Is Capcom acknowledging Gaiden in the timeline or canon?

[Smiley]

http://img.ly/8rxu

[TheSelfishGene]

I doubt it.
It just looks like a list of Biohazard games they've released, in chronological order

[News Bot]

No, it's a game release calender. No storyline implication. They "acknowledge" it in the Archives books too, again, only in a release calender.

[Upaluppa]

Makes sense...
I've long been confused over whether Gaiden was once supposed to be canon (before future installments, most notably BH 4 made this impossible) or not but after all the excellent research you people have done proved it to be intended as a sidestory (hey, it's called "Gaiden" after all, haha) from the very beginning I obviously changed my mind.

I really could've sworn that the game was supposed to be canon back then...

Anyways, it's still nice to see that Capcom does not deny it's existence even tough it was not exactly what you can call a memorable part of the BH series in pretty much every fan's opinion...

I actually think that it was a quite playable Gameboy Color title if you view it as it's on, independent game, I just don't see it as a good BH game because it's gameplay is quite a departure from the typical BH gameplay and also because it adds nothing to the game canon. (Well, the same could be said about most Gun Survivor titles, but whatever...)

I'm not quite sure why I think so, but somehow I feel that it reflects well on a company if they stand up for all the games they have created, including the not so good ones.

[News Bot]

It was never meant to be canon I think, purely an alternate universe. It doesn't fit in any context, like Wesker's Report, which takes elements from the main universe (BH1, BH2, BH3) and the alternative universe (Ada drama album). The only person it was probably canon to would be Hiroki Kato, who wrote Wesker's Report (and is still the only person to ever reference the game).

And the only GS title which doesn't add to the story is GS2.

[Dracarys]

I really could've sworn that the game was supposed to be canon back then...

It was, it was meant to lead into the original RE4. During an early RE4 interview it was said Leons infection was from a previous game he was in, at the time the only Leon games were RE2 and Gaiden so there doesn't leave much room for guessing.

I read it with my own eyes in a magazine, so the people who are gonna try dispute this (and I know some will) can save themselves the bother of replying. I don't really care what you believe, I read it, I know it.

[News Bot]

It was, it was meant to lead into the original RE4. During an early RE4 interview it was said Leons infection was from a previous game he was in, at the time the only Leon games were RE2 and Gaiden so there doesn't leave much room for guessing.

I read it with my own eyes in a magazine, so the people who are gonna try dispute this (and I know some will) can save themselves the bother of replying. I don't really care what you believe, I read it, I know it.

A person's memory is the ultimate trickster, and is not a source. Until that interview surfaces (because you are evidently the only person who has ever seen it), then stop proclaiming it to be fact.

(It's wrong.)

Also THERE IS NO LEON = INFECTED STORYLINE IN GAIDEN.

[Upaluppa]

This reminds me of something...
Say, is there any official word from Capcom on that cheesy cliffhanger ending which Gaiden had?

You know, the ending made it look like the shape shifting mutant escaped instead of Leon...

Such an ending (if it were canonical) would have made a new BH game with Leon (if it were to play after Gaiden in the timeline) impossible unless the real Leon survived through some miracle...

A mutant which looks like Leon could have been the most awesome boss in BH history - NOT...

I really wonder what the storywriter intended when he came up with that ending...
Perhaps he wanted to leave open the possibility for a future game which picks up where Gaiden ended, creating a sort of alternate timeline with "the Gaiden series", but of course I am just making heavy speculations here...

[News Bot]

CAPCOM have never commented on Gaiden's storyline in general let alone the cliffhanger ending that voids every single game post-CODE:Veronica (which some people would probably take as a good thing, along with Leon being dead).

[Dracarys]

First of all "Until that interview surfaces (because you are evidently the only person who has ever seen it), then stop proclaiming it to be fact."

It has never been proven Leon died in Gaiden, people just assume yet proclaim it as fact. I know it isn't, but even others shouldn't be doing so.

The ending shows him infected is the most logical answer, if you play it again you will notice a question mark at the end when he bleeds, a question mark serves no purpose if it was the shapeshifter as that was used to indentify one earlier so there is no mystery to it unless it was something else, an exclamation mark would be what is appropiate to show the shock if it was not meant to be Leon. A qustion mark suggests something else.

In the magazine (and my memory is fine, I've recalled the article everytime Gaiden has been mentioned throughout the years) there was a Gaiden image showing Leons bleeding when talking about him being infected in a previous game. Now of course using that image could very well be the magazine guessing what game was being talked about and likely was since Gaiden wasn't mentioned by name, but between RE2 and Gaiden as previous games there isn't really a lot to guess about where he was infected, especially given Gaidens ending.

As far as I am concerned the article did not lie and is highly unlikely to have in a printed article and until I see some solid evidence to dispute it it will forever be what I believe and what I repeat. I understand for other people not seeing is not believing, but that doesn't change my stance, I will not repeat something I believe to be a lie. I will prove this one day though, I'll eventually get a chance to go through my old stuff and I'll do it to be a totally smug bitch and rub it in doubters faces .

I'm not getting into an arument with this, my last post on the subject. A good researcher or open minded erson would try find the magazine at least before writing it off completely and calling people liars, at least acknowledge the possibility.

[News Bot]

It has never been proven Leon died in Gaiden, people just assume yet proclaim it as fact. I know it isn't, but even others shouldn't be doing so.

Hypothetical situations and "probably" are not valid arguments. Leon is shown dying mid-way through the game (complete with sappy "I'm sorry Barry!" speech, I believe)) and the game makes it very clear that it is not Leon at the end of the game, as it makes several references (particularly with Lucia) to the fact that the B.O.W. is detectable by the fact that it bleeds green blood in human form. Perhaps you should play it? There is absolutely no indication that there is any sort of infection involved, the game makes it very clear it is something else altogether.

The ending shows him infected is the most logical answer

The game makes it clear that there is no infection sub-plot. There is a shape-shifting B.O.W. sub-plot. A shape-shifting B.O.W. which bleeds green blood sub-plot. There is being mistaken and then there is being ignorant. You're falling into the latter.

In the magazine (and my memory is fine, I've recalled the article everytime Gaiden has been mentioned throughout the years) there was a Gaiden image showing Leons bleeding when talking about him being infected in a previous game. Now of course using that image could very well be the magazine guessing what game was being talked about and likely was since Gaiden wasn't mentioned by name, but between RE2 and Gaiden as previous games there isn't really a lot to guess about where he was infected, especially given Gaidens ending.

So it wasn't an interview then? It was at best, an editors caption under an image, or a complete guess or random addition? Gotcha.

I'm not getting into an arument with this, my last post on the subject. A good researcher or open minded erson would try find the magazine at least before writing it off completely and calling people liars, at least acknowledge the possibility.

Indeed, and through all the searching, not one example of what you say has ever been stated by anyone other than yourself. You still fail to even give the name of the magazine or any other details apart from "I KNOW IT FOR A FACT DONT CARE WHAT YOU THINK MY MEMORY IS FLAWLESS".


You want evidence? Play the game.

[Dracarys]

So it wasn't an interview then? It was at best, an editors caption under an image, or a complete guess or random addition? Gotcha.

Are you really that dumb? You've never seen an interview in a magazine that posted screenshots of the subject being talked about?


Enough arguing with closed minded people.

[News Bot]

Are you really that dumb? You've never seen an interview in a magazine that posted screenshots of the subject being talked about?

Now that you mention it, I haven't seen this interview. Nor has anyone else. ;D

And just because the picture is there (with no statement from the actual person being interviewed) doesn't make it any more credible. Of course, we're dealing with some hypothetical magazine only you have read, so who knows?

And calling me close-minded for not believing something that 1) contradicts the game itself and 2) has never been documented to exist except in your memory, is pretty funny. I'll give your memory more credibility if you prove it. Why should I be so accepting of something I know to be completely incorrect, especially since the game itself makes no reference to it?

[Mr. Spencer]

This is the most retarded exchange I have ever seen on here.

[Dracarys]

Now that you mention it, I haven't seen this interview. Nor has anyone else. ;D

Or any interview, ever apparently. You're making yourself sound ignorant now. Keep going.