Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: TheouAegis on May 04, 2012, 08:10:11 PM
-
So yeah, the English version is quite a bit different, I'm just now realizing.
１５世紀、ヨーロッパ。
"15th Century, Europe."
この暗黒の世に、おそるべき人物がいた。トランシルバニアの ヴラド・ツェペシュ、
"In this dark era, there was a dreaded man. Transylvania's Vlad Tepes,"
またのなを、ドラキュラといった。
"also known as Dracula."
さつりくをよろこびとし、はかいのかぎりを
"He delighted in slaughter and destruction"
つくすことに あきたらなくなったかれは、
"until nothing was left and he grew dissatisfied."
はるかなる太古に失われし魔法をふっかつ
"Reviving the dark arts from ancient times,"
させ、暗黒邪神をこの世によびさました。
"he evoked into this world the Dark Gods."
狂王は邪神の力をかりて、いまわしき魔物を
"The Mad King, with the power of the gods, summoned foul creatures"
つぎつぎと世へおくりだし、ワラキア全土を
"and sent them out into the world, plunging all of Wallachia"
暗黒と、さつりくの地へと かえていった。
"into darkness and slaughtering."
そして自らの野望に狂った王は、ついには
"And for his own mad ambitions,"
その魔の手をヨーロッパ全土にひろげようと
"the hand of that demon reached"
はかったのであった。
"across all of Europe." (I know this isn't line-for-line)
この地をけがし、血でそめようと…
"And the land was dyed with blood."
このことをおもくみた正教会は、ただちに
"The Orthodox Church took heed of the situation"
手をうって、ぐんたいをおくりこんだ。
"and struck back, sending forth an army."
また、かの地でも、ドラキュラにたいして、
"At the same time, in that land there were"
たたかいをいどもうとする者たちがあった。
"were people who rose up to fight Dracula."
だが、しかし、だれひとりとして
"However, not a single soul"
いきてもどってきた者は いなかった…
"returned alive."
Compare that to the English intro:
During 15th Century
Europe, there lived
a person named
Dracula.
He practiced sorcery
in order to create
a bad world filled
with evil.
He began taking over
the Continent of
Europe, changing
countries from good
to bad.
The good people of
Europe tried to
fight off Dracula,
but no one was able
to survive.
...
???
CV3 got the 4Kids treatment, it seems.
Also notice that Warakiya isn't even referred to as a town in the Japanese one. It's made very clear that CV3 takes place in Wallachia principality.
And I wonder if Konami used this pic for visual reference while making the first stage in CV3. Note the house in the lower-right corner.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Cronica_nurenburg.jpg/563px-Cronica_nurenburg.jpg)
-
I've known about the contents of this intro for thee years already.
Aside from the less awkward wording, the most interesting thing about the intro is the mention of Dracula using powers of "evil gods". Not sure what they are but they are mentioned in the CoD manga as well.
-
Nice translation. Once again, the US version has been totally changed.
-
Aside from the less awkward wording, the most interesting thing about the intro is the mention of Dracula using powers of "evil gods". Not sure what they are but they are mentioned in the CoD manga as well.
Maybe it was actually referring to the power of Chaos itself, seeing as it does contain immense power equal to gods. Well, at least that's what I think.
-
Considering how many Castlevania fans there are out there, I was beginning to wonder why I was having such a hard time finding translations to something as obvious and simple as the game manuals? Even more so considering how bogus the English versions are.
So yeah, many thanks for this, TheouAegis.
-
Could one of the Gods in question be Galamoth? They've entertained that Galamoth and Dracula have some rivalry in Kid Dracula and Judgment, with Judgment specifically about Galamoth trying to change history and replace big bad Draccy.
-
My speculation is that they are the vampire souls that Dracula absorbed in order to become stronger.
-
Dark gods, eh?
Sounds better than EVIL Chaos.
-
Was there any CV material that directly equated Chaos as evil? To my understanding, Chaos in itself isn't inherently evil, it was Dracula's constant influence that ultimately turned it into a force of evil.
-
Maybe it was actually referring to the power of Chaos itself, seeing as it does contain immense power equal to gods. Well, at least that's what I think
CVIII is a pre-IGA Castlevania game so I doubt that it is was intended to be a reference to Chaos unless there is any evidence that supports Chaos existed before Iga introduced the idea.
-
CVIII is a pre-IGA Castlevania game so I doubt that it is was intended to be a reference to Chaos unless there is any evidence that supports Chaos existed before Iga introduced the idea.
I think they are different. If I remember correctly, Chaos comes from the darkness in people's hearts. That sounds very different from the power of "Dark Gods". My thought is that originally Dracula's power came from the dark gods (referred as "evil lords" in the CoD manga), but when IGA came to power he changed to Chaos which comes from the darkness in the hearts of people.
I could be wrong, but this is my interpretation based on what I know.
-
I think they are different. If I remember correctly, Chaos comes from the darkness in people's hearts. That sounds very different from the power of "Dark Gods". My thought is that originally Dracula's power came from the dark gods (referred as "evil lords" in the CoD manga), but when IGA came to power he changed to Chaos which comes from the darkness in the hearts of people.
I don't know why IGA would even think that Chaos comes from the darkness in people's hearts when Chaos is nothing more then the opposite of order. Chaos is not evil at all, it's just chaos. And before mankind was even a glimmer of a thought in God's mind, Chaos was already in existence as Order's opposite. I'd much rather prefer the 'Dark Gods' concept as it just seems to work better.
-
Now THAT's interesting :D
In CV3 Dracula was supposed to be a socerer wasn't he? Perhaps the original "Demon Castle Dracula" subtitle had a close relation with the fact that it as, you know, Demon's Castle? And Dracula was always a "priest" for the Devil?
-
As the Japanese version goes on to say, the Belmondo clan had a history of slaying vampires but because the general populace feared the Belmondo clan, the Pope had difficulty finding a Belmondo. Eventually the Pope found Trevor/Ralph. Over 100 years before Simon defeated him, the battle between Dracula and humans is about to begin here and now.
Two interesting things to note. First off, Trevor is declared as the very first to fight Dracula. So whether or not Mathias is actually Dracula, the first actual reference of a battle between humans and the entity known as Dracula wasn't until Trevor/Ralph fought him. This means a) Mathias isn't Dracula, or b) Mathias didn't change his name to Dracula until after moving to Wallachia.
The other important thing to note in CV3's intro is nowhere is Dracula referred to as a vampire. He's a demonologist (and as the games seem to suggest, an alchemist as well). Don't remember if he's actually called a vampire by the time Simon fights him, but as of Trevor's confrontation with him he's never called a vampire.
I'd quote the original game and translate line-for-line like I did earlier, but I"m at work and boss will be here in 20 minutes.
-
The other important thing to note in CV3's intro is nowhere is Dracula referred to as a vampire. He's a demonologist (and as the games seem to suggest, an alchemist as well). Don't remember if he's actually called a vampire by the time Simon fights him, but as of Trevor's confrontation with him he's never called a vampire.
This is true. However he is a Vampire whether or not the story says it. The name 'Dracula' alone will automatically point you in that direction of thought. Dracula is a vampire but more-so, he is The King of Vampires to rule over all others. And being a dark sorcerer who knows alchemy as well will only just solidify his place in the grand scheme of all things evil.
-
This means a) Mathias isn't Dracula, or b) Mathias didn't change his name to Dracula until after moving to Wallachia.
Well Leon didnt fight Mathias, Mathias flew away and left Leon to Death. So it still works.
Also, I would assume that's how it played out. he moved there, and started his life anew.
-
Well Leon didnt fight Mathias, Mathias flew away and left Leon to Death. So it still works.
Also, I would assume that's how it played out. he moved there, and started his life anew.
Correct. Leon kill Walter. Death and Mathias appear as Mathias absorbs Walter's soul. There is a brief conversation. After that, Mathias says: "Dawn is coming". At which point, he leaves Death to deal with Leon.
I believe that if dawn wasn't approaching so quickly, Mathias would have stayed and perhaps fought with Leon and that would be the first battle between "Dracula" and the Belmonts.
-
I believe that if dawn wasn't approaching so quickly, Mathias would have stayed and perhaps fought with Leon and that would be the first battle between "Dracula" and the Belmonts.
Giving that anyone, besides Leon, Mathias and Rinaldo knew about this events at all.
-
Dracula wasn't originally a vampire, he was a Romanian prince. :3 So it's not a given. And being a sorceror doesn't make him a vampire. He could just drink blood out of a chalice. After all, you see him drinking out of a glass, but you never see him SUCKING someone's blood.
-
Wasn't Curse of Darkness the first time we actually see him suck blood?
-
i'm confused o.o;
-
Now THAT's interesting :D
In CV3 Dracula was supposed to be a socerer wasn't he? Perhaps the original "Demon Castle Dracula" subtitle had a close relation with the fact that it as, you know, Demon's Castle? And Dracula was always a "priest" for the Devil?
I think this aspect of him was brought up in the manual for CV Adventure as well. But it's sadly never elaborated upon beyond "Dracula was a totally bad dude who used lots of magic".
-
Apparently I wasn't the only one that noticed this. (I just read this on the Castlevania wiki.) Per CV3, Dracula himself isn't a vampire. Per IGA's games, Dracula has the powers of a vampire. He stole Walter's vampiric powers, just like Soma and Dmitri. The stones allow him to come back to life every 100 years or so, not his vampirism. Vampires don't revive every 100 years after you kill them. You stake one or splash it with holy water and it dies in agonizing death throes. And you don't just become a vampire by stealing another one's soul or possessing a crystal. You gotta get bit by one or drink its blood.
This kinda pertained to this topic and also is kinda a new topic. Just when did Dracula "become" a vampire? Did this happen as soon as he stole Walter's soul? Was he just a human when Trevor met him until the rite to summon Pazuzu succeeded? (Well, whether it succeeded or not could be contended.) Or did the transition occur upon his first resurrection after Trevor slew him? Or did it not occur until after Simon reassembled his corpse? Or did he ever become a vampire?
And I haven't played many of the games very far. One of you said he sucks blood for the first time (on screen) in COD. Can anyone else verify this? I know D can use Dark Metamorphosis, but since Alucard didn't bite enemies with it, but rather just absorbed their blood, that's not really vampirism. I mean, Jiangshi stealing your soul is considered a type of vampirism so in a way Dark Metamorphosis could be a form of vampirism, but it's not specifically vampirism as is classically thought of vampires. It could just be some spell that drains the blood from a target and is absorbed by the caster. Remember, Dracula is an alechmist and sorcerer first and foremost. He has vampiric powers as a fringe benefit.
Next topic of discussion: Did D summon Pazuzu in CV3, did he only partially summon Pazuzu and died in the process, or did he offer up his body as an avatar? The Belmonts have defeated other demons, so why not a demon prince? But Pazuzu seemed pretty weak. Was that because demons are actually weak, or was it because he wasn't fully summoned? Or was it because he possessed the vessel that was D's body after a strenuous battle against Trevor?
Who is the demon Dracula becomes after you defeat his human form post-Trevor? Is that the power of Pazuzu D consumed? That would mean the summoning of Pazuzu wasn't some malicious devil summoning, but rather a conniving ploy to lure a demon prince into the human world so D could steal its powers and Trevor played right into D's plan! Or is D actually the poor, unwitting avatar of Pazuzu, doomed to forever yield his undying body to the demon prince?
-
The other important thing to note in CV3's intro is nowhere is Dracula referred to as a vampire. He's a demonologist (and as the games seem to suggest, an alchemist as well). Don't remember if he's actually called a vampire by the time Simon fights him, but as of Trevor's confrontation with him he's never called a vampire.
That makes sense. It goes with the original source material's description of him as a scholar of the dark arts.
"He must, indeed, have been that Voivode Dracula who won his name against the Turk, over the great river on the very frontier of Turkeyland. If it be so, then was he no common man, for in that time, and for centuries after, he was spoken of as the cleverest and the most cunning, as well as the bravest of the sons of the 'land beyond the forest.' That mighty brain and that iron resolution went with him to his grave, and are even now arrayed against us. The Draculas were, says Arminius, a great and noble race, though now and again were scions who were held by their coevals to have had dealings with the Evil One. They learned his secrets in the Scholomance, amongst the mountains over Lake Hermanstadt, where the devil claims the tenth scholar as his due. In the records are such words as 'stregoica' witch, 'ordog' and 'pokol' Satan and hell, and in one manuscript this very Dracula is spoken of as 'wampyr,' which we all understand too well." - Van Helsing, Chapter 18. (emphasis mine)
I know I've quoted that here before but don't know if any of you remember that. Plus it's just one of the coolest passages in the book. :)
Or is D actually the poor, unwitting avatar of Pazuzu, doomed to forever yield his undying body to the demon prince?
Interesting theory, but seems like if that was the case Pazuzu would have been addressed directly as the force Soma was resisting in AoS/DoS.
-
No guarantee people even knew about D trying to summon Pazuzu. Even if they did know, nobody would want Pazuzu's power if it dominated over D. They'd be more inclined to have the power of a human who could summon demons. Rather, if he had the power of Dominus, then people would be trying to get that. Even if Pazuzu or some other demon enslaved D's soul, that doesn't necessarily mean that's the power that would be passed on. It could also have been Dracula's attempt at freeing his own soul by passing it on to another human. And since we don't know how the DCW was supposed to have actually gone donw, we'll never know.
The fact D's demon form has the wings coming from his arms, it makes me doubt it was Pazuzu and some other demon must have come into contact with him. Leviathan resembled Pazuzu more but Leviathan had a goat's ehad. Drac's demon post-Trevor -- I'm not sure what it resembles. Either way, the
-
Um... Alucard is a half-vampire, yes? He was born before the events of CV3, right? Alucard's mother was human. I'm pretty sure that alone settles things. Not to mention, that while the real-world Dracula wasn't a vampire his popular culture counterpart is most definitely is and is inextricably connected to vampirism. Given that the Dracula in Castlevania is based on the popular culture version it stands to reason he's a vampire and became one before the events of CV3.
-
In Lament, Matthias emerges from an egg-like structure, signifying his rebirth as a vampire, or vampire-like being. Not an ordinary vampire, but a supernatural one (even though regular vampires themselves are supernatural, he is on a level all his own), since he acquired his vampiric powers through unconventional means. Thus, he retains the characteristics of a vampire (sleeping in a coffin, drinking blood from a glass, etc.) but he is above them; the top of the food chain, Castlevania mythos states that vampires are the most evil beings one can become (i forget where i read this).
So yeah, Dracula can be categorized as a sorceror first, vampire second, dark lord third. But he is unique, all 3 at once so it doesn't matter what order you put those in.
-
He sucked your blood in the 64 games giving you the vampire status.
-
Mathias became a Vampire through the absorption of Walter's soul. He was "reborn" as a Vampire.
What sets him apart from most however, is that he was not sired. He had no master. Joachim was sired by Walter. Walter is technically his master. (Though given he rebelled against Walter and holds contempt for him, LoI doesnt quite follow the traditionalities of the matter of Master and ...spawn. (I cant remember the other term...) )
And Walter himself most likely was Sired by someone else whenever long ago. Mathias however, has no master- has no creator- His vampirism came to him through alchemy, through STEALING the vampirism from a Vampire, through stealing his soul.
It's kinda what bugged me about that little miniseries on youtube- Even in the original Novel, and the Coppola film, Dracula was never sired. He was always made a Vampire on his own. Be it by a supernatural will to live and refusal to die, or through um, drinking the blood from a bleeding cross.
Actually, thats another thing I notice- In doing what LoI did, it pretty much kept that intact. Dracula obtaining his vampirism through means OTHER than being sired by a Vampire.
(LoS is where they kinda went the other way. Although maybe it could be half and half, considering he absorbed Laura's Blood completely? So he went straight to final form and skipped the whole chain, going from Human to master all in one go, killing off his 'donor'?)
But I digress- Alucard is a Dhampir. he was born BEFORE CV3, while Mathias was Dracula Vlad Tepes and remarried to Lisa. if Alucard his Half vampire, it means Dracula himself IS a Vampire. Besides, he can still be a sorceror and a vampire, cant he? Not like it contradicts CV3's intro. it describes him as such, but doesnt explicitly say he is NOT a Vampire.
-
I always figured worked like the prologue in Coppola's Dracula movie where he was just like grrr I'm angry at God and imma gonna be evil now.
And then he was a vampire.
-
LoI? Oh most definitely. In motivation, anyway.
-
Just because Alucard is a dhampir doesn't specifically make D a vampire. If Alucard was conceived and born under some alechmic influence, he could have acquired his vampiric traits vis-a-vis his conception whilst D still remained a powerful human sorceror. Vampirism isn't genetic. And as we've been tossing around back and forth, D hasn't been following traditional vampire lore, so we can't explicitly assume a dhampir is born between the conception of a human and a full-blown vampire. Hell, Alucard could be a homonculus raised with the belief that he actually had a mother. We never see him born, do we? It's all just hear-say.
-
Dracula mentions Lisa in SoTN. He even asks Alucard upon his defeat what her last words were, validating Alucard's presence at her burning.
Also, again, even if Dracula has vampiric traits by Sorcery and alchemy, he is STILL a vampire. He is an immortal who drinks blood, can turn others into vampires, burns in sunlight, (according to some of the games and popular culture, although it contradicts Bram Stoker) Is weak to holy weapons and items, etc etc. He has all the traits of the Vampire. Even though he was not sired and brought about his transformation through alchemical means, he should still be called a Vampire. The only thing is he is in a league of his own due to it's origins, and the fact that he is not JUST a Vampire, but a powerful Sorcerer and Alchemist, strong enough to raise a supernatural magical fortress for himself, that crumbles upon his death, control and summon legions of the undead and demons, and has become bound to the force of Chaos, which fuels his power.
He's not JUST a Vampire, certainly no ORDINARY Vampire, but he is STILL a Vampire nonetheless, and Alucard inherited half of his Vampiric genetic code, and seemingly some of his magical ability as well- the ability to steal souls seems to have become an essential part of Dracula's being, of his very soul, with or without the Crimson Stone, An ability passed down somewhat to Alucard, (SOUL STEAL!) and inherited by his Human reincarnation Soma.
-
Although I agree that Alucard was probably born as a dhampir, to give TheouAegis some credit, the Japanese manual of CV3 does say he was human before Dracula made his pact with the evil deity.
But they forgot about that, I guess. whoops
-
Vampire Killer's manual states that Simon's adventure was in the 11th century, so some details from the old manuals have been changed a wee bit over time.
-
your signature is driving me fucking crazy bro
-
Ive seen it's source, and it's really not much more than the sig. The wig falls on his head and he looks at his reflection, aaaand the trailer/discussion thing ends right about there.
-
It's like a flying Medusa head, except instead of annoying you by knocking you off of ledges it just makes you cosplay Dante.
-
Vampire Killer's manual states that Simon's adventure was in the 11th century, so some details from the old manuals have been changed a wee bit over time.
Actually, I think tend to pay good intention to details established in the old manuals for the most part. Vampire Killer's manual doesn't really specify any time period, except that it takes place in the middle ages. It does mention the 10th century but only as background exposition that isn't really relevant to anything really.
-
Ive seen it's source, and it's really not much more than the sig. The wig falls on his head and he looks at his reflection, aaaand the trailer/discussion thing ends right about there.
I think he also says something like, "No, not in a million years."
And that really pissed off a lot of fans.
But yeah, that's about it.
-
what i saw didn't have that line, so i dunno.
-
your signature is driving me fucking crazy bro
If you've got adblockerplus, just right click and "block element http:/24.media.tumblr...etc.", all taken care of. Be careful when you do it though or you might accidentally block embedded images/sigs on the board in general, though even if you do that it's not hard to undo.
I think he also says something like, "No, not in a million years."
And that really pissed off a lot of fans.
But yeah, that's about it.
When it comes to Capcom's epically spiteful trolling of it's own fans though, nothing will top that NES cover art Megaman in Steet Fighter x Tekken.
-
Yeah, but it's not EVEN the BBA MM. it's BBAMM with like, 50 extra pounds of weight. I get that it was supposed to tie in with Universe and L3, but with the cancellation of both, the joke just plain falls flat and comes off as bad taste and poor judgement that they decided to go along with it...
-
I think there's a couple interesting points from this.
First, this intro very specifically identifies Dracula as the historical Vlad The Impaler. It also makes clear that Dracula obtained his evil powers in the 15th century. If it is established in this game that the Vlad Dracula from history is also the Castlevania Dracula, and that he obtained his powers through dark means in the 15th century... doesn't that mean that the plot of Lament of Innocence took major liberties with the story from CV3, and the Castlevania story in general up to that point? Unless Matthias is not Dracula and has no part to play in the story after Lament, that game basically "retcons" CV Dracula being Vlad the Impaler, which was established in CV3.
The other thing made clear is that Trevor's battle with Dracula happened a century before Simon's. I know that both CV3 and Castlevania Adventure said the same thing, but this being the "main series" game on the console, and Adventure being the side series on the handheld (and a broken game to boot), doesn't the "tie" go to the main series game? Shouldn't it have been Christopher's adventure that got bumped a century for the sake of continuity and a unified timeline?
-
First, this intro very specifically identifies Dracula as the historical Vlad The Impaler. It also makes clear that Dracula obtained his evil powers in the 15th century. If it is established in this game that the Vlad Dracula from history is also the Castlevania Dracula, and that he obtained his powers through dark means in the 15th century... doesn't that mean that the plot of Lament of Innocence took major liberties with the story from CV3, and the Castlevania story in general up to that point? Unless Matthias is not Dracula and has no part to play in the story after Lament, that game basically "retcons" CV Dracula being Vlad the Impaler, which was established in CV3.
Not if you assume that Matthias IS Vlad the Impaler. Ever heard of Matthias Corvinus?
"At times Matthias had Vlad III the Impaler (his second degree cousin, known to Romanians as Vlad Țepeș), Prince of Wallachia, as his ally. Although Vlad had great success against the Ottoman armies, the two Christian rulers disagreed in 1462, leading to Matthias imprisoning Vlad in Buda. However, wide-ranging support from many Western leaders[who?] for Vlad III prompted Matthias to gradually grant privileged status to his controversial prisoner. Vlad was eventually freed and married Matthias' cousin, Ilona Szilagyi. As the Ottoman Empire appeared to be increasingly threatening as Vlad Țepeș had warned, he was sent to reconquer Wallachia with Hungarian support in 1476. Despite the earlier disagreements between the two leaders, it was ultimately a major blow to Hungary's status in Wallachia when Vlad was assassinated that same year."
Hmmmmmmm... After all, Castlevania-verse is an alternate version of our own. ;D
-
Gawaa-chan,
That's a pretty big leap. Matthias Corvinus and Vlad Tepes were two different people. Not to mention, the CV3 intro also clearly states that Vlad did terrible things (presumably when he was Vlad the Wallachian tyrant, before he became a vampire), but he wasn't satisfied and then started conjuring dark forces in the 15th century. So even if you make the leap and assume some elaborate identity-switching thing, you're still left with Dracula not assuming his dark power until the 15th century, whereas Matthias Cronquist had already assumed his power hundreds of years before.
Any way you slice it, the Lament plot is very contradictory to the intro of Castlevania III.
-
Gawaa-chan,
That's a pretty big leap. Matthias Corvinus and Vlad Tepes were two different people. Not to mention, the CV3 intro also clearly states that Vlad did terrible things (presumably when he was Vlad the Wallachian tyrant, before he became a vampire), but he wasn't satisfied and then started conjuring dark forces in the 15th century. So even if you make the leap and assume some elaborate identity-switching thing, you're still left with Dracula not assuming his dark power until the 15th century, whereas Matthias Cronquist had already assumed his power hundreds of years before.
Any way you slice it, the Lament plot is very contradictory to the intro of Castlevania III.
You know what else is a big leap? Saying that Vlad the Impaler is a vampire at all. Oh, and he had three sons, not one. And it's also a rather big leap to make the Bram Stoker novel canon, but they did it.
Ultimately my point is that it isn't impossible that Matthias is Vlad the Impaler. Alternate universe. What happens in the Castlevania-verse does not align with ours. It's silly to try and discount something based upon what has happened irl.
A possible explanation would be to say that Matthias Cronqvist became Matthias Corvinus, and switched places with Vlad III. So Matthias becomes Vlad becomes Dracula. But again, my point isn't that this is even remotely the case; it's more that I can easily think of ways that, in the context of the complete AU that is the Castlevania-verse, anything is possible to the point where it's very easy to dream up both very simple and very convoluted explanations for how Mathias got from where he was in LoI to where he was in CV3. Should have spelled it out in my first post, but whatever.
-
I'm surprised no one mentioned this before, but if the Pope was specifically looking for a vampire hunter doesn't that imply that Dracula is already a vampire before CV3 begins?
Also, the CV3 story says that CV3 takes place OVER one hundred years before Simon's battle with Dracula. So it doesn't technically contradict Christopher's battle taking place one hundred years before Simon's battle. LoI, however, is definitely a retcon of what was established in CV3.
-
Old-game and IGA's canon isn't the same. In IGA's timeline, refer to IGA's canon. Since Dracula Densetsu and Akumajo Densetsu had inconsistency, IGA remodeled it with his timeline.
-
I really don't think Konami thought the series timeline out ahead of time. That's why all the retconning comes later on.
-
Yep. Before, there was no supervisor.
Game Center CX - Koji Igarashi Interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSZ8OhfDyDg#) (7:30~)
-
Regarding Dracula's identity from CV3, they retconned that by saying Mathias eventually took the name Dracula Vlad Tepes. So it still makes sense except the manual text gets reinterpreted a bit.
The manual and the intro also have a few other wacky bits. For example, it seems to sugest Alucard was born human and that he became a dhampir later on. I don't think they came up with a retcon for that one yet. Also, the intro mentioned something about Dracula summoning Dark Gods to increase his strength, right? That's something you think they would ignore but these Dark Gods are actually briefly mentioned in the CoD manga. I thought that was pretty interesting.
CV3 and CVA's manual indeed don't mesh very well with each other. CVA pretty much states Christopher is the first Belmont who confronted Dracula. The way they combined the plots of the two games was very poor IMO. On the other hand CVA ReBirth has much better continuity with CV3, so maybe they wanted to kick out Adventure and replace it with that game? That would fix the issue.
-
Well, this video that Koutei posted made me really happy since I've never seem Iga in video before, he seems very humble.
About Dark Gods, maybe its a reference to all these Gods that we fight in various games? I mean these enemies and bosses that are Gods from various religions.
-
Actually, on the issue brought up of the dark arts and that Matthias Cronqvist was already using them, that's never stated in LoI. If anything, LoI suggests that Matthias was an alchemical neophyte. Everyone was caught off-guard by him, no one suspected he'd be able to harness the power of the Crimson Stone or any of the other stones. So he possessed the stolen power of a slain vampire and was immune to Death's touch. Saying that means he was already versed in the dark arts is like saying a 5-year-old that shoots his 7-year-old sister with a handgun he found in his dad's dresser is a homicidal gunman.
And the idea that Vlad III had his identity stolen isn't that far-fetched. The Dracul and Danesti clans vied for power back and forth, back and forth, and Vlad III was on the throne multiple times, kinda like Grover Clevland (I think that's the president I'm hinting at). Plenty of time for an immortal sorcerer to worm his way in and take over.
-
Retconning Dracula back into Vlad Tepes would be incredibly convoluted. Better to set up an alternate continuity and firmly establish that he is the historical Vlad Tepes. It's clean and simple. Plus everybody is happy. :P
-
They dont even need to change anything, Mathias will need a new name if he didnt want to be discovered. Taking the place of the real Vlad Tepes is only a "plus".