Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: Zacmac90 on June 09, 2011, 03:14:05 PM
-
I don't get why they wiped her out of the series, personally I thought she was one of the more unique characters since she was the ONLY female to carry the Belmont whip and the FIRST female to kill Dracula...so why did they take her out of the storyline?
-
To make a long story short: the game's story didn't fit with the rest of the (then) established timeline and literally contradicted other games in the series. No one has ever got around to putting her back in the series, via maybe a new storyline so she could fit properly.
-
Because she's a BIATCH. :P
-
well, you still got shanoa, even though shes not a belmont...
-
I liked Legends, I don't think it deserves the "worst Castlevania ever" award when there are other games such as Vampire Killer & Adventure to consider. I enjoyed the music for what it was, and it had decent difficulty. Only beef I have with it is the Alucard falling for Sonia subplot, and blue-skinned Dracula raaawwrrr. And why is Al still wearing the same outfit hundreds of years apart.
Sonia is still a pretty young thing, tho ^.^
-
I get why they took Legends out of the cannon, but they could have remade the game with a different storyline. You know, something like making her Richter's daughter. If you forget about the whole Belmonts can't touch the whip until 1999 thing, it could explain future wielding the whip while having a different last name. Then again, Julius had the Belmont last name. This would have made perfect sense before AoS came out.
-
I enjoy Legends as a game, it is fun, but everyone knows Trevor is the first to defeat Dracula, not Sonia. And also, it heavily implies that the Belmont clan gets its power from Dracula, seeing as they make it seem like Alucard is the father of Trevor.
and those two reasons are why I'm glad it's cut from the canon. Not a bad game or a bad character, just a bad plot.
-
And also, it heavily implies that the Belmont clan gets its power from Dracula,
Have you played Lords of Shadow? hehe
-
Why was she taken out? Cuz Iga is scared of women that brandish whips. ;D
-
Legends is a piece of shit cash-in of a video game and I'm glad they've disassociated themselves from it in terms of the meaningless canon, especially considering how hilariously defensive its inexplicable fans can get about the fact. Stick it where it hurts, Konami; I'll gladly observe.
The music's... not terrible, at least.
-
Have you played Lords of Shadow? hehe
different canons, thankfully
-
Legends is a piece of shit cash-in of a video game and I'm glad they've disassociated themselves from it in terms of the meaningless canon, especially considering how hilariously defensive its inexplicable fans can get about the fact. Stick it where it hurts, Konami; I'll gladly observe.
Kind of the way that rabid Iga supporters get so offended by the mention of a female Belmont and/or a possible (ie: never explicitly stated) affair between Alucard and a Belmont ancestor? I guess LoD fans were equally deserving of Iga's wrath because of motorcycle riding skeletons, eh? :rollseyes:
-
The game was canned mainly due to IGA. It did not "fit" with "his" personal view of Castlevania. That and he's a bit of a sexist which is why the Sonia character was never followed up on. The game itself isn't bad but as mentioned before, the plot is in question. While it was intriguing the first time I saw it, now I can see where the problems with it lye. The timeline (if IGA never produced CoD) Would've allowed for Legends to remain. But as it currently stands there's just no way. I for one want to see Sonia back in action because I believe she hasn't been properly and fairly given her due.
-
Kind of the way that rabid Iga supporters get so offended by the mention of a female Belmont and/or a possible (ie: never explicitly stated) affair between Alucard and a Belmont ancestor? I guess LoD fans were equally deserving of Iga's wrath because of motorcycle riding skeletons, eh? :rollseyes:
Sure, why not. People who deal in either extremes are awful. Though I'm pretty sure "offended by a female Belmont" is some pretty hardcore projecting on part of any Igarashi naysayers. The whole "he's misogynist!" angle was so played out from the moment of conception. Just couldn't deal with the harshin' he served their dear old Sonia, who was legitimately an ill-created character in a poorly thought-out story. For guys like Igarashi who are big on continuity and story, it's no wonder he got rid of the blemish as fast as he could. The fallout that followed amongst the fanbase was the insane part.
-
I guess LoD fans were equally deserving of Iga's wrath because of motorcycle riding skeletons, eh? :rollseyes:
No, those are the best things about LoD.
-
Sure, why not. People who deal in either extremes are awful.
Legends is a piece of shit cash-in of a video game
Indeed. Extreme opinions are very ugly...
-
To make a long story short: the game's story didn't fit with the rest of the (then) established timeline and literally contradicted other games in the series. No one has ever got around to putting her back in the series, via maybe a new storyline so she could fit properly.
Wait, can someone explain why exactly the first Legends couldn't fit into the timeline? As I recall, the only thing that didn't make sense about it (if you want to take everything as purposeful and planned) was Alucard's hair length. It may have contradicted that CV3 was the earliest game in the timeline (at the time), but that's not a big deal of course. It seemed to fit well into the CV1 / CV2 / CV3 / Rondo of Blood / SotN universe, which I consider to be the most important titles in establishing what the core, basic story "should" be. :)
-
Wait, can someone explain why exactly the first Legends couldn't fit into the timeline? As I recall, the only thing that didn't make sense about it (if you want to take everything as purposeful and planned) was Alucard's hair length. It may have contradicted that CV3 was the earliest game in the timeline (at the time), but that's not a big deal of course. It seemed to fit well into the CV1 / CV2 / CV3 / Rondo of Blood / SotN universe, which I consider to be the most important titles in establishing what the core, basic story "should" be. :)
Trevor was always talked about as being the first man to defeat Dracula. And also there's the fact that due to Legends, the Belmont family would forever be related to the evil Count.
-
Akumajo Dracula Japanese official site
http://www.konami.jp/gs/game/dracula/product/index.html (http://www.konami.jp/gs/game/dracula/product/index.html)
The first female protagonist in series
She fights by using a new system glyph.
An official site is called Shanoa is the first female protagonist in the series.
LOL
-
Akumajo Dracula Japanese official site
http://www.konami.jp/gs/game/dracula/product/index.html (http://www.konami.jp/gs/game/dracula/product/index.html)
The first female protagonist in series
She fights by using a new system glyph.
An official site is called Shanoa is the first female protagonist in the series.
LOL
I guess they meant canonical.
-
The game was canned mainly due to IGA. It did not "fit" with "his" personal view of Castlevania.
Yup, cause IGA totally produced CVIII and that game was a product of his personal view of Castlevania.
-
Where is it expressed that Trevor was the first to defeat Dracula?
-
Where is it expressed that Trevor was the first to defeat Dracula?
In like, every official guide.
-
In like, every official guide.
I don't care about guides. Any director in control of the franchise can put any spin they want on any of the previous games by writing something in one of these publications. Same goes for one of these "official" websites. These things can be changed with the times...the games themselves cannot.
I want to know in what games is it explicitly stated that Trevor was the first? Screen caps or it didn't happen. ;)
-
I don't care about guides. Any director in control of the franchise can put any spin they want on any of the previous games by writing something in one of these publications. Same goes for one of these "official" websites. These things can be changed with the times...the games themselves cannot.
I want to know in what games is it explicitly stated that Trevor was the first? Screen caps or it didn't happen. ;)
Okay, you got me there. I believe IGA said it himself, but I'm going off of what I heard people talking about.
-
The reasons as far as I know are, IGA didn't like the game, he didn't like the idea of a female protagonist in that time period, and he wanted to do a better origin story during the time of the Crusades but Legends made that impossible by firmly establishing Sonia is the first vampire hunter of the family. People who say the game was removed because of condradictions don't know what they are talking about.
-
I remember IGA saying something about a female warrior not being historically accurate for the time. Neither were clock towers, Frankenstein monsters, electricity, or men fighting Satanist factions with a transforming whip, or Dracula being an evil sorcerer, but Konami works in mysterious ways.
Shame, cuz Sonia was pretty hot. The story for Resurrection (Dreamcast one) was god awful, but dammit, I wish that game had come out anyway.
I wouldn't mind something like a Legends Rebirth, but the chances of that happening are lower than nonexistent. Legends wasn't really the best game, and the relationship with Alucard was pretty hokey, not to mention it wasn't much of an origin story at all outside of "Dracula was a pretty bad dude who used lots of magic and stuff". Even so, it had some amazingly complex music that I wish newer games would pay tribute to, and a female Belmont was a cool idea that should be revisited. But NOOOO, women are always spellcasters with lighting-fire-ice shit, or merely killed by something to make a dramatic revenge plot occur.
-
Man, has it been ages since I last logged on. But, anyway:
But NOOOO, women are always spellcasters with lighting-fire-ice shit, or merely killed by something to make a dramatic revenge plot occur.
This is exactly the reason why I greatly dislike the Belnades clan; all of them are women, whereas the Belmonts are always born a man. And if one just so happens to be a female, she either gets thrown out of Canon, or already has an older brother, ensuring that she can't use the whip.
I'm well aware Order of Shadows isn't IGA's game, but still. A female Blemont lead should at least be revisited, though I highly doubt it.
-
A female Belmont would just be Shanoa with a whip anyway.
-
The reasons as far as I know are, IGA didn't like the game, he didn't like the idea of a female protagonist in that time period, and he wanted to do a better origin story during the time of the Crusades but Legends made that impossible by firmly establishing Sonia is the first vampire hunter of the family. People who say the game was removed because of condradictions don't know what they are talking about.
What are you talking about? It had both to do with your point and to do with contradictions. Your point makes a lot of sense, but without the contradiction, that means Drac is Trev's grand-daddy.
-
I don't really have a problem with the Belmonts have a little 'supernatural' in them due to their nemeses.
I don't see why so many people do have a problem, either. They are kinda super-human in what they can do, at times.
Julius-SuperJump!
-
I don't really have a problem with the Belmonts have a little 'supernatural' in them due to their nemeses.
I don't see why so many people do have a problem, either. They are kinda super-human in what they can do, at times.
Julius-SuperJump!
Even people not related to the Belmonts and/or Drac are doin' it, too. I just don't like the whole idea about Julius and Soma, for example, being technically brothers, or even further technically having a great-great-great-great(insert greatx15)-grand daddy/son relationship.
-
I dont think the Belmonts and Dracula should be related. It sort of kills the big rift between them. The Dark vs Holy thing.
-
I dont think the Belmonts and Dracula should be related. It sort of kills the big rift between them. The Dark vs Holy thing.
Which is one of the main reasons I dislike LOS as a origin story.
Belmonts and Dracula should be completely seperated and should not be related.
-
I dont think the Belmonts and Dracula should be related. It sort of kills the big rift between them. The Dark vs Holy thing.
Also, didn't Alucard kind of have this thing about "not wanting his cursed bloodline to continue," or some such? Why would he have a kid with anyone, then?
-
Also, didn't Alucard kind of have this thing about "not wanting his cursed bloodline to continue," or some such? Why would he have a kid with anyone, then?
Case and point.
-
Where is it expressed that Trevor was the first to defeat Dracula?
I've seen the translated CVIII in-game story and it doesn't say that he is the first. It does mention that the Belmont family were vampire hunter for centuries.
-
Indeed. Extreme opinions are very ugly...
I was talking 'bout asinine fan reactions to things like "canon issues" and championing characters who do more bad than good for the overarching storyline, like Sonia. Or conjecturing ludicrous scapegoat stories about Igarashi or whoever. It's so blasé. Whereas there's no harm in calling a terrible video game just that.
-
Yup, cause IGA totally produced CVIII and that game was a product of his personal view of Castlevania.
IGA has a raging boner for CVIII, and wanted Trevor to be the first Belmont to kill Dracula. It makes Trevor look badass. Sonia, in his opinion, tried to steal Trev's glory, hence had to be wacked from the canon.
-
Also, didn't Alucard kind of have this thing about "not wanting his cursed bloodline to continue," or some such? Why would he have a kid with anyone, then?
13th Century Alucard is not as mature as 18th Century Alucard.
That's like comparing something you did when you were 14 and saying 'you'd never do such a thing' when you're in your 40's.
And this whole thing with "I want my bloodlines separate" has been destroyed with LoS anyway. Really, people are so uppity with their bloodlines being clean. HITLERS! :P :P :P
-
Is it stated in game somewhere that Sonia's child was Alucard's......or is this just more fan speculation?
-
Is it stated in game somewhere that Sonia's child was Alucard's......or is this just more fan speculation?
I think it was the secret ending to Legends. Not sure though, never beat that hellish game.
-
Is it stated in game somewhere that Sonia's child was Alucard's......or is this just more fan speculation?
It pretty much HEAVILY implied.
Fact is that she was in love with Alucard and Alucard was in love with her. All of the sudden after the game we see her with a baby.
Its really as simple as putting 2 and 2 together.
-
Also, didn't Alucard kind of have this thing about "not wanting his cursed bloodline to continue," or some such? Why would he have a kid with anyone, then?
/topic.
-
I dunno, the whole "main hero is actually related to the villain" plot has been done so many times already, what's wrong with keeping it simple & having them be nothing more than longstanding rivals due to a falling out in the ancient past?
I like the idea of the Belmont family remaining the holiest in a world full of evil, not being tainted by vampire blood or anything else other than sheer will & Belmont Warlord Chromosomes.
-
Belmont Warlord Chromosomes.
This alone is what makes the Belmonts so beast. :P
-
What are you talking about? It had both to do with your point and to do with contradictions. Your point makes a lot of sense, but without the contradiction, that means Drac is Trev's grand-daddy.
People mostly say the game was condradictive because of information established after the game was already retconned. That also includes the date that in the game takes place in.
-
Sonia was removed from canon because Iga doesn't like vaginas. They frighten and confuse him.
-
Sonia was removed from canon because Iga doesn't like vaginas. They frighten and confuse him.
Change the letters' order. IGA -> GAI.
-
I don't know, but I'm glad the bitch is gone! :D
-
I don't know, but I'm glad the bitch is gone! :D
*Smacks you*
Don't you be disrespectin' no Belmonts, boy.
-
Wow... major rage-fests going on in here. XD
I don't really care either way about the game itself but as to whether or not it should be canon... that is a no-brainer. There are so many reasons why Legends cannot be canon.
IGA has a raging boner for CVIII, and wanted Trevor to be the first Belmont to kill Dracula. It makes Trevor look badass. Sonia, in his opinion, tried to steal Trev's glory, hence had to be wacked from the canon.
Vlad the Impaler's primary 'rule' began in 1456 and he died in 1476. When does Castlevania Legends take place?
1450.
The Castlevania series has always tried to reference actual events, but putting their own twist on it. That is why in the series Trevor Belmont and Co. fight Dracula in 1476, the year of Vlad the III's death.
I would not be at all surprised if this was a reason why Sonia was made non-canon.
But even discounting that there are other issues both within the game itself and with the way the series has changed, such as:
1. Alucard apparently went into self-imposed sleep after he was made confident that Sonia could handle Dracula. So why was he awake and running around in 1476 searching for someone to help him take out his father even when Sonia supposedly assured him that her family would take care of it?
2. Belmonts being part vampire while not showing any magic resembling Dracula's or Alucard's powers, or vampire powers in general. In Curse of Darkness, Trevor is described as 'true-blooded.' Yeah.
3. Alucard's character has consistently been portrayed as someone who considers his blood cursed. We are talking about someone who wanted to put himself in what was supposed to be an eternal sleep because he thought it would be best if his bloodline 'disappeared from the world forever' to paraphrase. And no, it's not because he's matured over centuries; if Legends is accurate, then he slept for some time between Legends and CVIII, and right after CVIII, he fell asleep for 320-some years. He was ASLEEP. He did not suddenly go from someone who was fine 'sowing his cursed seed' to someone who would rather sleep for all eternity than trouble the world with his presence over the course of a long nap. >_>
These are just a few reasons off the top of my head but I have some others saved somewhere on my computer for reference.
But really... if the closest thing to a defense the Legends supporters can give is 'I like her' and 'IGA is sexist' and 'Trevor doesn't HAVE to be the first to kill Dracula'... >_>
I have no objection to a female Belmont but Legends' story just doesn't fit.
-
Well that's castlevania fan-dumb for ya. We complain about Legends not being canon despite many flaws it has and despite it was a step backwards of what belmont's revenge had.
And you're right, all the reasons the people give while defending Legends is just "i like her" and "iga hates vaginas" despite being married and so on. Very immature if you ask me.
-
Eh, Leon Belmont trumps the whole "Trevor was first" thing.
-
Legends being declared non-canon is a common misconception. The only reason IGA ever gave was because of his dislike for the game, the protagonist, and because he wanted to do a better origin story, which was pretty lacking in the game.
Vlad the Impaler's primary 'rule' began in 1456 and he died in 1476. When does Castlevania Legends take place?
1450.
Fun fact about the date of Legends: the game itself never provided this date. An early timeline lists the date as just sometime during the 15th century, in fact. The date 1450 was later added to a timeline from 2005. Since no date was ever given to the game before then, I suspect they just rounded the date to 1450 and just went with that.
As for your argument, it doesn't really matter, since as you yourself pointed out that Konami likes refering stuff in their games, and put their own spin on it. So it doesn't have to exactly line up with the material it's based on. Therefore, this can't be the reason why the game was declared non-canon.
1. Alucard apparently went into self-imposed sleep after he was made confident that Sonia could handle Dracula. So why was he awake and running around in 1476 searching for someone to help him take out his father even when Sonia supposedly assured him that her family would take care of it?
I'm not sure how the developers intented this, but I'm sure they meant to justify Alucard's appearance the same way as it was done in SotN. Even if that's not the case, it's not like it's a condradiction. Just something they would have needed to elaborate on.
2. Belmonts being part vampire while not showing any magic resembling Dracula's or Alucard's powers, or vampire powers in general. In Curse of Darkness, Trevor is described as 'true-blooded.' Yeah.
What you say is correct, but your conclusion is just fandom and not supported by anything except your own believes.
3. Alucard's character has consistently been portrayed as someone who considers his blood cursed.
That's assuming characters in fiction should always be portrayed in the same way without any differences in their views/opinion without ever changing. What you are talking about was first introduced in SotN, so it's not like he could have felt differently about his bloodline previously in his life.
/annoyed
-
I'm not fond of how this topic was resurrected from three months ago.
@Gaawa-chan: Are you and people searching the back pages and just get a hankering for replying to old stuff?
Anyway, as Nagumo said, the characters are not stagnant. They grow. The Alucard in CV3 seems brash in comparison to the brooding version in SotN, and to the "Secret Agent" version in AoS/DoS. I'm sure that how you felt when you were 15 is far different than how you will feel at 35 and 65. This is the same way, only instead of years, we're talking about decades.
-
Well that's castlevania fan-dumb for ya. We complain about Legends not being canon despite many flaws it has and despite it was a step backwards of what belmont's revenge had.
And you're right, all the reasons the people give while defending Legends is just "i like her" and "iga hates vaginas" despite being married and so on. Very immature if you ask me.
Way to complain about our fandom once again. The beef people have with Legends has been around for a LONG time. It's nothing new. The wound was opened afresh when this thread was bumped (as Jorge said, this is 3 months old, but the retcon is WAY older than this, and so is the controversy surrounding it). "IGA hates vaginas" is a joke response; it's pretty clear that it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. And those in this thread are acknowledging the flaws of Legends. (They're glaring. It's kind of hard not to see them).
At the same time, however, we just question how one could dash this game from the timeline just like *that*. In fact, much of the beef lies with IGA and how he handled the situation. Most people take issue not with Sonia as a Belmont, but her supposed having relations with Alucard, a manner on which I'm going to stay neutral. IGA took issue with Sonia as a Belmont, period. The people who defend Legends say: "aww, but I like her," but IGA is as bad as they are:
3. If you had to play a Castlevania game all the way through, which one would be the worst to suffer through?
Iga: Castlevania Legends for the Gameboy. I hate Sonia Belmont--she has the worst whipping animation ever.
EGM: Correct.
-EGM, 2003
When it boils down to it, his rationale isn't any better than that of the Legends supporters. BECAUSE WHIPPING ANIMATION IS ALL THAT MATTERS, RIGHT? She doesn't have Alucard's flowy hair or billowing cape or a sword that reads "verboten" when swung! Horrors! Hey, let's retcon this game ASAP.
Though timeline contradiction seems to be the main concern with Legends, he's generally an ass about it whenever he mentions it. Dear IGA: The game's out there, you can't take it back, you have to find a way to deal with it instead of going "oh, hey, there's that girl with the lousy whipping arm, let's throw rocks at her until she either apologizes or dies." And the retcon was his way of dealing with it, albeit an extremely selfish one.
Legends being declared non-canon is a common misconception. The only reason IGA ever gave was because of his dislike for the game, the protagonist, and because he wanted to do a better origin story, which was pretty lacking in the game.
IGA: It's possible I guess. Although, I purposefully left the Sonia Belmont
character (from Castlevania: Legends for GBC) out of the official
Castlevania chronology. (laughs) Usually, the vampire storyline motifs,
females tend to be sacrificed. It's easier to come up with weak, feminine
characters. I'll think about it more in the future, though. It's tough to
fit a female hero into the early history of Castlevania, but as you move
into the modern day, females can then more easily become a hero.
- Same EGM interview from 2003
Can't say I agree with him, but he did admit to ignoring her on purpose. I do take issue with his statement on "weak, feminine characters." It really incenses me. I guess that's why all the women are just lumped into House Belnades nowadays.
-
Oh lol. That was a typo. I'm not saying Legends is canon, just that it wasn't taken out of the canon because of supposed condradictions.
-
Oh, ok :)
IGA did say stuff about contradictions at one point or another, though, I think, but that's definitely not his only reason for ignoring the game. A lot of it really does come down to personal bias.
-
Yeah, he did say something about it not fitting with the rest of the games at one point, but I believe he was talking about something that had been brought up by the timeline, which wasn't released until 2001 or so.
-
Fun fact about the date of Legends: the game itself never provided this date. An early timeline lists the date as just sometime during the 15th century, in fact. The date 1450 was later added to a timeline from 2005. Since no date was ever given to the game before then, I suspect they just rounded the date to 1450 and just went with that.
Here's another fun fact: Apparently there was another date for Legends to take place in. This would've been before the 2005 timeline update. I had heard that Legends took place in 1472. Ten years after Vlad became Dracula in the Bram Stoker story. And since this was before IGA started mucking about with the timeline, CVIII took place in 1492. So CVIII would've happened after his assassination in 1476 leading the people to believe that Vlad was a vampire since to this day his burial site still has no body in it which everyone can see :-X
-
its easy, Iga didn't like the guys who did Legends and the 64 games, so he ommited those,
but the 64 dev team worked on CotM and sucked his dick to get the games canon.
Legends would have been a good twist in the series which would have explained the Belmonts' abnormal abilities.
but Iga doesn't like interesting plots.
-
But Sonia already had abnormal abilities and a whip whose origins were left unexplained. On the other hand, Leon has a mysterious double jump gene.
-
Not to mention Juste's decoration gene comes completely out of the blue. Damn you, IGA!
-
Every Belmont is an interior designer by genetics.
-
Yes, Belmont Warlord Chromosomes are at work.
-
Eh, Leon Belmont trumps the whole "Trevor was first" thing.
Leon never fought Dracula. The final boss was Death.
From Iga's comments, I can see why some people would lable him as misogynistic. And I hate using this as an "excuse", but really, if you look at his age and where he's from, it's not that crazy of a point of view. Women have struggled especially hard in Japan for rights and freedoms they should be entitled too. I'm not saying he's right, but knowing where he's coming from, I am not surprised by his comments in the least. At the same time however, he did create OoE. The funny part though, is that Shanoa doesn't exhibit any particularly feminine traits. She has the standard and expected anime whore in her get-up, but she's very emotionless and robotic for 98% of the game. Even her final scene with Albus, the roles could have been reserved, that is to say, man or woman, in that situation, would become emotional. But I digress.
As for the timeline. Why do people seriously care? If you like the game, for whatever reason, include it in YOUR timeline. Because it isn't included in an "official" timeline, doesn't mean the game no longer exists. And I don't see how someone's enjoyment of the game is marred by that same fact. Whether it is included or not, the game still exists, and if you enjoy it, keep it in your personal timeline. Remember folks, you have the freedom to come to your own conclusions and write your own canons. The fan base is filled with some very intelligent and talented people. Just because Iga is the creator of his timeline, doesn't diminish your views, thoughts, and feelings related to the series. This should be especially true as people get older. For example, I detest the Resident Evil games after 2, and hate what they did with the storylines. So while others may enjoy them, I more or less disregard them. Same thing with the FF series (which was never really a series, but alas), but again I am beginning to digress.
-
Yeah, the Internet idea of canon as "what really happened in imaginationland" is pretty silly.
Ten years after Vlad became Dracula in the Bram Stoker story.
"Dracula = Vlad" has been repeated so many times it's easy to take as gospel, but Bram Stoker's novel actually never equates its title character with Vlad Tepes.
-
With regards to the Dracula legend, the ACTUAL one, the games touch on key dates here and there, but it's obvious they're taking that idea at its basest and playing with it. LoI made this especially apparent. There are some games in the middle of the timeline, such as SotN and CVIII that try to fit it into the real world mythos with either timeline or environment, but it becomes obvious once CoD and AoS/DoS roll around that this is strictly in the realm of fiction.
-
KONAMI Akumajo Dracula official time line version July 31, 2000
-
"Dracula = Vlad" has been repeated so many times it's easy to take as gospel, but Bram Stoker's novel actually never equates its title character with Vlad Tepes.
Have you ever read Dracula: the undead? It's the official sequel to Bram Stoker's original book or 'notes' and it explain very clearly by authors Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt the Vlad the impaler and Dracula are one and the same. It also goes into actual historical accounts which further solidifies this. I've found it a very good read and to me it settles the whole 'who is the true Dracula' argument once and for all.
-
Have you ever read Dracula: the undead? It's the official sequel to Bram Stoker's original book or 'notes' and it explain very clearly by authors Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt the Vlad the impaler and Dracula are one and the same. It also goes into actual historical accounts which further solidifies this. I've found it a very good read and to me it settles the whole 'who is the true Dracula' argument once and for all.
Really?
Vlad the Impaler was Always Dracula, I knew that since kindergarden!
Trying to question what always has been known only makes a laughable argument.
Why Iga Ruined Castlevania = Vlad the impaler isn't Dracula,
Then Why are you canoning Bloodlines if you just falsified it's mythos?
Why did you change something intended since day 1?
Lament of Innocence was a complete disgrace to Dracula and Castlevania, it both fucked up the already setup mythos and the flow of its own timeline.
Lord of shadow Didn't make that mistake, they established who Dracula was in day 1.
Sonia would have at least made a plot twist in later games, and made a Believable point where Ritcher Goes Evil because it would have been similar how Alucard was "Evil" or something like that.
-
To my knowledge, Vlad III the Impaler became the vampire Dracula in the Bram Stroker's Dracula movie. That's where it was popularized. I mean, historically Vlad III the Impaler is Dracula...just not of the vampire variety. Somebody slap me if I have this wrong, but wasn't Vlad III's father, Vlad II, inducted into The Order of the Dragon and earned the name Vlad Dracul...Dracul meaning 'Dragon'. Vlad III, being his son, was known as Vlad Dracula...meaning 'Son of the Dragon'.
I'm not sure which one you "knew since kindergarten", but if you believe that Vlad the Impaler has always been Dracula, then I believe you are misinformed.
Like Mortificator mentioned, the original novel never makes that connection...at least until the sequel that X spoke of. Even so, the original novel is what is said to be canon in the Castlevania timeline. The sequel was never canonized. I remember SotN mentioning Drac's name as 'Dracula Vlad Tepes', but I don't remember if there was ever an explanation why. I do vaguely recall IGA bringing it up in an interview though.
-
To my knowledge, Vlad III the Impaler became the vampire Dracula in the Bram Stroker's Dracula movie. That's where it was popularized. I mean, historically Vlad III the Impaler is Dracula...just not of the vampire variety. Somebody slap me if I have this wrong, but wasn't Vlad III's father, Vlad II, inducted into The Order of the Dragon and earned the name Vlad Dracul...Dracul meaning 'Dragon'. Vlad III, being his son, was known as Vlad Dracula...meaning 'Son of the Dragon'.
I'm not sure which one you "knew since kindergarten", but if you believe that Vlad the Impaler has always been Dracula, then I believe you are misinformed.
Like Mortificator mentioned, the original novel never makes that connection...at least until the sequel that X spoke of. Even so, the original novel is what is said to be canon in the Castlevania timeline. The sequel was never canonized. I remember SotN mentioning Drac's name as 'Dracula Vlad Tepes', but I don't remember if there was ever an explanation why. I do vaguely recall IGA bringing it up in an interview though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_III_the_Impaler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_III_the_Impaler)
Vlad III = Vlad the Impaler = Vlad Dracula.
Please slap yourself in the face for saying I'm misinformed as we Both make the same point.
-
Vlad Tepes has always been Dracula. That is what people called him. But not because he was a vampire. Stoker popularized the IDEA of Vampires. Dracula got entangled with it, and thus an icon that represented universal vampires was created. Vlad Tepes, as he was referred, was better known among the country folk for impaling his enemies and people that stole from him. Thus, Tepes, which doesn't really mean "the impaler", but is derived from a root word that means, to impale.
Stoker heard of these stories, and other similar ones, I'm sure there was some rumors tossed in there by his enemies, and wove a fictional story about an eccentric man, possessing of all these qualities, but who also happened to be an undead being who drank of human blood. I'm not really sure why it became so popular, but somehow became associated almost universally with Vlad Tepes = Dracula = Vampires, and so on.
Just to be anal, Dracula doesn't really mean anything in Romanian. I am not sure if it did at one point, or if the language was vastly different back then, or some sort of bastardization happened, but the current day word, drac, means either devil, devilish or demon. Or something along those lines. It's more commonly associated with some sort of hellish, otherworldly forces, of the evil/mischievous variety. For example;
a-l a pucat dracii, literally, means, "devils/demons got a hold of him". It's used when someone loses their temper, or otherwise does something out of character.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if somewhere down the line, the idea that drac somehow meant dragon, was mixed in there. It makes MORE sense that it was meant in the form of the above, relating to devils or demons. It just makes more sense his enemies would call him that, than the obscure dragon, which doesn't make any sense in Romanian, and as far as I know, they have no word for. Try to look up dragon in an English-Romanian dictionary, and you'll get the literal "dragon" (borrowed from English) or other words that don't even closely resemble it.
Another example, to tell someone to go to hell,
du-te ta la dracului!, "go to the devil", obviously, "go to hell", where the devil would preside.
I know this is kind of off topic and an interjection, but it pisses me the f* off whenever someone says that drac means dragon. No, sorry, it doesn't. The best part about it, it makes more sense with the Castlevania mythos. Whether the developers were aware of this or not, well, it's pretty cool either way. Because to his enemies, Dracula was either a devil, or a symbol associated with darkness and evil.
Another example to further solidify my point,
Ce dracu vrei?, means, rudely, "what the hell do you want?"
I don't see how a dragon fits into there. At all. To be even further anal, the naming convention is borrowed from a different culture. It seems more likely to me that the name was derived from a Slavic interpretation of the name, than Romanian itself. Adding the "a" to the last name of a newborn is a common convention in Russia, for example. Well, Wallachia, very close to Russia, probably part of it at one point. Not too big of a stretch. His enemies probably referred to him as the devil, or the devilish one, or something similar. It's most probably a name that stuck, and wouldn't have been popular with the Romanian people, at least, the ones that supported him. But it makes for good fiction, so it was used by Stoker.
There seems to be a lot of mixed history, and even Wikipedia has some of the facts fudged up. The worst one I see tossed around is that Dracula means Dragon, or son of Dragon, or some other such nonsense. Whether his father was of the order of the dragon or not, is irrelevant to that fact. I think people just see the two words and automatically associated them together. Language is complicated and has changed a lot throughout history. The Greeks seem to have a word for Dragon that is close, roughly (the characters may not show up, so VERY rough interpretation) drakon. But was associated more with serpents or snakes. If we tie that back to the bible, the serpent/snake = satan. Ta da, we are back at square one. So please will you all stop saying Dracula means dragon.
-
Maybe its derrived from the Latin Draco? Which I think DOES mean dragon.
-
Interesting Factoid,
Vlad IV or Vlad Călugărul is known as Vlad the Monk
He is the Half Brother of Vlad III aka Vlad Dracula.
Factoid 2
Gabriel Spoke "Eu Sunt Dracul" Which Translates to either roughly "I am the Dragon" or Literal "I am Devil"
this could imply that may be the representation of Vlad II Dracul aka Vlad the Devil.
but since the cutscene applied that it was modern day, it was probably a mistranslation of tying to say "Eu sunt Dracula", "I am the Son of the Dragon/Devil"
Factoid 3
Dracul Means Devil and Dracu' means Hell, Drac Also means Devil and oddly enough Dracula has no translation
-
Interesting Factoid,
Vlad IV or Vlad Călugărul is known as Vlad the Monk
He is the Half Brother of Vlad III aka Vlad Dracula.
Factoid 2
Gabriel Spoke "Eu Sunt Dracul" Which Translates to either roughly "I am the Dragon" or Literal "I am Devil"
this could imply that may be the representation of Vlad II Dracul aka Vlad the Devil.
but since the cutscene applied that it was modern day, it was probably a mistranslation of tying to say "Eu sunt Dracula", "I am the Son of the Dragon/Devil"
Factoid 3
Dracul Means Devil and Dracu' means Hell, Drac Also means Devil and oddly enough Dracula has no translation
It's not odd at all, and explains pretty well in my post. Simple enough, a butchering throughout history of the original meaning and origin of the name, which probably came from his enemies, and has little to no connection to how he was viewed by his followers, and to the Romanian language.
Maybe its derrived from the Latin Draco? Which I think DOES mean dragon.
As far as I know, there's no word in Latin for dragon. There is a word for devil, but it's diabolus.
The word dragon itself historically related to a snake or serpent. the ACTUAL one, not satan or the devil. Like a water serpent, for example. In Greek, it is Drakon, from which the word dragon is derived. By that point in history, and especially in Romania (Orthodox), associating the Greek word, drakon (drac) with satan, also known as the serpent from the bible, wasn't a big stretch. Especially since the word dragon had no meaning to the Romanian people, nor did it relate to anything in their history or culture.
Literature, like with Dracula himself, took that word and created the fantasy word "dragon" that we know today, and associated with giant made-up creatures that don't really resemble anything beyond giant lizards.
I really wish people would do their research and stop pulling things out of their butts.
I apologize if I am coming off as anal, but this really does bother me. Especially when people come along and say things which clearly have no backing, or take whatever an uneducated GAME developer pushes as fact. They can't even be bothered to get the phrase right, for Gabriel declaring himself Dracula or the Devil. I wouldn't be surprised if they threw it through some online translator.
Anyway, big digression from the original topic. And I apologize again, because I am being somewhat hypocritical. I mean, it's their fiction, the developers can do whatever they want. History won't be effected, nor will the litaruture that inspired it, however loosely. I'm acting no better than the people fighting over the timeline "correction" in this thread. From my findings, it seems likely that Vlad was referred to as the devil, or associated with the devil, and that was probably a nickname granted to him by his enemies, who were of a different historical, and more importantly, language background. Whenever I've spoken to family members from Romania familiar with Vlad, they always referred to him as Vlad Tepes, and would laugh when I called him Dracula.
-
Original meaning of Dracul being Dragon then changed by CATHOLIC Churches to associate with Devil.
Very, VERY Believable since the Devil is represented by a serpent and later a Dragon in the Bible.
and Granting how old the Romanian Culture is, words will change meaning over time.
Like the word Romantic has two meanings
The Romantic Meaning or gay would associate with Joy
As the modern meaning is associated with homosexuals.
The word Dracul is no exception.
-
Original meaning of Dracul being Dragon then changed by CATHOLIC Churches to associate with Devil.
Very, VERY Believable since the Devil is represented by a serpent and later a Dragon in the Bible.
and Granting how old the Romanian Culture is, words will change meaning over time.
Like the word Romantic has two meanings
The Romantic Meaning or gay would associate with Joy
As the modern meaning is associated with homosexuals.
The word Dracul is no exception.
It is an exception. You can find some old ass words in Romanian dictionaries. My mom has one from her highschool days, and that word is nowhere to be found. There are extensive dictionaries online too, and again, nothing. You also don't address the fact that the naming convention follows Russia, and other similar language, rules. "Of the devil" would be Dracului. Nevermind that it just isn't a word in the Romanian language.
The word drac, however, has always been around, and has been associated with the devil since it came into use. It never changed with the Roman Catholic Church, that's absurd. It's used specially to relate to the devil and of hellish things.
-
It is an exception. You can find some old ass words in Romanian dictionaries. My mom has one from her highschool days, and that word is nowhere to be found. There are extensive dictionaries online too, and again, nothing. You also don't address the fact that the naming convention follows Russia, and other similar language, rules. "Of the devil" would be Dracului. Nevermind that it just isn't a word in the Romanian language.
The word drac, however, has always been around, and has been associated with the devil since it came into use. It never changed with the Roman Catholic Church, that's absurd. It's used specially to relate to the devil and of hellish things.
Granting that all or most Romanian words deriving from drac is either associated with the Devil and Hell, Evil in tense (since evil is Raul)
Dracul Translates to Dragon, but is associated with the Devil, to my understanding, but Dracul's meaning eventaully became Devil
That's what I make of it.
-
Please show me where you're finding that "dracul" means dragon.
I just find it very odd that it's "old" meaning is not included in dictionaries. Actually, it doesn't exist at all. Dictionaries will include archaic definitions of words that have fallen out of use. It should be especially true in this case, since "drac", and it's subsidiaries are used quite often in Romanian, especially today.
I also wanted to add from earlier that the Roman Catholic Church has been around for ... a long time. Way-hay before Vlad's time. I'm talking like 1000 years. The word drac, and all it's associations, would have already made the connection to the devil, via the mention of Satan as a serpent. I just don't buy it.
And again, please show me some proof where dracul means dragon. There are three words in the Romanian language that mean dragon, and one's its namesake, the others are zmeu (I've heard this one used, to reference mystical creatures in books, so it must date back quite a bit, these stories have been handed down for generations, of which my mom owned a copy of such a children's book) and balaur, which I've never heard used.
And here's one final nugget that really throws a monkey's wrench into the equation, granted it's from Wikipedia, but from a credible source's mouth (if it is to be believed),
Dennis McIntyre, director of The Stoker Dracula Organisation believes the word Dracula comes from the Irish 'Droch Ola' which means bad blood.
If that is the case, I wasn't too far off, however, this seems even less likely, because Dracula does indeed sound like a Slavic name. And Romanian people are familiar with it, so it must have existed in some capacity during Vlad's time.
-
Please show me where you're finding that "dracul" means dragon.
I just find it very odd that it's "old" meaning is not included in dictionaries. Actually, it doesn't exist at all. Dictionaries will include archaic definitions of words that have fallen out of use. It should be especially true in this case, since "drac", and it's subsidiaries are used quite often in Romanian, especially today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_II_Dracul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_II_Dracul)
Vlad II (c. 1393 – December 1447), known as Vlad Dracul ("Vlad the Dragon"),
"Vlad II received the surname Dracul in 1431, after being inducted into the Order of the Dragon, founded in 1410 by Sigismund, the Holy Roman Emperor, as part of a design to gain political favor for the Catholic Church and to aid in protecting Wallachia against the Ottoman Empire."
Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_III_the_Impaler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_III_the_Impaler)
-
See my above post.
I've read the entry you posted, as well as the one for Vlad III. Contradictions all over! I don't know if I can seriously site Wikipedia as a credible source. The naming conventions in the Wikipedia entry for Vlad III make sense though, if the surname was Dracul, Draculea would be "one of the Dracul". I'm still not convinced on the name and it's meaning. Even if they had associations with the order or dragons, which Wikipedia pulls out of it's butt to call the Latin meaning for dragon, though it's derision from Greek is correct, however, in Greek, the word refers again, to a serpent. I'm just running circles here.
Another nugget; the "order of the dragons" originally had no name associated to it. But alas, I am probably just thinking myself into a corner here, and the word probably just means all and every definition put on the table. I see that as being entirely likely, considering that dual, triple, and so on meanings are popular in every language.
-
Multiple sources... just about every Google Link to the Search "Vlad II Dracul" comes up Dragon, but one Does State the double meaning.
His Followers know him as Dragon as his enemies know him as Devil.
somewhere in http://www.donlinke.com/drakula/vlad.htm (http://www.donlinke.com/drakula/vlad.htm)
Its not rare to have double meaning words, so I'm gonna so with it.
-
That is probably the case, though I find it strange that in Romanian dictionaries, there is no entry to dragon, under drac. It has it's own word. Don't you find that strange? It seems to follow another country, language or culture's naming convention. After all, in those times, it was not uncommon for Romania to converse with a variety of other surrounding countries. It would still stand however that to Romanian speaking people, his name would have meant the devil, since drac would not have been associated, at least in Romanian, to dragons at that time. The only connection I can think of is Greek. But you're probably right, it would have been a popular name with his enemies. I looked up dragon in Russian, it's drakon. Devil is enyergehney ... wtf, lol.
-
Lament of Innocence was a complete disgrace to Dracula and Castlevania, it both fucked up the already setup mythos and the flow of its own timeline.
I was under the impression that LoI was implying that Matthias ended up assuming the identity of Vlad III, but as to whether or not LoI is a disgrace... well, it's no more or less so than Legends in my view, at least, and it actually establishes the two primary entities (five if you count the castle, whip, and Death). *shrugs*
-
KONAMI Akumajo Dracula official time line version July 31, 2000
Seems the 1450 date originated a bit earlier then I thought. The timeline that says Legends takes place in the 15th century is also from 2000. It's from Dengeki Playstation Magazine.
-
That is probably the case, though I find it strange that in Romanian dictionaries, there is no entry to dragon, under drac. It has it's own word. Don't you find that strange? It seems to follow another country, language or culture's naming convention. After all, in those times, it was not uncommon for Romania to converse with a variety of other surrounding countries. It would still stand however that to Romanian speaking people, his name would have meant the devil, since drac would not have been associated, at least in Romanian, to dragons at that time. The only connection I can think of is Greek. But you're probably right, it would have been a popular name with his enemies. I looked up dragon in Russian, it's drakon. Devil is enyergehney ... wtf, lol.
HIGHLY likely Since Modern English is a Combination of Old English and Old French and a Hint of everything else During the Anglo-Saxons Time.
-
Seems the 1450 date originated a bit earlier then I thought. The timeline that says Legends takes place in the 15th century is also from 2000. It's from Dengeki Playstation Magazine.
Legends was released in 1998. So before the above mentioned timeline, the one I heard had to have been established sometime after the game came out and just before July 31, 2000. I find the original timeline seems to make the series easier to have legends fit in even if the story is contradictory. But I also believe that when CoD came out then that was it. 1476 became CVIII's date of events made things even more complicated then need-be.
In terms of the Serpent or Dragon being a thing of evil, that's just church propaganda thrust into the arms of an illiterate society as the serpent is an ancient symbol meaning fertility and creation which like the swastika, can be found all over the world. The devil on the other hand is the church's brainchild. A fear educing tactic. You could even argue that it's the earliest form of terrorism known to man. If there is a reference somewhere about the meaning of Dracula I'd be interested to know too. Everything I've seen so-far points to the double-meaning but more often the naught I find it means Dragon. So if there's a site out there that's legitimate on this I wish to see it. On another note Jorge hasn't closed the thread down so I wonder if he finds this argument somewhat engaging..?
-
Legends was released in 1998. So before the above mentioned timeline, the one I heard had to have been established sometime after the game came out and just before July 31, 2000. I find the original timeline seems to make the series easier to have legends fit in even if the story is contradictory. But I also believe that when CoD came out then that was it. 1476 became CVIII's date of events made things even more complicated then need-be.
In terms of the Serpent or Dragon being a thing of evil, that's just church propaganda thrust into the arms of an illiterate society as the serpent is an ancient symbol meaning fertility and creation which like the swastika, can be found all over the world. The devil on the other hand is the church's brainchild. A fear educing tactic. You could even argue that it's the earliest form of terrorism known to man. If there is a reference somewhere about the meaning of Dracula I'd be interested to know too. Everything I've seen so-far points to the double-meaning but more often the naught I find it means Dragon. So if there's a site out there that's legitimate on this I wish to see it. On another note Jorge hasn't closed the thread down so I wonder if he finds this argument somewhat engaging..?
Well, cool part is that its not an arguement, just a compilation of a few people trying to get to the bottom of the whole Dracul thing using whatever rescorces we have, and of course a bit of speculation. it actually helps us understand more on Dracula and Roman language and culture.
-
It's something I've just always been curious about myself. It relates to the series, though I guess not this thread, entirely.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_III_the_Impaler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_III_the_Impaler)
Vlad III = Vlad the Impaler = Vlad Dracula.
Please slap yourself in the face for saying I'm misinformed as we Both make the same point.
I don't think you understand my point. Like I explained, Vlad III the Impaler is the historical Dracula, but not the vampire Dracula from the Bram Stoker's Dracula novel. Not once in the novel was the connection ever made. While it is believed the Vlad III may have inspired the vampire Dracula, I don't recall anything ever stating that, aside from the BSD film and the BSD sequel novel.
To clarify, when you originally stated the Vlad III has always been Dracula, did you mean the historical figure or the vampire? I mean, we are talking about Castlevania, so I thought I was making a safe assumption that you were referring to the vampire.
-
You guys are funny.
-
Actually my daddy's daddy came up with the Draculas legend, and he wouldn't lie, so technically all yous are misinformed.
-
To get this thread back on track, I think I remember Jorge having an interesting theory on Sonia...anybody remember what it was exactly? I know I liked it and thought it was neat, but I don't recall what it was. Something about her child going on to form the Morris family, if I recall correctly. I would like for a future team to reinstate her back in the story. Not a fan of Legends, but it was cool playing a female Belmont for once.
-
I don't think you understand my point. Like I explained, Vlad III the Impaler is the historical Dracula, but not the vampire Dracula from the Bram Stoker's Dracula novel. Not once in the novel was the connection ever made. While it is believed the Vlad III may have inspired the vampire Dracula, I don't recall anything ever stating that, aside from the BSD film and the BSD sequel novel.
To clarify, when you originally stated the Vlad III has always been Dracula, did you mean the historical figure or the vampire? I mean, we are talking about Castlevania, so I thought I was making a safe assumption that you were referring to the vampire.
We are talking about a game in which the central location is Wallachia, the same place where Vlad III originated and Ruled.
Bram Stoker's Dracula takes place in the mountains on the border of Transylvania.
the book was published in 1897, Before Transylvania Joined Wallachia in the New Kingdom of Romania in 1918.
Geographically there is a link since Wallachia is Pretty Close to Transylvania
Bram Stoker Also knew close to little about Vlad III but His Dracula does refer to Vlad III in a Speech about his background,
Who was it but one of my own race who as Voivode crossed the Danube and beat the Turk on his own ground? This was a Dracula indeed! Woe was it that his own unworthy brother, when he had fallen, sold his people to the Turk and brought the shame of slavery on them! Was it not this Dracula, indeed, who inspired that other of his race who in a later age again and again brought his forces over the great river into Turkey-land; who, when he was beaten back, came again, and again, though he had to come alone from the bloody field where his troops were being slaughtered, since he knew that he alone could ultimately triumph! (Chapter 3, pp 19)
His Later Identity Was Confirmed by Van Helsing
He must, indeed, have been that Voivode Dracula who won his name against the Turk, over the great river on the very frontier of Turkey-land. (Chapter 18, pp 145)
So indeed, Bram Stoker's Dracula has a very high chance to be Vlad III since many of Dracula's Speeches he tends to speak of himself in a third person.
Since Vlad III already had Vampire Legends long before Bram Stoker's novel, I am very Certain that Bram himself knew of it, Its pretty much common sense now that Bram's Dracula and Vlad the Impaler are one the same.
that .01% chance of Bram's Dracula not being Vlad III was later resolved in an official sequel, but that's like assuring someone that gravity exists at this point.
-
Ahhh, I did not recall that from the novel. That settles it then. Thanks for the clarification.
-
Ahhh, I did not recall that from the novel. That settles it then. Thanks for the clarification.
Actually, thanks, I actually had to do some research on Roman Saxon history, along with research on the Language, and Bram Stoker's Book With historical links.
I learned quite a few valuable things in this topic.
-
I came across this website at the end of the novel I finished:
http://www.blooferland.com (http://www.blooferland.com)./
It should help clear things up a bit.
-
You guys are funny.
You aren't.
-
You aren't.
Aw, really? And I was trying so hard!
-
Why would a hot blonde with a whip would be taken out is beyond me http://r-daikon.deviantart.com/art/Sonia-Belmont-161246614 (http://r-daikon.deviantart.com/art/Sonia-Belmont-161246614) ut it makes me a sad panda :'(
-
God...Dyamn! :o That's a cool pic of Sonia. I really wish she'd pop out of that picture and give IGA a run for his money using the vampirekiller.
-
God...Dyamn! :o That's a cool pic of Sonia. I really wish she'd pop out of that picture and give IGA a run for his money using the vampirekiller.
That is just the tip of the iceberg X http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l3k8ujholQ1qzsrqyo1_500.jpg (http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l3k8ujholQ1qzsrqyo1_500.jpg)
-
I really do not see why this isn't Canon.
Alucard Has Organized a Church, Fired off Countless Holy Crosses, Day-walked, and maintained his humanity.
Plus his Father isn't a Legitimate Vampire, Gaining all his initial Power and Vampirism from the Crimson Stone.
Being 1/2 Alucard and 1/2 Belmont in Trevor would Explain Simon's Ungodly Strength and Juste's Glow and Vampire Trail.
Canoning this game makes everything fall in place a bit, and IGA could always change details like he did with Bloodlines.
-
That is just the tip of the iceberg X http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l3k8ujholQ1qzsrqyo1_500.jpg (http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l3k8ujholQ1qzsrqyo1_500.jpg)
Ooh! Another interesting pic. Though not as epic as the first. Her vampirekiller needs work i.e. chain whip with spike ball ;D
^
yes I'm nitpicking again
-
Ooh! Another interesting pic. Though not as epic as the first. Her vampirekiller needs work i.e. chain whip with spike ball ;D
^
yes I'm nitpicking again
I really like both of them the reimagined one gives her a really mature look that I like while the first one really looks more close to how she looks, but also ( man I wanted to try this) DAT ASS 8)
-
I really like both of them the reimagined one gives her a really mature look that I like while the first one really looks more close to how she looks, but also ( man I wanted to try this) DAT ASS 8)
I only come, to read comments like this one!!! ;D
-
Here is something from me!!!
http://true-defiance.deviantart.com/art/CV-Problems-and-Loopholes-pg1-63524748 (http://true-defiance.deviantart.com/art/CV-Problems-and-Loopholes-pg1-63524748)
http://true-defiance.deviantart.com/art/CV-Problems-and-Loopholes-pg2-63525080?q=boost%3Apopular%20sonia%20belmont&qo=115 (http://true-defiance.deviantart.com/art/CV-Problems-and-Loopholes-pg2-63525080?q=boost%3Apopular%20sonia%20belmont&qo=115)
http://true-defiance.deviantart.com/art/CV-Problems-and-Loopholes-pg3-63525876?q=boost%3Apopular%20sonia%20belmont&qo=116 (http://true-defiance.deviantart.com/art/CV-Problems-and-Loopholes-pg3-63525876?q=boost%3Apopular%20sonia%20belmont&qo=116)
-
Alucard has thing for blondes not that I blame him. But this
http://media.photobucket.com/image/sonia%20belmont/gaiaart/sample-ce4986eb147da6c1b226522d1226dbd4.jpg (http://media.photobucket.com/image/sonia%20belmont/gaiaart/sample-ce4986eb147da6c1b226522d1226dbd4.jpg) is not too bad as well
-
http://media.photobucket.com/image/sonia%20belmont/gaiaart/sample-ce4986eb147da6c1b226522d1226dbd4.jpg
This pic looks just like the other one except for the reverse placements of the whip and sword. That and there's more shading.
Dark Nemesis... That comic sums up my feelings about IGA's treatment of the series as of late ;) Good job 'ol boy!
-
Yay, we're finally back to Sonia.
Awesome Sonia pics!