Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: Lumas on November 04, 2009, 11:25:39 PM
-
This probably has been done already but over time some people change their opinions. That and Im bored.....
So Im curious to know yours. A simple yes or no with an explanation of why you think it sucks or it works. There doesn't need to be any bashing, flamebeiting, debating or anything like that. Just an adult educated explanation of why you either think that IGA's timeline works or doesn't.
Your options are simple.
Yes: You dont really agree with what IGA has done.
No: You believe that the timeline essentially works.
The results will be posted in ten days from now.
EDITS
I changed the option of Yes because people were confused with what I meant by broken. I should have worded that better before putting that up so I apologize for the confusion.
I also put in bold "no debating" because some people have a tendency to "quote" others which from my experiences in forums causes debating which leads to useless arguments and leads away from the point of this thread. Unless of course you are quoting to agree with someone that's fine (because i dont see how that can cause an argument). If I wanted a debate I would've made this thread "Castlevania: Decision 09".
Also may edit this if I see any type o's
-
Unless the timeline has been rectonned again for games like Circle of the moon, I do not believe the timeline is broken. Regardless, it is way too convoluted. However, it is mostly because of how the various the CV creators before IGA try to jumble most of the games in one timeline.
-
Yes I believe that the timeline is broken for now.
My reasons are this.
Lament of Innocence we find out that Dracula is really some guy named Mathias Cronqvist. IGA stated he wanted to explain the origins of his Dracula. From what I understand Mathias got pissed at God for the death of his wife Elisabetha....okay didn't that happen in Bram's Stoker's Dracula the movie?( I dont recall reading it in the novel) the deaths were different but the names were the same...and why would he choose to take over the identity of some random prince in Romania? In my opinion thats pretty lame and also making Alucard's real name Adrian Farenheights Cronqvist.
The 1800s was the worse year to live in because Dracula kept popping up every ten years or so (if you count CotM, LoD, and OoE) they all happened around the same time period though CotM and LoD were ommited from the timeline they were placed back in as "side stories" which personally I think is really dumb because if you are gonna take time and company funds to produce a game thats not gonna be included into the story just seems like a waste to me. But then we get Judgement which isn't cannon because of the time rift thing but low and behold Cornell is in it and since the storylines behind the rest of the characters are cannon (and themselves are cannon characters)as well as explanations behind them (Like the Alucard Spear) does that make him cannon? We dont know because he hasn't stated anything other then his official timeline that doesn't state CotM or LoD were side stories but includes them in the main chronology. Then we got OoE which takes place in.....The Mid 1800.....not really specific there IGA....
Another thing is that it was established that Dracula must be forced to rest for 100 years before he could return at full strength. But Since IGA we have Dracula pop up every so often HoD and CoD for examples. Then technically Dracula turns good at the end of SotN and apologizes before he dies. So why is he still popping up in OoE (under the assumption the other games aren't cannon) still as evil as always?
So far those are my reasons that come to my mind right now. Im sure Ill continue this later because i have to get back to work.
To be continued
-
Unless the timeline has been rectonned again for games like Circle of the moon, I do not believe the timeline is broken. Regardless, it is way too convoluted. However, it is mostly because of how the various the CV creators before IGA try to jumble most of the games in one timeline.
That is a good valid point.
-
*nods* Not much more to say after that is it pretty well sums up the biggest issues with the timeline.
Only minor corrections I'm sure SOMEONE is bound to jump on are the following little facts. To start off, Harmony did a fairly good job explaining that Dracula's phantom spirit had not fully regained full power, and technically was still confined to the second castle (in the chaos realm). Secondly, the time frame of OoE was mentioned as being "early in the 1800's." Vague, yes. However, it *is* seen that Dracula actually returns in that game through a new host body. A bigger issue here is how exactly his spirit came to be trapped in a vessel kept safe-guarded in Ecclesia's headquarters (yes, the proposed Alucard game could have in all likelihood explained this). Last and certainly least in my opinion, the Alucard Spear... Bear in mind, this thing started off as just another weapon thrown into the mix and given the name in all probability to just link in the name Alucard with the blasted thing. Any connections the weapon or its wielder may potentially have to the son of Dracula came afterwards and nothing concrete or canon was ever stated officially. So all we have to run on -- as we do with most things pertaining to Castlevania -- is speculation. And, really, considering how uneven the timeline has been for years, that's where it should stay.
-
From what I understand, The Order of Ecclesia was founded in the early 1800's, but the game was in the mid-1800s. Dracula had probably been sealed up during the years in between, maybe 20-60 years, depending on how many of the gaiden games are actually canon.
-
The timeline isn't broken. Rather, it's that you're confused or wrong about certain things, and you claim that some things you think are bad ideas break the timeline, which they don't.
EDIT:
I suppose I should elaborate. These games are not canon:
Castlevania Legends
Castlevania 64
Castlevania: Legacy of Darkness
Castlevania: Circle of the Moon
You should just ignore their events.
okay didn't that happen in Bram's Stoker's Dracula the movie?( I dont recall reading it in the novel) the deaths were different but the names were the same...and why would he choose to take over the identity of some random prince in Romania?
Okay, you think that is stupid, that's fine. But, it doesn't break the timeline. He also didn't take over anyone's identity. He merely changed his name.
and also making Alucard's real name Adrian Farenheights Cronqvist.
... what does that have to do with breaking the timeline?
Then we got OoE which takes place in.....The Mid 1800.....not really specific there IGA....
It's not specific because it was erased from all records. Regardless of that, what does that have to do with breaking the timeline? Order of Ecclesia doesn't contradict anything, or step on any other game's toes the way, say, Castlevania Legends did by usurping Castlevania III as the Belmonts' first battle with Dracula.
Another thing is that it was established that Dracula must be forced to rest for 100 years before he could return at full strength. But Since IGA we have Dracula pop up every so often HoD and CoD for examples. Then technically Dracula turns good at the end of SotN and apologizes before he dies. So why is he still popping up in OoE (under the assumption the other games aren't cannon) still as evil as always?
Man, don't blame IGA for stuff that's been happening well before his arrival. Was Castlevania II one hundred years after Castlevania? Was Bloodlines one hundred years after Bram Stoker's Dracula? Also, Dracula never turned good. He had some regrets when confronted by his son, but he never said he was going to stop doing what he was doing.
-
It's not really broken more than it is cluttered. The only problem I can see people having with IGA's timeline was that it shatters pre-existing theories of individuals who believed the timeline should've been a different way. Of course, the amount one becomes sour because of such depends directly on how one's able to dwell on something or take it as one of many "takes" on the timeline.
As for Lament, I believe IGA made that game in response to something he didn't even start. The guy who wrote Rondo of Blood was the one who came up with Dracula being a freakin old ass vampire, and IGA(from how he spoke about this particularl subject), felt obligated in explaining why Dracula was that old. I think the whole "choosing the name Mathias Cronqvist" thing was to throw people off. I mean, prior to LoI's release, from what I recall, many actually thought that Joachim was Dracula. I recall people coming up with the conclusion that "Oh, he has white hair, just like Alucard and Dracula from IGA's CV games!! That must be YOUNG DRACULA!".
-
It's not really broken more than it is cluttered. The only problem I can see people having with IGA's timeline was that it shatters pre-existing theories of individuals who believed the timeline should've been a different way. Of course, the amount one becomes sour because of such depends directly on how one's able to dwell on something or take it as one of many "takes" on the timeline.
As for Lament, I believe IGA made that game in response to something he didn't even start. The guy who wrote Rondo of Blood was the one who came up with Dracula being a freakin old ass vampire, and IGA(from how he spoke about this particularl subject), felt obligated in explaining why Dracula was that old. I think the whole "choosing the name Mathias Cronqvist" thing was to throw people off. I mean, prior to LoI's release, from what I recall, many actually thought that Joachim was Dracula. I recall people coming up with the conclusion that "Oh, he has white hair, just like Alucard and Dracula from IGA's CV games!! That must be YOUNG DRACULA!".
Awsome post
-
To add what DS said, I think the ppl who sees the timeline as broken doesn't agree with it
For example, there are a few ppl who claims IGA is sexist just because CV legends isn't canon anymore
Although I am not tryin to open up the "sexist" can of worms here, the point of the matter is that a few who have a problem with the IGA's directions of the game, will try to find ways to hate the creator despite whether or not the claims are true.
Even if Circle and 64 are not in the main timeline, it isn't IGA fault's since those games already contradict the timeline. No one can really fault Iga since havin those games canon is more work than it is worth. He could either make the n64 games or Dracula X games canon. He went w themore popular series.
Let's say Iga does somehow fits the gaiden games into the timeline. we would have fans complain about it. I would imagine instead of fans rantin about the gaiden titles not bein canon, they would most likely rant about hte timeline being broken.
Also, who is to say the n64 games cannot be revisited? Iga could easily make a new CV game that exist with the n64gamez and legends.
-
To add what DS said, I think the ppl who sees the timeline as broken doesn't agree with it
Heh, first I would like to say that there's an exception to this rule: me. I don't think IGA timeline is broken but I stil don't "agree" with it. Second, I would like to point out that all the non-canon games don't contradict at all. And before somebody goes HUNTAR WHIPPU!!!111!!1!11oneoneoneone, first you must know that most people tend to write unexplained/vague plotpoints off as condratictions, rather then actually using their heads. Anyway, IGA seems to realise this too, because I noticed there are an awful lot of little story nods and references (to Circle of the Moon and the like) in IGA's games and other projects (OoE and that radio drama for example). I could post them if anyone is interested. :-X
-
Thanks to everyone so far for posting and sharing your opinions on the matter.
-
In Reply To #7
This wasn't meant to be a debate just an explanation of why you either think the time line is broken aka you dont really agree with what he has done with it or not. Though I acknowledge your opinions next time try not to single someone out so that way we don't fill this thread of useless arguing.
-
My answer is Yes. The Castlevania series was originally never story-focused. The original plots of both Dracula's Curse and CV Adventure on Game Boy state the setting to be 100 years before Simon Belmont, directly contradicting each other. Super Castlevania IV is just a retelling of the original story, as was Akumajo Dracula X68000. Through most of the 90s, Castlevania games all seemed to be self-contained stories, only very loosely connected by the following general framework: Dracula resurrects, a Belmont descendent must kill him. There was just enough story present to set up the gameplay. This was true of Bloodlines, of CV64, and of Rondo. It wasn't until SotN that story started to become a series focus, and the games started to directly interconnect (the events in SotN directly following those in Rondo, and it also linked to CV3 by having Alucard as its hero). Now with those three games (CV3, Rondo, SotN) directly linked together, you started to see the story thread forming. Circle of the Moon went back to the more traditional series approach of a self-contained story that just followed the general framework, and then when Iga took control of the series the timeline began in earnest.
And it is very difficult to tie together a series of games that for so long really weren't intended to be connected directly together. By connecting all of these games together, by establishing a clear canon and concrete story elements that must be followed, you make it more difficult to tell a new individual story because you now have to make sure everything ties out. For example: If Lords of Shadow had come out in, say 1996, they wouldn't have had to say "forget everything you know about Castlevania". They could have just told their story the way they wanted to tell it, and it would have fit. But because you add all this complex backstory and ruleset, it is now much more difficult to tell an effective story, because you constantly have to make sure that it is "obeying the rules" of the complex continuity and fitting in to one of the few available timeline gaps.
Thats why in the Legend of Zelda series, the games DON'T all tie in together. Link to the Past doesn't connect to the events of Ocarina of Time. That allows them to tell stories in those individual games that follow the general framework but with specific story elements that are self-contained. They don't have to stop and say "Oh wait, we can't make Link start as a novice boy warrior here, because he was already a novice boy who became a famous hero in this other game." The Castlevania series used to be similar, until Iga started connecting all the games and creating the timeline. And when some prior games didn't fit with the timeline he envisioned, they got retconned (which annoyed and alienated many fans).
-
Heh, first I would like to say that there's an exception to this rule: me. I don't think IGA timeline is broken but I stil don't "agree" with it. Second, I would like to point out that all the non-canon games don't contradict at all. And before somebody goes HUNTAR WHIPPU!!!111!!1!11oneoneoneone, first you must know that most people tend to write unexplained/vague plotpoints off as condratictions, rather then actually using their heads. Anyway, IGA seems to realise this too, because I noticed there are an awful lot of little story nods and references (to Circle of the Moon and the like) in IGA's games and other projects (OoE and that radio drama for example). I could post them if anyone is interested. :-X
Not starting up a debate, but I thought the contradiction between the canon and the non canon games are the era that the games exist in?
EDIT
After looking at the POR US timeline on some website, I guess I am wrong. That is what I get for believing some of the old comments posted on this forum. Then again, I never played the n64 titles and relied on this forum for the timeline. I mean, I recall somebody said that the CV64 titles contradict SOTN in which they both exist in the same era. However, I now realize that such a statement is wrong.
As far as I personally know, there is no CV game made by Iga with a main event that takes place during the 1800's
I know OoE takes place around the 1800s', but it is more of a side story in regards being an "unimportant" event as oppose to being a gaiden game.
-
My answer is Yes. The Castlevania series was originally never story-focused. The original plots of both Dracula's Curse and CV Adventure on Game Boy state the setting to be 100 years before Simon Belmont, directly contradicting each other. Super Castlevania IV is just a retelling of the original story, as was Akumajo Dracula X68000. Through most of the 90s, Castlevania games all seemed to be self-contained stories, only very loosely connected by the following general framework: Dracula resurrects, a Belmont descendent must kill him. There was just enough story present to set up the gameplay. This was true of Bloodlines, of CV64, and of Rondo. It wasn't until SotN that story started to become a series focus, and the games started to directly interconnect (the events in SotN directly following those in Rondo, and it also linked to CV3 by having Alucard as its hero). Now with those three games (CV3, Rondo, SotN) directly linked together, you started to see the story thread forming. Circle of the Moon went back to the more traditional series approach of a self-contained story that just followed the general framework, and then when Iga took control of the series the timeline began in earnest.
And it is very difficult to tie together a series of games that for so long really weren't intended to be connected directly together. By connecting all of these games together, by establishing a clear canon and concrete story elements that must be followed, you make it more difficult to tell a new individual story because you now have to make sure everything ties out. For example: If Lords of Shadow had come out in, say 1996, they wouldn't have had to say "forget everything you know about Castlevania". They could have just told their story the way they wanted to tell it, and it would have fit. But because you add all this complex backstory and ruleset, it is now much more difficult to tell an effective story, because you constantly have to make sure that it is "obeying the rules" of the complex continuity and fitting in to one of the few available timeline gaps.
Thats why in the Legend of Zelda series, the games DON'T all tie in together. Link to the Past doesn't connect to the events of Ocarina of Time. That allows them to tell stories in those individual games that follow the general framework but with specific story elements that are self-contained. They don't have to stop and say "Oh wait, we can't make Link start as a novice boy warrior here, because he was already a novice boy who became a famous hero in this other game." The Castlevania series used to be similar, until Iga started connecting all the games and creating the timeline. And when some prior games didn't fit with the timeline he envisioned, they got retconned (which annoyed and alienated many fans).
It is true that the zelda games do not all connect to each other. However, that is just speculation on our part because Nintendo, though has an official timeline, hasn't released it to gamers. The snes game may be in an official zelda timeline.
For those who are not aware, the zelda timeline splits off in two different directions because of what occured in Orcana of Time. Nintendo splitting the timeline in two and not releasing it to the public is a wise dicision because they can easily alter their own timeline via removing games or moving their storyline from timeline A to B and vice versa. This way, the fans won't get angry if a game like Twilight Princess was taken out of timeline A and inserted to timeline B.
-
i like it but there are things I definitely don't like so i gotta go with no.
-
I'm glad that the Castlevania games connect, I don't want more Zelda or Final Fantasy(or almost any RPG sequel) bullshit.
Anyways, I like what IGA did for the series, I enjoy the games he's done, and I would like to see him do another CV game.
As far as non-Canon games go, I'm glad that some were taken out of the series timeline, and I like that some are acknowledged as happening, but as side stories. I also hope that Lords of Shadow is one of those games that remains as a side story and does not get included in IGA's canon
-
*shrugs*
The only issue I've ever had with Igarashi-sama's futzing with the timeline is that his solution for inconsistencies has been to simply deny as opposed to actually put some effort into fixing the problems for the sake of his target audience. Rather than take the time to explain why someone else's failed attempt to raise Dracula makes sense, he chooses to declare that said attempts never happened while his own equally uneven setups become the new official canon. *shrugs* Hey, with great power, man... But then again, it took two decades for creative fans of Star Wars to add to the series and enhance it with their own takes on the mythos through books, music, radio programs and video games while George Lucas himself, the creator of the series, managed to wreck all that with one movie. - Followed by two sequels. Dude, Igarashi-sama ain't got nothin' on Darth Lucas.
Seriously though, it takes only a bit of creativity to iron out a series like this so that it make sense. You don't believe me? Then you obviously haven't tried. ^_^
-
Yes and No. I like some of the games and timeline line changes, but there are somethings in regards which I just scratch my head and say WTF? I liked LoI, CoD, CV3, The Adventure, Belmont's Revenge, CV4, CV2, HoD, RoB/DXC, SotN, and AoS. Everything in between SotN and AoS I didn't really like because of the horrible storylines and lack of explanation of why such things happened.
I'm mean everything from LoI though SotN was good, but then things get bad until AoS. I mean what happens to Alucard after SotN? Why do the Belmonts disappear until 1999? In OoE, Dracula's remains have a seal on them, but there is no explanation of why and who put the seal on them. We know little of what actually happened in 1999.
The only reason I liked AoS is because it was a nice change in gameplay and potentially opened a new path for the series in which instead of protecting world from Dracula, you, as Dracula's reincarnation, would protect humanity for new kinds of evil. However, DoS was horrible and, in my opinion, killed any chances of that happening.
-
In OoE, Dracula's remains have a seal on them, but there is no explanation of why and who put the seal on them.
That was Alucard's doing. He sealed Dracula with his own blood or something like that. It was explained in the radio drama. It's was pretty much the only noteable plot point as nothing else was explained about the entire Belmont off-shoot affair.
The more you know. :)
-
I'd say yes, I do agree with the canon so far. I also agree with the fact that it's WAY too confusing and convoluted. However, IGA should exercise some caution at this point. He continues to include things that only complicate the canon, and makes it harder on himself in upcoming games to stretch and try to explain why things are the way they are. As a result, the canon will probably soon become even more convoluted and be broken. But that's just how I see it.