He should leave Konami, and make Nanosaga-Judgment.Everyone's dream come true.
Lemme revise my previous statement. Let MercurySteam/Cox continue the console saga ONLY IF they decide to draw REAL inspiration from the old games and stop adding unnecessary Shadow of the Collosus/Uncharted elements. As good as it was LoS didn't feel like a "true" Castlevania game, and I sincerely think if IGA was on board the game would have benefited from his advice on what makes Castlevania Castlevania.
I would love to hear/read Kouji's opinion on LoS. I'm sure he'd agree that the soundtrack was shit too
I really don't want to enter i that debate again, but...
Shadow of the Colossus? That game is more than 4 years old. And there are only THREE titans in LoS.
And Oscar Araujo music is not SHIT. It is quite repetitive? True. But that's not a fault of Araujo and the magnificient partitures he wrote. Actually, most of the themes are great neoclassical pieces. In my opinion, you shouldn't call it SHIT.
Have you all been sitting here for the past decade cursing IGA? If he's been the showrunner for that long, and you despise his work, WHY are you a fan? Seriously, I'm curious.
I don't want a Hollywood-esque score in my castlevania
Apparently MS needed Kojima's advice, a guy that's never even worked on a Castlevania game, so why is it outlandish for them to have brought IGA on board as well? Your hate for IGA a man you discovered only recently is so apparent it's funny.
Those comparisons with SoTC are depressing too.
Pandemonium isn't that old of a game. I've been playing platformers since they started btw.
Araujo's music is beautiful... but terribly inappropriate. It may not even be his fault. Perhaps he was instructed to work it that way by higher ups. I know there are some game companies that give the composer power enough such that he can make a song, and they'll build a stage around it, while others are the other way around and build a stage and show a concept sketch to the person and say "Make a song about something that looks like this". Etc.
I wouldn't call it shit or lame music. Inappropriate for CV is as far as I'd go... just not a good fit (most tunes anyway).
Why not? Hollywood music is good.Sure it is, just not for Castlevania my friend.
When you suddenly discover that the reasons behind all the LAME things of the last games you played was one and only one man's faults... is very logical to hate that guy. Don't you think?As said by others, blaming one guy for all the series' disappointments is illogical reasoning that too many people make. Making games is a collaborative effort, and spewing hatred the likes of "GRRR IGA SHOULD DIE ALREADY" makes those butthurt fanboys seem more and more foolish with each sentence.
And Kojima only make little suggestions.Exactly! IGA making little suggestions is a perfectly valid argument. He's qualified enough and it would've made the experience all the more enjoyable because they all have that passion (Cox, Kojima & IGA). People make it seem like his games are the equivalent to Atari games. Hey I know! Lets blame Symphony of the Night for raising the bar so high.
As said by others, blaming one guy for all the series' disappointments is illogical reasoning that too many people make. Making games is a collaborative effort, and spewing hatred the likes of "GRRR IGA SHOULD DIE ALREADY" makes those butthurt fanboys seem more and more foolish with each sentence.
Can we please stop this bickering now CristopherLee. It's CHRISTMAS
Are you kidding? If you are the director of a project you are the maximum responsible of the final result.You DO realize most of the games IGA gets slack for were NOT directed by him. Produced by him, maybe, but not directed. Actually, the ONLY game he has contributed his diretorial duties was on SotN, and that was as an ASSISTANT Director, not a full one.
Are you kidding? If you are the director of a project you are the maximum responsible of the final result.
You started
I really want a 1999 game. ;_;
You DO realize most of the games IGA gets slack for were NOT directed by him. Produced by him, maybe, but not directed. Actually, the ONLY game he has contributed his diretorial duties was on SotN, and that was as an ASSISTANT Director, not a full one.
LoS is a great game, but it's just not CV.
All Castlevania games since 2002 are not Castlevania. Okay ?
Can you tell me what is in common between Super Castlevania IV and AOS or LOI ? NOTHING.
"PLEASE I WANT THE 1999 GAME". People here dream about a "game" that DOESN'T EXIST (so it's not a game).
I played the Castlevania games since the early 1990', so please stop considering IGA games are Castlevania. They have nothing to do with Castlevania, it's IGA point of view about what Castlevania should be but NOT every Castlevania's 1st generation fans want to play. We have Metroid if we want to play Metroid games. We have RPG if we want to make some Level Ups to beat Boss in 2 strikes.
IGA had his time with the franchise. He showed us the best he could do. Why can't he let his place to another crew and talented team ? I don't care about MercurySteam or another one. I'm not a Coxfan, but his LOS game was pleasant to play and it was really a fresh new game and that's all I want when I play a Castlevania game.
People on this forum are really blind and unfair. Just like children.
Uncapable of hearing and debate without insults and stupid arguments.
Shame on you.
All Castlevania games since 2002 are not Castlevania. Okay ?
Can you tell me what is in common between Super Castlevania IV and AOS or LOI ? NOTHING.
"PLEASE I WANT THE 1999 GAME". People here dream about a "game" that DOESN'T EXIST (so it's not a game).
I played the Castlevania games since the early 1990', so please stop considering IGA games are Castlevania. They have nothing to do with Castlevania, it's IGA point of view about what Castlevania should be but NOT every Castlevania's 1st generation fans want to play. We have Metroid if we want to play Metroid games. We have RPG if we want to make some Level Ups to beat Boss in 2 strikes.
I'd like an explanation on what exactly you want in a Castlevania game because I'm a bit confused. IGA's game are not Castlevania, but LoS is? One could argue that LoS has little in common with the older games as well. Do you want Castlevania to still retain level-based 2D side-scrolling gameplay like the older games? You stated that LoS is a fresh new game and that's what you want, but I feel that if we kept level-based 2D side-crolling gameplay then they would eventually stop feeling so fresh. I'm not trying to pick your post apart and attack you, so please don't take it that way.....I just want you to clarify what exactly you want.
So Castlevania LOS is a Castlevania game because it's a very long and challenging gamen, it's not Level Up based, with Save Rooms, Teleports, and all I described sooner. I hope you understand what I mean now. Yes, I played Castlevania since I'm a little boy, but at least, I know WHY I like Castlevania. That's why I want a new direction for the series for each new entry. I don't want IGA games forever because they are useless for the gamers.This (sans the last part :P " I want a new direction for the series for each new entry" really? xD)
People on this forum are really blind and unfair. Just like children.
Uncapable of hearing and debate without insults and stupid arguments.
Shame on you.
QuoteSo Castlevania LOS is a Castlevania game because it's a very long and challenging gamen, it's not Level Up based, with Save Rooms, Teleports, and all I described sooner. I hope you understand what I mean now. Yes, I played Castlevania since I'm a little boy, but at least, I know WHY I like Castlevania. That's why I want a new direction for the series for each new entry. I don't want IGA games forever because they are useless for the gamers.This (sans the last part :P " I want a new direction for the series for each new entry" really? xD)
About LOS, one simple illustration : I loved to fight epic combats against Vampires. Iga and his team totally forgot during 8 years that Castlevania was a fight between a Hero/Vampire Hunter against evil creatures of the Night, including Vampires ! Althought we have a crazy large variations of Skeletons in IGA games, but absolutely no vampires (just final boss).Yes, IGA N-E-V-E-R used vampires in his video games OTHER than final bosses. I mean, y'know, Olrox, Joachim Armster, Walter Bernhard, Brauner, Loretta and Stella, and even Vampre Annette in DXC were only set pieces. You never really fight them as, say, BOSSES! *wipes the sarcasm off lips*
Konami should make up for the lack of vampires by releasing a Castlevania game with 8 Vampire Masters in their own levels. You should be able to choose which order to tackle the levels, and for every Vampire Master you beat, you gain a new ability/weapon. Finally, when you've beaten all the 8 Vampire Masters you should be able to enter Dr Wily's... eh, Draculas Castle.
Great idea on paper, this. ;D
Konami should make up for the lack of vampires by releasing a Castlevania game with 8 Vampire Masters in their own levels. You should be able to choose which order to tackle the levels, and for every Vampire Master you beat, you gain a new ability/weapon. Finally, when you've beaten all the 8 Vampire Masters you should be able to enter Dr Wily's... eh, Draculas Castle.
Great idea on paper, this. ;D
You are free to leave the forum if you so wish. Or stay. But I will not have you insulting the community every three of your posts. You're not any better than any of these forum members, so please stop acting like you are.
And I will finish it. What kind of stupid child response is that?
Stop with the nonsense already, what the hell!?
Making games is a collaborative effort, and spewing hatred the likes of "GRRR IGA SHOULD DIE ALREADY" makes those butthurt fanboys seem more and more foolish with each sentence.
Yes, IGA N-E-V-E-R used vampires in his video games OTHER than final bosses. I mean, y'know, Olrox, Joachim Armster, Walter Bernhard, Brauner, Loretta and Stella, and even Vampre Annette in DXC were only set pieces. You never really fight them as, say, BOSSES! *wipes the sarcasm off lips*That's so true. Actually, having vampires as normal enemies was one of the redeeming features of the N64 CVs. It's also what I like about LoS. For Dracula being "lord of the vampires", he doesn't have a lot of them as underlings.
Konami should make up for the lack of vampires by releasing a Castlevania game with 8 Vampire Masters in their own levels. You should be able to choose which order to tackle the levels, and for every Vampire Master you beat, you gain a new ability/weapon. Finally, when you've beaten all the 8 Vampire Masters you should be able to enter Dr Wily's... eh, Draculas Castle.LMAO.
Great idea on paper, this. ;D
This (sans the last part :P " I want a new direction for the series for each new entry" really? xD)
Ugh, sorry but NOT THIS.
Innovator, way to act like a glorified troll by continuously bashing the community for literally nothing at all. We consider IGA's games Castlevania games because they're CASTLEVANIA games, it doesn't matter what you want them to be. And LoS is a Castlevania game as well! But wahhh they include save points & levelling up, the Japo-influences make me poop my pants. Please stop spamming this forum with how much you hate half the games of the series, I think we get your point by now. Sheesh.
Sorry for the Off-Topic Jorge, but I want to ask something: this forum have a account ban/suspension system? I never saw anyone here being suspended at all... just asking.
I don't get it? What more closure could another Iga game possibly bring? Don’t we already know that Dracula loses in the end & that the Belmont line may even finish with Julius as well since he failed to produce an heir? For me Iga's last real game (OOE) felt less connected to Castlevania's mythology than most other Castlevania games usually are - it's almost like a filler episode.
OoE didn't really explain anything regarding the dissapearence of the main Belmont family line. It just said that they dissapeared.
The whole "Belmont's can't use the whip because Richter was corrupted" thing is just dumb. Soliyeu was corrupted in the same way and they had no problems then. I honestly don't care about the stories anymore in Iga's games. I just with he'd stop trying to connect everything and give us more Belmont doing his thing.
It's been forever since I played that game, but if I remember correctly, Soleiyu didn't use the Vampire Killer to commit his evil acts. If he did, then what did Chris use to stop him.Both of these statements have a point. Richter wasn't the first Belmont to be corrupted, but he was the only one who wielded the vampire killer while being corrupted. Soleiyu hadn't yet received the title of vampire hunter and thus, he didn't have the whip yet.
Most Castlevania games are fillers, but OoE wasn't as pointless storywise as PoR or something because it at least explained what happend to the Belmont family.
I'm pretty sure Richter corrupted the whip so that IGA wasn't expected to make games with Belmonts anymore.
I honestly think he shouldn't have publicly released a timeline since the CV community can be quite vicious.
A simple one would've just been "They're Belmont Descendants". There was really no reason to make it all "My last name is my power".
The whole "Belmont's can't use the whip because Richter was corrupted" thing is just dumb. Soliyeu was corrupted in the same way and they had no problems then.
That's just fandom. The real reason hasn't been explained yet.The curse bit IS just fan speculation. The official word is that the Belmonts went into hiding(with no description to why they did this). People think it's Richter because he seemingly WAS the last Belmont to wield Vampire Killer before the Belmonts went into hiding. This is proven by the fact that in PoR, the Whip's Memory appears in the form of Richter(Whip's Memory appears in the form of the last Belmont who wielded it).
I think alot of people forget that IGA didn't create the "Belmont hero disappears" problem. That came before IGA, from Bloodlines --a rather awkward attempt to shoehorn Bram Stoker's novel into the evolving canon --which BTW was just fine without it. Once the Belmont surname became disposable, certain elements of Castlevania needed to be reconciled with the well-established world of Van Helsing, Harker, and Morris... Things like making Quincy an offshoot Belmont --making the Vampire Killer -dangerous- to anyone without the surname --Richter's mysterious curse that forces the main family into the wilderness till Julius... and the list goes on and on --in fact I could still point to half a dozen things that haven't been properly reconciled yet... IMO the biggest mistake IGA made was failing to retcon Bloodlines along with Legends and the CV64s --but DAMN, for all the criticism Portrait gets around here I wonder how any of you might have solved the story-telling problems he made an honest attempt to tackle. Anyone?Yes, IGA didn't create the Belmonts disappearance, just like IGA didn't create the bit about Dracula being an estimated 800 years old in the late 1700s . People critcize him from making Dracula "different" than Vlad the Impaler(How stupid, he's OLDER than the REAL Dracula! That sucks!!) and believe that SotN and LoI brought that bit up first, when it was actually put into canon by RoB(which wasn't written by IGA). The only thing IGA did was attempt at damage control(try to explain why those things are the way they are). He hasn't done so yet withthe whole "Belmonts disappearance", but I think I think it's one of those things he'd feel obligated to getting around to.
The curse bit IS just fan speculation. The official word is that the Belmonts went into hiding(with no description to why they did this). People think it's Richter because he seemingly WAS the last Belmont to wield Vampire Killer before the Belmonts went into hiding. This is proven by the fact that in PoR, the Whip's Memory appears in the form of Richter(Whip's Memory appears in the form of the last Belmont who wielded it).Yes, I whole-heartedly agree. The problems with the overall story aren't really Iga's fault. His predicesors screwed things up by making Dracula older than Vlad the Impaler (RoB) and by trying to work in Bram Storker's Dracula (Bloodlines). While he did do a somewhat decent job, he is still criticized because he is currently the one in charge and there are plot wholes even though he isn't the one who created them. I, as well as others on this forum, applaud him for his attempts at damage controls. A lot of the plot holes could have been solved simply by removing Bloodlines from the timeline and then saying that in the castlevania universe, Count Dracula Vlad the Impaler were two different individuals.
Yes, IGA didn't create the Belmonts disappearance, just like IGA didn't create the bit about Dracula being an estimated 800 years old in the late 1700s . People critcize him from making Dracula "different" than Vlad the Impaler(How stupid, he's OLDER than the REAL Dracula! That sucks!!) and believe that SotN and LoI brought that bit up first, when it was actually put into canon by RoB(which wasn't written by IGA). The only thing IGA did was attempt at damage control(try to explain why those things are the way they are). He hasn't done so yet withthe whole "Belmonts disappearance", but I think I think it's one of those things he'd feel obligated to getting around to.
I think a lot of people forget that IGA didn't create the "Belmont hero disappears" problem. That came before IGA, from Bloodlines --a rather awkward attempt to shoehorn Bram Stoker's novel into the evolving canon --which BTW was just fine without it.
You're right. Actually, now that I think about it, the whole mess started with AoS in that Julius had the Belmont last name. And I believe that Iga was in charge when it came out. So, it is partially his fault for plot holes, but there is one plot hole that he isn't responsible for: in the instruction manuals of SotN (and possibly RoB) Dracula is said to be around 800 years old in the 1700s which would make him 500 years older than Vlad the Impaler. Iga tried to sort of fix this by making Dracula not Vlad the Impaler, yet Iga was still at least 100 years off.
But in Bloodlines wasn't John Morris simply intended to be the next Belmont hero, the idea of a purer separate line that just inexplicably disappeared was something that Iga introduced not bloodlines.
Both of you are forgetting Belmont's Revenge established the passing of the Vampire Killer as a father-son tradition. Bloodlines ruined that by removing the Belmont surname --all for no other reason than to force the Stoker novel into the mythos. IGA included Julius in AoS to show that the male line of Belmonts never died out --and moreover to restore them to their rightful place as Dracula's rival... All the complications in PoR work toward correcting the mythos problems imposed by Bloodlines.
Surely you don't mean us....... ;D /sarcasm
Didn't IGA say somewhere that he only removed games from the timeline if the directors didn't consider them canon? I swear I read that somewhere. Maybe he was forced into a position where he had to come up with some kind of explanation for why the Belmonts didn't wield the whip in Bloodlines.
I guess technically Bram Stoker made John Morris an American since Stoker created John's father, Quincey. However, there is no mention of Quincey having a son in Stoker's novel.
Odd.
Both of you are forgetting Belmont's Revenge established the passing of the Vampire Killer as a father-son tradition
am just saying that fans will be in rage if the games get altered by removing the title of the game or removing the belmonts as Dracula's rival
Wasn't Quincy supposely single in the book?
The manual describes a ceremony where Soleiyu is bestowed with some form of power & the title of vampire hunter but there is nothing about him receiving the whip. I don't even think the whip was regarded as the Belmont’s main source of power at that stage was it? I mean both Christopher & his son have whips in the games ending.
I've never read the book and thought Quincy was the british guy. My bad.
The son was only created to make him the sucessor of the belmont clan. It is stupid to even try to fit the book into castlevania because not only did they make the son somehow watched Quincy fight Dracula when he was five. Wasn't Quincy supposely single in the book?
I think the only game that wasn't canon, but was a bit contradicting was Castlevania legends.
CotM came out before AoS was even a glimmer in IGA's eye so at the time it fit. The Baldwins are not members of the Belmont family but Nathan is. Chronologically, Nathan's mother would've been the child of Annet and Richter. She would've married into the Graves family and then given birth to Nathan.
-X
I've never read the book and thought Quincy was the british guy. My bad.It a case of secret history of sorts. In Stoker's novel, Quincy's single, but in the CV's version, he was a father. It's a different take, and I, frankly, never had a problem with this. It's just like Dracula, who's "different" in CV than any other Dracula lore. Dracula in CV isn't the same Dracula we read about in Stoker's book, but in CV, the events described in Stoker's book take place, but differently. Just like how Dracula is older than OUR Vlad III, yet died the same year. But in CV's world, their Vlad III was really the vampire Dark Lord, ours isn't. Same for Elizabeth Bartley initiating WWI. You don't have to like the new takes on history or literature, but I, personally, don't see them hard to swallow. I have no problem with viewing Stoker's novel and CV's take on the events as being two separate entities.
The son was only created to make him the sucessor of the belmont clan. It is stupid to even try to fit the book into castlevania because not only did they make the son somehow watched Quincy fight Dracula when he was five. Wasn't Quincy supposely single in the book?
I have no problem with viewing Stoker's novel and CV's take on the events as being two separate entities.
I think he should give the series closure with the 99 war, but at the same time, I really cant bear to see the modern era end with Dawn of sorrow. It was fun, but come on. Aria was better, and the artstyle blew. The plot was sorta bland too. a cult outta nowhere has a castle base connected to hell? Celia as a villain was pretty damn shallow too. about as shallow as Dracula in the original castlevania. she just banters a bit, laughs, and teleports. Teleports, mind you. Not to mention it went into this new direction of turning Dracula into this sort of opposite of God figure, a "dark lord" who is the anthesis of God, when he was always just an evil immortal angry at God.This. AoS should just be the end point on the time line. With that in mind, all we really need is two or three games to fill in some gaps in the story: 1) the 1999 game, 2) a game explaining why the Belmont's can't use the whip until 1999 after SotN and why they seem to vanish aside from that one village, 3) a game between LoI and CVIII explaining how Mathias went from being a just a very powerful vampire to "The Dark Lord".
To be honest- was Dawn really needed? It was fine with Aria. Soma plot twist discovers his true identity, and manages to finally destroy the flow of chaos that fuels the castle and Dracula's powers, banishing the castle back into the eclipse for good, if not outright destroying it- putting an end to Dracula, and freeing himself of his dark destiny, basically living his life out as a normal person. Same for Julius, who had mentioned that as Chaos was defeated, he felt vampire killer weaken. That could be interpreted as Sara's soul finally being able to rest now that not only Dracula has been defeated for good, but his essence, his source of power, and his very estate.
shit. I overthought again.
Er- yeah. closure. give us that damn young Julius '99 game, and make Koijima do her thing, Making a pretty boy 18 year old Julius to kick ass with.
This. AoS should just be the end point on the time line. With that in mind, all we really need is two or three games to fill in some gaps in the story: 1) the 1999 game, 2) a game explaining why the Belmont's can't use the whip until 1999 after SotN and why they seem to vanish aside from that one village, 3) a game between LoI and CVIII explaining how Mathias went from being a just a very powerful vampire to "The Dark Lord".
I don't think a single game would be adequate to fill in the 300+ years between Lament & CVIII. That period alone could be filled by several games for the next 10 years.
Then again, Cox is starting a new timeline with LoS so who knows if Konami even cares about the old mythology anymore!
COx is Preping LoS : the Two Towers for later this year i bet.
I totally agree with this. Though I would like to see them fix the Mathias thing maybe have Vlad go after him kill him, claim his powers in order to save his home land then after Lisa's death get pissed at humanity for betraying him since he damned himself to save them from the invasion of Mathias' monsters, but thats just me.Well, if something like were to happen, it could make some sense. I mean, Mathias never had a problem with humans. He just became a vampire so that he would be immortal and thus defy God's decree of limited life. The Dracula we all know from the early games hates humans and wants to make them extinct. But, why Vlad would want to go after Mathias? For all we know, Mathias has no intention of harming humans. Also, Death seems loyal to Mathias. Why would he betray Mathias?
But, why Vlad would want to go after Mathias? For all we know, Mathias has no intention of harming humans. Also, Death seems loyal to Mathias. Why would he betray Mathias?Death does NOT obey the one who possesses the Ebony stone, only the Crimson Stone, and even the specifics to this relationship isn't touched upon. Death simply states, "This power I offer to the king who wields the Crimson Stone!". That's it. At most, Death basically offers a soul to his master, which is Mathias, but it doesn't state specifically that Mathias is his master because of the Crimson Stone, only that Death is offering Walter's soul to the one who wields the Crimson Stone. Again, Death has no alliance with Walter.
Death obeys those who possess the Ebony and Crimson stones. If Vlad got his hands on them then Death would turn on Mathias. As for Vlad going after Mathias? It would be out of revenge. According to history, King Matthias imprisoned Vlad for a duration of six years while his younger brother was given the Romanian throne; by none other then king Matthias. Eventually Vlad got on Matthias' favorable side and regain his freedom. With Matthias' help, Vlad raised an army and retook the throne from his brother. In the castlevania story, it could be presented that Vlad, after winning his freedom and regaining control of Romania, went after Mathias and exacted his revenge. Mithais dies and Vlad takes the two stones back with him. Death becomes his eternal servent and so-on and so-fourth.
-X
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv119%2Fc0mbat%2Fint.jpg&hash=ae355242ef8f4b41c5f73ca4f724a77c50a1fe19)
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv119%2Fc0mbat%2FUntitled-8.png&hash=606059bb9f384ec27c8a823d1e2eea493b5a884f)
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv119%2Fc0mbat%2Figa-1.jpg&hash=f7ef35c83ea5d8e573ff81e622302168a6508c0a)
debate over
I do remember that line, but what it does tell me is that Mathias, who has the Chrimson stone, is Death's lord and master.But that's exactly what I said too. Mathias IS Death's lord and master, and happens to be the wielder of the Crimson Stone(as well). Same thing. But it didn't specifically say that the Crimson Stone is the reason why Mathias is Death's master. It's one of those accounts where people might read too much into things. And, considering how IGA treats the Crimson Stone as simply a plot device for Mathias to gain his power to become the Dark Lord, and it's significance and power is lost, YET Death remains loyal to Dracula after his reincarnation as Soma(no doubt Death would love Soma to claim his Dark Lord status so things could go back to normal).
-X
what he said ^^^
Debate not over, because it would be an attempt to fix that little crazy thing IGA did with Mathias being Dracula really no one is debating that they are different yes they are the same in IGAs universe but what we were discussing is if they attempted to fix that whole mathias being dracula thing if they decided to do that. Not saying they should, though i would prefer it personally. But anyway there was no debate over the two being different just that if they did fix it and if they were debating then thats just silly you guys.
YET Death remains loyal to Dracula after his reincarnation as Soma(no doubt Death would love Soma to claim his Dark Lord status so things could go back to normal)Again, the little hints when Dracula's not around shows Death's loyalty. Especially in PoR. Then, of course, there's the novella that takes place after DoS(the one with Curtis Lang) where Olrox seeks to take over Dracula's reign of darkness, and is super pissed at him because of it. Death still seems loyal to his long gone Master, and that's after both Sorrow games. Though, it would be interesting to have a full translation of the novella to get the specifics.
Where did you read this? I've played AoS and DoS but have never encountered such info, cut-scenes or otherwise. You fight death in both those games but there is no dialogue. Is there a website?
-X
Iga's other main contribution was to solidify a timeline that had previously been a random collection of games.Actually solid timeline existed before IGA.
Death really should have either become the new dark lord or played a more active role in finding a new one. He also should have tried to get Soma to question how trust worthy Arikado really is. I mean, Soma knows next to nothing about him.