Topic: Konami Facebook team responding to Operation: Akumajo

[Ghetto-blasteR]

I kinda have the hidden sense that Konami DOESN'T think OA is representing all fans.

actually, this is probably true. my first reaction to this is that O:A should seek to remold itself until it does represent some category of fans. it could do something such as "original/longtime fans of the series", or "classicvania fans", just to give a few examples. define and target accordingly. and it will have to make some revisions to its mission statement to do so.

basically, the idea is that if O:A can't even encapsulate a well-defined and well recognized category of fans, then konami doesn't have much incentive to pay attention to its cause.

i realize i'm probably repeating some of the things others have said already in this thread, but i guess i don't really have qualms about saying them again.

[Sam Belmont]

That's good stuff and great ideas guys and I agree  that Konami may not feel that way over the operation.
More important I think it will may be a wise move to take this lot more Pro and like a bussines company making them see that it's still a bussines to go along with us even if it sounds funny in the end they are a company and like  business and green stuff so if we make them see it, when I close a deal I never go on making any kind of criticism or even told the persons projects or ideas are wrong or marking his mistakes, I try to focus on make him see I'm a nice partner to stick along as long as I get my own ending I don't care what other ideas or projects he has going on, I simply focus on closing my deal.
Konami needs all of us when I mean all is everybody who will buy the game show and raise the hand and like our has been said look at us as a biiiiig group, in the end they will see there's money in there and will pay attention, let's face it if Konami doesn't see any good bussines there as a company it will simply abandon or proceed with the reboots or simply nail down the coffin, that's why I think its a nice approach to show it more as a bussines proposal than an ultimatum.


By the way agree totally I think Dracula X Chronicles really hit the nail in mixing the platforms but sadly it seems it had very poor support.

[cecil-kain]

That last page was a very refreshing read.  Just a few thoughts I'd like to share about what's been said...

^^^ That settles it, we need a family-friendly Castlevania title!

Family friendly?  No.  But the "M" rating immediately limits the market to adult gamers.  If Konami's number one goal is growing the Castlevania Brand, the "T" rating might be a better target for reaching a wider audience.

Perhaps setting up a place specifically where fans can show how much they love the things that OA is fighting for would be a more effective approach, currently the operation does seem focused a lot on highlighting what has been done wrong instead of what has been done right.
Konami is probably more likely to be receptive to positive feedback than criticism (even if some of it could be considered constructive criticism)

This is an excellent observation.  I think most of the critics' comments about Operation: Akumajo being "uncivil" or "unprofessional" are really turned off by the negative tone that goes hand in hand with our activist slant.  Activists always complain about the status quo and make demands for change --so naturally, this creates a somewhat negative aura.  But remember, Operation: Akumajo never had any media muscle to carry our message, so the activism was necessary just to stir things up and move the fanbase out of its complacency.  Are there more positive and constructive ways to make some our points?  Absolutely.  But our mistakes are always more obvious in hindsight than from the outset.  Going forward, we need to find a way to lighten up and focus on the positive a bit more.

The question is, how do you handle positive feedback when they've been totally pulling bullshit lately? It's kinda like sweet talkin someone who burned your house down and finding good within the bad things they've done. It's like, "Paul W. S Anderson, your Resident Evil movies are crap, but, I have to applaud your.... enthusiasm.". LOL!

I bring up this question because, so many times, people get mixed signals. Even if they are trying to be the most kind when dealing with someone, sometimes what they are trying to get across is read the wrong way. And if it feels MORE like praise(and ego stroking), Konami might just see NOTHING wrong with what they are doing and think that they are actually getting commended for everything wrong they are doing. Hence, will find no reason to change what they are doing and keep on heading their merry way down whatever way they plan to.

If you CAN get the message across and get their attention using honey, then by all means, do it. The thing is, if you can also get your message across, break through that barrier and if it's by ranting, what ever works. Of course, I agree, if the terms are more open than the specifics addressed in OA, it might be a little better for everyone, but there should really be an open channel for different fans to voice their opinions regarding what they feel is going wrong and right in the CV series to Konami.

Agreed.  Sometimes there's just not a nice way to make a critical point.

everyone needs to rally under one banner. it wouldn't make sense for people within the same movement to have conflicting opinions, and nobody will listen to any of you. that being said, people don't think exactly the same way about every specific little detail in castlevania, but as long as there is agreement about more general key points, then the movement is consistent.

maybe O:A succeeds in this; maybe it doesn't. perhaps the mere fact that this isn't entirely clear is an issue that people will want to think about addressing. granted, i haven't spent too much time checking out what O:A is really about.

anyway, for the most part, i think that 1) if you agree with O:A's mission, then you should individually voice your support so that it doesn't seem like one person is leading this whole thing, injecting his own personal opinion into the whole group. whatever is really going on is beside the point; this is the impression i get. 2) if you don't agree with the mission, then stay away from O:A. it's your privilege to offer helpful/unhelpful advice, but i suspect that unsolicited advice is going to be largely useless if it's unnecessarily harsh and negative. for those people criticizing O:A for its lack of tact, you would do well to set an example that O:A can follow. 3) in acknowledging the divide, O:A should be careful not to give the impression that they represent all fans. not saying you do or you don't, but always keep that in mind.

First, thank-you for calling out these hypocritical comments.  Like I said before, I don't mind answering the criticism, but it's hard to take people seriously when they don't practice what they preach.

Uniting the fanbase has been unexpectedly difficult.  From the outset, there was a general philosophy to take on "consensus issues"  Most Castlevania fans want Akumajo Dracula to continue.  Most Castlevania fans want 2-D to continue.  Most Castlevania fans want more investment in quality.  Most Castlevania fans wanted to see the 25th Anniversary observed with some kind of Tribute.  Most fans want to see the 1999 Demon Castle War.  Most fans want to see a remake of Dracula's Curse.  All of these things were rolled into one big mission --which perhaps was trying to do too much...

Unfortunately, some lasting impressions were also made that Operation: Akumajo is anti-3D and anti-LoS --neither of which is entirely true.  The truth is we believe 2-D is Castlevania's superior artform, and we reject how Konami positioned LoS as an Akumajo Dracula reboot.  Quite frankly, some flaws in our mission statement and propaganda didn't clearly articulate these positions --so we've paid a price by alienating some potentially supportive fans.

I kinda have the hidden sense that Konami DOESN'T think OA is representing all fans. If they were the type to jump to that conclusion, they'd be awefully stupid, wouldn't they. Just because there are a few openly vocal and opinionated CV fans doesn't mean all of the fans feel the same way.

Though I agree, if we were to address this in a civil way, we might want to start a committee where we poll and discuss what exactly we want from this.

Most activist groups tend to be in the minority, but even a minorities can motivate change --it's really the power of the message that makes a difference.  The "consensus issues" I mentioned earlier came from various polls that myself and others had done over the past year.  Fresh polling certainly wouldn't hurt anything though.

actually, this is probably true. my first reaction to this is that O:A should seek to remold itself until it does represent some category of fans. it could do something such as "original/longtime fans of the series", or "classicvania fans", just to give a few examples. define and target accordingly. and it will have to make some revisions to its mission statement to do so.

basically, the idea is that if O:A can't even encapsulate a well-defined and well recognized category of fans, then konami doesn't have much incentive to pay attention to its cause.

i realize i'm probably repeating some of the things others have said already in this thread, but i guess i don't really have qualms about saying them again.

I'm not opposed to a rewrite of the mission statement, but considering that I've done that once already --I may not be the right man for the job at this point.  The original was just a few sentences, that came off as unprofessional and way too demanding.  So the rewrite focused on defining the group's core philosophy --giving background and context for the main objectives.  Since then, there have been just a couple of minor tweaks --one after the 25th Anniversary date actually passed, and one in response to David Cox's recent acknowledgment that LoS is not an Akumajo Dracula game.

That's good stuff and great ideas guys and I agree  that Konami may not feel that way over the operation.
More important I think it will may be a wise move to take this lot more Pro and like a bussines company making them see that it's still a bussines to go along with us even if it sounds funny in the end they are a company and like  business and green stuff so if we make them see it, when I close a deal I never go on making any kind of criticism or even told the persons projects or ideas are wrong or marking his mistakes, I try to focus on make him see I'm a nice partner to stick along as long as I get my own ending I don't care what other ideas or projects he has going on, I simply focus on closing my deal.
Konami needs all of us when I mean all is everybody who will buy the game show and raise the hand and like our has been said look at us as a biiiiig group, in the end they will see there's money in there and will pay attention, let's face it if Konami doesn't see any good bussines there as a company it will simply abandon or proceed with the reboots or simply nail down the coffin, that's why I think its a nice approach to show it more as a bussines proposal than an ultimatum.


By the way agree totally I think Dracula X Chronicles really hit the nail in mixing the platforms but sadly it seems it had very poor support.

The recent engagement we've seen from Konami over Facebook was completely unexpected.  Our numbers don't really give us any leverage for their attention on a professional level, so maintaining a casual dialogue will be the focus for now.  In the meantime, our top priority should be to continue building bridges within the Castlevania fanbase, so we can eventually outgrow this activist phase and eventually reach for that professional level everyone really wants to see..

[Ghetto-blasteR]

cecil, you've said numerous times that nobody has really stepped up and offered to take your place. nobody can really blame you for that. i also don't think you've gotten some of the recognition that i think you deserve for having pulled together what you have. regardless of varying opinions on the whole matter, at least i don't think anyone doubts your dedication.

if i were in your position, i'd probably keep the offer open to anyone who wants to help out, while at the same time, keep trying to head the operation as best you can until someone lends a hand. but i hope that when someone steps up, you're not going to just pass it off altogether because it sounds like you're selling yourself short. for now just keep using the community as a resource. there's a lot you can learn from other people.

that being said, i took a look at the statement on the FB page, and i feel like the most conspicuous contradiction comes from considering the following excerpts in parallel:

1. Although we accept Lords of Shadow as a fine game on its own merits, we cannot accept the desecration it brings to the Akumajo mythology. Therefore, we reject the game as a reboot, and encourage Konami to reposition it as a separate universe that can coexist with a continuing line of Akumajo Dracula games.

2. Secondly, we concede the Castlevania brand needs a reboot --however, we insist the Akumajo mythology be respected in doing so.

(numbers inserted.)

here's what i don't understand. first of all, what do you mean when you say "reject the game as a reboot"? taken alone, this statement could mean one of several things: you don't think the game is a reboot at all, or you don't think the series should be rebooted, or you don't believe the game is a satisfactory reboot. perhaps there are other interpretations.

the first interpretation is obviously not the case; LoS sticks out from the rest of the series story-wise. could it be the second? well, you say later on that the brand needs a reboot after all. so, the third? well, what exactly is your criticism of LoS as a reboot? like you said, it's a good game on its own merits, but you criticize it because it doesn't follow akumajo mythology. but that's the whole point of a reboot.

so, simply put, it's tricky when you say simultaneously that CV needs a reboot but that akumajo mythology should be respected, because it's not entirely clear what that means.

i've heard some people say that the story should just be treated as a multiverse, and that they should wrap up the IGA universe while doing whatever they please with the LoS universe. let's assume that this is your goal. i get this, and i do think it's possible to convince konami of this (somehow), but criticizing LoS in any capacity is like contradicting your own goal, because that's the whole second half of what you're asking for.

final point: perhaps confounding variables like "IGA storyline vs LoS storyline" and "2D vs 3D" is going to hurt the chances of revisiting the IGA universe. seems to me like nowadays companies will choose a 3D concept by default; they have to be convinced by very compelling reasons to pick 2D over 3D. not the other way around. if 2D is going to be at a disadvantage, maybe fans of IGA's universe will have to be more open minded to a 3D game for 1999 or whatever. food for thought.

[Sumac]

Mistake.
This post could be removed.

[cecil-kain]

cecil, you've said numerous times that nobody has really stepped up and offered to take your place. nobody can really blame you for that. i also don't think you've gotten some of the recognition that i think you deserve for having pulled together what you have. regardless of varying opinions on the whole matter, at least i don't think anyone doubts your dedication.

if i were in your position, i'd probably keep the offer open to anyone who wants to help out, while at the same time, keep trying to head the operation as best you can until someone lends a hand. but i hope that when someone steps up, you're not going to just pass it off altogether because it sounds like you're selling yourself short. for now just keep using the community as a resource. there's a lot you can learn from other people.

that being said, i took a look at the statement on the FB page, and i feel like the most conspicuous contradiction comes from considering the following excerpts in parallel:
(numbers inserted.)

here's what i don't understand. first of all, what do you mean when you say "reject the game as a reboot"? taken alone, this statement could mean one of several things: you don't think the game is a reboot at all, or you don't think the series should be rebooted, or you don't believe the game is a satisfactory reboot. perhaps there are other interpretations.

the first interpretation is obviously not the case; LoS sticks out from the rest of the series story-wise. could it be the second? well, you say later on that the brand needs a reboot after all. so, the third? well, what exactly is your criticism of LoS as a reboot? like you said, it's a good game on its own merits, but you criticize it because it doesn't follow akumajo mythology. but that's the whole point of a reboot.

so, simply put, it's tricky when you say simultaneously that CV needs a reboot but that akumajo mythology should be respected, because it's not entirely clear what that means.

i've heard some people say that the story should just be treated as a multiverse, and that they should wrap up the IGA universe while doing whatever they please with the LoS universe. let's assume that this is your goal. i get this, and i do think it's possible to convince konami of this (somehow), but criticizing LoS in any capacity is like contradicting your own goal, because that's the whole second half of what you're asking for.

final point: perhaps confounding variables like "IGA storyline vs LoS storyline" and "2D vs 3D" is going to hurt the chances of revisiting the IGA universe. seems to me like nowadays companies will choose a 3D concept by default; they have to be convinced by very compelling reasons to pick 2D over 3D. not the other way around. if 2D is going to be at a disadvantage, maybe fans of IGA's universe will have to be more open minded to a 3D game for 1999 or whatever. food for thought.

I can see the confusion here.  Considering how long the mission statement already was, a few specifics needed to be passed over for brevity's sake.  But let's examine these issues in some more detail.

Reboots have a fine tradition of retelling epic tales in a modern way for a new generation, but they do so in a way that *respects* the source material. The many retellings of Batman are a terrific example --there’s a core mythology there that’s always constant. Wealthy man uses his millions to dress up like a bat and fight crime --none of the Batman retellings in any comic books, television, or film violate that central core.

Defining Castlevania's core mythology is a bit trickier due to certain liberties Igarashi had taken late in the series.  But if you go back to the origin, it was always about the Holy Belmont Warriors storming the Demon Castle to hunt Count Dracula.  And even the Igarashi games, with all of their liberties, built upon that core mythology.  Therefore, we believe the Belmont vs Dracula rivalry is the very thing that defines Castlevania.  For whatever reason, Lords of Shadow's writers brazenly disrespected that core to a point far beyond reasonable artistic liberties.

The story (including the DLC) is about the denigration and desecration of Gabriel, the Holy Belmont Warrior --as he is ultimately transformed into the villainous Dracula.  Considering Gabriel is the only Belmont, and Marie died without bearing him an heir --the Belmont Clan died with her.  Therefore the entire Belmont vs Dracula rivalry has been completely destroyed.  Moreover, Satan's presence further undermined Dracula's supreme villainy.

I hope that explains why we reject Lords of Shadow as a reboot/replacement for the Akumajo Dracula games we've been playing up until now.  It simply doesn't respect the source material as any honest reboot should.  And even Cox is admitting "it's not an Akumajo game" and "it's a separate universe" --so it's up to Konami to reposition LoS so it can coexist with a continuing line of Akumajo Dracula games.

Does Castlevania even need a reboot?  Yes.  We acknowledge Konami has legitimate problems marketing these games to younger generations that never grew up with Simon Belmont.  Rebooting would give these new players a fresh entry point into the Akumajo Dracula universe --and ultimately help revive the Castlevania brand.  There is one caveat however --it was irresponsible for Konami to take us down this road before giving the existing continuity proper closure.  Half a dozen games have been whetting our appetite for the 1999 Demon Castle War --and we expect Konami to deliver on that promise before any additional reboots are attempted.



[Sumac]

It simply doesn't respect the source material as any honest reboot should.

Honest reboots must only use basic outline of the story and that's that (LOS did that). There is no neccesity to adhere to the past ideas as if they were sacred and untouchable - that is the meaning of the REboot.

[KaZudra]

Honest reboots must only use basic outline of the story and that's that (LOS did that). There is no neccesity to adhere to the past ideas as if they were sacred and untouchable - that is the meaning of the REboot.

to be honest, most of these people don't even know what a reboot is.

[Ghetto-blasteR]

to be honest, most of these people don't even know what a reboot is.

i don't think it's as precisely defined as you're implying. the artist doing the reboot is at liberty to keep or disregard as much of the old material as he chooses. that's all there is to it.

cecil, this is also why the people who created LoS probably don't really care that O:A thinks it diverged too much from the "core mythos". unless you can somehow get O:A to represent the majority of fans. but i wonder if that's possible. using very loose logic... the people who care most about the original story are probably the old school fans, and honestly it doesn't seem like they're going to cater to them anymore. the new gamers probably care a lot less about the reboot.

(despite not liking the reboot, i for one still think the LoS story is great on its own. yes, even that belmont = dracula. i'm sure at least some number of people out there don't mind this either.)

[Flame]

I went into LoS with an open mind and accepted everything it threw at me. LoS as a whole is a creative liberty with Castlevania. I jist went in with that mindset, enjoying it for what is is, and not based on "how faithful" it is. The story is far from perfect, granted, and in fact the transition to Dracula in the DLC just seems too rushed, (it's something that would have been better with more time to see Gabriel fall deeper and deeper into darkness. Not just suddenly turn into a merciless killer in the snap of a finger. Perhaps a sequel would have been better for this, or depending on how the sequel will go, in flashbacks or exposition) But in all, it wasn't too bad at all. Just your classic fall to darkness story.

Hell, it's almost like a creative reinterpretation of  Mathias Cronqvist's origins and transformation. EG: A former knight loses his beloved and becomes Dracula. (Only this knight wasn't a complete immature douche about it, and not quite as insane)

Which in turn is inspired by Brahm Stoker's Dracula.

[cecil-kain]

Honest reboots must only use basic outline of the story and that's that (LOS did that). There is no neccesity to adhere to the past ideas as if they were sacred and untouchable - that is the meaning of the REboot.

"Castlevania means different things to different people" -David Cox
”For me, Castlevania was always about lone warrior battling supernatural creatures with a whip.” -David Cox

These quotes clearly illustrate that David Cox defines Castlevania much differently than we do.  It's also interesting to note that he's never really talked about the original storyline --or even Dracula-- being any inspiration to him whatsoever.  As a matter of fact, it's just a little shocking how callous he seems toward the Akumajo continuity --and its fans.

"Forget what you know, or think you know, about Castlevania."  -David Cox
"We can’t make games for such a narrow audience and keep the series relevant." -David Cox

But just for curiosity's sake, how would you define "the basic outline of the story" when it comes to Castlevania?

to be honest, most of these people don't even know what a reboot is.

i don't think it's as precisely defined as you're implying. the artist doing the reboot is at liberty to keep or disregard as much of the old material as he chooses. that's all there is to it.

The term "reboot" is not clearly defined, but there are many other examples we can look to throughout comic books, film, and television...  I gave Batman as an example, but we could also discuss the reboots of other iconic mythologies like the Transformers, Star Trek, or Hulk --all of which respect their source material by the way...

cecil, this is also why the people who created LoS probably don't really care that O:A thinks it diverged too much from the "core mythos". unless you can somehow get O:A to represent the majority of fans. but i wonder if that's possible. using very loose logic... the people who care most about the original story are probably the old school fans, and honestly it doesn't seem like they're going to cater to them anymore. the new gamers probably care a lot less about the reboot.

(despite not liking the reboot, i for one still think the LoS story is great on its own. yes, even that belmont = dracula. i'm sure at least some number of people out there don't mind this either.)

We're not interested in reaching the people that made LoS --those folks at Mercury Steam have a mandate to go their own way.  And like I've said before, we have no objection whatsoever to seeing LoS continue.  What we object to is seeing Akumajo Dracula discontinued --and that issue needs to be taken up with Konami directly.  As for winning the majority, that's a tough sell.  So many of these recent games have muddied the water so badly, that Castlevania really does mean different things to different people.  If this fanbase is so fractured and so petty, that we can't even agree on the basics --then Operation: Akumajo surely deserves to fail.  And if it does, it's not likely another Castlevania fan operation will ever be attempted.

[Sumac]

I went into LoS with an open mind and accepted everything it threw at me. LoS as a whole is a creative liberty with Castlevania. I jist went in with that mindset, enjoying it for what is is, and not based on "how faithful" it is.

Bravo!!

These quotes clearly illustrate that David Cox defines Castlevania much differently than we do.

No need to generalize. I more or less support this idea of what Castlevania is.
While Dracula is a big part of the mythos I always felt that the series could become much more if it threw away its old formula where the Dracula is a centerpiece villain. There is many other dark monsters in the world for Belmonts to fight to, and besides in later years Dracula value as main villain was really cheapened by the fact that practically everyone and they mother defeated "the most powerfull dark creature in the world that could bring an End of the World and plunge it into darkness". His cheap ressurection almost every 15 minutes didn't help either. He should be a formidable powerfull monster, not a scarecrow of a final boss for every game.

As a matter of fact, it's just a little shocking how callous he seems toward the Akumajo continuity --and its fans.

He is a new developer - he has right to do with the series what he want to do. Not everyone like it, but I don't want to bash him for having his own perception of the series. Especially if his games take place in different continuty alltogether. Such approach doesn't bother me at all.

But just for curiosity's sake, how would you define "the basic outline of the story" when it comes to Castlevania?

Belmonts fight monsters in the world. Dracula is an ultimate powerfull villain who's presence is not mandatory in a every single instance of conflict.
He should be like a supervisor for forces of darkness. He controls them, but not present every time, when Belmonts bash his forces or attacks one of his strongholds. And he must have many charismatic liutenants like Carmilla, Orlox, Bartley, Reaper who could take mantle of the final boss in some instances. And maybe some rivals who fight him for dominance (Galamoth).

I gave Batman as an example

Considering how much interpretations Batman had in the past I don't think that is a good example.

So many of these recent games have muddied the water so badly, that Castlevania really does mean different things to different people.

I'd say it's not a bad thing if everyone could find something in the series that hook them up.
The biggest problem in this case is that with so many various ideas of what the series should be, it would be hard to please absolutely everyone within the fanbase. Exactly what we have here.

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

Gabriel is only a Belmont by name, he's not a true Belmont.
In fact, he's a Cronqvist, sooooooooooo not really a Holy Warrior, though he does start out that way (even his order isn't really holy).

I'm not sure what Konami is going to do with Castlevania.  I just hope it doesn't languish for years the way some of their other properties have.

[Kingshango]

I posted a theory on how the Belmont clan could still live on despite Gabriel being Dracula in the LOS megathread. I'd repeat it here but im a lazy bastard, plus it will most likey be buried alive, which is a shame since it's a good theory.

[X]

I posted a theory on how the Belmont clan could still live on despite Gabriel being Dracula in the LOS megathread. I'd repeat it here but im a lazy bastard, plus it will most likey be buried alive, which is a shame since it's a good theory.

What is buried alive in Castlevania eventually rises with the next resurrection