Topic: Let's talk about "The Dracula problem."

[Jazz Paladin Productions]

From a Castlevania standpoint I don't think I'd ever say that the series has ever exactly been  known for it's A-grade story ("Die Monster!"). Consequently, it's never really needed much depth in terms of a villain.

As such, and as stated previously, Dracula is pretty much just "there" out of necessity. Ever since the beginning, I never really expected much out of him. The essence of his existence can be primarily summed as his being the Big End to whipping my way through countless hordes of ghouls, spirits and undead, living only for me to defeat him. 

Ultimately, the series has always been more about style, gameplay and music. I don't think it can ever stand on its own as a story, and shouldn't really try to take itself too seriously as such, as it's never really been about that.

Just my two cents. Carry on.

[Belmontoya]

Calm down man.  Don't get mad over fictional characters.

You are also misunderstanding my point pretty considerably.  I know Dracula was the reason the series caught on, I even touched on that in my original post.  Dracula as a villain is about as 2-Dimensional as exists in the western canon.  At least that is what he has become.  Of course that worked up to SoTN because that kind of storytelling worked fine for NES/SNES games.  Nobody wanted more from games as a storytelling medium.  But that certainly changed right around the time of Playstation 1.  And continues to change, as gamers expect more and more from games as a storytelling medium.

Now, I have always been a gameplay first kind of guy, so it doesn't take much away from me if a story is very basic, and the gameplay is great.  But this topic is specifically directed at the series potential in storytelling.  A good story doesn't make a a bad game good, but it certainly makes a good game better.  Now, this problem of Dracula's cultural image has been dealt with in varying ways.  Iga tried to make him into a different character, a "Dracula in name only" kind of situation, and he was far from the first person to do this with the Dracula story.  LoS did the same thing.

But the difference in the two approaches is one seemed to be aware that Dracula as a menacing figure has somewhat diminished in the public eye, so he didn't try to make us think of him all that much, and used more in the sense of "Generic big bad"  he gave him a tragic story, that was essentially ripped right from the movie Bram Stoker's Dracula.  While the other tried to lean into a cultural idea that doesn't really exist that much anymore... Dracula as a dramatic, prolific character.

My question is this.  How should he be handled in future Castlevania stories?  Do you really want the two demensional, evil for evil's sake character of the old, virtually story-less games?  Or is their a way to make him a great, dynamic character, a truly great villain while still holding on to baggage the name Dracula brings with it?  It is not just Castlevania that has tinkered with Dracula's image, it is not even close to the most prolific use of the character.  But in the world today Dracula is seen as a cheesy, cartoonish character.  If you deny that, I don't really see the point in having a conversation, as you are using your opinion of the character and holding it up as the primary image most people have.  So what to do?  If you have an idea please do tell.

I'm not misunderstanding your point. You're not the first person to bring this up around here and it's not the first time I've gotten heated about it. Sorry for getting worked up. This and CV4 are buttons of mine that I tend to be a dick on the internet about. Sorry.

But let me clarify a little.

I don't consider Dracula a fictitious character. I consider him what he is. A real historical, terrifying man, who has had fiction written around him. Like Adolf Hitler.

The vampire myth works well for him because his body was never found. And it is rumored that he would eat his supper while watching his impalement victims suffer. And of course there is the rumor that he dipped his bread in the blood of his enemies. The vampire shoe fits nicely with him, so stoker gave it to him.

Few of the movies or games about him get his story right, and make him as terrifying as he actually was. When you stack the vampire myth on top of his real past, he becomes one of the most intimidating villains imaginable. That is what CV should have done with him in my opinion.

But CV built itself around him. Taking him out of the equation would be a major mistake in my opinion and at that point if the CV name were to stay in the title, you need to make a sub title like Mig has done with The Lecarde Chronicles. It takes the focus off Dracula and puts it on the protagonist while still letting the player know that they can expect classic Castlevania gameplay.

But further more, I think people expect storylines to hand you every detail these days. Giving an explanation for everything rips the mystique out of a plot. Horror films of the past got this right more often. Some films today still manage to pull it off, but they are rare. A good story doesn't mean that every character needs a backstory and motive. When the viewer has to use their imagination to fill in blanks in a storyline it can have a bigger impact on them and make the story seem bigger and scarier than it otherwise would be. Good writers know where to leave these voids in a story.

I think Dracula in fiction is best handled this way. Leaving his past a mystery doesn't validate the real history, and it also doesn't deny it.

Just take Iago from Othello. He seems to enjoy evil just for the sake of it. That doesn't make him less of a fleshed out villain. In fact it makes him one of Shakespear's most sinister villains.

It shows when these types of voids are used tastefully as opposed to just lazy writing. Watch Herzog's Nosferatu. It tells us virtually nothing about the Vampire but still gives us glimpses of his humanity and loneliness. But it doesn't come off as weakness. It turns a common human emotion into a driving force of evil. It's brilliant.

Sorry, I'm in a ranting mood today. And sorry again for being a dick!

Basically I think CV should have made a small connection to Vlad the Impaler, and left Dracula's backstory a mystery from there. Which is basically what Stoker did. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. Use it as a strength. 

[AlexCalvo]

I think you make some really good points, and in the right type of game that would be a fine way to handle the character, but I just want to make 2 quick comments.

1. There is a fine line between giving every detail of a character's backstory, and producing a bland 2 dimensional, undeveloped character.  I am the school of thought that an undeveloped character can almost never be interesting, or powerfully effect the story they take place in.  You need to care about characters, good or bad, love them or hate them, but if you don't know them at all, they have no weight to throw around the story.  That said I think Iga was very far from over exposing Dracula's background.  We know nothing of his time before the crusades, though it is heavily implied he was already involved with dark magic, we know virtually nothing about what he did between LoI and the events leading to Cv3.  All we know is that his fall started with the death of his wife.

2.  I think the idea of holding Dracula, the fictional character, as Vlad III is pretty tenuous at best.  Given that Bram Stoker had plotted out most of the story before he even landed on the name Dracula.  For most of the writing process he was referred to as Count Vampyr.  There certainly is a connective DNA between the two, but I think it is much weaker then some would argue.  Stoker's own notes seem to imply that he just wanted his Dracula to be of relation to the notorious family, and not just Vlad.  So I think demanding that all versions of Dracula make him Vlad are a little unfounded, as this connection is never directly made in Stoker's book.

[zangetsu468]

1. There is a fine line between giving every detail of a character's backstory, and producing a bland 2 dimensional, undeveloped character.  I am the school of thought that an undeveloped character can almost never be interesting, or powerfully effect the story they take place in.  You need to care about characters, good or bad, love them or hate them, but if you don't know them at all, they have no weight to throw around the story.  That said I think Iga was very far from over exposing Dracula's background.  We know nothing of his time before the crusades, though it is heavily implied he was already involved with dark magic, we know virtually nothing about what he did between LoI and the events leading to Cv3.  All we know is that his fall started with the death of his wife.

Mathias was pretty fucked up (in a good way for an antagonist) to me. He basically sacrifices Leon's betrothed to a powerful Vampire so that Leon will destroy him and he can claim their soul. This after God took his own spouse/betrothed/whatever is quite messed up in more ways than one. We don't even see the guy until the end of the game, he's still that "cloaked in mystery" character even prior to becoming Dracula. (It also fits his character that he was a war tactician which could be one  explanation as to why he's such an efficient ruler who is rarely seen.) Short of him and Leon being brothers, I don't think the end to a brotherhood and the start of a millennium-long rivalry could have been any more tragic. (If you want a much better example of a similar tragic story, please read the Berserk manga's golden arc or watch the full anime series - portraying this better imho)

Having said all of this, I don't believe Dracula needs to be handled like this in every single game. Iga was making an origins story to fit his timeline and substantiate his own canon (with Legends going out the window canonically). As much as I like Iga's origins story, maybe for every other game he should remain shrouded in mystery until the end, akin to Ganondorf from TP.
As I've mentioned CoD's Dracula was badass, with barely 5 - 10 minutes in the game at all, and it worked!

To be fair most of the older and newer CV titles carry one thing in common, one thing that always intrigued me with every Cv title the anticipation of Dracula. The game we are playing building to that final point, rather than focusing purely on the characterisation of Dracula himself. Although imo some games did this more than others and they did it well:
- LOI: Origins story, the man himself is still cloaked in mystery until the bitter end.
- 64/ LOD: Guardian of his spirit/ Malus seen in snippets until the true being is revealed.
- AoS: Building up the return of a Dark Lord only to find

(click to show/hide)

SPOILERS

at the end of the game.

The best analogy I can think of: this anticipation is like the anticipation of making love/having sex, it's often more of a driving/motivating force itself than the end point. It keeps the experiencer interested via their own imagination rather than divulging all facts about the antagonist (as Belmontoya said). Plus this analogy seems to fit because there's no denying there's always been sexual connotation to the allure of The Vampire, particularly to do with biting women on the neck. (But that's a story for another time).

So yeah, in conclusion Julius Belmont said it best himself that hearing the name of "Dracula" struck fear into him. "Dracula" is largely associated with fear. It's not how tall, looming or "cliche evil" he necessarily is. It's that through the legends - themselves which are so terrifying - passed down about him, he has instilled fear into the hearts of countless men who wouldn't even know him.

[X]

My question is this.  How should he be handled in future Castlevania stories?  Do you really want the two demensional, evil for evil's sake character of the old, virtually story-less games?  Or is their a way to make him a great, dynamic character, a truly great villain while still holding on to baggage the name Dracula brings with it?

Dracula was never the type of villain who was 2 dimensional. It seems that way but he's actually got a very complex story behind him--Both Bram Stoker's fictional Vampire, and his real life counterpart; Vlad III. CV needs to go back to this Dracula. It's what it started out with. The Japanese love their emo villains so (unfortunately) Dracula got caught up in the mess. But before SotN he was a villain who pulled no punches. He didn't waste time talking out his feelings. He only wanted to do one thing and one thing alone; Ending you, the hero. The only exception was Alucard for being his only son. That's how far it should have gone and where it should have stayed. Dracula has no intimate business with the Belmonts. They're nothing more then a barrier--a hindrance to his ultimate goal.

[theplottwist]

Dracula was never the type of villain who was 2 dimensional. It seems that way but he's actually got a very complex story behind him--Both Bram Stoker's fictional Vampire, and his real life counterpart; Vlad III. CV needs to go back to this Dracula. It's what it started out with. The Japanese love their emo villains so (unfortunately) Dracula got caught up in the mess. But before SotN he was a villain who pulled no punches. He didn't waste time talking out his feelings. He only wanted to do one thing and one thing alone; Ending you, the hero. The only exception was Alucard for being his only son. That's how far it should have gone and where it should have stayed. Dracula has no intimate business with the Belmonts. They're nothing more then a barrier--a hindrance to his ultimate goal.

Man, that's one critique I absolutelly don't get.

Dracula gets an emotional character development in TWO games: SotN and Lament. In SotN it's his son, in Lament it's his turn to darkness, his tragic origin story, which makes sense to me - only something very tragic to turn a man of lawfulness into a demon of the night.

In ALL the others he's portrayed just like the genocidal maniac with a god-complex we expect him to be. But people (*glares at X*) keep saying he's being "emo", that he was "ruthless" before SotN. When he's just as ruthless after SotN. His CoD character development is literally "Humans are shit, I'm a god. You're shit too, you'll die".

Also, pre-SotN Dracula was as bidimensional as it comes - Big vampire wants to kill everyone because reasons. Get up there and kill him.

This is such a silly critique, IMO.

[zangetsu468]

But before SotN he was a villain who pulled no punches. He didn't waste time talking out his feelings. He only wanted to do one thing and one thing alone; Ending you, the hero. The only exception was Alucard for being his only son. That's how far it should have gone and where it should have stayed. Dracula has no intimate business with the Belmonts. They're nothing more then a barrier--a hindrance to his ultimate goal.

Really, then why did he not bite and turn Soleiyu or Annette when he had the chance? Why even give the Belmonts that were after him a chance to reclaim their loved ones? FYI the first level's track on RoB/ XX is called "Opposing Bloodlines", if that's not indicative of something intimate between Dracula and the Belmonts damn near 600 years after LOI then I don't know what is.

[X]

Man, that's one critique I absolutelly don't get.

If you don't get it that's fine.

Dracula gets an emotional character development in TWO games: SotN and Lament. In SotN it's his son, in Lament it's his turn to darkness, his tragic origin story, which makes sense to me - only something very tragic to turn a man of lawfulness into a demon of the night.

The real life Dracula had just as much a tragic backstory (if not more-so) then IGA's replacement did. Believe me on some level I feel sorry for the guy from what he was forced to go through.

In ALL the others he's portrayed just like the genocidal maniac with a god-complex we expect him to be.

True enough. No argument here.

When he's just as ruthless after SotN. His CoD character development is literally "Humans are shit, I'm a god. You're shit too, you'll die".

And that's true as well.

Also, pre-SotN Dracula was as bidimensional as it comes - Big vampire wants to kill everyone because reasons. Get up there and kill him.

Well he is the embodiment of all that is evil in CV so yeah. But he's still far from being a typical 2D villain.

This is such a silly critique, IMO.

There's nothing silly about expressing yourself on a subject. If you felt that someone or someones' altered your favorite villain or hero to suit their personal views you'd be just as much up in arms as anyone else. Be mindful of others as they would be of you.

Really, then why did he not bite and turn Soleiyu or Annette when he had the chance? Why even give the Belmonts that were after him a chance to reclaim their loved ones? FYI the first level's track on RoB/ XX is called "Opposing Bloodlines", if that's not indicative of something intimate between Dracula and the Belmonts damn near 600 years after LOI then I don't know what is.

When I said intimate I was referring to family. In this case that of Dracula and Alucard. The Belmonts don't have that kind of relationship with Dracula, especially since IGA canned Legends.

[zangetsu468]

When I said intimate I was referring to family. In this case that of Dracula and Alucard. The Belmonts don't have that kind of relationship with Dracula, especially since IGA canned Legends.

From LOI's script:

Leon Belmont, a courageous man who feared nothing and whose combat abilities were second to none, and Mathias Cronqvist, a genius tactician, whose learning made him an exception in a largely illiterate society.

They trusted each other completely, and they were bound by an old friendship.

Leon: You wretched fool.
Mathias: What?
Leon: Is this what the woman you loved would have wanted? The Mathias I know would not have loved such a woman.

Mathias and the Belmonts will not meet again for hundreds of years....

The years before their next meeting pass slowly and quietly, but with finality: the intermission in this exquisite play from which two souls will never escape.

Absolute fucking bollocks. Leon knew Mathias prior to him being Dracula which makes it all the more meaningful and tragic they have to keep destroying him over and over.

[Dracula9]

The gist of the point seems to be "the name Dracula automatically connotates cartoony 'I vant to suck your blood, vwa ha ha!' mental images and themes and because of this his consistent appearances in a series about his bachelor pad is holding that series back."

(Obviously I'm poking some fun, but that's basically how I'm interpreting it.)

If this is remotely accurate, then it's a ridiculous point. The connotations of the name Dracula will not be the same for one person as they are for another, and trying to insinuate as such is just silly.

I hear that name, and I'm drawn to mental images of a ruthless warlord from the fifteenth century who drenched his countryside in the blood of his enemies mostly because their leader took him as a political hostage as a kid and killed several of his family in political assassinations. And some religious zealot reasons too, probably.

The person beside me might be made to think of Bela Lugosi in a cape and fangs.

The person beside them might be thinking of Gary Oldman rocking a sharp Victorian suit and sultry Romanian accent.

The dude way in the back of the room eating nachos could be thinking of whatever the hell that thing in Blade III was.

The woman in the bathroom could imagine Adam Sandler in that animated movie her kids enjoyed.

See where I'm going with this? Everybody connotates something differently.

Dracula as a character isn't really holding anything back. The recycled formula that shows up throughout most of the series, on the other hand...an argument could be made there. But the specific reasons detailed in the OP of this thread, as far as I understand them (if I'm understanding them properly, that is), are not solid or well-founded enough to justify the primary claim of the argument.

Do correct me if I've misinterpreted that particular point, as I'd prefer not to discuss based on faulty interpretations.

[Belmontoya]

You're absolutely right.

I, like you, think of the warlord.

My daughter is gonna watch a movie before bed tonight and she just asked to watch the Dracula movie. She thinks of Adam Sandler...

For Castlevania I don't know what to think anymore because they muddled him up into a bunch of blah blah blah.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

The gist of the point seems to be "the name Dracula automatically connotates cartoony 'I vant to suck your blood, vwa ha ha!' mental images and themes and because of this his consistent appearances in a series about his bachelor pad is holding that series back."

(Obviously I'm poking some fun, but that's basically how I'm interpreting it.)

If this is remotely accurate, then it's a ridiculous point. The connotations of the name Dracula will not be the same for one person as they are for another, and trying to insinuate as such is just silly.

I hear that name, and I'm drawn to mental images of a ruthless warlord from the fifteenth century who drenched his countryside in the blood of his enemies mostly because their leader took him as a political hostage as a kid and killed several of his family in political assassinations. And some religious zealot reasons too, probably.

The person beside me might be made to think of Bela Lugosi in a cape and fangs.

The person beside them might be thinking of Gary Oldman rocking a sharp Victorian suit and sultry Romanian accent.

The dude way in the back of the room eating nachos could be thinking of whatever the hell that thing in Blade III was.

The woman in the bathroom could imagine Adam Sandler in that animated movie her kids enjoyed.

See where I'm going with this? Everybody connotates something differently.

Dracula as a character isn't really holding anything back. The recycled formula that shows up throughout most of the series, on the other hand...an argument could be made there. But the specific reasons detailed in the OP of this thread, as far as I understand them (if I'm understanding them properly, that is), are not solid or well-founded enough to justify the primary claim of the argument.

Do correct me if I've misinterpreted that particular point, as I'd prefer not to discuss based on faulty interpretations.

Once again D9 says what I'm thinking.

You rock.

[zangetsu468]

When I think about SOTN Drac and the fact his attire is more eccentric, it doesn't surprise me as his English voice and character seem slightly white-poet-warlord (though more serious and stern) than Seinfeld's J. Peterman

[Belmont Stakes]

So it sounds like basically there are two issues here. First, making Dracula so innocuous and almost nonexistent to the fact that when you least expect it he appears. Second when he does finally appear, fighting him ranges from difficult to him actually putting the Akuma in Akumajou Dracula. Does that about cover it?


Side note, a quality CV fighter would be most welcome in my world.

But that goes without saying. Even still. YES I SAID IT!!!!!

[Lumi Kløvstad]

Side note, a quality CV fighter would be most welcome in my world.

Serio answered your prayers some time ago bruv.