Talk:Resident Evil

• https://web.archive.org/web/19980204085513/http://www.next-generation.com:80/news/121897ee.chtml

What beats it? The linked article shows no horror franchise above it. The MonsterVerse are not horror movies, and this article previously stated that the franchise IS the highest grossing, which is true. 216.121.182.128 (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

According to a note an editor left when they changed it, the list includes The Conjuring Universe, which grossed more money than the RE franchise. I personally think the $600m figure quotes is way out of date (from 2001). We will need to find a better source that meets WP:VG/S. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  12:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Side note, I'd need to dig into it, but at least one published source points gross sales to $9B --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  13:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Looking more into this, the Conjuring Universe article lists it as the highest selling horror franchise, but then links to a page about the highest grossing horror FILMS specifically,not including other media (video games in this case) and cites 2.2 billion for the franchise.

Agreed that this could use some updated numbers to make things clearer! 216.121.182.128 (talk) 06:07, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the $9 billion figure comes from this Fandom Wiki

The author of that article probably got the info there.

Which basically makes it unusable since Fadom Wiki's should not be used. Timur9008 (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I suggest splitting this article into two. One for the media franchise and keep this for the game series bc it's so confusing and also most readers come to read about the game not about the media franchise which no one cares about. Alikhamahu (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support split per nomination. I have no objections really.

@StarScream1007 what do you think? Timur9008 (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

There are other FA-tier articles like Final Fantasy, God of War (franchise), and Sonic the Hedgehog that include both the games and and media franchise in their Franchise articles. There is also a List of Resident Evil media and Resident Evil (film series) articles too, which further expand upon the content in this article. I would say it's worth keeping mention of the non-gaming media here. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  15:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

You make a good point. Wonder what others think. Timur9008 (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. When we split it, we should briefly mention the non gaming media in the game article and refer to the franchise article for full coverage. But the game article should focus on the game. Alikhamahu (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

• First, we need to ask ourselves whether the amount of media associated with the franchise is large enough to warrant separating the templates. How other articles have done, or guessing what people are thinking when they look for RE in a project isn't exactly the best way to demonstrate this. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  Interesting take. Then, do you think this article should be dedicated to the game and do you think that we should not dedicate an article for the franchise but briefly mention the franchise in this article instead? Alikhamahu (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. First of all, this article is at an entirely reasonable length. If a split would occur, we would be left with two articles on the smaller side. Second, this one franchise would have Resident Evil (franchise), Resident Evil (video game series), Resident Evil (film series), List of Resident Evil media, etc. etc. I think this would make things more, not less, confusing. Third, I cannot think of another video game franchise whose wikipedia page is split in such a way. Fourth, the video game series is the franchise; the nominator's position that "the media franchise no one cares about" is indicative of this being some sort of personal preference and not based on wikipedia policy. Yeoutie (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support The rationale makes no sense and uses an WP:IDONTLIKEIT-type argument, but the Resident Evil franchise is big enough at this point - one of the largest franchises in gaming - to justify a separate page, a la Pokémon and Pokémon (video game series). Splitting it would clarify the importance of the overall franchise rather than the lack of it - currently, the other media is relegated to second fiddle to the video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. I feel like it's pretty easy to understand and follow the article as-is and splitting them would introduce extra confusion. ⊂ Andyzweb ⊃ (Talk) 03:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article is of very reasonable length without the need for a split and the rationale is not exactly convincing. λ NegativeMP1 18:17, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Just taking a quick read through, I see no issue with the length as the first %50 of the article is covering the games and the other %50 covering non-video game media, reception and cultural impact. Also I find the noms argument that "no one cares about the media franchise" is ridiculous and basically falls under "I don't like it" thinking than a actual valid argument for the split. TheDeviantPro (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. The game universe features anime and manga as part of the canon. Adapations sometime use game characters even if they aren´t part of the Capcom "canon" and the IP regularly licenses out characters and monsters for use in other games. The "media franchise which no one cares about", specifically the 6 PAW films, made over a billion and there was a bidding war for the rights to the 2026 film. The very first RE comic was made in 1996. Capcom cares very much about RE being a mixed media IP. Residentgrigo (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I've noticed that the current franchise logo doesn't adapt well to dark mode. Since the logo stays in its original colours and doesn't switch to a white or light version, it becomes difficult to see against dark backgrounds. This might affect readability and accessibility for users who browse in dark mode. ~2025-34319-84 (talk) 12:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Update: Outdated. Fixed. ~2025-34319-84 (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I think we should properly re-discuss this as it keeps getting edited back and forth. It looks like there was a discussion around 2023 that concluded that they should both be considered core entries, citing similar gameplay, similar development scope, and relevance to the core plot. That discussion can be viewed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Resident_Evil/Archive_1#h-Zero_and_CV,_mainline_or_spin-off?-2021-04-25T01:34:00.000Z ; However, recently Requiem's marketing refers to itself as the "9th major entry" in the franchise, which some feel negates their status as a core entry and thus should not receive bolding.

I believe they should remain bolded. Firstly, Capcom referring to Requiem as the "9th major entry" aligns with its branding as RE9. This is not necessarily an explicit statement that Zero and CV should no longer be considered mainline. I don't believe this is enough to overturn the past consensus.

More importantly, Capcom themselves have listed both Zero and CV alongside the other mainline games at the Great Capcom Exhibition's "Series Family Tree" exhibit. A photo of that can be viewed here: https://x.com/Genki_JPN/status/2002946133556080669/photo/1 ; The exhibit shows the mainline (including Zero and CV), remake line, and revelations listed as a distinct sub-series. Other spin-offs have been left out entirely. While this image is not a secondary source suitable for citation in the article, it does show how Capcom visually groups the series.

With those points in mind, I believe we should revert to the previous formatting, but I'd like to hear what others think. Tailacoster (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why we should ignore one of their statements in favor of the other, especially when the statement about Requiem's ​​position is more direct and included in both the press release and the game's official synopsis. We can also say that the absence of other games in the series in the photo doesn't mean they're excluded, or that Capcom's lack of direct comment on this illustration prevents us from drawing any definitive conclusions. Roughly speaking, the illustration doesn't really distinguish between the main series and spin-offs, just the original games, Revelations, and Remakes. Although, overall, I'm not against highlighting all major releases as a compromise, if there's consensus for it. Solaire the knight (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the compromise. Capcom's definition of a 'mainline' entry has been inconsistent since 1999. The transition from numbering games to using titles was largely driven by marketing and politics between Sony and Capcom. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  21:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. Moreover, at the moment, the list doesn't specify which works are bolded, so we can simply underline all major or big projects and add a note to that effect to avoid further debates. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I think that would be a great compromise. And the clarification note would be great as well. Having all major projects highlighted above others greatly improves the readability of the list for the average viewer, and allows newcomers to better distinguish the games that are more central to the franchise vs smaller spin offs. Tailacoster (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest highlighting all major games, including remakes and except multiplayer games or clearly sidelined titles like Outbreak and Revelation, and in the end adding a footnote like "major games in bold" to avoid further debate about which games belong in the mainline. Solaire the knight (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal. If I understand correctly, this would include all the numbered titles, Village, Requiem, Code: Veronica, and then remakes 1 through 4? Tailacoster (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, all major (or big) releases, to avoid further debate about which games are "mainline." Solaire the knight (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Done. I’ve updated the timeline to bold all major releases and added a note at the top for clarity. Thank you guys for the discussion! Tailacoster (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Yep, that's right! Thank you for your cooperation! Solaire the knight (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks all.  StarScream1007  ►Talk  22:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Judging from the picture posted, it's pretty clear Capcom puts the two Revelations games on an equal footing with the four Remakes, as both of them have their own column, and does not treat them as "clearly sidelined games" like the Outbreak games, since those aren't even in the picture. Therefore, if we are going to put the four Remakes in bold in the timeline, I think out of consistency it makes sense to include the two Revelations as well. I'm going to make the change if no one is opposed to it.--Johnn Francis (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

In this case, 90% of the list would consist of bold titles, which is already excessive. As you noted earlier, we highlight major releases, not the mainline. And as I mentioned above, we don't know what Capcom's intentions were behind this. Perhaps they simply spun them off into a separate sub-series. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Wow, quick reply! I don't agree that "90% of the list would consist of bold titles"; as a matter of fact, only 17 of the 30 games listed are, that's barely over 50%. And you're right, we don't know what's in Capcom's head, so until we do, I think it makes more sense to base ourselves on tangible evidence, in this case the picture provided by Tailacoster.--Johnn Francis (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I did respond quickly, but you stopped waiting even faster. I don't agree: the fact that we don't know Capcom's intentions works both ways, not in favor of one option or another. Of course, the 90% figure was hyperbole, but I'm afraid that if we highlight Revelations, then we'll effectively highlighting most of the games (The series is relatively large, but with your suggestions, more than half of the list will already be bolded), with the exception of just two that aren't multiplayer or ports/enhanced versions. What's the point of highlighting them then? It's easier not to highlight anything at all. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, I can get impatient sometimes. The thing is what matters to me is consistency: I'm fine with either marking none of the Remakes and none of the Revelations in bold, or marking all of them in bold, but only marking one and not the other seems to me to be incoherent, judging from the (little) evidence we have, namely the aforementioned picture. And again, since we don't know Capcom's intentions, we have no other choice than to base ourselves on the available evidence, not matter how flimsy it is. This is not "favoring one option or another", this is, on the contrary, taking the evidence as is without interpreting it. As for the "more than half of the list will already be bolded", I wouldn't worry too much about that. I'm pretty certain this won't last forever, as Capcom will more than likely release additional spin-offs in the coming years. By the way, what games are you referring to when you wrote "with the exception of just two that aren't multiplayer or ports/enhanced versions."? I'm a bit confused, here. As for your last sentence "It's easier not to highlight anything at all.", maybe that's the way to go. I'm not being sarcastic here, maybe we ARE actually putting too much effort into something that is, in the grand scheme of things, a bit trivial and not particularly relevant--Johnn Francis (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

To avoid reigniting last year's dispute, I asked one of the game's portal administrators to review this issue. I will support any decision they make to avoid a new round of debates. But getting back to the topic, I don't think we actually have a source that directly states "Capcom emphasizes this games equally with the remakes/main games." The main source of this is still a fan photo of their event stage, where they simply listed them as an additional sister duology of games. But if you agree that the very fact of highlighting games is debatable, then I'm willing to support that, although the rest will still depend on the opinions of the administrator and other participants in the discussion. I won't insist and will simply abide by the consensus, because frankly, I'm a little burnt out. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I think it's a smart move on your part. I guess we'll have to wait for what they have to say, then. I'd also like to hear about Tailacoster and StarScream1007's opinions, since they've already taken part in this conversation. By the way, I'm not trying to "escalate" anything, like I said, I can get a bit impatient sometimes, but please don't mistake that for bad faith on my part. And yes, I hear you, arguing with other Wikipedia users can be exhausting, that's why I generally tend to avoid it as much as I can :-)--Johnn Francis (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood. I'm not accusing you of escalating the situation. I'm rather afraid that I'll get too carried away in the argument myself :). So I just wanted to point out that although I have my own view on the matter, I am still willing to accept the decision that others choose if they don't agree with my option. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I think there's a few important things we need to consider here.

Firstly, what is the purpose of bolding titles in the release timeline? I think not bolding any at all, while easier, would significantly decrease the quality and readability of the list. I myself found it very useful when I got into the series (just a few years ago!). It helped me easily grasp all the releases as a newcomer, and easily distinguish the important, (then "mainline") games from spin offs.

Secondly, we need to acknowledge that Capcom does not have an officially stated "mainline" that we can easily point to in order to make a quick, definitive decision. There is conflicting evidence from Capcom themselves that we discussed earlier: namely the chart I provided and their own statement about Requiem being the "9th main installment" of the series.

Therefore, in the absence of a definitive mainline to base our decision off of, the exact criteria that we decide upon for what should or should not be bolded is up to us, and whatever we feel is right. And we can always update the note above the release timeline to reflect that.

In my opinion, I think it should either be the way we have it now (RE 0-9, CV and remakes) OR those same titles, just without the remakes. I think we should be consistent and not bold any spin offs or sub-series. Regarding the chart I provided, I don't think the absence of other spin-offs is enough to say we must bold Revelations, or consider it the same level of importance as the other listed major releases. There is recency bias, as well as the fact that these are the largest scoped spin-offs they have ever created, that could have factored into them adding it to the chart.

Regarding the Remakes, I think it could go either way. To me, it makes sense to either bold or not bold them. Since they are recreating other core, major releases, it makes sense to bold them, especially if our criteria is to bold all "major releases". So I would lean towards that. But if we wanted to only bold the original major releases, that makes sense to me too.

At it's core, given the number of spin-offs, I believe we should use the bolding to help others distinguish the major, central releases of the franchise from all others. I think either of my above recommendations are the best way to do that. Tailacoster (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for tuning in and for your long and detailed reply. I don't have much to add, except than to repeat what I have already said: namely than in the interest of consistency, and in the light of the evidence we have (yes, again, I know it's not super solid evidence, but it's pretty much the only thing we've got, save for Capcom stating that Requiem is the "9th main installment", but if we were to go by that latest statement, it would automatically exclude CV and Zero), we should either bold both the Remakes and the Revelations, or neither of them. Since you seem to be okay with bolding neither of them, and Solaire the knight said they wouldn't oppose the decision reached by consensus, I would suggest we go with that latter option, especially since "de-bolding" the Remakes wouldn't make the list harder to read: the Remakes already stand out due to the fact that they have the word "(Remake)" written next to them.--Johnn Francis (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)