reason to defend the merging of an article of a subject that is not notable enough for its article. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 02:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Wow...4 days without an addition to the talk page itself let alone this discussion. If this doesn't need to be closed by now then something is wrong. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 21:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to Smile Lee: consensus can change. How many more days, weeks or even months will it take to convince you that the consensus is to merge? Just because you don't agree with the consensus, doesn't mean this merge discussion should still continue. I think Smile Lee wont let this discussion end until he gets his way. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• A concensus "is a general agreement among the members of a given group", and I am in no opposing faction with anyone. I would not mind if the article was merged, but I just don't see why. Frank West, and the game, are not entirely synonymous. There is information about Frank that wouldn't be viable in this article, such as his character design, and his appearence in Lost Planet PC/PS3 shouldn't be discussed here. I believe it would dilude the purpose of each of the articles.Smile Lee (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea of the importance of these subjects, or the merits of the suggested merges, but I urge everyone to discuss these issue, not other editors. Consensus at WP is not just a matter of majority vote. if you guys here can't agree on whether to merge the article, ask for an outside opinion according to WP:Dispute resolution. DGG (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I just had a good idea, instead of merging the articles. I think we could possibly build some type of "Characters and Story" article. It would allow for ample room to discuss the individual aspects of the story, and the individual aspects of the characters themselves. All without cramping and confusing the topic of the Dead Rising video game itself. The only reason I oppose this merge is because it would convolute these two subjects. Smile Lee (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that I look at it this merge has made one MONSTER of an article lol. I think I'm going to try and build that Characters and Story of Dead Rising. Smile Lee (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hell yeah, I'm all for that, as long as we can make it out-of-universe enough. That would be great. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 06:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Gracias bro, how's that for spanglish? lol. But, to be honest if you see the Dead Rising article after the merge... it looked deplorable. This is why I was so against the merge lol. I've just built a "prototype", if you want to take a look. Smile Lee (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with the article the way it was last night. I've already had one editor complement my cleanup of the article, and you've since forked the article into two which was completely unnecessary. While it goes against video game project recomendations, and this sort of thing never leads to a GA or FA, discuss a major edit like that first. Hewinsj (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As one with limited knowledge of the game, I figured there were plenty of secondary sources that could set up the article out-of-universe enough to merit its creation. Apparently I was wrong. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 06:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I happened to take the Frank West (Dead Rising) link that is used frequently and lo and behold - it's fubbarred, when you peeps have finished throwing it around, please fix the double redirects that have been caused in the process.--Alf ^melmac 07:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:Video games Assessment

This is a WP:Video games assessment from the assessment department. Mark the appropriate points with {{done}} after the bullet point when they have been worked upon.

• The lead section is too short. It should be about three paragraphs for the current size of the article, two for the size if the other comments in this assessment are worked upon. Read WP:Lead section for more information. Furthermore, the prose of the lead section is not good to the point of unreadable. It may need a rewrite or a check by a native speaker of English. Done
• The infobox contains the qualifier "(for frequent bloody violence)" with the BBFC. This needs a source. Done It also includes an inline external link (in Japanese) to the engine. Either write a Wikipedia stub, or have no link at all.
• The gameplay section suffers from several problems. Firstly, gaming jargon. This is a common problem, and can be solved by checking the section for jargon specifically. Examples include "unlocking", "in-game", "usable" (consider just deleting this word wherever it is used), "boss battle", "unlocked", "stat", Also, as the abbreviation PP is not used much, consider not introducing it and then not using it at all. Then, some qualifications are made without sources. Who called cooking food a "strategy element"? Who are the "many gamers" that are frustrated with the saving system? Finally, this section could use a good copy edit.
• The storyline section is too detailed. Cutting it down to about three paragraphs is advised, with one for the overtime plot. The section on alternate endings is nice and informative.
• Continuing on the above, the information on the characters and storyline is scattered throughout the article. Onyett's comment about Frank West would've been very informative when I read about him earlier, but instead I got to read the unsourced qualification that he's "overly zealous". Merging all information on the character together in about three-four long paragraphs would be a good idea.
• The product placement section needs removal of the link and sourcing.  Done
• The reception section, which is otherwise ok, reads that Capcom is currently giving away surveys. How current is that? Source? It may be contradicted by the last sentence of the section, too.  Done
• Also, "a point of contention among many fans" needs a source and is a weasel word. Perhaps removing the "many fans" would just do. I am well aware of the fact that appearing in CAD, VGCats and SA means that it's a notable controversy. (I somehow missed that CAD episode, too, so thanks to the editor for linking it.)
• Merging Technical Issues and Downloadable Content with Development is standard practice, and the soundtrack needs to be somewhere that's not a one line section too.  Done
• The vast majority of sources are just links. They need author, accessdate, date, and other information. See the {{cite web}} template.  Done

Demoted to Start-class, particularly because of the scattered information, language in Gameplay and Lead Sections, and the last point about sources. User:Krator (t c) 01:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll do as much work as I can. I have no major knowledge of the inner-workings of the game, so those with more knowledge of the game might need to correct me. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 02:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to cut jargon and re-write the lead as I have time to do so if no one beats me to it. Possibly tomorrow evening. Hewinsj (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the decision to lump stuff together into "Development." This section should detail the process of designing, creating, and producing the game. I don't see how technology problems related to the game after its release is relevant to "Development." Unless there is some step in the development process that is revealed to be flawed and lead to these technical issues, they are not related at all. Furthermore, I don't think "Downloadable Content" really fits into the intentions of the "Development" section, either. DLC are additional items that can be purchased and downloaded to enhance the game experience. These things are usually produced after the game is completed and released, so the development process has pretty much concluded. Do you see my point? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 06:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I do see your point, but the way I see it, work had to go into these issues. Downloadable content had to be written at some point which requires development. Technical issues had to be dealt with which requires effort on the part of programmers. This work (to me) is development, despite being an after market effort on the part of Capcom. If anything I would like to see this after market effort grouped under some heading because it doesn't fit guidelines to have them hang out there. What would you recommend? Hewinsj (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Although, thanks for moving the downloadable demo info to the development section. That is a much better place for it. and you are right on the main character not getting preference over other characters, I was just trying to find a place for the comment about Frank's appearing in lost planet. We don't need a whole new article for that one sentence, but it was easy to do it the way I had it. Hewinsj (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'm not going to worry about it. I'm just going to focus on updating the citations and correcting grammar. Hewinsj (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't the character design section contain info about all, if not most, of the characters instead of Frank? Such information seems like it should be lumped into Frank's section in "Characters". ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 17:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Character design may not be the best name for that section, but I originally put it there because it was a comment on how the game was made. Do we have info on the development of other characters to fill that section out? If not you may be right and it should just become a second paragraph under Frank's character description since it is all about him. Hewinsj (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:DeadRising

Template:DeadRising has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — MASEM 14:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed "merge" of List of psychopaths in Dead Rising

Ok. So. Said article is kept as a redirect without any dispute/consensus as far as I can see so here it goes. I'm pointed out that "Wikipedia is not a game guide", yet there's little tutorial- or howto-like elements in the article, it's simply a listing of the antagonists involved, kinda like List of Halo characters. So what's the reason? // Gargaj (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Save for someone like Carlito, who makes multiple appearances, the others are basically boss characters you only experience once and that have no impact at all on the storyline. The information about them, besides the fact they exist, does not provide any more information about the game save for those that would play it. --MASEM 00:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack content removed--VS ^talk 01:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Read up on Wikipedia. Once you understand the sort of content that's not allowed, maybe you'll finally figure out why it's being deleted. Thank you for your interest in the project, and good day. Coreycubed (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As Masem said, back in the early days of this article it was deemed that the psychopaths were simply boss fights. Since there is little/no character development there, and they only make one appearance before being dispatched they were not listed individually but summed up as a group (eg. mentally unbalanced people who frank has to fight). For the purposes of the video game project, that's all the reader needs to know. Any more than that would be considered game guide material, and there are other places on the internet for that. Hewinsj (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If you guys don't want to put it in main article, then atleast put it in here --Normal Phobic (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler / Jill's sandwiches joke

Two things about this article:

1. You should mark the "true" plot section as a spoiler.
2. Maybe a reference to Dead Rising's "Jill sandwiches" joke making fun of Resident Evil, another of Capcom's games.

CheeseGamer (talk) 08:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WP does not use spoiler warnings, and for the second point, unless there's a source that connects it, it's speculative trivia. --MASEM 04:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The different endings...

Why was the section that explained each of the different endings erased?

Signed: Adam931989 (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

WP is not a game guide, and giving all the different endings (and conditions to meet them) is considered too detailed for coverage here. --MASEM 23:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

DR2 lists all the different endings, so this one should to.

Very silly reason, put it back.--76.173.255.40 (talk) 06:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Gameplay and Copyright sections

The gameplay section is fine; gaming jargon should not be removed. While encyclopedia articles are written for a general, non-expert audience, the great majority of people who look at an article about a video game are more than familiar with "jargon." The article would be flawed or in need of editing, if it had TECHNICAL jargon, the kind used by developers, that is, "experts only" language. Increasingly gaming jargon is becoming more and more a part of every day slang, and its only a matter of time before they become a part of the english language itself.

Regarding the copyright issues; the article COULD help with a section showing how Dead Rising was different than Romero's "Dead" franchise. The copyright portion is too shallow. On one area where the game DOES infringe on copyrights though, is the social commentary. George A. Romero made his original "Night of The Living Dead" as a social commentary on american society, especifically, cold war paranoia. Romero himself stated in an interview it was never his intention to make the lead protagonist, a black guy, some sort of "black superhero," the only reason he hired him for the part, was because he gave the best audition. That the lead character in the original "Night of the Living Dead" had a strong onscreen pressence, and that people read "racism" into it, was purely unintentional. Although from an artistic perspective it COULD be seen that way; despite being the voice of reason throughout the film, no one listened to the black character in "Night of the Living Dead" simply because he was black. Reading into it a little more, one will be careful to observe that in the original film, the young people, more than the older folks, were more ready to listen to the black character. Naturally since the film came out in 1968, again this can be seen as a sort of "counter culture" commentary. That is, the boomers are willing to listen to the black dude regarding what to do about the zombie problem and how to get away from them, but not the WWII generation, especially the bald, pot bellied white male who was the unintentional avatar of white males of his generation.

So what does this have to do with the copyright section? The point I am trying to make is that because the original "Dead" films were so vague, and because they were attempting to convey a social message, a social message expressed in film is not protected under copyright law. Copyright infringement on Capcom's part would have been displaying posters of various "Dead" films, or even something as trivial as pictures of the original actors. Copyright has to do with taking someone else's work, and displaying it publicly. There is nothing in the Dead Rising video game aside from zombies, that even REMOTELY ressembles the original "Dead" films.

The criticizing of American society, also, is so common throughout the media the world over, that can't be protected by copyright laws either. Like the second "Dead" film "Dawn of the Dead," Dead Rising does comment on american society; with the zombies representing the bovine american masses that devour everything, and everyone in their path. Americans, like zombies, seem unaware of their cruelty, their malice, the harm they inflict; all they want to do is kill and eat live flesh. Symbolically speaking; the emotional harm many americans inflict on one another, can be seen as a "zombie" "devouring" a "living" person. The constant cruelty experienced in this society thus turns the "living" into a "zombie." Also, like in real life american society, few people are smart enough to survive, and some of them go insane.

That it borrowed shamelessly from "Dawn of the Dead" though, there is no question although the issue IS open for debate. The article I think could be greatly improved by exploring this further; how the "Dead" and "Dead Rising" franchises are similar but different. The original Dawn of the Dead was all about materialism, whereas Dead Rising, is about the bovine american masses, how diseased and "dead" this society is, and how few people are smart enough to survive and keep their sanity and not be "consumed," e.g. "devoured" by the cruelty inherent in american culture. Frank West, the reporter, is representative of how many (though not all) in the media in this country see themselves; as people out to save what few survivors there are, and to tell the truth. That is, fringe, non-corporate sponsored media groups, and I don't mean World Link T.V. Frank West rescuing the survivors is largely symbolic of fringe media groups attempting to save this society from itself. The symbolism being, most americans, being "zombies," are too dead to hear the message, so the best they can do is reach the "survivors."

Does Dead Rising borrow shamelessly from the "Dead" franchise? Absolutely. Does it infringe on copyright laws? No, it does not. Please explore this topic further; this game is rapidly becoming, if it hasn't already become, a cult classic, and its only going to get bigger. Given the heat similarly bloody franchises such as GTA has drawn, this franchise is likely to draw heat as well. This article, while inadmisable evidence in a court of law, could serve not so much as a source for its defense, but as a means by which fans of the game can express themselves through the authors of this thing.

Sorry for the length; hope I got my points accorss.

206.63.78.51 (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)stardingo747

The short answer is this: in this article, we can post a documented, historical account of the dispute but we can't write an essay evaluating material being disputed. We don't get to say "no crime has been committed", but we do get to post events that occur along the way, statements that are made, and the decision that the court arrives at based on those two things.

The long answer is this: When reporting on an event we can only post things about the case that we find in the news or if official statements from people or groups involved. This section is shallow because that's all we have been able to (currently) find on the court case. These sources cite that the dispute is based solely around the situation of people being trapped in a mall with zombies and that regardless of the subtext used in either property, the fact remains that the scenario used to present this subtext is the same.

If the subtext is to be used to demonstrate that the two are significantly different to the point that no crime has been committed we have to demonstrate that it has been stated by the defense. If Capcom came out and said "we cite points X, Y, and Z as differences between the two that prevent us from having committed copyright infringement" we can post those points because it's something that they stated in their own defense. Then, if we could find other articles relating to those given points we could use those other articles to explore those points more deeply.

The easiest way to think of this is that you are writing a high school research paper. You (in the general sense, not just you specifically) can't post things that you think are thematically similar or different unless you have published authorities in the subject which you can site to back you up. If game or film critics came out and discussed reasons for or against copyright infringement as it relates to the case, we can add their cited opinions, but we can't just make it up on our own.

That said, if a number of game or film critics had made statements comparing the two franchises unrelated to the case and you could find these statements, you could create a new section discussing what they have to say on the subject under a new heading in "reception". You yourself can't post your own observations of the franchises because Wikipedia isn't intended to present "original" material or ideas. If the statement doesn't have one or more authorities backing it up, there's a strong chance other editors will consider it to be "original research" and shoot it down.

Also, sorry for length, Hewinsj (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and if you can get citations for the subtext in dead rising it could go into the "game development" section. Real world comments like that (especially from the creators) are hard to come by, but definitely fit in with the why we did the things we did in the development cycle. Hewinsj (talk) 04:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I will also agree that some jargon is good. Terms like Experience Points have Wikipedia articles that can be linked to which helps educate people as to what the term means if this article isn't clear enough. Some other terms may be too specific to the game or too obscure, but general terms that are used throughout the industry shouldn't be frowned upon. Hewinsj (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Dead Rising Mobile means it is not exclusive

Dead Rising has been released by Capcom for mobile phones - meaning it is no longer exclusive to Xbox 360. I feel this should be reflected in the infobox, category and intro paragraph, however any attempts to do so have been deleted. Rather than having an edit war, I feel there should be some discussion about this.

I concede that there are quite a few differences between the two games, however IGN, for instance, gives a link to also available on on their 360 Dead Rising page, as does 1up. It is an official version of Dead Rising and should be recognized as such. Addionne (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be careful how you phrase it. This is the article for the 360 game, so saying that it's a mobile phone game is incorrect. If this game (exactly this game) has been ported to cell phones your statement would be correct and the game would no longer be an exclusive. However, if the cell phone game is a distinctly different version of the game (despite having the same plot), the statement that "this" is now on cell phones is incorrect. If the two weren't the same, Dead Rising would still be an X-box exclusive because the cell phone users wouldn't be getting the same game.

My solution is to start writing the mobile phone section like you have. Try to point out similarities and differences, possibly mention which country it was released in, and what phones it was released on. Once that covers all the bases, you could add something to the lead that states that it does exist, but sets it apart from the main game: "In 2008, Capcom released game based on the Dead Rising property for mobile phones in (country)" where simplified can be whatever adjective you want. Hewinsj (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be true, if the exact same game was ported to the phone, but it isn't. The mobile game is BASED on the 360... they are different. It is an exclussive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.246.106 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 15 July 2008

Thanks Hewinsj - I think you are probably on to something, and I will work towards that. I still dispute the exclusivity claim, despite the fact that this is not a direct port, however I feel it is not worth the fight. I do think, however, that this article should be included in the Category:Mobile phone games. Addionne (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The Wii Versione resolves this problem, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.12.17.66 (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Dead Rising Wiki

I'm going to clean up this wiki a bit, can anyone help me out?63.166.254.137 (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wii Edition

Just got my new Nintendo Power and it gives the official name of Dead Rising: Chop Till You Drop. I don't know how to implement this into the aricle so somebody else should do it.Zabbethx (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Just got an online source to add this. For reference I have created (but as a redir to this) Dead Rising: Chop Till You Drop; I don't expect we need to put any details there so it should stay a redirect. --MASEM 18:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

@zabbethx - You can cite magazines by using the templates found here. Look for the entry marked journals like you would with a regular citation, copy and paste it to the article here and fill in the blanks. If you still need help with this I can lend a hand, I just need to know the page, volume, and month of publication. Hewinsj (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a relivant question but if the game is being ported to the Wii, its there even a slim chance there will be a PS3 port in the future? - RVDDP2501 (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed: Capcom have announced that they expect to sell 500,000 copies of the Wii version to Capcom has announced that they expect to sell 500,000 copies of the Wii version —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.25 (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sequel announcment?

I know this has probably been talked about numerous times, but If I'm not mistaken, wasn't a sequel announces at E3 2008? Or was that the Wii port? Newmansan (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Just the Wii port. --MASEM 14:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Split of Merger

The Wii port of deadrising is almost an entirely separate game and has more than enough information to warrant its own page. I have a page prepared upon the approval of this split. There are many, many things that are new and unless you want to add ALL that info, allow me to create a separate page for Dead Rising: Chop Till You Drop.

GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

We aren't adding EVERYTHING that is new for Dead Rising Wii, because EVERYTHING doesn't need to be in the article. And having different controls and less impressive visuals doesn't make it "almost an entirely separate game". - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Your opinions on the visuals or controls do not matter to Wikipedia's encyclopedic content. There is over 1500 words (over 5000 characters) there containing entirely new information with the exception of plot, which accounts for less than 300 words. But, despite it being overly qualified for it's own page, I took some advice and expanded on the main Dead Rising page's wii port section. Personally, I believe it looks ridiculous and it violates wiki page guidelines for length and subject content.

Therefore, The Wii port needs its own page and I will be glad to make it with the consent of others. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wii version of Dead Rising is simply a port with a few differences. That doesn't justify it being a new article. There is no policy violation here, many pages list port information. Here's a good example: Bully_(video_game)#Bully:_Scholarship_Edition. Another example is Resident Evil 4: several ports with only a few differences. RobJ1981 (talk) 10:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please forgive the lengthy response.

GroundZ3R0, while you are correct that WP:Article size stipulates that articles should be within certain limits, the other editors are trying to comply with WP:Notability, which states that topics must be notable to warrant their own pages. The Wii version may garner a lot of media coverage, the amount of new encyclopedic content is minimal right now. Meaning that while there are several changes to the gameplay, this should be summarized to avoid WP:NOTGUIDE.

And while Article size and Notability may contradict each other in this case, Article size is a guideline, while Notability is an official policy. Per WP:Policies and guidelines: "Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature."

I'm sure that once it gets close to the release of the game, more information will become available. But some of that information needs to be real-world based. So instead of covering all the new features, the article should cover how the new features were developed, and how critics responded to it. Right now, we don't have that information, so it is best to keep it here. But if the information does become available, then splitting it out would be perfectly acceptable and you help would be appreciated in improving it. I hope you understand. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC))

And even if there is a good deal of information on additional features, it still may be better to keep in one article. I point to Okami where the Wii port, while not significantly differing in features, had a lot a reasoning why it was being developed as to add a good 5-6 paragraphs onto the article, but yet the whole article is complete and splitting off that section to a separate "Okami (Wii game)" would make a very difficult article to write. In general, ports with only minimal changes in features to a game rarely get a full game page simply to avoid the repetition in other sections that would be needed there. --MASEM 15:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:VGSCOPE, we try to avoid creating lots of short articles when one larger article will do. Seeing as the plot, setting, characters, and fundamental gameplay are still the same, there is no sense duplicating 90% of the information that is at this article. It should be easy to include a short section about the changing control scheme and graphics engine (this can seriously be summarized in about 2-3 sentences). If the number of new features becomes so great that the section becomes massive, then a split would be appropriate... but not before. Randomran (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thank you GuyInBlack for clarifying the policies. I will be more than glad to help when/if enough information comes to constitute it's own article.

GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 08:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

rude editing

the following changes were made by 92.117.164.246 -

Frank decides to help the male survivors in exchange for gay blowjobs.

and

As the story unfolds, Frank and Brad have a series of sexual encounters with Carlito —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.124.223 (talk) 12:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

trailer

there is a new Leaked trailer:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d87f8pqEsU8&feature=channel_page

all though nothing is comfirmed yet, it does have the graphics that DR has.

should we add it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.45.58 (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

PC in Japan

Dead Rising had a PC release in Japan. JAF1970 (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well-known Case File Glitch

I have discovered--and in looking on the web, see that many other people have discovered--a glitch in the Case File 4-2 Girl Hunting, where if you defeat Isabella too close to the the end of the time limit, even though you've done it before the limit, the game counts it as a loss, and the rest of the game is unplayable. Looking on the web, it appears there is no remedy for this other than to start the game over from the very beginning and when you get to this case file again, beat that particular segment as soon as possible. Given that this isn't discovered until almost the very end of the game, and due to the one-save game only mechanic there's really no remedy other than to start the entire game over, I think this is a pretty glaring glitch in the game and should be posted in this article. I'm just asking where people think it should be--under Technical Issues, or maybe in the same paragraph as the discussion about the critique of game mechanics like the transceiver? 72.85.161.69 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC).

Ok, well, I've had this posted for some time with no response. If I can't get feedback, I will make the edit myself in a way that I feel is appropriate. 72.85.161.69 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC).

• I had this issue too! It was horrible. Never understood why it happened, but yeah. Add it! --68.39.181.248 (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Frank Works For the FBI?

On this page, it says Frank West not only was a Navy SEAL, but was married, and worked for the FBI and was an alcoholic. Where did this information come from? It is never mentioned by Frank West in the game, and all sources say he is simply a freelance journalist. Whoever put these, could you please tell me where you found this information? Otherwise I will delete it for being original research. Thanks The Edit Corrector (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• I believe that information was made up. All we know is that he is a freelance journalist and has "covered wars" (ya, know!). Maybe we will learn more about his history in Dead Rising 2: Off the Record. --173.61.86.167 (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Psychopath? Spared?

Okay, I know that Paul (arsonist) is savable, but I saw something on the article that said a Convict can be spared? Which convict can I spare, also how do I do it? 98.194.23.15 (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ive never heard that, and I have completed the game multiple times. Im sure that it is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.199.213 (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• What they mean is that you could skip ("spare" the convicts) when traversing through the park, not actually save and escort them to the Security Room. They are like the psychopaths and are better off killed. --173.61.86.167 (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Capcom court case: wikipedia is not a reliable source

I found this interesting:

The United States Court of Federal Claims has ruled that "Wikipedia may not be a reliable source of information." This was from Nordwall v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, No. 05-123V, 2008 WL 857661, at *7 n.6 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 19, 2008) which was cited in Capcom Co., Ltd, et al. v. The MKR Group, Inc., No. C 08-0904 RS. Igottheconch (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

series page?

Hey guys, don't you think Dead Rising should have it's own series page? There are 4 games out, 1 game soon to be released, and Dead Rising 3 is in production. A series page would be easier for the readers to understand the story, order of games, the characters, etc.

Film

There appears to be a film based on this. Worth a mention? (Emperor (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC))

Archive 1