Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: KaZudra on September 08, 2011, 04:19:01 PM
-
Chronologically by game release, this is how the story goes, IGA games are not included.
(Super) Castlevania (Chronicles) - Simon Defeats Dracula
-Dracula Places Curse on Simon-
Castlevania 2 - Simon Ressurects Dracula himself and Defeats him again to break the Curse.
Castlevania The Adventure - Christopher Strikes Down Dracula
Castlevaina 3 - Goes back to how the Legend Began, Introduces multiple characters and how the Belmont clan became famous by Trevor's Doing
Castlevania 2 Belmont's Revenge - Dracula has Christopher's Son, He Defeats Dracula to reunited with his son.
Dracula X(X)- Richter Takes up the Duty and Saves a few people along the Way.
Castlevania Bloodlines - Links the Castlevania Canon with the Bram Stoker's Canon.
Castlevania Legends - Introduces a Female Belmont, also adds a Twist in the Plot involving Alucard being Trevor's Father.
Castlevania 64/LoD - Pretty Much self Contained Story, no need to reference it.
Conflicts in Story with IGA games
SoTN - Shaft was Killed along with his ghost in Dracula X, Plus Simon had Already Willingly Ressurected Dracula so turning Richter Evil was unnecessary. Also the entire shaft part was meaningless as Alucard Pretty much Ressurected Dracula himself a-la Castlevania 2
Synopsis - This is probably the 32x game's plot as the rival wanted to ressurect Dracula, but they changed him to Richter, along with a bunch of other changes, Can't explain shaft though...
CoTM - No Conflicts here.
HoD - No Conflict.
Aria of Sorrow - No Conflicts.
Lament of innocence - Conflicts with just about every Castlevania game. Dracula was Already set up to be Vlad III/Bram Stoker's Dracula, The Belmont's were unrelated to Dracula in any way until Castlevania 3 / Legends, For a Story that Center's around Dracula, the LAST thing to do is FUCK UP THE MYTHOS.
Synopsis - this is later to recent IGA, he's pretty much forcing his own Story to the timeline, it would have been much better just to Consider it a reboot.
Dawn of Sorrow - Convenient Sequel plot is stupid, If there were more Dark lord candidates hey would have respectively showed up in AoS to Battle for the Throne, Soma Killed off the source of the Castle's power, thus ending Castlevania itself, Also this takes place 1 year after Aria, why is Julius that weak?
Synopsis - This plot is solely just to make a sequel and not much thought went into it, With no Dracula and no Castlevania in the plot, this is pretty much a Vain title.
Curse of Darkness - First off, Dracula had no problem spawning minions even before his resurrection in EVERY game before it, With Devil Forgers who Forge NOTHING that remotely resembles anything from Castlevania 3, I find this entire plot Really Stupid, Plus, where is Sypha and Grant? if your gonna mention them, dammit give em screen time!
Synopsis- Just a lame excuse to make a game to feature Trevor Belmont, and Force feed the 1999 prediction Crap too, IGA is Just Cheesing by now.
Portrait of Ruin - adding needless crap is now the way to go, Now bloodlines Serves no Purpose since there is no bram Stoker connection, The Morris Family is part of the Belmont Clan, Eric Looks NOTHING, NOTHING! like his original self, Dracula is the Lord of Darkness and The highest of all Vampires yet Brauner Traps him in the throne Room.
Yet again more force feeding on the 1999 Crap adding that the Vampire killer has to be unlocked but can't be as strong as a Belmont Wielding it, YET JOHN GETS HOLY LIGHTNING 4TH UPGRADE WHICH 1HKs EVERYTHING!
Synopsis - I know IGA has never played half of the games he makes sequels to now, this is a Frikken Uwe Boll move.
Order Of Ecclesia - No Conflict? What?
Synopsis - This is a Prime Example where IGA can be Very Good, I Wish He could Just do this for all his games.
-
So basically this is a thread that points out all of IGA's flaws?
*sigh*.
Have fun discussing this. ;)
-
So basically this is a thread that points out all of IGA's flaws?
*sigh*.
Have fun discussing this. ;)
Actually, He only made four bad games, Story-wise
1 in which is the holy grail of bad, LoI
3 in which are just Unneeded direct Sequels.
I have also pointed out He's also Capable of very good material.
He's like a Frank Miller Of Video Games, except he pulls out more good than bad.
-
I never found SotN to have any real conflicts with the timeline. It's only the IGA games that came after where things start to get messy. Also SotN isn't an IGA game. He helped produce it and was also on as a graphics artist but that's about it (thank god).
-
I never found SotN to have any real conflicts with the timeline. It's only the IGA games that came after where things start to get messy. Also SotN isn't an IGA game. He helped produce it and was also on as a graphics artist but that's about it (thank god).
Niether is CoTM an IGA game, but it kinda fall under category since he's so associated with it now.
Like I said, the only conflict that I really see is Bringing Shaft Back since you killed him and Destroyed his spirit in Rondo, I just find it really odd that he is the only non Dracula character to just sprout up okay after being killed and have you spirit destroyed AND have no one question it at all.
-
It's entirely possible that Shaft didn't die from his battle with Richter the first time. He could've been wounded and then fled the castle. When you fight his 'ghost' it's not really his ghost as it is just another of his green spell orbs which he could have left behind as a last-ditch effort to bring Richter down. However Shaft could have been killed but his spirit remained tethered to earth via his dark powers. Remember that unlike his Rondo counterpart, Shaft is always seen as being transparent in SotN.
-
It's entirely possible that Shaft didn't die from his battle with Richter the first time. He could've been wounded and then fled the castle. When you fight his 'ghost' it's not really his ghost as it is just another of his green spell orbs which he could have left behind as a last-ditch effort to bring Richter down. However Shaft could have been killed but his spirit remained tethered to earth via his dark powers. Remember that unlike his Rondo counterpart, Shaft is always seen as being transparent in SotN.
that makes sense, but why never make maria mention him?
According to SoTN, Maria at least traveled with Richter and Aided him to a Degree in Rondo.
it would have made some perfect explanation before you go to the inverted castle...
oh well, I guess its up to pure fan speculation on that one.
-
If you think this timeline is bad, wait till you see the shenanigans Dave Cox will come up with.
-
Also SotN isn't an IGA game. He helped produce it and was also on as a graphics artist but that's about it (thank god).
Igarashi served as a programmer, scenario writer (meaning he penned the story, as he's often related), and assistant director (eventually becoming the sole director as Hagihara left the project) in Symphony. It is his game as much as anyone else's who worked on it, perhaps even more so than his later work, in the light of how it's still the only time he directed or programmed a game in the series. Igarashi's later games have seen him more in positions tied to producing and scenario writing.
-
I think this must have been explained a thousand times already, but after Shaft was defeated, he placed his soul inside a crystal ball (the one you see in Sotn) which allowed him to survive. It's not a plothole.
-
I think this must have been explained a thousand times already, but after Shaft was defeated, he placed his soul inside a crystal ball (the one you see in Sotn) which allowed him to survive. It's not a plothole.
Okay, but the point is why was this never mentioned in game, two lines in the game could sum everything up.
Maria "Shaft? I thought He Was Dead?"
Richter "He bound his soul to his material, he lives an empty existence now."
- or something along those lines.
-
Okay, but the point is why was this never mentioned in game, two lines in the game could sum everything up.
Maria "Shaft? I thought He Was Dead?"
Richter "He bound his soul to his material, he lives an empty existence now."
- or something along those lines.
This is what I would add in to explain it:
Maria "Shaft!? I thought you killed him 5 years ago just before you defeated Dracula."
Richter "I did, but..."
Alucard "It's likely that we have Death to thank for that."
Maria "How is that possible?"
Alucard "He is the personification of death itself and thus is also the most powerful necromancer. Calling back a ghost from Heaven or Hell is a simple task for him."
-
Why is it necessary to explain how Shaft came back, and not how Medusa did, or how Carmilla did, or how... well, you get the idea.
-
Why is it necessary to explain how Shaft came back, and not how Medusa did, or how Carmilla did, or how... well, you get the idea.
I somewhat agree, but Shaft did play a bigger role than just standard Castlevania boss. I don't think much attention should've been paid to him, but a small explanation would've been nice.
-
I think one thing people seem to be forgetting about is DEATH.
Yes the Grimm Reaper is on the same side as Shaft.
Maybe he thought Shaft could be a great help in resurrecting Dracula and decided to bring shaft back to life afterwards.
-
I think one thing people seem to be forgetting about is DEATH.
Yes the Grimm Reaper is on the same side as Shaft.
Maybe he thought Shaft could be a great help in resurrecting Dracula and decided to bring shaft back to life afterwards.
Very good point there, Death is the right hand man to dracula.
-
In this thread; misinformation and irrational IGA bashing.
This thread was doomed ever since the first post.
-
In this thread; misinformation and irrational IGA bashing.
This thread was doomed ever since the first post.
In your Post: proves you didn't bother to read anything and irrational Posting.
This post proves that some people read only what they want to read.
-
I read your first post, beginning to end. It proves you only write what you want to write. Insinuating, and spinning things to lead people to a false conclusion.
I also read the replies. Some good ones there; mostly correcting your mistakes.
-
I am currently drafting something with regards to this thread, but it's so big that it'll take a while to compile.
The thread's spirit is a good one, even if some of the posts are spinning the same rhetoric we've come to expect...
-
I read your first post, beginning to end. It proves you only write what you want to write. Insinuating, and spinning things to lead people to a false conclusion.
I also read the replies. Some good ones there; mostly correcting your mistakes.
Done trying to argue?
Cause If your trying to do what I think you are doing, You'll be sorry.
-
Alright, calm down, guys.
-
Alright, calm down, guys.
Lol @ fighting on the internet (http://www.reallybored.net/m_pictures/305.jpg).
But all I have to ask is, what in the world are you talking about by "force feeding more 1999 crap"? Like... how is that FORCE FEEDING? Also, it's definitely not crap. I like the stuff behind 1999. :)
-
its just that, after AoS, all games after its release Had to reference this war.
Curse of Darkness - Saint germain hints it, why is it stupid? 1479, that's the year CoD Takes place, Nice to warn us all about a war when everyone in that are is Dust.
Portrait of Ruin - Pretty Much after you defeat Stella and Loretta the game devotes a long dialogue scene for this and that BS and Overall "The Great Prophesized War" and "Your Role in the War" Honestly, this should reference it, but not THAT much. You got tell any young adult thier Important Destiny and you'll surely get that plan backfired.
Order of Ecclesia - It made a slight reference, but its to the point of "Aw C'mon, STOP!"
The point is that there is this referencing and buildup and not a damn thing to show.
If I got at least a Glimpse that IGA is making the Game I'll cease to rant about it.
-
Also this takes place 1 year after Aria, why is Julius that weak?
Advanced age?
I always figured that Since Shaft is Dracula's henchman, upon his death, his soul becomes part of Castlevania, much like medusa or any of the other reappearing monsters that seem to be part of Castlevania itself.
But yeah, we have the crystal ball explanation which works better.
So basically, we can agree that when IGA makes original games, they rock.
(Aria, OoE)
And when he makes sequels...
They suck.
(CoD, PoR, DoS)
only exception is Symphony, which despite being a sequel, is one of the greatest vanias of all time.
So- the final judgement: he should just stick to original vanias.
-
Messing around with the established legend of Vlad Tepes is a minor timeline flaw if/when you try to make LoI fit into it all. Retconning a detail like that or explaining it as being one of the false stories the people believed about Mathias/Dracula wouldn't be a disaster. Or that there was indeed a "Vlad Dracul" whom Mathias got rid of and intentionally let people believe he was the same person.
I mean, Hideo Kojima basically build the whole story of Metal Gear on retcon after retcon and people had no problem with that. He made shit along the way and occasionally stopped to rewrite something he wrote in an earlier game. And people still call him a genius storyteller (or a genius, period). Never underestimate fanboyism, I guess.
That having said, if I were hired to cook up a story that would clear up the whole timeline, I could do that. Lots of people could do that. But the chances of the classic timeline wrapping up look slim to nothing at the moment.
-
I don't see the conflict between Lament of Innocence and the older Castlevania games... besides Legends, of course. The future dark lord is born as Mathias Cronqvist, and sometime after becoming a vampire, he takes the name Vlad Tepes. There is no "real" Vlad to displace. In Castlevania's world, Leon's former buddy is the one and only person to use that name.
The life story of 'vania Vlad doesn't match up with historic Vlad, but even before Lament, it was never intended to. The older manuals and games never said he was Vlad III son of Vlad II, Voivode of Wallachia. I think it was the manual for Dracula Densetsu that was the first to take a crack at giving him an origin, and it says he was a fanatic sorcerer who built a castle, summoned demons, and wanted eternal life by becoming a demonic king. Then the manual for Akumajo Densetsusays Count Vlad Tepes used taboo arts to summon an evil deity to give him power. Lament rearranges and elaborates on these events - he summons Death first before becoming known as Vlad or obtaining his castle, gaining power isn't as simple as Death snapping his fingers, and he's an alchemist instead of (or in addition to) being a sorcerer - but I think the fundamentals are remarkably faithful.
-
@ Flame - Yep, IGA is a Super Beast at Orginal Games, I hope He realized this by now and vows not to make sequels.
@Mortidicator - Tepes means Impaler in Romanian, Guess what....
Yeah, The whole Mathias Thing is a Complete Contradictory to even the first IGA game since Dracula was addressed as Vlad Tepes Dracula.
Since He was Addressed as his common Historical Name, That Directly Points to Vlad III.
BUT Mathias at a high Chance could be Matyas Corvinus in a historical Canon...
Matyas Corvinus had Vlad III Ţepeş as his vassal, at times, and once as a prisoner, Meaning that Mathias May not be Dracula himself, but in time Influenced Vlad III to take the mantle in some way or fashion (Mind Transfer?)
a fix like that would....
Make LoI Coherent with the Classic Vanias
Could easily be written in since Mathias and Vlad III share the Dracula name, thus makes a perfect setup.
Only Requires a couple sentences.
Overall add a Few Great twists in the Vania Timeline.
@ A-Yty - Metal Gear series is Fun, but I do admit that the Story got really stupid, MGS4 just hows how bad Hideo can be at story telling and Story Writing.
-
I mean, Hideo Kojima basically build the whole story of Metal Gear on retcon after retcon and people had no problem with that. He made shit along the way and occasionally stopped to rewrite something he wrote in an earlier game. And people still call him a genius storyteller (or a genius, period). Never underestimate fanboyism, I guess.
Nope, not just fanboyism. He just knows how to create interesting characters and how to provide good directing (even if story in general fail short). Something that IGA never possesed.
As for plotholes: well, inverted castle appearance in the SOTN was never properly adressed.
In general Original CV timeline after IGA took power, is a mess of unresolved questions. Why Belmonts couldn't use Vampire Killer, what's the deal with time keepers and Galamoth, what exactly Reaper have to do with them and what he wants from Dracula?
All this things were hinted over the course of the last 10 years and none of them were properly resolved, explained or at least elaborated. Multiple hints and no answers whatsoever. It's like when writing the story for the next game he absolutely doesn't care about what he had written before. And the new game abandons all those ideas that were introduced before. I really hoped that at some point he will provide some answers (maybe in some interview or in the new game (shudder)), but I don't think it will happen.
-
What we'd need for the 25th Anniversary? A complete book with everything explained in it.
-
Nope, not just fanboyism. He just knows how to create interesting characters and how to provide good directing (even if story in general fail short).
Oh, I agree he has created memorable characters. And the original story (MGS) was good. But it just ballooned because he doesn't seem to know the basics of writing. I used to be a great fan of his, but nowadays I think of him as the M. Night Shamaylan of video games.
-
Personaly I consider first three MGS (and MG2) to be very good games. MGS4 is where it fell down. Though, when it goes to directing it is very awesome game.
-
Messing around with the established legend of Vlad Tepes is a minor timeline flaw if/when you try to make LoI fit into it all. Retconning a detail like that or explaining it as being one of the false stories the people believed about Mathias/Dracula wouldn't be a disaster. Or that there was indeed a "Vlad Dracul" whom Mathias got rid of and intentionally let people believe he was the same person.
I don't see the conflict between Lament of Innocence and the older Castlevania games... besides Legends, of course. The future dark lord is born as Mathias Cronqvist, and sometime after becoming a vampire, he takes the name Vlad Tepes. There is no "real" Vlad to displace. In Castlevania's world, Leon's former buddy is the one and only person to use that name.
Here is an excerpt from a 2005 interview which solidifies these statements,
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv119%2Fc0mbat%2Figa2-2.png&hash=ffa0ed787553b3aae094d9ed5dfc03e0e3cdc9da)
This is a cool pic of how I envision Vlad Tepes circa 1348, 128 years before CVIII:Dracula's Curse (and also the year the Black Death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death) pandemic breaks out in Europe.. could've Dracula been responsible?? I'm FULL of gameplay/story ideas that could happen between this unknown period of Dracula's life/Belmont's struggle)
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv119%2Fc0mbat%2F51L627eNfPL__SS500_.jpg&hash=aaa12274d0942822fd546fed3f197e9e6dc1e19c)
-
Where's that second pic from? Its awesome.
Actually, a Vania game like that would be pretty neat.
-
Where's that second pic from? Its awesome.
-
Also, lots of people seem to dislike how Bloodlines did its best to merge Bram Stoker's Dracula and CV, so I'd imagine them preferring that the CV Dracula isn't actually the one in the book. Stoker's Drac wasn't into apocalypse and killing humans. He was "just" a vampire, so IMO it makes even more sense that the CV Drac was insanely furious at God and didn't act out of impulse, but instead spent a whole year planning his thing.
-
How so? It seemed pretty clear to me that Dracula's intent in Bram Stoker's story is to basically invade England and increase his power. And he does, in fact, have an insane hatred for god in much the same vein as Mathias does.
-
If they were to do a CV game that kicks off the Black Plague then it should be Count Orlock as that was more his thing. If the Mathias thing is to be believed then it wouldn't make sense for him to start killing off humanity as his second wife Elizabeta has yet to exist, let alone die at the hands of humans. She's the catalyst that starts Mathias down the road of revenge which would only happen just a few decades before CVIII.
-
@Mortidicator - Tepes means Impaler in Romanian, Guess what....
Yeah, The whole Mathias Thing is a Complete Contradictory to even the first IGA game since Dracula was addressed as Vlad Tepes Dracula.
Actually, he wasn't. His name was written Dracula Vlad Tepes, which is arranged differently than Vlad Tepes Dracula. In Castlevania, "Dracula" is his first name. He's never referred to as "Vlad"(ever, to my knowledge). Name arrangement means everything. You don't think Ryan David Reeve is the same person as Reeve Ryan David, do you? Even if he was based on the REAL Vlad the Impaler, CV's Dracula, like Stokers(and all fantasy depictions) were always meant to be it's own thing. How they deviate from the source material is how they make it their own(in a way). It would suck if all depictions of Dracula tried to keep true to history, just for the sake of history buffs.
-
Actually, he wasn't. His name was written Dracula Vlad Tepes, which is arranged differently than Vlad Dracula Tepes. In Castlevania, "Dracula" is his first name. He's never referred to as "Vlad"(ever, to my knowledge). Name arrangement means everything. You don't think Ryan David Anderson is the same person as David Ryan Anderson, do you? Even if he was based on the REAL Vlad the Impaler, CV's Dracula, like Stokers(and all fantasy depictions) were always meant to be it's own thing. How they deviate from the source material is how they make it their own(in a way). It would suck if all depictions of Dracula tried to keep true to history, just for the sake of history buffs.
Dracula is a Surname, also in Asia, the Surname is First.
Plus the arrangement of the name is significant if you Literately Called Dracula Vlad the Impaler.
Stoker linked his Dracula to Vlad the Impaler, read the book again.
IGA Based His Dracula off of Matthias Corvinus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthias_Corvinus), Which is related, but way off.
-
If they were to do a CV game that kicks off the Black Plague then it should be Count Orlock as that was more his thing. If the Mathias thing is to be believed then it wouldn't make sense for him to start killing off humanity as his second wife Elizabeta has yet to exist, let alone die at the hands of humans. She's the catalyst that starts Mathias down the road of revenge which would only happen just a few decades before CVIII.
Well, IGA did say the Belmonts hunted "other" vampires before the reunion with Dracula. Orlock would be interesting. I always loved that character, and wrote a short fanfic called "Mitternacht" about his origin. That in the 1300s, he was one of the most fierce warriors of the king, but prior to the epidemic of the Bubonic Plague, the king got word that the town from where Orlock was from, where his wife and daughter reside, was overtaken by one of the first accounts of the plague. He chose to keep this information from Orlock, out of fear that if he went to be with his family, he'd too contract the plague and the king would loose his greatest knight. Orlock finds out out that the King, secretly, is sending a band of knights to raze the town and kill all survivors, while making it seem like it was an attack from the Turks. He sneaks out and travels to his town as the band of knights are killing the stragglers. Orlock dispatches the knights, then digs throught he mounds of corpses to find the bodies of his wife and child. He contracts the plague, but his hatred of his betrayal at the hand of his king pushes him through and he recovers the bodies, then curses the kingdom he fought for. Later, Orlock returned to his King's castle, but he wasn't human anymore. His powers were of darkness and single-handedly slaughtered everybody in the castle, leaving the king for last. Then, after killing the king, took his castle and renamed it "Mitternacht"(Midnight), and used his powers to spread the plague throughout all Europe.
Dracula is a Surname, also in Asia, the Surname is First.
Yes, but isn't it wonky that they'd choose to display Dracula's name in Asian arrangement, but every other name is in Western arrangement. And I mean the English release of the name, not the Japanese. Richter Belmont, Maria Renard. Even Adrian Farenheights Tepes(Tepes being the surname, which is even more evident considering it's the only one both Dracula and Alucard share, being father and son). Makes even more sense that Alucard is mocking his father's FIRST NAME(infamous name) with the name "Alucard" itself("Dracula" backwards).
-
Well, IGA did say the Belmonts hunted "other" vampires before the reunion with Dracula. Orlock would be interesting. I always loved that character, and wrote a short fanfic called "Mitternacht" about his origin. That in the 1300s, he was one of the most fierce warriors of king, but prior to the epidemic of the Bubonic Plague, the king got word that the town from where Orlock was from, where his wife and daughter reside, was overtaken by one of the first accounts of the plague. He chose to keep this information from Orlock, out of fear that he he went to be with his family, he'd too contract the plague and the king would loose his greatest knight. Orlock finds out out that the King, secretly, is sending a band of knights to raze the town and kill all survivors, while making it seem like it was an attack from the Turks. He sneaks out and travels to his town as the band of knights are killing the stragglers. Orlock dispatches the knights, then digs throught he mounds of corpses to find the bodies of his wife and child. He contracts the plague, but his hatred of his betrayal at the hand of his king pushes him through and he recovers the bodies, then curses the kingdom he fought for. Later, Orlock returned to his King's castle, but he wasn't human anymore. His powers were of darkness and single-handedly slaughtered everybody in the castle, leaving the king for last. Then, after killing the king, took his castle and renamed it "Mitternacht"(Midnight), and used his powers to spread the plague throughout all Europe.
wow, that makes Orlock a real badass, I like it!
-
IGA Based His Dracula off of Matthias Corvinus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthias_Corvinus)
No, he didn't. Aside from having a similar name, how is Cronqvist, the fictional Romanian knight who became a vampire in defiance of God, similar to Corvinus, the historic Hungarian king?
-
No, he didn't. Aside from having a similar name, how is Cronqvist, the fictional Romanian knight who became a vampire in defiance of God, similar to Corvinus, the historic Hungarian king?
I agree.
He may have used the name as a nod towards Matthias Corvinus but he certainly did not base his Dracula off of him.
Its obvious that IGA still drew inspiration from the Bram Stoker's version of Dracula.
Having a wife named Elisabetha who died and caused him to forsake god.
Pretty similar to Elizibeta dying and causing the Bram Stoker's Dracula to also forsake god.
-
Where's that second pic from? Its awesome.
http://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/index.php?topic=3624.0 (http://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/index.php?topic=3624.0)
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F6kou.img.jugem.jp%2F20110427_1871516.jpg&hash=69a436f5d972e7db25e758a01c0c5fb700e8c98d)
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F6kou.img.jugem.jp%2F20110427_1871518.jpg&hash=814b50c7012af74790e38c3238f6bc70aef9c92e)
-
No, he didn't. Aside from having a similar name, how is Cronqvist, the fictional Romanian knight who became a vampire in defiance of God, similar to Corvinus, the historic Hungarian king?
Yeah, a man with a Similar name,
Vlad Trepes was his Vassal...
His Privileged Prisoner...
His Cousin In Law...
And This Man helped Vlad Tepes Conquer Wallachia for his second time.
too many connections for it not to be inspired.
I agree.
He may have used the name as a nod towards Matthias Corvinus but he certainly did not base his Dracula off of him.
Its obvious that IGA still drew inspiration from the Bram Stoker's version of Dracula.
Having a wife named Elisabetha who died and caused him to forsake god.
Pretty similar to Elizibeta dying and causing the Bram Stoker's Dracula to also forsake god.
If that is so, why didn't he Make his Dracula the Bram Stoker one (Vlad III) Like ALL of the other Castlevania games.
ALL, not some, not few, ALL but ONE established Dracula to be the Bram Stoker one.
LoI tried to be different, but when its all said and done,
Belmont's Origin didn't need a half-assed-no-researched Dracula Origin.
-
If that is so, why didn't he Make his Dracula the Bram Stoker one (Vlad III) Like ALL of the other Castlevania games.
Obviously he wanted to do something different.
And I applaud him for that.
I actually think he did a pretty good job with his origin story.
Classic case of differing opinions here I suppose.
But atleast he still paid some form of homage to the established Bram Stoker Dracula story as I pointed out in my above comment.
Its not like he pulled a LOS and made Dracula a former belmont lol.
-
I don't remember if Mathias' name was ever brought in later games. Can it be possible that current Drac is actually Vlad III? Like maybe Vlad defeated Mathias and took the Crimson Stone from him. So much could've happened between LoI and CV3 that we've yet to know.
I know the snippet from the interview Crisis posted shows IGA saying he likes to think Mathias was living peacefully, but I'm just assuming for a moment that he did not.
-
Well considering IGA confirmed that Mathias is indeed Dracula from the Castlevania games that really disproves your theory of him being killled by the real one.
-
Oh, he did. Geez, how could I have competely missed the first question in that interview.... :o
-
Consider the portrait that's in the background of Soma's chamber in DoS Julius Mode,
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv119%2Fc0mbat%2Fmat.png&hash=2974263567783ab87969813efd3ed5826069ca71)
moar proof,
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv119%2Fc0mbat%2Fmathias.jpg&hash=ced72635fa9f4e899d186c0db3dbff4e33ed590f)
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv119%2Fc0mbat%2Fvlad.jpg&hash=c10a864c3c39f65a87c176fa57a652158a2b9a4f)
-
I don't remember if Mathias' name was ever brought in later games. Can it be possible that current Drac is actually Vlad III? Like maybe Vlad defeated Mathias and took the Crimson Stone from him. So much could've happened between LoI and CV3 that we've yet to know.
I know the snippet from the interview Crisis posted shows IGA saying he likes to think Mathias was living peacefully, but I'm just assuming for a moment that he did not.
LOL, dude, the clip actually features IGA confirming Mathias IS Dracula. He changes his name to "Dracula". Another interview(forget if it was for a magazine or strategy guide) IGA outright stated he changed his name because of what "Dracula" means. So, basically, Mathias sheds his mortal name(his christened name), and renames himself according to what he has become(Son of the Devil/Dragon= "Dracula"). It makes sense if you allow it to.
-
I never felt that Castlevania's "Dracula" was 100% the same as Bram Stoker's or the historical Vlad Tepes. Castlevania made up its own legend even in the beginning, drawing inspiration from various Dracula/vampire-based tales, and mixing them with new material. I mean, did Bram Stoker's Dracula or Vlad Tepes shoot fireballs from their cape and turn into big blue monsters? Did they have an alliance with Death or control Hollywood/literary and Greek monsters? Castlevania is allowed to do its own thing, so long as it stays in character. (IGA has sometimes been too "cute/trite" and LoS stepped off the deep end into something else all together that was more in line with Van Helsing, Priest, or Underworld). I felt that LoI's story was entertaining, if a bit anti-climatic/weird, but put more fitting heart behind the origin of Dracula and Dracula's link to the Belmonts than what LoS tried to do. Characters like Renaldo and Leon were well-developed for what the story was and rather believable. I was invested in LoI's story (Renaldo taking about his daughter's fate and his trapped lot in life, Leon linking his quest to Renaldo's, etc), whereas LoS felt like distant cliff notes more often than not. Also, so much is so vague, with the gap in time between LoI and CV3, that it really doesn't bug me. And I've always thought it would have been cool to follow Leon for another quest trying to hunt down Matthias. But at this point, I don't need a fancy story. I'd just like some stand-alone quality that captures the Belmont vs. Dracula tale in an authentic way both set-up- and gameplay-wise in 3D without clinging to flavor-of-the-day conventions of GoW, SotC, Uncharted, or whatever. Basically, I'm looking for CV64 meets Super Castlevania IV.
-
A theory....
In the Dark Underground Mathias is known as Dracula, who's Fate becomes intertwined with another man named Dracula.
Mathias then at some point Kills Vlad or Buts everything that is him inside the body and mind into Vlad, thus becoming Vlad Tepes Dracula
Consider the portrait that's in the background of Soma's chamber in DoS Julius Mode,
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv119%2Fc0mbat%2Fmat.png&hash=2974263567783ab87969813efd3ed5826069ca71)
moar proof,
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv119%2Fc0mbat%2Fmathias.jpg&hash=ced72635fa9f4e899d186c0db3dbff4e33ed590f)
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv119%2Fc0mbat%2Fvlad.jpg&hash=c10a864c3c39f65a87c176fa57a652158a2b9a4f)
And you guys say LoS is forcing References....
Well considering IGA confirmed that Mathias is indeed Dracula from the Castlevania games that really disproves your theory of him being killled by the real one.
Never Said Killed Directly, it was in full, Killed or Something like that....
Basically, Vlad is in the Picture, but mathias has to go in a way.
Mathis could have Killed Vlad at one point and took his place in history or something like that.
Some event that would Make Mathias into Vlad, that will be the best way...
-
The theory of "Matthias killing Vlad/Vlad killing Matthias" has been around for quite some time. But that's not what officially happens no matter how anyone spins it.
Matthias used the Crimson Stone to absorb the dead vampire souls the Belmonts kill, while practicing the dark arts in his demonic fortress (linking back to his initial description as a "fanatical demon worshipper/sorceror" in the Japanese Castlevania Adventure manual). At some point during those 300 years he changes his identity to avoid suspicion or renounce his humanity. Humans kill Lisa, he goes batshit crazy & comes out of hiding, which prompts the Belmonts to finally locate him, etc.
It's not that hard to swallow..
Some examples of other "different" origins for Dracula:
- Vlad from the Marvel Universe has a similar origin, but still very different from historical Drac (a daughter named Lilith, being sired by another vampire, etc.)
- Blade: Trinity, Dracula was originally born in ancient Sumer and was the first vampire.
- In the movie Dracula 2000, Dracula is Judas Iscariot himself(!), the guy that betrayed Jesus
- and of course, in Lords of Shadow-verse, Dracula was originally Gabriel Belmont.. from the Cronqvist family.
-
The theory of "Matthias killing Vlad/Vlad killing Matthias" has been around for quite some time. But that's not what officially happens no matter how anyone spins it.
Matthias used the Crimson Stone to absorb the dead vampire souls the Belmonts kill, while practicing the dark arts in his demonic fortress (linking back to his initial description as a "fanatical demon worshipper/sorceror" in the Japanese Castlevania Adventure manual). At some point during those 300 years he changes his identity to avoid suspicion or renounce his humanity. Humans kill Lisa, he goes batshit crazy & comes out of hiding, which prompts the Belmonts to finally locate him, etc.
It's not that hard to swallow..
that's much better than IGA's "lol i dunno he lives peaceful"
He changes his identity to stay in the shadows as he denounced his humanity and Grudge Against God.
When Lisa was murdered He Pacts a Grudge against all humans and Attacks them...
Many Hunters have tried but all failed at a point in time, Thus Enters The Belmont Clan to be the ones who can actually Stop him.
Still, Its needless to establish the Belmont/Dracula thing even if it can click because by the time things are finally set to motion both sides have forgotten the events of LoI entirely.
oh yeah, I have a possible Theory on the whole end of Belmont Era.
Due to being controlled, Richter May have felt that the power of the Belmonts were not necessary until Dracula was at full Power.
With Alucard and the Brave Hunters in those times in charge of Premature Ressurections, the Belmonts Remain Dormant and In the Shadows until they are needed again.
So, Richter and Maria (Possibly Alucard too) Seal the Power of the Vampire killer until the Events of a full powered Dracula.
The Vampire Killer years later unseals to a young Julius who was Trained by a Notable Weapons Expert.
-
How so? It seemed pretty clear to me that Dracula's intent in Bram Stoker's story is to basically invade England and increase his power. And he does, in fact, have an insane hatred for god in much the same vein as Mathias does.
Well, I'm sure he was eager to get out of that castle after being cooped up in there without fresh blood for, what - hundreds of years? And at the time London was the place to be. But I see it being about survival instead of acting out of principle. Stoker Drac would probably take over the world if he was able to. CV Drac is going to destroy the world no matter what.
The "problem" with connecting CV Drac to Stoker Drac isn't IGA or anyone else creating his "own" Dracula history. That happens in lots of stories, movies and games. It's happening in LoS, for example. I think Dracula has become more like a title or a template instead of character whose origins you have to follow strictly if you're gonna call him Dracula/Dracul etc.
About seven years ago, as a young silly foreigner fairly new to the internets, I wrote a silly little article, shortly after finishing LoI for the first time. I obviously added the Brauner mention years later. Everything else was in the first version. When I first wrote it, I guess I didn't think Mathias was a "worthy" Dracula:
http://www.linnavaanijat.com/en/articles/the-only-true-dracula/ (http://www.linnavaanijat.com/en/articles/the-only-true-dracula/)
-
A theory....
In the Dark Underground Mathias is known as Dracula, who's Fate becomes intertwined with another man named Dracula.
Mathias then at some point Kills Vlad or Buts everything that is him inside the body and mind into Vlad, thus becoming Vlad Tepes Dracula
What if... Mathias is Vlad I, Vlad II, & Vlad III? It is well established that he can have children. So what if the entire group of nobles was 'adopted' by Mathias with him as the family's capo? With the power of the dark lord and his practice of the dark arts it wouldn't be very difficult to pretend to me a normal human or even a lineage of humans. Plus keeping a real human family around him would be a great cover.
-
I think, figuratively, Mathias was Vlad III, "Dracula"(Son of the Dragon), because he was basically the next all-powerful incarnation of vampire after Walter. Walter was Vlad II, "Dracul"(The Dragon), especially considering how Walter's armor was shaped as a dragon, and how his lair(the whole final area) was decorated with dragon statues and bones. As for Vlad I, I would think that's whom ever "turned" Walter(probably an ancient vampire).
-
I always thought Walter's armor looked more like Bat wings than Dragon wings
-
yeah, flame's right, his armor isn't a dragon, His chest piece are curled up bat wings which look ungodly bad-ass...
I wish Walter played a bigger role in the series other than the expendable Dracula figure.
-
yeah, flame's right, his armor isn't a dragon, His chest piece are curled up bat wings which look ungodly bad-ass...
I wish Walter played a bigger role in the series other than the expendable Dracula figure.
I'm gonna play a little devil's advocate and say there's no real difference between bat and dragon wings other than scale. The only way to know for sure is to ask the original designer of the armor.
-
I'm gonna play a little devil's advocate and say there's no real difference between bat and dragon wings other than scale. The only way to know for sure is to ask the original designer of the armor.
True, but I think this Pic pretty much goes in complete favor of the Bat part...
-
I always looked at Walter's knee-guards, which either are dragon faces, or huge scaley demons.
-
your right, those are dragon heads on his armor....
Bats and Dragons... Highly probable that its both.
Aluard Becomes a Dragon Statue sometimes when turned to stone
I usually go by the artist's style in which she rarely does dragons, but loves the bat wings.
-
Alucard's big state thing looks like a demon to me.
Either way, the style of Walter's armor is tenuous evidence of a connection to Dracul at best.
-
Alucard's big state thing looks like a demon to me.
Either way, the style of Walter's armor is tenuous evidence of a connection to Dracul at best.
Good point Since Walter's name means to Rule an Army, and the Dragon is a Symbol of The Dragon.
In a Way, Walter is the Father of Dracula.
Maybe LoI symbolism is a Reverse Time repeating itself in a metaphor...
Walter is to Vlad II -> Dracul (Dragon) The Father of Vlad III and Vlad IV
Walter Possessed all of Dracula's Powers including a breif moment of Dracula's Second Form.
When Mathias "absorbed Him" He became reborn as Dracula, Inheriting all of Walter's abilities and Powers.
Kinda Like a Father - Son Relation. thus Dracula is Vlad the Impaler as a symbol
Walter is also responsible For The Vampire Killer and mostly responsible for Leon's turn from Nobility to a Vampire Hunter.
in that time, Walter was able to Transform Leon into Someone completely different from where he started too.
Simular to a rebirth but on a different alignment.
The Relation of Mathias and Leon were very close, close to as like a brotherhood.
When Mathias Cursed God and Leon Took up the Place of God's Work it ultimately came to two symbols of two people similar
Mathias as to Vlad III The Impaler and Leon to Vlad IV the Saint, Vlad III's Half Brother.
Maybe LoI Doesn't Quite Click with the Timeline as much as it should due to many elements involving Dracula, but the Symbolic nature of the Game is quite supreme and it dissapoints me on a very deep level on how poorly the story was told, given that there was alot IGA could work with but he chose to do so little in compairson.