Talk:Resident Evil Requiem

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)

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?

"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"

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)

This was noted on social media: The page Resident Evil Village lists it as the tenth main game of the Resident Evil series. This page, however, states "It is the ninth main game in the Resident Evil series, following Resident Evil Village (2021)." Are we just going to have these obviously incongruous statements right at the top of both pages? Jon698 (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

The "and the tenth main game of the Resident Evil series" was added by User:Daniel chp on 20 February 2024. It predates the discussion above. Jon698 (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

One of the points of contention in the discussion above was whether Code Veronica counts as a "mainline" game. This seems rather obtuse considering that the Wikipedia page for Code Veronica has listed it as a mainline game for years. Jon698 (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

That's a problem for the Resident Evil Village page, not this page. In any case, sources describe Village as the 8th game, so I've fixed it there. Popcornfud (talk) 14:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

In this case, we have a typical conflict between fan and official categorizations. The fan list of so-called "main games" is typically two games longer than the list considered by Capcom itself. This has already caused a protracted conflict in the past, as people were unwilling to accept that Requiem is the ninth game in the main series, even though the creators themselves included the number 9 as an additional title. A significant portion of people also semi-seriously deny the existence of the 6th game due to its rather poor reception, so we're relatively lucky. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the only thing that counts is what's reported by reliable secondary sources. Anything else can be discarded. Popcornfud (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Which is what was done. But I still had to survive debate around it, both with people who believed the number 9 in the game's title was "original research," and with anonymous people who corrected a source-confirmed statement latter. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Are you talking about how the roman numerals VII are incorporated into the word "EVIL", which I think happened in a trailer or something? Then yes, that would be original research rather than information taken from a reliable secondary source. Popcornfud (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm talking about the original official press release, where one of the official title variations included the number 9, and was also accompanied by a caption stating that this was the ninth game in the main series. A number of gaming media outlets cited this, so there were no problems with secondary sources. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Cool, sounds good. Popcornfud (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi all, I just wanted to start a collaborative talk about the contents, especially the Technology (previously Development->Graphics) + Reception sections of this page.

I would argue that the sections in the Technology heading are currently WP:JARGON-heavy, and goes further into detail than the average reader would expect about the background and construction of the technology used in the article's subject. An an article on Requiem, it also feels unnecessary to go heavily into the background of another title (Pragmata) and explain its contents and defining who characters are, which can be done in a more simple and less technologically heavy way to get the point across. I tried to rephrase this recently in a clearer way that was less jargon-heavy, and solve the issues of WP:THEGAME and WP:ELEGANT throughout with some copyediting and rephrasing (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resident_Evil_Requiem&oldid=1340483574). I was careful to stick to what the sources explained and not misconstrue information, and cleaning it up in line with WP:ELEGANT.

It seems that a user is continuously going through the page after edits have been made to ensure that any edits or variations upon any text they added are reverted to how they initially wrote it, without allowing room for the WP:COLLABorative improvements that Wikipedia should offer. I think continuous revert-edits like this should ideally be WP:TALK#DISCUSSed as the initial edits are not vandalism. I've noticed this especially with previous edits by @Popcornfud, @Boneless Pizza! and more recently myself. I am not saying that our versions should be considered any better or superior to what they are writing, but that we should discuss how the content on the page is written to be more accurate and intelligible for the average reader.

I think it might be worth cutting down on more technologically-heavy information to improve readability for this reason, but wanted opinions on its current content to find a consensus/others' thoughts. I am open to being told I am wrong if others find the current level of detail acceptable, but I think the main issue is continuously re-pasting in previous edits atop others' edits with no discussions. Happiccino (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Are there any sources for placing this game in the "neo-noir games" category? The article doesn't mention it at all, and there's no specific "centerpiece," but it does list a wide variety of games, and at first glance, I don't see any particular logic in including any of them. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

No, some random IP added it without any prior discussion or citation. It's already been removed. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I see. I didn't mean to delete this, I just wanted to clarify the situation with this and some other games in the category. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD I am bringing the discussion here. In the original premise section, one user referenced the timeline as taking place "28 years after the destruction of RC as depicted in Resident Evil 3: Nemesis (1999)". I had attempted to change this to Resident Evil 3 (linking the 2020 remake) and dropping the year altogether. In the original source, no reference to a number game was even mentioned. In addition, per common sense it makes sense to keep the 2020 remake link. In the game, it is undeniably falling into the remake continuity (and yes I know Capcom says all of it is canon) per the following:

• Leon's appearance and voice actor are that of 2 remake, 4 remake
• In RE3: Nemesis (1999) the bomb dropped on Raccoon City is a nuclear bomb which induces sheer, biological and complete architectural destruction. The remake's bomb is thermobaric, meaning the remains of Raccoon City are allowed to exist from the resulting firestorm as they are depicted in Requiem.
  • 1999 bomb: Resident Evil Archives official lore book (released in the mid-2000s) explicitly states on page 268 that the missile was a nuclear weapon.
  • 2020 bomb: In-game documents and emergency broadcasts refer to it as a "sterilization operation" with a payload designed to "eradicate biological material," a phrasing often used for thermobaric weapons which use oxygen from the air to create intense, sustained heat.
• Requiem utilizes scenes and locations from Resident Evil 2: Remake, set in the same continuity as the 3 remake. Set pieces and events are recalled or depicted in the ruins exactly as they appear in the remakes. They are not reminiscent or created in a way that suggests the 1999 game or the original Resident Evil 2 are the timeline canon entries for Requiem's lore.
• Requiem narratively references the events of the Raccoon City incident as it unfolded in 2R and 3R.

In addition to the above, numerous sources discussing the timeline at the time of Requiem's release use the 3 remake as visual representation of the lore of 3's events in the grand scheme of the RE timeline (https://www.ign.com/articles/resident-evil-timeline-explained, https://kotaku.com/resident-evil-series-lore-requiem-leon-kennedy-wesker-ethan-winters-umbrella-2000672884, to just list a couple)

I understand the user changed the phrasing to say "as depicted in previous game", but to me this also sounds awkward when it could just reference the obvious version of the 3rd game. To me, it comes off as an unneeded middle ground.

Lastly, I'd like to suggest that accounting for the aforementioned reasonings it should fall onto the editor to cite overwhelming evidence that the version of Resident Evil 3 that Requiem narratively depicts succession to is the 1999 game, not the other way around. The reverse feels inappropriately driven by dissatisfaction critically with the 2020 remake to ignore Requiem's continuity reference. This is not my assumption of the user's edits, but instead how it reads. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 23:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

To address your points in order:

• Leon's voice switches back and forth between projects, such as Infinite Darkness and Death Island. This has nothing to do with continuity.
• The nature of the bomb and what would remain is WP:OR.
• Any reuse of locations from the remakes can be logically explained as simple asset reuse.
• The use of visuals from remakes in game or sources, again, does not indicate continuity. It's not uncommon for images or clips from remakes to be used to represent events from their original timelines just because it's the highest quality clip available and doesn't otherwise contradict any major story beats. It's like how some Yakuza games will use stills from the Kiwami remakes despite being in the same timeline as the PS2 originals, or how Final Fantasy VII Ever Crisis uses cutscenes and designs from the Remakes despite it being a retelling of the original game right down to the script.

Most importantly, the story directly acknowledges the events of games like RE7 and RE8, which are not in the remake timeline. Also, if it was not in continuity with the other numbered entries, wouldn't Capcom have said so in the game's marketing leading up to release? That feels like the kind of thing they would have officially acknowledged, which would mean we'd have a source to cite anyway and wouldn't need to have this discussion. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that your argument is based on WP:OR without a reliable source to back it up. Please find an actual, textual source explicitly stating it is not part of the main timeline. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Your points are not particularly convincing. The CG movies are outsourced and not controlled by Capcom's internal teams (Quebico & TMS Ent. for instance). Capcom acts supervisory to them. This point you made is irrelevant to the internally source, produced, and released mainline games and staple to the RE franchise. The nature of the bomb I do not believe counts as OR, per WP:NOTOR, observing the use of what seems to be a thermobaric bomb in 3 Remake per game content, a nuclear explosion in 3: Nemesis, and seeing the results of a thermobaric bomb in Requiem reasonably leans that game to referencing the remake. And that is in addition to the numerous other reasonings I have provided. I don't see the relevancy of your Yakuza and Final Fantasy VII examples as they have nothing to do with this particular situation of the Resident Evil franchise and FF7 compilation is a very complex topic in its own right to begin with. 7 and 8 are indeed in the same continuity as the remakes. The remakes are part of the main timeline as Capcom, and so are the originals-- but clearly Capcom is treating internally the remakes as their canon per (https://www.pcgamer.com/games/resident-evil/capcom-execs-were-bewildered-that-people-might-want-to-play-original-resident-evil-when-gog-approached-them-about-it-we-have-all-of-those-remakes-its-already-the-superior-experience/) followed by Requiem using remake models, references, cutscenes, etc etc. In addition, with this "both are canon" approach Capcom opened the door to, the majority of sources (which I already listed two but I'd be happy to spend an entire day listing hundreds of sources showing RE3 2020 as the current "canon") are pointing to RE3R as the narrative definitive. To disregard these points and simply write it off as pure original research isn't constructive and misses the point. When all evidence reasonably points to the 2020 edition of RE3, it should fall onto YOU to cite credible sources that this game is referencing and following up on the depictions in Resident Evil 3: Nemesis from 1999. Regardless, I'm going to WP: Third opinion this and if we still are at odds we can simply take this to dispute resolution. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 00:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I did. There's a source already there that explicitly says it's followowing up on Nemesis (1999). -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't put much weight on an article that came out at launch three days ago and clearly looks like the author was pulling premise details from the Wikipedia article. It's almost phrased exactly like the WP article. Especially when its the sole article that even references the 1999 game. Anyway, I'm waiting for third party opinion. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 00:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

In addition here is the wording of the WP article the day that EW article came out: The story of Requiem is set in 2026, 28 years after Raccoon City was destroyed in Resident Evil 3: Nemesis (1999). Then this is EW article that morning: Resident Evil Requiem is set approximately 30 years after Raccoon City was destroyed during the events of Resident Evil 3: Nemesis (1999) Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 00:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly is considered a reliable source per WP:RSPLIST. You may disagree with it, but per both WP:VNT and its status as a perrenial source, it is considered more than acceptable as a source for this claim. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

It may be a reliable source but the likelihood it references this Wiki article is not a small chance. Regardless, it's a sole source to backup the 1999 claim, but Requiem itself undeniably follows the remake narrative based on a large amount of interpretation outside the game in addition to remake footage, assets, and narrative established ONLY in those games. I could also easily cite numerous sources of timelines placing RE3R in the Requiem timeline through reasonable interpretations of those articles as well as YouTube essays by IGN, GameSpot, Gaming Bolt, high-profile RE community members, etc etc. Capcom's OWN timeline references Resident Evil 3 remake (2020) at the time of RE Village's release (https://game.capcom.com/residentevil/en/re-history.html) Nobody besides this cherry picked article essentially supports your case, which again likely pulled from the Requiem wiki page itself and recursively cites itself. Not saying that definitively happened, but it's a legitimate feeling warrants conversation anyway. You've stated your case, I've stated mine. If a third party opinion doesn't help us reach a mutual conclusion we will take this to dispute resolution. Good day. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 03:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:SECONDARY sources are preferred over primary. Your argument is largely based on WP:SYNTH without providing reliable secondary sources to back up your claims. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

That is not what SYNTH says. Per that article: "If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources." That is not what I did. SECONDARY does not apply to an official timeline presented by the owner of a franchise itself. Also, I listed secondary sources and used my own eyes when playing the game to make a common sense interpretation that is shared by the mass media and supported by Capcom itself. At this point, you clearly are arguing in bad faith ("familiarize yourself with XYZ, ranting on my talk page, and bringing up irrelevant counter points that aren't even citable (RE Village and 7 don't share continuity with the remakes???) I asked for a third-party opinion. I can get an administrator involved. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 03:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Using your own eyes and drawing conclusions is literally WP:OR. Using the PC gamer article combined with observations about reused assets to conclude "clearly Capcom is treating internally the remakes as their canon" is WP:SYNTH. Video essays by "high-profile RE community members" wouldn't be acceptable sources, per WP:USERG. I am not arguing in bad faith, nor am I suggesting you are; I'm pointing out how Wikipedia policy clearly states what is and isn't acceptable, and you have yet to provide a link to a reliable source that explicitly supports linking to the remake over the original for reasons of canonicity. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

We are at odds, but an official Capcom timeline placing RE3R as its official game to mark those events I do not believe is subject to the scrutiny of secondary sources. I believe you are being overly generous on your application of SYNTH. I have a solution akin to your original temporary one. RE2R's remake page labels it as taking place after the Spencer Mansion Incident and footnotes the following: As depicted in Resident Evil (1996 video game) and Resident Evil (2002 remake). I would suggest the following edit then: The story of Requiem is set in October 2026, 28 years after the destruction of Raccoon City.[footnote] Footnote reads: as depicted in Resident Evil 3: Nemesis (1999) and Resident Evil 3 (2020). citing your source and another source such as https://www.g2a.com/news/features/resident-evil-timeline-explained-full-story-order-from-spencer-mansion-1998-to-requiems-return-to-raccoon-city-2026/ or the RE portal's timeline itself https://game.capcom.com/residentevil/en/. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 04:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

G2A is probably not an acceptable source (or at the very least, it needs to go through the vetting process at WP:VG/S), but I'm fine with the footnote listing both that cites the EW article. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Let us list the Capcom page then. Anyway, glad we reached a conclusion and best wishes.Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 04:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Capcom's initial reversal of releasing original versions of 1-3 games online, citing "remakes provide the most complete experience," coupled with the complete portability of design and other decisions, seems like a clear argument in favor of turning remakes into new canon. But we need direct sources confirming this, otherwise it's pure speculation. Solaire the knight (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I mean I already linked Capcom's official timeline from right after Village's release and they use RE2R and RE3R as their placements for those events on their Ambassador cite. I don't know how much more official you can get, and I was told it needed secondary sources, but I don't think this is the type of the content SECONDARY is referring to per the policy line: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source. I don't see how official timelines are interpretive in this regard and need secondary sources, and even if they did I linked numerous articles showing timelines with 2R and 3R referential material but that I was SYNTHING. ANYWAY, at this point a consensus was reached for the time being and I don't care to argue anymore as I'm exhausted. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 13:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I get that people are aping other articles like Silent Hill with the multiple endings, but there's clearly a canon ending with a full epilogue attached to it, and it's weird to put all of that in a bulletpoint. The plot section should relay the full story including the epilogue, and just mention at the end that an alternate ending occurs if she puts in the wrong password, destroying Elpis and resulting in the deaths of leon and Zeno. It's not a multiple ending in the sense that you choose it and can take that as a canon ending, Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

What wording would you choose? If you can write something that reads better we can certainly write something different. Also Silent Hill 2 only has one "canon" ending where James leaves Silent Hill with Laura, just a correction. As it is written right now is exactly how it presents in the game, although the post-credit paragraph IMO could be written better. What do you think? Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 21:28, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Silent Hill 2 does not have a canon ending. You may be thinking of Silent Hill, since Harry has to survivve for the third game to happen, but it's still unclear if Cybil is alive or not which can mean one of two endings. My suggestion is as described above, the plot be told complete with the release Elpis part and epilogue, because that's the story, and a brief mention that not releasing it ends with Leon and Zeno dead. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't mind that. Give it a rewrite and I will give feedback if it reads poorly or worse than now. And you're right, I remember seeing people had considered "In Water" as canon (for some reason I thought it was "Leave"). I actually wrote it canon in quotes as there is no actual canon ending, but one many people believe to be canon. But because of its nature we cannot write it out that way in the article since everything is fan speculation. Also good point on SH1! Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 14:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I wrote the current gameplay section and noted that Leon uses an "attachè case" and linked to briefcases, but this was changed to "briefcase". While these are technically synonyms, "attachè case" has always been the terminology of the Resident Evil games that doubly refers to the unique storange sorting gameplay mechanic. Using "attachè case" with a link to briefcases homogenises this with the Resident Evil 4 Wikipedia page, helping to convey that it is the same gameplay system mechanic. What do we think is the verdict on this? Man Witout A Plan (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I like "attachè case" for the reasons you mentioned. It is the term used in Requiem and RE4. Gopherpedia (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Popcornfud has repeatedly removed Leon's gameplay description in the preamble, both the original and simplified versions. However, they haven't touched Grace's gameplay description. So, I wanted to ask why this raises so many questions when (at least to me) it's obvious it was added for balance purposes, to briefly describe how Leon's gameplay differs from Grace's. I don't quite understand the point. Therefore, I've removed the mention of Grace's gameplay for now, but I'm afraid this attempt to address the "imbalance" in the description will also be reverted, and we'll eventually return to the status quo. Solaire the knight (talk) Solaire the knight (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Current revision looks good to me, an appropriate concise summary of both styles. Popcornfud (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, then I think if no one expresses different opinions, the issue can be considered closed. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the addition of images showcasing gameplay of the first-person and third-person perspectives could be a helpful addition to the article. Maybe it could be placed after the final paragraph of the Gameplay section. This would also match the Resident Evil 4 wikipedia page as that one includes an image within its Gameplay section. Does anyone have any strong opinions on what images to use here or if it is a good idea to begin with? SaveTheCows (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I've noticed that Requiem refers to Mr. Spencer as Ozwell, despite prior games using Oswell. Should the article reflect the in-game spelling or the original? I've added a note to his first mention in the plot section but I did wonder. LightSamus (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2026 (UTC)