Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: eternal night on November 21, 2007, 01:56:35 PM
-
After Walter is defeated by Leon, why does he say "If only I had the Crimson Stone!".
According to the story, the Crimson Stone was made to steal the soul's of vampires as a means to gain power. Walter was already the most powerful vampire alive. (I can understand why Joachim desired the stone.)
What use would Walter have for this stone? And why would it give him the upper-hand against Leon?
Walter doesn't seem to be aware that Death is sworn to follow whoever is in possesion of the stone and he says that line before Death even appears, so I'm at a loss to explain this.
Any ideas?
-
In Reply To #1
I think the properties of the Crimson Stone were known to Walter, and that line effectively proves it.
It's implied that whoever has the Crimson Stone can cheat death. Ergo, Walter wouldn't be subject to permanent defeat. Which explains why Dracula can be killed 8 million times by the Belmonts, Morris family, and whatnot, but keep coming back for more. Death being Dracula's top General.
I suspect for the 1999 game, Dracula will be defeated by the Crimson Stone somehow being taken away by him. Which would be kinda cool, because it would mean that Death switches allegiance to YOUR side. But I dunno. There's also that whole "solar eclipse" BS.
- John
-
As if getting Death to help you just because Drac doesn't control him anymore isn't. Just because he's the enemy of your enemy doesn't make him your friend. :P
The most from this i could see would be Death collecting Drac's soul after you beat him, then either departing or going after Julius's.
-
The enemy of your enemy is always you friend. ;D
No, but seriously, I'm not implying that Death will come to your rescue and kill Dracula. Julius would still have his work cut out for him. Only that, as you point out, Death wouldn't be able save Drac anymore if he doesn't have the Crimson Stone. He says "Oh well...you had a good 900 year run, but I'm no longer obligated to help you anymore, and this is quite frankly getting ridiculous.".
He collects Drac's soul, and later reincarnates it into Soma (less the evil intentions).
At least that's the direction I THINK we're headed in.
- John
-
I don't think Death is responsible for all that reincarnation bullshit. That'd give him even more work than he already has, reaping the souls, getting his ass handed to him by Belmonts etc.
Then after 1999 he's back at the castle, again enslaved by someone. Otherwise why would he even bother? :P
-
In Reply To #2
I don't think Dracula still has the Crimson Stone by 1999. I figure that he's gotten so powerful over the centuries he doesn't need it anymore. It was just a means for him to GAIN his power, and now that he gained it, he has no use for it anymore.
-
Kensuke -
What about when Walter says "Surely with my powers I will come back."
This line implies that he doesn't need the Crimson Stone to cheat death.
-
In Reply To #7
Wishful thinking on his part. It's an assumption, not a fact. He doesn't come back. At least not anytime in Drac's supposed 100 year cycle. I think everything has been canonized up through 1999. Including the extant but poorly fleshed out Christopher story.
Maybe in a future side-game in the same vein as Bloodlines or PoR (aka, the Morris/LeCarde saga) it might happen, but I kinda doubt. It would be cheap re-use of a villan.
All IMO of course.
- John
-
The story would be better if Walter did come back. As it is now, it was completely unnecessary for IGA to do it that way. Walter is such a throw-away Dracula-wannabe. Give him more relevance by having him come back in the gap after LoI and mounting a challenge against Dracula before losing. Make Dracula fight to be "Lord of all Vampires."
As for the Crimson Stone, Rinaldo was making a big deal about it too, seeming to imply the threat of the stone went over and above the threat of Walter. I am pretty sure he said it was sought after by all vampires. Perhaps Dracula absorbed many vampiric souls with it?
-
I guess Walter coming back would've been totally awesome if... you know, Mathias didn't... swallow his soul with the Crimson Stone and whatnot.
Yeah, I heard coming back from the dead is hard when you have no soul. Just... just something I heard somewhere.
-
Walter doesn't seem to be aware that Death is sworn to follow whoever is in possesion of the stone and he says that line before Death even appears, so I'm at a loss to explain this.
Any ideas?
I'm hoping the whole death thing is explained in another game, cuz that's left really open in LOI.
-
All that will be explained when Saint Germain finally kicks ass in another game. ;D
-
There's no way Walter COULD come back, his soul was used to make Mathias into a powerful vampire. Had Leon JUST defeated Walter and Mathias would've never used the Crimson Stone to take Walter's powers for himself, perhaps Walter DID have enough power to resurrect himself the same way Dracula can be resurrected. But, I don't see him ever coming back. Walter's gone forever.
-
Yeah it'd be funny if he showed up in 99 and killed dracula and Julius takes all the credit when he leaves again.
St. Germaine : This time you goin down bitch!
(stops time and slaughters him)
That's what you get for fucking with my homeboy Hector mofo!
(Then leaves in a really cool looking haze of mist)
Julius : WTF just happened!?
(leaves and goes back to town)
townperson : so did you kill him?
Julius: Oh YEEAHHHH it was ALLLLLLLLL ME! That bitch didn't stand a chance against MYYYYYY awesome powers!!!,
(St Germaine shows up in front of him while he's takin' a shit)
Julius: Oh it's you again, what do you want.
St. Germaine: This Bitch! waves his hand and erases his memory. Take credit for my work will you asshole!
(people knock on the stall)
Another Townsperson: Hey buddy you okay in there I've been banging on this stall for 6 hours now, c'mon I can't hold it anymore you forget how to do it or something?
Julius: Hunh what!? What was I doing, what AM I doing? Looks down oh, must have ate too much damn cheese again. ;D
-
In Reply To #2
I don't think Dracula still has the Crimson Stone by 1999. I figure that he's gotten so powerful over the centuries he doesn't need it anymore. It was just a means for him to GAIN his power, and now that he gained it, he has no use for it anymore.
Correct. Igarashi confirmed in the interview in the Dawn of Sorrow strategy guide that the Crimson Stone was only needed for Mathias to gain his vampiric powers; after that, its purpose in the story was fulfilled.
-
Well then, it's going to be interesting to see how Julius accomplishes what no Belmont before him has been able to do.
Namely in fucking Drac over for good.
Hopefully '99 won't blow ass. It's really the last chance, seeing as how the main arc is now boxed in with that termination date.
It's looking kinda hopeful though. IGA has confirmed he wants to do it on console and he's not entirely satisfied with the 3D work he's done to date (meaning it might be 3D, but he'll strive to make it better). Expect Alucard to be back with the usual fanboy/fangirl wanking. :P
- John
-
Well then, it's going to be interesting to see how Julius accomplishes what no Belmont before him has been able to do.
Namely in fucking Drac over for good.
We already basically know what happens.
-
Correct. Igarashi confirmed in the interview in the Dawn of Sorrow strategy guide that the Crimson Stone was only needed for Mathias to gain his vampiric powers; after that, its purpose in the story was fulfilled.
yup, it still baffles me how death just shows up and is buddies with him in the end :?
-
It's something that could've been explained. Mathias hailed from a long line of alchemists. It could've been BEFORE the events of LoI that Mathias actually came into the pact with Death. We don't know where the Crimson Stone came from, but we can only assume Mathias's clan was responsible for it's creation(hence it was a mistake of alchemy).
But yeah, the Crimson Stone was just used by Dracula to gain a powerful vampire soul. Many thought that the Crimson Stone was the reason why Soma could absorb monster souls. But IGA shot that notion down. He said that it isn't until the time period after LoI and before CV3 that Dracula acquired the "Power to Rule", which gives him the ability to rule over all monsters. It's this that Soma in herits and that's the reason why he absorbs monster souls(note, Crimson Stone only works on vampires, so adding monsters into the equation would definately send the theory toppling down). But yeah, Dracula got a nice broach out of it. In just about every artpiece, Dracula is wearing a red stone on his chest. Gothic bling!
-
The question remains: Where did Walter get HIS powers? Seems like an infinite regression to more Walters. Walter doesn't really explain Dracula, because nobody explains Walter.
-
I don't think Walter's origins were important, or at least IGA didn't think so. Walter was just a reason to give rise to Dracula, or Mathias becoming Dracula. We can speculate about Walter, though. I think he might be pretty old, perhaps dating back to the biblical ages.
-
My understanding is that vampires always existed, but that they didn't become really important or such a threat to mankind until Dracula came about his his extreme hatred of humanity. They were just sorta there...like ghosts, demons, angels, and whatever... Dracula is merely the major domo of vampires.
IRL, vampire lengends existed before Vlad III was turned into Dracula by Bram Stoker's novel. Nor was Stoker's novel the first. "Carmilla" predates it by some 20 years (and she's in the game too).
The thing that really pisses me off about "new timeline" is the fact that they can't make up their mind if they're following Stoker's story or not. Starting with Bloodlines they started to inject a LOT of outside source material...mainly from Stoker. They've even gone as far as to imply that Drac's 189X rising is covered in Stoker's novel (ie. Quincy Morris), and there therefore isn't a need for a game from that time period. And yet, we now have this Mathias guy come along four centuries before Dracula was the MORTAL King of Wallachia.
Two quarters of one, and one half of another.... It's bullshit.
- John
-
I suspect for the 1999 game, Dracula will be defeated by the Crimson Stone somehow being taken away by him. Which would be kinda cool, because it would mean that Death switches allegiance to YOUR side. But I dunno. There's also that whole "solar eclipse" BS.
I've always believed that this would be a great idea. If it used PoR's tag-team thing as a way of doing so, having Death on your side as a playable character would be awesome, and that possessing the Crimson Stone would be the perfect way to accomplish that.
-
Starting with Bloodlines they started to inject a LOT of outside source material...mainly from Stoker. They've even gone as far as to imply that Drac's 189X rising is covered in Stoker's novel (ie. Quincy Morris), and there therefore isn't a need for a game from that time period. And yet, we now have this Mathias guy come along four centuries before Dracula was the MORTAL King of Wallachia.
This is a common misconception. Stoker's novel was never attempted to be canonized so much as one of its characters, Quincey Morris, was simply appropriated for Castlevania. It's just like how they can use Orlok without actually canonizing Nosferatu, or Carmilla without the short story that bears her name, or Dracula himself without the entire actual history of Vlad III.
The Castlevania account has always described Quincey as a hero who killed Dracula in 1897 with the Vampire Killer, whereas in the novel he was just a supporting character who assisted in Dracula's demise--and with a Bowie knife, at that. It's just a reference. And Igarashi has stated on occasion that he'd really like to get around to making Quincey's game.
-
That's true. Castlevania's take on Stoker's novel(which has been it's own since Bloodlines's release, predating the new timeline, actually) has always been it's OWN version. Since the conception of Bloodlines, it's been apparant that they meant to tweak the events. First of all, Quincey never had a child and was a bachelor. In Bloodlines, he does have a child. If that can't convince anybody that Stoker's events, in CV's timeline, are different than the novel, I don't know what will.
-
Alright, I'll buy that.
But how to we get the name Vlad Tepes III then?
Who has a castle in Romania no less (as proven by Bloodlines and SotN).
If he was a vampire before the 15th century, does that mean that he WASN'T at one point the King of Wallachia?
- John
-
Carmilla without the short story that bears her name
Well technically we don't know that. It could be still used as her backstory, and then we have Laura, the novel's main heroine at Carm's side in cv too (rondo mainly, but other than that carmilla wasn't really used except the gaiden cotm). :o
-
Don't let your affinity for Lesbians cloud your perception of canon, Serio. :(
-
Well technically we don't know that. It could be still used as her backstory, and then we have Laura, the novel's main heroine at Carm's side in cv too (rondo mainly, but other than that carmilla wasn't really used except the gaiden cotm). :o
It could be used as her backstory, but again, the dates are all wrong. So it wouldn't be used in total. Le Fanu's story takes place in 19th century, while Rondo and SotN is late 18th century. Plus, I'm pretty sure she was one of the only two bosses in Simon's Quest (17th century, but minus Laura).
Mary Shelly's Frankenstien is another literary influence in CV. The titular character proves a bit of an anachronism. Bottom line being that they'll pull characters from a variety of sources, but tend to pay only cursory heed to their stories.
Speaking of Laura...something has always bugged me about her: She looks a lot like Nei/Rika from Sega's Phantasy Star.
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.phantasy-star.net%2Fart%2Fsegaart%2Fpsmemcd2-2.jpg&hash=5896934a1e42b6f4c1a56b5b9d60af36)
- John
-
Alright, I'll buy that.
But how to we get the name Vlad Tepes III then?
Vlad Tepes Dracula(or in the order of "Dracula Vlad Tepes" in SotN). I don't recall(or remember, since some of my memory is fuzzy about certain games) him being called Vlad III in the games. Almost always just "Dracula". And "Dracula", "Vlad" and "Tepes" all are symbolic in meaning. "Dracula" means "Son of the Dragon", which can also mean "Son of the Devil"(as the Devil is represented as the "Red Dragon" in Revelations and "dragons" in Christianity are identified with the Devil). "Vlad" means "Prince". "Tepes" means "Impaler".
Who has a castle in Romania no less (as proven by Bloodlines and SotN).
I don't think you can work with a character of Dracula that doesn't live in Romania or have ties to Romania.
If he was a vampire before the 15th century, does that mean that he WASN'T at one point the King of Wallachia?
We don't know how long he had his castle there, nor how long it was prior to that when he started to settle the area. If we went by CV history, our Vlad III would've been a vampire throughout his rule(and everything regarding his childhood would've been concocted by the Church to cover up him being "The Dark Lord". What we do know is, in CV, during the time that Dracula was suposed to be fighting the Turks in OUR world, nothing happened like that in CV's world. The major threat to Romania, and Europe in general, was when Dracula waged war on humanity(CV3). The CV series, in most titles, never even gave any indication that Romania was at constant war with the Turks. The only game that talked anything about such similar battles was LoI regarding the Crusades. But, other than that, it seems like in CV's world, Romania was peaceful in the periods when Dracula was dead. And even events that are tied to reality (WWI, for instance) are, in the CV series, tied to that fiction. In CV's world, Elizabeth Bartley's responsible for igniting WWI. That's pretty bogus in terms of realism. ;D
- John
-
I think that Walter wanted to Crimson Stone so that there wouldn't any chance of another vampire becoming as powerful as he was. In regards to Mathias, he probably used the Crimson Stone to gain power from Walter's soul and then probably spend the next few centuries to gain more power and eventually become the Dark Lord.
I also think that the way he is finally destroyed in 1999 is that the preist from that japanese shrine seals Castlevania in the solar eclipse. Thus, cutting off Dracula from the castles power and without that he couldn't resurrect. I also think he was reincarnated because if his soul is sent to hell as usual, then there is the possibility of him being resurrected by his minions.
Another thing. Death didn't betray Dracula in 1999 because in AoS he is a boss. So he probably got sealed away with the castle.
-
Anyway you look at it, with Iga's weak story telling, I'm sure we'll never even hear about the Crimson Stone ever again.
-
There really should be a sticky or a section in the Dungeon about these things so they don't have to be explained every time a new batch of noobs flows in.
CV Dracula's name is Vlad Tepes. There has never been a ruler IRL by that name as "Tepes" is just a nickname given to Vlad III.
Mathias had to have changed his name when he relocated from French/England to Romania.
The Crimson Stone was an artifact created through alchemy (possibly by Mathias' own family) that granted eternal live by absorbing the soul of a powerful vampire into its holder. When Mathias absorbs Walter's soul, he got Walters powers AND his vampiric curse.
But Mathias is still alive! He doesn't die until Trevor kills him hundreds of years later.
also bump