Topic: Bloodlines Dracula's Second form is Drolta??

[Nagumo]

I think this rumor spread because of Mr P's site. But I have to admit, it would make sense to me. Why introduce her to the story but not kill her off? Doesn't that leave an unneccessary loose end to the story since she could just revive Elizabeth again? I believe the Japanese manual (Drolta's description) says she created the Armor boss from the first stage, so in that case she had at least an indirect confrontation with John and Eric.

[X]

I personally think it happens something like this: You fight Dracula and kill him. Then Drolta appears and fights you. After you slay her she uses the last of her powers to bring Dracula back into the fight; offering herself as a blood sacrifice so to speak. But the gameplay itself is a little up in the air with this as it shows after Dracula's first defeat, him becoming that small cloaked sorcerer. But that could just be flashy graphics which is what SEGA never got tired of doing.

[Ahasverus]

Drolta's artwork looks almost exactly like that "form"





I've always liked the twist, but if it's fake it would be a great change you brought upon the community.

[Inccubus]

I personally think it happens something like this: You fight Dracula and kill him. Then Drolta appears and fights you. After you slay her she uses the last of her powers to bring Dracula back into the fight; offering herself as a blood sacrifice so to speak. But the gameplay itself is a little up in the air with this as it shows after Dracula's first defeat, him becoming that small cloaked sorcerer. But that could just be flashy graphics which is what SEGA never got tired of doing.

That's a fine rationalization story-wise, but I have to disagree. If they wanted to convey that she comes in to back up dracula they could have done that. Instead they choose to go to the trouble of animating a complex (for the time) transformation sequence. That hardly seems like it's up in the air. After all they didn't even bother doing a transformation sequence for Elizabeth -> Medusa/Gorgon. That right there is up in the air as there's nothing to indicate whether it's a transformation or a summoning.

Look & Compare:

Elizabeth Battle

Dracula Battle

Drolta's artwork looks almost exactly like that "form"





I've always liked the twist, but if it's fake it would be a great change you brought upon the community.

Other than both having a dark blue cloak, I don't see it. Sorry. I see a lot more differences than similarities.

And, thanks. I've always had a thing for truth and accuracy that only got stronger after my divorce. When I saw this I felt compelled to raise my voice. I dunno, maybe I shouldn't be so pedantic, but I couldn't help it this time.

[Shiroi Koumori]

I just read the character description on Drolta.
It just said that she is a puzzling old witch who serves under Elizabeth. She uses monsters as puppets and she hinders vampire hunters.
There is no mention whatsoever about her being Drac's 2nd form.

[Inccubus]

Thanks! 

[Successor The Cruel]

I just read the character description on Drolta.
It just said that she is a puzzling old witch who serves under Elizabeth. She uses monsters as puppets and she hinders vampire hunters.
There is no mention whatsoever about her being Drac's 2nd form.

I wouldn't expect there to be. Graham Jones' AoS profile says nothing about him believing himself to be Dracula.

I'm just sayin'.... I don't really feel one way or the other about this whole thing. I can see where both sides are coming from.
While there are differences in the Drolta artwork and that sprite, there are a lot of similarities and both kind of give off a very similar impression, in my opinion. There are a lot of inconsistencies in games from artwork to sprites. Take, for example, Symphony of the Night. The Dracula encountered at the beginning of the game is not wearing the clothes his dialogue portrait has, and Richter has a completely different outfit and hairdo.

But if that is meant to be Drolta, then the transition from Dracula to her then back to Dracula was very, very hamfisted and confusing.

[Inccubus]

I wish we could get some official word on it from someone who actually worked on the game.

[Donvermicelli]

I can't find anything in the manual that says so either, but it not being in the manual doesn't make it untrue.
Time has proven that manuals are/were often outdated/incomplete/not covering so I'm not sure about this either way.
I have to agree though that the 'story' seems plausible and the artwork is similar but that's about it.

[Inccubus]

That's more true for the US versions of manuals, no? It's always been my observation that the Japanese versions of manually are more properly used to expand on the story. The US versions seem to often 'make shit up'. I still don't think there's enough similarity between the art work and the sprite. I mean literally the only thing is the hooded robe. The skin color is different, there's no hair, there's no sign of the purple under-robe. The story is plausible, but not any more plausible than Elizabeth tuning into Medusa vs. Medusa being summoned. On the other hand the animations in the game do support the more consistent (with the rest of the series) idea that it's simply one of Dracula's forms and further matches his backstory in CV3/LotDC where Dracula is specifically said to have been a powerful sorcerer.

[Lelygax]

As i said before, you are right for wanting to know the truth. We need someone to translate Dracula's profile from the manual so we can be 100% sure that the manual doesnt say that he helped him in the last battle.