Darkside Chronicles Character Discussion.

[Guest]

I've read some of the translations of Welsh before and have to say that they are very, very inaccurate at times. I didn't read the original UC timeline, so I can't say anything about that, but his interpretation of Wesker's Report is way off, to the point that it is almost just a rephrasing of the English text. The Japanese version gave an actual insight about Wesker's giving up his researcher position. And that he originally tried to become an executive at Umbrella (that's what the executive training facility's education is for, after all), not just a leading researcher.

My name is Albert Wesker.
As a research member, I aspired to become an executive at Umbrella, a pharmaceutical company who also covertly conducted biological weapons development.
But I made the decision to take a different path when I met William Birkin at the executive training facility in Raccoon City.
Because he had an advantage as a researcher.

[News Bot]

If I can recall correctly, he had two different translations of Wesker's Report on hand and decided to merge both of them for whatever reason. He had "head researcher" in the first and introduced "executive" in the second. Hence why he says "executive researcher" in that translation. I'll correct that mistake now.

I think the mistake comes from the "as a research member" line.

[Alexia_Ashford]

I don't know what you were on when you made the first paragraph, but I never said it would work. Again, I flat-out stated DSC was wrong no matter what timeline/source was used.

News Bot, I meant the URLs, which you so generously posted. Sorry for not making that entirely clear. Also, I would be very interested in reading the English translation for that UC one.

I'd ask that you don't imply me or any other member is on drugs when they post. It is derogatory and insulting.

Also this;

but merely that CV heavily implies all of these events take place in 1 year that was most likely 1983 and never really states 1982

My post was saying there is not enough time for all of this to be done in one year, which has been proven with facts, not basing it on assumptions.

That's what I'll have to believe if Capcom doesn't fix their error.

Has anyone bothered e-mailing Capcom about this? I doubt it would do much good, though...

I moaned to Shawn from Capcom about it but he gave me the impression there's not much he can do it about it and it's Capcom Japan. News Bot made a pwnage topic on Capcom Unity, and I posted about it on the Capcom Europe forums as well.

[Pikminister]

What i meant was that there are two versions of Trevor's Letters out there. The first being that he died December 7th, the other version being he died Nove 31st {which doesn't exist so it is put down as Nov 30th}

Trevor wrote his last entry in REMAKE in Nov 30th because there isn't a 31st day in november.

REmake describes Trevor's death in two instances that I can remember. One, is a file that mentions that the research team terminated George on Nov. 30th. The other, is a journal written by Lisa where she mentions her dad being already dead before December 19.

And George wrote "Nov 31st" instead of "December 1st" because he was already suffering the effects of being without food for a prolonged period of time. He mentions that in his journal. It was a mistake he made. However, we have to understand that he actually wrote that entry on Dec 1st.

[DarkMemories]

My post was saying there is not enough time for all of this to be done in one year, which has been proven with facts, not basing it on assumptions.

This...

No it doesn't. If DSC is correct, it means that Alexia would have had to go in her chamber less than 2 days after she first tested on Alexander, and that's assuming she experimented on him directly after that video was made. That would probably give her a day to run some results and prepare herself for her cryostasis. There just is not enough time. It doesn't work.

...has absolutely nothing to do with my point about the 1 year timeframe. In this, you talk about how DSC can't be correct because 2 days wouldn't be enough time. I have stated this so many times; no matter what timeline you used, no matter what assumptions were made, the date of December 25th, 1983 for Alexander's video would be incorrect. DSC is wrong.

That's why I made that remark about your first paragraph in that post; it's like you didn't even read my post and jumped to a conclusion that made no sense.

But you know what else is insulting? Using phrases like "End of" to get your point across. You are not the supreme God of RE; don't act like it by making heavy-handed comments like that. If you hadn't made that teensy, tiny little comment, I would have let this drop several posts ago.

[Alexia_Ashford]

...has absolutely nothing to do with my point about the 1 year timeframe. In this, you talk about how DSC can't be correct because 2 days wouldn't be enough time. I have stated this so many times; no matter what timeline you used, no matter what assumptions were made, the date of December 25th, 1983 for Alexander's video would be incorrect. DSC is wrong.

You stated that once in an unclear post. At the start of your post you state "it" is wrong, without really clarifying what you're on about, considering all previous posts were arguing against the fact that Alexander died in 1983, then in the second half of the post, try and say again CV heavily implies it all happened in one year. It doesn't at all, that is simply your interpretation of how the files are written. There is nothing to suggest that whatsoever. My post was more aimed at the latter part of your post where you again carried on with the notion that Alexander was still alive in 1983 and that this would allow Alexia enough time to do her experiments and be asleep by Dec '83.

But you know what else is insulting? Using phrases like "End of" to get your point across.

How so? There's nothing insulting and nothing directed at you. Hardly comparable to saying someone's on smack when they type a post.

You are not the supreme God of RE; don't act like it by making heavy-handed comments like that. If you hadn't made that teensy, tiny little comment, I would have let this drop several posts ago.

You should have let it drop anyway because your argument has no substance and you're arguing for the sake of it when presented with undisputable fact. I find it brain-crunchingly frustrating when someone argues against presented fact, then complains about how the proof isn't "good enough", asking someone else to prove the point yet again with fact that is good enough (despite the first point being from a canon, official source), and even then, replies with "Well, CV still heavily implied..". No it didn't. Give me any of your points from this entire topic which aren't your assumptions, interpretations or personal opinion. As others have said before, there is no point debating opinion because opinions will always be different. Sticking your fingers in your ears and completely ignoring fact only to retort with opinion yet again is rude, considering the time spent trying to find these facts to contribute to the debate and further your knowledge of the topic at hand. I said "End of" because you keep seeming to fail to acknowledge all of these canon facts from official sources which have been repeatedly presented to you.

[Carnivol]

Wait! What?
A consistency issue in a Resident Evil narrative!?

Preposterous!

[valentinesdead?]

Wait! What?
A consistency issue in a Resident Evil narrative!?

Preposterous!

Say it ain't so!

[Darkmoon]

I've long since come to the conclusion that each game must contradict another game. If it doesn't the world will grind to a halt on it's axis and humanity as a whole will go flying off into space to Falcon Punch the sun out.

[Mr_Zombie]

I've long since come to the conclusion that each game must contradict another game.

There was even one RE game that contradicted itself
(RE Zero and the "Ten years ago, Dr. Marcus was murdered by Umbrella." vs "Dr. Marcus (...) disappeared 20 years ago." case)

[Carnivol]

I think people need to cool down a little when it comes to these things. In general, it seems like it comes as a massive surprise and shocker to everyone that something doesn't "add up" properly. (Worst of all, it seems like people live in selective denial when it comes to these things)

It seems like the re-tellings (sans REmake) are the ones that fights the hardest uphill battles. And as far as events goes, everything will probably ALWAYS be vaguely up there and in the air, and the best you can do as far as timelines goes is to filter out the events and see what adds up and which ones does not. Then you build a branching tree out of it or something. If someone can wrap their mind around the timeline of Tales of Phantasia, then Resident Evil should be a piece of cake. Resident Evil contains a relatively sealed off and self-contained universe with no time travel involved... yet... (unless you decide to include Dino Crisis in the equation)



Anyway, at the end of the day, as far as so called "facts" go;
You don't know all the details.

[Alexia_Ashford]

Anyway, at the end of the day, as far as so called "facts" go;
You don't know all the details.

Files from three separate games have told us it is (two of which give an exact date, one of which strongly suggests it). Obviously we're to expect change to canon from the Chronicles series as we did with UC, as gameplay made it impossible for the two characters to explore separately as to allow for a two player game, but I'm still absolutely baffled how someone at Capcom has stuck in Alexander being alive at Christmas '83. Usually it just retcons in-game events to make it relevant to the game (such as 2 people being somewhere that only one person is meant to be) or some other minor things like Sergei clones, not just changing a date. I spoke to Paul about it a week and a half ago or something. It's just completely unnecessary to stick a date in there, they could quite have easily just made the video but left the date out. Further more, a date completely contradicting it was released in a game this year, so it's not like it's retconning ancient, not widely known stuff, which sometimes happens. The date they've stated he's alive makes it practically impossible for the events of Code: Veronica to take place when they do. It's like saying the Raccoon City outbreak happened in 1999. It's annoying that such a big mistake was released into a trailer, so I hope to God there is some in-game explanation for it, though I can't think what they could possibly use to explain it. Gareth reckoned it could be a previous recording of him, while he's dead, saying the date because he knew what was gonna happen to him. It'd explain it but I still don't see why he'd do it or how he'd know.

I wouldn't mind if we get an explanation and a story-driven reason as to why it changed, but I'm in serious doubt we will. Everything I've seen so far just points towards it being an error, and I'm already very disappointed with the CV section as it is (other than the new character looks).

[Pikminister]

There was even one RE game that contradicted itself
(RE Zero and the "Ten years ago, Dr. Marcus was murdered by Umbrella." vs "Dr. Marcus (...) disappeared 20 years ago." case)

Actually, it was Marcus himself that set things straight in that regard (he was the one that said "10 years ago..."). The one that wrote the file you mention, wasn't written by Marcus but by a researcher who BTW, admits that he isn't well informed over what really happened to Marcus.

And Resident Evil and plotholes go together like Paris Hilton and herpes.

[Carnivol]

Without really doing any digging (as all places which have random info fails at citing sources for their stuff properly) or replaying (as I'm way too lazy for that too), the only "issue" I see is that someone assumes Alexander vanished in 1982 (or early 1983) and Alexia entered cryo-sleep in late 1983 (Archives seems to be the main source to blame, as, if I've understood things right, that is the timeline all sorts of sites + Resident Evil 5 likes to (ab)use. It's of course also worth noting that proofreading of text doesn't seem to've been of utmost importance while making the history/files section in Resident Evil 5, as there are a good few funky typos there in general and they probably just slapped in the entire history section to fill things out a bit for those who "doesn't know", using whatever somewhat comprehensive text they had access to at the time as a basis for it)


Thus, with all of that aside, let's jog my memory a little ... ignoring any and all supplemental stuff (and contents that outside of the main game scenario refers to it);
Code: Veronica is set in late December 1998. There are two events using the key element of "15 years ago", one being Alexia's cryo-slumber (Virus Research Report and Alfred's Diary), the other being Alexander's death (Butler's Letter). Both of which are events that may have taken place relatively close to each other (Alfred's Diary). I don't remember all the details, but going by Alfred's Diary, it's not exactly clear when Alexander died and when Alexia enters cryo-sleep.

Which means we don't know if Alexander's "missing" yet in the first entry, or if they between 17. Feb. and 3. Mar. killed him (or if it was the actual injection later on that killed him. Alfred at least later refers to him as "raw material", by talking of a "body"). similar is the case with Alexia; we don't know if she was ready to go to sleep at 22. Apr., or if she had lots of extra preparations and research to do.



However, this is when it might be worth noting that, without knowing the exact source of this text (let's blame Archives), it seems like the Umbrella Chronicles timeline page claims that Alfred (at age 12), was made head of the Ashford family... in Apr. 1982. Say what? Alfred could only have been 11 in Apr 1982 (assuming he's born between Jan-Apr). It's also worth noting that this entry is conveniently not present in the Resident Evil 5 version of the timeline (History of Resident Evil), so at least someone's Bullshit Detector was partly active.

Anyway, April you say?
Could that be the same April as when Alexander was labeled a T-Veronica failure? I'd say the chances are likely, since it's assumed that Alexander "vanished" (in the eyes of everyone else), and since the family needed a new head, he's probably also been gone for a while (how about 3-4 months?). Of course, in various traditional ways of thinking, it's always been the eldest son who gets to inherit everything and assume the role of responsibility, but we all know Alfred was the failure and Alexia the successful of the two... so I guess you could speculate whether or not Alfred was made head of family before or after Alexia was labeled "dead" (ie. before or after she entered cryo-sleep. Which I guess could mean Alexia entered cry-sleep late April, Alexander presumed missing, Alfred made head of family "instantly" to make sure the family name does not vanish, etc...)

Anyway, if Alfred was 12 when he was made head of the family, it would either have to be the year 1983 (meaning they're born between Jan-Apr 71) ... or 1984, before he turns 13 (which would then mean they were born between May-Dec 71).




What the Darkside Chronicles trailer implies is that:
Alexander is alive on the 25th of December, 1983, which is roughly 15 years before Code: Veronica (throw in an extra half-a-week). Then we zip 4 months forward, Alexia already have conducted several experiments on herself, some T-Veronica stuff on her father (whom now is presumed missing, and about to become Nosferatu), and she's about to enter cry-sleep (post-22. Apr.), and Alfred's about to become the new head of the family... all of which roughly puts Code: Veronica between 14 years and 14 years and 8 months after Alexia entering cryo-sleep. Which still fits reasonably well. 'Cause anything else would be implying that she's been asleep for nearly 16 years, and with these two so called "genius" siblings (at then age... 12-13?) being hilariously stupid (and impatient), would probably cut the time short (through proper research?), rather than spend an entire year extra in there "just to be sure", which is way much more than Alexia's 15 year calculation (which is of course also a topic we only vaguely know about from Alfred's Diary, which means that he might've not entered the final/accurate numbers there for when Alexia wants to awaken, and only entered a rough estimate based on "currently available data". And saying 15 years when there's potentially only a few months, or a year, difference (give or take) isn't uncommon anyway when doing an estimate.)

[News Bot]

(ie. before or after she entered cryo-sleep. Which I guess could mean Alexia entered cry-sleep late April, Alexander presumed missing, Alfred made head of family "instantly" to make sure the family name does not vanish, etc...)

This can be explained by saying Alexia went into reclusiveness in April, as she is also "dead" by that time in the eyes of everyone else, hence why Alfred becomes the family master. During this time she conducted tests and experiments before finally going into cryo-stasis on December 27th.

Of course, judging from the trailer, perhaps she actually did go in on April and Alfred is awakening her early in the trailer when he presses the globe thing?