Talk:Resident Evil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleResident Evil was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
June 9, 2006Good article nomineeListed
September 21, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 19, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Resident Evil: Survivor[edit]

Is there some reason this game is not in the infobox or is that just an oversight? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, per WP:SILENCE, I've added it to the infobox. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Film series[edit]

Seeing as there are already six films (4 live action and 2 animated), does anybody else feel like there should be a separate page dealing with the film series? ONEder Boy (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Infobox only lists 5 films. 4 live action and 1 animation. If you know of another animated movie please add it. Dylan (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool IJAWET CHRISTINE (talk) 09:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I reformatted in the game list based on the slick wikitable from the guitar hero series wiki. Used Capcom for the developer for all the games, I'm sure they're not the developer for all of the games, and needs to be updated whenever possible. Tubeyes (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are Resident Evil 1, 2, and 3 listed as Yes for PS2? On their respective pages, there is no mention of a PS2 release. I don't see them listed as having PS2 releases on GameFAQs either (unless they have different names). If the Yes for these is merely because the PS2 can play PS1 games, I think it should be changed to No, as it otherwise makes the table less-useful (no way to tell whether a game genuinely has a PS2 release, or is merely a PS1 game compatible). (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Argument and characters[edit]

Where is the argument of the series and the characters? -- (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A long long time ago, on a Wiki page that was deleted... There multiple individual articles for Resident Evil characters! Some of these articles were well written, while many failed WP:WAF and WP:V. Over time, some editors decided to take those articles to AFD, without holding a merge discussion first. Content was lost. The characters were moved to list pages, like Characters from Resident Evil 2. Then Character lists/articles were merged. More content was lost. Rather than having multiple bad articles, we eventually just had one large bad article. Eventually this article was copy-edited and sourced over a period of time. So, all the discussions are either in ADFs, or merged Talk pages from Character Lists. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  16:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see, thanks for the answer... -- (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why isn't there a Wiki entry for the t-virus? Seemingly other important game and film trivia are included, it would seem the t-virus should be right up there. Nasukaren (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Operation Raccon City[edit]

Outbreak series?  TVippy  12:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Games, such as the ports/new titles announced for x360 and PS3 should not be listed as available in the wikitable when they are not avaialable at all, merely announced and in development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caspar esq. (talkcontribs) 00:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merging some games together onto a list[edit]

I suggest that Resident Evil: The Missions , Resident Evil: Genesis , Resident Evil Confidential Report be merged together into List of Resident Evil games along with short summaries of the other games that are not merged but have separate articles. (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A merge sounds reasonable, or better yet, a "Mobile games in the Resident Evil series" article (with a paragraph or two in the series article) – the individual games look too unsubstantial for individual pages, but a common article could present them in a more attractive manner. Prime Blue (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which year was the original released?[edit]

The Prose says 1997 and the table says 1998 - so which is it? -- (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

list of games[edit]

Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3DResident Evil: The Darkside ChroniclesResident Evil 5Resident Evil: The Umbrella ChroniclesResident Evil 4Resident Evil Outbreak File 2Resident Evil OutbreakResident Evil: Dead AimResident Evil ZeroResident Evil GaidenResident Evil Survivor 2 Code: VeronicaResident Evil Code: VeronicaResident Evil SurvivorResident Evil 3: NemesisResident Evil 2Resident Evil (video game)

i think the tables make only sense for the "main games". most of the rest were only released on one system which makes the use of tables unnecessary. regardless of my opinion on the importance of the table, i think it has to be improved at least. the table needs a column for "mobile" (java games - mobile, not platform specific), while the columns for "zeebo" and "" could be removed. (both of these platforms are not very popular and only contribute to the complexity of the table). one column that should be removed is the one regarding the "wii u". as far as i know there have been no statements regarding the release for a resident evil title for this platform (not to mention that the platform itself will not be released for quite some time). Stultitiam debello (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's ok. But I'm just an anon. Yet I'd suggest one slight improvement of the table:
1st: Make a "mobile games" section for all the mobile phone games (which now make up the "other games section")
2nd: Take Operation Raccoon City and create an "other console games" section and put this section before the "portable games" (which if one insists could be renamed into "handheld (console) games", but I digest).
That way you have a quite good structure moving from the core games to the spin-off series to stand alone spin-off titles on home consoles to the various portable and then mobile phone games. But even at this point, the list is pretty good (even though it does seem a little bulky and overblown at first glance - maybe it could be transformed into a seperate entry). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For what it's worth, I agree with Tintor2 that the current table is horribly bloated and redundant, and that a timeline template (without the 19 [!!] mobile phone games) would make more sense. Imagine the platform fields for the current table once two more generations of home consoles will be released. Ugh. Prime Blue (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For some reason the table I added was reverted without an edit summary and was later mentioned to have done vandalism to article.Tintor2 (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I saw that edit, but don't think he really meant it that way. I have told him that he should be more careful with labeling edits as vandalism. One thing on the timeline: is there a way to make the text on the right look less crude? Prime Blue (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have seen the FA Final Fantasy use a smaller table, but it only focused on the main games. See Final Fantasy#Main series.Tintor2 (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I noticed those before, but was turned off because they were so small. I reworked that table now to be easier to read, and implemented it here. Prime Blue (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good.Tintor2 (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resident Evil Portable needs to be removed, because that game isn't happening. (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Name Change[edit]

I cant see any mention of the name change from Biohazard to Resident Evil in this article. A section does exsist on the page for Resident Evil 1, but I think it should be mentioned here too. Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

B assessment[edit]

Expand Reception and I'll assess as B. --JDC808 04:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Project: Let's make the original game a GA[edit]

What to do:

  • More references everywhere (the existsing sources might be used more too).
  • More reception, including reviews, annual awards and retrospective lists and articles.
  • More development.

--Niemti (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Were all games "developed in Japan"?[edit]

Including such titles as Gaiden and OPR? --Niemti (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resident Evil: Red Falls[edit]

I honestly do believe that "Resident Evil: Red Falls" deserves a section in the films. While not officially created by CAPCOM, it was officially "approved" by CAPCOM. And, let's face it, it's significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Resident Evil: Red Falls is a landmark. It deserves to be on the wiki, not because it's official. But because of the wave it has made. Plus the official RE page and twitter shared yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GameOfThrones1988 (talkcontribs) 18:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TV Series[edit]

The other day Bloody Disgusting published an article indicating that a Resident Evil TV series was in the works.[1] Other online media sites, like Polygon and Joystiq have also looked into the story. While it is in fact legit, please bear in mind that it is not a TV Show yet. Right now it is just a pitch that a director is trying to sell to a network or media outlet. If a network chooses to pick it up, then it will deserve mention in this article. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  21:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Storyline of the games[edit]

I'm open to start writing a possible Story section in the article. I'm wondering what is required (source wise) and also which games ought to be included (Just 0 - 6? Are games like Code Veronica etc. notable enough for inclusion?). -- (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Story section is now split between main instalments and other related media. Could someone maybe help improve the Post-Raccoon City segment and maybe expand the other games section? Much obliged. --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge Resident Evil (animated film series) with this article[edit]

Discussion is over at the film series article. --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The material has now been merged with the main article. --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Resident Evil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Solutions to the ugly blank space in the Reception section?[edit]

Is there any way to move the Reviews table into that blank space in the Reception section? I previewed a few attempts at moving the table but it's a bit of a headache to figure out. Anybody better versed in tables have a suggestion? PcPrincipal (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would anyone be aboosed to using a show-hide feature for the review scores? --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  22:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do we actually need all those individual scores for each game on each system on this page? Why not remove the table entirely (perhaps discuss a few highlights if notable), and otherwise leave the individual game's scores to the individual game's pages? Aawood (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think either of those would be good options. I'm gonna look into the show-hide function in the mean time and maybe we could discuss restructuring the table, etc. PcPrincipal (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once again, I'm baffled by this table. The mark-up is such a mess. Or maybe it's just me. But either way, someone who gets wikitables better than me should look more into it. This page has code for collapsible tables. PcPrincipal (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any ideas StarScream1007 or Aawood? I'm gonna test a few more things out in the meantime. PcPrincipal (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Went through and condensed the ratings to just the original release consoles, removed the port ratings in order to at least shorten the table. PcPrincipal (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like what you've done, definitely an improvement. Aawood (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that it looks much better. Good Job, PcPrincipal (talk · contribs). I tried to research the code for a collapsing table, but it does not seem to be compatible with 'Template:Video game series reviews' at the moment. We could make something from scratch, but this is a better option for now. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  22:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! And yeah I might be more willing to look into it later on now that it's simplified. Another solution I thought of was adding more to the reception to fill in the blank space. I don't really have anything in mind for that though, and at that point we'd just be using content to fix a cosmetic issue. Maybe a backwards method. For now I'm fine with it, glad to hear it's looking better! PcPrincipal (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should the franchise be referred to as Biohazard and only remarked to be called Resident Evil in the US?[edit]

Biohazard has been the original name published by the Japanese company as the authentic name, and published in parallel in the US as Resident Evil. The scope of Wikipedia is of a worldwide and some English-speaking countries (for instance, Hong Kong), has known this franchise as Biohazard instead of the American name. And also how this article does not contain the Biohazard logo is also beyond me. It has been mentioned in both the English and the Japanese articles that Biohazard has been the series name, only to be shown as Resident Evil for publishing in the US due to a used Trademark. Biohazard represents better the authentically intentional name of the original authors, and not to mention their preferred publishing name. -Joshua.yathin.yu (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment He has a point when it comes to the Biohazard logo. Shouldn't that be included in the infobox? DA1 (talk) 04:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Why would we include the Biohazard logo? Wikipedia articles typically contain the single main logo for the subject and in our case we use the WP:COMMONNAME per the arguments above. Popcornfud (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Popcornfud: Explain the rationale behind why Nintendo Entertainment System has the logo for Famicom, or why TurboGrafx-16 has the logo for PC Engine, in the infobox then? COMMONNAME guidelines apply to Article titles only otherwise we wouldn't mention the alternate names in the lede either. DA1 (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    DA1, well then, it seems my claim that "Wikipedia articles typically contain the single main logo for the subject" is not necessarily true. I guess I wouldn't object, on that basis, to seeing the Biohazard logo in there too.
    ... But are we sure the Biohazard logo isn't the same as the RE logo - just a different name in the same font? In which case having both logos isn't really adding much value. Popcornfud (talk) 10:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Erevys (talk · contribs) please explain here why you think the movie logo should be retained in the article. If you continue to revert without edit summaries or discussing on talk pages, you will be blocked again for longer or potentially indefinitely. As to why I want it pulled from the article, it simply doesn't help illustrate anything to the user. The picture of the director and lead actor is more informative. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it possible to keep both images? Since they are technically free, there's no need to worry about a Fair Use Rationale. I think they both have some merit, but I am learning towards Tarkus. The logo will likely be dated once more information is released about the reboot film. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  18:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zero and CV, mainline or spin-off?[edit]

There seems to be some disagreement on whether Resident Evil Zero and Resident Evil: Code Veronica are considered mainline entries or spin-offs. I, for one, think we should list them as mainline entries:

  • They feature gameplay identical to the mainline entries at the time. Spin-offs which were all light gun games, Game Boy games, etc.
  • They are canonically tied with the mainline plot.
  • They are both more ambitious projects than Resident Evil 3 in terms of scope / scale / probably development costs.
  • Resident Evil Zero is numbered. Being a prequel doesn't matter.
  • Code Veronica is a mainline entry in every way except it has no number, and this was for marketing reasons. (discussed HERE)
  • Sources discuss them as mainline entries: [2][3][4][5]

TarkusABtalk/contrib 01:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding content[edit]

I'd say that adding the Japanese and Hepburn text fits the article more just like the Silent Hill article.

It's okay if you disagree. (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The GA/FA-class articles about video game franchises, such as Clock Tower (series), Fire Emblem, Metroid, Persona (series), and Final Fantasy all use the ref-note as opposed to directly placing the Japanese/Hepburn text in the lead. However, I do not think there's a MOS standard for this. Let's see what the other editors think. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  02:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:VG/JP. Popcornfud (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Resident Evil creatures[edit]

I think it would be nice to have a list of the monsters that appear in the games.

( (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Status of the Revelations subseries - Main series or spin-off?[edit]

Both Revelations and Revelations 2 frequently change status on this site. One moment they're listed as their own spin-off series, the next they're listed as main series. As of this moment, they've recently been moved back to their own sub-series. It may be worth having a discussion to settle the matter.

I present my exploration of arguments for my position, which is against inclusion:

Argument 1: No number? Not main series! - That the Revelations games are not numbered may be reason enough for some, and this seems a reasonable argument. Village does not work as a rebuttal, as the 8 is present in roman numeral form in the game's logo, and there are many interviews of Capcom representatives explaining that Village is in fact Resident Evil 8. What does complicate this argument, however, is Code Veronica. Code Veronica's status as main series is unquestioned. Though the reasons for it lacking a number are sometimes contradicted by official sources, as acknowledged on the Wikipedia article, the content of the game remained unchanged. Whichever narrative is true, be it an internal decision to keep the numbered entries on Playstation consoles or active bartering on Sony's part, the arbitrary lack of a number does not prove nor disprove the main series status of Code Veronica, and therefore is not a valid argument against the Revelations series' inclusion.

Argument 2: Official sources - A stronger argument can be found here, though it's not without its problems. Here's Masachika Kawata, a Resident Evil producer, who says this: "I’ve worked on main series titles Resident Evil 4 and Resident Evil 5, as well as spin-off titles, the Resident Evil Revelations series and Umbrella Chronicles" ( And that's pretty clear, isn't it? 4 and 5 are main series, Revelations is a spin-off series akin to the Umbrella Chronicles. This isn’t the only time the Revelations series has explicitly been referred to as a spin-off: here’s Yasuhiro Anpo on the Revelations games: “I’ve worked on both the main series and this spin-off series…”, and also Michiteru Okabe: “I would also love to be able to continue Revelations as a spin-off series” ( So there we go, yes? However, to revisit a theme from Code Veronica, sources contradict. In the lead-up to Village, many sources listed it as not just "Resident Evil 8", but the "eighth installment" or "eighth in the series" ( &, which would seemingly preclude both Code Veronica and Zero, not to mention both Revelations games. I would argue that the tendency to refer to the Revelations games as spin-offs is more reliable than the Village marketing material however, as the latter is intended to be concise and understandable to a Resident Evil layman, as it could be confusing to be accurate. Imagine: “This is Resident Evil 8, the tenth game in the Resident Evil series, not including the remakes of course…”

Argument 3: Atypical releases and production value for main series titles - The Revelations games are simply not up to the production standard of their contemporaries. While Revelations was impressive for a handheld title, Revelations 2 was clearly lacking as a console game when compared to Resident Evil 5 & 6. The marketing push behind these games was not comparable to that of 5 or 6, reflected in their far lower sales. This is unfortunately hard to quantify, as neither development nor advertising budgets are publicly available as far as I can tell. However, the clincher lies in the atypical release methods of handheld initially for Revelations, and episodic initially for Revelations 2. These mark two divergences from main series precedent of full, home-console releases. If the Revelations games are to be considered main series, they are alone in bucking this trend; no other main series game could claim such a break from the norm.

These are my arguments against inclusion. Does anyone have a different perspective? Nerd-Binary (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the list on this website can prove the the Revelations Games are mainline ([6] but this list also include the Outbreak series that i consider spin-offs.
One solution is that we rename the main series category to Major Releases, like it is on Resident Evil wiki, and include the Revelations Games as a sub-category, like the remakes. KnutTheNerd (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually like the idea of bolding "Major Releases" as opposed to main series. The Revelations games are canon, but they did not get the same marketing push or budget as the mainline games. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  00:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should i edit the article and change it Major Releases and include The Revelations games a subcategory?. or do we need to discuss this further?. KnutTheNerd (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's give it a few more days. If no one objects, please go ahead make the proposed changes. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  18:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there was a minor miscommunication and over-sight on my part. My vote was siding with Nerd-Binary that the Revelations games should not be bolded on the time line as they were not major releases given they did not have the same budget or marketing push as other mainline RE games. The Revelations games should not be bolded imo. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  15:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i am giving up on this topic for now!. Even though i belive that the Revelatons games have a big enough budget, marketing and re-releases to be considered Major releases. but i guess this depends on diffrent people's opinions. KnutTheNerd (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Nerd-Binary and StarScream, the Revelations games are not major titles and should not be stated as such. Just because they are canon doesn't mean they should group with Resident Evil, 2 and 3, etc. TheDeviantPro (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]