Topic: Do you think Castlevania is dead?

[zangetsu468]

@Gunlord Initially I took the 'my friend' thing as tongue-in-cheek in its context, but yes point taken.

@Belmontoya Apologies for any unwanted abrasion on my behalf.

@Flame Thanks for asking if I was autistic, rather than assuming I was.

[Shiroi Koumori]

@X: I call people dearie and not sweety.

[Flame]

Don't put the 3D feature in, simple.

Im pretty sure it doesnt work like that.

[Belmontoya]

Now that we're all friends we should get matching nes Simon Belmont tattoos!

[Kaneda]

I'd like to have the games go back to old continuity. Retcon the hundred year rule for Dracula and allow for breathing room for more games in the series.

[GuyStarwind]

I think if old Simon B. got into Smash it would breath some good life back into the series.

[zaxiou]

Probably not, Samus has been in Smash for a while and nothing much came from there.

[shelverton.]

What if Konami would resurrect some of their old associated "brands" like Vampire Killer, Haunted Castle or Kid Dracula? I somehow think it should've been done ages ago. Just look at Shin Megami Tensei which has multiple branches, one of which (yes, Persona) is arguably more popular than the mainline series.

I think Lords of Shadow could've been a Vampire Killer trilogy instead of using the Castlevania name. That would've made a lot of the haters less upset. And it could expand into its very own thing to cater to fans of more mainstream 3D action games, while leaving Castlevania to the nostalgic hardcore oldschool fans.

And as cheesy as it is, the name Vampire Killer is probably easier to market than Castlevania too.

Maybe the Metroidvanias could've been Haunted Castle games. Dunno. Or maybe they're a more natural evolution of the Vampire Killer formula. Doesn't matter, it's just names.

But what I'm most excited about is the idea of a new Kid Dracula game. It could be marketed more towards the Mario/Kirby crowd. Heck, it could even be a Zeldaesque game. If Konami announced KID DRACULA REBOOT for the 3DS it would actually be one of the cooler things they've done in years. It is very unlikely, I know, but still.

My point is that there're so many things that could've been done with the franchise. Fun things!

[Nagumo]

I'm not sure if you were talking about Vampire Killer as in the Japanese title of Bloodlines, but in case you were, it would be pretty neat to revive that particular sub-series even though it got cut short after one game. Probably would be too confusing though, since IGA tied its events into his storyline. On the other hand, it's not like canon matters now.

Kid Dracula would be sweet, too. Although I would want it to be more of a Castlevania parody than the originals were, personally.

IGA explained once SotN was called Dracula X because the X has an association with spin-off works in Japan (though weirdly enough this doesn't apply to RoB). So I always like to think of SotN and its ilk as the "Dracula X series".

[TheCruelAngel]

What I don't get is why they didn't touch different timelines or other issues in the universe. Like, why didn't we get more Leon chasing Mathias? Couldn't something bad happen between the 100 year cycle that the Belmonts would need to take care of?

No Belmont pancake house dating simulator where depending on the lover, changes the character you plan in a more traditional CV like romp? (Kinda like Agarest Wars I guess) There was a lot of potential that just never got used.

[Shinobi]

What I don't get is why they didn't touch different timelines or other issues in the universe. Like, why didn't we get more Leon chasing Mathias? Couldn't something bad happen between the 100 year cycle that the Belmonts would need to take care of?

I read somewhere that Trevor was supposed to be the first ever to defeat Dracula so it's likely that there's no events after Lament of Innocence, also leon said himself that his future sons or descendants will be the ones who will defeat Dracula.

[X]

I read somewhere that Trevor was supposed to be the first ever to defeat Dracula so it's likely that there's no events after Lament of Innocence, also leon said himself that his future sons or descendants will be the ones who will defeat Dracula.

You're correct. IGA was the one to make the claim that Trevor was the first Belmont to slay the Count. But before IGA took the reigns it was never decided upon that he was the first to kill Dracula. It was all up in the air at that point.

[Belmontoya]

You're correct. IGA was the one to make the claim that Trevor was the first Belmont to slay the Count. But before IGA took the reigns it was never decided upon that he was the first to kill Dracula. It was all up in the air at that point.

It wasn't up in the air. Sonia Belmont.

[DragonSlayr81]

It wasn't up in the air. Sonia Belmont.

Before Sonia, it was Trevor still, and before Trevor, it was Christopher.

IGA likely wanted Trevor to be the "first Belmont" that killed Dracula because he was never shy about hiding his fanboyism for CV3.

Personally, I still prefer Trevor and CV3's "origin" as time a Belmont defeats Dracula because of the interesting significance of the year 1476. Then again, I was always MORE interested Dracula being Vlad Tepes, not Mathias(nor Gabriel). I still think it would've been easier to frame the story without the bullshit of "who" Dracula really is.

[zangetsu468]

But as I understand, Legends' backstory had some contradictory elements to what IGA wanted to keep sacred within the official canon. Dracula being Vlad Tepes was one thing, the bigger issue being Alucard's bloodline corrupting the Belmont bloodline that conflicted with LOI's story about their bloodline being pure. Otherwise the VK (with Sara's tainted soul) would have rejected another tainted soul. I wonder if IGA ever thought about keeping Legends but retconning the inference Trevor was Alucard's child.