Topic: We voted for the wrong guy? IGA

[Archangel]

OKay, now where is it stated that the vampire killer is the only thing that can kill dracula?

And about Hector. As someone else stated, he fought a possesed man, similar to Shanoa in OoE with Barlowe. Besides, why would he not be able to kill Dracula? He´s a devil forgemaster and learned under Dracula. And all the weapons you can buy in the game suck, so you have to create them through devil forging/alchemy. So what I am trying to say is, pretty much every weapon you use in Curse of Darkness is not just an ordinary one.... they are as special as the whip, which also was made through alchemy. Maybe they´re not as powerful, but I think you get my point.

[Sinful]

sinful, why is something so superficial as a whip so important to you?

Because that's the main thing that separates Castlevania from the other games.

well idk about that since his favorite cv is 3

Mine too! But it doesn't mean I beat the game yet or that I prefer it's difficulty over the others?... But honestly, I think the main reason his games are easier is because I read someone quoting IGA saying something along the lines of; "People like easy and/or beatable games." So he may just be giving people what they want, especially considering how today's generation views classic difficulty. ie. "Classic difficulty?! F that!" (Man, it breaks my hear everytime I read a review that meantion a game could have been better if it weren't so hard... especially when the game really isn't. Just requires you put in some more time to adjust to it's learning curve... But no, games today's must be beat during one playthrough only, otherwise it's a waste of time )

This was the one thing that would have put Rondo from just "pretty good" to "godly" in my book. It's really a shame there were no difficulty options even in DXC.

AHHHH!!! Tell me about it!!!! And since I'm putting some more time in the PSP version for once instead of the unlocked original (I used I guide to get to ASAP because the 3D was throwing me off ), I'm finding that the the game balancing the 3D games adds is to make the game overall easier still?! This blows my mind at such a missed opportunity. I mean, so many Konami games seem to have a hidden difficulty/extra loop that changed/added much more gaming goodness, as if they actually cared for replay & the gamers that stuck with the game. Even though very few would actually experience said extra difficulty, this showed that they really did care for just them very few that would play and love this extra mode... So again, I blame us gamers for getting spoiled by easier games due to silly stuff like being able to whip in every direction. I mean I'm not hardcore about playing hard games or really that amazing at them, but to me, these are the gamers to be looked up too if you ask me.

Basically, the whole 'IGA hates Belmonts/whips/MEEEEEEEE' is unfiltered dumb filtered through a ton of dumb.

No. I don't think you know what your talking about and that's because you probably prefer the IGA no sword type games too, maybe? Whatever, you can stick by what you like, but to me I don't think this matter is that complicated; Castlevania to many, especially classic vania fans, is mostly about the whip. The whip defines the gameplay (it's extra reach, the wind up delay to take consideration of, etc) for the most part. Take this out of Castlevania, and you now have a game that doesn't play as Castlevania anymore. So you see, it's really that simple (I mean, you don't see a main Mario game without a jump now, do you?).

Man, when I found that whip sword in Aria, I was so happy... then the next weapon upgrade just landed in my lap almost immediately. (That's another thing, why do games have to have SO MANY DARN WEAPON & EQUIPMENT UPGRADES + SHOWED DOWN YOUR THROAT EVERY FEW MINUTES!! I find this really upsetting.

Create less games, but with good stories that could left a lasting impression, instead of infesting timeline with random characters and plots that would never lead to anything significant.
Quite simple really.

Exactly. Besides, I'd rather they just come up with something simple as "This so and so figured out how to revive Dracula yet again, only earlier." What's wrong with that?... And if you want more story, you can still add it, but just don't mess with series standards so much as that just leads to totally different games.

[beingthehero]

No. I don't think you know what your talking about and that's because you probably prefer the IGA no sword type games too, maybe?

No it's probably because the whole 'IGA hates Belmonts/Whips/MEEEEEEEEE' is very dumb, maybe? The whole 'well maybe it's because you're a FRAUD OF A FAN WHO HATES THE CLASSICS' bullshit won't work here anymore than it worked on Puwexil in the Dracula X thread. It's the dumbest kind of strawman attack.

It's not like I ever did a run of Vampire Killer on one setting after all.

Vampire Killer Stage 1 by beingthehero

[VladCT]

Okay, seriously, everyone in favor of dumping Sinful in their ignore list say "aye".
And in case you didn't get the hint the first time, Sinful: you're an annoying dick.

[Flame]

OKay, now where is it stated that the vampire killer is the only thing that can kill dracula?

It's supposed to be the one weapon that is truly effective against vampires, because it was forged through alchemy with a vampire's soul.

Vampire Killer is the symbolic weapon of the CV franchise, and the Belmonts are supposed to be the ones, who armed with their whip, defeat Dracula every century. They even left the whip to the Morrises for a long time. The whip has always been very important, and Belmonts have always been very important. Even in games like CV3, where you have allies, there is a Belmont present. but then you have people who defeat him without any Belmonts or Vampire Killers around. It cheapens the Belmonts importance to the story, and makes Dracula very nonthreatening when you dont need to be an experienced Vampire Hunter or the Son of Dracula to take him out.

[Thomas Belmont]

OKay, now where is it stated that the vampire killer is the only thing that can kill dracula?

And about Hector. As someone else stated, he fought a possesed man, similar to Shanoa in OoE with Barlowe. Besides, why would he not be able to kill Dracula? He´s a devil forgemaster and learned under Dracula. And all the weapons you can buy in the game suck, so you have to create them through devil forging/alchemy. So what I am trying to say is, pretty much every weapon you use in Curse of Darkness is not just an ordinary one.... they are as special as the whip, which also was made through alchemy. Maybe they´re not as powerful, but I think you get my point.

What are you talking about? It was always insinuated that the Vampire Killer was the only weapon that could defeat Dracula. It was Castlevania's equivalent to Legend of Zelda's Magical/Master Sword. And it was always implied that only a Belmont could wield it. SotN was the first game that strayed from this formula and it was the sixth game in the series, not counting the Game Boy games.

But now, because of Iga, my neighbor across the street can kill Dracula with a frisbee.

Iga's a dick.

[Neobelmont]

What are you talking about? It was always insinuated that the Vampire Killer was the only weapon that could defeat Dracula. It was Castlevania's equivalent to Legend of Zelda's Magical/Master Sword.

True whip of evil bane or something. Might play zelda later on now.

[Sumac]

Hear's an idea. Call me crazy and someone please correct me if I am wrong but why not have castlevania's with different characters,yet not fight dracula. How do I explain my reasoning for this.

I believe, that is direction in which franchise should have went. Preferably using Bloodlines as template, sort of. This direction was on the surface since LOI, and POR and OOE skimmed it, somewhat. But in both cases developers chickened out and put mandatory Dracula battles in the end. POR particularly suffered from this, since its plot was quite solid even without Dracula's presence.

[paulstanley]

And about Hector. As someone else stated, he fought a possesed man, similar to Shanoa in OoE with Barlowe. Besides, why would he not be able to kill Dracula? He´s a devil forgemaster and learned under Dracula. And all the weapons you can buy in the game suck, so you have to create them through devil forging/alchemy. So what I am trying to say is, pretty much every weapon you use in Curse of Darkness is not just an ordinary one.... they are as special as the whip, which also was made through alchemy. Maybe they´re not as powerful, but I think you get my point.

As I recall (besides Hector being powerful), in the cutscene after Dracula's defeat, it was said that Dracula was defeated because his resurrection was incomplete, so he wasn't at his full power. There's one explanation for a defeat by a random nobody.

[beingthehero]

I believe, that is direction in which franchise should have went. Preferably using Bloodlines as template, sort of. This direction was on the surface since LOI, and POR and OOE skimmed it, somewhat. But in both cases developers chickened out and put mandatory Dracula battles in the end. POR particularly suffered from this, since its plot was quite solid even without Dracula's presence.

I agree with PoR, since Brauner was already kind of a bitchin' villain. Definitely the best non-Dracula villain the series had. But on the other hand, PoR's Dracula was the first Lugosi-type we had in quite some time, Chronicles notwithstanding. Even the KCEK games used SotN's Drac.

Also yeah, in every single case of so-called 'nobodies' fighting Dracula, he was never at his full power. IGA's games always outright stated that. Only when Dracula is resurrected at the 100-year-point is his power too great for anybody but a Belmont with the VK to kill. Alucard, Hector, Nathan et al. fought D-dawg before or after such time, and his power was never complete.

Speaking of Nathan, I'm surprised nobody brings him up or Reinhardt when they bitch about nobodies defeating Dracula, but bring up Jonathan. I guess because they have a whip, even if it's not even the vampire killer?

[Neobelmont]

Speaking of Nathan, I'm surprised nobody brings him up or Reinhardt when they bitch about nobodies defeating Dracula, but bring up Jonathan. I guess because they have a whip, even if it's not even the vampire killer?

Nathan graves ok, but as for Reinhardt, At one point was he not going to be called reinhardt schneider belmont. Alot of things happened to the n64 version and I recall this being one of them, and as for the vampire killer Reinhardt did use it last time I checked.

[Thomas Belmont]

Speaking of Nathan, I'm surprised nobody brings him up or Reinhardt when they bitch about nobodies defeating Dracula, but bring up Jonathan. I guess because they have a whip, even if it's not even the vampire killer?

Probably because most people don't consider their games canon.

[GuyStarwind]

I've read someplace that Reinhardt was suppose to have Belmont as a last name but they changed it for some reason.

[Flame]

I recall the IGA timeline stating that CoTM and the N64 games were not canon to the timeline.

Another Example of non Dracula was Aria and Dawn, and veeeery technically- the novel that came after.

None had Dracula as a villain, (except for Dawn but that's a much different story, ironically better than the main one)

the novel itself if I recall, has Olrox as the villain, trying to take over the void of power Dracula left behind.

[shelverton.]

What are you talking about? It was always insinuated that the Vampire Killer was the only weapon that could defeat Dracula. It was Castlevania's equivalent to Legend of Zelda's Magical/Master Sword. And it was always implied that only a Belmont could wield it. SotN was the first game that strayed from this formula and it was the sixth game in the series, not counting the Game Boy games.

But now, because of Iga, my neighbor across the street can kill Dracula with a frisbee.

Iga's a dick.

And yet the vampire killer was never necessary to defeat Dracula in any of the games. Why have a story about a whip that's the only weapon that could kill Dracula when in reality, you can kill him with axes, knives or whatever you see fit? If the vampire killer was that important to the creators of the original Castlevania games (Before IGA), surely they would've made Dracula invulnerable to everything but the whip, in-game too, not just in the story. At least in Zelda you NEEDED silver arrows.

And then we have people like Grant, Sypha and Eric Lecarde (Again, before IGA) - Were they Belmont descendants? They sure killed Drac on a number of my playthroughs though, and none of them used the vampire killer.

I don't know everything about the Castlevania storyline though. Maybe I got things wrong. Maybe IGA is guilty of everything. I, however, feel that the original games left the story-line wideopen for interpretations.