Topic: Lament of Innocence isn't actually that essential to the story

[Belmontoya]

Perhaps Leon actually was Sonia all along?

Like a pre-cursor to Joan of Arc.

We should get Iga to elaborate on this.

[theplottwist]

Also, on that note (mostly because I guess this is what the thread is about now, my original post be damned), Legends gums up the clockwork of Iga's canon, but Dracula's Curse is notably precious light on story, and it doesn't even name the year (in either the Japanese or English versions) in which it takes place; I actually just now booted up my Roms to make damn sure before I went off and claimed that. It doesn't even say that Dracula had any motive for wanting "to make a bad world filled with evil" other than he's the bad guy so go kill him, nor does it state that Trevor was the first Belmont to face him. It DOES say that the Belmonts "have a long history of fighting evil".

Well, now I'll have to respond exactly where the issue is. You know well we don't roll around in these parts depending only on what the game's intro says.

Legends: Dracula became Dark Lord in 1431, spread his dominion over Europe, and died in 1450 by Sonia's hand. He ruled as a vampire demon warlock commanding a demon army undisputed for 19 years. Then, Sonia has what is strongly implied to be Trevor Belmont sired by Alucard, whom she last met before Dracula was defeated. So, like, Trevor is born AT MOST in 1451.

CVIII: Dracula became Dark Lord, spread his dominion over Europe, was noticed by the Church who immediately dispached an army, then Sypha when the army didn't return, then contacted Trevor when Sypha didn't return. All the while Alucard fled to the underground hating his father for having been turned into a monster due to Dracula's greed, and he waited there for a warrior that would help him defeat his dad. Grant was defeated and made into a monster. No "previous Dracula defeat" is spoken about here before Dracula carries out his plans. No "Dracula reigned for 19 entire years before being defeated, then revived to do it all over again". The story is pretty straightforward: He became a demon, then began his conquest, then got defeated by Trevor and Co. No inbetween defeats, no "Dracula is at it again!". No "agains". No Church acting "again" against Dracula.

Also, Sypha's land of origin is Wallachia. She remembers her land as being "beautiful". If Dracula is at is ever since 1431 and was allowed to run wild for 19 years, no way in hell she would remember it as "beautiful".

Zero IGA on this.

but this wasn't actually outright stated as fact in the games themselves until Curse of Darkness in 2005

Zero IGA on this also. Couple this with the above: Unless you think the plot told on CVIII happened across the span of 45 years (like, Sypha stood there petrified for 45 years, or Alucard hid there for 45 years -- meeting Sonia in the meanwhile --, or the Church took YEARS to send reinforcements while Dracula rapidly spread his control), then it becomes pretty clear here that there is a problem. Also, again, Sypha remembering her beautiful land when Legends says that it was supposed to be a hellhole controlled by Dracula probably even from before she could plausibly be born. And that is not mentioning how Trevor managed to be sired by Alucard AFTER Alucard was corrupted by his father in 1431 or before (because remember: Alucard is already not human in Legends, and CVIII explains that Alucard was made into an inhuman creature due to Dracula's greed), when in fact he was born after 1451. Schrodinger's Trevor, born in two different years at the same time.

There. Actually removing IGA from the equation makes shit nearly unmanageable. If you imagine Legends retconning elements from CVIII (such as "Alucard was born half vampire from a human woman", this is something Legends actually says that is similar to SotN), then you have to imagine it retconning basically the entire sequence of events on CVIII to happen during an implausibly long period of time with a major Dracula defeat inserted in there that CVIII never speaks about or even implies (and let's not get started on the circunstances of Trevor's birth, an entire headache by itself that would still not get solved). When you actually PUT IGA in it, some holes are "fixed", but others appear making the mess even worse.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

I'm in the camp that sees the Simon's Quest gravestone as a fun little reference rather than conclusive fact, but, well done regardless. I'm not going to ignore it outright either. It may not have meant much when it went in, but it definitely means something now, so good spotting that where I failed.

You've probably made the best counterargument that can be made. I probably won't ever be fully convinced away from my opinions on this... mostly because it's a stubborn opinion that has held on since I first played Legends and it's not gonna be suddenly swayed by a sudden bout of logic that makes sense. But in any event, that's solid factchecking on your part, no matter what my stubborn opinions on the matter might be.

10/10 would discuss again.

I guess it's back to talking LoI guys.

[Shinobi]

I'm in complete disagreement with this sentiment, something IGA has been shown to be through the years is VERY humble and the picture you paint about him has him in a selfish and stubborn light which just is not the case. IGA's attempt to create a timeline was from a standpoint of ATTEMPTING to salvage the series into 1 coherent storyline and he did his best to do that by retconing and adding new games into the mythos, none of this ever came from a giant rubber stamp of "this is mine learn to like it" type of mindset you apparently think he had, this all came from a guy who took over the series and wanted to tie in games that before where pretty much standalone for the most part into 1 canon storyline and while Lament if Innocene is by no means perfect there is no disputing its place in the official canon as the beginning of the Castlevania storyline. Fans can make their own headcannon and ignore that if they want but until Konami revives the series and has someone else take over and officially start a new canon or alter the current one THIS is the canon we have for those older games pre LOS saga.

In short I just think you have the complete wrong idea concerning IGA's motives behind creating the canon for this series, interviews through the years if you have been keeping up would let you know this is a guy who loved the series, has been humble and not big headed in the slightest, and only did what he did to try to give fans the most coherent lore he possibly could.

Being humble? Yeah right it's natural that they have to appear humble to the public but in reality they were A-hole, no different from politicians during campaign period to gain votes.

Just because IGA says so doesn't mean he's always right, and I'm completely disagree with his opinion why he shifted the gameplay style of Castlevania since SOTN.

[DarkPrinceAlucard]

Being humble? Yeah right it's natural that they have to appear humble to the public but in reality they were A-hole, no different from politicians during campaign period to gain votes.

Just because IGA says so doesn't mean he's always right, and I'm completely disagree with his opinion why he shifted the gameplay style of Castlevania since SOTN.

Fine you have your opinion on it, Let me make this clear since there appears to be a misconception here, I am NOT saying IGA is NEVER wrong, obviously he makes mistakes just like everyone else and while his attempt to salvage the storlyine was admirable it also is not without its flaws.

HOWEVER.

What I am saying is the guy has been shown nothing but love for the series through the years and I've followed his work through interviews in magazines, videos and game shows, and even his work outside of gaming and the guy has been nothing but classy and humble and there is nothing that can change my mind on that short of him coming out and being a jerk to the public lol, If we just went around assuming everyone is a A$$hole based on the perception that they could be putting on a act for the public than we as gamers which just have to conlude that 100% of the developers we think give a crap about the series they are working on are just full of S$%t and refuse to see other wise, would just be a sad way to go about things In my opinion.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

Being humble? Yeah right it's natural that they have to appear humble to the public but in reality they were A-hole, no different from politicians during campaign period to gain votes.

Just because IGA says so doesn't mean he's always right, and I'm completely disagree with his opinion why he shifted the gameplay style of Castlevania since SOTN.

if we just went around assuming everyone is a A$$hole based on the perception that they could be putting on a act for the public than we as gamers which just have to conlude that 100% of the developers we think give a crap about the series they are working on are just full of S$%t and refuse to see other wise, would just be a sad way to go about things In my opinion.

I'm in 100% agreement with DPA.

Paranoia is no way to live. *nods*

Iga's demonstrated his love of the series time and time again -- trust us, it's no act. The man is probably the biggest fanboy of us all. He genuinely tried to save the series as best he could with the resources and methods available to him. As those dried up (#FuckKonami), there was less and less he could do to keep things going well.

But bear in mind that he never officially resigned from the job.

He was essentially, and for all intents and purposes, fired (though Konami will never actually fire anyone they have on payroll; they just reassign you to the worst job in the company if upper management takes umbrage with you for any reason whatsoever) after shepherding the series through thick and thin for nearly 13 years and made Castlevania stand up for a time alongside Metal Gear as the "other huge Konami franchise".

This is the man who loved the franchise so much, he was perfectly willing to go down with the ship, doing everything he could to save it until his head went underwater too, at the final moment. With Bloodstained, he's trying to salvage what he can from the shipwreck.

The man's fandom credentials are, to my mind, far more beyond reproach or contestation than anybody here on this board, and that's not something I say lightly. Koji Igarashi is the Ur-Fan. He honestly makes the rest of us look like a bunch of part timers.

[Shinobi]

I'm in 100% agreement with DPA.

Paranoia is no way to live. *nods*

Iga's demonstrated his love of the series time and time again -- trust us, it's no act. The man is probably the biggest fanboy of us all. He genuinely tried to save the series as best he could with the resources and methods available to him. As those dried up (#FuckKonami), there was less and less he could do to keep things going well.

But bear in mind that he never officially resigned from the job.

He was essentially, and for all intents and purposes, fired (though Konami will never actually fire anyone they have on payroll; they just reassign you to the worst job in the company if upper management takes umbrage with you for any reason whatsoever) after shepherding the series through thick and thin for nearly 13 years and made Castlevania stand up for a time alongside Metal Gear as the "other huge Konami franchise".

This is the man who loved the franchise so much, he was perfectly willing to go down with the ship, doing everything he could to save it until his head went underwater too, at the final moment. With Bloodstained, he's trying to salvage what he can from the shipwreck.

The man's fandom credentials are, to my mind, far more beyond reproach or contestation than anybody here on this board, and that's not something I say lightly. Koji Igarashi is the Ur-Fan. He honestly makes the rest of us look like a bunch of part timers.

Whatever, I rather have to listen or follow my personal opinion than yours, you may think that he's the biggest CV fanboy than all of us but in my point of view he's far from that considering that his vision of Castlevania while good still strays from what it used to be before SOTN, I did played his games since GBA up to the DS ones including the PS2 ones as well but IMO non of them seems to exceed SOTN's level.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

I did played his games since GBA up to the DS ones including the PS2 ones as well but IMO non of them seems to exceed SOTN's level.

I think this here is a big part of the problem for you, based on everything you've said. You seem to think that it is somehow wrong that SOTN was never matched or exceeded by the artists behind it.

SOTN is definitely Igarashi and Co.'s magnum opus, their masterpiece. It is their pièce de résistance, chef-d'œuvre, a tour de force of games production. A sad thing about masterpieces: by definition, they will never be equaled. The Last Supper, The Creation of Adam, American Gothic, The Night Watch, The Wedding at Cana, Luncheon of the Boating Party, A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte, The Garden of Earthly Delights... these are all masterpieces. But we don't call everything made subsequent to these works crap. We don't denigrate Michaelangelo or Da Vinci for never matching or exceeding their finest work in later attempts. It's a factually incorrect argument that artists should improve on every work, or that when they peak, they maintain that level of quality. They're people, not machines. Improvement is definitely the ideal, and we do try to match our best works every time afterwards. But most of us fail in both.

Iga actually got pretty close with a couple games: Harmony of Dissonance, Aria of Sorrow, and Order of Ecclesia all come within spitting distance of standing where Symphony did, but were kept from it largely due to key practical limitations of development for each: money, time, less broadly powerful hardware, a corporate production structure that steadily became actively hostile to their own developers, etc.

Unfortunately for everyone, he was never again able to summon up that perfect storm of talent, resources, and time that allowed Symphony of the Night to be as perfect as it was. It was a one time deal, a moment of utter perfection. The cost was Koji Igarashi's Greatest Work came relatively early in his career, a fact which he admitted well before the series started declining. It stayed the ideal for him though, and even knowing he could never recreate it, he at least tried to take the best aspects that people liked and incorporate as much of those into the watered down versions Konami kept asking for.

Not everybody appreciated that. Reviewers definitely didn't. And by Portrait of Ruin, most of us fans were actually pretty done with it as well. If you dig up old forum posts from back then, a ton of us were not happy that the quality had sunk that low and become so paint by numbers. We thought it was developer laziness at the time -- the behind the scenes drama of working for Konami wasn't widely known then, and wouldn't be for almost a decade. And there definitely was a degree of tiredness, looking back. The team was worked hard, long, without much in the way of breaks or vacation time, and constantly berated by everyone, including us fans, as to why we weren't getting something so good as Symphony over and over again. Iga, in particular, looked like he wasn't getting a whole lot of sleep in press photos from the time.

His apology, and a lesser masterpiece, was Order of Ecclesia which was all the essentials we'd ever asked for. As the last game which he had majority creative control over, it's one hell of a final work. True, there was some... I'll be charitable and call it "mixed results" after like Harmony of Despair, but his sheer level of creative control (versus having his name slapped on a final product he had relatively little to do with, much like Hideo Kojima and the first Lords of Shadow) is still questioned, so we tend to consider Ecclesia his last "real" work.

The simple fact is that he peaked early due to exceedingly favorable conditions he had no real control over. That's how a lot of artists are.

I know I sound like an apologist, but I'm writing with the benefit of hindsight here. I used to be right where you are. And had the insider knowledge of how Konami operates not come to light, my opinion of the lesser entries in his run (Judgment, Dawn of Sorrow, Portrait of Ruin, etc. al) would still be largely negative. As it is, I have the perspective of a long term fan who's learned a lot about games production in that same span.

That's why I'm so quick to jump to his defense. That's why I'm asking that you reframe how you look at the series. It won't make the bad games any less bad, but context can change a lot, and make it easier to appreciate what they did do well, as opposed to fixating on what went wrong.

[GuyStarwind]

There's a lot of reading to do here. I'll just say this about LoI. I think it's a great starting point in the series. Castlevania to me will always be about the struggle of the Belmont family vs Dracula. Everyone else is supporting characters. LoI showed where the Vampire Killer whip came from and showed that the Belmont clan will hunt the night. Those two things right there are really what you need to take out of the game. My only gripe (storywise) to LoI is I wish Mathias was more of a key character throughout the whole game. Maybe he could've been the shopkeeper or helped you in some battles.

In terms of Legends, I thought Iga got rid of it because it claimed Sonia fought Dracula before Trevor or something? Also, I thought he got rid of it because it hinted at Belmont's having vampire blood? I could be making stuff up though.

PS I only briefly skimmed this topic.

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

...while Alucard fled to the underground hating his father for having been turned into a monster due to Dracula's greed, and he waited there for a warrior that would help him defeat his dad.

CVIII explains that Alucard was made into an inhuman creature due to Dracula's greed

I have missed where does this actually get stated.
Not that I'm doubting you, as you are the Timeline Historian with this, but I don't recall there being a source that outright says this, at the time the games came out.

Also, can't we just fuxx with some numbers in the Legends years and make it work?  I recall successfully doing so a few years back when I had my Unified Timeline flowchart.  It works, but you have to essentially rewrite a lot of the years the CVL developers threw in there, and make CVL's Dracula not actually be a reigning Vampire, but the "Dark Warlord" that CV3's intro states him to be.
Of course, then Lament came out and messed that up... but again, mess with a few numbers here and there and it works.

And I'm fine with Belmonts being part Alucardian.   It explains the obscene muscles and strength in a seemingly human dude.

[X]

Having Trevor 1/4th vampire will not effect him negatively by any real stretch. He'd inherit certain qualities like, perhaps, unusual strength and much higher resistant to diseases. And that's on top of his family's supernatural abilities. But he wouldn't have the adverse effects of feeling the need to feed for blood, weakness to sunlight and other such vampire-like drawbacks. This is only speculation of course as I've never heard of any story referring to someone who's only 1/4th vampire. And in terms of Legends fitting into the canon, sure it could. Just mess around with the years like Jorge stated.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

Having Trevor 1/4th vampire will not effect him negatively by any real stretch. He'd inherit certain qualities like, perhaps, unusual strength and much higher resistant to diseases. And that's on top of his family's supernatural abilities. But he wouldn't have the adverse effects of feeling the need to feed for blood, weakness to sunlight and other such vampire-like drawbacks. This is only speculation of course as I've never heard of any story referring to someone who's only 1/4th vampire. And in terms of Legends fitting into the canon, sure it could. Just mess around with the years like Jorge stated.

Honestly my biggest problem with Alucard in Legends was the implied "oh fuck you beat me I think I'm in love with you" from him, which is just... wrong... but what do I know? He was young, and Sonia's might have been pretty fetching in that green 15th century leotard.

Chalk that up to an unreliable narrator by playing the "well, this is just a story passed down the family line, this is just the story as it was told to me" angle and all is well.

I personally have zero issues with interpreting the games as a series of folkloric tales about the Belmonts and their allies and therefore a certain degree of broad strokes is at play which can smooth over almost any discrepancies as it's not all coming from a singular, objective source. That means we get some embellishment here, some exaggeration there, and the details don't always match up perfectly because we have a bunch of storytellers putting their individual spin on things, which mirrors the production of the actual games. This could also be used to explain in-universe why there's so many versions of the Simon Belmont story: his is one of the most popular tales, and everyone who retells it tries to put their own stamp of contribution on it. Sometimes we get tales that could be considered more objective, like Symphony of the Night where either Alucard or Maria Renard is implied to be the storyteller by taking a certain read of the opening text and certain endings (and the DXC version actually goes out of its way to pretty explicitly state that the story is coming directly from Alucard by having him narrate the opening text).

I think it actually makes the lore stronger to read it that way because that's how history has typically been recorded (objective history is actually a pretty new thing in the scope of human history), though it probably gives PlotTwist some twitchy eyebrows. As an unnecessary bonus, it can also explain some of the gameplay aspects that seem goofy or out of place.

"A disembodied Horse's head attacked Simon? Really dad?"
"Look that's just the story your gramps told me. Just roll with it."

No word yet on whether this finally vindicates CV64's goddamn Motorcycle Skeletons though.

[theplottwist]

I have missed where does this actually get stated.
Not that I'm doubting you, as you are the Timeline Historian with this, but I don't recall there being a source that outright says this, at the time the games came out.

CVIII's Japanese manual.

ドラキュラ公は自らの力を絶大なものにするため、その身を悪魔に売り渡すまでになっていたが、それだけでは満足せず、自分の息子にまで悪魔との契約を行うよう強要したのである。

Lord Dracula had to sell himself to the devil to increase his own power, but he was not satisfied by that alone and forced his son into the devil's contract.

彼の息子は、人間としての心を失っておらず悪魔に魂を売り払った父親に反発していたが、自分の体を人間で無くされるに至って、ついに父親に憎しみを覚えるようになったのであった。

His son was conflicted with his father who sold his soul to the devil but hadn't lost his human mind, but when he lost his human body, he finally came to hate his father.

Even if this were talking of Dracula losing his human body, it's obvious that making a pact of this nature turns you into a monster (something Adventure also confirms). So Alucard did become a vampire as a result. Not that any of this matters since IGA retconned it all with Lisa (for what I imagine an attempt to make Dracula more sympathetic).

Also, I respect you guys and this community has given me a lot. I'm not right 100% of the time too, so it's OK Even if you were doubting, I wouldn't take it badly.

Also, can't we just fuxx with some numbers in the Legends years and make it work?

Depends mostly on one thing: Do you want Symphony to still be canon along with Legends? Without SotN, and with a LOT of ingenuity and handwaving and sweat, you can force Legends in there. But it's either Legends or SotN. You can't have both and expect the Lisa plot to work. Now if we go the "we just have to retcon X and Y and Z" then anything goes. We could make Konami Krazy Racers canon.

And that's me saying it as a fan. There are probably more internal Konami reasons why Legends doesn't work with CVIII alone that we don't fully understand. What I know is that Igarashi implied via interview that the Legends team did not have the "guidance of the original team" to create Legends, so there's that. But I can tell you that Lisa throws a pretty big wrench on this plan.

I think it actually makes the lore stronger to read it that way because that's how history has typically been recorded (objective history is actually a pretty new thing in the scope of human history), though it probably gives PlotTwist some twitchy eyebrows. As an unnecessary bonus, it can also explain some of the gameplay aspects that seem goofy or out of place.
No word yet on whether this finally vindicates CV64's goddamn Motorcycle Skeletons though.

I have never had anything against the concept of making Castlevania a "collection of in-universe folktales about a family's struggle with Dracula that is told to us via a video game". If I became the Castlevania headmaster, my FIRST move after doing certain stuff would be this: Abolish timelines and make each game like a story told by someone who heard the Dracula legend. This would broad freedom of storytelling into infinity. I'm of the opinion that, if there's one move that not ONE fan (including me) would oppose and would praise, is this one. So I think your idea is nice if it were to be put in practice officially.

[DarkPrinceAlucard]

I honestly disagree with the notion of just "messing around with the years" will make Legends fit since there is still the clear inconsistency of Sonia being the first to defeat Dracula which directly contradicts and takes away from the stated fact of Trevor being the first to take him on and beat him, not to mention any shoehorn would take AWAY from Trevor's role in the series as the original belmont to take down Dracula and as big trevor fan I would not be on board with a shoehorned game into the timeline that was never meant to be in the timeline in the first place and was apparently meant to start its own timeline separately.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

I honestly disagree with the notion of just "messing around with the years" will make Legends fit since there is still the clear inconsistency of Sonia being the first to defeat Dracula which directly contradicts and takes away from the stated fact of Trevor being the first to take him on and beat him, not to mention any shoehorn would take AWAY from Trevor's role in the series as the original belmont to take down Dracula and as big trevor fan I would not be on board with a shoehorned game into the timeline that was never meant to be in the timeline in the first place and was apparently meant to start its own timeline separately.

Again, Castlevania 3 doesn't confirm a lot in-game, but it does confirm that the Belmonts were very active in fighting evil before Trevor faced down Dracula. That's why when the shit hit the fan, the people pulled a "COME BACK SHANE!! SHANE, COME BACK!"

Castlevania 3 doesn't ever state Trevor was or wasn't the first Belmont to fight Dracula, and no game to my knowledge ever directly addressed the matter either (i.e; there's no in game dialogue or text that outright says "Trevor Belmont was the first Belmont to face Dracula and win" until Lament's epilogue came along and... strongly implied it without actually fully committing to it with actual names, which still could leave some room for reasonable doubt and speculation.

And so the story of the Belmont Clan's struggle against evil begins.

However, Mathias and the Belmonts will not meet again for hundreds of years. Mathias goes into hiding in foreign lands and continues to curse God for eternity. Eventually, he names himself Lord of the Vampires, King of the Night.

The years before their next meeting pass slowly and quietly, but with finality: the intermission in this exquisite play from which two souls will never escape.

This is just another reason I feel Lament doesn't actually add all that much. It could have unequivocally ended things once and for all by saying Trevor's name, just once, in the epilogue, in reference to being the very first Belmont to defeat Dracula, but flubs it at the finish line by not naming names. Again, the implication is there, and it's STRONG. But implication is not confirmation -- just ask any debate team or lawyer. The evidence on hand is only enough to feed a preexisting conclusion -- if you believe, truly believe, that Sonia was the first, Lament's epilogue could have equally referred to her. We only "know" it's referring to Trevor because we're told by an out-of-universe source that it does, i.e; Koji Igarashi. The game itself confirms nothing concrete on this actually pretty important matter when it had all the opportunity in the world to do so.

So, canon says Trevor was the first. He is definitely and definitively the first.

Just don't take the game's words on that, because they don't actually have any words on that themselves.

We had to ask the producer.