Talk:Resident Evil Requiem

The exact or probable location of the events

Considering that the game takes place 8 years after the death of Grace's mother, an event that was already mentioned in the 7th game, and the rumors that Leon will be the second playable character, is it safe to assume that the events of the game have already happened by the time of the 8th game and that we will essentially be going back in time? On the other hand, an active return to Raccoon City was never mentioned anywhere, and in the games and films released at the time of 4-5 games, the characters referred to Raccoon City as something that remained in the past. The Village finale teased the involvement of Winters' daughter in the events that follow, but it seems like it's not the right time for that and we're simply being introduced to new characters. In general, can we predict at least a theoretical place of the game in the timeline without the risk of falling into the original research? Solaire the knight (talk) 08:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

So based on rumours, what isn't said and interpretation of events of previous games? Sound like entirely speculation and original research. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

That's why I'm asking if we can even theoretically determine this without original research. And speaking of "speculation", the franchise has a clear timeline with dates. Knowing the date of her mother's death and that Requiem takes place 8 years after that, you don't have to speculate much about the date of the game's events. Solaire the knight (talk) 10:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Just stick to whatever reliable sources are saying. Worrying too much about timelines brushes dangerously close to WP:FANCRUFT material. Popcornfud (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

In that case, we'll just have to wait for the game's official release or some promotional materials to find out directly how Requiem dates its events. The Fandom Wiki already has some information, but I don't know where they got it from, so I obviously can't cite any sources. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Yep, until we have reliable sources we can't add this info. And from an encylopedic perspective it probably isn't that important anyway. Popcornfud (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, it's quite important for the further description of both the plot of the game and its position in the overall history. But yes, all this is a question of the future, for now we have too few sources for any movements. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Numbering

I see that the article continues a sluggish dispute over the serial number and position of the game in the franchise. Even though the game is actually officially called the 9th part of the series. In this regard, I propose to protect the article as popular and discuss it in this thread in order to develop some of our own rules on this matter through consensus. I do not know on what basis the current wiki list was formulated, Japanese Wikipedia calls the game the ninth numbered and 10th in the series, apparently counting RE0, but ignoring Code Veronica. As an option, you can call it "the ninth in the main series, but such and such in general", but there we will have to write 50+ or ​​even 60+ number if you take into account mobile games. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps "the ninth numbered entry" could work? "RE9" and "Re9uiem" are shown in the official trailer. TheHumanIntersect (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Sounds great. Trivial, but it solves the problems with the "main series". If no one is against it or offers a better option, then I'm for it. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

UPD. As I expected, the article has once again entered an edit war. And as I see it, people continue to insist that Code Veronica and RE0 are full-fledged big games, but no sources have been provided.Solaire the knight (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I mean, that's because they are. 0 is a numbered entry and a prequel to 1, Code Veronica is a direct sequel to 2. Both games are in the direct line of story that began with 1. Even the main Resident Evil Wikipedia page that has been around forever has them in bold font along with the other 8 main entries. Ahriman the Exile (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I apologize, but any Resident Evil wiki is a fan-made one and cannot be used as an authoritative source. For example, the largest one also considers the remakes to be separate games in the main series. That's why I ask, based on what sources do you consider these two games to be part of the main series? I can still understand RE0, it's a direct prequel and the Japanese seem to consider it a direct part as well. But Code Veronica? If you ignore discussions and wage an edit war on the article, at least provide sources. P.S. I'm really starting to get confused by the number of new accounts in this thread. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm referring to the Wikipedia page here on Wikipedia, not a fan wiki. The page has been around for a long time and they have had the games in bold for years, so obviously they have come to a consensus long ago. Whatever they used on that page would surely apply to here as well, no?

What does my account being new have to do with knowledge of the material? I made an account to try and help what I was seeing as a bickering match between people who couldn't seem to just speak to each other and just kept arguing on a series that's dear to me. I usually just like to read the edits, but it seems people are continually getting heated here, yourself included. So maybe a new cool head could help.

I'm not judging you based on your ban history, so I kindly request you don't judge me based on recency. Ahriman the Exile (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

A wiki cannot serve as a source for itself, especially if you don't cite any text with a source, but a vague "previously satisfied everyone". This does not necessarily mean consensus, maybe people just didn't care about it, maybe it was copied from somewhere, maybe it used to comply with the rules, etc. At the same time, there are no sources for this. In some cases, information can remain on Wikipedia for years before being removed. If you were the only new user, I wouldn't have any questions. But you are already the second or third new user to participate in this day, and that worries me. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Code: Veronica is a DIRECT sequel to Resident Evil 2 and was developed as a major title while Resident Evil 3 was originally was going to be a spin-off but both Resident Evil 3 and Code: Veronica got was a major release on the PlayStation and Dreamcast platform. Just because Code: Veronica isn't "numbered" doesn't mean isn't a major title in the series. This is like saying Grand Theft Auto: Vice City and Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas aren't major titles in the Grand Theft Auto series because they aren't numbered which they are. I also like to point the Japanese Wikipedia which you bought up in your initial argument also lists Code: Veronica is a main series game. TheDeviantPro (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Can you back this up with sources? If I had to find sources for the obvious fact that Requiem returns players to Raccoon City after the destruction of the third game, then why are the conditions different in this case? You will have no problem proving that Vice City and San Andreas are major games in the GTA series, so you will also have no problem proving it with sources instead of another edit war. Anyway, I requested full protection of the page as being subject to an edit war, especially when they have even started to remove from the article that this is the ninth ordinal game. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Here's an official source then. An article from IGN citing the 10 core games currently released

Can everyone stop arguing now?

[1]

"How Many Resident Evil Games Are There?

There are 10 core Resident Evil games: RE 0-7, Village, and Code: Veronica. However, the total number of Resident Evil console games — including spinoffs and remakes — sits around 30. That number rises near 60 when accounting for mobile and pachinko games" Ahriman the Exile (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

IGN is not affiliated with Capcom, it is a gaming media site. Secondly, they literally mention two Revelation games, which are universally considered spin-offs, telling side stories about characters from the main story. This is even broader than the current list, actually including all the most famous and available games on PC. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Now you're denying articles from credible sources? IGN is a extremely well known gaming media site and has been cited for quotes all over Wikipedia. They specifically name 10 core games separately from the rest of the series.

More to your comment and even though I'd rather not point this out because it's going to exacerbate this disagreement, but isn't stating the Revelations games are universally considered spinoffs flying directly in the face of everything you've said thus far? Simply stating something is true or common knowledge is what you have been telling others they cannot do, is it not? Ahriman the Exile (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not denying IGN, I'm denying the use of a gaming "top 10 games that" for required statement. Just because a source is considered authoritative doesn't mean that their authority is absolute and any of their material should be blindly accepted for any purpose. Especially when you already see the contradiction of including an outright spin-off duology in a "major games" list. Not to mention you first tried to use it as an "official source" as if IGN was directly affiliated with Capcom. They literally just named all the most famous games that are available to the modern PC player. In other words, I take it you don't have any sources that directly describe these two games as part of the mainline series? Solaire the knight (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I concede that wording it as "official" can be taken multiple ways so I'll retract that and simply say "professional source" instead.

However, I completely disagree with your point. You appear to be trying to strawman and twist what is being said to avoid the fact that the article specifically goes out of its way to state the 10 main games before mentioning the supplemental games. You cannot say IGN is fine, except this time. That's cherry picking information.

Moreover, what of my second point? Is simply stating something is true or common knowledge acceptable, or is it not? Because from the conversations I've been reading that you are involved in you seem to contradict yourself on this matter. Ahriman the Exile (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

In our case, the word official can have only one meaning and IGN does not correspond to it. Regarding the article, I have already answered you. It is simply a "top of the best games" for the announcement of a new part of a popular series, which trivially lists the most famous and accessible games. It cannot serve as a source for the official positioning of these two games. Moreover, the list itself describes them as simply the most important and interesting, without claiming any authoritative positioning. This edit war wouldn't be happening if this was common knowledge. Not to mention that if it was, you wouldn't have a problem finding better sources for it than "top 10 best games". If you really think that authority is absolute and that something else is cherry picking, then you just need to reread the rules again. And finally, if I was literally forced to find sources for the obvious fact that games 4-8 ignored Raccoon City (and even when I provided sources, the information was still removed), then how are you any better than me? Why should I find sources for obvious things, while you can have an edit war and refuse to provide sources, even removing requests? Solaire the knight (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

You appear to have gone off on a tangent that had absolutely nothing to do with me.

I didn't remove anything of yours nor did I correct you in any way on the RE:Requiem page so I'd appreciate if you'd stop attacking me for things other people did.

I also changed the wording for "official" and conceded the point of it, yet you're still arguing about it. I'm unsure why.

Regarding that last bit you said, about why should you have to look things up and still have it removed and all that..

That very rapidly paints a picture that you are apparently less concerned with the article being correct and accurate, and are more concerned with getting your way or getting back at those who argued with you.

I find regrettable, as after reading what got you banned before, there are many similarities. Hopefully your aggressive tendencies don't land you in hot water again.

You posted multiple comments in so many threads today and no matter how amenable people are, there honestly appears to be no reasoning with you

This whole ordeal actually has me regretting even making an official account if this is how editors conduct themselves. Ahriman the Exile (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to endlessly go around in circles, discussing the same thing, and also listening to a direct discussion of me instead of the topic of dialogue. If you can't provide authoritative sources that directly touch on the topic, and not indirectly pulled in just to have something, then just don't waste my time. Thank you. I will not repeat the same thing many times. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

This exact line also applies to yourself.

"If you can't provide authoritative sources that directly touch on the topic, and not indirectly pulled in just to have something, then just don't waste my time"

[2][3][4][5]

Also I'll go ahead an leave these here. They may not be "real" to you, but they appear to match the other Resi Wikis so they count.

Peace. Ahriman the Exile (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

First, I'm warning you one last time about making this personal. If you bait me again instead of discussing the article, I'll be writing directly to the admins. Second, of the four sources, only one is even usable. Two of them are interchangeable and are basically guides to ALL available games in the series. One is the RE page on the PlayStation store and makes no claims whatsoever. And finally, the fourth is the only one that directly discusses the topic. But since it's CBR, a limited authority source, it should be vetted and discussed first instead of being accepted without question. But at least it CAN be discussed. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

You made it personal with this statement "And finally, if I was literally forced to find sources for the obvious fact that games 4-8 ignored Raccoon City (and even when I provided sources, the information was still removed), then how are you any better than me? Why should I find sources for obvious things, while you can have an edit war and refuse to provide sources, even removing requests?"

Attacking me for things I did not do. I didn't bait you, you said that on your own

I'm no longer interested in discussing anything with you as you have been nothing but antagonistic this entire time. You repeatedly claim things on others while doing the same yourself and refusing to be reasonable.

I will also be writing the admins. Ahriman the Exile (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Unsure if I'm beating a dead horse here but the pages for RE4-7 only refer to being 'a major installment in the Resident Evil series'- couldn't we just leave it at that to keep it in line with the rest of the pages? YassPills27 (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I brought this up as well, but was told that pages on Wiki aren't allowed to affect other pages, even though they've all obviously reached a consensus

I referred the main Resi page as having 11 games in bold indicating the main "must play for the full story" games as well as the page for Code Veronica calling it a "main entry"

The verbage seems to be the sticking point with many. Ahriman the Exile (talk) 11:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Consensus is not eternal, not to mention that we should distinguish between real consensus reached through discussion and finding a solution that suits everyone, and just the status quo. Anyway, what can we talk about if Capcom itself officially calls the game "the eighth game in the main series"? As for the main story, it's very subjective. Many fans will tell you that you have to play all the games, including the spin-offs that aren't available on Steam or modern consoles (counting the original versions of the Raccoon City trilogy and prequel), to fully experience the franchise's story. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Typed up a reply before I realized it won't matter anyway because there is no actual discussion happening here.

Carry on. Ahriman the Exile (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I've read through the debate above but can't actually figure out what either party is arguing for or against. Perhaps if you two could both propose a single sentence summarizing what you think the article should say, other editors could help resolve? Popcornfud (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

It began as me providing an article from IGN stating that there were 10 main entries pre 9 to back my stance that 0 and CV should be counted among the main series.

I also provided a few more above from different sources.

My goal was to add something in the initial paragraph in a way that sort of celebrated the new release while acknowledging the other major games, of which I believe there are 10.

Though I don't know how I would word it or if anyone could even agree.

Apologies, I wasn't sure how to fit that into a single sentence. Ahriman the Exile (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I consider the issue more or less closed after the official website of the game (which you for some reason removed as advertising material) directly called the game the ninth in the main series. I think that the official website of the game will clearly be more authoritative than the online store on the PlayStation website, CBR or copycat guides. Solaire the knight (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

We have multiple reliable secondary sources calling it the ninth main RE game. This info is currently covered (and sourced) in the lead as:

It is the ninth main installment in the Resident Evil series, following Resident Evil Village (2021).

Is there something either of you would want to change about that? Popcornfud (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I am confused that you are directly insisting that secondary sources have more authority in describing Capcom's official position than Capcom itself. Which is doubly surreal, given that most likely all of these secondary sources got their information from Capcom interviews and press releases. That is, you are calling for information taken from Capcom by other media to be trusted rather than the same information from Capcom itself. It's like I only believed you liked pizza when someone else told me after asking you, because I don't trust you to tell me your own food tastes. Solaire the knight (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Dude, they're agreeing with you and you're still arguing with them... Ahriman the Exile (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

This source guarantees that the article will falling into new war of edits with the replacement of the official number with a fan one. Solaire the knight (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes. The current standing disagreement among many editors seems to stem from verbage. Main, mainline, major, etc.

There was an edit someone did earlier that I thought was perfect, though others apparently disagreed

I can't find the link to edit but it was "It is the ninth mainline title and the eleventh overall major installment"

I thought this was a perfect compromise. Ahriman the Exile (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

This compromise has been in the article several times before, but during the edit war it was removed several times, including the accompanying sources. Solaire the knight (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think verbiage along those lines is necessary.

"Mainline" is games industry jargon, which should be avoided per WP:JARGON. Describing it as simultaneously the "ninth mainline title" and "eleventh major title" is confusing (what's the difference between major and mainline? Are regular people going to understand that?)

Overall, this sounds like too much detail of interest only to a small audience (in other words, fans arguing about series timelines and that kind of thing). Instead, focus on the big-picture elements. Popcornfud (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

It's pretty simple, these 9 games are the main series where the main events take place, while the other games are either spin-offs or side stories about the main characters. The only blurry part is RE0, as it is a direct prequel. Personally, I don't see a problem with writing that this is "the ninth game in the main series and 11/12/13 in the franchise as a whole." Actually, that's what I originally wrote until the article went through an edit war and people started asking me for sources on the fact that Raccoon City was absent from 4-8 games. Solaire the knight (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Jargon aside, which I agree with that it's confusing

I do believe it helps regular people. Understanding that playing 1 through 9 only and not knowing the other two exist leaves gap in the story for potential new players.

Capcom has been trying to streamline things which is why removed the numbers from the titles, so them stating 9th main game and all that supports that new line of thought and that's fine.

At this point, it doesn't really matter.

Everyone has made up their mind so it's fine. All good. Ahriman the Exile (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)