Topic: The Mother of All Castlevania Timelines

[theplottwist]

Not really. But I gotta have dat clickbait, fam.

This timeline was made originally for the audiences of my country, but I adapted it to english too.

What it doesn't contain: Platform of each game, Gamebooks or Novels too obscure to track down or to actually enrich any knowledge, Ports. If you see a game you think is a port in there, then it's there because it was confirmed to be a different timeline/universe rather than merely a port.

It's color coded for convenience, too. AND, if it's not obvious enough, the timeline is read vertically, not horizontally.

There might be errors. Probably are. I have plans to evolve it further in the future, but the goal was to make as simple to follow as possible, hence why there are no fancy summaries or game platforms. You'll also notice that the criteria used for colunm positioning places Lords of Shadow the furthest from the classic canon. Done intentionally to drive home that LoS is a separate continuity completelly unrelated to the classic canon.



Full size: http://imgur.com/a/GVxvK

"But why does Legacy have its own timeline?"

It was made that way initially because, on the alternate continuity, LoD is both the only one to have a true sequel plot and system-wise, and the only one whose character is more connected to IGA's canon (Cornell, through Judgment).

Kid Dracula has a "sequel".... In that it's only an excuse to port/arrange Kid Dracula for the GB. Although it would fall on the "port" category and not be included, its plot says that GB Kid Dracula is actually a sequel. Soooo in it goes.

Contrary to what it may look like, Kid Dracula isn't more connected to IGA's canon "because of Galamoth". Galamoth, in Castlevania, may be a completelly separated character from Kid Dracula's Galamoth, while the Cornell showing up on Judgment is the real deal from LoD.

"But why then are the Pachinkos coming before Kid Dracula and the other alternate continuities?"

This may be an oversight on my part and may be redone later, but the initial rationale is that the Pachinkos are branching from the classic canon being more true to the classic canon's plot formula, when Kid Dracula, while also branching from the classic canon, heavily deviates from the classic canon's plot formula, activelly trying to not have an horror atmosphere at all.

But I may change that based on "importance", which the alternate continuities truly are: Much more important than the Pachinkos and far outweighting Kid Dracula on the plot formula fidelity.

Yeah redid it. Keeping the pachinkos above the alternate continuities was just wrong.

"Why is Mirror of Fate listed twice?"

This game happens during two ages, and one is the "sequel" from the other within the same game.

[suomynona]

Why did the makers even considered that bloody Pachinko as a legit Castlevania? It should be treated like Zelda Cdi and should be denied from existence.

Not cool. Not cool.

[Dracula9]

Because personal opinions of quality don't change that it's an official title.

[suomynona]

Because personal opinions of quality don't change that it's an official title.

Well, well. Nobody considers "Zelda" Cdi as "Zelda", don't they. It works the same. "Castlevania" Pachinko is not "Castlevania".

Don't dare say that I missed ur joke cuz I clearly have different sense of humour.

[zangetsu468]

It's cool, but I think I've said my peace on CV's timeline

Also Pachinko = canon entry? :/

[theplottwist]

It's cool, but I think I've said my peace on CV's timeline

Also Pachinko = canon entry? :/

Pachislot timeline is its own timeline. Which is why it's far away from the IGA canon. Also, the "pachislot canon" is Pachi-Akumajo 3, 1, 2. CR Pachinko and The Medal are not confirmed to be sequels to the Pachi-Akumajo games.

The horizontal lines are NOT "branchings". They are guides to help your eyes connect them with the years only. For instance: Dracula X connected to Rondo of Blood doesn't mean it's branching from Rondo. It means that it happens on a parallel timeline on the same year.

Well, well. Nobody considers "Zelda" Cdi as "Zelda", don't they. It works the same. "Castlevania" Pachinko is not "Castlevania".

Don't dare say that I missed ur joke cuz I clearly have different sense of humour.

They considering Zelda CDI "not Zelda" doesn't make it less Zelda. It has the name "Zelda", it was licensed, was approved at the time, so it's Zelda. It may suck major balls, but it's Zelda.

Say someone makes you chicken. You love chicken, but this person sucks at cooking and their chicken tastes horrible. It's not "not chicken". It's just bad chicken.

[zangetsu468]

They considering Zelda CDI "not Zelda" doesn't make it less Zelda. It has the name "Zelda", it was licensed, was approved at the time, so it's Zelda. It may suck major balls, but it's Zelda.

Actually they're not considered canon Zelda titles, reference Hyrule Historia. Even though Philips used Ninty's license and some of its art, these games don't take place in the same universe(s) as Nintendo's LOZ.

Even the geography and such like "Gamelon" are not a part of Nintendo's canon. In actual fact, they seem to have inspired the animated 90's cartoon more so than anything else.

[suomynona]

Actually they're not considered canon Zelda titles, reference Hyrule Historia. Even though Philips used Ninty's license and some of its art, these games don't take place in the same universe(s) as Nintendo's LOZ.

Even the geography and such like "Gamelon" are not a part of Nintendo's canon. In actual fact, they seem to have inspired the animated 90's cartoon more so than anything else.

To add that, Most of non-canon CVs are considered spinoff or Alternative canon, unlike Pachinko which is just irrelevant from Castlevania except for Pachinko imitation the look of Castlevania. Like People consider Hyrule Warriors as a Zelda game and CotM as a Castlevania, even though they do not fit in canon timeline unlike Zelda Cdi or Pachinko Castlevania.

[Dracula9]

Well, well. Nobody considers "Zelda" Cdi as "Zelda", don't they. It works the same. "Castlevania" Pachinko is not "Castlevania".

Don't dare say that I missed ur joke cuz I clearly have different sense of humour.

A joke wasn't being made.

I hate the things as much as the next guy, but they're still Castlevania titles made by Konami. If he was making a comprehensive timeline, they have every reason to be included for consistency's own sake. My disliking them doesn't turn it into a another series or retcon it.

But Plot already beat me to this with the chicken metaphor (really, Plot? Chicken metaphors while referencing Zelda? Are you aiming to cause a death swarm from above?), so I'm just echoing the sentiment.

Actually they're not considered canon Zelda titles, reference Hyrule Historia. Even though Philips used Ninty's license and some of its art, these games don't take place in the same universe(s) as Nintendo's LOZ.

Even the geography and such like "Gamelon" are not a part of Nintendo's canon. In actual fact, they seem to have inspired the animated 90's cartoon more so than anything else.

It's not really about whether something's part of the Ganon canon. It's just the simple naming convention and subjective principle of it. We don't refer to the CD-I Zeldas as "Lib-Lonk's Rug Adventure of Shitty MSPaint Cutscenes and Awful Game Design, Squadalah!" We refer to them as CD-I Zelda. Saying that isn't declaring them canonized or even of good quality, only that we're addressing them by the name they were released with. It's kinda like fangames--a fanmade Zelda title doesn't stop being Zelda because it's not official, it's still got the usual cast and scenario and setting.

Or more recent of an instance, is AM2R not Metroid because Nintendo didn't officiate it and openly went after it with the intent to kill?

The other part of it is an entirely subjective one. Everyone's gonna have a different definition of what makes a series "Castlevania" or "Zelda" or whatever. For some folks, it's Classicvania or bust. For others, Castleroids take the cake. Neither's more "right" than the other in those opinions. Since it really boils down to the correlation between this and official releases (in that, I could consider something faithful to a series when it's not official, or consider an official entry to be a terrible representation of the series), the only well and true factor that can be looked at from a lens of some objectivity is the simple official naming and licensing.

Do Pachinkovanias suck? I think so.

Are they lazy cashgrabs for a home-targeted market from a company who can't bother to care about the rest of the planet? Of course.

Do I consider them shitty representations of the series at large and what I consider to be thematically and uniquely "Castlevania?" Definitely.

But Konami still made, released, and licensed them under the IP. They count as Castlevanias, even if it is in nothing but name and basic "whip man beat vampyr" theming. It's Castlevania on all the official paperwork, so I must (begrudgingly) accept it as a valid entry in series officialism.

[Chernabogue]

Apart from the clickbait, this is a really nice infography. Nice job, Mr. Plot!

[Zuljaras]

This is very nice BUT the names of the games are really hard to read.

[coinilius]

Just one question: why is Order of Shadows after Castlevania/Simon's Quest, even in an alternate timeline?  For it to take place in the 'late 1600's' it would have to be before Castlevania/Simon's Quest, or be alternate to the events of those games.  Or is that because there was nothing to actually say what date Haunted Castle took place in?  I'm just remembering a previous conversation we had about Order of Shadows and its 'timeline' placement in this thread:  http://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/index.php/topic,8587.0.html

[theplottwist]

This is very nice BUT the names of the games are really hard to read.

This timeline is actually GIGANTIC. Imgur scrunches it to fit your screen even if you click the image. To get the full image, right-click on the magnified image and "Open on another tab".

Just one question: why is Order of Shadows after Castlevania/Simon's Quest, even in an alternate timeline?  For it to take place in the 'late 1600's' it would have to be before Castlevania/Simon's Quest, or be alternate to the events of those games.  Or is that because there was nothing to actually say what date Haunted Castle took place in?  I'm just remembering a previous conversation we had about Order of Shadows and its 'timeline' placement in this thread:  http://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/index.php/topic,8587.0.html

The only official word we have from Order of Shadows is that "it takes place late in the 1600s". For all we know, Simon could've not even existed on Order of Shadows' universe, cameo appearance aside.

So the safe bet was to place it last on the "1600s games", giving precedence to the many Simon adventures first. Though it IS quite possible it happened before or at the same time as "Castlevania", we don't have ultimate proof.

Haunted Castle is treated as an alternate tale of the original game, so the date is largely assumed to be the same as the original game's. Haunted Castle was not proven to exist on the Order of Shadows universe.

It's also important to note that this timeline doesn't represent how I view the "branchings" of the CV universe. I particularly believe that Kid Dracula is actually a distorted telling of an actual event on the CV universe. But I have no proof of this, so I cannot place it on the IGA timeline. It's a timeline as clean as possible of unnoficial inference.

[X]

I'd like to see Konami's official pre-IGA timeline in there since they got pretty much everything else.

[Nagumo]

I'd like to see Konami's official pre-IGA timeline in there since they got pretty much everything else.

Probably the most interesting timeline of them all because it's really difficult to tell what the original intented connenctions between the games were. What also makes it difficult to figure this out is that is requires digging through dusty old magazines of which no scans exist online. Even now there still remain a lot of question marks. At the very least I have the feeling I'm close to proving that Vampire Killer/Bloodlines wasn't part of this "pre-IGA timeline". (stay tuned on that by the way).