Resident Evil 5: 2008 or 2009?

[Smiley]

Well strike me down! Capcom does it again XD

Now here's the final question. Will they still list her age as 33 when Desperate Escape comes into play? o_O

[Carnivol]

I place my bets on... 36!

(By the way, seen the age of everyone in Reunion? Sheva: 23, Excella: Trade Secret, Chris: 35, Barry Burton: 38. Guess Barry's a constant that doesn't age or the doc lent him his time machine )

[TheDevilBringer]

This topic may be dead now but after scrolling through all this let me just say this. I work on games. From beginning to the end. I know the game inside and out before it ships... I have worked on 15-20 titles the past four years... of them, I was only ever asked to proof read a manual twice. Manuals, promo material, etc - none of those are relevant nor crafted by the devs. That's all a different department. RE5 was expected to release in '08. That IS when the game was set. They pushed it back so all the planned promotionals and the manual get altered to match the new release window. But in terms of the games intended design, these events happened in 08. PD sold it as 09. Does it really matter which year? If you want to be accurate, then its 08 (as designed). If you would rather believe the people that DIDN'T design the game, by all means take the already inaccurate manual and unrelated (and in no way canon) promos as fact... in the end, the date doesn't affect the final game. Just don't proclaim 09 MUST be right because elements outside the game say so. The only displayed year in the game is 08 (and I'm not saying the game events are occuring that listed day as that would be unlikely but it's foolish to assume it is a full year later cause of material released outside the game).

[Shadow Stalker]

This topic may be dead now but after scrolling through all this let me just say this. I work on games. From beginning to the end. I know the game inside and out before it ships... I have worked on 15-20 titles the past four years... of them, I was only ever asked to proof read a manual twice. Manuals, promo material, etc - none of those are relevant nor crafted by the devs. That's all a different department. RE5 was expected to release in '08. That IS when the game was set. They pushed it back so all the planned promotionals and the manual get altered to match the new release window. But in terms of the games intended design, these events happened in 08. PD sold it as 09. Does it really matter which year? If you want to be accurate, then its 08 (as designed). If you would rather believe the people that DIDN'T design the game, by all means take the already inaccurate manual and unrelated (and in no way canon) promos as fact... in the end, the date doesn't affect the final game. Just don't proclaim 09 MUST be right because elements outside the game say so. The only displayed year in the game is 08 (and I'm not saying the game events are occuring that listed day as that would be unlikely but it's foolish to assume it is a full year later cause of material released outside the game).

Thanks for the info mate! I personally prefer the year 2008 myself, due to the characters' age and all that.

[Carnivol]

What can I say... RE-fans take their story "facts" as serious business.

Good to see I'm not the only one around who knows that a game company isn't always one single entity that does everything in one big pile and that they surely don't oversee everything collectively, resulting in a lot of odd decisions/changes being made unrelated to one another in all parts of the "system". (Not everyone can be Origin Systems, Inc. )

Another favorite of mine to pick on is the whole Alexia + Cryo Sleep subject. Maaan... what a mess the Ashfords are when you start looking at supplemental material.

Fortunately, in my line of work, I tend to be able to be entirely consistent with quite a few things during production. Assuming most stuff somehow goes through me during the entire localization production process. Translation -> proofreading -> (contextual) editing -> manuals/advertisement/box description. Fortunately, we tend to get input from actual dev team members when we ask for input, elaborations or explanations for various consistency issues or other concerns.


Anyway, I find the Lost in Nightmares age for Jill kinda oddly interesting, in the sense that it would presumably put LIN in 2005, as I seem to recall pointing out somewhere the use of "a few years ago" instead of "a couple" or "two" when Chris enlightens Sheva on these events (which is what I'd say would be appropriate to use if it was 2006 + 2008, instead of the 2005+2008 we're looking at now.)

Makes you wonder what parts of Lost in Nightmares was dug out from the recycle bin and how much of it was newly researched and made for its DLC appearance.

[Smiley]

Someone posted Desperate Escape gameplay from AE and while I can't be certan because of crappy youtube quality Jill appears to be listed as 33 still.

Maybe someone who doesn't care for spoilers can voice a second opinion

Spoiler:

show spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCi-ZME8Zq0

[TheBatMan]

This topic may be dead now but after scrolling through all this let me just say this. I work on games. From beginning to the end. I know the game inside and out before it ships... I have worked on 15-20 titles the past four years... of them, I was only ever asked to proof read a manual twice. Manuals, promo material, etc - none of those are relevant nor crafted by the devs. That's all a different department. RE5 was expected to release in '08. That IS when the game was set. They pushed it back so all the planned promotionals and the manual get altered to match the new release window. But in terms of the games intended design, these events happened in 08. PD sold it as 09. Does it really matter which year? If you want to be accurate, then its 08 (as designed). If you would rather believe the people that DIDN'T design the game, by all means take the already inaccurate manual and unrelated (and in no way canon) promos as fact... in the end, the date doesn't affect the final game. Just don't proclaim 09 MUST be right because elements outside the game say so. The only displayed year in the game is 08 (and I'm not saying the game events are occuring that listed day as that would be unlikely but it's foolish to assume it is a full year later cause of material released outside the game).

But unless you worked on Resident Evil 5 then how do you know it was intended to be set in 2008? It was Chris Kramer who said it was set 10 years after Raccoon City and this is the same guy who thinks Barry is dead and doesn't have a clue who Sherry Birkin is.
Also, we are not talking about just promotional material we are talking bout things such as the 'kaitaishinsho' books which are co-written by the game's development team in conjunction with famitsu, and the date of events for RE5 is listed as 2009 many times over.
The 3.17.08 thing can already be explained away unless you believe Tricell developed Uroboros from scratch in less than 2 months.

I suppose it doesn't really matter what year it takes place in at the end of the day. But enough people have commented in this thread so it must bother some people. And for time line writers such as myself, it would be good to have a definite answer. Not 'proofreading the manual' doesn't mean a thing, I never expected Capcom would have proofread anything in the first place, which is why you get mistakes such as the TALOS typo.

Jill's depicted age with LIN and DE have proved one of two things. Either 1; The main game's events did take place three years later in 2009. Or 2; Character ages are unreliable, as I have said all along.

@Carnivol, LIN couldn't have taken place in 2005 not just because of the original files stating otherwise but also Jill says in dialogue that it all started in Raccoon City '8 years ago'.

I also like ur detective work with the Tricell tents but it still doesn't really prove anything conclusive. If the village was part of a test then surely there would be an observation point close by? If the tests are still on going and they had been infected for nine months then they would be constantly observed and monitored for data collection, improvements etc.
Having that one file still lying about is no different than having a file dated 1968 lying conveniently at the front door of the research lab entrance.

[Smiley]

#2 would be more sufficient in this case for RE5. #1 can't be so for the obvious fact that you can't pick and choose one over the other in the case of age bios. She can't be 30 in 2006 and 33 in 2009 if she was born in 1974.

However all our bickering over 2008 and 2009 has become irrelevent because even the in-game evidence (recent at that) is contradicting its own timeline. Capcom obviously doesn't seem to care about the timeline anymore so I guess we shouldn't either. If I was going to make a timeline I'd be frustrated at Capcom's lack of effort on the matter of a simple flowing date for the main campaign.

[TheDevilBringer]

But unless you worked on Resident Evil 5 then how do you know it was intended to be set in 2008? It was Chris Kramer who said it was set 10 years after Raccoon City and this is the same guy who thinks Barry is dead and doesn't have a clue who Sherry Birkin is.

For the record, due to Non-disclosure agreements, I never said what games I have/haven't worked on. That aside, the director and producer of RE5 stated many times before Kramer that it took place 10 years after 1. As for Kramer... did he work on RE1 or 2, I don't believe so... so why does his knowledge on the past games matter at all? Although, it should be noted that Barry COULD have died in 1 depending on your choices and if you didn't lose your copter in 3 (assuming he played through that, which I doubt) then you wouldn't see Barry so a player could draw the assumption his death was cannon, no? Or he could have simply been avoiding to directly answer the questions by playing arrogant. If you recall, he was asked if Sherry appeared... if he said yes or no, that's a spoiler. As for Barry, the question was if characters such as Jill or Barry would return in 5. His response directed all this hate at him rather then the fact that he completely avoided the comment about Jill. Eitherway, it is obvious the title was developed to take place in the planned release year of '08. It got pushed back and marketing altered details to address that. My point in response was NOTHING inside the game actually suggests 2009. During development it was planned for release in 08 and the 'ten years' idea was being mentioned MANY times. There is nothing in the game that remotely suggests09 the details in the game place it at 2008 (it is the only displayed year and numerous posts point out the illogical elements if we assume its 09). The entire debate is based on limited knowledge on the process of game development and the different factors involved. I mean no disrespect by that. But my point still stands - nothing outside the actual game is relevant to the actual game or its story. As the very FIRST information on this game suggests, it was always planned to be 10 years after the mansion incident. With the common knowledge that the game was pushed from 08 to 09, it should be evident the story was designed for 08 and "ajusted" (via outside material not provided by the Dev team) to 09 to fit the final release window.

[Chimera]

Well strike me down! Capcom does it again XD

Now here's the final question. Will they still list her age as 33 when Desperate Escape comes into play? o_O

Yes, her age is listed as 33.

[TheBatMan]

I mean no disrespect either but where is this clear in game evidence you speak of which indicates 2008?

[Carnivol]

The 3.17.08 thing can already be explained away unless you believe Tricell developed Uroboros from scratch in less than 2 months.

I'd dare to say pretty much everything and anything could be "explained away". It's just a matter of whether or not you absolutely want to discard A or B.

As for Uroboros; I might take a thorough look at it later. I dunno if we've ever seen many dates (or anything solid) for how that research went out. I guess one of the counting factors for when Uroboros research/development evt. started is at least somehow tied to when TriCell moved in at the old Umbrella Africa labs. When that was... beats me (at the moment, anyway), but in the case of your claim of then a "less than 2 months" period... remember the Ashfords (although I seriously hope the series has re-matured and moved away from such stupidity)

@Carnivol, LIN couldn't have taken place in 2005 not just because of the original files stating otherwise but also Jill says in dialogue that it all started in Raccoon City '8 years ago'.

Ah. True. Should've probably mentioned the dialog script when I was making that comment and saying;
"Makes you wonder what parts of Lost in Nightmares was dug out from the recycle bin and how much of it was newly researched and made for its DLC appearance."

I also like ur detective work with the Tricell tents but it still doesn't really prove anything conclusive. If the village was part of a test then surely there would be an observation point close by? If the tests are still on going and they had been infected for nine months then they would be constantly observed and monitored for data collection, improvements etc.
Having that one file still lying about is no different than having a file dated 1968 lying conveniently at the front door of the research lab entrance.

Thanks.
I like being thorough when I look at something. That and citing sources is an important part of backing up facts and determining whether or not a piece of information should be considered reliable. You'd be amazed if you knew how little I actually know about certain things, before I start digging on a subject. I just have a very sensitive bullshit-o-meter that goes from 0 to Penn&Teller the moment something even feels remotely questionable.


Anyway;
Everything down in the Africa lab is a mess. Lots of mixed branding of TriCell and Umbrella equipment. Certainly a lot of redundant data no one needs, Umbrella Branded toilet reading material, etc.... I'd say that a late 60s research doc being just "thrown around" after TriCell moved in down there is slightly more plausible than the Type-3 Plagas report just laying around out in the wide open on the surface (in the scenario of it being a whole year after it was initially written.)

[TheBatMan]

No you are right, it is a mess. But there is certainly no clear evidence in the game that more or less confirm events took place in 2008 as the Devil Bringer suggests. Yes there are elements that point to 08, but there are just as many that say 09.

I even said on the first page of the thread that I believed it was originally 08 but got pushed back to 09 to coincide with the release date.

Even if Devil Bringer is genuine and what he says is true, then the game is still offically set in 2009 yes?

[Carnivol]

Well, the game certainly never specifically states 2008 as its "current date" to my knowledge either.

You can make that date by playing around with the elements found within the game. And the only 2008 mention I can think of is a number we're not really entirely aware of the context of. On paper, it is certainly 2009, but supporting the 2009 date currently only really serves as a backdoor for writing secondary canon into the timeline while at the same time creating errors within the main canon that otherwise wouldn't really be present
(Not that the main games don't already have their fair share of errors on their own, regardless of whether or not you count any results from required alterations brought upon it by external media.)


Maybe it's this mess that has lead to the "Resident Evil 6 will likely be a franchise reboot"-ish comment? They can either spend the next 5 years doing R&D on how to reinvent the franchise or spend the same amount of time trying to fix everything.

[TheBatMan]

I know. Would it have killed capcom to just date a few of the present day files so stop these sort of endless debates?

But after still not knowing what eventually happened to Rebecca, then yeah I guess it would.