Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: crisis on March 14, 2011, 09:41:59 PM
-
Had Konami/MercurySteam announced that LoS would be replacing Lament as the true canon origin story for the series, would that have been a good or bad thing?
i'm dying to know what you think
-
As the story is right now heck no. If they changed a few story points in LoS and had another game that leads into Dracula Curse then yea I could see it. It would only make sense if they explained why the Belmont's don't know the real reason they fight Dracula. Something like "Hey Dracula's your great great great......great grandfather" wouldn't be forgotten.
-
It's better off as a separate timeline.
-
Neither LoS or LoI does any real justice to the CV cannon. They both messed up Dracs origins.
-X
-
Neither LoS or LoI does any real justice to the CV cannon. They both messed up Dracs origins.
-X
This.
-
It'd be cool, but with all previously seen characters (Carmilla, Cornell, Brauner, etc.), I don't think it could happen.
-
It wouldn't because it's not part of the official canon anyway.
Buuuuuut if it did, I guess it'd be only slightly more sense-making than what LoI does. Though LoS is still rife with nonsensical and random betrayals and wife-killings, it builds up to what happens with a better sense of foreshadowing. Honestly I'd have left it at Dracula being Vlad Dracula III and nothing else; as cool as he is, I'd like more backstory around the Castle. Much as I flat-out despised parts of LoS, the little bits of info about the castle were awesome.
-
Neither LoS or LoI does any real justice to the CV cannon. They both messed up Dracs origins.
-X
Agreed, so so much.
-
Neither LoS or LoI does any real justice to the CV cannon. They both messed up Dracs origins.
-X
But atleast LOI kept the Belmont's seperate from Dracula and did not make some lame story twist where a Belmont become Dracula himself so in my honest opinion LOI is definitely the lesser of 2 evils here.
So to answer the topic question no.
It should stay seperate from the canon now and forever.
-
I liked the idea of Dracula and the Belmont family basically being ex friends. I didnt mind the origin at all.
but LoS, wow, that would not fit into the current timeline. At all.
-
I liked the idea of Dracula and the Belmont family basically being ex friends. I didnt mind the origin at all.
but LoS, wow, that would not fit into the current timeline. At all.
This. Definitely. Besides, if I may use a literary term, Leon and Mathias are foils of each other. Both are in similar circumstances by the end of the game in that they both lost someone they loved, but they act differently. Mathias blames God and abandons humanity where as Leon doesn't and the fact that his bloodline continues seems to indicate that he moved on with his life, fell in love with someone else, and had children. Much better origin of Dracula versus Belmont that LoS so far.
-
The story of a warrior angry with God for the loss of his beloved
Dracula (1992) Intro (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq3XWcGdhcY#)
Castlevania III: Dracula's Curse.
Curse? the dracula's love.
-
I think introducing Lords of Shadow into the actual canon and having it overwrite Lament of Innocence is probably one of the worst things the series could do from a story standpoint.
-
I think introducing Lords of Shadow into the actual canon and having it overwrite Lament of Innocence is probably one of the worst things the series could do from a story standpoint.
IGA overwrite Castlevania Legends.
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages1.wikia.nocookie.net%2Fcastlevania%2Fimages%2F8%2F8a%2FInfant_Trevor_in_Legends.JPG&hash=cc6c5ff79971496e3e0bba780697beecbad963c3)
-
Yes, Iga overwrite Castlevania Legends.
I don't have a huge problem with Legends as a video game, as many people do, but that story is freaking weird. Intertwining the Belmonts with Dracula is never a good idea, in my opinion, even if it's just an implication.
-
it didnt really explain anything either and of the details it did make, it kinda contradicted previous entries like sotn and cviii anyway
-
Well Legends just copy/pasted the origin story from Castlevania III so it did at least explain how Dracula became Dracula. As for the condradicting stuff, I think the game was originally supposed to be set 100 years before Trevor or something like that since the 1450 date wasn't given until the 2005 timeline. The game only started condradicting stuff when IGA made Lament and released a story guide in 2001.
so shut your piehole thernz
-
it contradicts cviii by being the same thing.
HA
or at least despite being an origin story, it is completely redundant so why use it
or actually i'll just concede defeat because i dont feel like arguing ok
-
It contradicted CVIII, which said that Trevor was the first Belmont to kill Dracula. Being first meant that there was no other "Belmont" before him that actually "KILLED" Dracula. LoI doesn't contradict this, because Leon never kills Dracula/Mathias.
-
I'm not saying the game is not condradictive now, but back in the day before the timeline so only had the information presented in the games. And going by that information, the game never condradicted with anything.
-
I would wonder how Dracula returns in Castlevania 3 if he was killed in Legends. Legends doesn't explain it, and Castlevania 3 never alludes to a resurrection, so...
-
You have the same discrepancy between CV3 and CVA because of the exact same issues. Nobody is complaining about that.
-
Hmm... did Castlevania Adventure say Christopher was the first Belmont to kill Dracula?
-
Actually, if you read the manual there is no other way to imply it then that Christopher is indeed the first to go up against Dracula.
-
Can you post this, please? I'd like to see what you're talking about for myself.
-
Transylvania, a small country in Europe, is associated even today with a demon's legend. With his powerful evil power, the legacy of Count Dracula has been dreaded by the people. However, no matter how many times Dracula comes back, he never manages to fully
change the world into darkness as he is always put away by Simon, a descendant of the Belmont clan. However, the devil Dracula has
existed long before his first confrontation. Not as the devil Dracula, but as an evil sorcerer. Count Dracula was a fanatical demon worshipper, who built a dark castle at the outskirts of Transylvania and conducted evil rituals every night. He has summoned several demons from the other world to serve him and he himself has been trying to get eternal life by becoming a demon king possesing evil powers. With each day, Count Dracula's evil powers became more frigtening, as he spread fear and terror to the people of the village. Until one day, a man stood up. It was Christopher, an ancestor of the Belmont family. Christopher rushed to the dark castle. Many demons and traps layed out are waiting for him at the castle. Will he be able to defeat the transformed devil, Count Dracula, as expected?
Here it is. It's in the bold text.
-
You're a silly little woman. That text itself says that, "No matter how many times Dracula comes back...". That must mean that someone's been killing him : p
-
You're kind off taking that particular sentence out of context. The manual begins with telling about the Dracula legend and then skips back to the past.
-
Oh, I see what you're saying. That still doesn't explicitly say that Christopher was the first Belmont to battle and kill Dracula. There's nothing really binding in there to where there is no room to maneuver.
-
Alright, that doesn't matter since that was going to be my next point about Castlevania III and Legends anyway. :)
-
The stories are all really vague anyway. You could probably place Legends anywhere, going by its manual story. Even after CVIII. F-From what I've read anyway. I think there are only implications of progression with Christopher to Simon anyway. CVIII just seems to be the most appropriate because it gives us all that backstory and setting like it's actually significant.
-
Alright, that doesn't matter since that was going to be my next point about Castlevania III and Legends anyway. :)
This isn't the end. I'm going to get you. : x
-
Good luck with that. : )
-
I'm not saying the game is not condradictive now, but back in the day before the timeline so only had the information presented in the games. And going by that information, the game never condradicted with anything.
I believe Rondo specified some dates and ages that don't match up with Legends. So I suppose no matter which way you look at it...
-
Vaaaaaaguely had some dates. And by 'vaguely' I mean 'you'd have to be Japanese and find the PCEngine manual and even then, even in Japan, people write sillyness on manuals" and such.
-
I believe Rondo specified some dates and ages that don't match up with Legends. So I suppose no matter which way you look at it...
You mean the "Dracula is 800 years" thing, right? Well you could also look at it this way: Legends itself never specified any dates so you could pretty much let it take place it 100 years before Castlevania III. Symphony never made a problem out of Dracula being already a 400 year old vampire before he became evil so that's no big deal.
-
The thing is, LoS story is not finished so we can't say it's best or worse than LoI origin story; i liked LoI story (nbot delivery though) very interesting and kinda romantic, also very direct it didn't have a prophecy behind or something, the man was just pissed of, LoS could become an interesting story, or a trainwreck, let's wait and see