The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: Inccubus on February 24, 2016, 08:25:34 PM
Title: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: Inccubus on February 24, 2016, 08:25:34 PM
So while commenting on Nagumo-chan's thread I started thinking about what the actual games and manuals tell us about the castlevania timeline prior to IGA taking the rains as series producer.
So I came up with my own interpretation based only on info from the original Japanese manuals and the in-game text. There are many details that even back then were being retconned on a regular basis. For example in 4 versions of CV1 the black mass ritual to resurrect Dracula is stated to take place in a ruined monastery, the Tower of Colbert, and at a ruined cathedral or not mentioned at all.
Anyway this is what I have so far:
AjDrac: [CV1 NES] • Legend of Dracula states that once every 100 years Dracula is resurrected by evil men. • The last time Dracula resurrected he was defeated by Christopher Belmont and laid to rest for 100 years. • A group of pagans performing a black mass to resurrect Dracula on the day of Easter by pouring human blood on his remains. • The black mass happens at an abandoned monastery outside the village. • Simon, descendant of the Belmont Clan, sets out to Dracula's Castle armed with a whip possessing mysterious power that was passed down from his father. AjDMSX: [VK MSX] • From the 1100s to the 1200s a group of Germanic immigrants build a new city in Europe after their ancient home is destroyed. • In the latter half of the 900s a Germanic society in Transylvania is unable to defend their town. • Legend of Christopher states that every 100 years Dracula is resurrected via a black mass conducted by evil men at a Carpathian tower where he was sealed away by Christopher. • Christopher sealed Dracula 100 years prior. • Simon, the descendant of Christopher, takes his father's "enchanted whip" to defeat Dracula at "the castle haunted by the evil spirits". D2tAS: [CV2] • Takes place 7 years after AjDrac. • Dracula was defeated and laid to rest by Simon for 100 years. • Simon was injured during the fight with Dracula and his body has been deteriorating ever since. • Feeling death coming he visits the Belmont Family graveyard near Angel's Hill. • A mysterious woman appears and explains the curse and how to seal it away by burning Dracula's remains. • After explaining that this is the only way to seal Dracula forever she disappears into the mist. • Simon must collect Dracula's 5 body parts and purify them in fire on a hidden altar in the ruins of his Castle. DDen: [CVtA GB] • No matter how many times Dracula returns he is always defeated by Simon Belmont. O_o • Dracula has existed far longer than the first confrontation. (CV1?) • Dracula was an evil sorcerer and demon worshiper who built a castle on the outskirts of Transylvania. • As a sorcerer, Dracula performed evil rituals and summoned demons while seeking to gain "eternal life by becoming a demon king possessing evil powers". • Dracula has been spreading fear and terror to the people of "the village". • Christopher, an ancestor of the Belmont Family, goes to confront the now transformed Dracula. AjDen: [CV3] • Setting: 15th century Europe. • Vlad Tepes lived on the outskirts of Transylvania in Wallachia and was no longer human. • Vlad reached the pinnacle of his power and revived dark gods/evil deity who granted him power to terrorize the nation of Wallachia and planned to take over Europe. • The church sent an army to stop Vlad, who called himself Dracula, but none returned. • The pope called on Sypha Fernandez, Grant Dinesti, and Alucard to take on the task, but they were not heard from either. • Sypha is an apprentice monk, seeking to become a priest, with magical powers over fire, lightning, and ice. • Grant is a Wallachian rebel opposed to Dracula. • Alucard is Dracula's own son turned into a vampire by his father. • In desperation the Pope then decided to call on the Belmont Clan who had been known vampire hunters for many generations. • The Belmonts were feared for their powers and had lived far away from common people who treated them no better than the vampires they hunted. • But the Pope located a young man named Ralph C. Belmont. • The battle between mankind and Dracula begins more than 100 years before Simon. AjDSNES: [CV1 SNES] • Simplified version of the story with less detail, but without any contradictions. • Instead of the blood ritual it only mentions a bolt of lightning. DDen2: [CV2 GB] • Dracula was not defeated by Christopher, but is unable to reform after turning into mist so he bides his time. • 15 years later in a Transylvanian village Christopher's son, Soleiyu, has come of age and is given the title of vampire hunter. • The next day Soleiyu disappears. • That night 4 castle appear. • Dracula had taken Soleiyu and using his waning powers put him under a curse in an attempt to use his power to fully restore his body. • Christopher goes to rescue his son and put an end to Dracula. AjDX: [CVDX PCE] • Rondo of Blood only has a basic story that states that this is a resurrection after 100 years. • Manual states that Dracula is "800 (?)" years old. AjDX68k: [CV1 X68000] • Near identical to AjDrac, but cleaner and the black mass is now held in a ruined cathedral. • It includes the bolt of lightning added to the SNES version. Bloodlines: • Dracula was put to rest finally in 1897 by Quincy Morris, thus tying CV to "Dracula, The Undead". • The game is stated to take place in 1917. AjDXX: [CVDX SNES] • States that the game takes place multiple centuries after Simon. AjDX2: [SotN] • States that the end of AjDX takes place in 1792. • Is stated to take place itself 4 years after Rondo.
gameyear (A.D.)cycle?sealed?Notes Dracula Origin~992--Based on Dracula being 800 years old according to AjDX. Old town destroyed950 to 999--Stated to be in the latter half of 10th century. New city founded1100 to 1299--Stated as taking place between 12th and 13th centuries. AjDen1434 to 1456-YBased on Christopher's possible age of 15 to 35 years old when Soleiyu is born.* DDen1470Y -Based on DDen2 taking place 15 years after DDen. DDen21485-YBased on AjDrac taking place 100 years after Christopher sealing Dracula. AjDrac1585Y-Based on D2tAS taking place 7 years after AjDrac. D2tAS1592-YBased on AjDXX stating that it takes place "hundreds of years" after Simon. Since it says hundreds it must be at least 200 years since the last sealing. ????1692YYAjDXX causes there to be an unaccounted for gap here. AjDX1792YYStated as such in AjDX2. AjDX21796-YStated to take place 4 years after AjDX. Dracula, the Undead 1897YYStated as such in Bloodlines. Bloodlines1917-YStated as such in Bloodlines. *In the 15th century adulthood was considered to be at 14 years old and "old age" was considered to start at 50 years old.
I should note that the way I did this is I worked my way backwards and used the time of Dracula's defeat / sealing away as the point I reference for the 100 year cycle. An interesting thing about how this timeline fell into place is that it makes it such that Trevor / Ralph is actually Christopher's father. Let me know what you guys think and if you find any mistakes don't hesitate to bring them up. :)
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: Lumi Kløvstad on February 24, 2016, 10:05:16 PM
Honestly this makes more sense to me than the official materials. That's some excellent work.
It also highlights how bad the official materials are, that a fan in a very small amount of time came up with something just as good if not better.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: X on February 25, 2016, 12:42:28 AM
Quote
AjDX2: [SotN] • States that the end of AjDX takes place in 1792. • Is stated to take place itself 4 years after Rondo.
I though SotN was five years later. Didn't Richter disappear for a whole year before Alucard took to the castle to stop the madness? From what I've gathered of the in-game story, Richter vanishes in 1796, but the game takes place in 1797. Also good job on the pre-IGA timeline.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: coinilius on February 25, 2016, 01:21:58 AM
Very interesting reading!
Where would Legends fit into this scenario? I mean, obviously it would still 'fit in' at the start of the series, but considering it was released in Japan in 1997, the same year SotN was released, and wasn't developed under the guidance of IGA, should it be considered as part of a pre-IGA timeline?
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: Nagumo on February 25, 2016, 11:16:04 AM
A small correction: "Tower of Colbert" is actually "Carpathian Tower". That makes more sense given the setting, doesn't it? :)
This magazine advertisement (http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv-rob/scans/magazinead.jpg) places RoB one hundred years after Simon.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: Lelygax on February 25, 2016, 11:34:19 AM
I though SotN was five years later. Didn't Richter disappear for a whole year before Alucard took to the castle to stop the madness? From what I've gathered of the in-game story, Richter vanishes in 1796, but the game takes place in 1797. Also good job on the pre-IGA timeline.
Makes sense since it would fit with the next cycle at 1897.
Where would Legends fit into this scenario? I mean, obviously it would still 'fit in' at the start of the series, but considering it was released in Japan in 1997, the same year SotN was released, and wasn't developed under the guidance of IGA, should it be considered as part of a pre-IGA timeline?
Good question, I don't know if it would fit since the game says that Sonia is the first Belmont to fight Dracula while Akumajo Densetsu says that Dracula transformed his son in a vampire. We can account that its only telling us more about Dracula's past without saying when?
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: Inccubus on March 01, 2016, 05:47:30 PM
Where would Legends fit into this scenario? I mean, obviously it would still 'fit in' at the start of the series, but considering it was released in Japan in 1997, the same year SotN was released, and wasn't developed under the guidance of IGA, should it be considered as part of a pre-IGA timeline?
I had thought of this in passing but didn't go as far as checking the date of release. I am planning to have a look at it when I have chance. I suspect that fitting it in will require either retconning some of CV3 or it could help solidify some of the timing of events. So either it'll help or it'll be a pooch-screw.
EDIT: A thought occurred to me while explaining my timeline to a friend. The extra bits of info from the MSX game could have been an attempt to hint at the origin of the Belmonts.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: Nagumo on March 02, 2016, 10:34:00 AM
My question is similar to coinilius's. Do you think the CV64 games could fit in there as well? I was thinking about that, and it might explain that weird discrepancy in the game where the game states Dracula revived after 100 years (in 1852) yet his last resurrection was in 1797. That's assuming the "pre-IGA timeline" used different dates than the ones IGA later came up with.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: Inccubus on March 02, 2016, 06:16:38 PM
I hadn't thought of that one either. It's possible, I suppose. I have to look into it's story a bit more in depth, too.
I noticed something else last night while discussing this with my friend. The not-so-great mobile game, Order of Shadows, is stated to take place in the late 17th century. Since my current timeline has a gap in 1697 it could fit there easily even though it came out much later. It makes me wonder if the developer had something other than the official timeline in mind when they made that game.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: Lumi Kløvstad on March 02, 2016, 09:17:30 PM
I still like my "Triple Threat" model of timelines.
Main Canon, Gaidenverse, and Lords of Shadow. I suppose this could be a fourth timeline that somehow splinters off from the main canon much like my idea for a Gaidenverse did; that one began chronologically with Legends, but really started branching off from the main timeline with a version of Simon's Quest where Simon died at the end. This ended up leading to attempts to replace the Belmont family, which results in the creation of the Hunter Whip which wound up in the hands of the (completely seperate from the Belmonts) Baldwin family, who pass the HW to Nathan Graves, and the proper VK winds up in the hands of the Schneider family instead of the Morris family but it's even more desperate because there are no pure Belmonts left to carry on the mantle and...
*cough*
You get the idea I'm sure. I had it all worked out years ago.
It was awesome.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: X on March 03, 2016, 09:54:59 AM
Quote
You get the idea I'm sure. I had it all worked out years ago.
It was awesome.
Did you not write it down anywhere?
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: Lumi Kløvstad on March 03, 2016, 12:51:28 PM
I actually wrote down EVERYTHING, and y'all got a good look at my Gaidenverse timeline when I ran that "Hunter Whip" thread a month or so back.
Gonna take this opportunity to tighten up the formatting of this diagram while I'm at it. Bloody Rayne's Gaidenverse Alternate Timeline [Vampire Killer is somehow created] | | V Sonia Belmont | | V [Sonia's son] | | V [Unknown : Possibly Christopher?] | | V Simon Belmont | | V [Curse kills Simon/Alucard kills Richter] -------> [Hunter Whip is created] | | | | X V [No Direct Heir]-------->Schneider family Morris Baldwin | | | | V V Reinhardt Schneider Nathan Graves | | | | V V [unknown successor] [Unknown Successor]
As you can see, there's a whole lot of space to fit all the non-canon games into a single, cohesive timeline in which versions of of a few key events we already know also play out, but end differently, explaining why the main Belmont family seems to be dwindling (or gone altogether) by the time the 1800's roll around. Simply put, it could be that Simon doesn't cure the curse (most likely in my mind) or, alternately, that Alucard killed Richter at the end of Symphony (a little less likely but still plausible in an alternate timeline). It could have been something else, but if we assume that either Simon's Quest's or Symphony's events transpired and merely ended differently, these would be the most vulnerable points in the bloodline; that being said, there's no reason to suggest either one even happened in this timeline, and the cause of the Belmont family's degredation might have been something else entirely.
All that's for sure is that the primary bloodline seems to have ended, causing the whip to pass to the Schneiders. Ancillary materials suggested that Michael Gelhart Schneider (Reinhardt's father in the original game) possessed the whip, but it's unclear if he used it or not, so I'm operating under the assumption that Reinhardt is the first of his line to use it.
As the VK is passing to the Schneider clan, an organization similar to those described in the preamble to Order of Ecclesia manages to use some sort of alchemical or magical process to create their own version of the Vampire Killer that isn't bound to a particular family line and grows in strength as the wielder uses it while being able to adapt and change forms when combined with powerful magic artifacts such as the DSS cards (or whatever they might be meant to represent as a gameplay convention).
So we're left with an alternate turn of events in which there are no pure Belmonts left with at least one known family of heirs who are "imperfect" but are now the best choices left in the phone book (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ClosestThingWeGot), as it were, while a panicked world tries to come up with some sort of replacement before the forces of Darkness kill everyone.
Cheery place, this Gaidenverse.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: X on March 05, 2016, 10:34:20 AM
What about Bram Stoker's Dracula and CV Bloodlines? Neither of which is IGA implemented.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: Lumi Kløvstad on March 06, 2016, 02:05:29 PM
What about Bram Stoker's Dracula and CV Bloodlines? Neither of which is IGA implemented.
Honestly, as I think beingthehero pointed out (or was it Diplo?) back when I was on the Anti-Chapel, the relation given between Bram Stoker's D and Bloodlines makes no damn sense. Given the age of Johnny Morris during Bloodlines and how old Quincy is, Quincy would have had to have been married (or VERY naughty by his era's standards) 3 or so years prior to Dracula, which doesn't agree with his description in the novel (Johnny would have been 2-3 during the time of the novel).
If anything, Dracula and Bloodlines can only be connected via a very liberal broad strokes interpretation of the former.
It's also worth noting that Bloodlines was originally marketed as a Gaiden game that was never supposed to fit in with an official timeline. I should work on figuring out how it might fit into my Gaidenverse timeline.... ;D
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: theplottwist on May 20, 2016, 12:58:38 AM
I don't believe I let this thread slide. Oh well.
ANYWAY I'd just like to ask: Have you considered the ingame sprite of CVII for Dracula's tombstone? It shows Dracula's birth to have been in 1431, and death to have been in 1476.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: coinilius on May 21, 2016, 06:48:57 PM
I always took the tomb in the end of CVII to be Dracula's original burial place - that maybe they interred whatever remained of his remains there, after whatever ending of CVII that you get... the dates on the tombstone refer to the birth and death of Vlad the Impaler.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: theplottwist on May 21, 2016, 07:33:25 PM
I always took the tomb in the end of CVII to be Dracula's original burial place - that maybe they interred whatever remained of his remains there, after whatever ending of CVII that you get... the dates on the tombstone refer to the birth and death of Vlad the Impaler.
Sure. But then you have Inccubus' timeline saying Dracula died before 1456, which is why I believe he didn't account for the tombstone.
Castlevania III's "1476" year wasn't pulled out of thin air. It aligns both with Vlad the Impaler's real death and Castlevania's intended year for his death (even BEFORE CVIII was made, mind you).
Also, it's possible that Dracula's intended year of birth was also 1431. Remember: Before IGA, Dracula didn't have a backstory spanning centuries. He was understood as being Vlad the Impaler.
I was going to say that maybe he could explain Dracula dying by Christopher's hand as his death in 1476 (thus spawning the legend of Christopher), but not even this one is aligned, missing the mark by 6 years.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: AlexCalvo on May 21, 2016, 08:58:13 PM
It's also worth noting that Bloodlines was originally marketed as a Gaiden game that was never supposed to fit in with an official timeline. I should work on figuring out how it might fit into my Gaidenverse timeline.... ;D
I've never heard this before... Got a source?
I think the direct connection between Bloodlines and the Dracula novel is easily explained by the fact that Bram Stoker's Dracula was a huge hit less than 2 years before. I bet Konami was thrilled to be able to basically make a tie in game without any royalties. How long did it take to make a sega genesis game back then? I wouldn't be surprised if Bloodlines went into production immediately following Bram Stoker's Dracula's success. Especially given the fact that we play as the son of Quincy, who in the movie is the badass hero who kills Dracula at the end, where in the novel it is Harker.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: coinilius on May 21, 2016, 10:35:38 PM
Sure. But then you have Inccubus' timeline saying Dracula died before 1456, which is why I believe he didn't account for the tombstone.
Castlevania III's "1476" year wasn't pulled out of thin air. It aligns both with Vlad the Impaler's real death and Castlevania's intended year for his death (even BEFORE CVIII was made, mind you).
Also, it's possible that Dracula's intended year of birth was also 1431. Remember: Before IGA, Dracula didn't have a backstory spanning centuries. He was understood as being Vlad the Impaler.
I was going to say that maybe he could explain Dracula dying by Christopher's hand as his death in 1476 (thus spawning the legend of Christopher), but not even this one is aligned, missing the mark by 6 years.
Ah gotcha now - I didn't realize you were linking back to Incubus's original timeline dates - I think I was getting this thread and the multiple-Simon Belmont threads mixed up in my head when I read your post (I was reading that thread recently as well).
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: zangetsu468 on May 22, 2016, 03:06:38 AM
Quincy kills Dracula with a Bowie knife in the novel, but the gypsies kill him while he's doing so. That's why Harker and Mina name their first born after him.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: Nagumo on May 23, 2016, 06:50:43 AM
"Dracula Gaiden, on sale on the Mega Drive!" and "A new Dracula legend begins!"
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: AlexCalvo on May 24, 2016, 11:28:27 AM
But doesn't gaiden just mean side story? Does it really necessarily mean that it is not part of the same timeline? I mean the games own intro referenced other games in the series.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: zangetsu468 on May 24, 2016, 11:32:27 AM
But doesn't gaiden just mean side story? Does it really necessarily mean that it is not part of the same timeline? I mean the games own intro referenced other games in the series.
True, Majora's Mask was originally called Zelda Gaiden if I'm not mistaken. I had some really old EGM article on it back in the day.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: Inccubus on May 25, 2016, 07:37:25 AM
"Dracula Gaiden, on sale on the Mega Drive!" and "A new Dracula legend begins!"
Plus, is that an advertisement (aka actual marketing) or a magazine review (aka not actual marketing)? Japanese magazine reviews have been known to exaggerate and even just plain make shit up.
Take this bit about the supposed FF4 for NES that never even officially entered production before the project was moved to SNES: https://www.unseen64.net/2008/04/14/final-fantasy-4-nes/ (https://www.unseen64.net/2008/04/14/final-fantasy-4-nes/)
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: Nagumo on May 25, 2016, 12:32:58 PM
"Gaiden" contains the kanji for "outside" or "other" (外) and the kanji for conveying something as in a story or a legend (伝). So a more direct translation is "outside story". I've also seen it translated as a "story other than the legend" which sounds clunky but is accurate. A "side story" for example is a story that exists "outside" the bounds of the main story. For example, Fire Emblem gaiden it set in the same as the first Fire Emblem but because it takes place on a different continent it has no relevance to the story of that game. However, because the above mentioned phrasing allows for several possible interpretations, there isn't one specific translation that is always correct. Gaiden can also mean "prequel", "sequel", "prologue" "epilogue", or "spin-off". It can also mean "another story" which is a term directly borrowed from English and has the connotation of being a story that takes place in another world from that of the main story.
Plus, is that an advertisement (aka actual marketing) or a magazine review (aka not actual marketing)? Japanese magazine reviews have been known to exaggerate and even just plain make shit up.
It's an advertisement from the back of a strategy guide appendix that came with bundled with an issue of "Gekkan PC Engine". The publisher of this magazine is the same one that published the actual official guide book, and the strategy guide appendix was intented as a preview for the official guide. Therefore, it's very likely the information it contains came directly from Konami.
Speaking of magazines, there is one I actually wanted to bring up. It's called MegaDriveFAN. It had a scope about the game's reveal, it ran a design contest for the game, and it later also contained an official guide. This magazine definitely had close ties with Konami, and therefore I think it's save to regard the information it contains as reliable.
The following issue is from July 1993, the issue that first unveiled the game and ran the design contest:
In this article, the game is described as "Konami's newest horror-action series". This is why the game is called "Vampire Killer" in Japan and not "Akumajou Dracula". Furthermore, it states that Vampire Killer is a new vampire-themed action game series. It is said specifically that Vampire Killer isn't a Akumajo Dracula sequel, and that it's a new game. So you can't interpret "gaiden" to mean spin-off or sequel in this case.
It also says that Vampire Killer and the Akumajou Dracula series share the same "Dracula theme". So what I think what it meant with "Dracula gaiden" in that scan I posted before is that Vampire Killer is also a "legend" about Dracula but it's different from the legend that is featured in Konami's other series: Akumajo Dracula. To use the same words as in the advertisement, with Vampire Killer "a new Dracula legend begins".
I think this "new Dracula Legend" was supposed to be different save for a few shared elements like Dracula and the main character being a whip-wielder. I think this also explains why the developers all of a sudden tied the game's plot to the events of Bram Stoker's Dracula and why they replaced the Belmonts with the Morris family. Would this have been a normal Akumajou Dracula project, I doubt such liberties would have taken since it would have limited what developers could have done with the story later. As we could have observed a few years ago, IGA was struggling enough as it is with trying to properly connect the game with the rest of the series.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: AlexCalvo on May 25, 2016, 02:23:49 PM
But the level of disconnect with the series that you are describing is obviously not the case of the final game. This is evident to anyone who has played it, the games' intro alone makes that clear. This makes that whole article suspect, or at least very far from where things ended up. The final product is clearly in the same world as the previous games.
I think this idea that before Iga the games weren't really that connected is kind of a farce. A big part of Castlevania's appeal was the continuing storyline well before Iga came around, and it had very few inconsistencies for a game series of the time.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: Nagumo on May 26, 2016, 01:40:50 AM
There's another advertisemrnt for the game, and although this image is a bit small, the transcipt (which can be found here (http://draken.fc2web.com/houmotu_1.htm)) once again refers to the game as "original, horror-action". Konami was clearly pushing it as the beginning of a new series at the time.
I actually don't think the pre-IGA games weren't connencted. In fact, I think they were more connencted than people give them credit for. Some people think Akumajou Densetsu and Dracula Dracula Densetsu are two conflicting accounts of what happend before Simon's era, which I don't believe to be true. What I am saying however, is that Vampire Killer was the game that wasn't connencted with the others. About the intro, you are refering to the fact that the Belmont family is mentioned, right? Why can't it just be a nod to the Castlevania series? Although Vampire Killer and Castlevania were meant to be different series at the time, obviously the two are closely connencted. They already borrowed Dracula and the idea that the main protagonist uses a whip, so I don't think it's unreasonable they could have reused the Belmonts as well.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: AlexCalvo on May 26, 2016, 06:56:50 AM
I think maybe they were originally intending it to be a different series, maybe. But the final product is without question a Castlevania game, as tied into the series as any other. The intro does more than just mention the Belmonts... it gives a clear history about them and their "curse" to fight Dracula. It features a clear shot of a Belmont staring down Dracula's castle in the intro video, as well as pushed John's connection to the Belmont in the games manual in both the character descriptions, and the games introduction, in english and japanese. The Belmonts are 100% a Castlevania construct.
To say they just "borrowed" the Belmonts just seems to me like trying to make your theory work, in the face of evidence that proves it wrong... It's an interesting idea, but it's just not correct. Anyone looking at the actual game itself can see it is clearly rooted, deeply, in the Castlevania series, regardless of what some obscure promotional material might have said. Game itself > random magazines.
And all this goes without even mentioning the obvious gameplay/technical/thematic connections.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: Nagumo on May 26, 2016, 10:52:29 AM
Yes, you're right. It's indeed a weak point in my theory. However, I also think the evidence I provided about the game being refered to as both a gaiden and a new series should not be discarded entirely. I found a Japanese blog which supposedly explains the whole situation. I have no idea how plausible it is, but interestingly enough, I think this theory incorporates both our viewpoints.
I'll paraphrase what is being said. The author says that by the year 1993-94 the Castlevania series was in a little bit of trouble (I think this is also consistent with something IGA said). There was no consistent policy on how sequels were produced and the series ended up with several games sharing the same title "Akumajou Dracula" but were different games entirely. As a result the Akumajou Dracula brand ended up being diluted. Konami then planned three project to revive the series: the X68000 version of Akumajou Dracula, Akumajou Dracula X: Chi no Rondo, and Vampire Killer. The purpose of the X68000 game was to remake the first game in the series. Rondo of Blood was meant to be a sequel set in a new era. And lastly, Vampire Killer was meant to experiment and take the series in a new direction. But then the game was regarded as being too radically different, and the game ended being rebranded as an entirely new series for the sake of brand protection. But of course, IGA later ended up incorporating the game back into the series.
So what may have happend is that Vampire Killer was indeed developed with the intention of fitting in with the rest of the Castlevania series, hence all the references to the Belmonts. But then Konami stepped in and made it an entirely different series and it became to be regarded as a gaiden for a couple of years. Then IGA created the official timeline and we all know what happend from that point on.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: AlexCalvo on May 26, 2016, 11:34:15 AM
So are you just arguing that the Japanese branch of konami considered it a different series, with the same mythology for a lite while, and then just changed their minds later? Because in game it is clearly in the castlevania universe already established, on the U.S. and Europe it has castlevania in the title, and nothing in the game contradicts any established canon? I don't think this theory makes any sense. Sorry.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: Nagumo on May 26, 2016, 01:44:10 PM
Yes, that's indeed what I'm arguing. Once again, it's quite clear the game was marketed as a new series in Japan. I have provived two sources, one of which is a magazine advertisement, that outright state this. Regardless of the rest of my theory being true or not, it's unreasonable to call that into question at this point.
It's called Castlevania in Europe or America, but so what? They're different regions and they prioritise the series differently. Castlevania must have been stronger there than Akumajou Dracula was in Japan, and it's Japan that we're talking about here. What went on in Europe or America is besides the point because different people were in charge there and they had their own motivations for marketing the game in the way that they did.
Indeed the game seems grounded in the Castlevania universe and it's consistent with what came before, but again, what's the relevancy here? If the suits at Konami wanted the game to be a different series because they thought it would have otherwise damaged the Akumajou Dracula brand they're not going to be stopped by the fact the Belmonts are mentioned in the story. And if they make that decision then that's what becomes the policy, unless someone with some sort authority, like IGA, can revert it.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: AlexCalvo on May 26, 2016, 03:07:48 PM
The way I look at it is that if it is continuing the same story, in the same universe, with the same gameplay style, enemy types, atmosphere, and outright states that it is a continuation in game... it is the same series. It even has the entry hall from castlevania 1 as its first stage, and a theme of simon remix. Some marketing execs who have some ads printed up calling it a new game doesn't change that. I can find you a magazine scan that says Castlevania Adventure is about Simon, does that make it so?
Are you of the mind that if the suits at konami were to proclaim right now that SoTN for instance was not a game in the castlevania series, would it cease to be? That seems to be the logic you are putting forward. I find it really strange that you take these magazine ads as somehow more of an authority than the game itself. As I don't see how anyone could argue that the game was not obviously made to be a Castlevania game, given the numerous connections already listed. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: zangetsu468 on May 26, 2016, 05:02:52 PM
I think Nagumo and Alex both made valid points. Given the in-game elements which to me supersede most things, it seems to be more of a marketing thing tailoring specific products to markets and key demographics. For instance Dracula has always been one of the world's most famous mythological figures, before the internet.. How many people have read Dracula in Europe and the US as opposed to Japan? I would hazard a guess despite the numbers that Europe/ US would be considerably more. This may account for one of the reasons why it wasn't aimed in the same manner at the Japanese audience (originally).
Are you of the mind that if the suits at konami were to proclaim right now that SoTN for instance was not a game in the castlevania series, would it cease to be? That seems to be the logic you are putting forward.
Isn't this exactly what Iga did with Legends, COTM and 64/ LOD?
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: AlexCalvo on May 26, 2016, 05:18:55 PM
IGA never said the retconned games weren't Castlevania games, just not a part of his official timeline. I think it is a pretty distinct difference.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: zangetsu468 on May 26, 2016, 07:43:40 PM
IGA never said the retconned games weren't Castlevania games, just not a part of his official timeline. I think it is a pretty distinct difference.
Yes but in context there was only one continuum of Castlevania games at the time.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting part of the debate, but Gaiden seems to translate multiple ways as Nagumo suggested. So even if it was intended as a side story or spin-off in Japan, is it that big of a deal?
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: Nagumo on May 27, 2016, 02:02:26 AM
The way I look at it is that if it is continuing the same story, in the same universe, with the same gameplay style, enemy types, atmosphere, and outright states that it is a continuation in game... it is the same series. It even has the entry hall from castlevania 1 as its first stage, and a theme of simon remix. Some marketing execs who have some ads printed up calling it a new game doesn't change that. I can find you a magazine scan that says Castlevania Adventure is about Simon, does that make it so?
Are you of the mind that if the suits at konami were to proclaim right now that SoTN for instance was not a game in the castlevania series, would it cease to be? That seems to be the logic you are putting forward. I find it really strange that you take these magazine ads as somehow more of an authority than the game itself. As I don't see how anyone could argue that the game was not obviously made to be a Castlevania game, given the numerous connections already listed. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Yes, but what it ultimately comes down is what Konami thinks about it. The point of this thread is to discuss what their stance was on continuity before IGA came around, isn't it? We can't have that discussion if the authority figure in this case is simply dismissed. I agree it's clearly was intended as a Castlevania game, and making the game a different series comes across as messy, but I think that is besides the point.
About Simon being in Adventure, that was a decision made by Konami of America. I think the consensus on this forum is that the view of Konami of Japan is always the most legitimate one when it comes to matters like that. I suppose you could say Bloodlines was always canon as far as Konami America and Konami Europe were concerned. I wouldn't argue with that.
Vampire Killer being made into a separate series was done because it benefited Konami at that time, though. No company that I'm aware of would retroactively decide to market a product differently unless this would benefit them financially in some way. I assume that afterwards they could care less about how it was viewed because Symphony of the Night ended up saving the brand, a game which was originally a gaiden as well, and IGA had already meant SotN to be a set-up of some sort to Bloodlines. So when SotN turned out to be more popular than the "main entry" Castlevania 64, those types of games ended up being the default, and IGA seized this opportunity to make the timeline he created during SotN's development the official canon of the series.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: AlexCalvo on May 27, 2016, 04:53:23 AM
Sorry, I guess it's just a difference in how we view it. As zengetsu said in game stuff trumps everything else, and I think most people would agree with me on that. Also I don't think that a couple magazines scans and some dudes unconfirmed blog info are enough evidence to trump the obviousness of it being a castlevania. I also think this idea that it can be a castlevania in one country and not another oa a little ridiculous. But I can see this discussion isn't going to go anywhere. So I think I will bow out here.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: Nagumo on May 27, 2016, 07:40:04 AM
Of course it looks like a Castlevania game because it was originally developed as such, but later it was decided to be a different game. I have outright proven this. A magazine with important ties to Konami (not just "some magazine") and even the advertisement itself say it's a completely new game. What more evidence do you need? You can't just dismiss this because in your opinion the game looks like a Castlevania game and therefore it must always have been a Castlevania game. Whatever the intention may have been beforehand, it became irrelevant after it was decided to rebrand the game. Why? Because Konami is the owner of its intellectual properties and so they are the ones who decide how they are managed. That's not seeing things differently, that's how things work.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: Shinobi on May 27, 2016, 08:35:47 AM
I'm quite agree with other opinions that the magazine exaggerated a bit about the games info even in the japanese publications. Also I just checked the japanese manual for Bloodlines/Vampire Killer, in the story manual it mentioned something like Belmont was blood related to Morris, not really fluent in japanese but I'm familiar with katakanas as well as few kanjis and I spotted the word "Belmont"(Berumondo), "of Blood"(no chii) and "Morris"(Morisu) Altogether in one sentence, even in John Morris' profile also mentioned that he's some sort of related with Belmonts by blood so it's evident that Vampire Killer or Bloodlines was a part of "Akumajou Dracula" despite the title was "Vampire Killer", you can see the two manual scan I marked with red box to see what I mean.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: zangetsu468 on May 27, 2016, 07:57:29 PM
Firstly, was Simon actually in Adventure in the US version? I found a magazine ad for it once and posted it on the dungeon, but I figured it was a very early ad and they had assumed it was Simon or just said so to sell the game. Does the US manual say it's Simon?
A magazine with important ties to Konami (not just "some magazine") and even the advertisement itself say it's a completely new game. What more evidence do you need? You can't just dismiss this because in your opinion the game looks like a Castlevania game and therefore it must always have been a Castlevania game.
He's saying that aside from the Morris clan having been descended from Belmonts - which Shinobi's post backs up - there are certain things in the game (beyond key gameplay elements like candles and whipping) such as the first level of Bloodlines being the first level (and ruins) of Castlevania 1 - up until the room with the werewolf. This is probably the biggest one in my eyes. It's difficult to ignore things of this manner as they infer continuity. If I'm understanding Alex correctly, if I'm not he can correct me. (that rhymes)
I think there are a lot of semantics going on here though. So I can't read Japanese but let's assume the game was a Gaiden, intended as spin-off series. So it's a gaiden, intended as a different series in Japan but looks like Castlevania, plays like Castlevania.... If it looks like... (I know there's a joke about the graveyard duck in here somewhere).
In the end I'm not really seeing what the punch line is. I understand Nagumo's evidence, but I hear what Alex is saying. I find myself indifferent and can only think that for example if tomorrow Nintendo states in its own Direct that Super Luigi U is no longer canon to the Mario series, then it's not. However, it seems so specific and trivial given the games key elements, gameplay aesthetics and how the game feels, would anyone be paying attention to this? People are inclined to believe things by experience is what I'm trying to say. I would've welcomed a series of games with the Bloodlines feel. So even if it was intended in X way, it's been taken as Y by the most of us. It's not something I personally view as problematic. (Hell, a lot of people don't even consider Curse of Darkness to be canon to Castlevania.)
If it was a spin-off series but based in the same universe AFTER the original CV series, that makes more sense to me given John Morris walks through the original Castlevania's ruins in the first level.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: Nagumo on May 29, 2016, 10:59:59 AM
If it was a spin-off series but based in the same universe AFTER the original CV series, that makes more sense to me given John Morris walks through the original Castlevania's ruins in the first level.
I think it was similar situtation as Legends getting removed from continuity. Except this case, it was Konami suits removing the game from the series because they didn't have faith it would live up to the brand. For all intents and purposes, it was a full-fledged, canon, Castlevania/Akumajou Dracula game. But the powers that be prevented this from happening, at least until IGA brought it back into the series. That's why all the obvious Castlevania reference are still present in the game. So I don't think that, for example, the fact that the Belmont family is mentioned, condradicts what I'm saying. After all, Alucard being mentioned in Legends does not make the game canon, either. It's the same deal with Vampire Killer.
In the end I'm not really seeing what the punch line is.
This is a good question. Indeed, it hardly matters in the grand sheme of things. However, I think it partially helps explaing CV64's stance towards continuity. My theory is that CV64 was a sequel to past Castlevania games (suprise, suprise) but that it ignored Vampire Killer/Bloodlines. Back then, CV64 was the "main entry" of the series and SotN was a gaiden, just like Vampire Killer. Therefore, I think CV64 was supposed to be the "legitimate" continuation of the storyline, and thus ignored the gaiden games, namely Vampire Killer and SotN. I think that's why, for example, Reinhardt Schneider's surname wasn't Morris. Or even better, why they didn't simply called him "Quincy Morris" and made the game a prequel to Bloodlines. It might also explain why Renon mentions a "impending global war", which seems to me like a piece of dialogue from a previous version of the game, which apperently had a WWI setting.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: zangetsu468 on May 29, 2016, 04:35:37 PM
I think it was similar situtation as Legends getting removed from continuity. Except this case, it was Konami suits removing the game from the series because they didn't have faith it would live up to the brand. For all intents and purposes, it was a full-fledged, canon, Castlevania/Akumajou Dracula game. But the powers that be prevented this from happening, at least until IGA brought it back into the series. That's why all the obvious Castlevania reference are still present in the game. So I don't think that, for example, the fact that the Belmont family is mentioned, condradicts what I'm saying. After all, Alucard being mentioned in Legends does not make the game canon, either. It's the same deal with Vampire Killer.
This is a good question. Indeed, it hardly matters in the grand sheme of things. However, I think it partially helps explaing CV64's stance towards continuity. My theory is that CV64 was a sequel to past Castlevania games (suprise, suprise) but that it ignored Vampire Killer/Bloodlines. Back then, CV64 was the "main entry" of the series and SotN was a gaiden, just like Vampire Killer. Therefore, I think CV64 was supposed to be the "legitimate" continuation of the storyline, and thus ignored the gaiden games, namely Vampire Killer and SotN. I think that's why, for example, Reinhardt Schneider's surname wasn't Morris. Or even better, why they didn't simply called him "Quincy Morris" and made the game a prequel to Bloodlines. It might also explain why Renon mentions a "impending global war", which seems to me like a piece of dialogue from a previous version of the game, which apperently had a WWI setting.
True it does make sense in context when the facts are laid out. I don't have an issue with this being the intention at the time. I kind of wish CV LOD/ 64 was part of the timeline, but I think the alternate timelines are just as cool.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: Inccubus on May 31, 2016, 06:56:20 PM
I agree with Nagumo about the Konami execs probably being the ones that decided to spin Bloodlines off into a gaiden by way of marketing. As we have all likely heard, the dynasty of Konami's suits has done much more drastic and unreasonable things to their own employees, let alone their IP. That said, Bloodlines was clearly developed to be part of the CV series, just set in a much more modern time than any previous title had.
(click to show/hide)
#Fuckonami
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: Shinobi on June 01, 2016, 01:15:10 AM
Vampire Killer or Bloodlines is still originally intended to be a part of Akumajou Dracula or Castlevania in Japan as it still shares not just the similar style of gameplay but also uses the same elements from the previous games, Dracula is also the villain, Belmonts was mentioned in the storyline, remix from the previous games etc. Unlike the cancelled game Ark Hound for famicom which is not originally a Contra game and not even promoted as a part of Contra series in Japan. Aside of similar gameplay, there's still a zero resemblance from the previous Contra games, no mention of previous heroes like Bill Rizer, no aliens, no Red Falcon, etc. Only became a part or a spin-off of Contra series when the game was released as Contra Force in the US.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: Nagumo on June 02, 2016, 06:50:41 AM
Vampire Killer or Bloodlines is still originally intended to be a part of Akumajou Dracula or Castlevania in Japan
Yes, I'm not denying that. But like I said before, the original intention is not what's relevant here.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: AlexCalvo on June 02, 2016, 07:26:51 AM
That's what you decided what's not relevant, because you have a certain way of deciding the criteria. But given the original intent of this thread, being about in game timelines, it is very relevant.
And to comment on the comparison with Iga's timeline changes, I still say this idea of making Bloodlines a new series is very different. IGA merely stated that the stories would have no impact or connection to future games, and said games would exist in a continuity with the remaining games from the series, but not the excluded. Bloodlines clearly followed that same type continuity with the games that preceded it. And any games that might have ignored it's continuity are only theoretical, because no game ever actually conflicted with it. If Belmont can change to Schneider, than Schneider can change to Morris.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: Nagumo on June 02, 2016, 08:51:08 AM
That's what you decided what's not relevant, because you have a certain way of deciding the criteria. But given the original intent of this thread, being about in game timelines, it is very relevant.
It had less to do with me "deciding the criteria" and more with the fact that I already retorted that argument yet it still keeps getting brought up. I honestly don't get where you're coming from with this. I have already proven the game was marketed as a seperate series and that the game was a gaiden. Why would any intentions of the development staff before this decesion was made be relevant? And how is my comparison not valid? I have honestly no idea why what you just said would invalidate it. Legends or the 64 games also followed same type continuity with the games that preceded it. But this didn't matter after anymore after they got declared non-canon. It's the exact same situation with Vampire Killer, except it got taken a step further by making the game a different series as well.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: Inccubus on June 03, 2016, 01:13:22 PM
I think the issue is a semantic one. It's clear that the marketing in Japan tried to spin the game as a new series related to Castlevania by whomever was in charge of such matters. That's not the same as "making it a new series". I see it as a panicked decision from the execs that did not pan out in the other regions because it's obviously stupid to confuse your customers with discordant marketing. It's different from IGA crating an official timeline to officially state what was canon and clarify the continuity.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: zangetsu468 on June 03, 2016, 08:57:23 PM
I see it like the new series of thundercats, a new target demographic in mind perhaps, but set generations after the original in the same context.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: Shinobi on June 05, 2016, 06:29:10 PM
I see it like the new series of thundercats, a new target demographic in mind perhaps, but set generations after the original in the same context.
Don't forget other franchise or series in Japan like the Heisei era of Kamen Rider series and alternate universes/timelines of Gundam series starting with G Gundam to the Iron Blooded Orphans.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: Nagumo on June 06, 2016, 02:42:53 AM
I would like to talk about the meaning of gaiden again. This is going to be relevant to this discussion, so please bear with me.
The following video is a talk IGA did in 2014 in which he talks about the development of SotN.
From 3:00 to 4:05 he talks about how Konami was divided into seperate studios. The SotN team was situated in Tokyo, but the "franchise owners" were the developers from the Kobe studio. They were the ones from developed the "proper" games in the series. Because the SotN team didn't view their game as a legitimate entry, they "figured they could do whatever they wanted as long as they treated it as a seperate series" (this is what is written on the slide). IGA and Yamane both refered to SotN as being a gaiden on several occasions (in English it's usually translated as "side project" or "side story"). For example, here (http://www.1up.com/features/catching-castlevania-composer-2), here (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-04-03-unfinished-symphony-castlevanias-keeper-speaks), and here (http://www.castlevaniacrypt.com/img/ooe/np/06.jpg). In the last link IGA helpfully clarifies that with "gaiden" he means "sub-series". So that ties into what he said in the above video. But what exactly does this mean? When I had the chance to ask IGA some questions a couple of years ago, he gave an answer that seems to clarify this. This is what he has to say about the various gaiden games in the series:
Quote
IGA: 黙示録、黙示録外伝、Circle of the Moon、Order of Shadows、THE ARCADEは、世界観を同じくした別の世界の物語となります。黙示録、黙示録外伝、Circle of the Moonは、製作者の意図として、そのように扱っております。 Translation: Regarding Castlevania 64, Legacy of Darkness, Circle of the Moon, Order of Shadows and the Arcade, they are stories from a separate world with the same world view. Castlevania 64, Legacy of Darkness and Circle of the Moon are treated in the same way as the makers intended.
Quote
IGA: 漆黒たる前奏曲は、ドラキュラの世界観をまったく無視して作られた作品だったため、私がプロデューサになった時に、正しい歴史からはずしました。あくまで同じ世界観をつかった別の世界の物語と考えてくだされば良いかと存じます。 Translation: Because Castlevania Legends was a work that completely ignored Castlevania's look, when I became producer, I removed it from the proper history. I think it would be best to think of it as a story from a different world that used the same look.
The translation is a bit different, but in both cases used the term: 世界観 ("sekaikan" or "world view"). This term is clarified in one of the books that I own: The Untold History of of Japanese Video Game Developers.
Quote
Sekaikan! There's been a discussion in English on the importance of that word. It has deep layers of meaning: the atmosphere, world lore, world view, the background behind things.
So what I gather from this is that the way IGA uses gaiden, he refers to a game that share the same sekaikan (the atmosphere, the look, possibily also the same lore) as other games from the Castlevania series, but which he treats as a "seperate world". Furthermore, he seems to imply that, in the 90s, the games made in Tokyo (Rondo of Blood, Vampire Killer and Symphony of the Night) were gaiden while the games from Kobe were the official entries.
This brings us back to the discussion at hand. The above situation that IGA described seems to have strong parallels with the Vampire Killer situation. The game was refered to as a gaiden and also rebranded to make it a seperate series. Once again, all the "in-game evidence" that supposedly proves the game wasn't gaiden doesn't matter because in the very definition of gaiden it says a game might have the same "seikaikan" as other games but is still treated as "not legitimate" i.e non-canon or a parallel universe.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: zangetsu468 on June 06, 2016, 07:23:13 AM
Nagumo, I completely hear what you're saying about that specific term Iga is using. In one example I've used Thundercats, the other example I can think of which would be similar to an old series/ new series in regards to its context would be Macross/ Macross Plus. Although Macross Plus is a completely new series and the Macross Mecha itself isn't used anymore, it still retains its place in the context of that reality/ lore/ "world view" if you will. The same scenario with CV1's Castlevania being referenced in Bloodlines imo. I still see it having its place and serving as background but the new series (Bloodlines) having been completely new at the time.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: X on June 06, 2016, 09:32:28 AM
I can't help but think IGA was a just a tad full of himself when he said this:
Translation: Because Castlevania Legends was a work that completely ignored Castlevania's look, when I became producer, I removed it from the proper history
Granted he's gotten better since that time, but..wow. And I'm not sure how Legends completely ignores the CV look. That just doesn't make any real sense. Looked and felt like CV to me, and I'm one of the more nit-picky CV people out there.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: zangetsu468 on June 06, 2016, 12:29:16 PM
I can't help but think IGA was a just a tad full of himself when he said this:
Translation: Because Castlevania Legends was a work that completely ignored Castlevania's look, when I became producer, I removed it from the proper history
Granted he's gotten better since that time, but..wow. And I'm not sure how Legends completely ignores the CV look. That just doesn't make any real sense. Looked and felt like CV to me, and I'm one of the more nit-picky CV people out there.
I can't help but think that word "look" is supposed to be LORE, because the date of Dracula being defeated in Legends in comparison to CV3 does conflict with the lore if Dracula supposedly rises every 100 years. The date of CV3 also correlates with the death of Vlad (III) the Impaler, and it's clear that according to Iga's timeline that "Mathias changes his name to Dracula and survives for hundreds of years" while absorbing the souls of vampires up to the point of cv3. Legends would put a stop to that as well as potentially introducing vampirism into the Belmonts' bloodline which doesn't follow the lore. (Set by LOI)
If he did mean look then maybe he just referred to it's anime style quality.
Title: Re: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline
Post by: Briraka on June 06, 2016, 02:21:50 PM
I can't help but think that word "look" is supposed to be LORE, because the date of Dracula being defeated in Legends in comparison to CV3 does conflict with the lore if Dracula supposedly rises every 100 years. The date of CV3 also correlates with the death of Vlad (III) the Impaler, and it's clear that according to Iga's timeline that "Mathias changes his name to Dracula and survives for hundreds of years" while absorbing the souls of vampires up to the point of cv3. Legends would put a stop to that as well as potentially introducing vampirism into the Belmonts' bloodline which doesn't follow the lore. (Set by LOI)
If he did mean look then maybe he just referred to it's anime style quality.
Rondo of Blood has an anime style and it's part of the timeline, so I don't think the artstyle has anything to do with Legends' removal unless IGA was being hypocritical. But I'm more willing to believe that he meant that it didn't fit the lore like you said.