Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: Super Waffle on June 07, 2009, 11:28:43 PM
-
In Lament of Innocence, he retconned the Vampire Killer so that it was always powered by ghost of Lei Fang, in place of the old assumption that it existed as an object of pure magic incarnate.
-
And there's a need to hear from/about such things again... why, exactly?
In Lament of Innocence, he retconned the Vampire Killer so that it was always powered by ghost of Lei Fang, in place of the old assumption that it existed as an object of pure magic incarnate
Actually originally, via CVIII, it was bestowed to the belmonts by the POLTERGIEST KING~
And it was never powered by 'lei fang', it was given form through Alchemy and achieved its power the moment it struck Sarah. If anything, it's powered by her~~
Aria of Sorrow; Dracula War. 'nuff said.
It's coming. Hold your damn horses~
In Portrait of Ruin, he added the stipulation that non-Belmonts who try to weild the VK have their lifeforce slowly drained as a safeguard. The next major title he produced immediately sidestepped this guideline by simply introducing a character who got her broken Dracula-destroying powers from somewhere completely different.
What's your point? Hector and Alucard have both killed Dracula. You don't need Vampire Killer, just something similar or relevant to Dracula's power~
The belmont villagers are, with the exception of OoE's immediate story, irrelevant. They are not notable people.
-
Thus far VK/Dark power similar (in nature and in strength) too Dracula's own is it, really; your overt exaggeration of this minor extension is neither necessary nor warranted. To be perfectly honest, It just comes off childish whining.
-
don't forget the Hunter's whip although that was CotM and not IGA.
Cept that CotM was actually a good game.
-
CoTM was horrible and isn't even canon anyway. I'm not actually sure why you bothered to bring it up in the first place. S:
-
In Reply To #1
I liked all these things.
The whip being created through alchemy is a great idea. it's better than it just being magically created for no reason.
And I don't even know what "Lei Fang" is a reference to, so if you want to bitch about something, make sure it makes sense.
I can't understand people who absolutely hate all things IGA created. If you don't like any of his games, over the past 12 years, I think you should find yourself a new series of games to play
-
Sara was never mentioned? How about the Poltergeist King or the ghost lady who warns Simon?
-
In Lament of Innocence, he retconned the Vampire Killer so that it was always powered by ghost of Lei Fang, in place of the old assumption that it existed as an object of pure magic incarnate.
-
Konami should get ILM to place her as a Force Ghost into all the games. Otherwise this plot device shall remain unvalidated!
-
And I don't even know what "Lei Fang" is a reference to, so if you want to bitch about something, make sure it makes sense.
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/people.php?id=658
Sup.
-
CoTM was horrible and isn't even canon anyway. I'm not actually sure why you bothered to bring it up in the first place. S:
Actually according to the official time line that was released after that retcon with the Portrait of Ruin package Circle of the Moon was mentioned, meaning it could have possibly been re-instated a long with the 64 titles. Legends was the only one not mentioned. Even if it was a side story it was still mentioned in the official time line meaning it is just as important as the rest of the games in the official time line.
-
Grant and Sypha also killed Dracula. :D I saw it with my own eyes!
-
That was published by Konami USA if I recall correctly, not IGA, and contradicted IGA's already established timeline. Konami USA has had bad luck with the timeline in the past and I'd have to say I'm more inclined to follow Iga's.
Regardless of whether or not it was mentioned, COTM doesn't fit anywhere in the timeline anyway. The 1800's are already filled up with OoE and Dracula, and the kind of backstory necessary to validate COTM requires a much more open time period.
he must have like it a lot too because he basically stole it's story and used it for HoD.
oh gee there are these two friends and they trained together
one of them is stronger and one of them is a little bit envious and this causes some problems. (I might add the roles aren't the same, either).
There's a similar backstory and someone actively trying to resurrect dracula. That's about it~
Not to mention Maxim and the scenario surrounding HoD were infinitely more interesting~
-
That was published by Konami USA if I recall correctly, not IGA, and contradicted IGA's already established timeline. Konami USA has had bad luck with the timeline in the past and I'd have to say I'm more inclined to follow Iga's.
Regardless of whether or not it was mentioned, COTM doesn't fit anywhere in the timeline anyway. The 1800's are already filled up with OoE and Dracula, and the kind of backstory necessary to validate COTM requires a much more open time period.
It was published by Konami Digital Entertaiment and also comes with an artbook with a speech from IGA, Yamane as well as Ayami thanking the fans. IGA was also credited in the making of Portrait of Ruin and wanted to give the fans something special for the 20th anniversary of Castlevania.
And since it was mentioned (because Im currently looking at it right now) its presence contradicts OoE.
Also it is the most updated timeline to go off of currently.
-
So in conclusion until IGA releases a new time line that includes OoE that story (OoE) will continue to contradict the time line since CoM was mentioned in the time slot first.
-
In Reply To #17
Ooh! And to say that "Well IGA made the next game so it overrides it" would be the same as saying "Kojima's game is made next so it overrides anything IGA did for the same time period"
Amirite?
-
In Reply To #17
Ooh! And to say that "Well IGA made the next game so it overrides it" would be the same as saying "Kojima's game is made next so it overrides anything IGA did for the same time period"
Amirite?
This would be true but Kojima and MS have stated it will have nothing to do with the previous games thus this will keep IGA's timeline intact until Konami, IGA, or Kojima (who would have to have the authority to confirm) has stated otherwise.
But without that you would be very correct clara it would be the same thing
My own speculation is going to be they are going to do the same thing with Lament, where a vampire is the main villian (not Dracula) and tell tales of not just a struggle against Dracula but all undead enemies.
-
Hmph. You're a little presumptuous, aren't you?
It was published by Konami Digital Entertaiment and also comes with an artbook with a speech from IGA, Yamane as well as Ayami thanking the fans. IGA was also credited in the making of Portrait of Ruin and wanted to give the fans something special for the 20th anniversary of Castlevania.
I was saying the timeline we recieved was US only, and last I knew Iga may not have been necessarily directly connected to that TIMELINE.
-
Hmph. You're a little presumptuous, aren't you?
I was saying the timeline we recieved was US only, and last I knew Iga may not have been necessarily directly connected to the title.
-
Also IGA is credited as the main designer for Portrait of Ruin thus proving my point since he as a producer and head of making Castlevania allowed the release of the time line included in the bonus package of Portrait of Ruin.
-
and also
"which has not received the 'this is not canon' treatment inherently"
I never stated it was a non canon I simply implied that it contradicted the time line that IGA released prior to the release of OoE
-
Yes you are right I dont have a japanese copy of the special edition that IGA included with the game if you preordered it nor do I know how to read japanese so it might be different but nothing I have found proves this correct so thus it is the most updated and official time line to go off of whether you prefer it or not.
With your opinion stated about those three games I'm assuming you mean LoD/64, CoM and Legends. Unfortunately the time line states Lod/64 and CoM meaning IGA has currently placed them back into the time line except Legends which remains removed.
And by your logic, CoM (it was placed back into the time line) was replaced by OoE
-
What?
No,
that
That entire post is so illogical I can hardly even begin to explain why.
Peace~
Then I'll place it in simple terms for you.
IGA designed PoR.
IGA authorized the release of the time included with the bonus package of PoR proving that the official time line includes CoM and LoD/64
And by your logic or the logic Clara was probably referring to is this.
CoM (despite being place back in the time line by IGA) doesn't matter because OoE was developed by IGA and thus it doesn't matter to the time line because you thought it was a better game and it came after it.
By that logic Kojima's would replace IGA's timeline because it was released after OoE.
Now all with all that, IGA timeline has already been safe guarded since MS stated that LoS will have nothing to do the other games meaning the games that have been designed previous to this one.
I understand that you can't comprehend that IGA might have contradicted himself, this is hard to believe since he contradicted Dracula's appearance as an evil overlord in the games the chronologically came after SotN. I understand you love IGA's games and you are willing to argue blue in the face to prove that but officially he has contradicted himself.
So that's what I meant since you had a hard time understanding it and with that I consider the matter closed despite i would love to see your response (if it is intelligent and has some proof to back it up) to my points I feel they are very valid.
-
In Reply To #21
There is no Japanese version of the PoR preorder bonus.
-
In Reply To #24
Odd. I understood every word.
-
In Reply To #24
Odd. I understood every word.
Thank you Clara Im glad to see other intelligent CV fans.
In Reply To #21
There is no Japanese version of the PoR preorder bonus.
-
Though he said "peace" meaning Im assuming he is done with this discussion Im still awaiting Giz's response since he will probably will want to justify his point that IGA's games are superior to all the other CVs.
-
Since CotM took place in 1830, and the only thing we know about OoE is that it took place in the early 19th century. I think that gives OoE about thirty years, plenty of time, to fit into the timeline with CotM.
I don't really think Iga is concerned with making the CotM fit in though. I was a little annoyed when he didn't give a date for OoE, but given the chance, I can also see him replacing CotM with it. So I'm glad he didn't do that at least.
-
"So much of that post is irrelevant and illogical and false personall assumption, I don't even know how to respond to that"
Im assuming he meant "personal" but anyway adding to my point it isn't assumptions I have (and probably more people have this too) the time line right here you probably could google it. It clearly states in the 1800 block 1830 Casltevania Circle of the Moon, 1844 Castlevania Legacy of Darkness and 1852 Casltevania 64. Also the artbook included has the some of the art work from all three of those games. And since it is stated that OoE took place in the mid 1800s it contradicts OoE unless it took place after 64 but we wont know until IGA or Konami who has more say state other wise by putting out an updated time line. If i was IGA i would have paid more attention and placed it in the 1900s.
-
and again Giz you dont know how to respond to it because you lack the concrete evidence to support your points.
Its a shame you left again I think my points a very valid.
Now since some of us are humble enough to swallow our pride maybe you can too.
-
IGA designed PoR.
Never contested this fact.
IGA authorized the release of the time included with the bonus package of PoR proving that the official time line includes CoM and LoD/64
He would have had too.
CoM (despite being place back in the time line by IGA) doesn't matter because OoE was developed by IGA and thus it doesn't matter to the time line because you thought it was a better game and it came after it.
It has nothing to do with it being a better game (which it is). I explained it already above - It has to do with the fact that CoTM's status as canon is already heavily debatable, and that the continuity is controlled by IGA thus by valid assumption, unless otherwise stated, a game released by IGA will be canon. Non-Iga games (Order of shadows) are not - as far as games released post IGA's 'take-over' are concerned anyway.
Continuing...
By that logic Kojima's would replace IGA's timeline because it was released after OoE.
Illogical personal assumption. I explained before it has nothing to do with age; it has to do with the circumstances surrounding the individual titles.
Now all with all that, IGA timeline has already been safe guarded since MS stated that LoS will have nothing to do the other games meaning the games that have been designed previous to this one.
Never contested that.
I understand that you can't comprehend that IGA might have contradicted himself, this is hard to believe since he contradicted Dracula's appearance as an evil overlord in the games the chronologically came after SotN. I understand you love IGA's games and you are willing to argue blue in the face to prove that but officially he has contradicted himself.
You assume my incomprehension but I'm afraid it simply isn't true. You assume I can't comprehend when quite clearly it is you who cannot comprehend. I never said I didn't understand your previous post, simply that so much of it is so wrong and illogical that I was flabbergasted.
Odd. I understood every word.
Odd. I never said I didn't understand what he said.
And you're so eager to jump on me that in the process you completely misunderstand the entire point of what I was saying, in the process revealing only foolishness. And you're supposed to be a staff member.
Regardless.
I personally do not believe he contradicted himself, at least not in your oft-touted instance; the evidence speaks for itself and having a simple understanding (based on said evidence, without making any leaps of faith) of the duality of Dracula's being and the mechanics by which his resurrections function as dictated by the evidence shows otherwise.
I understand that you cannot comprehend things such as this, however.
If i was IGA i would have paid more attention and placed it in the 1900s
Assuming you mean OoE, ...That's even more illogical, to have it coexist with Bloodlines and Portrait of Ruin so closely. The entire point of the game is that there is no real established organization/group to fight against Dracula, they're in the wild and they don't know what they're doing; meaning if it did take place in the 1900's it would have to take place within the first 10 years, and even that is both cutting a few corners and cutting it close.
Though he said "peace" meaning Im assuming he is done with this discussion Im still awaiting Giz's response since he will probably will want to justify his point that IGA's games are superior to all the other CVs.
Another personal assumption! Again, false. You assume I'm some kind of IGA fanboy, which while I certainly prefer IGA and do very much enjoy his games, I'd hardly qualify as such a selectively ignorant fanboy. CVI, CVIII, SCVIV are among my favorite Castlevania titles and the classic games are just as good as the new ones.
Im assuming he meant "personal" but anyway adding to my point it isn't assumptions I have (and probably more people have this too) the time line right here you probably could google it.p
Another false assumption on your behalf. When I said 'false personal assumptions', I wasn't talking about that at all. I was talking about your assumptions based on my character, opinion and belief. I am well aware of the poR timeline and was looking at it while posting. How else do you think I knew there were no plot synopsis' for the three "debatable" titles?
Its a shame you left again I think my points a very valid.
False assumption, again.
Thank you Clara Im glad to see other intelligent CV fans.
That's strange. You couldn't possibly be talking about the two of you~! Must be talking to me then. Thanks.
-
Never contested this fact.
He would have had too.
It has nothing to do with it being a better game (which it is). I explained it already above - It has to do with the fact that CoTM's status as canon is already heavily debatable, and that the continuity is controlled by IGA thus by valid assumption, unless otherwise stated, a game released by IGA will be canon. Non-Iga games (Order of shadows) are not - as far as games released post IGA's 'take-over' are concerned anyway.
Continuing...Illogical personal assumption. I explained before it has nothing to do with age; it has to do with the circumstances surrounding the individual titles.
Never contested that.
You assume my incomprehension but I'm afraid it simply isn't true. You assume I can't comprehend when quite clearly it is you who cannot comprehend. I never said I didn't understand your previous post, simply that so much of it is so wrong and illogical that I was flabbergasted.Odd. I never said I didn't understand what he said.
And you're so eager to jump on me that in the process you completely misunderstand the entire point of what I was saying, in the process revealing only foolishness. And you're supposed to be a staff member.
Regardless.
I personally do not believe he contradicted himself, at least not in your oft-touted instance; the evidence speaks for itself and having a simple understanding (based on said evidence, without making any leaps of faith) of the duality of Dracula's being and the mechanics by which his resurrections function as dictated by the evidence shows otherwise.
I understand that you cannot comprehend things such as this, however.
Assuming you mean OoE, ...That's even more illogical, to have it coexist with Bloodlines and Portrait of Ruin so closely. The entire point of the game is that there is no real established organization/group to fight against Dracula, meaning if it did take place in the 1900's it would have to take place within the first 10 years, and even that is cutting it close.
Another personal assumption! Again, false. You assume I'm some kind of IGA fanboy, which while I certainly prefer IGA and do very much enjoy his games, I'd hardly qualify as such a selectively ignorant fanboy. CVI, CVIII, SCVIV are among my favorite Castlevania titles and the classic games are just as good as the new ones.
That's strange. You couldn't possibly be talking about the two of you~! Must be talking to me then. Thanks.
-
Despite your valiant arguments the time line which was released before OoE states CoTM and the 64 games are official, though you had a very valid point about the 1900s OoE still contradicts the official time line. That is my point if you cant understand that I'm sorry.
-
"I was, but you can't resist making false assumptions based on my personal character, beliefs and opinions. Such actions and horrendous misunderstandings are intolerable."
Wait coming from a guy who got warned by a moderator about calling people idiots and that thier ideas are ridiculous you are saying that my misunderstanding are horrendous? Hilter killing thousands of jews is horrendous not misunderstanding someone's character and intolerable? Thats not up to you to judge because im not going off your character im going off your previous post in this discussion.
-
Look you can use all the big words and adjectives you want too but this was the discussion. You stated CoTM was not cannon. I proved this wrong by stating according to the official time line it was included thus making it cannon and thus contradicting OoE. You need to accept you are wrong. Now i have concrete evidence proving my point and assumption that OoE contradicts the official time line until IGA comes out with an updated one proving you right. Now Im going to stop because last time I got called out on for being cheeky and Im not about to take a break because you refuse to be wrong.
-
1. Was validating my point that the time line was updated and the games that were formerly retconned now reinstated by IGA.
2. Yes he would and he did.
Okay, I wasn't arguing with you about those. I said "yes, this is right". That was entirely pointless.
3. It is no longer debatable because it is in the official time line.
The game title is mentioned. Furthermore, if those three hadn't been mentioned there would have been a large blank spot over the 1800's, which is hardly desirable. They were obviously thrown on solely for the purpose of acknowledging their existance; they obviously don't care about the titles enough to even add a plot synopsis or some kind of validation.
4. Order of shadows was also produced by IGA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castlevania:_Order_of_Shadows
So it was. I'd heard otherwise, but I was apparently wrong. My apologies.
5. You were flabbergasted at a post that doesn't follow your opion you
-
Okay, I wasn't arguing with you about those. I said "yes, this is right". That was entirely pointless.
The game title is mentioned. Furthermore, if those three hadn't been mentioned there would have been a large blank spot over the 1800's, which is hardly desirable. They were obviously thrown on solely for the purpose of acknowledging their existance; they obviously don't care about the titles.
So it was. I'd heard otherwise, my apologies.
I've already explained why it's simple presence is not necessarily indicative of anything. I was flabbergasted by your excess of false assumption, pointless reiteration, lack of comprehensible logic, etc. etc. etc. It has nothing to do with differing viewpoints.
I don't care whether or not OoE is contradicted or not. The fact of the matter is, the title being produced directly by IGA and not being stated as non-canon means that it inherently holds more merit then titles like COTM which have been previously discredited and were not directed by the head of series and continuity.
No, I didn't. I can tell your english isn't very good but at the very least you should possess the proper understanding to recognize what someone is saying. Even prior to the edit I said 'that is so illogical I don't even know how to respond to that'. That doesn't mean "I don't understand what you're saying". Is english your second or third language, out of curiosity?
You're tripping over yourself. What are you even trying to say, because this is quite simply not relevant to what I was referring too.
You really don't get it, do you? I don't care about something's status as a classic, or if something is the original. As simple as it sounds, I like things that i like; I can respect something for its contributions but that does not mean that I'm forced to like it. Not that it matters, I told you, I love many of the classic games and said that they are just as good as the new ones. However! They have a completely different gameplay style, and I personally enjoy the RPG/Metroidvania style more.
Honestly, some advice; You really should stop trying to assume things about your opponents, you're really bad at it and it isn't helping your case in the least.
Hahahaha. I was being facetious, for gods sake. Loosen up.
To be perfectly honest, I'm pretty close. This entire ordeal is pathetic and you're not bringing up anything even even remotely interesting; it's boring and mildly infuriating, to be perfectly honest.
I know when I am wrong, I know when I am right and I know when other people are wrong or right. I personally believe that I am right, however I do acknowledge the possibility that i am wrong; but at this point, that is irrelevant. It's not about me. It's about how wrong you are.
1. Okay we agree
2. Which makes them official regardless of what you think.
3. Okay I apologize for anything that came against you.
4. Apparently you are the only person having a hard time
5. Wow another attempt at an insult, sorry i skipped english class to smoke sorry, I cant cook either does that bother you?
6. The argument was based off of CotM being a non cannon as posted to it not and since it was a cannon its presence contradicts OoE.
7. Okay you are a fan of his work and style he uses yet CotM used the same metroid style so you aren't a hardcore fan boy. And yes you are entitled to your opinion. No argument there.
8. Dude im half drunk im about as loose as they get lol this has all been too much fun. Als you are hardly an opponent you are some guy who Im talking to in a forum
9. Then why are you still here? See you are having fun just admit it :)
10. Going back to that advice you were trying to give. If I was so bad how come you cant prove me wrong at the fact that those games are official and OoE contradicts the time line.
So with all that said here we go again
You said CotM non Cannon
This was proven wrong by the official time line.
OoE presence contradicts the official time line since it was stated to take place around the mid 1800s.
How am I wrong again?
-
Wow another attempt at an insult, sorry i skipped english class to smoke sorry, I cant cook either does that bother you?
Oh. It's your first language. ):
10. Going back to that advice you were trying to give. If I was so bad how come you cant prove me wrong at the fact that those games are official and OoE contradicts the time line.
No definitive proof either way.
You said CotM non Cannon
This was proven wrong by the official time line.
I said it wasn't canon and I personally stand by that statement. However that isn't what I've been trying to argue with you about the last few posts. I've been saying that the "proofs" your using are not definite proofs. I could care less what your conclusion is but the way you got there is quite simply flawed.
OoE presence contradicts the official time line since it was stated to take place around the mid 1800s.
Mid-1800's. Half of one hundred is 50, so generally give or take about 10 years. It could've occurred from 1840-1860 or so. If it occurred around 1850-1860 then that means it doesn't necessarily contradict Circle of the Moon and I imagine the two N64 titles unless they for whatever reason lay claim to what happens for about 20 years following their point in time.
10. Going back to that advice you were trying to give. If I was so bad how come you cant prove me wrong at the fact that those games are official and OoE contradicts the time line.
oh my god you literally do not understand what I'm saying
I will explain it one last time; your assumptions on my opinions and character are completely wrong. stop trying to make assumptions, you're bad at them. It has nothing to do with the OoE timeline discussion.
Dude im half drunk
That explains a lot.
I'm done. Come back when you're not half-drunk if you want to have any kind of discussion with me.
-
Oh. It's your first language. ):
No definitive proof either way.
I said it wasn't canon and I personally stand by that statement. However that isn't what I've been trying to argue with you about the last few posts. I've been saying that the "proofs" your using are not definite proofs. I could care less what your conclusion is but the way you got there is quite simply flawed.
Mid-1800's. Half of one hundred is 50, so generally give or take about 10 years. It could've occurred from 1840-1860 or so. If it occurred around 1850-1860 then that means it doesn't necessarily contradict Circle of the Moon and I imagine the two N64 titles unless they for whatever reason lay claim to what happens for about 20 years following their point in time.
oh my god you literally do not understand what I'm saying
I will explain it one last time; your assumptions on my opinions and character are completely wrong. stop trying to make assumptions, you're bad at them. It has nothing to do with the OoE timeline discussion.
That explains a lot.
I'm done. Come back when you're not half-drunk if you want to have any kind of discussion with me.
You are the one who is personally assuming that they are still non cannon.
God this has given me such entertainment, really you are great to debate with. I do wish I would've stuck around to be better at grammar so you would've enjoyed this as much as my half drunk ass is.
"it's just reiteration after reiteration, none of which is accomplishing much of anything; it's boring and mildly infuriating, to be perfectly honest."
See you made my long boring night worth it.
As the joker said
"Oh, you. You just couldn't let me go, could you? This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object"
See come on we could go out and throw a ball and get to know one another's character.
Oh my its like almost 5 am I hope we continue this dance in future discussions.
Because i still dont see any concrete evidence proving that the updated time line states that CotM and LoD and 64 were not cannon. Just an assumption by you.
And again I never made assumptions about your character though I did state "given your previous posts you dont seem the type to swallow your pride." I wouldnt call that an assumption of your complete character. Im sure you are a swell guy :)
Done? Good so am I
-
And again I never made assumptions about your character though I did state "given your previous posts you dont seem the type to swallow your pride." I wouldnt call that an assumption of your complete character. Im sure you are a swell guy
All the stuff about me being an IGA fanboy, not respecting the originals, etc. etc. etc. etc. ;)
-
All the stuff about me being an IGA fanboy, not respecting the originals, etc. etc. etc. etc.
-
But since I am capable of being a bigger person and apologize if I came off making assumptions about your character then I am sorry.
No how about we go throw a ball around :)
I edited this so I could throw this in.
Im half drunk and its 5 am soo im gonna go pass out. Im gonna sum this argument as "You have a different opinion that differs from mine." with that I hope Giz we can move on and throw that ball around.
-
You two really need to stop this quarrel.
To speak such opinions in a thread is one thing, but to poison several topics with the same tired arguments is another, and is leaning towards thread derailments.
This sort of banter is better left to private messaging.
Just a friendly suggestion.
Your arguments were on topic until you started to throw insults at each other, and that just leads to more needless bickering.
Take it from a Dungeon user who has personally been involved in such ongoing debates in the past. This type of back and forth diatribe only turns other users away from visiting the topic at all.
-
Have you happened to notice all thee non-canon games are only mentioned, not explained? A rather clear indication that they are all separate from the main timeline (which they are).
http://www.linnavaanijat.net/img/por/por_aikajanajuliste.jpg
And furthermore, who the hell cares ehat Konami of America or Konami of Europe consider canon? They have been butchering the CV story and its details from the beginning.
-
And furthermore, who the hell cares ehat Konami of America or Konami of Europe consider canon? They have been butchering the CV story and its details from the beginning.
That is my exact feeling on IGA. I don't care much about his timeline and what he considers canon vs what he doesn't, because IMO he has butchered the CV story. I especially don't care about his timeline now that he no longer has creative control of the series, and many of the details in his timeline will be ignored in the new story.
-
Someone's presumptuous.
-
How can the CV fanbase say story is insignificant to Castlevania while saying IGA has butchered it? The mind boggles. Sometimes, acting as the figurehead of this series seems like the most unforgiving job in the world.
We don't know how much of a restart this will be storywise. And personally, it better not be too far. Modified or not, certain things should be in the newest incarnation too.
And yes, saying IGA's control over anything CV-canon related is presumptous. For all we know, there will two or more continuities.
-
In Reply To #50
OK, IGA hasn't personally butchered the story, but the story has been butchered over the last ten years while he has been the acting figurehead. I'm hoping that the new team focuses on telling a good story that fits the classic feel and atmosphere of Castlevania, even if that means sacrificing much of the current canon to do so. I think the game should include Dracula at some point, but thats about it. I'm actually hoping that the LoS story is contradictory to the story in Lament of Innocence and retcons it, as I never cared for that as the origin story anyway.
-
In Reply To #51
Without IGA, there never would have been a flowing story in the first place. Before he came around the story was more messed up then it's now (Which, by the way, isn't the case). Just sayin.
-
How could you say that? Before Iga, every 100 years or so, Dracula would resurrect and a Belmont would arrive to slay him?
Things that went wrong with the story before IGA:
- Chris is mentioned to be the first Belmont in CVA and apparently it took place 100 years before Simon's
-
The "Once every century" wasn't contradicted by SQ. It's actually one of the premature resurrection storylines that's both kind of original and keeps with the original game's storyline. Dracula was a ghost and this was because he had hidden the relics before the duel with Simon.
-
In Reply To #55
A premature resurrection is still a resurrection. :P
-
In Reply To #54
I agree that there were many holes in the plot early in the series that prevented a coherent storyline. However, I think that is because those were 8bit and 16bit games that were really not story driven. Back then, the story of each game was sort of standalone, with just the simple premise of Dracula resurrecting every hundred years and a Belmont has to stop him. Over the past 10-12 years or so, IGA has attempted to connect everything together while plugging new stories in where there was room and adding more backstory. Not knocking him for making the attempt, I think it was an earnest effort, I just think he missed the mark somewhat, and the story is not as coherent as it could be in this day and age of cinematic storytelling in video games.
As far as his timeline and handling of the storyline, I will only criticize him for two things. First, his retconning of games he didn
-
In Reply To #56
But not an auto-resurrection, which is what the legend was about.
-
In Reply To #54
As far as his timeline and handling of the storyline, I will only criticize him for two things.
-
He allowed others to be able to defeat Dracula without using the Vampire Killer, retconned games, took away Dracula and turned him into a Japanese teenager, etc.
How many times do I have to tell you that Bloodlines, a non-IGA title, was the game that canon-ized non VK death's? IGA was not the one to start this trend.
But not an auto-resurrection, which is what the legend was about.
No such thing as an 'auto-resurrection'; nor is the 100 years legend in any way shape or form a rule. It's distorted folk-lore based on the fact that people always bring Dracula back.
Also, nobody knows yet if LoS is going to be a reboot in terms of story or a reboot in terms of gameplay, so there's no reason to make assumptions here.
They said it wasn't connected to any of the other CV's, the implications being story-wise~
except Legends I never really got why he did that
It completely contradicts Castlevania III and makes the implications that the Belmonts are part vampire. I can't see why he wouldn't retcon it.
FURTHERMORE;
Whether or not a game is canon, it doesn't matter; being non-canon does not invalidate a games existence nor does it affect your ability to enjoy it.
-
However it's possible to include them but it's pretty ridicilious to be mad at IGA because he didn't place some games into a timeline which is his own vision of the story.
But ifthey would do a reboot of the story it wouldn't be weird to be mad at them because at least IGA made some efforts to tie up loose ends, they would throw it all away and replace it with their own thing thus making story that has been build upon for years meaningless.
-
The difference is that IGA never retconned an entire timeline filled with games and characters that people love. Which is, as of now, still unresolved.
If IGA is still along making games, I'm sure nobody will really care that there are two timelines running simultaneously. It might be confusing, but it'll make both parties happy. However if it is just this new game and associated, then people have every right to be upset. Iga taking control was completely different because he respected the original titles and made almost all of them a part of the official timeline, and made them make sense. The only ones he excluded were ones that could quite simply not work.
-
It completely contradicts Castlevania III and makes the implications that the Belmonts are part vampire. I can't see why he wouldn't retcon it.
Arguments please. Also, Alucard + Sonia = Trevor never happend because that's just fandom.
-
Castlevania III was supposed to be the first time a Belmont and Dracula battled; with Legends taking place before that, that kind of invalidates that.
And If you notice, I said 'implication' which means 'implies'. It implies it but never says anything about it.
-
In Reply To #64
It doesn't imply it either.
Castlevania III was supposed to be the first time a Belmont and Dracula battled.
I dare you to quote the sentence where that is stated because that isn't mentioned anywhere in that game.
thankyu
-
In Reply To #59 & 60:
And SCVIV was a reimagining, so I think it makes it valid. Or has anywhere been specifically stated that the resurrection that is supposed to happen every 100 is not Dracula reviving on his own?
Whether or not reboot would ruin another continuity is a matter of how much they will stay true to the original. Star Trek is a good example of an effective reboot: it took the best things from the established canon while having many non-Trekkies work on it. This balanced the fan demand with neutral writing.
That is what they should do with CV; maintain the Belmonts, ,aintain a guy similar to Dracula, side characters like Sypha and Grant, classic subweapons etc.
-
All that happened at the end of Legends if you got the special ending was it was revealed that Sonia had a baby. OH MY GOD A WOMAN USING HER REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM. It's clear that Alucard was Sonia's instructor (Manual FTW), and that he had feelings for her, but Sonia never really portrayed any mutual feelings directly in the game. It was only stated that she had a child. If it were Alucard's, that would have to mean that she travelled through Dracula's Castle while pregnant, considering she never saw Alucard after she fought Dracula.
She was the first female Belmont ever used in a CV game. Regardless of people's feelings on it, it is a shame that no one else has ever used a female Belmont again. On the same note, it would be great to see a male Belnades.
Personally I'd like to see Legends remade, but instead of Sonia DEFEATING Dracula, she merely fights him, and perhaps weakens him, but doesn't destroy him. Therefore she would face him, but the first defeat would still be Trevor's honor.
-
I dare you to quote the sentence where that is stated because that isn't mentioned anywhere in that game.
-
In Reply To #68
The american Cv3 box doesn't mean anything because all it is, is just random stuff made up by the people who were supposed to translate it.It's the same case with the Poltergeist King. He is also made up.
I also agree with everything is Clara's post.
-
And SCVIV was a reimagining, so I think it makes it valid. Or has anywhere been specifically stated that the resurrection that is supposed to happen every 100 is not Dracula reviving on his own?
A remake that in canon was replaced with Chronicles, which shows a ritual being conducted to bring Dracula back - on the one hundred year mark. If he was capable of 'auto-resurrecting', there would be no need for that ritual to take place.
Furthermore the entire point of Dracula's resurrections is that it's our own evil and hatred that brings him back, the actions of those who succumb to his seductive power.
-
Personally I'd like to see Legends remade, but instead of Sonia DEFEATING Dracula, she merely fights him, and perhaps weakens him, but doesn't destroy him.
lol now that would be silly. Lets just leave Dark Night Prelude as it is.
-
Besides, lament's ending says that they won't meet until the events of approximately CVIII anyway~
-
Besides, lament's ending says that they won't meet until the events of CVIII anyway~
No it was said that they wouldn't meet until several centuries later.
-
So it was. Regardless, the implications are the same~
Legends is an awful game and has no place in the timeline, and it simply flows much better with the leap being directly from Lament of Innocence to Dracula's Curse.
This is an incredibly dumb argument and there are much more interesting ones taking place in the thread concurrently so don't bother responding because i'm not going to respond to anything you have to say on this subject.
-
In Reply To #74
So it was. Regardless, the implications are the same~
Ehh, no.
"I don't bother responding" my ass. This sounds childish but I think you just can't take that I proved you wrong
-
If that was the case, I wouldn't have even bothered to acknowledge that you were right in the first place.
-
I liked Legends just fine. Just because a game wasn't up to the standards of reviewers or players doesn't mean it's not a valid game.
Giz, if you "don't particularly care" about people's opinions, then you have no excuse (or right, for that matter) to criticize them and incite arguments.
-
The only ones he excluded were ones that could quite simply not work.
I respectfully disagree. The only reason Circle of the Moon and Castlevania 64 do "not work" within the rest of the story is because they conflict chronologically with Symphony of the Night and Order of Ecclesia. Otherwise, they work just fine with the rest of the story.
The fact is that post-1991, there have been five Castlevania games made that IGA was not involved with. And four out of those five games have been retconned from his timeline. IGA wasn't retconning those games because they "quite simply could not work", he retconned those games because they didn't fit with his vision of the Castlevania story. And like I said before, whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If IGA's timeline and backstory don't fit with MercurySteam's and Kojima's new vision of Castlevania, they have every right to retcon every one of his games if they think it will help them tell a better story. He certainly had no problem retconning what others who came before him did.
-
Giz, if you "don't particularly care" about people's opinions, then you have no excuse (or right, for that matter) to criticize them and incite arguments.
With nothing objective left to discuss in an argument I didn't particularly care about in the first place, that leaves only subjective feelings on our behalfs. I feel it is better the way it is, Nagumo feels otherwise, and I am completely apathetic to Nagumo's opinion as an opinion. I disagree, but with no objective basis I feel no need to debate it further.
Not to mention the whole "what does it matter, it isn't canon and most likely never will be, etc." thing. If it does become canon someday, I may care; until then though I can't say I do.
The only reason Circle of the Moon and Castlevania 64 do "not work" within the rest of the story is because they conflict chronologically with Symphony of the Night and Order of Ecclesia.
All of which were made post-Symphony (and were intended as sidestories to begin with) so there is no excuse for conflicting with Symphony of the Night.
there have been five Castlevania games made that IGA was not involved with.
I'm counting seven; unless IGA was involved in the SNES port of Dracula X (I've found nothing saying he was) and the original version of "Chronicles" on the X680000. I've found nothing stating he was though I may be mistaken in this regard~
If IGA's timeline and backstory don't fit with MercurySteam's and Kojima's new vision of Castlevania, they have every right to retcon every one of his games if they think it will help them tell a better story. He certainly had no problem retconning what others who came before him did.
And in the process would be disregarding every single game made in the Castlevania series thus far, if this were to become its new official face - what with the fact that it isn't connected to anything.
-
In Reply To #79
All of which were made post-Symphony (and were intended as sidestories to begin with) so there is no excuse for conflicting with Symphony of the Night.
I can see how Circle conflicts with the plot of Symphony, but how exactly does CV64 conflict with Symphony's plot, those events took place like 60 years later? And honestly, the idea that CV64 was intended as a sidestory to begin with is complete BS. CV64 was a console release, you don't make your console games the side projects and your handheld games the main story focus. When CV64 came out, it was absolutely intended as a main CV game, not a side story.
I'm counting seven; unless IGA was involved in the SNES port of Dracula X (I've found nothing saying he was) and the original version of "Chronicles" on the X680000. I've found nothing stating he was though I may be mistaken in this regard~
OK I got my count wrong, but the SNES game was ported from a game that IGA was part of, and CV Chronicles was just a retelling of the original story. Of the five game post-1991 that actually added to the overall plot and that IGA wasn't involved with, he retconned four.
And in the process would be disregarding every single game made in the Castlevania series thus far, if this were to become its new official face - what with the fact that it isn't connected to anything.
In regards to this, I'm just going to quote something that a wise man once said... "FURTHERMORE; Whether or not a game is canon, it doesn't matter; being non-canon does not invalidate a games existence nor does it affect your ability to enjoy it."
-
I can see how Circle conflicts with the plot of Symphony, but how exactly does CV64 conflict with Symphony's plot, those events took place like 60 years later?
I believe Dracula stated in cv64 that it's been over a century since he last awoke, yet Symphony takes place in 1797. So there ya go.
And honestly, the idea that CV64 was intended as a sidestory to begin with is complete BS.
-
In regards to this, I'm just going to quote something that a wise man once said... "FURTHERMORE; Whether or not a game is canon, it doesn't matter; being non-canon does not invalidate a games existence nor does it affect your ability to enjoy it."
It's also been made perfectly clear that the timeline is incomplete. If the timeline was complete and had a sense of closure, sure; but it isn't and it doesn't. Decanon-izing one game is different then decanonizing an entire, incomplete, timeline.
-
Arguments please. Also, Alucard + Sonia = Trevor never happend because that's just fandom.
-
It's also been made perfectly clear that the timeline is incomplete. If the timeline was complete and had a sense of closure, sure; but it isn't and it doesn't. Decanon-izing one game is different then decanonizing an entire, incomplete, timeline.
How is the story incomplete, how does it not have closure? It starts with that whole Leon-Mathias thing, and ends with Soma. What's left to add? Just because we don't have yet another Metroidvania to represent the 1999 story, doesn't mean it isn't part of IGA's timeline. The Dracula novel doesn't have a Metroidvania game either, but thats included in IGA's timeline. So IGA has told his story, now its time for a fresh start.
-
What's left to add?
300 years of vampire/monster slaying.
That's why I'm hopingpraying LoS takes place during that period..
-
Clara is right.
-
In Reply To #56
I dunno who you are or what you stand for but your sig is the cutest thing Ive ever seen T_____T
-
In Reply To #87
Aww, thanks <3
I believe Dracula stated in cv64 that it's been over a century since he last awoke, yet Symphony takes place in 1797. So there ya go.
I never really got that. He is reborn as Malus 7 -8 years before the events of CV64 (1844) but Cornell also mentions in LoD it wasn't time for Dracula to be revived after quite some time. So basically, the story is contradicting itself. That's some really messed up storytelling.
-
300 years of vampire/monster slaying.
That's why I'm hopingpraying LoS takes place during that period..
So I guess I'm not getting it. Is the timeline incomplete because the 1999 story hasn't been told in the form of a game, or is it incomplete because we have 300 years of open plot space which ends with Mathias raising an army of monsters (and for some unknown reason changing his name to be the same as a 15th century tyrant)?
-
In Reply To #89
Both reason.
And they still have to make a game about Quincy Morris.
-
A couple of years ago he mentioned planning a game involving Elizabeth Bathory. I think his intention was to somehow try and clarify the whole mess Bloodlines has created, especially versus the Mathias origin.
-
In Reply To #92
But if we got all of that right away, we'd have nothing to look forward to
-
A couple of years ago he mentioned planning a game involving Elizabeth Bathory. I think his intention was to somehow try and clarify the whole mess Bloodlines has created, especially versus the Mathias origin.
What mess did Bloodlines create?
And they still have to make a game about Quincy Morris.
-
In Reply To #93
So you'd rather have an incoherent story? Besides, you would have looked forward to each event between the releases of the games. However, now it looks like we MAY never know.
Its not an incoherent story! We know what happened in 1999, even if there is no game of it. There is no need for a Quincy Morris game, just read/watch Bram Stoker's Dracula. The only piece missing, really, is what happens to Richter and the whip. And even that doesn't bother me all that much. I can not understand why people think the time line is sooo fucked up because we're missing one piece of the puzzle!
-
To me, it seems like IGA would have rather had each game be an entirely different episode, having nothing to do with the previous games. However, up to IGA, Castlevania was going strong with an interesting history and bloodline. Because of this IGA became worried that he needed to connect the games, and instead of doing so, he continued to distract himself with new ideas, making a fat mess. Storyline wise, that is.
-
It's only a mess to those who don't understand it.
-
It's also hard to develop any real story when characters on average talk about 5 times per game, and about once every 2 hours of play.
The 2D Castlevanias just don't have a solid, practical structure for more complex storytelling.
I'm glad in some ways that at least it's not as overblown and overused like in Kojima's games.
-
PoR and OoE take place in almost the same time period. Instead of giving us answers he created more questions.
Not really. Ecclesia takes place in mid 1800's whereas portrait takes place in 1944.
It seems most of your posts in every topic is constant "FUCK IGA AGGHHH". It's starting to get redundant.
-
One would think a book with many pages could tell a better story than what amounts to scribbled text on a napkin.
There was not enough opportunity to flesh out the characters in those games as interrupting the action too much destroys the already unstable pace. I care more about solid gameplay anyway, so I'm glad IGA didn't interrupt it even more.
I'm not defending the sometimes underwhelming plotlines (I'll be the first to point out that IGA isn't the best storyteller actually), but I am defending that it's not easy to write a story for this type of game (action-adventure) and have it play out in an involving fashion without halting the progress of the gameplay too much.
Metroid Fusion needed a sentient computer to regulate the pace and narration of the plot; Odin Sphere stopped the action after each level to offer up a complex combination of catered sprite animations and emotive portraits; Simon's Quest relied on the cryptic messages of the villagers and a few scattered books.
And Super Metroid didn't even give a shit: the game itself played out as the actual story -- it needed nothing more.
IGA tried to tell a more complex tale without the required space to do it. And though he had a lot more cutscene opportunities in his 3D games -- and you can tell the stories and characters in them are fleshed out better as a result -- the 2D games have nothing but a couple of portraits and a few lines of text to tell the tale. There are no specific animation sets for a cutscene or anything to convey complex emotions-- everything is taken from the main game engine. There's also no voice acting in these scenes.
So these IGA-troids are very limited in getting the player into story and relating them to the characters before the final curtain call. IGA had tried to do more with less.
That's not saying that he and his team couldn't have implemented some better way to tell it.
One of the smartest ways I've seen a story presented in an action-adventure game is the Metroid Prime series. Everything about the world, the creatures and the plot is revealed through what Samus scans through her visor and downloads from the various computer terminals scattered throughout the game. These scans can be anything from short warning messages of impending doom to pages-length recantations of past events other individuals went through. What's brilliant though is that they're entirely OPTIONAL, and so the player chooses exactly how much of the story they want or care to know. The plot's pace then, is controlled by the player, and any halt of the action thereof is self-afflicted not forced.
If Castlevania thinks it needs a story, integrating storytelling systems like that could give it much more freedom to relate its plot. Instead of terminals, players can find old books and notes that serve a similar purpose as the scans in Metroid Prime.
-
In Reply To #103
"So these IGA-troids are very limited in getting the player into story and relating them to the characters before the final curtain call. IGA had tried to do more with less.
That's not saying that he and his team couldn't have implemented some better way to tell it."
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I am not normally expecting a epic told story in a 2D castlevania- maybe because I yet to see one. I think OoE start going in the right direction using a few cut scenes instead of relying on text. (Going into Castlevania, showing her smile) but they need to do more with that.
But at the same time, someone mentioned in another post showing a article of IGA stating that the DS Castlevania games are expensive to make and he has to push Konomi for the budget. Maybe it is not in his budget to do something more than what we want. Or maybe he doesn't budget his money well. I feel OoE was finally taking the series on a more serious and challeging level that his earlier titles. Let's hope he gets another chance...
-
What mess did Bloodlines create?
If there was a game about Quincy Morris, wouldn't that be contradictory to the original Dracula novel, which IGA claims is part of the canon?
Could be, but the thing is that IGA would contradict himself even more by not removing it since it's just one big plothole that hasn't anything to with Castlevania aside from Dracula and the Morris surname.
There is no need for a Quincy Morris game, just read/watch Bram Stoker's Dracula.
I disagree:
since it's just one big plothole that hasn't anything to with Castlevania aside from Dracula and the Morris surname.
-
In Reply To #95
- John Morris was vampirekilling with his dad as a toddler
- Bathory is related to Drac who is really Mathias.
- "And Quincey must be a widow, since he tried to court Lucy early in the novel."
I think there's more. It was an attempt to merge the CV story with Stoker's book which was kind of cool, but damaged the continuity.
-
No, belmont, it isn't. You literally don't know what you're talking about.
the Metroidvania set-up is hardly designed for plot embracement and it is not easy to write up, expound upon and deal with a cut-scene based storyline which is almost required in this day and age due to it's design. Have you ever noticed that in AoS and PoR, etc., practically all the cutscenes consist of randomly finding a character and interacting with them for a few minutes before running along on your way?
Christ. It has little to do with IGA, and everything to do with the medium. Curse of Darkness's storyline was much better and was actually executed well, and this is mostly due to its medium.
Order of ecclesia, which by far had the best story and plot presentation thus far, was only able to do so because of the fact that they broke away from the strictly metroidvania mold.
I have no issues stating that in my experience out of all the genres i've worked with, the metroidvania genre as utilized by Super Metroid and a majority of the Castlevania games is by far the hardest to implement a good story in. It simply is not designed for it.
-
stfu
If you don't want people to respond to you, then stop posting.
It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
stop acting like you know from experience.
I do, by the way. You're doing nothing but proving yourself an ignorant fool in this discussion.
-
The Belmont Legacy, do you even like Castlevania games? I don't think I've seen anything you've said that's positive towards the series. I guarantee you couldn't make anything half as good as IGA. As a fan I'm just happy to be getting Castlevania games, even if they do lack a little, maybe you should just start accepting the series for what it is
-
Dude, if anybody here is acting like a moron, it's you. Saying that you can't have a good story because it's on the DS or because the game is part of the Castlevania series. That's absurd.
that's not even what i'm saying, at all
forgive me but you are literally retarded, try again
(kk guys goin on a few day vacation i guess, probably. seeya ): )
-
In Reply To #114
How is that funny? I do like IGA a lot, I think he's done a lot for the series, however, I don't care for Harmony of Dissonance, and I think there could have been a few things better done in Lament of Innocence. That doesn't mean he does a bad job. I think Kojima, Miyamoto and just about every other developer does great things for their series, but theres always going to be things that not everyone will like. So, to ask again, do you even like the Castlevania series? All you do is bitch about it and everyone else who likes it
-
I disagree on one point...
I really don't have any complaints about what Shigeru Miyamoto's done.
I don't think it's fair to put him in the same group as IGA because he's on a whole other level of creativity, game design and innovation.
-
Where are you going? To suck Iga's dick?
I imagine I'll likely be suspended for a few days given my comment. But then, perhaps not given the context.
The point is, however, I wasn't saying that because it's a Castlevania game, or that it's on the DS it can't have a good story. The point is that the free roaming exploratory gameplay style of the metroidvanias is not always best suited for story-telling, without introducing linearity; for example, Metroid Fusion. It had a heavier emphasis on story then Super metroid did, however, it was also much less open-ended and much more linear.
i don't see how you could've even extracted the non-existant anti-DS storytelling sentiments from my post so i won't even bother commenting on it, but i think it's a given that i hold no such beliefs.
-
I wasn't referring specifically to console but rather a large combination of factors; it being 2D handheld IS a factor but it hardly outright denies the possibility alone; being metroidvania, 2D with a limited budget, and having more emphasis on gameplay (among many other factors I will not get into) given all the other factors inherently means that there is going to be less focus on story, its progression and the means by which it progresses. All of the factors combined result in the product, not just one.
It'd be great if you could speak articulately and rationally for once, as opposed to throwing off your ludicrious and irrelevant insults.
-
I referred to you as such after the fact. Comparitively speaking, i was being rather eloquent.
-
Hardly. More often then not i'm not nearly as condescending as you'd like to think; simply that my diction may appear to be by some.
In this instance, it was more a reaction to your own attitude. But regardless - this is petty. Shall we move on already?
-
I don't really want to get into the canon debate. I think its rather silly, personally. IGA doesn't really use the term either, other than he has or at least according to those translating him said that Legends is "non-canon" specifically (maybe?). He has said that that CotM and n64 games were "always side projects" according to their producers. Of course "side projects" doesn't really specify what level of canonacity or non-canonacity that they had before IGA took over is unclear. "side project" as a term doesn't really relate to canon terminology directly.
Side stories as a rule may not be important to main events (in this case the Belmont/Dracula struggle) but might occur in the same universe. Most of the interviews where IGA denounced the n64 games occured almost a half to a decade ago anyways back when he was making his 3-d games and believed they were better than the n64 titles. He later went on to apologize for his 3-d games failing to live up to the standards that Castlevania (they apparently were failures marketing wise as well). His most recent 3-d game Judgment was probably the biggest failure. Apparently it sold little under 4000 units in Japan.[http://gonintendo.com/viewstory.php?id=70182] With that track record is Konami even willing to allow him to continue to make 3-d games? Has his next gen game been cancelled? Does it even live up to the standards that LoS will probably set? It seems with his track record they weren't willing to give him the budget, that Kojima and the western team are receiving. From a marketing standpoint I can see where Konami is going with this, Kojima has been largely successful in all his endeavors where IGA has not.
What about Judgment? IGA acknowledged the n64 games by the very inclusion of Cornell and his backstory in the game, his story even leads directly into the events of LoD. Several other characters even bring in details of the backstory from LoD such as Death. This would seem to imply that IGA's opinions of the series has changed a bit since he first made his previous comments nearly a decade ago.
Its debateable if Carmilla in the game is based somewhat in part off the CotM Carmilla as well (the only previous castlevania game to ever really give her any backstory). She does share some similarities in appearance at least the shared used of pinks and reds in costume colors. Granted OoE seems to eliminate CotM as a whole with its backstory, or at least fitting it in is problematic.
Granted no one really asked him any "canon" or specific timeline related questions recently so we really don't know what's on his mind at this point. I think one of the more recent timeline questions around the time of Dracula X Chronicles he more or less admitted his disgust in having to follow any set timeline, and that it was beginning to restrict his story telling possibilities.
http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/10/interview-iga-t.html
I've wanted to ask this for a while: what do you think, in the whole history of Castlevania, was the worst decision anybody ever made about the series?
Iga: Probably when we put out the timeline. Because since Dracula only appears every 100 years, we made the whole timeline and ran out of places to put in another game. I made the timeline, but I shouldn't have actually released it, because now it's all official. That was a bad decision.
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=16730
How tied are you to the 100 years between episodes? Do you think you could do a Castlevania without Dracula?
KI: The 100-year rule is... I started as a producer on Symphony of the Night, so it's not a rule I created. It was something that was already there. I know there's a rule there, and I can't really break it, but I kind of deviated a little bit.
If you look at this new Castlevania, Dracula X, it's two games within seven years of each other. I do it that way. There are rules, even though he revives every 100 years. There's some half-revival things that happen.
Secondly canon debates tend to be silly in as much that they tend to rely on aging (possibly outdated) interviews that may have lost something during the translation into english. Languages do not always translate from one language to another accurately. Third, the debates are often based on one's interpretation of the translated interview vs. someone else's interpretation. That is people use their own interpretations of the quotes, and not necessarily IGA's own intent. That is they may be putting words into IGA's mouth that he never specifically said. The case in point that something IGA says may be interpreted as having something to do with canonacity when he never actually used the term canon in his quotes. So basically it comes down to people spouting their own opinions back and forth without anyone knowing what's really on IGA's mind.
Finally those hoping that IGA would specifically going about writing the 1999 story or any specific story mentioned in the games, it seems unlikely. It seems that isn't how he goes about creating the stories. He creates the gameplay system, and then figures out what kind of story will fit on top of it.
http://www.gamesradar.com/psp/f/castlevania-the-mega-interview/a-20070312121437520086/g-2007020210261331098/p-5
Quote
GR: Kind of changing gears a little bit. Obviously the back story of the two Sorrow games is the Dracula War of 1999. Can you tell us when we might find out more about that story, and Julius?
KI: You want more details of the War in 1999?
GR: That story sounds very exciting - the final battle against Dracula. I was wondering when in general, we might find out more...
KI: Did you know that my game creation is not based upon the timeline? I come up with the gameplay system and then try to find the right timeline. There was one product where I actually started off with the timeline - that was Lament of Innocence on PS2.
GR: Because that started the series.
KI: Right. But I always come up with the gameplay system first. Currently I do take control of my team members but I want to think about the gameplay system first - I do complain and make a lot of comments to it. But once the team comes up with the new game system and then I think it's right to put it in 1999, then I will tell a story in that timeline.
GR: But you're in charge of the scenario writing for all the games, right?
KI: Actually I'm thinking of retiring with the storyboards. Maybe I will only review, not writing from scratch.
I'm sorry... I'm getting busier and busier. Sometimes I feel like I'm getting too old. I'm just waiting for my lottery winnings and then I can leave Konami.
-
What about Judgment? IGA acknowledged the n64 games by the very inclusion of Cornell and his backstory in the game, his story even leads directly into the events of LoD. Several other characters even bring in details of the backstory from LoD such as Death. This would seem to imply that IGA's opinions of the series has changed a bit since he first made his previous comments nearly a decade ago.
Judgment was never meant to be canon, so I don't think that really counts.
-
"never meant to be canon"
Yes, I've heard that opinion before, only from some Castlevania fans though. No one has posted any specific evidence proving that that opinion is IGA's stance however. No quotes, nothing. Just people's assumptions that because it draws so many characters together from different eras it must not be canon.
On the contrary many review sites have assumed the game is canon, including the review here at Castlevania Dungeon.
http://castlevania.classicgaming.gamespy.com/games/judgment.html
The character roster includes Simon Belmont, Trevor Belmont, Maria Renard, Grant DaNasty, Sypha Belnades, Alucard, Eric Lecarde, Shanoa (fresh off her stint in the DS game order of Ecclesia), Golem (the boss character), Carmilla, Death, Dracula, Cornell (officially acknowledging that the N64 games are once again canon) and a new character named Aeon, a time traveler whose obsessed with clocks and ties together the "plot".
So ya instead of fan opinions what about official quotes?
-
In Reply To #129
I'm not assuming it 'cause IGA himself said so in an interview. I could quote it but I have to find it first.
-
Good luck on that, I'm pretty sure I've read every single Judgment related interview, and none of them specifically mention "canon" as far as I know. As I've said before in a previous discussion, really post proof or retract. There is enough "hearsay" going on, and people thinking they remember IGA saying something without actually posting any evidence that they aren't misrembering things, using misleading paraphrases or putting words into his IGA's mouth.
I know some people try to twist his quote from gamespy to mean the story doesn't mean anything;
GameSpy: People have been wondering how characters from different Castlevania time periods can appear in the same game. Is this explained in the story mode?
IGA: Yes, the story of why all these characters from different time periods come together is explained, but the story is not the main focus for Judgment. The main focus of this game is a celebration of the franchise's 22-year history, so I wanted to bring these characters together like a festival.
But that quote doesn't really discuss a concept of "canon" at all. He even says that things are explained. Yes he also says the main focus is gameplay, not the story. But he says that about many of the castlevania games in other interviews, such as the interview section I posted above previously.
There is a similar comment in an earalier (before the above interview) Nintendo power preview, but its yet another quote that doesn't say anything about canon, but people have interpreted to IGA meaning "canon". Still that's fan interpretations, not necessarily IGA interpretation.
Edit: Ok, I found my ecclessia nintendo power issue (July 2008) a few interesting comments from IGA in it.
At the time he wrote the article he said he considers the N64 games to be a "gaiden (subseries)" of the Castlevania franchise. This translation of him doesn't mention anything about canon, and uses yet another interpretation of "gaiden" than the usual "side story" translation some interviewers make. He goes onto praise the series as having a
"unique take on the Castlevania world".
Its a strong change to his stance on the games a decade ago when he pretty much completely rididculed them.
Later he goes onto mention CotM, he doesn't state anything about it being canon or not. He gives it praise as well, saying that while he didn't work on it,
"he feels connected to it some way".
He goes onto mention that he hired the director of CotM into his Castlevania team.
As for Legends, he's quite clear with his disgust of it (like in every interview he brings it up).
Aside from Legends all these games [adventure and Belmont's revenge] were made well before I joined Konami...Legends remains something of an embarrassment for the series. If only that development team had the guidedance of the original team on the series!
One of the more interesting comments is his discussion of Symphony of the Night. Its quite clear he loves it. We all love it. But something he said that came off interesting to me was his comment about Symphony starting out as...
"...something of a side story for the series, we were able to break alot of Castlevania conventions and introduce a lost of new elements that we still use today."
The issue doesn't go into any details on Judgment however, I'll check a later issue.
Alright here is the paragraph in the August 2008 issue of Nintendo power. It states (noting that article is discussing an incomplete version of the game before IGA had finalized all the details);
"As for how all these characters from thorughout hte ages wound up fighting each other, Iga remains quiet about the story details, but urges players not to worry about it. "When making this concept we wanted to develop a game that was very lively and had lots of things going on at once, almost like a festival," he states. "To create such a game we decided to ignore the time line of the [series], which is normally very difficult in most cases. However, the end result will allow players to see very interesting matches in the game, since many of the characters have been pulled from different Castlevania titles."
Knowing the fact that IGA has admitted that he comes up with gameplay before he decides on a story, this would seem to imply that in the early version that lacked any storyline, he hadn't thought up the time travel plot yet.
Later interviews such as the one I posted above, he discusses how the storyline they finally figured up, allowed the game to fit, and gave an explanation for how it could fit. This may be one of those cases where IGA changed his mind after the fact, in this case while still developing the game. Its really pretty difficult to take anything seriously that was quoted during alpha/beta version of the game over stuff later said when the game went gold, when his comments contradict each other.
A later nintendo power issue, the special holiday 2008 issue (that's December 2008/Januarary 2009 bonus I think) states in its review of the finalized release version;
"Longtime vampire hunters should especially appreciate the interactions between characters and the attention to continuity in Story Mode."
It was noticed by many reviewers, and even commented upon in a few interviews that contrary to IGA's previous statement he went out of his way to make the story plausible, and to give it an explanation. It wasn't just a storyless arcade game. For a game that IGA had originally believed ignored the timeline, he went out of his way to explain how it fits into the timeline with the final release.
-
In Reply To #131
Wow, maybe you're actually right about this. :o
-
In Reply To #132
Ah found another quote from IGA;
http://www.coveritlive.com/index2.php?option=com_altcaster&task=viewaltcast&altcast_code=9cfac7534b&ipod=y
"So as many of you know, the Castlevania timeline goes over 1000 years" "And there is a character trying to destroy that timeline. Due to magic forces, a variety of characters from different eras are brought together"
Seems that while he followed his normal plan of designing the game first without any story ideas. But later he did have the "timeline" on his mind and came up with an idea to make the game work within the timeline.
BTW, does anyone know what the story section of the japanese Judgment site says?
http://www.konami.jp/gs/game/dracula_wii/
A good translation of that site would be nice. Also whats going on with the sidebars next to the characters?
-
Also whats going on with the sidebars next to the characters?
That weird thing on the side shows how strong a character is in certain attributes.
-
In Reply To #134
Ya thanks, ya I knew what the pentagon thing was. I was curious about the characters under it however. The translations stuff. I'm assuming its special move information?
-
Wow, that was a very good, thorough, information-driven post (actually posts), Grant.
Great job, I commend you on your research.
It's really beginning to look like Castlevania's got different timelines. With the introduction of Aeon in Judgment, and St.Germaine in Curse of Darkness (who, according to Judgment's Aeon's ending, might actually be employed by Aeon, which is pretty groovy), and enemies that have mastered time control, such as Galamoth, Zephyr, and Chronomage, perhaps we've been looking at this Canon thing the wrong way.
I've always thought that there have been "linchpin" points throughout the Castlevania storyline, point during which a different decision generates a different outcome, and it changes everything afterwards. Usually these are associated with the alternate endings of games (the Sorrow series with Soma is a pretty good example).
-
In Reply To #136
Thanks, Jorge, I'm glad to help any way I can.