Topic: How tied are you to the existing canon?

[Eric Roman]

I don't give a fuck. 

Dracula's Curse, Super, Belmont's Revenge, and Symphony will remain the greatest experiences of my life.  If 1999 and a proper Portrait of Ruin would ever happen, that could be swell.  On that note, there was a spectacular opportunity of working Saint Germain ("...there is something in the future I have to attend to!") into PoR (& '99). 

To lock the universe into a canon introduces the risk of short-circuiting CastleVania's potential again.  Let CastleVania be an endless collection of episodic pageants of badassery!  They can occasionally run a line, for sure, but let's not once again bear witness to one chronicle being milked into fucking cheapness, Richter! 

[justin312]

Not tied to it much at all. Story is way too convoluted, and the guy behind most of it jumped ship to make a kickstarter funded Castlevania clone. Just flush the canon and start from scratch.

[AlexCalvo]

Not tied to it much at all. Story is way too convoluted, and the guy behind most of it jumped ship to make a kickstarter funded Castlevania clone. Just flush the canon and start from scratch.

I think that is a pretty unfair twist on the IGA situation. Sensing a little hostility.  And I never got why people found the old canon so convoluted... I mean you could write out the whole thing in about 2 or 3 pages.

[zangetsu468]

Story is way too convoluted

#calamitycanon

I think that is a pretty unfair twist on the IGA situation. Sensing a little hostility.  And I never got why people found the old canon so convoluted... I mean you could write out the whole thing in about 2 or 3 pages.

Just a little?
CV's timeline is only convoluted if you count the games which were retconned. Even so the timeline is fairly straightforward.
Hell a series like Zelda's timeline (even with HH) is not that easy to understand for some of the hardcore fans, forget about the average gamer.

[theplottwist]

And I never got why people found the old canon so convoluted... I mean you could write out the whole thing in about 2 or 3 pages.

only convoluted if you count the games which were retconned. Even so the timeline is fairly straightforward.
Hell a series like Zelda's timeline (even with HH) is not that easy to understand for some of the hardcore fans, forget about the average gamer.

It's good to hear voices I agree with. This "it's too convoluted" idea is getting to the point where people want to outright expunge specific entries on the canon because they can't/couldn't comprehend it (and no, this is not a mention to Scholar's "ricordanza should be expunged" thread, as what I'm pointing out is different from his view on that particular instance).

The issue people have with the canon comes from the fact that we, on the west, didn't get the entire thing clearly explained to us while the series progressed, as the eastern audience did. When manuals came out for us, the stories within were heavily altered, if not outright invented or plain wrong. And this is something from before IGA. Then, when IGA started building his stories and talking about things we couldn't get (because we didn't have the proper context), we blamed him for "plot-holes" when his concepts were rooted quite firmly on ideas established before him that, again, we had no access to.

Hell, the majority of the Castlevania audience still sees Dracula as ~le spooky vampire on the creepy castle~ instead of the analogous to Satan he is supposed to be, constantly downplaying him. And this is thanks in no small part to the horrible supplementary material we got for the older games (seriously, compare the JP and ENG versions of the first Castlevania manual) and careless translations in many instances of the modern games ("Satan's Ring" comes to mind). So, when IGA made these nuances more obvious in the games, it became "his fault" for making it "too convoluted" and opened a big leeway for people to see "inconsistencies" where there are none*.

Konami of America is to blame. They painted Castlevania in an overly simplified manner for us, when this was never the case. Hell, there are instances of three-page plots being turned into offhand mentions on the english manuals. When the localization teams couldn't give a single flying fuck for the complex stories behind these games, how could the player be expected to do it?

What I'm trying to say is: The plot is not convoluted when you know what it is.

* = I'm not saying IGA is the next Shakespeare. There are holes to be filled on his plots. What I'm saying is that most criticism of his writing stems from unintentional misunderstandings of the source-material, since said source-material is either heavily altered for english audiences or not translated at all. e.g.: people saying Order of Ecclesia makes no sense to exist along with Circle of the Moon and Legacy of Darkness because these two were added for some goddamn reason on the english timeline when they shouldn't. Or people giving him shit for having removed Legends because they don't have access to the timeline flat out stating the date of Lisa' death to compare with Legends' year.

[The Bizarre Trooper]

I am very tightly tied to EVERY Castlevania games before the LOS triology happened!

I considered each Castlevania game as a long huge timeline 'cept Chronicles and Super Castlevania 4 since they technically are remakes of Castlevania 1 same goes for Dracula X and Chronicle X wich are also remakes of Rondo of blood and i consider Harmony of despair not really canon since basically if my memory is correct it happened because of a certain grimoire in Dracula's castle that has recorded EVERY event inside! wich come to think of it i am really curious on HOW & WHY Harmony of despair happened =) so technically i consider all of the original Castlevania games (including the prologues mangas of SotN, CoD, the light novel Ricordanza of the abyss(if i wrote it right)) canon Iga ad non-Iga wise!


But the one thing i consider the most important element of Castlevania is: The Story telling. I love Lament of Innocence for it's origin story of WHY Castlevania happened while i love Curse of Darkness for it's what happened after Dracula's Curse, surely even if Dracula is dead there must be some sort remnants of his dark powers and allies? My favorite by far is the stories of: Harmony of disonnance, Order of Ecclesia, Circle of the moon, 64/Legacy of darkness, Portrait of ruins, both Aria and Dawn of sorrows! What i think Konami should have done before doing the LOS trilogy was to give us the most important story of Castlevania: The 1999 Demon War/The final End of Dracula!

Sure we keep hearing it but never seen it even today untill one Castlevania fan decided to bring this story to life: of course i'm talking aboth theplottwist's Castlevania: Umbra of Sorrow! He is so dedicated that he had built the lore of WHY & HOW for the 1999 Demon War!

As for the LOS trilogy: 1st one had a great story 'till the after credit scene, Mirror of fate was Average but i din't like the story too much ('cept for Simon's story was pretty nice), and the 2nd got me type-2 bad story-betes... yeah that badly.

So overvall the thing that i am the most tied to the canon is it's amazing storytelling! Overall i give the entire Castlevania Franchise before LOS a solid 10/10, 5 Platinum Stars.

[GuyStarwind]

The following thoughts are simply my opinion.

I've said this a billion times here but I don't care what the timeline is as long as the following is in it (this being said I do enjoy the Iga timeline):

Belmont as the hero and as just a regular person. I don't want him to secretly Dracula or the son of Alucard or whatever. I just want a guy (or girl) who is just straight up human with maybe some divine powers. Moreover, I want them to be the hero and not a supporting character.

A simple plot. I've never taken CV to have the deepest plot. I'm not saying it can't or doesn't but in truth, it's a game about a guy with a whip fighting monsters in a giant castle. As long as that key element is there we're good.

Candles and hearts. This might seem anal but I feel these elements are important. I know some games don't have candles or hearts but I feel at this point they've become part of the CV feel.

A giant castle. I'm sure some feel differently but I don't want to travel around the world or to different areas of the land but just in a giant impossibly huge castle.

This is going to sound weird but I wish they'd get rid of the leveling system. If they had to have one I vote they use the LoI version. I feel that with leveling it's not so much talent or skill that beats the game but rather grinding till you're strong enough to do so. I'm sure people disagree but I'm just speaking my mind.

Killer soundtrack.

An atmosphere of something like LoI and the CV games.

Finally elements from the 64 games. I know people aren't the biggest fans of the 64 titles but they have some really cool elements. Just to list a few: I think the fact that vampires are common enemies is a neat idea. Also, I've always loved the fact that the vampires can bite you and possibly turn you into a vampire thus you receiving a game over. The day and night system I think works in it. Your inventory is simple and I like that. We need another merchant like the one in CV 64. Finally platforming (yes I know it needed work) where you could die. I love the Iga games but it always bugged me that I would jump from the highest point of the castle and land safely on my feet.

I love the newer titles but I wish they would go back to some of the basics that I love.

[X]

While it's undeniably true that Konami of America is mainly responsible for the convoluted nature of the games' stories, IGA also played his part. He did mention glossing over some elements of the games in order to tie them all together. But by doing so, almost as much damage was done. That, and he had no editors to proof-check his work, much less ones' whom had intimate knowledge of CV before he came aboard. Bloodstained will be a chance for IGA to start fresh and do his own thing, and it shouldn't get as messed up as easily as CV had gotten since Bloodstained is his baby. I do like some of the things IGA's canon brought to the stage. It did make the series feel deeper then before. However there are also other elements that he should not have touched upon as they were already firmly entrenched in popular culture and our minds. Dracula's origins was the big one.

[JR]

I'd actually love to see them start from scratch, so long as they went in the same direction as the early games. A whip-wielding Belmont against Dracula, his castle, and his legion of creatures. I'd love to see them go back to the somewhat campy horror vibe they had to begin with, and a plus if they gave it a good story.

The canon just seems like it's run its course at this point...it already feels like it's been stretched out too far.

I'd even be excited for a multiverse, so that the series characters could be reinterpreted in different, interesting ways. As long as they stayed completely separate from each other...

[AlexCalvo]

While it's undeniably true that Konami of America is mainly responsible for the convoluted nature of the games' stories, IGA also played his part. He did mention glossing over some elements of the games in order to tie them all together. But by doing so, almost as much damage was done. That, and he had no editors to proof-check his work, much less ones' whom had intimate knowledge of CV before he came aboard. Bloodstained will be a chance for IGA to start fresh and do his own thing, and it shouldn't get as messed up as easily as CV had gotten since Bloodstained is his baby. I do like some of the things IGA's canon brought to the stage. It did make the series feel deeper then before. However there are also other elements that he should not have touched upon as they were already firmly entrenched in popular culture and our minds. Dracula's origins was the big one.

Are you aware that Dracula's origins were established to be very different than the historical figure years before IGA came on board?  In the manuals of the original NES and GB games.  This is the same issue mentioned above. If you are unfamiliar with the actual established continuity pre-Iga, and only know the English translation, the story gets wonky. If not then you can see that IGA actually did a wonderful job of keeping the story consistant and contradiction free.

[Nagumo]

Technically Dracula was never Vlad Tepes, not even in the original novel despite the (incorrect) claims to the contrary. It's an idea very much ingrained in pop culture but it's based on a misinterpretation. I'm not sure if anyone remembers but I brought up a scholary article that pretty much debunked that idea. If you're affliated with an university you can read the article yourself.

Regarding the debate about whether or not Count Dracula in Stoker's novel is really Vlad Tepes, I read a very interesting scholary article about this (written by a certain Andrew Collins from the the university of Otago) from 2011 which argues he definitely was not. To summarize his point briefly, he states the only source mentioned in Stoker's notes from he which he could have gotten his information about the historical Dracula is "An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia" (he also links all the passages from the novel that relate to historical events to information in this book) which mention two Dracula's: Vlad II and Vlad III. So, the author further goes on that the novel mentions on a few occasians two Dracula's:

1) A Dracula who ‘crossed the Danube and beat the Turk on his own ground’, whose ‘unworthy brother, when he had fallen, sold his people to the Turk and brought the shame of slavery on them’.   

2) A second Dracula who was inspired by Vlad the Impaler’s military exploits.

Citaat
Was it not this Dracula, indeed, who inspired that other of his race who in a later age again and again brought his forces over the great river into Turkey-land, who, when he was beaten back, came again, and again, though he had to come alone from the bloody field where his troops were being slaughtered, since he knew that he alone could ultimately triumph! They said that he thought only of himself. Bah! What good are peasants without a leader? Where ends the war without a brain and heart to conduct it?


This second Dracula is supposed to have fought in the battle of Mohács, which took place in 1526, as mentioned in the novel. 

The author argues that Stoker assumed because of the multiple uses of Dracula in the book he consulted, Dracula was actually a lineage, not simply a title. So this means that Stoker actually meant for Count Dracula to be a fictionalized relative of Vlad Tepes who also happend to have fought Turks at a later point in time, but also dabbled in black magic, alchemy, and so on.

The Vlad Tepes backstory is pretty interesting but, despite being championed as the most legitimate, it's just one of many backgrounds attributed to Dracula in popculture. Come to think of it, I don't know a single piece of media that actually gets Dracula's identity right. So in the end, it doesn't matter who Dracula was originally. Part of the fun is that you can pretty much make him anyone you want him to be.

[Belmontoya]

I don't think that article disproves Dracula's origin as Tepes.

We know that stoker didn't add the Tepes backstory until later, but t still holds water. He made the change later and with limited info, but enough was given.

Why? Because this article tries to debunk his identity by stating Dracula is someone else who is related some 100 years later as a contradiction; but then, Dracula himself is an immortal vampire. And there is still the first clear reference to Tepes in the lines before that that if anything, debunk this authors theory the same way.

Is the idea of him posing as a relative to Tepes 100 years later not the exact thing any logical vampire would do who needed to hide the fact that he was undead? It is after all the exact thing he is doing as he speaks these lines to Jonathan Harker.

Van Helsing clearly identifies him in the novel as well.

"He must, indeed, have been that Voivode Dracula who won his name against the Turk, over the great river on the very frontier of Turkey-land." (Chapter 18, p 145)

Even the Wikipedia for the novel states that historical facts are present in the novel that unequivocally point to Vlad III.

[Nagumo]

I thought about your interpreation Belmontya, and I have to disagree. First I would like to emphasize that the only known source Stoker was known to have used definitely could have been interpreted by him to mean that the name "Dracula' indicated a lineage. So the idea of there being multiple Draculas is not something the author came up with out of nowhere.

Moving on, here's a brief overview of the history that transpired in the world of Stoker's novel:

1) A Voivode by the name of Dracula "crossed the Danube and beat the Turk on his own ground".

2) When this Dracula had died in battle, "Woe was it that his own unworthy brother, [...]   sold his people to the Turk and brought the shame of slavery on them!"

3) This event inspired "that other of his race" (a different Dracula) to gather an army "and  again and again, brought his forces over The Great River into Turkey Land, who when he was beaten back, came again, and again, and again, though he had to come alone from the bloody field where his troops were being slaughtered, since he knew that he alone could ultimately triumph."

The quote you mentioned can thus refer to both the original Dracula (Vlad Tepes) or the Dracula "from a later age". 

What I think definitely disproves your interpreation is that at some point Van Helsing obtains information about Count Dracula from when he was still alive (the fact that he was a scholar, alchemist, and occultist who attented the Scholomance) and this information is then explicitly linked to the Dracula who fought in the battle of Mohács. The novel seems to imply that Dracula's involvement in the black arts is what caused him to come back as a vampire after death. So the novel seems to place Dracula's transformation into a vampire around that time. Thus, he isn't Vlad Tepes.

[Belmontoya]

I think we had this exact same conversation 2 years ago Nagumo! Haha

[Nagumo]

Yeah, I remember.  Too bad we can't simply ask the author...