Castlevania Dungeon Forums

The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: Nagumo on August 27, 2017, 02:08:52 PM

Title: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Nagumo on August 27, 2017, 02:08:52 PM
So in order to unlock the best ending in Aria, Soma has to be equipped with the Flame Demon, Giant Bat, and Succubus souls when fighting Graham. However, in the context of the game's story, what difference does this make? I think in all the other games it's pretty clear why peforming certain actions lead to different outcomes but here it seems completely arbitrary. As far as I know, it isn't explained in the game. Anyone got an idea?
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Dracula9 on August 27, 2017, 02:44:36 PM
because dracula's best three powers are fireballs, turning into a bat-creature, and lifesteal

graham was a scrub, he only had fireballs
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: AlexCalvo on August 27, 2017, 05:09:34 PM
I always kind of felt that it was because they were representative of Dracula.  The fire demon and giant bay because duh.  And the Succubus because Dracula has always been portrayed as a seductive figure, and vampires in general are very sexual creatures.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: X on August 27, 2017, 05:51:27 PM
Graham does mention -if you have said powers equipped- as to how Soma acquired those powers.

Graham "How did you come by those powers!?"

Soma "Those powers?"

Graham "I'm Dracula, and you're not the one!"

Though it seems minute if you have said powers Graham notices and thus when beaten, the game's true ending is assured. So long as you don't fail to sever the Chaos connection to the Castle that is.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: redrum on August 27, 2017, 07:42:28 PM
because dracula's best three powers are fireballs, turning into a bat-creature, and lifesteal

graham was a scrub, he only had fireballs
wow, that's actually a really solid answer.  gotta admit, i never gave it much thought.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Dracula9 on August 27, 2017, 09:12:22 PM
And the Succubus because Dracula has always been portrayed as a seductive figure, and vampires in general are very sexual creatures.

(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0EmXAPT.png&hash=9b37a9491c1f3d490abb75f8497dd2fd)

yes dracula's a handsome boy but obviously more important aspect of succubus characteristics are obviously more important

and also just so it's completely clear as to why this shit's important

Quote from: Nagumo
but here it seems completely arbitrary. As far as I know, it isn't explained in the game.

those three souls as I mentioned are Big D's Big Three™

aria explains the whole "claiming the throne" rule and that theoretically anyone can do it but someone stronger can always usurp it

combine the "claim the throne, become master" rule with Big D's Big Three™ and hey look it's the literal reincarnation of dracula's soul and what do you get

literally dracula (in spirit at least) with Big D's Big Three™ claiming the throne and as a result going from "spirit of Big D in a rando kid's body" to "oh hey you have Big D's soul and Big D's Big Three™ and have claimed the throne of Big D's monster castle guess what bitches it's morphin' time only this time you get to keep your clothes and don't change into an obnoxiously bright-colored onesie"

why does this shit matter?

well something something plot progression something something "place which only you, dracula, can go" something something finish the 1999 job and cut chaos off at the source since nobody but dracula and the baddest old man on the planet can go through the door to get to chaos in the first place something something

so there ya go

it's not arbitrary at all really
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Nagumo on August 28, 2017, 12:45:03 AM
I also noticed those souls have the same abilities as Dracula. However, I still don't really get it. Soma absorbs Dracula's powers if he has those souls equipped, but if he doesn't have them this doesn't happen for... some reason, I guess.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: redrum on August 28, 2017, 05:02:22 AM
Big D's Big Three™ sounds like...
a dollar menu combo meal...
from a burned up old restaurant...
in between two questionable porno shops...
and it's only open in the middle of the night, all run by this guy
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.inverteddungeon.com%2Fredrum%2FImages%2Fshopdude.gif&hash=784d046ed9ff9586051090eb3cb96138)
-Big D?
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Dracula9 on August 28, 2017, 08:54:26 AM
I also noticed those souls have the same abilities as Dracula. However, I still don't really get it. Soma absorbs Dracula's powers if he has those souls equipped, but if he doesn't have them this doesn't happen for... some reason, I guess.

Nagu, girl, please tell me you're screwin' with me here

claiming the throne with Big D's Big Three™ while literally being dracula 2.0 tells the castle to give him all his memories and shit back

chaos and the castle are a long-lost dog

Big D's Big Three™ are the special call the dog's owner used to use

one day some dog-abusing shithead picks the dog up and tries to get it to listen to him at the local dogpark

but then the dog hears that special call from its original owner who wound up being there on a hunch

what's that dog gonna do but take off straight to the source of the call and reunite with the original owner

or in nonmetaphorical terms:

having Big D's Big Three™ and being dracula 2.0 make soma better equipped than literally anyone else to reclaim the throne from not-joel-osteen

killing the evil s'more cracker releases all the shit he'd taken into himself, only when it's dracula 2.0 with Big D's Big Three™ the castle recognizes that person as dracula, since presumably just being the reincarnated soul of mathias isn't enough to retake the throne

having the primary powers on top of the reincarnation is the last key in the door for the castle to go "AYY WAIT A MINUTE THERE'S DAD HI DAD" because in the castle's eyes dracula soul + dracula's big powers + killing the throneholder means dad's home
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Nagumo on August 29, 2017, 06:26:13 AM
or in nonmetaphorical terms:

having Big D's Big Three™ and being dracula 2.0 make soma better equipped than literally anyone else to reclaim the throne from not-joel-osteen

killing the evil s'more cracker releases all the shit he'd taken into himself, only when it's dracula 2.0 with Big D's Big Three™ the castle recognizes that person as dracula, since presumably just being the reincarnated soul of mathias isn't enough to retake the throne

having the primary powers on top of the reincarnation is the last key in the door for the castle to go "AYY WAIT A MINUTE THERE'S DAD HI DAD" because in the castle's eyes dracula soul + dracula's big powers + killing the throneholder means dad's home

I suppose that makes sense if Dracula's castle has some sort of conscience (and I suppose there's evidence for this being the case).  Though I still a bit iffy on why this is. How did this end up happening? Did Dracula just wake up someday and decide to give his castle a conscience for some reason? For what purpose?

By the way, I  suppose I could take this thread as an oppurtinty to raise  a couple of questions about stories from other IGA games as well. 
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Dracula9 on August 29, 2017, 09:51:06 AM
i wouldn't really call it a "conscience"

it's why i used the dog metaphor--dogs have minds capable of processing thought and recognition, but we wouldn't consider them to be fully sentient
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: theplottwist on August 29, 2017, 02:22:52 PM
I suppose that makes sense if Dracula's castle has some sort of conscience (and I suppose there's evidence for this being the case).  Though I still a bit iffy on why this is. How did this end up happening? Did Dracula just wake up someday and decide to give his castle a conscience for some reason? For what purpose?

I also think "conscience" is going a bit too far. A "will" is more like it, I think.

And, why else? Having your castle to the hard work of luring and killing hunters for you sounds like a good deal for a Dark Lord with more important stuff to do.

I mean, if I were Dracula, I very much would "program" my Demon Castle to assist on my daily activities. And, of course, "program" it to recognize ME when I show up to take its throne. Just in case. Dracula IS supposed to be a brilliant strategist, after all.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Nagumo on August 30, 2017, 08:05:05 AM
I got another one:

So Barlowe wanted Shanoa to use Dominus on Dracula's seal and break it because it was the only thing powerful enough to accomplish this, right? But then Barlowe manages to accomplish this himself because Dracula gives him power from beyond the seal. Why didn't they just do that in the first place? The only thing I can think of is that Dracula wasn't aware Barlowe wanted to resurrect him until he told Shanoa.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: zangetsu468 on August 30, 2017, 08:55:47 AM
I got another one:

So Barlowe wanted Shanoa to use Dominus on Dracula's seal and break it because it was the only thing powerful enough to accomplish this, right? But then Barlowe manages to accomplish this himself because Dracula gives him power from beyond the seal. Why didn't they just do that in the first place? The only thing I can think of is that Dracula wasn't aware Barlowe wanted to resurrect him until he told Shanoa.

The resurrection was incomplete the way that it happened. I'm certain this was previously covered in at least one other thread.

Because Shanoa refused, Barlowe became enraged and tried beating Shanoa into submission. When this didn't work he pulled a Vegeta, which was the last ditch effort to try and release Dracula. He didn't just do this in the first place because he didn't need to, Shanoa was going to use Dominus (and die in the process) instead. 

Basically the Barlowe MO element is debatable. Majority believe Dracula was controlling Barlowe, Minority believe that Barlowe wanted to resurrect Dracula all along.

My belief is Barlowe planned for Dominus to break the seal, knowing it would take Shanoa's life. At that point, Barlowe himself (or another?) could've potentially been the host body or sacrifice completing Dracula's resurrection in full. Instead Dracula's soul escapes the seal of the vessel and his form resides in the underworld, albeit within Castlevania. As a comparison, this is different to the intro to Rondo, where a woman is sacrificed and Dracula materialises in the physical form instantaneously, and in COD Isaac was the host body.

Whatever one believes the reasoning behind Barlowe/ Dracula's resurrection, it was clear that things didn't go quite according to how they were first planned.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: theplottwist on August 30, 2017, 04:29:33 PM
So Barlowe wanted Shanoa to use Dominus on Dracula's seal and break it because it was the only thing powerful enough to accomplish this, right? But then Barlowe manages to accomplish this himself because Dracula gives him power from beyond the seal. Why didn't they just do that in the first place? The only thing I can think of is that Dracula wasn't aware Barlowe wanted to resurrect him until he told Shanoa.

I want to respond, but first I want you to clarify what do you mean by "Why didn't they just do that in the first place?". What is "that"?

Also, Dracula cannot be aware of who Barlowe is. At the end of the game he is surprised to realize that Shanoa is not his benefactor, indicating he has no idea about who revived him. Whatever happened in that scene, must be some kind of "automatic response" unrelated to Dracula's actual awareness.

Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: zangetsu468 on August 30, 2017, 09:32:58 PM
Also, Dracula cannot be aware of who Barlowe is. At the end of the game he is surprised to realize that Shanoa is not his benefactor, indicating he has no idea about who revived him. Whatever happened in that scene, must be some kind of "automatic response" unrelated to Dracula's actual awareness.

This is why I believe Barlowe wanted Dracula revived. Whether Dracula's remains influenced Barlowe or not can be argued. It can also be argued that Dracula would either find a worthy host body (potentially Barlowe) or the sequence of events occurs as per OOE.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: theplottwist on August 30, 2017, 09:35:31 PM
This is why I believe Barlowe wanted Dracula revived. Whether Dracula's remains influenced Barlowe or not can be argued. It can also be argued that Dracula would either find a worthy host body (potentially Barlowe) or the sequence of events occurs as per OOE.

Considering Barlowe's original description, I highly doubt he wanted to revive Dracula all along.

I mean, sure. After a certain point he wanted to revive Dracula. But I doubt Ecclesia was "founded with this goal" as many believe.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: zangetsu468 on August 30, 2017, 10:45:47 PM
Considering Barlowe's original description, I highly doubt he wanted to revive Dracula all along.

I mean, sure. After a certain point he wanted to revive Dracula. But I doubt Ecclesia was "founded with this goal" as many believe.

Maybe not. However, original character descriptions don't always give away the punchline. Take Mathias' in LOI for example. It's the same thing as using "cinema verité" to conceal a plottwist (puns ahoy).
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Nagumo on August 31, 2017, 02:25:33 AM
I want to respond, but first I want you to clarify what do you mean by "Why didn't they just do that in the first place?". What is "that"?

Also, Dracula cannot be aware of who Barlowe is. At the end of the game he is surprised to realize that Shanoa is not his benefactor, indicating he has no idea about who revived him. Whatever happened in that scene, must be some kind of "automatic response" unrelated to Dracula's actual awareness.

I was referring to that scene where Dracula's power is leaking from the vessel and flowing into Barlowe, giving him enough power to break the seal.

I forgot about the part where Dracula doesn't know who revived him. That makes it even more strange, though. It seemed Dracula was mentally communicating with Barlowe. Or was that just part of Barlowe's insanity?
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: zangetsu468 on August 31, 2017, 06:15:24 AM
I was referring to that scene where Dracula's power is leaking from the vessel and flowing into Barlowe, giving him enough power to break the seal.

Barlowe absorbs the energy and states "Yes my lord, I see. I will destroy the infernal seal with your blessing.. Truly providence that Dracula would honour me with his guidance".

I forgot about the part where Dracula doesn't know who revived him. That makes it even more strange, though. It seemed Dracula was mentally communicating with Barlowe. Or was that just part of Barlowe's insanity?

It seems that since Dracula doesn't know Barlowe, the only sure thing are that Dracula's remains were responsible for influencing Barlowe. The remains have their own effects and influence on even strong individuals. In HoD for example, if Lydie was sacrificed a proper resurrection of Dracula would occur, failing this Maxim could've been the host body, failing this Dracula Wraith manifested from the remains. (The remains in HoD held strong influence over Maxim and yet Dracula Wraith didn't even recognise the Belmonts ).

Perhaps because the remains were gathered together (like the body parts in CVII and HoD), there was a level of sentience and they were trying to escape, thereby releasing their energy into Barlowe, knowing he'd sacrifice himself.



Barlowe: Eccelsia's mission is to realise the singular wish of all mankind: The resurrection of our Lord, Count Dracula!
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Nagumo on August 31, 2017, 12:47:52 PM
Barlowe absorbs the energy and states "Yes my lord, I see. I will destroy the infernal seal with your blessing.. Truly providence that Dracula would honour me with his guidance".

Yes, so why doesn't this event occur before Shanoa and Barlowe fight? What was the point of needing Dominus to free Dracula if Barlowe managed to do it just fine without it?
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: zangetsu468 on August 31, 2017, 02:22:43 PM
Yes, so why doesn't this event occur before Shanoa and Barlowe fight? What was the point of needing Dominus to free Dracula if Barlowe managed to do it just fine without it?
The answer is desperation. Allow me to elaborate though..
I've explained most of it in previous posts: According to Barlowe's plan, Shanoa was supposed to use Dominus to break the seal. If Shanoa breaks the seal, Barlowe could've become Dracula's host body, meaning that he can manifest in the physical world (like Dracula did when he used Isaac in COD). This didn't happen, meaning there's no host body, no sacrifice etc. Therefore Dracula's resurrection is incomplete, and he resurrects in Castlevania but beyond the gates of hell/ the underworld, meaning he's not yet completed his resurrection.

The second component to all this is the dark energy itself and what it is in that particular scene you mentioned before, where the energy comes into Barlowe  - I believe this is chaos. After Barlowe tells Shanoa that Ecclesia's purpose is Dracula's resurrection and Shanoa answers back, Barlowe says something to the effect that Dracula returns because of the "evil inside of people's hearts", then the dark energy comes to him emanating from Dracula's remains. Right when Barlowe says this is where the energy transfer occurs and I believe this is not accidental, it was part of the script. 

The exact logistics of how this scene works are open to interpretation.. My assumption is:
At this stage Barlowe absorbs the energy and talks to "Dracula" calling it his power and saying he will use this power to break the seal. However it doesn't seem he was communicating with Dracula at all, he assumed Dracula was giving him energy when the energy (chaos) emanating from the remains was simply transferred to him, as a final effort to break the seal. It seems like it was an act of desperation (from the remains/ their will) seeing that it wasn't what was initially planned. Barlowe simply believed this was an act of Dracula's will, because he believed in resurrecting Dracula.

Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Nagumo on September 02, 2017, 04:29:54 AM
Hmm, I don't really agree with the interpretation that Dracula revived in the underworld. This isn't directly supported by the story itself. If it were true, you would think this would have been stated explicitly in the dialogue. (Which in Castlevania's case is always heavy on exposition, so the stories tend to spell things out directly for the audience instead of leaving it open to interpretation).

Anyway, how about this one? Mathias' goal in LoI was to obtain a vampire's soul so he could become one himself and thus obtain eternal life, correct? Why couldn't he just have absorbed the soul of a minor vampire who is easy to kill? For example, why not take Joachim's soul? Mathias was in the same room when Leon defeated Joachim, so why didn't he do it?
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: zangetsu468 on September 02, 2017, 07:02:27 AM
Hmm, I don't really agree with the interpretation that Dracula revived in the underworld. This isn't directly supported by the story itself. If it were true, you would think this would have been stated explicitly in the dialogue. (Which in Castlevania's case is always heavy on exposition, so the stories tend to spell things out directly for the audience instead of leaving it open to interpretation).

Shanoa: "There are magic energies coursing through this room... If that statue is Cerberus, then this must be the gateway into Hell. I just need to figure out how to unseal it..."

It can't get more explicit.

I digress.. You're drifting away from your initial question.

What you believe re: the events of OOE doesn't alter Barlowe's motives. His aim was to resurrect Dracula, simple enough, which initially Shanoa was meant to do for him by using Dominus on the seal. The simplest reason being that (1) he didn't initially believe there was another way to break the seal aside from using Dominus and (2) Given the choice, he wouldn't use his own life. The Dominus method was the "correct method", while the method which was used in the end was not initially foreseen by Barlowe. But in the end he'd rather see Dracula resurrected because the he couldn't defeat Shanoa, so he had no choice but to use his own life.

I also feel the "Why didn't Barlowe just self destruct prior to the Shanoa fight?" is not a good one. He obviously didn't previously have the means to break the seal (aside from Dominus) which is why the entire Shanoa>Albus>Dominus escapade started with the game's prologue. By the end of the Shanoa fight, Barlowe is spent and seems weak, when -let's call it- "Chaos" enters his body, he remarks about being re-energised/ power restored and then proceeds to give his own life, he had no other options.

If you focus on the underworld/ hell component then you've lost sight of your initial question. The only thing this component being a factor could explain is whether Dracula's resurrection is incomplete. If one discounts this component then that uncertainty is no longer a factor.

FYI, you, myself and plottwist discussed this 2 years back http://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/index.php?topic=8243.15 (http://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/index.php?topic=8243.15)

Anyway, how about this one? Mathias' goal in LoI was to obtain a vampire's soul so he could become one himself and thus obtain eternal life, correct? Why couldn't he just have absorbed the soul of a minor vampire who is easy to kill? For example, why not take Joachim's soul? Mathias was in the same room when Leon defeated Joachim, so why didn't he do it?

To do with Mathias, are you referring to this: https://youtu.be/ue_vmHmcT9g (https://youtu.be/ue_vmHmcT9g) at 10:20 timestamp? (If this is even Mathias inside the room, I'm not sure if it is why he appears translucent..)

However, there could be several reasons why (assuming at this point that Mathias is already in possession of the stone and it is him). Initially Mathias asked Leon to join him to curse and defy God, Mathias is tactician he knows to expect all outcomes and plan for the worst. Joachim was not enough power for Mathias.

Perhaps Mathias initially believed Leon may attempt to kill him upon finding out he was responsible for what happened to Sara. This is plausible imo, Mathias he probably wasn't aware whether the Ebony Stone would shatter, presuming Leon would defeat Walter. He then fled purely because of daybreak, leaving Leon to Death. If the Ebony stone wasn't destroyed them I'm sure Mathias would've taken no issue using Walter's power to fight Leon (taking the ebony stone for himself also).

The Joachim fight could've been a testing ground for Mathias to observe Leon. Why not just opt for the higher power in any case? Mathias doesn't seem like he'd do something half-assed and Walter is clearly the superior power.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: theplottwist on September 02, 2017, 10:36:15 AM
Hmm, I don't really agree with the interpretation that Dracula revived in the underworld. This isn't directly supported by the story itself. If it were true, you would think this would have been stated explicitly in the dialogue. (Which in Castlevania's case is always heavy on exposition, so the stories tend to spell things out directly for the audience instead of leaving it open to interpretation).

lol I still want to answer this one but time is not allowing me. I'll give a TL;DR of what my answer is: Barlowe was still not fully corrupted to properly wield Dracula's power.


Quote
Anyway, how about this one? Mathias' goal in LoI was to obtain a vampire's soul so he could become one himself and thus obtain eternal life, correct? Why couldn't he just have absorbed the soul of a minor vampire who is easy to kill? For example, why not take Joachim's soul? Mathias was in the same room when Leon defeated Joachim, so why didn't he do it?

Because he wanted a powerful vampire soul. He clarifies that in the end of the game.

Plus, I'd not want to capture the soul of a minor vampire, and then risk having a more powerful one coming after me to take the stone away. Suppose Mathias captured Joachim, that would become a risk when Walter went after him and the stone. Rinaldo does say these stones are the treasures of the vampires.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Nagumo on September 02, 2017, 11:02:31 AM
Because he wanted a powerful vampire soul. He clarifies that in the end of the game.

In the Japanese version he just says he wanted a vampire soul. It seems the "powerful" part was slipped in by the localization.

Plus, I'd not want to capture the soul of a minor vampire, and then risk having a more powerful one coming after me to take the stone away. Suppose Mathias captured Joachim, that would become a risk when Walter went after him and the stone. Rinaldo does say these stones are the treasures of the vampires.

But Mathias could just discard the stone if he only thing he's interested in is becoming a vampire, couldn't he? IGA really should have included some sort of motivation for Mathias wanting to be the top dog among vampires. Then everything would make sense. 
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: theplottwist on September 02, 2017, 11:04:21 AM
But Mathias could just discard the stone if he only thing he's interested in is becoming a vampire, couldn't he? IGA really should have included some sort of motivation for Mathias wanting to be the top dog among vampires. Then everything would make sense.

Wait, doesn't the stone make you a vampire WHILE you have it? Because that's what I understood to be the case -- you have the powers but are cursed while you wear the stone.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: zangetsu468 on September 02, 2017, 04:40:34 PM
Suppose Mathias planned to curse God and really live forever, opting for the higher power is planning for the future, which (if you consider Joachim's ending) also means that Mathias would've originally become Lord of Castle Bernhard. (This was discussed in a thread back about 4-5 years),

Consider it this as well, by CV III Dracula has become the "Demon King", meaning he's amassed power and somehow taken that throne and title. Joachim's power would not have been enough to do this in hindsight.

I don't believe Mathias planned that far ahead, I believe he was only thinking about his two threats: Leon and Walter.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: X on September 02, 2017, 11:43:01 PM
Quote
I don't believe Mathias planned that far ahead, I believe he was only thinking about his two threats: Leon and Walter.

Leon wasn't a threat to Mathias until after he turned down the offer to join him. Mathias believed that his friendship with Leon would have been enough to convince him to take up sides and renounce God together, but to no avail as Leon flat-out refused. An action that Mathias had not anticipated.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Nagumo on September 03, 2017, 07:57:15 AM
Wait, doesn't the stone make you a vampire WHILE you have it? Because that's what I understood to be the case -- you have the powers but are cursed while you wear the stone.

I'm guessing not but who knows? IGA's stories can be frustratingly vague at times.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Holy Diver on September 03, 2017, 01:41:50 PM
Wait, doesn't the stone make you a vampire WHILE you have it? Because that's what I understood to be the case -- you have the powers but are cursed while you wear the stone.
I believe it to be so.
I think I read that in some kind of an manual, but can't remember for the life of me where exactly.
Castlevania Wiki says that it bears the curse of vampirism: http://castlevania.wikia.com/wiki/Crimson_Stone (http://castlevania.wikia.com/wiki/Crimson_Stone)
Still, I can't seem to find their sources, so I can't confirm.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: zangetsu468 on September 04, 2017, 03:29:28 AM
I think the general gist is that possessing the stone comes with vampirism. Providing you absorb a vampire's soul.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Nagumo on September 04, 2017, 03:59:01 AM
Providing you absorb a vampire's soul.

I always thought this was a weird rule. Couldn't IGA have taken the opportunity to connect Lament and Aria's stories and say Mathias used the same soul stealing powers that Soma has to absorb Walter's soul. Plotwise, why is the stone even neccessary? It almost feels like Dracula's powers operate under different rules depending on the game. 
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: zangetsu468 on September 04, 2017, 05:00:41 AM
I always thought this was a weird rule. Couldn't IGA have taken the opportunity to connect Lament and Aria's stories and say Mathias used the same soul stealing powers that Soma has to absorb Walter's soul. Plotwise, why is the stone even neccessary? It almost feels like Dracula's powers operate under different rules depending on the game.

They kind of do I suppose. The Crimson stone itself has ties with Alchemy, as an "object" it's arbitrary, as a plot device it's necessary because Dracula was once human. I would believe IGA didn't want Mathias being turned, because it would weaken him as a character and he'd be a lesser form of vampire from the being that turned him. With the act of absorbing the soul of a powerful vampire without having to become one prior to doing so, it solidifies his place as a mastermind in battle as a game of strategy. He manipulates everyone in the end, well, almost.

I also believe the whole scenario with Sara being turned is indicative of a weaker or lesser vampire. She can't enter Rinaldo's shack (due to the barrier) because she's tainted. Where as Rinaldo specifically states that Walter allows him to be there to help the humans that go after him. Walter, as a higher form of vampire could go into Rinaldo's shack and kill him at any time, he just chooses not to. Walter would be impervious to most attacks, even holy elements, which is evident by other hunters leaving behind weapons such as crosses and holy water.

The fact that Mathias can overthrow the strongest vampire without himself being supernaturally gifted (without the Crimson Stone) states a lot about his character. I don't understand how the soul steal technique would work as a human without some kind of occult , magical or alchemical intervention. If he simply had it, I'm not sure if buy that either as it would mean he should've absorbed Walter's soul before all the events of the game. While my impression initially was Mathias (throughout the events of LOI) could indeed still be crafting or completing the CS, which may also explain why he doesn't absorbs Joachim's soul - should one choose to view it this way.

I always believed that Dracula's "soul steal" may have come from mastering the Crimson Stone over X amount of centuries. In POR we see him actually stealing Death's soul.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Holy Diver on September 04, 2017, 05:21:52 AM
I don't understand how the soul steal technique would work as a human without some kind of occult , magical or alchemical intervention. If he simply had it, I'm not sure if buy that either as it would mean he should've absorbed Walter's soul before all the events of the game. While my impression initially was Mathias (throughout the events of LOI) could indeed still be crafting or completing the CS, which may also explain why he doesn't absorbs Joachim's soul - should one choose to view it this way.

I always believed that Dracula's "soul steal" may have come from mastering the Crimson Stone over X amount of centuries. In POR we see him actually stealing Death's soul.
Don't know if it's true, but I've just noticed this bit on the same page:
Quote
As it turned out, Mathias was in the midst of re-creating the gem. He then had Death absorb Walter's soul...
That would explain soul steal.
Now, about the whole "why didn't he take his soul before the game thing", I'm assuming that it's like pokemon(you have to damage it before capturing it).
Although, I'm unsure why he couldn't use Death to beat the crap out of Ronhill.
Probably because Death isn't strong enough and Mathias "knew without a doubt Leon could acomplish it".
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: zangetsu468 on September 04, 2017, 05:25:28 AM
Don't know if it's true, but I've just noticed this bit on the same page:That would explain soul steal.
Now, about the whole "why didn't he take his soul before the game thing", I'm assuming that it's like pokemon(you have to damage it before capturing it).
Although, I'm unsure why he couldn't use Death to beat the crap out of Ronhill.
Probably because Death isn't strong enough and Mathias "knew without a doubt Leon could acomplish it".

Yes. Mathias did use Leon, what I'm saying is being in the midst of completing the stone explains why he didn't and couldn't absorb Joachim's soul.

I do believe Walter would've had to have been significantly injured for this to happen, he has to be vulnerable. Once Leon had shattered the Ebony stone with Walter's defeat, stealing his soul was basically guaranteed.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Holy Diver on September 04, 2017, 05:53:02 AM
Yes. Mathias did use Leon, what I'm saying is being in the midst of completing the stone explains why he didn't and couldn't absorb Joachim's soul.

I do believe Walter would've had to have been significantly injured for this to happen, he has to be vulnerable. Once Leon had shattered the Ebony stone with Walter's defeat, stealing his soul was basically guaranteed.
Oh, sorry. Just reread it and saw what you meant.
I basically agree with most of what you said.
Still, it virtually doesn't matter if he was completing the CS before or during the game.
Cause he couldn't do it without Leon anyways.
But, nevermind that, we are too far off topic as is.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Nagumo on September 05, 2017, 05:49:53 AM
Moving on to Harmony of Dissonance. Why does the ending change depending on in which castle you fight Maxim? Why are Maxim and Lydie in two places at the same time? 
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: zangetsu468 on September 05, 2017, 07:43:39 AM
Moving on to Harmony of Dissonance. Why does the ending change depending on in which castle you fight Maxim? Why are Maxim and Lydie in two places at the same time?

The Maxim's are two different entities, one is the false Maxim.

Why, because the game is based on outcomes..
How can Maria in Sotn be in about 3 places at the same time.. How come Child Link can fight Majora when the canon dictates it's always Fierce Deity Link, why did the maiden not tell Simon about Dracula's Nail.. #gamelogistics
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: theplottwist on September 05, 2017, 12:01:12 PM
Moving on to Harmony of Dissonance. Why does the ending change depending on in which castle you fight Maxim? Why are Maxim and Lydie in two places at the same time?

Maxim is on the castle in the real world. Evil Maxim is on the bizarro castle.

Evil Maxim is trying to overcome Maxim so he can manifest in the real world. If Evil Maxim is killed before it separates from Maxim, he dies. If you manage to free Maxim from Evil Maxim, he lives.

Lydie can be taken to bizarro castle via portals, just like Death and Juste himself. So this technically isn't a problem in the logic.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Nagumo on September 09, 2017, 08:57:54 AM
Maxim is on the castle in the real world. Evil Maxim is on the bizarro castle.

Evil Maxim is trying to overcome Maxim so he can manifest in the real world. If Evil Maxim is killed before it separates from Maxim, he dies. If you manage to free Maxim from Evil Maxim, he lives.

Lydie can be taken to bizarro castle via portals, just like Death and Juste himself. So this technically isn't a problem in the logic.

I might not have phrased my questions very well, sorry about that. I was wondering why Evil Maxim seperates from Maxim in castle B but not in castle A. I know that this happens because Maxim notices Juste wearing the bracelet he gave him, thus giving him the strength to overcome Evil Maxim. However,  this outcome is impossible to achieve while fighting Maxim in castle A. I was wondering if there was a particular story reason for this.
Regarding my second question, I was wondering if there is a story reason for why Evil Maxim takes Lydie to the center of either castle A or B. In the game this is soley determined by the player's decision, but I don't think there's an event in the story that impacts Evil Maxim's decision about which castle he takes Lydie to. It's a minor thing but I think it's odd.         
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Dracula9 on September 09, 2017, 09:12:13 AM
isn't castle B the castle "made by maxim's mind/will" or whatever?

if i'm recalling right, that might be it--the mind-castle would be more reactive to maxim's emotive state
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: X on September 09, 2017, 11:12:11 AM
If I recall correctly both castle were a creation of Maxim's will coupled with Dracula's remains. However having Dracula's remains also gave rise to a separate spirit. Thus two castle were born; one of the original Maxim and the other to house the other spirit. Death explained it better in-game  :P
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Nagumo on September 09, 2017, 02:57:20 PM
isn't castle B the castle "made by maxim's mind/will" or whatever?

if i'm recalling right, that might be it--the mind-castle would be more reactive to maxim's emotive state

The strange thing is that Maxim is only able to overcome Evil Maxim in castle B (the castle associated with Evil Maxim) and not the castle that is associated with himself. You would expect it to be the reverse.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Shiroi Koumori on September 09, 2017, 11:30:03 PM
The strange thing is that Maxim is only able to overcome Evil Maxim in castle B (the castle associated with Evil Maxim) and not the castle that is associated with himself. You would expect it to be the reverse.

Maybe this is like a symbolic fight where you overcome your greatest fear/evil at its root.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: zangetsu468 on September 10, 2017, 01:11:21 AM
The strange thing is that Maxim is only able to overcome Evil Maxim in castle B (the castle associated with Evil Maxim) and not the castle that is associated with himself. You would expect it to be the reverse.

The thing is there is a sequence of events with with HoD which plays out between the 2 castles. Where as with Sotn it was linear, Normal Castle>Inverted Castle.

HoD is more complex, Death mentioned the two castles were supposed to eventually merge and  they were 2 "layers" or planes of the same castle. Lydia's sacrifice - which never ended up happening in game - was supposed to resurrect Dracula. It's my contention that at this instance (which occurs in the throneroom) the castle becomes "Castlevania" rather than 'formerly Castle Maxim' and this point there is no turning back for Maxim, as the influence of the remains consumes him once the sacrifice occurs. (The notion of the castle potentially becoming CV was touched upon by IGA in an interview from memory).

Dracula's resurrection never happens so the Castles remain unmerged. The next part is more technical; Maxim(A) in Castle A is the original component of Maxim, Maxim(B) in Castle B is the 'influenced' (by the remains; morally weak, evil, etc) component of Maxim. If you fight the original component only, you'd kill the whole Maxim(A) and Maxim(B) also ceases to exist. As opposed to killing Maxim(B) where you fight the 'influenced' portion of Maxim... (However you can still kill Maxim(B) in his entirety unless Lydie's bracelet is worn.)

If what Death says holds water, what happens in one layer effects the other layer, which is what I've explained above. If Maxim(A) dies, his will and both Castles go with it. The reason they've only made Maxim(B) react to Lydie's bracelet is twofold imo:

1) Evil/ 'influenced' (by Dracula, his remains or whatnot) individuals often react unfavourably to "good/pure things" or triggers that resemble them. The way this is handled CV games is by equipping something like a bracelet.

The bracelet resonating with Maxim is what finally purges Maxim(B) out of him, and then the remains resonate - in Castle B only, being associated with chaos, or whatever one wishes to call it.

I do believe if Juste had lost this battle, the castles would still merge, but with Maxim as the host body for Dracula: notice how the remains turn into Dracula Wraith whose second form is (you guessed it) a cluster of actual remains.. If Maxim(B) had won, Dracula would return the way he did with Isaac in COD imo. This may also have happened in Castle A, but it makes little difference if the Castles then merge. 

My take:
Why this only happens in Castle B is because B imo is the "Chaotic" or more demonic side of the castle which is why it's associated with Maxim(B); 2 Maxims with the same will except one is still clinging to good and retaining his humanity(A), while the other(B) is trying to resurrect Dracula, has extraordinary powers (compared to the original, which is the one you play as in Maxim mode) and has almost succumb to the influence of the remains.

Because the theme of the story re: Belmonts is a hero defeating evil/ Dracula, the shit only goes down in Castle B.

I could go more into this but I'm on a mobile device, so I'll try to summarise.. Let's say I'm leaning towards Castle B being the side from which "chaos" (perhaps via the influence of the remains, as we've seen Barlowe undergo in OOE) flows.. Therefore the Maxims(A+B) are the same physical being, fought at the same instance under slightly different circumstances. Fighting Maxim(B) would be like fighting Richter with the Holy Glasses, while fighting Maxim(A) would be like fighting Richter without them.

 
2) There's a logistical quality whereby the developers provide a number of endings. For example, there's no reason stated explicitly as to why Richter Belmont dying causes the Castle to collapse(or both Castles) in Sotn. (Shaft wanted Dracula's resurrection, he was using Richter to ward off other Vampires [and most likely open the seal in the 'infinite corridor' as per plottwist's theory] but in reality Alucard killing Richter should still allow him to progress, but it doesn't.)

Pertaining to my take in (1):
The purely straightforward way to see this outcome is that the Maxim(A or B) battle in the final room is when the 2 castles are starting to merge or overlap (like an eclipse); Either Maxim winning causes the merge, either Maxim losing stops the merge, but if good Maxim(A) loses then Maxim is lost, if 'influenced' Maxim(B) loses then the real ending happens.
I do believe with CV it can be that simple as the gameplay and design will come first with the story to support the themes/ ideas of the gameplay.

Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Nagumo on September 10, 2017, 08:22:15 AM
That seems like such a complicated explanation, though. Couldn't it be simply the case that they messed up the programming and accidentally made it only possible to unlock the best ending in castle B while I should have been castle A?  That way everything would make sense. It almost seems that way if you read the dialogue when you go fight evil Maxim in castle B. He mentions how the real Maxim no longer exists within him and Juste also mentions something about being too late to save Lydie (supposedly because she already got a large portion of her blood drained by evil Maxim). All of this suggests the player got locked into a path to the worst ending. Compare this to the situation in castle A where Maxim is still struggling against evil Maxim and Lydie is unconscious but in better condition. There really is no reason why the best ending shouldn't have occured in castle A which makes me think the programmers pulled a Simon's Quest and messed up the endings.

I know the Double Pack version made some small tweaks to both AoS and HoD. I wonder if perhaps they fixed the endings in that version but nobody ever noticed the difference?     

     
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: zangetsu468 on September 10, 2017, 09:02:23 AM
The last paragraph of what I wrote literally explained the whole thing in a simplistic and concise way.

I think it's more complicated to assume they fucked it up, particularly that this isn't a game that was made in the 80's. The problem with assuming the game ends in Castle A is that you actually need to equip certain items to open up the floor and proceed to the final room in castle B. This seems very intentional, at the time the structure of the game was taking some inspiration from Sotn, down to the final room room of the game being the centre of the map. If you're saying they simply swapped the texts by accident then that explanation is more plausible, but the real ending has to be in castle B imo.

Juste thinking he's too late to save Lydie could be fluff or for a number of reasons (unless that text was swapped). They should've been clearer with the false ending(s). If ending A had some kind of Dracula returns vibe then it would've made more sense.

Don't know anything about those text alterations.

Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Nagumo on September 10, 2017, 10:55:28 AM
The last paragraph of what I wrote literally explained the whole thing in a simplistic and concise way.

Actually, I also don't agree with the solution you came up with because I think it condradicts the story. In both castles you fight the "influenced Maxim". There isn't ending where Juste doesn't fight an influenced Maxim.  But whatever, if my own theory doesn't work either then all I can do is throw my hands in the air and give up. I might be putting more thought into this than IGA and his team did back in the day.   
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: zangetsu468 on September 10, 2017, 03:47:49 PM
Actually, I also don't agree with the solution you came up with because I think it condradicts the story. In both castles you fight the "influenced Maxim". There isn't ending where Juste doesn't fight an influenced Maxim.  But whatever, if my own theory doesn't work either then all I can do is throw my hands in the air and give up. I might be putting more thought into this than IGA and his team did back in the day.

Well you haven't agreed with any of my theories so far, therefore, it's to be expected. I think you've misinterpreted part of what I'd written, ie in the final room you fight Maxim. Both Maxim's are the same entity .. Aye how can I explain this .. Let's say if you go to castle B, castle A's Maxim isn't just waiting there eating a sandwich, essentially the same fight happens on a different 'layer' which determines the ending. It's one castle; two layers. In the ending we see one castle that's crumbled, not two castles, they were occupying the same space in 2 planes - and imo merging throughout the events of the game up to the Maxim battle(s).

Are you okay Nagumo? I know that we don't know one another but in the years I've been on the CVD I don't ever recall you saying that you'd throw your hands up about something.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Nagumo on September 11, 2017, 02:14:18 AM
Are you okay Nagumo? I know that we don't know one another but in the years I've been on the CVD I don't ever recall you saying that you'd throw your hands up about something.

I'm just frustrated because I'm noticing all these plot holes lately, and even though I try my best to resolve them, it only seems to result in more questions being raised. I even haven't mentioned all of them yet.

Anyway, I noticed an interesting difference between the standard castle A and castle B endings.

Castle A:

(https://cdn-ak.f.st-hatena.com/images/fotolife/t/tobari3209/20161018/20161018141255.jpg)

"She lost consciousness but... Somehow I made it in time!"

Castle B:

(https://cdn-ak.f.st-hatena.com/images/fotolife/t/tobari3209/20161018/20161018142846.jpg)

"She is still breathing but... Dammit! Didn't I make it in time?"

When comparing the dialogue, it really feels to me the best ending should have occured in castle A. Even if there was no programming mistake, I'm going to be arrogant here and say in that case the developers didn't understand their own story. 

     
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: zangetsu468 on September 11, 2017, 03:42:14 AM
If that is what you believe though, wouldn't it be more plausible to say they programmed in that one line into the wrong outcome/ Castle? Regardless of what's arrogant I'd say it's more plausible that they misprogrammed one line in the same place(both castles) rather than not understanding their own story.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that [in the event that] everything was as intended in both scripts, the part where Juste questions whether he made it in time refers to him seeing that larval like object (in the background) and believing Lydie's blood has been given to resurrect Dracula/ Maxim as the prospective host body.

What's more is that in the Japanese version Juste questions "Didn't I make it in time?" makes more sense, as opposed to the English translation's "I am too late!", followed by Maxim's "Welcome to the party Juste. You're late." Given the context, the Japanese version makes sense in context as a query rather than a statement.
Here's why:
Influenced Maxim then goes on to state
"Maxim? Oh his spirit no longer lives within me. And I owe it all to that woman. Look at a the strength she's given me".
At first glance this appears it should be the bad ending, however, after the remains resonate, Influenced Maxim states
"As long as I have this power, I have no need for this body! Here, have it!"... i.e. The body that had gained so much power from Lydie.
Dracula Wraith states (to Juste) "I'm not yet stable, but your blood will once again make me whole", Meaning Lydie may have had blood taken, but she wasn't supposed to be dead. Lydie was the initial sacrifice (blood) for Dracula, but suppose when this was interrupted, she was taken to the castle's core instead by Influenced Maxim, who either siphoned her for power or whatever.

So in conclusion I'd assume that perhaps they'd initially written the first piece of dialogue between Juste and Maxim for the opposite ending/ Castle. However, I don't believe the entire script is incoherent. Honestly HoD has shit going on in two places at once and is not the most straight forward story to begin with.

Did IGA ever interview regarding its plot?
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: theplottwist on September 11, 2017, 04:07:23 AM
Alright so here's what I understand from it all. I mean, it was clear as day to me, but I will ask you to point out if there is some problem here.

In summary: For everyone to be saved, the evil spirit must be allowed to grow stronger than Maxim WHILE the remains of Dracula are on his vicinity.

If you approach Maxim from Castle A, Juste arrives in time to save Lydie -- hence his relieved comment. She is not bitten as Maxim is holding off the evil spirit. The ending, too, corresponds to it as no mention of bite marks are made.

However, the huge problem here is that, since Lydie was saved, the chain of events leading the evil spirit to acquire its own body CANNOT be attained. Juste has the relics, but the evil spirit does not have power/presence enough to manifest using them. In other words, if the evil spirit is to be destroyed, it must be allowed to gain enough power to break free from Maxim's body. On Castle A Juste arrives too early for that to happen.

Now, if you approach Maxim from Castle B, Juste is too late and Lydie has been bitten. The evil spirit has now gained power and is THIS close to finishing the deal. Juste fights it, and as we see, now it has power enough (and incentive enough, thanks to the bracelets reawakening Maxim) to break free from Maxim's body and become Dracula Wraith. Remember the story previously? If it dies within Maxim, Maxim dies too. Now that it has its own body, it can die alone by Juste's hands.

So it does make perfect sense for one thing to be attained in one castle and not on the other. On one castle the events unfold before Lydie is bitten. On the other, they unfold after. In one the spirit has not gained enough power to manifest outside of Maxim, on the other it has. On one Maxim holds presence enough to stop the spirit from biting her, on the other the spirit has full control of his actions and can bite her just fine.



Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Dracula9 on September 11, 2017, 04:52:35 AM
aren't we forgetting the best ending where everyone lives

aren't we forgetting the almighty power of furniture here
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Nagumo on September 11, 2017, 04:55:45 AM
Alright so here's what I understand from it all. I mean, it was clear as day to me, but I will ask you to point out if there is some problem here.
 
(snip)
 

I my opinion the solution you're offering contains two problems.

1) Why would Lydie live in the best ending if she dies in the worst ending? 

2) You mention how evil spirit sucking Lydie's blood gives him the power to break free from Maxim. But doesn't that condradict the reason given earlier in the story for why the evil spirit wanted Lydie's blood? He wanted to do it because it would give him enough power to completely surpress Maxim. Therefore, I don't think the evil spirit sucking Lydie's blood has an impact on him being able to break free from Maxim. I actually think the evil spirit has more reason to break free from Maxim's body in Castle A than he would in Castle B. If you interpet the evil spirit's action of breaking free from Maxim as an act of desperation, then he would have more motivation to do this in Castle A because Maxim is still restisting him. Compare this to the situation in Castle B where the evil spirit seems to be in complete control.       
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: theplottwist on September 11, 2017, 05:12:20 AM
1) Why would Lydie live in the best ending if she dies in the worst ending? 

Ignoring the fact that one is literally called "worst ending" and the other "best ending"?

Because the worst ending happens on Castle B, not Castle A. If Maxim dies on Castle A, she has not been bitten. If he dies on Castle B but the spirit doesn't get his own body, then her death is tied to him. The spirit HIMSELF says this, that his death will cause Maxim's and hers. How? No clue. He is not trying to make her into a vampire or something, so I don't know what kinda connection is this that would cause her to die if he dies. The only thing I get from this is that this connection depends on the spirit existing on Maxim's body. Affection? Attachment? Death does imply that Maxim holds Lydie VERY dear to his heart, enough for her blood to be special on this occasion. An attachment that the evil spirit by itself [i.e. on his own body] wouldn't have. Or maybe the spirit commands her death, and does it out of spite on its last moments? But I digress.

Quote
2) You mention how evil spirit sucking Lydie's blood gives him the power to break free from Maxim. But doesn't that condradict the reason given earlier in the story for why the evil spirit wanted Lydie's blood? He wanted to do it because it would give him enough power to completely surpress Maxim. Therefore, I don't the evil spirit sucking Lydie's blood has an impact on him being able to break free from Maxim. I actually think the evil spirit has more reason to break free from Maxim's body in Castle A than he would in Castle B. If you interpet the evil spirit's action of breaking free from Maxim as an act of desperation, then he would have more motivation to do this in Castle A because Maxim is still restisting him. Compare this to the situation in Castle B where the evil spirit seems to be in complete control.       

I got nothing. This is one of the doubts that will get us trapped in an infinite loop of me trying to explain it and you saying it makes no sense.

I see no contradiction whatsoever. It wanted the blood to overcome Maxim. It thought it had done it, but when the remains presented themselves, it saw a better use for the power it acquired from the blood. It's changing its goals as it goes along. It couldn't plan to "leave Maxim's body" before because the best plan at the time was "overcome Maxim". As soon as "leave Maxim's body" became a better plan, it changed goals.

I don't really get why the blood either must give him FULL POWER or NO POWER. Why not "power enough to almost override Maxim and to react to the remains, but not enough to swallow Maxim completelly"? He does say that Lydie's blood granted him power enough to overcome Maxim (but apparently not completelly, considering Maxim's comeback).

The spirit says the blood gave him power. He drank her blood on one ending and not on the other. On one ending he gains a body from the remains, and on the other he doesn't. I think the connection is pretty clear. He gained enough power to leave his body and embrace the remains, but not enough that he could completelly erase Maxim.

He can have all reason to break away from Maxim he wants on Castle A. Without enough power to do it (achieved on Castle B), no dice.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: zangetsu468 on September 11, 2017, 05:15:54 AM

aren't we forgetting the almighty power of furniture here

I think I'm in love with you... (Nothing spells love like the smell of rich mahogany)

The real question is
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: X on September 11, 2017, 09:53:00 AM
Quote
aren't we forgetting the best ending where everyone lives

aren't we forgetting the almighty power of furniture here

And by collecting all the furniture pieces we get that one little snip-it of animation of Lydie leaning against Juste rather then her standing like a statue in the best ending sequence.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Shiroi Koumori on September 12, 2017, 02:25:35 AM
And by collecting all the furniture pieces we get that one little snip-it of animation of Lydie leaning against Juste rather then her standing like a statue in the best ending sequence.

This is the best ending of them all. Since IGA will always go for the best ending as canon, this just proves to us the true power of furniture collecting.  ;)
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Nagumo on September 12, 2017, 08:48:36 AM
I might have thought of an alternate interpretation that doesn't require the endings to be swapped. What if, in the ending of castle A, Maxim is at no point possessed by the evil spirit and decides to fight Juste on his own accord? He does beg Juste to kill him, and after he refuses, Maxim says something like: "then if will make you change your mind!" and then proceeds to attack him. I always thought that last bit was the evil spirit talking (the fact that they used the portrait of evil Maxim could be seen as an indication of that), but now that I think about, it wouldn't really make sense  for the evil spirit to say that. He has absolutely no intention of losing to Juste. If that's the case, that would also explain why Juste wearing both bracelets has no effect on the ending: despite the fact that Maxim is still resisting the evil spirit, he sees no other option than to get himself killed in other to save Juste and Lydie from the evil spirit. Of course, that does raise the question: "Why doesn't Maxim just kill himself then?" but I think the whole "If you won't kill me, I'll make you kill me" thing is a trope that is used in other stories as well. So it's probably possible to justify it.             

edit: Zangetsu already came up with something similar, right? 
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: X on September 12, 2017, 10:02:30 AM
Quote
"Why doesn't Maxim just kill himself then?"

Because suicide is forbidden by God. Reinhardt makes this mention in CV64/LoD. Everyone under the church's influence or teachings would be taught this lesson. Besides which Maxim doesn't harbour feelings of depression which is one the major triggers for suicide. Maxim couldn't kill himself due to his evil counterpart's influence to want to survive at any cost. In order for Maxim to die and save his friends he took the path of least resistance because he knew that the evil entity would also want that as well; to fight Juste. And Maxim  knew that Juste would win against him. He counted on it.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Lumi Kløvstad on September 12, 2017, 01:39:40 PM
Because suicide is forbidden by God. Reinhardt makes this mention in CV64/LoD. Everyone under the church's influence or teachings would be taught this lesson.

This. So much this. Even in the mid-1700's, people seriously took their faith absolutely seriously. Like, it's often scary how seriously people took it, and it's easy to forget that we live in the most libertarian age since the fall of the Roman Empire. In the 18th century, faith made a lot more demands of your life and if you lived in that era, you listened and did those things. It was still almost heresy to wonder why in some areas of the world, though this would be shaken off relatively quickly after -- "relatively" in this case meaning it was pretty much gone by 1901. Seems like a long time to us, but in the annals of history, it's not really that long.

Another thought:

A case could (and probably should) be made that Maxim is one of the bravest characters in the primary canon. All of that started because he wanted to protect his best friend. So he dealt as best he could with this form of mental illness that he had (essentially), helped his friend where possible, and to the end had unwavering faith that Juste would pull through and save everyone. That kind of rock-solid faith is pretty brave in and of itself, plus it seems to be implied that Maxim had been planning to try something like this to save Juste from his fate since before Juste had inherited the Vampire Killer, which would have put Maxim in his early teens when he'd decided to do this (Maxim and Juste are of similar age, and Juste was 16 when he inherited). While young teens in the 18th century were held to far more adult responsibilities, that's still really young. Goddamn Maxim is stupid yet brave. He's Castlevania's pinnacle of stupidly brave.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: theplottwist on September 12, 2017, 03:21:36 PM
I might have thought of an alternate interpretation that doesn't require the endings to be swapped. What if, in the ending of castle A, Maxim is at no point possessed by the evil spirit and decides to fight Juste on his own accord? He does beg Juste to kill him, and after he refuses, Maxim says something like: "then if will make you change your mind!" and then proceeds to attack him. I always thought that last bit was the evil spirit talking (the fact that they used the portrait of evil Maxim could be seen as an indication of that), but now that I think about, it wouldn't really make sense  for the evil spirit to say that. He has absolutely no intention of losing to Juste. If that's the case, that would also explain why Juste wearing both bracelets has no effect on the ending: despite the fact that Maxim is still resisting the evil spirit, he sees no other option than to get himself killed in other to save Juste and Lydie from the evil spirit. Of course, that does raise the question: "Why doesn't Maxim just kill himself then?" but I think the whole "If you won't kill me, I'll make you kill me" thing is a trope that is used in other stories as well. So it's probably possible to justify it.             

edit: Zangetsu already came up with something similar, right?

Yeah like, at no point I thought that was the evil spirit talking. It's just Maxim being feisty, challenging Juste so he can be felled by Juste's hand.

Also, as you pointed out, it's a cliche. And, if we REALLY NEED an explanation, X and Blood Time Lord already provided it -- suicide is a no-no for ultra-religious nuts like Juste and Maxim.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Nagumo on September 13, 2017, 11:27:08 AM
Because suicide is forbidden by God. Reinhardt makes this mention in CV64/LoD. Everyone under the church's influence or teachings would be taught this lesson. Besides which Maxim doesn't harbour feelings of depression which is one the major triggers for suicide. Maxim couldn't kill himself due to his evil counterpart's influence to want to survive at any cost. In order for Maxim to die and save his friends he took the path of least resistance because he knew that the evil entity would also want that as well; to fight Juste. And Maxim  knew that Juste would win against him. He counted on it.

That seems like a satisfying enough explanation. I didn't think of the "suicide is forbidden by God" thing. That's a nice little touch.

Also, I might have thought of a solution for why Lydie doesn't die in the best ending even though she does in the worst ending. The evil spirit is essentially Dracula's spawn, isn't he? So you could argue Lydie's sire is Dracula. In other words, just killing the evil spirit wouldn't cure Lydie of her vampire bite. It's also neccessary to destroy Dracula's remains, which only happens in the best ending. 
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: theplottwist on November 04, 2017, 10:53:58 PM
Reviving this thread for a bit to call Nagumo's attention:

(https://i.imgur.com/1q82oD5.png)

This is about Harmony of Dissonance. I could just barely translate what it's saying, but I believe this is IGA talking about the logic behind the true ending.

If I understood correctly, IGA said that you fight the Wraith and get the true ending only on Castle B because only Maxim's memories remain, the logic being that Castle B is the closest to his memories for you to awaken with the bracelets.

But, as I said, this is just the general gist of what I could understand. Since you're the actual Japanese speaker, I would ask you to please take a read (and, if possible, provide a better explanation).
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: zangetsu468 on November 05, 2017, 06:03:02 AM
Could it be then Castle A is more like the physical castle whereas Castle B is more like the metaphysical? (The Plato's concept of the idea?/ the "consciousness")
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Nagumo on November 05, 2017, 08:55:08 AM
I took at a look at that interview a while back with the hopes of finding an explanation but unfortunately it doesn't get us much further. They do indeed spend much time talking about the endings but it's more in terms of development rather than story. Earlier in the interview IGA explain he wanted multiple endings in the game. He mostly just describes how the endings work: there are 2 endings that correspond to each castle + one ending that is related to Juste and Maxim's rings (Lydie gave them the rings apperently). He then says the ending which is the most easy to get is the one where Maxim dies and Juste only manages to rescue Lydie. If the player then goes to the other castle, and doesn't equip the two rings, only Juste survives. He then adds: "That's strange, isn't it?". Later he says he did this deliberately so the player would wonder: "How can I save Maxim even though I've been told he's dead?". He mentions that Juste's line: "All that remains to remember them by is this bracelet..." is a clue for getting the true ending. Takeda also mentions the game over screen is also meant as a hint. That's just a rough summary but I'm certain no story explanations are given.               
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: thernz on November 05, 2017, 12:24:21 PM
castlevania story decisions half-feel like iga spontaneously thinking about things in terms of gameplay and jotting them down on notepad, without thinking about narrative relevance

it's good though, sotn is good bc the entire philosophy of the game was them just cramming every idea they wrote down on a notepad


that's like not to undermine textual analysis of the stories though, bc stories are always about things even as author tries their hardest to make it pure fluff
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: theplottwist on November 07, 2017, 02:48:35 AM
I took at a look at that interview a while back with the hopes of finding an explanation but unfortunately it doesn't get us much further. They do indeed spend much time talking about the endings but it's more in terms of development rather than story. Earlier in the interview IGA explain he wanted multiple endings in the game. He mostly just describes how the endings work: there are 2 endings that correspond to each castle + one ending that is related to Juste and Maxim's rings (Lydie gave them the rings apperently). He then says the ending which is the most easy to get is the one where Maxim dies and Juste only manages to rescue Lydie. If the player then goes to the other castle, and doesn't equip the two rings, only Juste survives. He then adds: "That's strange, isn't it?". Later he says he did this deliberately so the player would wonder: "How can I save Maxim even though I've been told he's dead?". He mentions that Juste's line: "All that remains to remember them by is this bracelet..." is a clue for getting the true ending. Takeda also mentions the game over screen is also meant as a hint. That's just a rough summary but I'm certain no story explanations are given.             

Ahhh ok ok that makes sense. Thank you!
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Nagumo on January 06, 2018, 08:46:53 AM
I think I finally figured out why Maxim and Lydie can "exist in two castles at the same time". The reason is surprisingly simple: we all wrongly assumed that castle A and B exist at the same time, but on seperate planes. However, another possibility is that whenever Juste enters one of those portals, which castle he was in ceases to exist and is replaced by the other castle. This means that whenever Juste enters a portal, Maxim's personality changes as well. This is supported by the game because you only ever encounter normal Maxim in castle A and evil Maxim in castle B.     
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: zangetsu468 on January 06, 2018, 11:47:02 PM
I think I finally figured out why Maxim and Lydie can "exist in two castles at the same time". The reason is surprisingly simple: we all wrongly assumed that castle A and B exist at the same time, but on seperate planes. However, another possibility is that whenever Juste enters one of those portals, which castle he was in ceases to exist and is replaced by the other castle. This means that whenever Juste enters a portal, Maxim's personality changes as well. This is supported by the game because you only ever encounter normal Maxim in castle A and evil Maxim in castle B.   

I've been saying something 99% similar to this, except I don't believe one castle ceases to exist. I see it more at two planes merging over one another like an eclipse. The only caveat to this being Maxim A (normal) and Maxim B (evil/ chaos driven) who behave in tandem with one another but who are not exclusively exactly the same being (unlike Juste and Lydie).
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Nagumo on January 07, 2018, 08:10:06 AM
Actually, never mind because there's something that pokes a pretty big hole in my theory. You're supposed to find Lydie in a room in castle A. However, you can actually visit the castle B version of this room before triggering the event in castle A, but it turns out she isn't there. I was hoping that room was blocked off until you rescued her in castle A but that turns out not to be the case.

...damnit, I thought I finally had something. 
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: X on January 07, 2018, 10:02:14 AM
Well even Death said that the castle has 'two layers'. That line alone automatically told me that both are existing at the exact same time in the same place, except on two separate plains as they have yet to merge.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Nagumo on January 07, 2018, 11:59:53 AM
That's true. Yet, there are still odd situations in the game. For example, when you encounter evil Maxim and he transforms into that shadow monster. Afterwards, the only way to progress the game is to go back to the same exact room where you fought Shadow, except in castle A. Then you'll find Maxim there, crouching like he's wounded. But there's no reason why Maxim would show up in that room if you go with the "two castle existing simultaneously" interpretation. However, the developers seemed to think this was logical somehow because absolutely no clue is provided that the player should go back there. Whichever interpretation you go with, things don't add up. It's really bizarre.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: X on January 07, 2018, 10:12:34 PM
Quote
For example, when you encounter evil Maxim and he transforms into that shadow monster. Afterwards, the only way to progress the game is to go back to the same exact room where you fought Shadow, except in castle A. Then you'll find Maxim there, crouching like he's wounded.

I feel that despite there being two separate Maxims, both are connected on some level which would explain the above to some degree. And by this point in the game Maxim is already aware of his 'other self' which is why he mentions this to Juste when you meet up with him again.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Zuljaras on January 07, 2018, 10:53:06 PM
It is not so weird for me the HoD 2 castle thing. When I first played the game I thought that the 2 castles are separate but certain things are connected between them. Like Maxim and the evil spirit. You change a vertain thing in one castle and the connected thing changes in the other castle.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: zangetsu468 on January 08, 2018, 05:23:47 AM
That's true. Yet, there are still odd situations in the game. For example, when you encounter evil Maxim and he transforms into that shadow monster. Afterwards, the only way to progress the game is to go back to the same exact room where you fought Shadow, except in castle A. Then you'll find Maxim there, crouching like he's wounded. But there's no reason why Maxim would show up in that room if you go with the "two castle existing simultaneously" interpretation. However, the developers seemed to think this was logical somehow because absolutely no clue is provided that the player should go back there. Whichever interpretation you go with, things don't add up. It's really bizarre.

Actually I don't think it's that difficult to understand, I think the technicalities are being overly thought out. Characters move in between the 2 castles, they can't be in two places at once, but Maxim can "jump" between the 2. The way this would work is in the example of the Maxim fight you've referenced; The "evil" side (B) takes over during the fight, when it gets overridden by the "good" side (A), he's back in the first Castle (A). 

However, by the end of the game, the 2 castles (layers A & B) are overlapping, hence Maxim is in both and essentially the same event is happening except that in B, you fight the evil Maxim. Which is why the good ending happens in Castle B.

However, by that token it's a game and certain events will only prompt when you reach a specific screen. This is not so disimilar to SOTN, while playing as Alucard, Maria waits for Alucard in multiple locations at one instant. Classic example being the spike room and ending room, or the Holy Goggles room/ ending room/ spike room. In reality she could only be at one of those locations, but different in game events occur in order to prompt different events to occur.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Dracula9 on January 08, 2018, 11:12:44 AM
isn't it the days of future past thing where both castles exist at the same time and nothing becomes necessarily "final" in either one until one of the endings is reached

like both maxims exist at once, if you kill bad maxim the ties keeping good maxim to the castle are cut off and the thing disappears, if you kill good maxim bad maxim goes with him and everything fades because the conduit (maxim) is dead
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Nagumo on January 09, 2018, 01:33:10 PM
I also considered the idea that Maxim doesn't need to enter a portal and switches castle whenever his personality changes. However, It's difficult to find confirmation of this in an official source. I wish there was some kind of detailed summary of the game's story. That would really help clear up any ambiguities. 

This is not so disimilar to SOTN, while playing as Alucard, Maria waits for Alucard in multiple locations at one instant. Classic example being the spike room and ending room, or the Holy Goggles room/ ending room/ spike room. In reality she could only be at one of those locations, but different in game events occur in order to prompt different events to occur.

Could you elaborate on this? I tried looking up what you meant but I couldn't figure it out.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: theplottwist on January 09, 2018, 04:37:57 PM
Could you elaborate on this? I tried looking up what you meant but I couldn't figure it out.

I think he means that, in some cases, gameplay shapes the story. On SotN, at one given moment you are able to go to two different locations where Maria is awaiting (if you do not cheat the fuck out of it, you can meet her on the Hyppogriph first and THEN on the Alchemy Laboratory later, for instance, by merely using wolf to traverse Clock Tower). She's technically in both places at the same time until you get to one of those. Schrodinger's Maria, basically. Also, the ending is the same thing: You can get a Bad Ending and have Maria never once realize Richter was being controlled.... OR you can make it so that Maria not only realizes it, but gives you the Holy Glasses. It's where you go that determines what the story is like.

Harmony of Dissonance is the similar. Your confusion seems to be coming from the fact that Lydie is in "two places at the same time" (I think, is that it?). That's not what is happening -- she's where YOU move the story next. If you go to Castle A, she's on Castle A and not in Castle B, and vice versa. Maxim seems to be the only one who is in "two places at the same time", but he has a pretty good reason: He not only IS two personas at the same time, but they are both connected (e.g. if one dies, the other also dies).
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: zangetsu468 on January 10, 2018, 02:25:23 AM
I also considered the idea that Maxim doesn't need to enter a portal and switches castle whenever his personality changes. However, It's difficult to find confirmation of this in an official source. I wish there was some kind of detailed summary of the game's story. That would really help clear up any ambiguities. 

Could you elaborate on this? I tried looking up what you meant but I couldn't figure it out.

The fact that the Maxim fight directly shows the original Maxim (A) him back in Castle (A) and that he never appears in Castle (B), well the proof is in the pudding.

You could almost think of it like this - there's only one Maxim who exists between two Castles and personalities. As the game draws to a close, the Castles overlap leading to the final battle - Making it the same final battle, albeit with a slightly different context (Castle A being the physical plane, Castle B being the astral) and outcome depending on which Castle Juste entered that final room from.

Exactly what plottwist stated. Maria's location is a Schrödinger's cat scenario. She's technically accessible at all times from a number of locations, however in game time isn't real time therefore 'Real Time' which passes during SOTN's canon events, can only be prompted by the game allowing you to progress past a certain point. The exception being for example CV64/ LOD, where time is the variable which affects in game events (primarily endings or the final boss fight).

EDIT: I had a think about what you stated earlier Nagumo, about the events of Lydie's sacrifice only being prompted by one Castle, not the same room. A couple of comments regarding this:

- This supports my theory imo and what Death states about the Castle layers gradually merging at the end of the game. If Lydie's sacrifice happened in full, when it was supposed to (prior to Juste storming in), it's possible there and then the Castles would've merged and Maxim would've lost his humanity. In the end, Lydie's blood was used, but she wasn't Rondo-sacrificed (referencing Rondo of Blood's intro).
- It was mentioned the area is accessible from both castles, not one. However, if memory serves, the door itself leading up to that area from the adjacent area of that castle (B) to the right hand side (up a long set of stairs) is not accessible throughout the game until this event has taken place. I played HoD a couple of years back, my recollection being that this area is accessed via alternate means, and there's a teleportation device/ platform which allows Juste to go into both castles prior to the failed/ delayed sacrifice of Lydie being prompted.
- I believe the last fight with Maxim occurring in castle A/ B can be compared to SOTN's final battle (first castle) depending on whether Alucard wears the Holy Goggles.
Title: Re: So what exactly is the in-game logic behind unlocking Aria's true ending?
Post by: Nagumo on March 24, 2018, 04:35:45 PM
Good news: I finally figured out what what the deal is with Lydie dying in the worst ending.

When you defeat Maxim in  castle A he says the following to Juste: "Please take of Lydie for me" .... which actually is a mistranslation. In the Japanese version he says: "リディーを頼んだ" He is definitely not making a request to Juste. What he is actually saying is: "(I) have entrusted Lydie (to you)". It's not shown in the cutscene but that line is supposed to convey Maxim literally pushing Lydie into Juste's arms.

With that knowledge, it makes perfect sense why she dies in the worst ending because evil Maxim had no intention of allowing Juste to save her. In the best ending, we know that either Juste or Maxim carried her out of the castle. Earlier, I think we focused to much on Lydie being bitten or not depending on in which castle you fight Maxim.

...not that anyone particularly cared about this but it felt good solving this mystery.