Talk:Resident Evil

"different universes"

The article states the movies and games take place in 2 different universes.This is not true.The first movie is suppossed to be a prequel to the first game.The second movie shows Jill Valentine,a charecter from the games.--Nadirali نادرالی

If you have actually played the games (particularly Resident Evil 3) and compared to the events of Resident Evil: Apocalypse, there's really no way to reconcile the events of the two. Jonny2x4 01:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• the movies aren't canon (or the other way around). these events are in no way connected. and your jill valentine 'fact': in the game jill valentine never meets alice nor does she experience any of the events in the movie. and i won't even start about the post-apocalyptic setting in resident evil: exitinction —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.67.179 (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Move request

From WP:RM:

• Resident Evil (series) → Resident Evil — NOTE: It appears that a history merge from the two is needed also, though I'm not sure how that works. Why should the page name include "(series)" if Resident Evil redirects there? ~I'm anonymous
  • Resident Evil should be the location of the article on the first game. TJ Spyke 07:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This request has been moved from the section for uncontroversial moves. Please see the instructions at WP:RM for details on how to proceed with a move request. --Stemonitis 07:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - First things first, a history merger needs to be established. Then, we worry about what page should be named Resident Evil according to what search is popular or came first; the series or the video game. ~I'm anonymous

• I don't see the need for a history merger because Resident Evil (and Resident Evil (old disambig)) were only ever disambiguation pages. Unless you mean some other article. –Pomte 02:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Resident Evil should be the article for the first game in the series IMO. TJ Spyke 23:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

When the average person searches for Resident Evil, don't you think they are more likely interested in the entire series than one with narrow scope? –Pomte 03:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Yeah, I guess history merging is outta the question, perhaps not. Wouldn't know. I don't see no reason why Resident Evil should not be the page name of this article. Anyone else in favour of this move? I've casted my vote at the top. ~I'm anonymous

NVM! The story line for the Resident evil series DOES in fact include code veronica. This post replaced the other one i said and i was wrong...my apologies to those who saw it. —The preceding comment is by GuitarsLastHope (talk • contribs) GuitarsLastHope: Please sign your posts!

Number of RE games

This article states that there are "seven games in the main series...with eighth and ninth installments currently under production." Well... RE0, RE1, RE2, RE3:N, RE4, and REC:V. That's six. With RE:UC and RE5 being seven and eight. I'm going to change it; revert it if I'm wrong. HeroOfVirtue 22:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Devil may cry (See also)

What-a? See also says: " * Devil May Cry - a game that was originally planned to be Resident Evil 4 ". This is the most baseless info i've heard in any games article. And no citation what-so-ever. And in my opinion Capcom most likely wouldnt made hack-n-slash game as resident evil. I deleted it for now, put it back if you find citation from reliable source

Read the development section under the Devil May Cry article for plenty of citations. Parjay ► Talk 16:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Resident Evil (franchise) → Resident Evil — Article already redirects here. If that's the case, it should be the title of this article (we should not redirect to a disambiguated page) —-- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 16:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has been renamed from Resident Evil (franchise) to Resident Evil as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 06:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

New Game

What about the new PS2 game "Resident Evil: The Essentials"?. --KingOfDX 01:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a bundle that includes Resident Evil 4, Veronica X, Outbreak. It's not its own game. Wildodeelf 22:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Outbreak not a Spin off?

However, the Outbreak series are not spin-off, they are inside the cannon, as they are referred in The Umbrella Chronicles and included in Resident Evil: The Essentials along with Resident Evil CODE

I don't understand this citations of the Outbreaks being canon.

-The Umbrella Chronicles has not yet been released, and I haven't seen any preview even suggesting events or characters from Outbreak would be covered in it.

-Deming it canon based on its inclusion in a bundle package is not acceptable by any standard I know of.

-Deming it canon based on that patrician of the website is nowhere near reliable. Because:

- There's no separate section for spin off games.

- The Umbrella Chronicles is supposed to be a main series game, but isn't in that list, and on a different patrician.

- As of my review of the Timeline listings there has clear inaccuracies. For instance Resident Evil 3's description of being two months after Jill's escape from Raccoon City.

I'll revert it in two days if it's not explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildodeelf (talk • contribs) 23:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It should not be mentioned either way, because there is no evidence to state that the Outbreak games are not canon, and there is no evidence to state that they ARE canon, either (if you dismiss the fact that they are RE games in the first place). We know that even Survivor is canon, so I can't see why the Outbreaks are not. Parjay ► Talk 23:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My point was that the sources and reassembled charts seem like someone decided to vandalize Wiki to support a fan debate. There's something to be said for acknowledgment that a "spin-off" is not by nature "noncanon." That user was the one that added a clause that stated the spin off games where not canon, and moved the Outbreak games into the "Main Series." Seeming to support their own opinion.

The fundamental departure from the standard Resident Evil games as shown in the Survivor series, and the pure multiplayer system from Outbreak seem to fall into the category of "Spin-off." With the admittance of misspeaking myself when brought up my misgivings about the sources, I still to insist the sources and just about everything that user added needs to be removed. Reguardless if anything is done to the Main/spin-off chart. Wildodeelf 00:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge the supposed spin offs into the main list. Parjay ► Talk 01:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

So, you're suggesting that in addition to reverting that editor's changes, that we get rid of the entire "spin off" and "main series" sections, and merge the game charts? Or just to merge the game charts? Since I know the latter would cause confusion.Wildodeelf 01:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Former. Parjay ► Talk 17:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll still give 80.24.63.126 until tomorrow to make some justification or input on this. Wildodeelf 19:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm the one who edited the "Main Game" and "Spin-off" sections (I forgot logging in and answering you, sorry for the delay). The reason is not fan debate, nor just personal opinion. Biohazard has been changing since the installment of the fourth "main game" and the new line which would be continued with Biohazard 5, and because of that, the old chapters are being reunited to acquire some consistency for the plot. In this task, some "spin-off" have been included in the official timeline, whether other "spin-off" (like Gaiden, Dead Aim and Survivor 2) have been forgotten. It is true that this timeline from The Legacy has some inaccuracies, as well as in the beginning was a complete mess, with descriptions of the games not corresponding to their titles. Nevertheless, the inclusion of the Outbreak series and the first Survivor in this timeline is quite recent, and it's important considerating it. Why there isn't a spin-off section? Because the developers are leaving apart those games useless to the plot. Why isn't The Umbrella Chronicles in the timeline? Because is the game they are promoting now, as occurs with Biohazard 5. We surely know that Survivor is in the canon, thanks to the prologue of Biohazard 0. Now, with The Umbrella Chronicles appearance, something similar has happened. As you know, the entire shown scenario relating to the events of Biohazard 3 came from the Outbreak episodes, so it means that, at least, its remake of the Raccoon City look like have been "canonized". Moreover, although is just a mere pack, its inclusion in Resident Evil: The Essentials give us a clue of its importance for the developers. In conclusion, if we use the division of "Spin-off" and "Main Games" to avoid confusion, it has to be more accurate: on the one hand, the "canonized" games which have echoes in the plot (technical aspects apart), and on the other hand, those games related to the series with no influence over the plot. More helpful, I think, for old and new gamers. That's the reason. --Mistragelza 13:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I can appreciate where your position, but I still have to disagree with your reasoning.

First, saying that the Legacy Timeline has significant errors but claiming it as a valid source goes against the very essence of WP:REF, as a source cannot be reliable yet unreliable.

Second, no, I personally do not know that the Outbreak skins have been completely reused for the Resident Evil 3 portion of The Umbrella Chronicles. If you have some reliable citation for that statement I'd like it to see it before I take that statement as anything beyond your perception that the Raccoon Police Station looks more similar to Outbreak File #2's rendition. However confirming the way the surroundings look doesn't confirm any of the events, so even if you did have some citation tha confirms that the appearances would be identical, it still would canonize the events of the Outbreak games.

Third, as I've already said Outbreak's inclusion in a bundle pack in no way confirms its state in the canon. Since it is equally possible that it was a marketing decision not involving the developers in the least. You're using quite a bit of conjecture saying that it's some hint from the developer, which is in clear violation of WP:NOT.

Fourth, you may have a point on making a citation on what games are canon. However as I've already stated "Spin-off" doesn't mean "Non-canon." If there where to be an organization of games ruled out by their primary universe canon, but a better official source of what games are canon in the primary universe would be needed.Wildodeelf 00:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding RE-based cellphone games?

Should we? I mean, the wikipedia already has Confidential Report? The only ones left are Resident Evil: iSurvivor and Resident Evil: The Missions... -- 142.58.82.111 (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

storylines

i see a lot of technical/release information here. that's not however, why i'm looking at the article (although the information is wonderful, and thank you to all those involved in improving it); but are there no reliable sources with information on the storylines of this series? for example the work done on the half life games? i'm not really sure where to look for this info, since i only play some of the games and i'm not a reliable source anyway... is that appropriate for this article?Killemall22 (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Adjustment to game chart

Resident Evil: Deadly Silence was not a new Resident Evil game. Rather, it was a remake of the original Resident Evil game. It did add features to the game, but these features were minor compared to, for example, the Gamecube version (which is listed as a remake). Indded, the DS is already mentioned as one of the systems Resident Evil was remade for, referring to Deadly Silence.

Are there any objections therefore to my removing this entry from the list of games? Aawood (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for improvements

The article needs to address the question "What is Resident Evil About?".

It starts with: "Resident Evil is a media franchise consisting of..."

As I read the article, I never can figure out what its about, what the basic story is... (or perhaps I missed it, its not clearly stated).

A Good Sub Heading Might be:

The Basic Story Line: or-- The Story:

Thanks for the article. KelMikeKelMike (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Question By Me

"while others criticized the fact that it was a confused adaptation of the Resident Evil games." Shouldn't this be cited? Something's not quite right here... Lots42 (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - I've added the request for citation. Aawood (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"TB remake"?

I keep seeing something about "TB remake" or "TB remake novels" in random articles dealing with the series. What exactly is being referred to? Woodrow Buzard (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)