Jump to content

Talk:Resident Evil/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

"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:

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
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) More mobile games

I was wondering if instead having only a few resident evil mobile games with separate articles, it would be possible to have one whole article/page dedicated to all the resident evil mobile games (even the ones not shown yet like Assualt the Nightmare, Zombie Buster, Genesis etc.). I think alot of fans would like to know about all the different ones available. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.143.3 (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2008 (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)

Those are mine. They shouldn't really be up but some fans put them up. You may take them if you want but it's a series that I'm writing. Sorry about the issue. Kamrein L. Laemmle 03:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

it's a fanfic.  Doktor  Wilhelm  03:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

YouTube Influence

I was just wondering, was it worth mentioning the YouTube user Shadowleggy[1] as she has found great acclaim in her many parodies of the Resident Evil series or is it not suited to nor relevant to this article? 84.45.134.188 (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

They are listed as: #39 - Most Subscribed (All Time) - Comedians, #55 - Most Viewed (This Month) - Comedians & #25 - Most Viewed (All Time) - Comedians, with such a big user base, does that make it noatable enough?  Doktor  Wilhelm  03:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Fullmetal VAmp::the movies and the games are in no way related ^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by FullmetalVampire (talk • contribs) 21:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


The above comment seems to need a section of its own? It doesn't seem to have much of a point under this column 84.45.134.188 (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

1. S.T.A.R.S are redirected to this page yet there are links to S.T.A.R.S on this very same page. 2. there is no information on S.T.A.R.S here. Akinkhoo (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The only STARS article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.T.A.R.S._Members_%28Resident_Evil%29 I think. Geoff B (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor edit to lead

I reworded the lead slightly so the video game series is mentioned first. The video games were produced first and the other products are largely spun off from the games. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fourth live action movie

According to IMDB.com a fourth live action movie is in the works (link). It is currently set to be released in 2010. There are very few details as of yet, but rumors are swirling that Jovovich may be replaced. It's still probably too early to start an article, but I just wanted to give everyone a heads up. Blackngold29 03:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Merger_proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is a proposed merge of Raccoon City to this page. The WP:PLOT content has mostly been removed and the article has been brought in line with WP:WAF. However, some concern remains as to the notability of this article by itself--most of the references refer to Raccoon City only briefly when discussing portions of the Resident Evil franchise. The most recent AfD can provide some added justification for or against such a merger. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Support
  1. For reasons outlined above. Protonk (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. I support this but also noticed there is no significant information on the development and reception of Raccoon City in its article. The print material mentions (which are about the film version) are casual statements and trivial in nature. Jappalang (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Changing stance to Neutral.
  • Oppose
  1. The is another proposal to merge The Hive with Raccoon City and I think that would be a much better idea. By doing this the article would be much better referenced. -- iDosh!  talk? 13:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. I’m opposed for the reasons I stated on a related page, while also discussing a merge proposition. A merge would not solve anything, and just add more, in-universe clutter to another article. This happens all the time in RE-related articles, and only results in the degeneration of articles; As GamerJunkie stated on the previous merger discussion, “merging Tyrant would serve no purpose other than to have one crappy article instead of two to send to AfD whenever that happens.” Either fix the article, (then merge if needed), or delete it all together. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  15:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
    A merger doesn't have to be anything more than a redirect. If we find that the content in the Raccoon city article doesn't substantively add to the RE page, we don't need to drop blocks of text there anyway. The apparent consensus at AfD is that this article shouldn't be deleted. I don't agree with that consensus but we can't wait for AfD to clean the article up or remove content. Protonk (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. I think it's been demonstrated that Raccoon City has received substantial coverage and that enough can be written about it to warrant a separate article. There is no basis for packing everything into one article. If there are other notable places in Resident Evil, let's have one "Places of Resident Evil" article instead. Everyking (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral
  1. Based on this version, it could stand on its own as a C-class article. That, however, could be as far as the article can go. It might be better to work it into the series article or a "Geography of Resident Evil series" article (provided there are other notable locations with real-world information). Jappalang (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. I'm with Jappalang. Up until recently, the only information that didn't violate WP:NOT would have made Raccoon City a stub. And it's a stub that would have been merged nicely. But now that it includes more information about The Hive, it's actually a low quality notable C-class article. That's fine by me for the time being. Maybe it will be possible to improve this article as more coverage is found for this topic. If not, we should revisit the merge later. But not right away. Randomran (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Outcome

I'm going to withdraw the proposal as no consensus. Jappa and Randorman have rightly show that the hive merger made the RC merger unnecessary. Protonk (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dino Crisis and Resident Evil in the same universe?

I've notice that alot of Resident Evil and Dino Crisis fans believe that the two series created by Capcom say that its in the same timeline/universe as each other.

The is also proof of this such as the Umbrella logo's seen in some Dino Crisis games even tho in RE story Umbrella died in 2003 but there could still be left over supplys from the company.

The time frame from both games is about 10 years apart from each other, Resident Evil starting in 1998 and Dino Crisis in 2009 etc. Capcom may have done this to include both series within one universe.

The start of Resident Evil say's "Enter a world of survival horror" possably meaning Dino Crisis.

Could someone please do some more research into this and maybe add it to wikipedia of this is to be true, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.21.182 (talk) 04:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge List of creatures in the Resident Evil series

The majority of the enemies are completely unnecessary. There should just be a main section here giving an overview of the creatures and how they work. The games can cover any special cases. Tyrants and Nemesis apparently have some sort of information, so they can either have their own sections here (or Resident Evil 3 in Nemesis's case) or be split out if enough information is provided. TTN (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Check discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of creatures in the Resident Evil series. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a good idea. Far too much unreferenced in-universe information. The Nemesis and Tyrant parts have some good references, and would definitely deserve more weight when merged. Randomran (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As much as I do not like having too much information in one place, I think main enemies should be show cased, and minor ones given a generic page. So basically a list of notable enemies from the main games in the series, such as RE Zero, RE 1-5, and maybe CODE: Veronica. Thats about it. BlackScreaminMachine (talk) 11:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Different order

I think Resident evil zero should be the first of the main series since it is technically "The beginning"Dragonsblast (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Still, it was made after the previous games in the series.--Degenerate-Y (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

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

A few things are missing that this article should have in order to keep its GA status.

  • A longer lead, for sure. It's currently way too short to properly summarize the entire article.
  • Formatted references per WP:CITE/ES to include at least publisher and access dates
  • Sufficient references—too many paragraphs have absolutely no references
  • Perhaps sections such as "Themes, "Common gameplay elements", and "Development"

Please keep this page updated with the article's progress. Gary King (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Because these issues have not been resolved, this article has been reassessed. Gary King (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Continuity

In the "Generation of Degeneration" DVD special feature for Resident Evil Degengeration, the filmmakers explain that this movie is in effect "Resident Evil 4.5", i.e. what happens after Resident Evil 4. Perhaps we should note that somewhere here, i.e. that this film is intended as part of the video game series continuity rather than as a stand alone separate universe like the other live action film series? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Main Series

I have sort of a Question to all that talk about "Main" Series... Isn´t the "Main Series" the Numbered Series. This would include only Resident Evil Zero, RE1, RE2, RE3: Nemesis, RE4 and the upcoming RE 5. I think it is wrong to say "Main = Canon". You can do this on Films, but with a game there are certain factors, like gameplay, genre, etc. that play sort of a role. I mean Umbrella Chronicles is a Rail Shooter right? While all the other "Main" Games are Action Adventures (sub genre survival horror^^). And why the hack wasn´t Code Veronica called "Resident Evil 4: Code Veronica"? Dosn´t that make it a spinn-off. A canonical Spinn-off? 88.152.114.211 (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

RE5 and PC

Okay, first of all I don't think CAPCOM themselves have out right announced it. There have been leaks from some sources and hints from CAPCOM but nothing official. Also I don't think you could call the PC version port. Just because it is coming out later does not make it a port, ESPECIALLY the engine that they use, they specifically mention that they develop the games on PC first (because the PS3 SKU wasn't finalized etc etc) and they keep at it. I doubt they changed their formula for RE5 and they worked on it on PC and then, if anything, ported it to Xbox 360/PS3. You can't call Devil May Cry 4 on PC a port, or Lost Planet. --ZuljinRaynor (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Mobile games

There are a bunch of unlisted mobile games at http://www.capcom-world.com/games.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.115.7.34 (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Mercenaries

I didn't know where else to put this so here it is , I think 'Mercenaries' should get its own small article as it is now a part of the Res series due to its inclusion in Res 3, 4 and now 5. But at this point in time all I have is Res 4 (I never owned or played on Res 3 and as my Xbox has only just been sent off for repair there is no need for me to buy Resident Evil 5 within the next few weeks) so can not completely make this article. If I am alowed to make this article then I may require the asistence of some one else to improve on it. Please reply to me on my talk page if you wish to discusse this with me. Cheers 'The Ninjalemming' 16:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't know about its own article, but it probably deserves a section in one of them. Geoff B (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Like this one? 'The Ninjalemming' 17:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
If any one cares to have a look, we have started a rather large section on the Mercenaries mini game. May need lots moe editing. It is located here -)'The Ninjalemming' 14:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was to merge into Resident Evil#Comics. MuZemike 16:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I propose that Resident Evil Comic be merged into the "Comics" section of Resident Evil. I do not think there is anything verifiable that cannot be mentioned in this article. Please discuss below and indicate whether you support, oppose, or have any other suggestion. MuZemike 22:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I definitely support. Considering there aren't two different articles for the games and the movies, there shouldn't be one for a comic, especially when it isn't very long and will fit in so nicely.DarkForceRising (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)DarkForceRising
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

changes to main series

I´ve changed the main series a bit. I think, it might confuse people, if a seventh game in a series is called Resident Evil 5. I´m relatively new to the series and was confused myself, why the fifth part is actually the seventh. And since the other 2 games are still listed as main games, I don´t think it should be much of a problem, except for those, who are too comfortable with the older listing. Another thin: Deadly Silence is a remake/port of the original, right? Why is it listed sepperately? And is Genesis not a remake as well? Technically? I suggest mentioning the Remake of the original Resident Evil sepperately as a Remake below the other games. Since main is quite a vague term, you might even consider to make it more concrete, like console survival horror games. Just a suggestion. All of them.87.174.239.130 (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Deadly Silence

The Nintendo DS Remake/ Port of Resident Evil is listed twice. Should it be changed?87.174.252.253 (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

hell yeah, change it, change it, change it, change it! 'The Ninjalemming' 16:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Irony? Obsession? What´s the deal? I feel you either list it as a port or as an original game. Portable Games should refer to original portable Games. 87.174.240.183 (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it worth noting the reason for the name change from Biohazard to Resident Evil?

I don't know if this is worth noting in the article, so I'll just throw it out here, but Chris Kramer, Senior Director of Communications and Community at Capcom US recently revealed why and how the name was changed from Biohazard to Resident Evil for US releases.

"In late 1994, Capcom Entertainment in the US was starting to ramp up marketing plans for the game that would eventually become known as Resident Evil in the US. Capcom Japan had let us know that the name of the game was going to be ‘Biohazard’ in Japan, but I pointed out to the person who ran marketing at the time that it would be next to impossible for Capcom to register the name in the US.

As an example, I pointed out that a crappy DOS-based game had just come out in the US called ‘Biohazard’ (not to mention the New York hardcore band of the same name) and that we’d never be able to secure the mark. As a result, the head of marketing held a company-wide contest to come up with a new name for the game.

After combing through a huge list of entries, the marketing group decided that ‘Resident Evil’ was the best, as it was a clever pun – the first game was set in a mansion, get it? I voted against the name – I thought it was super-cheesy; can’t remember what I felt was a better alternative, probably something stupid about zombies – but the rest of the marketing crew loved it and were ultimately able to convince Capcom Japan and Mikami-san that the name fit. The person who actually came up with the name was a designer in Capcom Digital Studios, Capcom’s first US-based development group.”

Source: GamesRadar

63.150.42.3 (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Saturn/PS release?

Just a quick question, im pretty sure the first game came out on Saturn before Playstation, or was that just in Europe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.159.177 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the RE article, it came out on the PS1 in 96 and on the Saturn in 97. Geoff B (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... The article on here? Thats what im questioning, i cant seem to find a definitive release date for both systems anywhere... Still not convinced, it was a long time ago, im pretty sure i had the game on saturn, before it was released on PS1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.203.134.194 (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Capcom doesn't mention dates, but says RE was released on PS1 first in 1996 here, worldwide. Probably not a reliable source by WP standards, but here it says the Saturn version came out in the UK on 1st Nov, 1997. Geoff B (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice one mate, appreciate you diggin to clear that up, my memory aint as spot-on as i thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent4776 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. TBH I don't remember which came first at all, and I bought it when it came out. Good old brains. Geoff B (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC) is it for 2 players or not.
Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Resident_Evil/Archive_2&oldid=1137155180"