Talk:Resident Evil 7: Biohazard

VII or 7?
It's hard to pinpoint whether it's called VII or 7 because the on-screen title has the game stylized as EVII. How clever...Thank you! (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Every single place I can find, including the trailer on the PlayStation YouTube channel and Resident Evil's own channel have it named as 'Resident Evil 7 biohazard'. I think that, at the very least, the article should be called 'Resident Evil 7: Biohazard'. 187.21.129.120 (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the title seems to use the number 7 officially while only the logo is stylised using Roman numerals as a design feature. It's worth noting that the Japanese logo however uses "7". — Dell9300 (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

OK. It's officially called 7: Biohazard now. I still really like what they did with its logo, though. :-) Thank you! (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Info to add in the article.
According to the Senior Marketing Director at Capcom, the team behind Resident Evil 7 have been working on the game before P.T. came out.

https://twitter.com/OnlyOneT/status/742591710757195776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

http://www.gamesradar.com/many-are-calling-resident-evil-7-the-new-silent-hills-but-its-so-much-more-than-that/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.88.93.248 (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree when they say they aren't copying it.Thank you! (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, and recent game articles like Fallout 4 no longer specify the distribution media, whereas previously one would find in infoboxes a "Distribution media" field and next to it a text would say "Optical disc, digital download" but I don't see that anymore, nor do I see game articles listing the system requirements (Windows/Mac/Linux versions only) --Fandelasketchup (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Albert Wesker
I have removed the information regarding Albert Wesker's alleged performance in Resident Evil 7: Biohazard. While the sources given state that someone found data in the game suggesting there will be a character called 'Albert' in Resident Evil 7. There is no further conclusive evidence or official statement from CapCom given whether this will in fact be Albert Wesker.
 * One of the sources, TrendMedia is an article that has been almost entirely plagiarized from a small blog - Yibada. Again this article does not offer any official evidence.
 * LOD Tech does not even discuss how Wesker was allegedly discovered to be in Resident Evil 7. It mentions nothing about the data-mining nor the fact the leak only pointed to just a character named 'Albert'.
 * Two other sources, Playstation Lifestyle and EuroGamer, offers the same claims: A character named 'Albert',  assumed to be Wekser.
 * The actual data dump from NeoGAF Forums (which is apparently the source of the leak), even states that this is a character just named 'Albert', claiming "LastBossAlbert(NO RELATION TO WESKER, sounds like it's just his guns appear in the game". Almost every instance of 'Albert' in the dump is a reference to an item.

Unless there is something more concrete, Wesker's appearance in Resi 7 is speculation at this point. Three sources based on rumors and speculation do not classify as reliable sources. Rumors and speculative theories from un-reliable sources are considered original research. Wesker could in fact be in the game, but we would need something official and clear to validate this. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  06:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Plot improvement
The plot is missing some very important parts and very important imformation. Please add this mising imformation (i can do it myself anyway) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.166.160.57 (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Is this game supposed to be a semi-reboot?
It has little to do with the other Resident Evil stories at all, in my view.PeterMan844 (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Physical discomfort
"[...] decreased resolution and physical discomfort cited as its chief offenses." What does this even mean? People got physically sick from playing a horror game (which isn't a legitimate criticism)? Or does it mean the game's elements triggered epileptic responses in a large number of people? citation needed please 73.247.148.84 (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Reverted edit
I made this edit that got reverted. I didn't really understand the edit summary in the revert, but I made that clarification because the current wording seems to suggest that the Xbox version supports the PSVR. --uKER (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It is obvious that PlayStation VR does not support anything but the PlayStation 4. No need to clarify. Cognissonance (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It's as if I said "some of my pets are birds and some are dogs, and some of them can fly". Although it's obvious that the ones that are dogs won't be able to fly, there's no need to have this ridiculous wording. Also, the consoles' thing is obvious to us, who are into the subject of matter, but a layman reading that should be led to think that the Xbox One game does support PSVR. --uKER (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Reverted again... by the same user?
Just like in the discussion right above this one, I just made an edit which got reverted for dubious reasons despite a justification being specified in my edit summary. I don't have a problem with you saying the forecast has to be on a separate paragraph, but fixing that would have taken a mere hit of the enter key. You reverting me arguing that "the previous text flows better" (a completely subjective argument) only calls my attention to the fact that it was you who wrote the previous text. My issue with your text is that it says the game was forecast to get a given number of sales, but doesn't specify who made that forecast. For what your text's worth, the forecast could have been made by Billy, who cleans the toilets at Gamestop. Being the second time it's happened, it would be greatly appreciated if you could take it easier with the trigger finger to revert other people's edits just because they've edited what you wrote. Cheers. --uKER (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe a separate article for RE Engine?
After the release of Resident Evil 2 remake, there will be two games using RE Engine. I don't think that redirect to RE7 is a correct way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equalent (talk • contribs) 20:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I doubt there will significate coverage on the engine when RE2 remake is release to justify an article. No need to change the redirect since the RE Engine was initially designed for RE7. TheDeviantPro (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Should Banned Footage Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 be included?
A relatively new contributor has recently added most of the episodes from the game's DLCs Banned Footage Vol. 1 and Banned Footage Vol. 2 to the Plot section. Considering the game's later DLCs Not a Hero and End of Zoe, which are longer and more plot-orientated, have only ever been included, should those from Banned Footage be eligible? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Does "stylized as…" belong?
Right now, in a footnote on the game's title, the article includes

"Stylized as RESIDENT EVII. biohazard. Known in Japan as Biohazard 7: Resident Evil (バイオハザード7 レジデント イービル), stylized as BIOHA7.ARD resident evil."

My thought is no, per MOS:TMSTYLE: not only does trying to indicate the VII/7 tucked away in the logo run afoul of a guideline against, but also the suggestion that — in running text, the game is universally referred to as "Resident Evil 7" (or "Biohazard 7"), not "Resident EVII." in some attempt to replicate the logo. For example, the official site only ever uses "Resident Evil 7". With that in mind, I removed the "stylized as…" stuff. However, my edit was quickly undone. So: should these "stylized as" messages be included on this page? — Kawnhr (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Second first-person game in the series?
"" (emphasis mine) Depending on whether Dead Aim counts (the shooting is in first person) it's at least two or three titles (the two Gun Survivor games). I would probably prefer just removing that part as it adds nothing to the article 2A02:908:1068:8500:0:0:0:6B09 (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)