Topic: Yet another rumor: IGArashi making 3D game for 3DS

[DragonSlayr81]

That's why I said almost. The villain is not Dracula like in Rondo, this time he is only the final boss.

Like in, well, the first CV, Simon's Quest, Dracula's Curse, Super CV4... hence because he's JUST the final boss in those games, they must not be TRUE CV games. LOL!

[crisis]

Wrong; there'is no heroes there. It could be a whole village of pixies and it would be the same.

They're still confirmed Belmonts, so your previous statement "there are no Belmonts" is still wrong buddy.

That's why I said almost. The villain is not Dracula like in Rondo, this time he is only the final boss.

Uhh.. Dracula was always the final boss..

Sorry but if I must accept THAT story, I really want a brilliant gameplay... and the gameplay was, actually, more or less the same.

If it ain't broken...

Only because it was the "last" proper castlevania game in the timeline.

"Last proper game?" What does that even mean. Fanboy criticisms aside, I like to deal with facts, & the facts state that all the other Castlevania games released are real Castlevania games made by Konami.

[shelverton.]

Portrait of Ruin is as far as "proper Bloodlines sequels" go. Don't expect IGA or anyone else to ever touch Bloodlines again, unless there's a remake or something in the future. I wouldn't hold my breath for that either though.

[darkwzrd4]

OoE it is NOT a Castlevania game for me. There is no Belmonts, no Vampire Killer and almost no Dracula...

And the manga-like story of "Sorrow" is awful written and highly intrusive.

OK, mister Igarashi, if you are going to make another Vania, please, please, please, make a proper sequel to Bloodlines or the battle of 1999... without anime style design. And, you know, try to make the game less repetitive and more challenging.

I dont beg too much!!!

Please, Dracula was more the villain in OoE than in most other games.  I mean everything was driven by Dominus, which was made from Dracula's power.  So, in essence he was involved from the very start of the game, which isn't the case in most games.

[CristopherLee]

Like in, well, the first CV, Simon's Quest, Dracula's Curse, Super CV4... hence because he's JUST the final boss in those games, they must not be TRUE CV games.

You don't understand what I mean. The only valid example of that list is "Simon's Quest" that is, you know, awful, but because other very different reasons. The motivation of the hero in most of the classic Castlevania games is to kill Dracula because he has already been resurrected. In most of the IGA games you must stop his resurrection, then he appears and die in a very embarrasing way. I'm sick to see the poor count being reincarnated during thirty seconds. In bloodlines the story was "original" for its time and it was a noble attemp to conciliate the games with the book so I accept it. And, you know, Elizabeth Bathory "the bloody countess" was a great villain.

Actually, I would have no problem with a Castlevania game without Dracula as the final boss as long as he remain important to the plot. Remember that he is supposed to re-appear each 100 years, no each month.

Please, Dracula was more the villain in OoE than in most other games.  I mean everything was driven by Dominus, which was made from Dracula's power.  So, in essence he was involved from the very start of the game, which isn't the case in most games.

That's a logical point. But, you know, I'm starting to get bored of Dracula being only "a figure to kill", instead of a plot-maker. In that game the only REAL villain is Albus that is another DIFFERENT character. And the "Dominus" is more a thing than a character.

They're still confirmed Belmonts, so your previous statement "there are no Belmonts" is still wrong buddy.

But they don't act like Belmonts. It was more an easter egg than anything else.

If it ain't broken...

...dont destroy it with horrible storylines.

"Last proper game?" What does that even mean. Fanboy criticisms aside, I like to deal with facts, & the facts state that all the other Castlevania games released are real Castlevania games made by Konami.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Castlevania 64 is not on the timeline anymore and the "sorrow" games have not Dracula at all. So, the last "proper" castlevania game in the timeline is still bloodlines.

Portrait of Ruin is as far as "proper Bloodlines sequels" go. Don't expect IGA or anyone else to ever touch Bloodlines again, unless there's a remake or something in the future. I wouldn't hold my breath for that either though.

I must admit I never played PoR.

[crisis]

Actually, I would have no problem with a Castlevania game without Dracula as the final boss as long as he remain important to the plot. Remember that he is supposed to re-appear each 100 years, no each month.

It was never set in stone that "Dracula should only ressurect once every hundred years." It was stated that he only comes back when peoples' faith in God is weakened. And him coming back each month like you say is exaggerating quite a bit.

But they don't act like Belmonts. It was more an easter egg than anything else.

They "don't act like Belmonts" because you don't play as them, and them being part of the holy bloodline was a huge plot point if you were paying attention. I even recall one of them talking about their vampire-hunting lineage.

...dont destroy it with horrible storylines.

Actually nothing got destroyed, but to each his own.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Castlevania 64 is not on the timeline anymore and the "sorrow" games have not Dracula at all. So, the last "proper" castlevania game in the timeline is still bloodlines.

CV64 & LoD are sideline or "gaiden" stories in the timeline, the only game that's really omitted/retconned is Legends (to my understanding). And to say Dracula has no part of the Sorrow games is very arguable.


Your definition of what's "proper" is questionable, I must admit.

[Ahasverus]

Actually, I would have no problem with a Castlevania game without Dracula as the final boss as long as he remain important to the plot. Remember that he is supposed to re-appear each 100 years, no each month.

This.

However I think the 100 years rule must dissappear, but that doesn't mean that every game Dracula must appear. I think it would be more important to have him developed as a character, as a myth in various side stories (IE: Not fighting him directly) to make him the real prince of darkness.

That won't happen in IGA's timeliene though

[SIRHardle]

Not entirely true, as in the original timeline there's a gap between LOI and CVIII that pretty much could focus only on Dracula.

[uzo]

But they don't act like Belmonts. It was more an easter egg than anything else.

You clearly haven't talked to the grandma then.

Not to mention during this time, the main family was missing.

[Hanniballistic]

...dont destroy it with horrible storylines.

Please, tell me, what Castlevania had a GREAT storyline?  Until Lords of Shadow, all we had was text scrolling at the beginning and a few conversations with other characters (sometimes not even that!).   Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with this, but I never thought of the storylines as good.

[CristopherLee]

Please, tell me, what Castlevania had a GREAT storyline?  Until Lords of Shadow, all we had was text scrolling at the beginning and a few conversations with other characters (sometimes not even that!).   Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with this, but I never thought of the storylines as good.

I prefer no plot at all (AKA "Super Castlevania IV") than a very bad one (AKA "Dawn of sorrow")

Merry Christmas toall!

[Reinhart77]

speaking of Dracula novel tie-ins, they still need to do a game with Van Helsing.

[Foffy]

speaking of Dracula novel tie-ins, they still need to do a game with Van Helsing.

There's a Van Helsing game, which is just an awkward Castlevania-esqe title of sorts. It even references the Belmont family.

[SIRHardle]

There's a Van Helsing game, which is just an awkward Castlevania-esqe title of sorts. It even references the Belmont family.

I automatically thought of LoS for some reason. hehehe! xP

[CristopherLee]

There's a Van Helsing game, which is just an awkward Castlevania-esqe title of sorts. It even references the Belmont family.

That awful game was based in the awful Stephen Sommers movie that was, actually, a total rip-off of Castlevania and Solomon Kane.

THIS is the one and only ABRAHAM VAN HELSING that Reinhart77 was talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Van_Helsing