Topic: "The Dragon Returns" - Castlevania Lords of Shadow Sequel (HERE BE SPOILER INFO)

[Ahasverus]

You mean... we'd have to think for ourselves!? That everything isn't cut and dry? Fuck that noise!

We're defending bad writing now? I've seen it all.
No, we don't have to /think/ for ourselves, we have to fill all the gaps and plot holes the "writers" didn't give a fuck about in an effort to make a slightly coherent story. Slightly.
But I agree with you about the mistery, I always love me some mistery, as Chaos in the old series for example, or the breinhartds in the new one, things that are important but are not explained just add to their myth. We need more of those!

[EstebanT]

What does anyone think about my post? Does it sound convincing or... Do I sound like a conspiracy theorist?

[DragonSlayr81]

Oh come on, that's the dept YOU give to it, the games never hinted at something like that, even Dracula is kinda amnesiac, pathetic, he's not consistent, the Belmonts are complete cardboard cuts, the closest the old series got to an emotional story was Ecclesia.
It was always "hurr bad guy durr good guy hurr oh noes this friend betrays me durrdurr die monster durrdurr why did I fail again doing eaxactly the same as the last 100 years hurrdurr evil never wins".
As i've always said, the old storyline means something due to the stuff we filled with our own imaginations, our own headcannon. The original one is terrible.

It's a passible saga, and I agree, the depth I gave it is my own, but unlike you, I hold no contempt for it's simplicity. It does what it sets off to accomplish to do, good versus evil, good prevails and evil is silenced until evil rears it's ugly head again. I sometimes prefer the simplicity over needless complication or the hur dur plot twists seen in the LoS series. And don't think I'm going easy on IGA's LoI, as I made it clear I would've had greater respect in the Mathias = Dracula thing if they didn't beat around the fuckin' bush and just made him "Vlad", focusing on "How Vlad became Dracula" rather than "Million dollar question: Dracula! Who is it gonna be?!" with the "I seen it coming from a mile away" twist that MS isn't above doing either(I personally hold more contempt for that type of lame ass sleight of hand than anything else, especially if you are trying to make something meaningful and fall back to such lame ass means of storytelling). There's nothing wrong with a good plot twist, but good is keyword here.

[Claimh Solais]

For some reason, I feel like the only guy who likes both means of storytelling in this franchise. I like both the simplistic stories of the original timeline, and the more "complex" stories of LoS. I've always been one to appreciate different takes on a franchise, which is one reason I like DmC so much.

Anyway, I think of the original timeline more in the vein of games like Ico and Shadow of the Colossus, as in they tell what they need to tell in the plot, and that's all. They use the environment and atmosphere to tell the story, not just dialog and voice-overs. And in the end, they leave much to the imagination, which is one of the enjoyable aspects of it.

And then the Lords of Shadow trilogy is more in the vein of games like Metal Gear and Legacy of Kain, being less subtle about trying to deliver an epic story. The atmosphere and environment sets the mood, but the story is more explicitly stated through dialog, narration, and voice-overs, and tries to deliver the complexity in a more in-your-face kind of way, rather than the vague and subtle way the original timeline did.

That's just my view on it, anyway. Don't think for a minute that I believe the original timeline was as well told as either of the Team ICO games. That's just how I view the way their plot works.

[Munchy]

We're defending bad writing now? I've seen it all.
No, we don't have to /think/ for ourselves, we have to fill all the gaps and plot holes the "writers" didn't give a fuck about in an effort to make a slightly coherent story. Slightly.
But I agree with you about the mistery, I always love me some mistery, as Chaos in the old series for example, or the breinhartds in the new one, things that are important but are not explained just add to their myth. We need more of those!

Which is why I said: "sometimes (okay, a lot of the time) it's due to incompetence or someone trying to pick up where someone else left off, not really knowing their original intentions".

It's not a great thing to have to do, and no, none of the Castlevanias really have great stories... but I've found that your own theories about stuff are often more fun that what the developer actually says.

I do like bits and pieces of the explanations they've given in LoS. I like that Dracula and Death have a more tumultuous relationship, and the explanation for the castle being so gigantic and labyrinthine. The plot of the first game also gave me a smile because it's pretty similar to what happens in Ghouls and Ghosts (guy has to save girl's and other peoples souls because of a dick move by Satan or other demonic guy). It's also fun to have God set up as an almost "trickster" kind of character, basically leading Gabriel on to mop shit up and then leave him to dry. Definitely an Old Testament kind of thing to do.

[DraculaFan1981]

We're defending bad writing now? I've seen it all.
No, we don't have to /think/ for ourselves, we have to fill all the gaps and plot holes the "writers" didn't give a fuck about in an effort to make a slightly coherent story. Slightly.
But I agree with you about the mistery, I always love me some mistery, as Chaos in the old series for example, or the breinhartds in the new one, things that are important but are not explained just add to their myth. We need more of those!

And so? Not everyone is looking for the blockbuster experience and some literary gem. A story doesn't have to be explained to death to be good and a certain degree of your own thought is what makes some stories interesting. Not everyone wants their hand held through the entire story. Newer games come along to explain or debunk certain plot holes and if you actually pay attention, it's actually quite decent.

Portrait of Ruin speaks of a prophecy, Wind explicitly stated that the Belmont clan is not to touch the Vampire Killer until 1999, so we have their disappearance in Order of Ecclesia and the Morris Clan as well as Reinhardt Schneider (who has some Bemont blood) and then we have Curse of Darkness fleshing out how it is humanity's evil that is one of Dracula's main sources of power. So no, it's not bad writing, it just requires a lot more attention and connecting the dots. Seriously, this west is best thing gets old, and I've seen thr DMC forums.

Don't get me wrong, I love LoS, I just think that it doesn't take much to understand it and to me, that's a little boring.

People like Munchy and Dragonslayr81 know what their talking about when it comes to the plot of the original series.

[Ahasverus]

And so? Not everyone is looking for the blockbuster experience and some literary gem. A story doesn't have to be explained to death to be good and a certain degree of your own thought is what makes some stories interesting. Not everyone wants their hand held through the entire story. Newer games come along to explain or debunk certain plot holes and if you actually pay attention, it's actually quite decent.

You can have both, and hey, there have been like what, 30 games in the old fashion way? It's nice to see a refreshing of things. I for the love of this fanbase hope with all my heart Konami doesn't abandon the traidional 2D series with no plot and keep making the big blockbuster ones, it's not that I don't like the former, it's that I'd hate for they to replace the latter, buit I'm sure there are people who think the opposite. That's why I hope the old way is not abandoned, there's MONEY to be made, Konami, think about it! (and I know you're watching)
And it's not about the west/east, the only great story I can say west has made in the medium is Legacy of Kain, the other best ones have been japanese.

[theplottwist]

We're defending bad writing now? I've seen it all.

What I wanna ask you is that if you consider mechs on pre medieval times, time machines and mechanical scorpions when no modern electricity-manipulation devices existed (much less AI programming, genetic engineering and time experiments), plot-coupon hunting, oversure of "The World is Brown", excessive out-of-context original-content referencing and predictable plot-twists, a "good writting".

Mind you that I'm not implying anything. This is a legitimate question.
Also mind you that I am aware that the old Castlevanias had elements like I mentioned. But they were a lot more "cynical", as a way of speaking, about them, which made things quite interesting, IMO.

No, we don't have to /think/ for ourselves, we have to fill all the gaps and plot holes the "writers" didn't give a fuck about in an effort to make a slightly coherent story. Slightly.
But I agree with you about the mistery, I always love me some mistery, as Chaos in the old series for example, or the breinhartds in the new one, things that are important but are not explained just add to their myth. We need more of those!

Yes we DO have to think for ourselves for a good story to work. If an author never leaves something to your mind, then there is no use to imagination. Be they plot holes or gaps, or not. The "filling in" MUST exist.

In the case of old Castlevanias, I agree 100% that the "space left for us to think" is only there due to a trainwreck of a development, BUT this is extremelly healthy to the series, and today it is done most likely intentionally for this exact purpose. Players like to hypothesize, to get curious, to explore. When you leave nothing to their minds, what is there to see? Nothing but a bland and forgettable story.

The mistery is important, like you said, VERY important, but so is the *lack* of explanation with no contradiction. No explanation is better than the wrong explanation, and the classic games did it very well, in many points (read well: many points, not all points).

The story of Castlevania is not about the ending/conclusion since CVIII. It is about the way to get there. The most memorable characters (Shanoa, Trevor, Alucard) did not become memorable because "final boss". They became memorable because of the story told between "X character enters castle" and "X character kicks Dracula's ass", and the spaces left for us to wonder.

[Ahasverus]

I'll agree to disagree then, as I don't share any of your points of view, I don't see an intriguing open ended narrative, I only see a disjointed mess.

[crisis]

Screw you guys, I'm going home!!!!

and thus this debate has ended. good points made on both sides though


In regards to Zobech:
The only thing I regret is the "backstory" they gave him. I don't mind him being Lord of the Dead/Necromancers, I just don't like the fact that they made Death a human before he became "Death." I would've instead rather the man named "Zobek" being Death's facade or avatar, similar to the Zead/Death situation in CoD. I know this is subjective, but I like the idea of Death in Castlevania being an ageless, mysterious entity; he simply is, always has, and always will be.

But then there are those that will argue how Death isn't really "Grim Reaper Death," just one of many Shinigami or "Death Gods." Eh, whatever. Like I said, just give me ageless skeleton-in-cloak wielding scythe, using "human form" to walk amongst people when he so chooses. I don't mind the conflict between Dracula and Zobek at all. In fact, I like the idea how Zobek seems to be at odds with Dracula for the simple reason that Dracula defies Zobek's power over him (or does he?), a nice contrast to Death being "Dracula's confidant" in the original canon. After all, Zead did say "nobody escapes me," meaning nobody can escape inevitable death, except for Dracula.

[DragonSlayr81]

Screw you guys, I'm going home!!!!

and thus this debate has ended. good points made on both sides though


In regards to Zobech:
The only thing I regret is the "backstory" they gave him. I don't mind him being Lord of the Dead/Necromancers, I just don't like the fact that they made Death a human before he became "Death." I would've instead rather the man named "Zobek" being Death's facade or avatar, similar to the Zead/Death situation in CoD. I know this is subjective, but I like the idea of Death in Castlevania being an ageless, mysterious entity; he simply is, always has, and always will be.

But then there are those that will argue how Death isn't really "Grim Reaper Death," just one of many Shinigami or "Death Gods." Eh, whatever. Like I said, just give me ageless skeleton-in-cloak wielding scythe, using "human form" to walk amongst people when he so chooses. I don't mind the conflict between Dracula and Zobek at all. In fact, I like the idea how Zobek seems to be at odds with Dracula for the simple reason that Dracula defies Zobek's power over him (or does he?), a nice contrast to Death being "Dracula's confidant" in the original canon. After all, Zead did say "nobody escapes me," meaning nobody can escape inevitable death, except for Dracula.

I actually like that idea, that Zobek IS Death, and that Death predates the being known as Zobek, but became human(or enters the mortal realm under the human guise of a man named Zobek) to initiate the events that lead to the entirety of that which occur in the LoS series. That would actually be pretty fuckin cool.

Yeah, I just don't like the whole "Death ORIGINALLY being a human" idea(it's actually been brought up pre-LoS, when some people came up with the notion that it might be cool to see an origin tale regarding Death when he used to be a mortal man...yeah). Death's Death, the personification of death itself. He's evil in the CV series, but most we associate with death itself as being a sense of finality and the result, of many times, violence, murder, and dark acts of humanity. Even when it's natural it brings sorrow. Pondering our own mortality and realizing that our hours are ticking away instills a sense of fear in us. Death, itself, might be neutral, but so many negative accounts are associated with it, the figure of Death, the reaper, will always be a force of human fear(the most primal fear). 

[Trevorcard]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10153594330990697&set=vb.220827690696&type=2&theater

I don't think anybody posted this. Apparently this a video of Konami community manager answering questions from twitter on Lords of Shadow 2. Not whole lot revealed except that Dracula will be attracted to Carmila and who can blame him and stealth sections seemed to be implied to be in modern sections and the game could be as long as thirty hours due to exploration.

[theplottwist]

I actually like that idea, that Zobek IS Death, and that Death predates the being known as Zobek, but became human(or enters the mortal realm under the human guise of a man named Zobek) to initiate the events that lead to the entirety of that which occur in the LoS series. That would actually be pretty fuckin cool.

Yeah, I just don't like the whole "Death ORIGINALLY being a human" idea(it's actually been brought up pre-LoS, when some people came up with the notion that it might be cool to see an origin tale regarding Death when he used to be a mortal man...yeah). Death's Death, the personification of death itself. He's evil in the CV series, but most we associate with death itself as being a sense of finality and the result, of many times, violence, murder, and dark acts of humanity. Even when it's natural it brings sorrow. Pondering our own mortality and realizing that our hours are ticking away instills a sense of fear in us. Death, itself, might be neutral, but so many negative accounts are associated with it, the figure of Death, the reaper, will always be a force of human fear(the most primal fear).

About the "Death being originally human doesn't work because he was always Death itself on CV universe", I think this also doesn't work. If Death is the concept of death itself, then why can the Belmonts defeat him instead of dropping dead by a mere touch from him? Why does the concept of decay and entropy, possibly the most powerful force on the universe personified, serve a spoiled vampire brat? Death seems too extremelly limited on the CV world to be the very concept of death. He could be death itself personified, of course, and he might play by rules still unknown to us. But that he looks limited, he sure does.

I think Death is an AMAZING character, and on the classic games, he's the one of the only main characters with zero explanation at all. To be so extremelly powerful and end up as a vampire's servant is kind of... Silly. Death serves Dracula because Dracula can kill one whole lot of people? To what purpose? Death could very well stand outside of the whole thing and simply collect the souls, if that's the case. Death serves Dracula because he's "undying"? So what about any other undying creature, why isn't Death serving them? Is it because Dracula has a red peeble? Why is Death bound by this stone, then?

Anyways, I'd love to see Death being explained.

[darkwzrd4]

If it helps, I don't think that Zobek is Death itself in the LoS universe. He is simply the Lord of the Necromancers and thus also the Lord of the Dead. As far as the personification of death goes, I think we need to look at the reaper enemies encountered in the Necromancer's Abyss. From what I remember, according to the enemy description in the LoS1 bestiary, they are physical manifestations of death itself. So, there isn't one, but many.

In other words, there isn't just one Grim Reaper in the LoS universe.


As for the old cannon, it is never explained well other than that thing about him to be loyal to the owner of the Crimson Stone (stupid really).

[Claimh Solais]

As for the old cannon, it is never explained well other than that thing about him to be loyal to the owner of the Crimson Stone (stupid really).

The Crimson Stone, an important plot device that was never mentioned again.

Interestingly, Soma has a red stone around his neck in the Sorrow games. Maybe some kind of reference to the Crimson Stone?