Topic: 1094-1691?

[Claimh Solais]

In the version of the timeline I'm writing, I fixed the problems with Legends somewhat. I made it so that Sonia and Alucard's relationship is purely platonic, and they have a more brothers-in-arms type relationship, and on top of that, I made it so that Sonia was defeated by Dracula, and only managed to escape because Alucard held off his father (leading to him being possessed, which led to his and Trevor's fight in CV3).

[Corpsecrank]

Yeah I ended up just ditching the timeline idea since it is impossible to work with. I feel like trying to use the timeline may cause the overall story to suffer.

If anything it would be alt reality or something so that no time has to be spent cramming things together when they don't fit. It allows way more freedom as well.

Anyhow still fooling around with different ideas at the moment until I eventually settle on something.

[X]

In the version of the timeline I'm writing, I fixed the problems with Legends somewhat. I made it so that Sonia and Alucard's relationship is purely platonic, and they have a more brothers-in-arms type relationship, and on top of that, I made it so that Sonia was defeated by Dracula, and only managed to escape because Alucard held off his father (leading to him being possessed, which led to his and Trevor's fight in CV3).

No offense Claimh Solais but I'm kinda seeing this as where, despite Sonia's efforts she is beaten down be Dracula even though she's a Belmont by name, blood and wields the vampirekiller and had battled and defeated Alucard. In your scenario she has no choice but to be helped from a predominantly stronger male character to save her, thus denouncing female strength (the ability to stand on her own) in the face of male dominion. To me it's just what we've already seen come from IGA in his stories with regards to Castlevania. But this is your means of fitting Legends into the timeline so 'do what thou wilt'.

[TheouAegis]

Just wanted to bring this up:

Where does it say LOI took place in 1094? I haven't read all of the documentation and references, but the Konami website says the Castlevania saga started in 1094; it doesn't say LoI took place in 1094. The Japanese Wiki doesn't even say it took place in 1094, just the English Wiki. So if all anyone is going off of is the Konami timeline, then technically there's nothing wrong with the date at all -- it would be Leon's birthyear.

The First Crusades started in 1095 when the Byzantine empire asked for aid to defend against the Turks. The Crusades lasted many, many years. The Venetian Crusade was in 1122, which would have put Leon at the age of 27 or 28. The Damascus Crusade was 1129, which was when the Templars were officially recognized by the papacy. Thus by the time of the Templars, if Leon was born in 1094 rather than the game taking place in 1094, Leon should have been in his early 30s. 

So it wouldn't be a mistake on Konami's part, but a misinterpretation of the chronology.

[Claimh Solais]

No offense Claimh Solais but I'm kinda seeing this as where, despite Sonia's efforts she is beaten down be Dracula even though she's a Belmont by name, blood and wields the vampirekiller and had battled and defeated Alucard. In your scenario she has no choice but to be helped from a predominantly stronger male character to save her, thus denouncing female strength (the ability to stand on her own) in the face of male dominion. To me it's just what we've already seen come from IGA in his stories with regards to Castlevania. But this is your means of fitting Legends into the timeline so 'do what thou wilt'.

*shrug* People can perceive it how they want. I wanted Sonia to be included in the plotline, and this is the only way I could think of where it wouldn't contradict the plot around it. Sonia is still the one who is the main protagonist, who is the one who fights Dracula. Hell, I could even make Alucard have his ass handed to him in the fight. It's just the way I wanted to work it.

[Nagumo]

Where does it say LOI took place in 1094? 

Think hard.

[TheouAegis]

If it's in the game, where in the game? The prologue was the only time I remember seeing any time period mentioned and that just talked about the end of the 11th century when knights became protectors of the order or whatever, no specific date and definitely not saying the game took place at the end of the 11th century necessarily. The US manual says the same thing. Same with the Japanese manual -- no hard dates. Is there a memo from IGA or someone hard-stating 1094 as the time LoI takes place? As I said, all I see is the Konami.jp website and the English Wiki, both of which say two different things. So yeah, I'm already thinking pretty hard about this -- how hard do you ever think, Nagumo?

[Nagumo]

Calm down, I was just taking a friendly jab at you. 

The timeline article at the Castlevania wiki has a pretty extensive gallery of offical timelines from various websites, guidebooks, and magazines. All of them confirm LoI takes place in 1094.

http://castlevania.wikia.com/wiki/Castlevania_Timeline 

[X]

That Castlevania Wiki doesn't mention anything about Castlevania: Resurrection. Since it's a part of the 'Legends continuity' it should be mentioned there even if the game never did see the light of day.

[Corpsecrank]

No I think it was left out for the same reasons that the canceled 32x game was left out. There never was a game to include because it was canceled so early on in development. Besides why include things that never happened?

[X]

CV: Resurrection was not cancelled early on. In fact I think they were a little more then halfway done, possibly 2/3's complete. But then Konami pulled the plug rather then see if it could succeed. The 32X game never became a reality because it evolved into SotN which was released. So in essence SotN is the 32X game, just with a lot of differences.

[Claimh Solais]

CV: Resurrection was not cancelled early on. In fact I think they were a little more then halfway done, possibly 2/3's complete. But then Konami pulled the plug rather then see if it could succeed.

I think it largely had to do with Dreamcast's declining popularity, especially with the dawn of the PlayStation 2, which did everything the Dreamcast did, only better.

Which was a shame. The Dreamcast had so many good games on it (never did play any of the online features).

[X]

I think it largely had to do with Dreamcast's declining popularity, especially with the dawn of the PlayStation 2, which did everything the Dreamcast did, only better.

Which was a shame. The Dreamcast had so many good games on it (never did play any of the online features).

I'm thinking this too. But I just don't see why they didn't make the for both platforms. If the Dreamcast failed and the PS2 succeeded then we'd still have the game.

[Claimh Solais]

I'm thinking this too. But I just don't see why they didn't make the for both platforms. If the Dreamcast failed and the PS2 succeeded then we'd still have the game.

Konami seemed to have high hopes for the game, and were putting their backs toward it. Why didn't they port it over to the PS2? Yeah, that's more work than it sounds, but still.

Something tells me that if we had that game today, Castlevania might have taken a different direction than what it's taken now.

[Corpsecrank]

I try not to worry about what could have been or would have been I guess.

This does however seem to help my cause. I totally missed the fact that I could use what could have been for my story. I could explore what may have taken place in res as one possible route.