Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: Lumas on January 13, 2010, 02:02:02 AM
-
As we know it was established since the start that Dracula could only return after 100 years after being defeated/killed/Blade stabbed him repeatively (ok that last part was a podcast joke) Now the question I have for you is this, do you think establishing that rule was a mistake due to the fact it would eventually run out of room to place games?
Obviously this rule has been ignore since Simon's Quest though they gave a valid reason for that game as well as Belmont's Revenge (since he didn't die in Adventure) . Here is what we know about the rebirth cycle pre SotN (meaning all games created)
1476 Dracula's Curse
1576 The Adventure
1591 Belmont's Revenge
1691 Castlevania
1698 Simon's Quest
1792 Dracula X/Rondo of Blood (awakened prematurely by Shaft as stated)
1892 Dracula is reborn unchallenged and plots to invade England
1897 Quincy stops Dracula/Bram's Novel
1917 Bloodlines (again prematurely awakened by Countess Bartley)
Now had Rondo of Blood not stated Dracula's age to be over 800 years old ( I dont know if the American version meaning Dracula X actually stated it) the timeline would have flowed consistantly though left little room for other games to be involved in medeval times thus making it difficult to continue the story in its natural medeval setting.
Now lets go over every time the 100 year rule has been broken with all the games. Belmonts revenge doesn't count because Dracula was not dead.
Curse of Darkness (1479)
Simon's Quest (1498)
Harmony of Dissonance (1748)
Dracula X/Rondo of Blood (1972)
Symphony of the Night (1797)
Circle of the Moon (1830)
Legacy of Darkness (1844)
Castlevania 64 (1852)
Order of Ecclesia (Mid 1800s)
Bloodlines (1917)
Portrait of Ruin (1944)
Now IGA broke this rule 5 times and other developers broke it 6 times. Thats a total of it being broken 11 times out of 18 cannon games (as of 2006's timeline and Order of Ecclesia added) meaning it was broken over 50% of the time. Though I believe them to have good reason personally because they wanted to make more games since Castlevania became a hit and a beloved series.
What do you think? Should the 100 year rule be kept and honored since it has been around since the start or do you think it has been holding the series back? Did the creators make a mistake in placing that rule upon the series?
Also this isn't a debate about IGA screwing up or some of the games not being cannon or the reason why the 100 year rule was allowed to be broken most of the games give a reason to why yes I know but I want to know if you think the 100 year rule is good or bad for the series.
-
They could break or reuse this rule a hundred times and I'd still buy the games no problem.
-
They could break or reuse this rule a hundred times and I'd still buy the games no problem.
Same here.
-
The rule is stupid clearly stupid, but more stupid are the circumstances surrounding every Dracula's resurrection. God bless the reboot :P
However, I would like to have a reboot with the old characters (Simon, Trevor ,Richter, Alucard...)
-
The rule is stupid clearly stupid, but more stupid are the circumstances surrounding every Dracula's resurrection. God bless the reboot :P
However, I would like to have a reboot with the old characters (Simon, Trevor ,Richter, Alucard...)
I totally agree... I like teh characters stated, but some of the things in the storyline was just ugh.
-
I do think that the 100 year rule has kind of tied the hands of the game developers. Strict adherence to it would have moved the games too far into the future before long (CastleVania VIII: Dracula in Space!!!). The only other option, the one they selected, is repeatedly breaking the rule, coming up with more and more justifications for his early resurrection each time. It was a lose-lose situation. People would either complain that the early resurrections were getting tiresome, or they would complain that later installments were too sci-fi. The word "MetroidVania" would have taken on a whole new meaning.
So yes, I think the 100-year rule was a bad thing. I agree with Ahasverus. Bring on the reboot, but give us a reboot with the classic characters.
-
Is it a "fact" with in the fictional world of Castlevania, or, Like many things in the real world, a rumor or legend? Why can't we just say, a legend is some times just that, It would seem that history has actually proved it in this case.
-
Well, first I like to point out that the 100 year rule was never a rule in the first place. In Super Castlevania IV, it was stated that the legend was just that: a legend. Now, I also remember an interview with IGA (from the offical Dawn of Sorrow guide) in which he explained that Dracula could only return after mankind was losing their faith. Only then he could be revived, which also explains why Dracula is not always revived on the hundred year mark.
The actual rule should be like this:
Once every hundred years, the minds of men are consumed by darkness when they lose their faith in God. They seek to revive Dracula and are able to do so with a simple human sacrifice. Only then, Dracula is completely ressurected and at full power.
I think it's more a case of people not understanding rather then bad story telling.
Dracula's ressurection cycle should be like this:
1476
1576
1691
1792
1897
1999
-
i think dracula comes back every 100 years so that no generation forgets how tough the belmonts are. right about the time they would be fading from memory another one pops up and kills the lord of evil with a whip and some tire irons.
-
Finally some interesting opinions!
-
I think the rule was stupid from the beginning. Sure, it may have worked at first, but anyone with a brain can see that making such a rule would be problematic eventually. I say remake some of the older games with some modifications to the story of them that can get rid of some of the plot-holes.
-
my only real problem with it is the fact that when they make a new game it HAS to be set either 100 years in the past or future..which means it HAS to have a new batch of characters.
i perfer getting a couple games with the same core of characters to get to know them better, so i much perfer something that gives the story more elbow room..id rather have simon 3 or 4 times in a row than get introduced to a new belmont every game..especially since the belmonts are generally just simon but with differnt colored hair and a new trick.
-
I would killfor a spin-off series showing us the secret agent years of Arikado hiding from the cults and recovering for Maria's death and all those things. I'm not talking about a typical CV game, I'm talking about, for example, a spy themed game, or whatever, with Arikado, when we could know more about his hiding life and how good agent he was :) Things like that could make the plot far better, but I'm almost sure that the timeline is too much screwed up, too much to correct it without sacrifices (I'm looking at you, HOD, OOE, POR, COD, ypu must to be deleted and replaced for good ;) )
-
The hundred year rule I think was more for story purposes then anything else. If they had to live by that rule but wanted to make more CV games then why not make a bunch of remakes like they did with the original castlevania? I mean there's Castlevania (NES), Haunted castle (arcade), Vampirekiller (MSX), Akumajou Dracula aka Castlevania chronicles (X68000, PSX) and Super Castlevania IV (SNES). All good games in my opinion and all fun to play even though some are more harder then others. I suppose that the SNES version of Dracula X was in that same category; a remake for a different plateform despite the fact that we felt ripped off for not getting the original RoB game the first time.
-X
-
Is it a "fact" with in the fictional world of Castlevania, or, Like many things in the real world, a rumor or legend? Why can't we just say, a legend is some times just that, It would seem that history has actually proved it in this case.
Brilliant way to look at it. I really hadn't thought about it that way before.
-
Well, first I like to point out that the 100 year rule was never a rule in the first place. In Super Castlevania IV, it was stated that the legend was just that: a legend. Now, I also remember an interview with IGA (from the offical Dawn of Sorrow guide) in which he explained that Dracula could only return after mankind was losing their faith. Only then he could be revived, which also explains why Dracula is not always revived on the hundred year mark.
The actual rule should be like this:
Once every hundred years, the minds of men are consumed by darkness when they lose their faith in God. They seek to revive Dracula and are able to do so with a simple human sacrifice. Only then, Dracula is completely ressurected and at full power.
I think it's more a case of people not understanding rather then bad story telling.
Dracula's ressurection cycle should be like this:
1476
1576
1691
1792
1897
1999
A quote from an interview with IGA
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. It's a very difficult question you posed. In America, it's Castlevania, so I suppose you can do that, but in Japan, it's called Akumajou Dracula, so it would be kind of weird to not have Dracula in there.
So I am sorry according to IGA it is a rule.
-
I'm not claiming that I'm right or something but that quote seems to condradict with what IGA later said.
http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv-dos/packaging/dosusg-248-249.jpg
Check it out, the question at the bottom.
"I have to let you know, he (Dracula) doesn't revamp every 100 years. It's said in the myth "every 100 years when the faith in God is forgotten" so I consider the faith is God the most important part."
Do you know how old that interview is in which he said that? Maybe he changed his mind about it.
-
I'm not claiming that I'm right or something but that quote seems to condradict with what IGA later said.
http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv-dos/packaging/dosusg-248-249.jpg
Check it out, the question at the bottom.
Do you know how old that interview is in which he said that? Maybe he changed his mind about it.
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=16730
it was state in December of 2007
-
Also can't quite seem to find what you posted. Please try a different method.
-
Direct quote:
"I have to let you know, he (Dracula) doesn't revamp every 100 years. It's said in the myth "every 100 years when the faith in God is forgotten" so I consider the faith is God the most important part."
-
Direct quote:
Thank you but since he stated that in 05 he must've had a change of heart and thus retconned that statement in 2007 with that interview. Either that or he doesn't know what he is talking about.
-
Thank you but since he stated that in 05 he must've had a change of heart and thus retconned that statement with that interview that took place in 07. Either that or he doesn't know what he is talking about.
is what I meant to put, i hate having dyslexia
-
Thank you but since he stated that in 05 he must've had a change of heart and thus retconned that statement in 2007 with that interview. Either that or he doesn't know what he is talking about.
...why?
I absolutely fail to see the logic in that.
-
...why?
I absolutely fail to see the logic in that.
How can you not see the logic in that?
2005 he states its not a rule
2007 comes back states that it is a rule
Obviously he made a mistake by stating in 2005 and remedied that in 2007 by stating it was a rule that had been in place before he came on with Symphony of the Night. Either that or he was mistranslated in one of the interviews or he just changes things as he goes or maybe he was drunk I dont know.
The point of this thread is too see if the 100 year rebirth cycle is good or bad there is no need in trying and debunk it. All you have to do is say whether you like it or you do not like and then give a reason to why. It wasn't a debate about IGA screwing up, or how premature rebirths work or if its a legend thus it could probably not be that he revives every hundred years or anything like that. Just a simple Yes I think it works because......or a simple no I dont like because.......or how silverlord and muchy so boringly put It doesn't matter to me because..... Its not hard people try not to over think it.
-
I don't see the logic behind it because his statement doesn't make sense. The 100 year rule was first introduced and only spoken off in Castlevania IV if I remember correctly. The game only mentioned that it was a legend, so IGA doesn't have to take this rule into account. Not to mention that IGA's explanation from 2005 makes a lot of sense and works perfectly.
-
I don't see the logic behind it because his statement doesn't make sense. The 100 years was first introduced and only spoken off in Castlevania IV if I remember correctly. The game only mentioned that it was a legend, so IGA doesn't has to take this rule into account. Not to mention that IGA's explanation from 2005 makes a lot of sense and works perfectly.
Obviously he did in 2007 when he was quoted in that statement.
"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."
How can you not understand this sentence?????
Im sorry if I'm coming off rude but I dont understand how you cannot understand a sentence clearly stating he did not make that rule and that particular rule has been there longer then him and that he acknowledges there is a rule.
And obviously you missed the point of my last post so ill paste it here
The point of this thread is too see if the 100 year rebirth cycle is good or bad there is no need in trying and debunk it. All you have to do is say whether you like it or you do not like and then give a reason to why. It wasn't a debate about IGA screwing up, or how premature rebirths work or if its a legend thus it could probably not be that he revives every hundred years or anything like that. Just a simple Yes I think it works because......or a simple no I dont like because.......or how silverlord and muchy so boringly put It doesn't matter to me because..... Its not hard people try not to over think it.
So now back on topic.
-
I understand your setence, it just never said that the 100 year rule was an actual rule. Never. It's not a plot hole.
-
I understand your setence, it just never said that the 100 year rule was an actual rule. Never. It's not a plot hole.
*Face palm* okay lets try this one last time
IGA, obviously the former lead (or current that hasn't be released) on Castlevania, stated that there was an actual 100 year rule and that he acknowledges that said rule when asked the question how tied he was to that.
1691: first game in the series (1986)
1698: second game in the series (1988)
1576: though not stated in the manual by the use of math the sequel would confirm the year this happened (1989)
1476: Fourth game in the series (1990)
Super Castlevania 4: remake of the first entry of series stating the legend of the 100 year revival (1991)
1591: sixth entry in the series confirming the hero in The Adventure to be Christopher and that he had not killed Dracula goes and kills Dracula setting up his rebirth to be a 100 years later falling on 1691 the events of CV (1991)
So I think it was a rule being since they released super castlevania 4 as a remake (though in america it was hinted to be a new adventure) explaining why Dracula appeared 100 years prior, stating the legend as said rule. Also all those games came out before 92 before there was NOT a lot of media on video games and press releases that could very state such a rule video game developers didn't get many interviews back then.
But again not the point of this thread nagumo. Read the first post and if it helps you cope pretend there is a rule. Im not explaining this any further. EDIT also I dont know where you got a plothole from? No one suggested it. "What do you think? Should the 100 year rule be kept and honored since it has been around since the start or do you think it has been holding the series back? Did the creators make a mistake in placing that rule upon the series?" was the question present nothing about plotholes was mentioned.
Now back on topic
100 year rebirth cycle good for the series?
100 year rebirth cycle bad for the series?
Or do you just not care?
-
*Face palm* okay lets try this one last time
IGA, obviously the former lead (or current that hasn't be released) on Castlevania, stated that there was an actual 100 year rule and that he acknowledges that said rule when asked the question how tied he was to that.
Hmm, I think I misunderstood you. Though, what kind off 100 year rule are you talking about? Do you mean that Dracula can only be revived ONCE every century or that he only can revived COMPLETELY every century? If it's the latter I understand where my confusion lays. *reads everything over again* I think, I understand now. I don't think Igarashi condradicted himself, I think rule works like this: Once every century, Dracula can completely revived because of that whole people losing their faith issue (which isn't necessarily exactly after hundred years after his last complete revival'. All those premature ressurections result in Dracula being only half revived, as noted by IGA. So, in a way, it's true that Dracula can be revived only once every century (I think only a full ressurection can be counted as a real one). I think only the 100 year thing is part of the supposed legend since it could also be 101 years (Rondo) or 105 years (Stoker novel) for Dracula to completely return. If that was what you were trying to say, then I apologise for not realising it any sooner. If not, I hope this at least made a little sense to you.
-
I think only the 100 year thing is part of the supposed legend since it could also be 101 years (Rondo) or 105 years (Stoker novel) for Dracula to completely return. If that was what you were trying to say, then I apologise for not realising it any sooner. If not, I hope this at least made a little sense to you.
Actually....no... in Rondo he was prematurely awakened by Shaft in 1792 when he shouldve be revived in 1798 also in Bloodlines he was awakened prematurely by Countess Bartley due to the first world war. Both games coming out before SotN which meant at the time SotN could not be factored in with Bloodlines thus since Richter killed him in 1792 he would have revived in 1892 and be finally put the rest in Stoker's Novel in 1897 setting up the premature awakening in Bloodlines.
But it doesn't matter, its cool, lets just move on with the topic.
-
There is something we must to know. Perhaps, we care for the timeline more than IGA does, or even KOnami Japan, and it's really screwed up, even Cox said that
Castlevania timeline is so intricated that not even fans understand it
So, until a story-caring producer comes to castlevania japan, who cares? :P
-
There is something we must to know. Perhaps, we care for the timeline more than IGA does, or even KOnami Japan, and it's really screwed up, even Cox said thatSo, until a story-caring producer comes to castlevania japan, who cares? :P
Actually.....
The rule is stupid clearly stupid, but more stupid are the circumstances surrounding every Dracula's resurrection. God bless the reboot :P
However, I would like to have a reboot with the old characters (Simon, Trevor ,Richter, Alucard...)
Since you stated your opinion then you must care somewhat or else you would not have stated it in the first place. ;)
-
I'm not talkingabout your posts xD, they were very good, I kind of tried to be on topic, saying that it is our own problem to be troubled with the storyline, I am, a lot, that is perhaps the source of my despite to IGA, his games had everything, good gameplay, excellent atmosphere, and in the end, good intentions, but when he says
I first imagine a new kind of gameplay and then I make the storyline
it seems that he really doesn't care about our need for a coherent story, and certainly, his own stories with a little more care would be, at the worst, remarkable.
-
I'm not talkingabout your posts xD, they were very good, I kind of tried to be on topic, saying that it is our own problem to be troubled with the storyline, I am, a lot, that is perhaps the source of my despite to IGA, his games had everything, good gameplay, excellent atmosphere, and in the end, good intentions, but when he saysit seems that he really doesn't care about our need for a coherent story, and certainly, his own stories with a little more care would be, at the worst, remarkable.
Im not understanding your english there bud, i wasn't talking about my post I was talking about what you stated previous which means had you not stated it before it means you do care about the what happens.
Also if you took time to read the first post you would have realized this isn't a topic focused on bashing IGA or the problems with the timeline. The question presented was if you thought the 100 year rule/legend/whatever it is was good or bad for the series. Not whether or not IGA ruined everything or anything like that.
-
Actually....no... in Rondo he was prematurely awakened by Shaft in 1792 when he shouldve be revived in 1798
huh
No, he wasn't. Why do you keep saying that?
-
huh
No, he wasn't. Why do you keep saying that?
Because it was stated...in the original i believe.. if not then yeah who ever worked on Rondo really messed up the series because they also stated Drac's age to be over 800.
Also Dracula never needed the assistance from anyone to revive, that was first introduced in Rondo. The previous games never showed him be awakened by anyone and in Super Cv 4 you clearly see the lighting bolt hit his grave and him in bat form fly away.
-
Also in the manual it stated that he was awakened by the Dark Priest Shaft and did not state after a 100 years Dracula revived. So yeah I think he was prematurely awakened.
-
And nagumo why are you still trying to debate with me? Ive stated numerous times to please return to the topic. If you have nothing else to say about it then please stop trying to prompt an argument from me. If thats how you feel then fine, I dont care but I do not want to fill this thread with needless arguments. The question was simple and you misunderstood it now that you understand it fine post accordingly. If you want a private debate my email/messenger is on this profile for you to retrieve.
-
Im not understanding your english there bud, i wasn't talking about my post I was talking about what you stated previous which means had you not stated it before it means you do care about the what happens.
Forgive me, I have a serious problem, I really forget what I've written before, seriously! When I read my past posts I say "What? I think like that?" and things like that.
I do care what happens, and the rule is a serious thing. I think that it was a sloopy decision back in the day; I can assure you that who did that rule didn't thougt about how big the saga would be in the future, and if you think it better, it wasn't too serious at the first (Christopher Bee WTF? :D )
-
Forgive me, I have a serious problem, I really forget what I've written before, seriously! When I read my past posts I say "What? I think like that?" and things like that.
I do care what happens, and the rule is a serious thing. I think that it was a sloopy decision back in the day; I can assure you that who did that rule didn't thougt about how big the saga would be in the future, and if you think it better, it wasn't too serious at the first (Christopher Bee WTF? :D )
You know I do the same thing. I also hate listening to the sound of my own voice on voice mails and such lol
Thank you Ahasverus.
Also I need to apologize to nagumo because I went and looked over the manula of Rondo of Blood and it was stated a hundred years had passed since he had awakened which of course like most of the background withe Rondo of Blood was incorrect because only 94 years had passed.
So sorry it didn't say he had been prematurely awaken but if you did the math it would prove he actually was prematurely awakened.
-
I think dracula only aweakens, it doesn't matter if it is by ritual resurrection or reincarnation or by his own powers. I think he just resurrects whenever the drak powers begin to control the earth.
-
I think dracula only aweakens, it doesn't matter if it is by ritual resurrection or reincarnation or by his own powers. I think he just resurrects whenever the drak powers begin to control the earth.
Well we do know that Dracula's Castle and powers reappear whenever darkness fills mankind, and Dracula probably starts to awaken too when ever that happen.
I mean, as stated in PoR, Brauner starts WW2 (how did he do that?) so lots of people would die, and fill people with sorrow and darkness, and thus Drac's Castle appears so that Brauner can use Drac's powers.
-
YOu are right! And remember that in Bloodlines, Elizabeth Bathory killed the Arch-Cuke of Austria and started the first (And overly underrated) wolrd war. Those games share a lot, and they give a light on these facts, dracula revives when darkness aproaches. However, what about 1999? did he mind about John Kennedy Jr death? or what about 1887? (Bram Stoker's dracula). Perhaps the Britain Kingdom was the darkness. We certainly don't know xD
-
Well we do know that Dracula's Castle and powers reappear whenever darkness fills mankind, and Dracula probably starts to awaken too when ever that happen.
I mean, as stated in PoR, Brauner starts WW2 (how did he do that?) so lots of people would die, and fill people with sorrow and darkness, and thus Drac's Castle appears so that Brauner can use Drac's powers.
Wait I thought Brauner lost his daughters due to the WW2 because WW2 didn't start until 1941.
-
Yeah, he was confused, Elizabeth bathory caused WWI in Bloodlines, Brauner did nothing about WWII :P
-
Yeah, he was confused, Elizabeth bathory caused WWI in Bloodlines, Brauner did nothing about WWII :P
Actually i did some quick research and found out his daughters died in WW1 which occured in 1914. He did however use the souls of those who died in WW2 to call forth Dracula's Castle. But I dont know if he actually started the war..
-
Wait I thought Brauner lost his daughters due to the WW2 because WW2 didn't start until 1941.
Actually WWII started with the invasion of Poland in December of 1939. But the Nazi party was well in existence since the early 1930's, possibly before that decade even. I'd have to research it to find out. In terms of starting the war Braunar had nothing to do with it. That was all Adolf Hitler (you know how Dark entities or Anti-Christs are). But Braunar would've used the souls of the suffering and hatred to summon up Castlevania.
-X
-
Wait I thought Brauner lost his daughters due to the WW2 because WW2 didn't start until 1941.
Actually WWII started with the invasion of Poland in December of 1939. But the Nazi party was well in existence since the early 1930's, possibly before that decade even. I'd have to research it to find out. In terms of starting the war Braunar had nothing to do with it. That was all Adolf Hitler (you know how Dark entities or Anti-Christs are). But Braunar would've used the souls of the suffering and hatred to summon up Castlevania.
-X
Well put good sir.
-
Actually i did some quick research and found out his daughters died in WW1 which occured in 1914. He did however use the souls of those who died in WW2 to call forth Dracula's Castle. But I dont know if he actually started the war..
Yeah, your right.. sorry about that.
-
Yeah, your right.. sorry about that.
Its cool brother man.
-
Because it was stated...in the original i believe.. if not then yeah who ever worked on Rondo really messed up the series because they also stated Drac's age to be over 800.
Also Dracula never needed the assistance from anyone to revive, that was first introduced in Rondo. The previous games never showed him be awakened by anyone and in Super Cv 4 you clearly see the lighting bolt hit his grave and him in bat form fly away.
First you say that Dracula was revived prematurely by Shaft, and now you say that he revived once his own? I'm pretty sure you are wrong in both cases since you never had anything to back this up. Dracula never resurrected on his own by the way. The Japanese manual states that his followers revived him. Besides, that whole Dracula getting back himself thing was just a legend and the game made this pretty clear. You can once again find it in the manual.
-
First you say that Dracula was revived prematurely by Shaft, and now you say that he revived once his own? I'm pretty sure you are wrong in both cases since you never had anything to back this up. Dracula never resurrected on his own by the way. The Japanese manual states that his followers revived. Besides, that whole Dracula getting back himself thing was just a legend and the game made this pretty clear in the game itself. You can once again find it in the manual.
After reading the manual I find you are correct in saying that he did in fact have people bring him back from the dead in super castlevania.
But Rondo is clearly wrong in its math
Prologue
"In the days of old, the people thrived on peace and prosperity. Indeed, fears of unrest were not among their thoughts...
Everpresent, however, is the underside of tranquility, evil. Evil, which spurns prosperity and disdains peace.
Gather they did, those who wished to summon the powers of darkness and cleanse the decadence of the world. And, with smiling countenance, they anxiously awaited the coming of their era.
A hundred years had past, and he was resurrected. Able to become bat, wolf, or mist at will, he lived in the night. He drank the blood of young maidens and lived an eternal life. The lord of Demon Castle, the god of evil, Count Dracula was reborn."
Actually only 94 years had passed.
-
That's pretty negligible. I don't think Dracula resurrects precisely at 12:00 am on the exact same day of the same month when he was killed one hundred years before. And Rondo is off by one year. Dracula was killed by Simon in 1691. Dracula returns in Rondo in 1792. Actually, for all we know, it may not have been a year. It could have been a matter of months.
-
That's pretty negligible. I don't think Dracula resurrects precisely at 12:00 am on the exact same month of the same day of when he was killed one hundred years before. And Rondo is off by one year. Dracula was killed by Simon in 1691. Dracula returns in Rondo in 1792.
Actually Simon resurrected Dracula and killed him again in 1698.
-
There is some speculation that Dracula from Simon's Quest was just a wraith and not his true self, just like in Harmony. Something that support this the Japanese storyline; Dracula put a curse on Simon and wouldn't get resurrected until he died. Obviously, Simon didn't die and I don't think he revived Dracula either. I think that when all the remains of Dracula's body were brought together, an evil spirit (which should be the Dracula Wraith) was born. I believe that's also how the Wraith from Harmony was created.
This might as well be speculation but I think this is the only explanation that makes sense.
Oh, and premature ressurections don't effect Dracula's ressurection cycle by the way. Although I admit that if the Dracula from Simon's Quest was the real Dracula then you were right that he would have been revived in 1798 because Rondo states that it has been 100 years since his last revival, premature or otherwise.
I hope I don't sound confusing as hell.
-
There is some speculation that Dracula from Simon's Quest was just a wraith and not his true self, just like in Harmony. Something that support this the Japanese storyline; Dracula put a curse on Simon and wouldn't get resurrected until he died. Obviously, Simon didn't die and I don't think he revived Dracula either. I think that when all the remains of Dracula's body were brought together, an evil spirit (which should be the Dracula Wraith) was born. I believe that's also how the Wraith from Harmony was created.
This might as well be speculation but I think this is the only explanation that makes sense.
Oh, and premature ressurections don't effect Dracula's ressurection cycle by the way. Although I admit that if the Dracula from Simon's Quest was the real Dracula then you were right that he would have been revived in 1798 because Rondo states that it has been 100 years since his last revival, premature or otherwise.
I hope I don't sound confusing as hell.
And you know I dont care anymore lol
So all I can say right now is well done nagumo-chan
-
Actually just realized that last post sounded kind of assholeish there. Sorry if it came out like. What i should have stated was at this point after 3 pages of arguing I dont care anymore who is right or wrong the whole point of this topic has now been deluded by 3 pages of who is right and who is wrong which wasn't my objective. But I shouldve have stated the first post a little differently so my bad.
You were right and you provided a good intellectual argument, though I admit was frustrating at moments lol but a good one and Im glad you didn't lose your cool and we came to a good conclusion out of it. Well done nagumo chan and good game. And sorry if that last post came off negative.
-
Actually Simon resurrected Dracula and killed him again in 1698.
It should be very clear that premature resurrections (like Simon's Quest) aren't what are followed concerning Dracula's 100 year slumber. Dracula was also resurrected in 1748 (Harmony of Dissonance), but he awakens in 1792 (roughly 100 years since his full resurrection in which he was killed by Simon).
-
It should be very clear that premature resurrections (like Simon's Quest) aren't what are followed concerning Dracula's 100 year slumber. Dracula was also resurrected in 1748 (Harmony of Dissonance), but he awakens in 1792 (roughly 100 years since his full resurrection in which he was killed by Simon).
That wasn't really Dracula in HoD. It was just the evil spirit born in Maxim's body using Dracula's remains.
-
That's really not entirely certain, but since he looked like Dracula, dressed like Dracula, fought like Dracula, and was called the Dracula Wraith, and the castles crumble when he dies, for the sake of the discussion (and also since he uses that logic above when mentioning Simon's Quest), I'm going to assume he was Dracula.
-
You keep ignoring that the Japanese timeline refers to the Dracula Wraith as "false Dracula" silly Succy.
-
Actually WWII started with the invasion of Poland in December of 1939. But the Nazi party was well in existence since the early 1930's, possibly before that decade even. I'd have to research it to find out. In terms of starting the war Braunar had nothing to do with it. That was all Adolf Hitler (you know how Dark entities or Anti-Christs are). But Braunar would've used the souls of the suffering and hatred to summon up Castlevania.
I've just finished my looking into since my last night's post reply. The Nazi party had been around since the early 1920's. Before they became the Nazi party they were a secret society called the Vril Society. Hitler had joined them and transformed them almost overnight. In fact the Nazi symbol, the Swastika is taken from the Vril society itself.
Whew! That's a lot of work :P
-X
-
It should be very clear that premature resurrections (like Simon's Quest) aren't what are followed concerning Dracula's 100 year slumber. Dracula was also resurrected in 1748 (Harmony of Dissonance), but he awakens in 1792 (roughly 100 years since his full resurrection in which he was killed by Simon).
Ive yet to read anything official stating otherwise, though if there is something that officially states that premature resurrections don't interfere with his 100 year slumber, then I will be inclined to agree. So until then I'm going to file that under "fan speculation." On the same hand according to Nagumo the 100 year thing doesn't even matter, Dracula can be resurrected when people turned toward the darkness or he is resurrected by some other means so in a sense you would be correct but with IGA saying in 2007 that there is a 100 year rule even though it makes more sense that what he said in 2005 about Dracula not needing to revive every 100 years. So until IGA comes out with a new time line or other supplemental reading source explaining these occurrences or who ever is head of the main time line now does we simply do not know and can only speculate because something could come out in the future that could throw something else into the mix. Like say for instance St. Germain's Super Railroad Tycoon Adventures in Time....
You keep ignoring that the Japanese timeline refers to the Dracula Wraith as "false Dracula" silly Succy.
Again they also call Trevor Belmont Ralph Belmondo in the official story in Japan but I'm still gonna call him Trevor Belmont as Im sure a lot of other people will too here in America. Silly Japanese with their tiny fingers.
-
Actually WWII started with the invasion of Poland in December of 1939. But the Nazi party was well in existence since the early 1930's, possibly before that decade even. I'd have to research it to find out. In terms of starting the war Braunar had nothing to do with it. That was all Adolf Hitler (you know how Dark entities or Anti-Christs are). But Braunar would've used the souls of the suffering and hatred to summon up Castlevania.
I've just finished my looking into since my last night's post reply. The Nazi party had been around since the early 1920's. Before they became the Nazi party they were a secret society called the Vril Society. Hitler had joined them and transformed them almost overnight. In fact the Nazi symbol, the Swastika is taken from the Vril society itself.
Whew! That's a lot of work :P
-X
Hey awesome history lesson, totally didn't know that. Thanks man.
-
There is some speculation that Dracula from Simon's Quest was just a wraith and not his true self, just like in Harmony. Something that support this the Japanese storyline; Dracula put a curse on Simon and wouldn't get resurrected until he died. Obviously, Simon didn't die and I don't think he revived Dracula either. I think that when all the remains of Dracula's body were brought together, an evil spirit (which should be the Dracula Wraith) was born. I believe that's also how the Wraith from Harmony was created.
This might as well be speculation but I think this is the only explanation that makes sense.
Oh, and premature ressurections don't effect Dracula's ressurection cycle by the way. Although I admit that if the Dracula from Simon's Quest was the real Dracula then you were right that he would have been revived in 1798 because Rondo states that it has been 100 years since his last revival, premature or otherwise.
I hope I don't sound confusing as hell.
Actually it never officially stated that Dracula appeared in his wraith form and there was no speculation about it at the time of its release (least not with me or anyone else I know thats played the game). The curse placed on Simon was a ploy set up by Dracula to gather his scatter remains and burn them to lift the curse. However Simon did not know that the sixth piece would resurrect Dracula. A simple trick Dracula used to prematurely revive himself in order to go another round with Simon and try to get revenge for his defeat and thus attempt to take over the world. He however did not realize the quality of badass Simon was and thus was defeated again. It was either be eaten away by the curse thus killing Simon or he would be revive so he could kill Simon himself either way Dracula could have won. And since it never stated Simon had any children it possibly (in my own opinion) eliminated the Belmont Blood line and HoD was not released. So yes that was the real Dracula and nothing ever stated it was a wraith or this "false" Dracula the japanese speak of. So his revival should have been in 1798 since there has been nothing, especially at that time, officially stated about premature revivals and their effect on his 100 year revival . Of course at the time of Simon's Quest there was no 100 year revival because it was not introduced, but before Rondo given the years of his previous resurrections 1576 hundred years after 1476 and because he did not die until 1591 he returned in 1691. But if his premature revival in Simon's Quest didn't factor into the 100 years thing the date for Rondo would be correct since it didn't state how long Dracula had been active but if it did then only 94 years would have passed and the game's time setting would be off by six years. EDIT Since IGA stated in 2007, the most recent interview on the topic of his 100 year revival even though it makes more sense what he said in 2005, he has lead us to believe there in fact a 100 year rule since no other cannon games have been released to challenge it.
Course thats my opinion on Simon's Quest.
Also might have not pointed out some other info i added to that.
-
Actually it never officially stated that Dracula appeared in his wraith form and there was no speculation about it at the time of its release (least not with me or anyone else I know thats played the game). The curse placed on Simon was a ploy set up by Dracula to gather his scatter remains and burn them to lift the curse. However Simon did not know that the sixth piece would resurrect Dracula. A simple trick Dracula used to prematurely revive himself in order to go another round with Simon and try to get revenge for his defeat and thus attempt to take over the world. He however did not realize the quality of badass Simon was and thus was defeated again. It was either be eaten away by the curse thus killing Simon or he would be revive so he could kill Simon himself either way Dracula could have won. And since it never stated Simon had any children it possibly (in my own opinion) eliminated the Belmont Blood line and HoD was not released. So yes that was the real Dracula and nothing ever stated it was a wraith or this "false" Dracula the japanese speak of. So his revival should have been in 1798 since there has been nothing, especially at that time, officially stated about premature revivals. Of course at the time of Simon's Quest there was no 100 year revival and their effect on his 100 year revival because it was not introduced, but before Rondo given the years of his previous resurrections 1576 hundred years after 1476 and because he did not die until 1591 he returned in 1691. But if his premature revival in Simon's Quest didn't factor into the 100 years thing the date for Rondo would be correct since it didn't state how long Dracula had been active but if it did then only 94 years would have passed and the game's time setting would be off by six years.
Course thats my opinion on Simon's Quest.
Ok, I'll give you that, but that wasn't Dracula in HoD.
-
Ok, I'll give you that, but that wasn't Dracula in HoD.
Then we can agree on that.
-
That's really not entirely certain, but since he looked like Dracula, dressed like Dracula, fought like Dracula, and was called the Dracula Wraith, and the castles crumble when he dies, for the sake of the discussion (and also since he uses that logic above when mentioning Simon's Quest), I'm going to assume he was Dracula.
Also wizard is absolutely right about Dracula in HoD not being Dracula.
The Dracula Wraith is a being born of Dracula Remains and the evil soul that was created inside of Maxim Kischine after he came in contact with the remains. He is the final hidden boss of the game Castlevania: Harmony of Dissonance. He is not actually Dracula himself (he indicates that he has never felt the power of a Belmont before).
He was born of Maxim's soul and thus would have knowledge of Simons Quest since Maxim would no doubt know of Simon's stories from his best friend Juste and legends about him. He become the worlds most famous vampire hunter after all.
So yes he is a "false" Dracula but the real Dracula appears as indicated in the official time line explanation of Simon's Quest because there would have been no evil spirit (simon was by himself) to create the same being that Maxim created though he was in a weakened state and lacked the power to defeat Simon.
So wizard yes I can agree with what you have stated and in a way Maxim was kinda the first Dark Lord candidate.
-
Also wizard is absolutely right about Dracula in HoD not being Dracula.
The Dracula Wraith is a being born of Dracula Remains and the evil soul that was created inside of Maxim Kischine after he came in contact with the remains. He is the final hidden boss of the game Castlevania: Harmony of Dissonance. He is not actually Dracula himself (he indicates that he has never felt the power of a Belmont before).
He was born of Maxim's soul and thus would have knowledge of Simons Quest since Maxim would no doubt know of Simon's stories from his best friend Juste and legends about him. He become the worlds most famous vampire hunter after all.
So yes he is a "false" Dracula but the real Dracula appears as indicated in the official time line explanation of Simon's Quest because there would have been no evil spirit (simon was by himself) to create the same being that Maxim created though he was in a weakened state and lacked the power to defeat Simon.
So wizard yes I can agree with what you have stated and in a way Maxim was kinda the first Dark Lord candidate.
I wouldn't really say that he was the first candidate. It's not like he wanted to become the dark lord. He just a little jealous of Juste and wanted to try and relieve Juste of his fate by collecting and destroying Dracula's physical remains. The fact is that the possession of the remains and the fact that he was sort of jealous of Juste gave rise to that evil spirit. So, you could say that Maxim was a victim of himself. You could also say that he was a victim of circumstance.
-
Hence why I used the qualifier "kinda"
-
Which interesting enough Nagumo stated that HoD and AoS in japan are still refered to as Castlevania and not Akumajou Dracula. Both games Dracula isn't present but his influence is. Now what happened to Maxim could have been a precursor to the Dark Lord Candidate idea in AoS. Though not an actual Dark Lord Candidate (which mind I think is the lamest name) kinda like how the Black Ninja from metal gear 2 solid snake was sort of a precursor to the Cyborg Ninja (Gray Fox) in MGS.
Course thats just an idea..
-
Well, if premature ressurections would effect Dracula's cycle of revivels, the 100 year rule wouldn't apply in the first place. Your kind off contradicting yourself their Lumas.
-
Well, if premature ressurections would effect Dracula's cycle of revivels, the 100 year rule wouldn't apply in the first place. Your kind off contradicting yourself their Lumas.
How would it not apply in the first place if they do effect it? By stating that they would effect the cycle of revivals you are implying that the rule is in place because if it wasn't in place then there would be nothing to effect thus premature resurrections wouldn't matter to begin with.
Also try to keep this grown up, trying to get me heated will get you no where and continuing this argument is becoming a waste of time.
So lets agree to disagree and move on, which I have tried to maturely ask for in previous posts and you have ignored and continued to pursue this argument because you feel the need to try and be right even though I have tried to praise you in other posts. You have taken it upon yourself to endlessly and needlessly take this topic and move it in a different direction then it was first intended. It is partly my fault that I even continued this argument and I'm sorry to everyone that it actually got this far and by that I mean 3 or so pages. You obviously have your way of thinking and I have my own so lets leave it at that. Im done with this conversation with you Nagumo, if you try to pursue it you only be met with me ignoring you. Try to be grown up and agree to disagree so we can move on.
If it helps I'll rephrase the question that was presented earlier.
If there is a 100 year rule do you think it is good for the series because it has been there or otherwise implied by previous games or do think it hinders the series due to lack of placement future games thus complicating the story?
In simpler terms do you think that if there is a 100 year rule is it good for the series or bad for it?
If that helps then answer.
If not then save what time it takes for you to type a response to it and find another topic that interests you.
-
Ive yet to read anything official stating otherwise, though if there is something that officially states that premature resurrections don't interfere with his 100 year slumber, then I will be inclined to agree. So until then I'm going to file that under "fan speculation."
All you have to do is look at the timeline.
Dracula was killed in 1476. He was also killed in 1479, yet he woke up in 1576. Dracula survived his first encounter with Christopher and was killed in 1591. He woke up in 1691. He was brought back with the remains in 1698 and 1748 and killed each time (and no, I'm not going into wishy washy arguments over whether or not that was Real Dracula), yet he woke up in 1792. Dracula was brought back in the early to mid 1800s in Order of Ecclesia, yet he woke up in 1897. He was brought back in 1917 and 1944, yet he wakes up in 1999.
Now, the only thing (and it's pretty minute) that lends some credence to the premature resurrections interfering with his regular 100 year slumber is Symphony of the Night and Bram Stoker's Dracula. Symphony of the Night = 1797, Stoker's novel = 1897. However, Rondo = 1792, so the difference isn't great enough to be convincing considering everything else I just mentioned, at least not to me.
-
All you have to do is look at the timeline.
Dracula was killed in 1476. He was also killed in 1479, yet he woke up in 1576. Dracula survived his first encounter with Christopher and was killed in 1591. He woke up in 1691. He was brought back with the remains in 1698 and 1748 and killed each time (and no, I'm not going into wishy washy arguments over whether or not that was Real Dracula), yet he woke up in 1792. Dracula was brought back in the early to mid 1800s in Order of Ecclesia, yet he woke up in 1897. He was brought back in 1917 and 1944, yet he wakes up in 1999.
Now, the only thing (and it's pretty minute) that lends some credence to the premature resurrections interfering with his regular 100 year slumber is Symphony of the Night and Bram Stoker's Dracula. Symphony of the Night = 1797, Stoker's novel = 1897. However, Rondo = 1792, so the difference isn't great enough to be convincing considering everything else I just mentioned, at least not to me.
Please return to the topic at hand by answering the presented question and giving your reason. This is not a topic to discuss the time line because that wasn't the question presented. Thats grand you think that way, really is but it is not the topic of discussion. If you cannot do that then please find another topic that interests you and post there.
-
Wait, let me get this straight. The topic is titled "The 100 year rule," and everything I said had everything to do with that topic. You said something to me, and I gave a reasonable, sensible response. If you can't take that, well... I'm not sure what to say, except you may want to reconsider posting on internet message boards:-X
-
Wait, let me get this straight. The topic is titled "The 100 year rule," and everything I said had everything to do with that topic. You said something, and I gave a reasonable, sensible response. If you can't take that, well... I'm not sure what to say :-X
Well if you read the first post you have realized this little tid bit.
What do you think? Should the 100 year rule be kept and honored since it has been around since the start or do you think it has been holding the series back? Did the creators make a mistake in placing that rule upon the series?
Also this isn't a debate about IGA screwing up or some of the games not being cannon or the reason why the 100 year rule was allowed to be broken most of the games give a reason to why yes I know but I want to know if you think the 100 year rule is good or bad for the series.
It was also rephrased here
If there is a 100 year rule do you think it is good for the series because it has been there or otherwise implied by previous games or do think it hinders the series due to lack of placement future games thus complicating the story?
In simpler terms do you think that if there is a 100 year rule is it good for the series or bad for it?
If that helps then answer.
If not then save what time it takes for you to type a response to it and find another topic that interests you.
So yes you were off topic please either answer the question presented or find another topic that suits you. Your obvious trolling attempt to disrupt the topic and start another argument will be ignored. However if you just didn't read the first post it is understandable you give a response like that however now that you are aware (and if you aren't then that's a personal thing you will have to deal with) you can either answer and give an appropriate response or find another topic.
-
Wow, you are some piece of work.
Discussions often evolve past the very base element that they began with, yet they can still be on topic. I followed that evolution and responded to something you said to me. I never tried to start an argument, I merely gave a response. But, you know, whatever. If you don't want me posting in your topic, that's no skin off my nose.
-
Wow, you are some piece of work.
Discussions often evolve past the very base element that they began with, yet they can still be on topic. I followed that evolution and responded to something you said to me. I never tried to start an argument, I merely gave a response. But, you know, whatever, if you don't want me posting in your topic, that's no skin off my nose.
No it just was stated numerous times that the topic had went into a direction that was growing to far from the presented question thus other who would join (like yourself) would become confused on what was supposed to be the topic. It was also rephrased so that we could get back to the original topic which you clearly misread. Now that you are aware of it you are upset, angry, agitated whatever it is that your feeling thats negative towards me (given that you called me some piece of work) because things did not go your way. What that was I have no idea.
If you have an opinion about the question presented then I would love to hear it because thats why I started this topic, but in all honestly given your previous post you seem like you have yourself up on a high chair and having someone like that in this topic is something I would like to avoid but with all forums that cannot be avoided but I would still like to hear your opinion,I am fair after all, though i doubt that will happen now since you opted to cop out.
Thanks for stopping by though.
-
If you have an opinion about the question presented then I would love to hear it because thats why I started this topic, but in all honestly given your previous post you seem like you have yourself up on a high chair and having someone like that in this topic is something I would like to avoid but with all forums that cannot be avoided but I would still like to hear your opinion,I am fair after all, though i doubt that will happen now since you opted to cop out.
You'd do well just to read the text I write and take it for what it is instead of trying to make assumptions about whatever feelings you think there may be to it.
For the record, I don't have any problem with the 100 year rule. It's fine by me. Though, it was established VERY early on (Simon's Quest) that there are ways around it for Dracula to return. I also have no problem with that.
-
I think the 100 year rule does apply but only just. Dracula, being as powerful and influential as he is can only be entombed for a maximum sleep duration of 100 years before being resurrected on his own. But because so many wicked people are drawn to him, they have forced him to arise prematurely before his 'proper' time and as such he's not at his full power. So you could say that all the inconsistencies in the timeline are all just premature awakenings by the bad folk and not himself.
-X
-
I have no problems with the premature awakenings either.
Heck, they can wake Dracula the very day after he's defeated, but he would be very weak :P
But if he is left dead for 100 years, he would wake by himself..
This is how I figured it all to work.
-
I just want the rule to be removed, so premature resurrections would be normal resurrections and we could have more Castlevania, and we all want more castlevania :P
-
I just want the rule to be removed, so premature resurrections would be normal resurrections and we could have more Castlevania, and we all want more castlevania :P
Yeah I agree that the rule, if there was a said rule, should be removed. Then we wouldn't have "premature" resurrections we would just have good ol regular ones brought on by crazy cults, evil corrupt people, and sacrificed maidens. And that way we could throw in more games or even continue more games like with Simon. I think everyone would like another Simon Belmont game.
-
I would love a new, 3D, action-adventure Simon Belmont game ;D (Even if it's a remake of SQ)
-
I would love a new, 3D, action-adventure Simon Belmont game ;D (Even if it's a remake of SQ)
Yeah same here seeing Simon Belmont in 3 D (his original design not miss Kojima's) kicking down the counts door would be badass.
-
More does not always = better. If they wake Dracula up every other week/month/year/ just for the sake of making more Castlevania games, the story and mythology of Castlevania, and the character of Count Dracula, would be cheapened to deplorable levels. What they actually need to realize (and they... sort of did with the Sorrow games and somewhat Lament if you bend things) is that it is possible to have a Castlevania game without Count Dracula physically present, yet still keep him a focal point of the game's events
-
More does not always = better. If they wake Dracula up every other week/month/year/ just for the sake of making more Castlevania games, the story and mythology of Castlevania, and the character of Count Dracula, would be cheapened to deplorable levels. What they actually need to realize (and they sort of did with the Sorrow games) is that it is possible to have a Castlevania game without Count Dracula, yet still keep him a focal point of the game's events.
Yeah I can agree with that to an extent, course a game with Simon going on to hunt other vampires would suffice for me.
-
Well, yes, if you think about it, did having Dracula (of FAKE DRACULA) in games like Curse of Darkness and Harmony of Dissonance really add that much from a story point of view? They could have ended HoD with the Maxim battle and it would have been fine, and quite possibly better.
-
Well, yes, if you think about it, did having Dracula (of FAKE DRACULA) in games like Curse of Darkness and Harmony of Dissonance really add that much from a story point of view? They could have ended HoD with the Maxim battle and it would have been fine, and quite possibly better.
Yeah true could have been more tragic in both cases to actually kill your best friend. I dont think either really advanced the plot or really add anything. I've found the idea of Simon going on to hunt other vampires to be a nice one, having some of Dracula's "children" upset and going on to try and plunge the world into darkness and try and kill Simon for their master's death would be a nice premise for a game.
-
More does not always = better. If they wake Dracula up every other week/month/year/ just for the sake of making more Castlevania games, the story and mythology of Castlevania, and the character of Count Dracula, would be cheapened to deplorable levels.
Even more?.. Mmmm I don't think so. Yeah, I0m not talking about Dracula everyweek, but without the rule, we wouldn't bother about a 10 years or 20 years resurrection (Obviously, if they were with a good reason, not for the sake of Dracula -I'm looking at you COD, and POR)
-
More does not always = better. If they wake Dracula up every other week/month/year/ just for the sake of making more Castlevania games, the story and mythology of Castlevania, and the character of Count Dracula, would be cheapened to deplorable levels. What they actually need to realize (and they... sort of did with the Sorrow games and somewhat Lament if you bend things) is that it is possible to have a Castlevania game without Count Dracula physically present, yet still keep him a focal point of the game's events
The best post in this entire thread.
-
The best post in this entire thread.
It's true. We don't need Dracula for a successful CV game. As long as we have the elements, the castle, and everything else that makes a good CV, then we don't need Dracula. Fighting him isn't the whole series and it can't last forever. Dracula in this series is essentially evil incarnate, but he can be replaced. As we can see in DoS, the cult is trying to create a new Dark Lord and if they succeeded, it would be fine. We would just have a new evil to fight.
-
It's true. We don't need Dracula for a successful CV game. As long as we have the elements, the castle, and everything else that makes a good CV, then we don't need Dracula. Fighting him isn't the whole series and it can't last forever. Dracula in this series is essentially evil incarnate, but he can be replaced. As we can see in DoS, the cult is trying to create a new Dark Lord and if they succeeded, it would be fine. We would just have a new evil to fight.
Ive yet to see a good successful Castlevania that broke ground with out Dracula. DoS did good with reviewers (Personally I consider it one of the worse in the series) but not every gamer is going to associate Castlevania with out Dracula until a game that really makes a commercial impact like GoW (for example since everyone is comparing LoS to it) comes out. DoS, AoS, and every other game that came out that really didn't have Dracula in it didn't really make an impact on the over all gaming world. More gamers (not just cv fans) will associate Castlevania as Dracula's Castle.
-
I really don't believe the success of the series is dependent much at all on whether or not Count Dracula physically shows up in some games. I think it has more to do with how good the games are and how well they're marketed, and perhaps just being the right thing at the right time.
Even more?.. Mmmm I don't think so.
Man, would you cool it with these "Iga killed Castlevania" quips or tirades? I don't think it's prudent nor necessary to remind us how you feel nearly every post, especially when you shoe horn it in near entirely unrelated discussions. It just makes you seem obsessively vindictive.
-
Yes, peghaps, sorry about that, but I'm kind of radical about my position against IGA. I'll try to leave it out for the most part :)
-
I really don't believe the success of the series is dependent much at all on whether or not Count Dracula physically shows up in some games. I think it has more to do with how good the games are and how well they're marketed, and perhaps just being the right thing at the right time.
I do agree, what I was trying to get at was this. DoS was a poor example on how the series could move on without Dracula. Its kind of unfair to say that Castlevania, a game known for having Dracula as it's main villian, could move on without him with a less then stellar game that catered only to fans of the series. Now if they released a ground breaking game that was successful, not because Dracula wasn't in it, but because it contained everything you stated then the overall gaming community could see how the series could move on rather then when they think Castlevania they automatically think Dracula. LoS might be the game to do this but I'm still betting on Dracula being in it. It would be nice to explore other vampiric villians other then Dracula as Lament proved there are other vampire lords in the world. It could possibly open a new door for the series and thus give the Belmonts the true title of vampire hunters when obviously they are just the worlds defense against Dracula.
-
Basically what I'm trying to get at is that they need a game that proves that the series can move on with out Dracula. Not only to fans but to other gamers so that the series can seperate itself from Castlevania=Dracula as the main villian. If a game came out and was a smash hit and the villian was oh lets say Baron Meinster (without having Drac appear in some way) from the Dracula movies (Brides of Dracula I think..) then the gaming community could think "Well a great Castlevania without Dracula. Thats freakin awesome." Then I could say that the series could survive without Dracula.
I hope that makes more sense to what I was getting at...
-
I think you've got an excellent point. They could also do some prequel games, showing Simon's "rise" as the world's greatest vampire hunter as he gradually takes on more and more powerful vampire lords.
-
I think you've got an excellent point. They could also do some prequel games, showing Simon's "rise" as the world's greatest vampire hunter as he gradually takes on more and more powerful vampire lords.
They could also do games about what the Belmonts did between LoI and CV3, which is when Mathias/Dracula was in hiding. After all, at the end of LoI, Leon says and I quote: "From this day on, the Belmont Clan will hunt the night!" It would also fill in a plot-hole. At the end of LoI, the Belmonts weren't expert vampire hunters. Yet, by the beginning of CV3 they are. I would like to see what they went through during that period of nearly 300 years.
-
From an '05 interview:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/c0mbat/iga-1.jpg)
Also, thought I'd might share this:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/c0mbat/iga2.jpg)
-
From an '05 interview:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/c0mbat/iga-1.jpg)
Also, thought I'd might share this:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/c0mbat/iga2.jpg)
Unfortunately IGA contradicted himself in 2007 with this interview
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. It's a very difficult question you posed. In America, it's Castlevania, so I suppose you can do that, but in Japan, it's called Akumajou Dracula, so it would be kind of weird to not have Dracula in there.
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=16730
Course you are a little late since we have already moved on from that part of the discussion. Nagumo was kind enough to already share that with the rest of us earlier.
-
I won't bash him by your request, but let this face teel what I'm thinking: ::)
Can you see it now? Who doesn't care about it? who gives a damn about it? mmm, you know who (And his name has three letters). :-\
-
I thought you would refrain from the tirades Ahasverus my dear. There are obviously fans who do care about the timeline, because IGA maybe condradicted himself one time doesn't mean the entire timeline is broken like you like to imply.
-
It was a typos error xD, I was talking about "you know who" who improvises everytime to make his games fit in the storyline, don't matter what was before there.
-
It was a typos error xD, I was talking about "you know who" who improvises everytime to make his games fit in the storyline, don't matter what was before there.
When I first opened this thread I clearly stated this was not a IGA bashing topic. Even though this topic has once again moved past its intended point you have stated your opinion on IGA several times and have been told by other members to refrain from stating it any further, please respect their request as a mature adult.
-
I won't post here, my opinion is simple, the storyline was fine, IGa came, changed the rules whenever he wanted to and now it's screwed up. Now, I will keep posting in the LOS topic ;)
-
I won't post here, my opinion is simple, the storyline was fine, IGa came, changed the rules whenever he wanted to and now it's screwed up. Now, I will keep posting in the LOS topic ;)
If that is how feel then by all means. You have stated your opinion a million times and we have gotten the point but other members who are posting here have requested that you stop constantly taking shots at IGA. Since you are unable to do this like an adult thank you for removing yourself from this thread for the sake of other members.
-
Also if you have paid attention at all to what has been stated in this thread as well as others you would have learned that Rondo of Blood/Dracula X was the first game in the time line to really throw a wrench into the series and IGA was dealt a bad hand, though not at all a good story teller, he alone was not responsible for the confusion with in the time.
-
i think dracula comes back every 100 years so that no generation forgets how tough the belmonts are. right about the time they would be fading from memory another one pops up and kills the lord of evil with a whip and some tire irons.
It only works if those tire irons can be thrown and return back to the hand of the mechanic. The mechanic of the Pope-Mobile that is.
-
That I'd like to see for a modern CV game. Instead of the holycross boomerang you throw Tireirons! That'll be a b***h to whom ever it comes in contact with.
-X