Topic: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline

[AlexCalvo]

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.

[Nagumo]

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.     

[Inccubus]

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.

[zangetsu468]

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.

[Shinobi]

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.

[Nagumo]

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. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLyjAWYK2Kg

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, here, and here. 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:

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.

     

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.

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.   

[zangetsu468]

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. 

[X]

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.

[zangetsu468]

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.

[Briraka]

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.