The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: Lumi Kløvstad on November 06, 2018, 04:17:36 PM
Title: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: Lumi Kløvstad on November 06, 2018, 04:17:36 PM
So I'm having an argument with the absolute worst kind of person: a random johnny know it all on Facebook who insists that Circle of the Moon and the N64 games were "retconned" by Iga (they weren't, because iirc they weren't considered part of the timeline to begin with). He also has this really stupid idea that Nathan Graves is somehow Alucard's son (with Maria. Ugh.).
Dungeonites, bretheren, kinsmen, soldiers for the cause:
Help me defeat this uppity stranger.
Give me the evidence I need to prove him wrong on both counts!
Interviews, quotations, magazine clippings, etc. Open the vaults, and let pure knowledge and truth shine through this day.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: Gaawa-chan on November 06, 2018, 05:10:29 PM
Alucard wouldn't breed. He considers his own bloodline cursed and so if he wanted children, he'd adopt.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: Guy Belmont on November 06, 2018, 05:59:53 PM
Right This is from the 20th Anniversary Timeline poser.
and COm i read was never ment to be part of the main canon, it was just ment to its own minni story.
Got anything I can cite on that?
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: AlexCalvo on November 06, 2018, 06:23:28 PM
Sadly I think he's right about the N64 games. They were clearly at least nebulously connected to the series, with mentions of Belmonts, Belnades, and previous Dracula ressurrections. Also costume references to Simon and Maria. I don't think they really cared too much about any kind of canon, but it was certainly set at least roughly in the universe of the previous games. It only really conflicted with SoTN, which had been released while it was in production, and Iga's timeline's established year for Rondo, which also was decided while 64 was already being made.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: Guy Belmont on November 06, 2018, 06:26:31 PM
Wonder if our esteemed Canon Literalist has anything more like that squirreled away...
I'd PM as he has a ton of this stuff. hes been VERY helpful to me, when i needed to find stuff out. and often or not i find interveiws that he's up loaded. he has saved me many a time.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: DragonSlayr81 on November 06, 2018, 07:48:07 PM
Sadly I think he's right about the N64 games. They were clearly at least nebulously connected to the series, with mentions of Belmonts, Belnades, and previous Dracula ressurrections. Also costume references to Simon and Maria. I don't think they really cared too much about any kind of canon, but it was certainly set at least roughly in the universe of the previous games. It only really conflicted with SoTN, which had been released while it was in production, and Iga's timeline's established year for Rondo, which also was decided while 64 was already being made.
There is one thing I don't understand in some of the CV lore. There cases where a Belnades descendant is said to be specifically a descendant of Sypha Belnades. Wouldn't that mean they are also a descendant of the Belmonts too? They stress they are descendants of Sypha, but unless Sypha had a child before meeting Trevor, they couldn't be. Sure, the could be related as distant, DISTANT cousins (descending from Sypha's brothers or sisters), but NEVER be descendants of Sypha herself. The only descendants of Sypha, are also those of Trevor, meaning all the Belmonts known from Christopher to Julius, as well as the Morris, Lecarde and Renard clans(which likely branched out of the main Belmont lineage throughout history, though still retain some of that Belnades magical prowess).
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: BLOOD MONKEY on November 06, 2018, 09:11:09 PM
but why does it matter
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: theplottwist on November 06, 2018, 09:16:50 PM
Ok. First of all I should inform you that the majority of all people that I met that insisted on that (emphasis on the "that I met") was due to a burning hatred of IGA. They believed IGA to be arrogant, his games to be soulless, so you have to consider that this person might not accept the evidence, as flat out solid as it may be. I have come across some people that no matter how much evidence I presented, they insisted on the opposite and double-backed on their belief stronger than before.
If this happens, don't be rude. Just move on and let them be. And, again, this might not be the case here, the dude might just concede. I'm just speaking from personal experience of meeting a ton of people with this thought process, and the resulting fight is never worth it. You're already calling the dude "the worst kind of person, a know-it-all" and some of us (including me and you) are probably seen as one of these by some people.
CIRCLE OF THE MOON:
Konami Magazine (https://i.imgur.com/Az2X3J4.jpg) (Vol 20, March 2001) released together with Circle of the Moon (March 21, 2001), says:
"The story of this latest work flows on a different timeline from the conventional Belmont and Morris families'. However, the new story unfolding here is unquestionably a fight between Dracula and humans."
Pretty much as final as it can be.
This is a long time before IGA said anything. This is not "IGA" speaking proprietarily, it's Konami, and most likely the Kobe team behind this game, but that's assumption on my part. The assumption does, however, line up with what IGA said later: That Circle of the Moon is not canon because its developers intended for it. (https://web.archive.org/web/20110604120530/http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=4&cId=3152109)
And be prepared for it to be raised that "IGA hated the game" when IGA was, in fact, speaking from developer position. In other words: He had to point the flaws on the last work and highlight the enhancements on the new instalment. He did it to CotM, he did it to himself. And he did it because he had to get the new stuff sold. "IGA called it shit" is not a valid argument (besides I seem to have read him praise the game, but I can't quite recall where now. Nonetheless, it is true IGA criticized a number of things in it).
CASTLEVANIA 64/LOD:
This one is more complicated. There is a majority of evidence against it being canon but, at some point in the past, it was a much muddier subject, with it appearing in certain Japanese timelines and not others. The consensus back then was not as clear as Circle.
As per IGA statement, it was the intention of the devs for it to not be canon. Despite people squinting at the claim, I'm pretty sure IGA knows an ocean's worth of information more about this than us. Hence, I think it's safe to go from his word. Besides, the game itself presents information contradicting past titles, one contradiction being Dracula somehow existing on a period that Rondo claimed he didn't.
About that Gamestop Portrait of Ruin timeline: Doesn't exist in Japan. Contradicts ealier and future statements. Contradicted Japanese timeline kept up to date at the time (https://web.archive.org/web/20060204022529/http://www.konami.jp:80/gs/game/dracula/product/data.html) (notice the distinct lack of 1820, 1830, 1844 and 1852 entries around 2006 and 2007, but the addition of the "1944" entry. This persisted forever, until the site died.).
Although the timeline is reliable on certain places, it SURE AS HELL is not concerning the inclusion of both CV64 and Circle (hell these games contradict even each other!).
Quote
He also has this really stupid idea that Nathan Graves is somehow Alucard's son (with Maria. Ugh.).
Convoluted out-of-character theories aside, I'm pretty sure they aren't his parents lol (https://i.imgur.com/EWsqKGp.png)
Same I always say. It doesn't matter, people have this impression that if a game is not canon it "means less" and this is just not true at all. Circle is a great game, canon is irrelevant to its merits. Same for LoD, which has the best Dracula intellect-wise on my opinion (the canon would have more to GAIN from having this smart of a Dracula in it, and I still am content that it isn't canon).
I've seen a few people argue that "Castlevania story is irrelevant" and, in the same breath, call bullshit on these games not being canon. Son, you can't hold that story is irrelevant then throw a fit that "the story is not canon." Oh well, we all are passionate on our own ways I guess.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: Guy Belmont on November 06, 2018, 09:18:01 PM
Well then if you going to say that then why does anything matter?
what a dumb thing to say.
And sorry putting that forward. As it may have weaken your argument, thank goodness for plot coming in, I had no idea it was flawed, sorry.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: TheouAegis on November 07, 2018, 01:39:18 AM
Sypha could have had a kid before Trevor. She worked for the church. Lots of horny priests in the church. :-X
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: AlexCalvo on November 07, 2018, 04:09:31 AM
How do the 64 games take place in a time Rondo said Dracula was inactive when they take place after Rondo? And remember Rondo and many of the other games were never given an exact year where they took place until SoTN was made, which was during the production of 64, so the whole "100 years I've been dead" or whatever doesn't really mean anything... I mean what is the point of saying a game is non canon when it fit perfectly into the canon as it was at the time, with no contradiction, with direct references to important aspects of the series...
Also, who was said to be a direct descendant of Sypha? I remember seeing members of the Belnades clan, but no mention of a direct line from Sypha.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: Dracula9 on November 07, 2018, 04:28:57 AM
Sypha could have had a kid before Trevor. She worked for the church. Lots of horny priests in the church. :-X
but her name's not timmy
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: theplottwist on November 07, 2018, 05:00:00 AM
Quote
How do the 64 games take place in a time Rondo said Dracula was inactive when they take place after Rondo?
This is not what I said. I said the contradiction is "Dracula somehow existing in a time Rondo said he didn't", and this refers to Dracula's recovering his memories from 100 years ago, when he shouldn't have "memories" of anything to regain.
Quote
And remember Rondo and many of the other games were never given an exact year where they took place until SoTN was made, which was during the production of 64, so the whole "100 years I've been dead" or whatever doesn't really mean anything
I don't know where you're getting your info (please do share, this is strangely specific for you to be making up and I want to know about this), but CV64 was 10% finished by September, END of 1997 (https://www.ign.com/articles/1997/09/25/dracula-64-out-for-blood), and 20% by February 1998 (https://www.ign.com/articles/1998/02/19/bring-out-the-garlic), long after SotN had already released (March 1997). Development of SotN started around three years prior to its release (https://youtu.be/bqheYYeA4k4?t=779), so consider that.
Beyond that, SotN had Toru Hagihara as its director. Toru Hagihara is the man behind Rondo of Blood. So this does say quite a bit about the choice of year for Rondo made in SotN, it wasn't just IGA making up numbers for his timeline. He had the mind of the person responsible for Rondo to guide him. And, yes I know SotN started as a gaiden game -- still holds up when it was completed while CV64 wasn't even at 10%.
Finally, things mean much more after they are complete than while they are in development. The two arguments above are meant only if you want to insist. So the CV64 "100 years thing or whatever" does mean a lot. It's basically the thing that sets up the problem at hand. If SotN -- released long before CV64 was at little over 10% -- said Rondo happens in 1792, then CV64 contradicts that very hard. If it was RELEASED contradicting something that was already out for two years, then it hints at an intention to "contradict it anyway".
That is not getting to Simon's Quest tombstone, the century given in CV3, the "over a hundred years prior to Simon" reference. You don't need to HAVE a timeline in your hand to know how the one we have was assembled and how they arrived at that year for Rondo. But this is besides the point, of course.
EDIT: Nagumo added something after me that I'd like to respond to. There is a discussion about "was it considered canon or not and did this status change or not with LoD". As I said before, this is the muddy part that I concur needs more research, but that source is not the first time IGA says that, and while he did put emphasis on LoD in the source I used, the other time he made this statement in Japanese he included CV64 in the bundle. It does not seem to be an offhand remark to me (although yes, this bit of CV history is not as clear as I'd like it to be).
EDIT 2: And we now know there was a timeline YEARS before SotN, by the Bloodlines team, that already contradicted 64.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: Nagumo on November 07, 2018, 05:01:15 AM
Also, who was said to be a direct descendant of Sypha? I remember seeing members of the Belnades clan, but no mention of a direct line from Sypha.
This is correct. The Japanese manual just says she is a descendant of the Belnades family and that they fought alongside the Belmonts at one point (referring to the events of CV3)
In that IGA quote mentioned above, he seems to emphasize LoD and CotM. This may suggest his claim that CV64 was originally intended to be non-canon might not be entirely correct and that he is formulating it like that for ease of communication. It's possible the CV64 games weren't labeled non-canon until the production of LoD. Regardless, obviously more research is needed to come to a definite conclusion.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: AlexCalvo on November 07, 2018, 06:28:36 AM
This is not what I said. I said the contradiction is "Dracula somehow existing in a time Rondo said he didn't", and this refers to Dracula's recovering his memories from 100 years ago, when he shouldn't have "memories" of anything to regain.
Ok I get you, but I tried to explain before that this is the only contradiction present between the 64 games and the canon that was established before it's release. I'll get more into that below.
Quote
I don't know where you're getting your info (please do share, this is strangely specific for you to be making up and I want to know about this), but CV64 was 10% finished by September, END of 1997 (https://www.ign.com/articles/1997/09/25/dracula-64-out-for-blood), and 20% by February 1998 (https://www.ign.com/articles/1998/02/19/bring-out-the-garlic), long after SotN had already released (March 1997). Development of SotN started around three years prior to its release (https://youtu.be/bqheYYeA4k4?t=779), so consider that.
Well admittedly this is based somewhat off assumption, as I factored in a normal games productions time frame. I imagined that the first 64 game was at least a ways into preproduction when SoTN was released, and from everything I've seen the two groups behind the games very little to no interaction between them. Remember the point here is whether it was Iga who retconned the 64 games or that they were never intended to be part of the game series canon. It is not whether their are contradictions at all or not. I would argue that even if SoTN were released before they had done anything even at planning stages, that a single line that goes against the most recent prior release does not mean that it was not meant to be a part of the larger series canon when every other indication is that it was...
Quote
Beyond that, SotN had Toru Hagihara as its director. Toru Hagihara is the man behind Rondo of Blood. So this does say quite a bit about the choice of year for Rondo made in SotN, it wasn't just IGA making up numbers for his timeline. He had the mind of the person responsible for Rondo to guide him. And, yes I know SotN started as a gaiden game -- still holds up when it was completed while CV64 wasn't even at 10%.
If he had stated the year in Rondo than clearly the makers of Cv64 would have been intentionally ignoring canon to make their own thing. But this is not the case. No one is saying Iga is making up numbers, more on that below.
Quote
Finally, things mean much more after they are complete than while they are in development. The two arguments above are meant only if you want to insist. So the CV64 "100 years thing or whatever" does mean a lot. It's basically the thing that sets up the problem at hand. If SotN -- released long before CV64 was at little over 10% -- said Rondo happens in 1792, then CV64 contradicts that very hard. If it was RELEASED contradicting something that was already out for two years, then it hints at an intention to "contradict it anyway".
Again, I am aware of the contradiction, I was the one who brought it up. I'm saying it was the only contradiction, and that it alone does not in any way indicate that the game was not meant to be part of the canon, even after release. It just means that they messed up. Again the idea at hand here is whether these games were meant to be non canon gaidens. CoTM obviously was. The 64 games I do not believe were.
Quote
That is not getting to Simon's Quest tombstone, the century given in CV3, the "over a hundred years prior to Simon" reference. You don't need to HAVE a timeline in your hand to know how the one we have was assembled and how they arrived at that year for Rondo. But this is besides the point, of course.
I'm not saying the year choices were blindly random. There is of course a reason to them. But within that reason it would be very easy for the previous one before 64 having been 100 years prior. It only moves the needle back about 50 years...
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: X on November 07, 2018, 10:00:00 AM
Quote
There is one thing I don't understand in some of the CV lore. There cases where a Belnades descendant is said to be specifically a descendant of Sypha Belnades. Wouldn't that mean they are also a descendant of the Belmonts too? They stress they are descendants of Sypha, but unless Sypha had a child before meeting Trevor, they couldn't be. Sure, the could be related as distant, DISTANT cousins (descending from Sypha's brothers or sisters), but NEVER be descendants of Sypha herself.
Yeah, this also confuses me why some people (developers included) would make this mistake. Sypha married Trevor and had children with him. Those children have the surname 'Belmont' (a no-brainer here), unless down the road the descendants changed their last name back to Belnades. But I've not heard or seen evidence of this. I've also not heard or seen evidence of Sypha having kids before Trevor came along. Her CV3 backstory doesn't even hint at any past relationships. So, descendants like Carry, The woman Belnades you fight in CV64/LoD and Yoko from AoS/DoS cannot be descendant from Sypha unless (as mentioned before in the above) that particular Belmont branch changed their surname back to Belnades.
Quote
The only descendants of Sypha, are also those of Trevor, meaning all the Belmonts known from Christopher to Julius, as well as the Morris, Lecarde and Renard clans(which likely branched out of the main Belmont lineage throughout history, though still retain some of that Belnades magical prowess).
Maria Renard is the adopted sister to Annette. She's related to the Belmont family by blood. Annette has no biological connection to the Belmonts so there's no inbreeding on her and Richter's part.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: theplottwist on November 07, 2018, 03:22:13 PM
Yeah, this also confuses me why some people (developers included) would make this mistake. Sypha married Trevor and had children with him. Those children have the surname 'Belmont' (a no-brainer here), unless down the road the descendants changed their last name back to Belnades. But I've not heard or seen evidence of this. I've also not heard or seen evidence of Sypha having kids before Trevor came along. Her CV3 backstory doesn't even hint at any past relationships. So, descendants like Carry, The woman Belnades you fight in CV64/LoD and Yoko from AoS/DoS cannot be descendant from Sypha unless (as mentioned before in the above) that particular Belmont branch changed their surname back to Belnades.
Sypha was not said to be the last Belnades, only to have lost her parents. It's plausible there were more Belnades scattered around... And one dedicated family tree (present in the Lament of Innocence guide) shows that:
(https://i.imgur.com/9Fj0fIe.png)
The main timeline had a reduced version of this, but it had Yoko "tied to nobody". Meaning it's a line that continued "outside" the Belmont line.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: X on November 07, 2018, 07:15:23 PM
Oh it's clear that there would be other relatives of Sypha out there. No debating that here, lol. Just that no one would have the name Belnades should they come from Sypha herself since she married Trevor (unless they changed their surname).
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: TheouAegis on November 08, 2018, 01:38:09 PM
The instruction manual's author mistook her for a boy. Hundreds or thousands of gamers mistook her for a boy. Who's to say the priests didn't mistake her for a boy at first either and then when they found out they were like, "I've already erected my crucifix, no point stopping now."
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: Super Waffle on November 08, 2018, 03:30:20 PM
Alucard and Maria did the diddy.
I wrote a fanfic where they did the diddy once. It didn't turn out too great for them.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: zangetsu468 on November 09, 2018, 06:03:22 PM
Is that the one I read when I was like 13 that went into great detail about Maria's pert nipples?
No. I just wrote this one within the last few months. You must have me confused with some other dude's pert nipple fanfic.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: PFG9000 on November 17, 2018, 06:16:26 AM
So I'm jumping in a little late here, and also ignoring a lot of the tangents that this discussion took. Iga DID retcon Circle of the Moon, and the N64 games, and Legends as well. There was no official, overarching series timeline until around the time of Harmony of Dissonance. Iga put out the first official timeline then, and it didn't include any of the above games.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: AlexCalvo on November 17, 2018, 11:31:42 AM
So I'm jumping in a little late here, and also ignoring a lot of the tangents that this discussion took. Iga DID retcon Circle of the Moon, and the N64 games, and Legends as well. There was no official, overarching series timeline until around the time of Harmony of Dissonance. Iga put out the first official timeline then, and it didn't include any of the above games.
The only disagreement from me is About circle of the moon. That one was clearly never meant to share a universe with any of the previous games. So even though he excluded it from the timeline it was already excluding itself from the rest of the series. Almost like a LoS that didn't mix up the formula so much.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: zangetsu468 on November 18, 2018, 08:56:12 PM
So I'll play devil-castle-dracula's advocate for a moment, the guardian of Dracula's sleeping spirit i.e. "Old Dracula" is featured in a total of 3 games which are not specifically stated to be non-canon: - 64 - LOD - OOS
All of these games contain endings whereby after the Old Dracula fight, the castle doesn't crumble at the end of the game. The only difference being in OOS my understanding is this is the main ending, where as in 64/ LOD for Reinhardt and Carrie, it's the bad ending (which doesn't make it non-canon to that particular universe). Please correct me if I'm incorrect, specifically with OOS - I was not sure if it was intended to be a side-story or just not be canon to all existing universes.
Personally, I see a correlation to the above, and the fact that the OOS artwork features a red-haired Belmont. For these reasons and more (the Haunted Castle version of Simon also appearing in Medusa's lair) I place these on an alternate timeline where OOS occurs prior to the 64 titles.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: Lumi Kløvstad on November 20, 2018, 06:39:06 PM
So I'll play devil-castle-dracula's advocate for a moment, the guardian of Dracula's sleeping spirit i.e. "Old Dracula" is featured in a total of 3 games which are not specifically stated to be non-canon: - 64 - LOD - OOS
All of these games contain endings whereby after the Old Dracula fight, the castle doesn't crumble at the end of the game. The only difference being in OOS my understanding is this is the main ending, where as in 64/ LOD for Reinhardt and Carrie, it's the bad ending (which doesn't make it non-canon to that particular universe). Please correct me if I'm incorrect, specifically with OOS - I was not sure if it was intended to be a side-story or just not be canon to all existing universes.
Personally, I see a correlation to the above, and the fact that the OOS artwork features a red-haired Belmont. For these reasons and more (the Haunted Castle version of Simon also appearing in Medusa's lair) I place these on an alternate timeline where OOS occurs prior to the 64 titles.
OOS was never actually meant to be canon to anything but Lament of Innocence; Leon's Gauntlet is used in the game, the Order's Mansion is at Eternal Night, and Rinaldo Gandolfi is name-dropped.
You can also assume some shared timeline with Dracula's Curse, but it's largely irrelevant. Suffice it to say that knowing how the Belmont v Dracula feud started helps in both timelines, but there's no reason to believe OOS is part of the main timeline.
It's a fun little bit of officially licensed fanfiction, and Konami USA basically referred to it as such around release.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: zangetsu468 on November 21, 2018, 01:48:00 AM
OOS was never actually meant to be canon to anything but Lament of Innocence; Leon's Gauntlet is used in the game, the Order's Mansion is at Eternal Night, and Rinaldo Gandolfi is name-dropped.
You can also assume some shared timeline with Dracula's Curse, but it's largely irrelevant. Suffice it to say that knowing how the Belmont v Dracula feud started helps in both timelines, but there's no reason to believe OOS is part of the main timeline.
I don't place it on the main timeline, but if it's truly only canon to LOI, why reference other games? Specifically featuring HC's Simon sprite which is not the iconic Simon sprite that has been referenced in other games. (In HOD Boss rush, you can even play as 8 bit Simon). It's too much of an obscure reference, as is the red hair, and obviously Simon plays his part in the timeline.
The other option is that because LOI is referenced and Simon is found in Medusa's lair, perhaps in this continuum he failed and OOS happened.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: Lumi Kløvstad on November 22, 2018, 05:03:00 PM
I don't place it on the main timeline, but if it's truly only canon to LOI, why reference other games? Specifically featuring HC's Simon sprite which is not the iconic Simon sprite that has been referenced in other games. (In HOD Boss rush, you can even play as 8 bit Simon). It's too much of an obscure reference, as is the red hair, and obviously Simon plays his part in the timeline.
The other option is that because LOI is referenced and Simon is found in Medusa's lair, perhaps in this continuum he failed and OOS happened.
You could probably see it that way, but I view the HC Simon sprite's presence as "they wanted to make a nod and that one was laying around". Maybe one of the staff played Haunted Castle in arcades when he was younger and wanted to homage it.
I mean, y'all know me. I love looking for connections even when they don't really exist, but this is something that seems pretty clear to me as "it's a knowing wink and nod to niche players", and little, if anything, more than that. In this context, there's not even any certainty it actually is meant to be Simon as opposed to "someone else who ran afoul of Medusa". We only know that Order of Shadows is set in a version of the 1600's, which is a rather nebulous setting without something to narrow it down. Every version of Simon's story we've actually seen takes place in the last decade of that century, so it's fair to say that if Simon exists in Desmond's world (and again, no guarantee he does), Desmond's tale definitely takes place far earlier than Simon's.
In the end, why reference other games?
Because they can and we appreciate it when they do.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: zangetsu468 on November 24, 2018, 06:49:32 AM
@Lumi Agree to disagree. You can't say on one Hanford canon to LOI but on the other hand something that sticks out like dogs balls is simply "a nod". We're not talking about some obscure Easter egg which you need to duck or break walls for, it's in plain sight.
Re: HC doesn't take place in any specific year, so it could potentially fit anywhere in a universe where there isn't already a Simon.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: Lumi Kløvstad on November 24, 2018, 06:42:50 PM
@Lumi Agree to disagree. You can't say on one Hanford canon to LOI but on the other hand something that sticks out like dogs balls is simply "a nod". We're not talking about some obscure Easter egg which you need to duck or break walls for, it's in plain sight.
Re: HC doesn't take place in any specific year, so it could potentially fit anywhere in a universe where there isn't already a Simon.
References don't always have to make canonical sense and there is no mandate that they should.
For instance, in Lords of Shadow 2 Revelations, Alucard can encounter a statue of Slogra (also featured during the opening of the modern day section in the main campaign). Like you say, it's not
Quote
some obscure Easter egg which you need to duck or break walls for, it's in plain sight.
It's smack dab THERE. It couldn't be any more right there unless it were a boss fight.
Slogra is not in any way canon in the Lords of Shadow games, yet, here's a giant reference to him, captured in digital stone. He's there solely to be noticed. A fan who has no idea who Slogra is will just go "oh that's neat" and get on with their lives (if they notice it at all), but a more knowledgable fan will pull a Fonz and greet their old friend.
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/fd5119d1979f683a7e1b194c8dfca5ff/tenor.gif?itemid=3665492) Eeeeey Slogs! How's the hatchlin's?
This is the exact same principle I think this Simon Belmont nod operates on.
Also, owing to Haunted Castle's status as a adaptation/remake arcade port made when the only games in the series were Castlevania and Simon's Quest, I think we would be more than safe to assume it takes place in the same period unless something like a screen grab turns up that demonstrably shows it to take place in a different era.
Really though, and this is where I get off my high horse a bit, neither one of us can actually be conclusively right: even my argument is predicated on how Simon Belmont's adventures have been timed in timelines that share precious little in common with this history. And when we start reaching into the history of other universes to justify history in another, we're really just grasping at straws in a hypercosmic way. If you want to construct a headcanon, by all means, do it. Enjoy that headcanon. Nobody said it has to be correct to be fun. If you REALLY want Simon Belmont to have adventured in 1650 or whenever and have directly failed in his quest, go right ahead. Order of Shadows doesn't take place in any timeline -- it's fanfiction. So go and make more fanfiction, because it's not like Konami is going to beat any of us to the punch there. This particular setting is super ripe for that sort of stuff.
Just please acknowledge that's what it is: with some generous headcanon-only adjustments and essentially no backing evidence, what you or I have is just a theory. A GAAAME THEO-- you know what, I think you get the idea.
So I'm jumping in a little late here, and also ignoring a lot of the tangents that this discussion took. Iga DID retcon Circle of the Moon, and the N64 games, and Legends as well. There was no official, overarching series timeline until around the time of Harmony of Dissonance. Iga put out the first official timeline then, and it didn't include any of the above games.
That. The whole reason Legends, the N64 games, and Circle of the Moon didn't have Igarashi's involvement to begin with is because, at that point in time, there was no single figure helming the series, creating an official timeline and calling the shots on what is or isn't in it. Those games were just as valid, story-wise, as any other. When things contradict, who's to say which is the one that doesn't "count"? I find it pretty farfetched to believe any of the games were created from the get-go as something that shouldn't be considered canon. Even if they choose to create a story on an "alternate" timeline, it's still a canon story for that timeline, and every timeline is equally valid until someone comes along and officially declares one as the "true" timeline, which didn't happen until years after all these games came out. Hence the retconning.
A key thing to remember here is that many of the fans take this stuff waaaaaaay more seriously than most of the creators probably did. People forget that Castlevania was conceived as a silly parody of horror B-movies. Eventually, it evolved into something of a gothic epic with all this gravitas, for better or for worse, but in all those years of transitioning from one to the other, it's to be expected that pieces aren't going to fit together perfectly. I'm doubtful they even created, maintained, and passed around the resources necessary to ensure flawless continuity. They probably didn't even expect the series to so big and long-running. To do this kind of stuff right, you need to start documenting key facts from the very beginning. And I kinda feel bad for the people who have their stories completely disregarded just because some relatively insignificant details, like the year it takes place, don't gel with the details of others.
As for Alucard and Maria begetting Nathan, I assume that's just confusion with Legends, where Sonia and Alucard presumably beget Trevor.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: Nagumo on November 26, 2018, 10:51:22 AM
I'm not going to comment on the CV64 games or Legends, but regarding CotM: the developers themselves made clear the game's story had absolutely no connenction story-wise to the previous games, aside from the basic premise being the same. Therefore it's illogical to say IGA 'retconned' CotM because that implies the game occupied the same continuity as the rest of the series at some point. You can't remove a game from continuity that was never meant to be part of said continuity in the first place.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: Succubus on November 26, 2018, 11:53:28 AM
"The story of this latest work flows on a different timeline from the conventional Belmont and Morris families'. However, the new story unfolding here is unquestionably a fight between Dracula and humans."
So even if it's on an entirely separate timeline that doesn't include any other Castlevania game, it's still the same universe and still the same Dracula. Prior to Igarashi establishing a canon timeline, you could've just as well argued that CotM is the canon timeline, while all of the others aren't canon (it'd be super silly if that were the case, but still). But Igarashi chose which is the "true" timeline. Not only that, but he decided to completely erase the alternate timeline, rather than acknowledging that an alternate timeline exists. Compare this to, say, Nintendo's Zelda timeline, which has multiple alternate timelines that are all acknowledged by Nintendo and treated as equally valid.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: theplottwist on November 26, 2018, 01:15:14 PM
With all due respect, but this seems to me as a distortion of the facts. He may have formed the "main" timeline, and it's called "main" because it has most of the mainline games, but he never once implied it's the only "true" one to my knowledge. "Main" =|= "True" .
In fact, Judgment, beyond being a characterization embarassment, exists to demonstrate that he acknowledges the existence of alternate worlds.
Quote
Not only that, but he decided to completely erase the alternate timeline, rather than acknowledging that an alternate timeline exists.
And this is a misunderstanding.
The very post you're quoting is saying the opposite of what you just said: The creators intended for the game to "flow on a different timeline", and IGA said CotM is "treated the way the developers intended". This is straight up acknowledging that the timeline exists in parallel to his because that's what the devs intended. And that ON TOP of Judgment demonstrating that alternate timelines are a thing via Cornell.
Also, making a timeline akin to Zelda wouldn't work very well, would it? Each alternate game would exist alone in its own line with maybe one another (CV64), some without any rhyme or reason why (such as CotM, existing isolated with no connection to the Belmonts, as the devs said) :P
But, to be honest, I'd like one official timeline like the one Zelda has, too.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: Succubus on November 26, 2018, 05:14:01 PM
I'm just using "true" as a synonym for "canon". A "main" timeline and an alternate can both be canon. Just not simultaneously. They're canon within their own timelines. When the word "official" comes into play, I'd say that's definitely canon. If a game's story is regarded as "unofficial", it's not canon period, not even within its own alternate timeline, and is effectively erased from the lore.
I'm taking this in mind here: https://imgur.com/a/GmoXjwu
To compare to Zelda again, the entire Zelda timeline, with all its alternate timelines, is regarded as official. No branch has been regarded as "unofficial" (outside of, like, the CD-i games).
Igarashi said the games were taken out of the timeline. Not out of the main timeline or anything like that, but just dropped altogether. That's retconning in my book.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: Lumi Kløvstad on November 26, 2018, 06:13:09 PM
I'm just using "true" as a synonym for "canon". A "main" timeline and an alternate can both be canon. Just not simultaneously. They're canon within their own timelines. When the word "official" comes into play, I'd say that's definitely canon. If a game's story is regarded as "unofficial", it's not canon period, not even within its own alternate timeline, and is effectively erased from the lore.
I'm taking this in mind here: https://imgur.com/a/GmoXjwu
To compare to Zelda again, the entire Zelda timeline, with all its alternate timelines, is regarded as official. No branch has been regarded as "unofficial" (outside of, like, the CD-i games).
Igarashi said the games were taken out of the timeline. Not out of the main timeline or anything like that, but just dropped altogether. That's retconning in my book.
That's because Igarashi has HIS timeline, and when he speaks about THE timeline, he was referring to HIS timeline.
If I say I deleted a manuscript off of "the" computer, that doesn't mean I've deleted it off of every computer which might have held it -- I mean I've deleted it off of MY computer. My personal machine.
Igarashi has said in the past that he never felt qualified to pass judgment on the works of other people who stewarded entries in the series, and that his iteration of Castlevania was neither the only one nor wholly or exclusively definitive. All Castlevania is valid, in his view. He just didn't think all Castlevania games were valid to the specific iteration he was working on. He actually worked pretty carefully over the years to not condemn or invalidate anything that came before or might come after him. He only had direct control over the specific canon he worked on while he worked on it, and when he built his timeline, he had say on what went on it and what didn't.
This is not a exclusive-to-Iga deal, by the way: MercurySteam had their own timeline, and they had absolute say on what went on it and what didn't. But we don't say "MercurySteam retconned Symphony of the Night!" because that's not at all what happened in any way shape or form: they simply felt no reason to include it in their take of the series or its official timeline, incidentally for the exact same reasons IGA chose not to include Legends in his -- the amount of canon gymnastics it would have taken to justify its inclusion was just too much work by comparison to leaving the whole damn thing out.
They didn't "remove" SOTN from Lords of Shadow -- it was never present in it to begin with.
In the same way, Iga didn't "remove" anything. Those things just were never intended to be a part of the timeline he built.
Some day, someone else might take stewardship of Castlevania. They would likely make their own timeline when they did so. It's entirely likely, if not outright certain, that less than 100% of the games we know and love will be canon to that new timeline. Possibly even none of them, like MercurySteam decreed for theirs. This doesn't mean they've "retconned" or "removed" or "invalidated" a single goddamn thing.
All it means is that they have their own story to tell, and those omitted games aren't a part of it.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: zangetsu468 on November 26, 2018, 08:32:29 PM
But, to be honest, I'd like one official timeline like the one Zelda has, too.
Well even Nintendo have offered a "what-if" scenario for the Hero is Defeated Timeline to date. However, if you read between the lines a little, the 3 timelines can exist. I've posted something in the CVD about this before i.e. the first timeline having spawned the other two timelines. The Zelda timeline is a lot more definitive and has probably had as many if not more retcons to be fair.
This is not a exclusive-to-Iga deal, by the way: MercurySteam had their own timeline, and they had absolute say on what went on it and what didn't. But we don't say "MercurySteam retconned Symphony of the Night!" because that's not at all what happened in any way shape or form: they simply felt no reason to include it in their take of the series or its official timeline,
The problem with LOS is it's not even specifically indicated where or in what context (aside from the year) this is taking place. From the narration in the prologue which states the year of our Lord in the 1000's or whatnot, we can discern the setting is medieval and is more than likely somewhere European. However, this and the ending which is based in the future (containing gothic architecture) is basically all we have to go off. The rest of the game feels like LOTR in places and it's never really made clear or established where its set on its own accord. At least COTM stated the Castle was in Austria, and that was a standalone game. LOI never gave specific locations, however, it did provide a map and it fed off the rest of the existing canon's lore and history, etc.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: Jorge D. Fuentes on November 28, 2018, 05:44:48 PM
The minute you throw Time Travel (St.Germaine, Aeon, Galamoth), you've immediately opened the possibility of alternate universes/dimensions... and that's essentially the premise of CVJudgment; that unifying the dimensions is what allows the true ending to be gotten.
In my headcanon that's why there are so many different-ish versions of Simon. One is the red-headed pretty boy, one is the blonde barbarian, one is the red-headed bearded beast, and another one looks like FFVII's Cid. :P They're all potentially from different universes.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: Guy Belmont on November 28, 2018, 07:58:06 PM
Right but only cos at that point in time, he was the HEAD of it, if I took it over lets say id make a ton of changes, That's why its call IGA's Timeline not the
official only timeline, and there will never be another one ever, ever.
I mean many, many people that have worked on CV have had different ways of thinking, you just have to look at CV 3 and CV TA.
Both were seen as the story of the first man to have killed the count, but Both teams had there own Ideas.
And its the same with IGA, he had his own Ideas.
like I said its not set in stone, if someone took it over and started working on the original universe, at some point they would need to change things to fit in with there work.
so its all good.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: Shinobi on November 29, 2018, 11:55:53 AM
Speaking of which:
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: Inccubus on November 29, 2018, 02:20:44 PM
Same I always say. It doesn't matter, people have this impression that if a game is not canon it "means less" and this is just not true at all. Circle is a great game, canon is irrelevant to its merits. Same for LoD, which has the best Dracula intellect-wise on my opinion (the canon would have more to GAIN from having this smart of a Dracula in it, and I still am content that it isn't canon).
Making it canon with a few name changes has always been a dream hack of mine. Fix Carmilla's name. Morris Baldwin -> Baldwin Morris. Hugh Baldwin -> Hugh Morris. Nathan Graves -> Nathan Morris. (Yes, they are actually brothers now. Explains Hugh's jealousy better.) At the end they recover Dracula's remains and take them to Ecclesia. Nathan is Quincey's grandfather or great-grandfather.
Title: Re: Help me win an argument with a random guy on Facebook
Post by: aensland on November 29, 2018, 06:15:26 PM
Making it canon with a few name changes has always been a dream hack of mine. Nathan Graves -> Nathan Morris. (Yes, they are actually brothers now. Explains Hugh's jealousy better.)