Topic: My take on a Pre-IGA timeline

[Nagumo]

Yes, that's indeed what I'm arguing. Once again, it's quite clear the game was marketed as a new series in Japan. I have provived two sources, one of which is a magazine advertisement, that outright state this. Regardless of the rest of my theory being true or not, it's unreasonable to call that into question at this point.

It's called Castlevania in Europe or America, but so what? They're different regions and they prioritise the series differently. Castlevania must have been stronger there than Akumajou Dracula was in Japan, and it's Japan that we're talking about here. What went on in Europe or America is besides the point because different people were in charge there and they had their own motivations for marketing the game in the way that they did.

Indeed the game seems grounded in the Castlevania universe and it's consistent with what came before, but again, what's the relevancy here? If the suits at Konami wanted the game to be a different series because they thought it would have otherwise damaged the Akumajou Dracula brand they're not going to be stopped by the fact the Belmonts are mentioned in the story. And if they make that decision then that's what becomes the policy, unless someone with some sort authority, like IGA, can revert it.

[AlexCalvo]

The way I look at it is that if it is continuing the same story, in the same universe, with the same gameplay style, enemy types, atmosphere, and outright states that it is a continuation in game... it is the same series.  It even has the entry hall from castlevania 1 as its first stage, and a theme of simon remix.  Some marketing execs who have some ads printed up calling it a new game doesn't change that.  I can find you a magazine scan that says Castlevania Adventure is about Simon, does that make it so?

Are you of the mind that if the suits at konami were to proclaim right now that SoTN for instance was not a game in the castlevania series, would it cease to be?  That seems to be the logic you are putting forward.  I find it really strange that you take these magazine ads as somehow more of an authority than the game itself.  As I don't see how anyone could argue that the game was not obviously made to be a Castlevania game, given the numerous connections already listed.  I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[zangetsu468]

I think Nagumo and Alex both made valid points. Given the in-game elements which to me supersede most things, it seems to be more of a marketing thing tailoring specific products to markets and key demographics. For instance Dracula has always been one of the world's most famous mythological figures, before the internet.. How many people have read Dracula in Europe and the US as opposed to Japan? I would hazard a guess despite the numbers that Europe/ US would be considerably more. This may account for one of the reasons why it wasn't aimed in the same manner at the Japanese audience (originally).

Are you of the mind that if the suits at konami were to proclaim right now that SoTN for instance was not a game in the castlevania series, would it cease to be?  That seems to be the logic you are putting forward. 

Isn't this exactly what Iga did with Legends, COTM and 64/ LOD?

[AlexCalvo]

IGA never said the retconned games weren't Castlevania games, just not a part of his official timeline.  I think it is a pretty distinct difference.

[zangetsu468]

IGA never said the retconned games weren't Castlevania games, just not a part of his official timeline.  I think it is a pretty distinct difference.

Yes but in context there was only one continuum of Castlevania games at the time.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting part of the debate, but Gaiden seems to translate multiple ways as Nagumo suggested. So even if it was intended as a side story or spin-off in Japan, is it that big of a deal?

[Nagumo]

The way I look at it is that if it is continuing the same story, in the same universe, with the same gameplay style, enemy types, atmosphere, and outright states that it is a continuation in game... it is the same series.  It even has the entry hall from castlevania 1 as its first stage, and a theme of simon remix.  Some marketing execs who have some ads printed up calling it a new game doesn't change that.  I can find you a magazine scan that says Castlevania Adventure is about Simon, does that make it so?

Are you of the mind that if the suits at konami were to proclaim right now that SoTN for instance was not a game in the castlevania series, would it cease to be?  That seems to be the logic you are putting forward.  I find it really strange that you take these magazine ads as somehow more of an authority than the game itself.  As I don't see how anyone could argue that the game was not obviously made to be a Castlevania game, given the numerous connections already listed.  I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Yes, but what it ultimately comes down is what Konami thinks about it. The point of this thread is to discuss what their stance was on continuity before IGA came around, isn't it? We can't have that discussion if the authority figure  in this case is simply dismissed. I agree it's clearly was intended as a Castlevania game, and making the game a different series comes across as messy, but I think that is besides the point.

About Simon being in Adventure, that was a decision made by Konami of America. I think the consensus on this forum is that the view of Konami of Japan is always the most legitimate one when it comes to matters like that. I suppose you could say Bloodlines was always canon as far as Konami America and Konami Europe were concerned. I wouldn't argue with that.

Vampire Killer being made into a separate series was done because it benefited Konami at that time, though. No company that I'm aware of would retroactively decide to market a product differently unless this would benefit them financially in some way. I assume that afterwards they could care less about how it was viewed because Symphony of the Night ended up saving the brand, a game which was originally a gaiden as well, and IGA had already meant SotN to be a set-up of some sort to Bloodlines. So when SotN turned out to be more popular than the "main entry" Castlevania 64, those types of games ended up being the default, and IGA seized this opportunity to make the timeline he created during SotN's development the official canon of the series.

[AlexCalvo]

Sorry, I guess it's just a difference in how we view it. As zengetsu said in game stuff trumps everything else, and I think most people would agree with me on that.  Also I don't think that a couple magazines scans and some dudes unconfirmed blog info are enough evidence to trump the obviousness of it being a castlevania.  I also think this idea that it can be a castlevania in one country and not another oa a little ridiculous.  But I can see this discussion isn't going to go anywhere. So I think I will bow out here.

[Nagumo]

Of course it looks like a Castlevania game because it was originally developed as such, but later it was decided to be a different game. I have outright proven this. A magazine with important ties to Konami (not just "some magazine") and even the advertisement itself say it's a completely new game. What more evidence do you need? You can't just dismiss this because in your opinion the game looks like a Castlevania game and therefore it must always have been a Castlevania game. Whatever the intention may have been beforehand, it became irrelevant after it was decided to rebrand the game. Why? Because Konami is the owner of its intellectual properties and so they are the ones who decide how they are managed. That's not seeing things differently, that's how things work.

[Shinobi]

I'm quite agree with other opinions that the magazine exaggerated a bit about the games info even in the japanese publications. Also I just checked the japanese manual for Bloodlines/Vampire Killer, in the story manual it mentioned something like Belmont was blood related to Morris, not really fluent in japanese but I'm familiar with katakanas as well as few kanjis and I spotted the word "Belmont"(Berumondo), "of Blood"(no chii) and "Morris"(Morisu) Altogether in one sentence, even in John Morris' profile also mentioned that he's some sort of related with Belmonts by blood so it's evident that Vampire Killer or Bloodlines was a part of "Akumajou Dracula" despite the title was "Vampire Killer", you can see the two manual scan I marked with red box to see what I mean.

[zangetsu468]

Firstly, was Simon actually in Adventure in the US version? I found a magazine ad for it once and posted it on the dungeon, but I figured it was a very early ad and they had assumed it was Simon or just said so to sell the game. Does the US manual say it's Simon?

A magazine with important ties to Konami (not just "some magazine") and even the advertisement itself say it's a completely new game. What more evidence do you need? You can't just dismiss this because in your opinion the game looks like a Castlevania game and therefore it must always have been a Castlevania game.

He's saying that aside from the Morris clan having been descended from Belmonts - which Shinobi's post backs up - there are certain things in the game (beyond key gameplay elements like candles and whipping) such as the first level of Bloodlines being the first level (and ruins) of Castlevania 1 - up until the room with the werewolf. This is probably the biggest one in my eyes. It's difficult to ignore things of this manner as they infer continuity. If I'm understanding Alex correctly, if I'm not he can correct me. (that rhymes)

I think there are a lot of semantics going on here though. So I can't read Japanese but let's assume the game was a Gaiden, intended as spin-off series. So it's a gaiden, intended as a different series in Japan but looks like Castlevania, plays like Castlevania.... If it looks like... (I know there's a joke about the graveyard duck in here somewhere).

In the end I'm not really seeing what the punch line is. I understand Nagumo's evidence, but I hear what Alex is saying. I find myself indifferent and can only think that for example if tomorrow Nintendo states in its own Direct that Super Luigi U is no longer canon to the Mario series, then it's not. However, it seems so specific and trivial given the games key elements, gameplay aesthetics and how the game feels, would anyone be paying attention to this? People are inclined to believe things by experience is what I'm trying to say. I would've welcomed a series of games with the Bloodlines feel. So even if it was intended in X way, it's been taken as Y by the most of us. It's not something I personally view as problematic. (Hell, a lot of people don't even consider Curse of Darkness to be canon to Castlevania.)

If it was a spin-off series but based in the same universe AFTER the original CV series, that makes more sense to me given John Morris walks through the original Castlevania's ruins in the first level.

[Nagumo]

If it was a spin-off series but based in the same universe AFTER the original CV series, that makes more sense to me given John Morris walks through the original Castlevania's ruins in the first level.

I think it was similar situtation as Legends getting removed from continuity. Except this case, it was Konami suits removing the game from the series because they didn't have faith it would live up to the brand. For all intents and purposes, it was a full-fledged, canon, Castlevania/Akumajou Dracula game. But the powers that be prevented this from happening, at least until IGA brought it back into the series. That's why all the obvious Castlevania reference are still present in the game. So I don't think that, for example, the fact that the Belmont family is mentioned, condradicts what I'm saying. After all, Alucard being mentioned in Legends does not make the game canon, either. It's the same deal with Vampire Killer.

In the end I'm not really seeing what the punch line is. 

This is a good question. Indeed, it hardly matters in the grand sheme of things. However, I think it partially helps explaing CV64's stance towards continuity. My theory is that CV64 was a sequel to past Castlevania games (suprise, suprise) but that it ignored Vampire Killer/Bloodlines. Back then, CV64 was the "main entry" of the series and SotN was a gaiden, just like Vampire Killer. Therefore, I think CV64 was supposed to be the "legitimate" continuation of the storyline, and thus ignored the gaiden games, namely Vampire Killer and SotN. I think that's why, for example, Reinhardt Schneider's surname wasn't Morris. Or even better, why they didn't simply called him "Quincy Morris" and made the game a prequel to Bloodlines. It might also explain why Renon mentions a "impending global war", which seems to me like a piece of dialogue from a previous version of the game, which apperently had a WWI setting.       

[zangetsu468]

I think it was similar situtation as Legends getting removed from continuity. Except this case, it was Konami suits removing the game from the series because they didn't have faith it would live up to the brand. For all intents and purposes, it was a full-fledged, canon, Castlevania/Akumajou Dracula game. But the powers that be prevented this from happening, at least until IGA brought it back into the series. That's why all the obvious Castlevania reference are still present in the game. So I don't think that, for example, the fact that the Belmont family is mentioned, condradicts what I'm saying. After all, Alucard being mentioned in Legends does not make the game canon, either. It's the same deal with Vampire Killer.

Thank God for Captain Iga then.

This is a good question. Indeed, it hardly matters in the grand sheme of things. However, I think it partially helps explaing CV64's stance towards continuity. My theory is that CV64 was a sequel to past Castlevania games (suprise, suprise) but that it ignored Vampire Killer/Bloodlines. Back then, CV64 was the "main entry" of the series and SotN was a gaiden, just like Vampire Killer. Therefore, I think CV64 was supposed to be the "legitimate" continuation of the storyline, and thus ignored the gaiden games, namely Vampire Killer and SotN. I think that's why, for example, Reinhardt Schneider's surname wasn't Morris. Or even better, why they didn't simply called him "Quincy Morris" and made the game a prequel to Bloodlines. It might also explain why Renon mentions a "impending global war", which seems to me like a piece of dialogue from a previous version of the game, which apperently had a WWI setting.       

True it does make sense in context when the facts are laid out. I don't have an issue with this being the intention at the time.
I kind of wish CV LOD/ 64 was part of the timeline, but I think the alternate timelines are just as cool.

[Inccubus]

I agree with Nagumo about the Konami execs probably being the ones that decided to spin Bloodlines off into a gaiden by way of marketing.
As we have all likely heard, the dynasty of Konami's suits has done much more drastic and unreasonable things to their own employees, let alone their IP.
That said, Bloodlines was clearly developed to be part of the CV series, just set in a much more modern time than any previous title had.

(click to show/hide)

#Fuckonami

[Shinobi]

Vampire Killer or Bloodlines is still originally intended to be a part of Akumajou Dracula or Castlevania in Japan as it still shares not just the similar style of gameplay but also uses the same elements from the previous games, Dracula is also the villain, Belmonts was mentioned in the storyline, remix from the previous games etc. Unlike the cancelled game Ark Hound for famicom which is not originally a Contra game and not even promoted as a part of Contra series in Japan. Aside of similar gameplay, there's still a zero resemblance from the previous Contra games, no mention of previous heroes like Bill Rizer, no aliens, no Red Falcon, etc. Only became a part or a spin-off of Contra series when the game was released as Contra Force in the US.

[Nagumo]

Vampire Killer or Bloodlines is still originally intended to be a part of Akumajou Dracula or Castlevania in Japan

Yes, I'm not denying that. But like I said before, the original intention is not what's relevant here.