Currently, I would be the most interested in a plot set after SoTN detailing how all the Belmonts got amnesia and couldn't touch the whip until 1999. And perhaps a story that follows up on that cliff hanger ending from Simon's Quest?
Sadly, the plot of LoS completely shits on LoI.
I don't think Mathias is Dracula anyway.
I always wondered if Vampire Killer got jealous when Leon found another gal. A game detailing the transition for Leon and Mathias after Lament would be cool.Dunno, id rather something like a comic or manga for that rather than a game.
I don't think Mathias is Dracula anyway. I think Mathias is just another vampire and Dracula is the Dracula we all know and love who somehow got his power from Mathias or from some other vampire that defeated Mathias. It's much more plausible because Mathias is so scrawny.
The Baldwin Story - Circle of the Moon's plot was considered a spin off and not officially part of IGA's timeline. I don't think it will be a bad idea to make a prequel about it. How about we see Morris Baldwin kicking some vampire ass with his vampire killer?
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv119%2Fc0mbat%2Figa2-2.png&hash=d0316e49f5104baa28b7fee59fd9ce9f)Yeah, believing Mathias isn't Dracula is exactly like believing that Gabriel isn't Dracula. Then again, maybe there are some poor saps who still believe he's Dracul. ;D
Though showing the downtime between battles is always nice. Like that one fan art of the SoTN cast posing for a painting, with the other belmont portraits behind them. those kinds of things.Could you find a link to that art, please?
Could you find a link to that art, please?
I don't think we need another Christopher game. We already have Adventure Rebirth. I'd like to see Soleiyu in action though.A redesigned Victor would be welcomed(as long as he doesn't look blatantly like Tim Curry, like Resurrection's did). And I've stated how I would've loved a revised story regarding Sonia(maybe placing her somewhere else in the timeline, and in a far more GRANDER adventure than what Legends was). Soleiyu would be nice, but I'd also want new Belmonts. I thought Gabriel(in LoS) was a great addition to the "Belmont" family(even though he's not from the original canon). What about other Belmonts who go on adventures when Dracula's not around? Stefan Belmont, Richard Belmont, Aaron Belmont, Michael Belmont and, to toss in another female, Victoria Belmont(considering they say Maria has Belmont blood in her, maybe Victoria could be ancestor to the Renards).
We also didn't manage to see Victor Belmont since Resurrection was canned. Like Soleiyu, I would like to see him in his own game.
They could always make a Soma game that involves someone trying to usurp Dracula's position. Like Olrox. Like that one novel.
or better, make the novel into a game. forget the OH SOMA IS DRACULA WE MUST TAKE HIS POWERS OR MAKE HIM EVIL shit. Just have another vampire trying to fill the void of power. Lord knows Dracula cant be the ONLY powerful vampire around.
I'm sure already mentioned but I think a LoI sequel could happen, a third Soma game but this time you kill Soma, the 1999 game, I wouldn't mind a reboot for Sonia, or a game with Soleiyu.
Though, I don't think that people would accept that concept. So, DOS is not necessarily should be the end of old timeline.
You guys seem to be forgetting something, the next TRUE dark lord
I doubt it very much. Dario lost his powers permanently after losing to Soma. Then he ran away and probably got arrested by members of Alucard's organization. Without his use of fire Dario is nothing more then some undergrad high school, punk kid with authority issues. He doesn't have what it takes to be a dark lord, just a real attitude problem. Demetri would've had much more success except for that inflated ego of his which brought him down. Hard.Dario wasn't a kid. He was 37. He and Demetri, like Graham, were supposedly born at the exact moment Dracula was defeated in 1999 and apparently absorbed some of his power.
I always thought the next dark lord was going to be Alucard according to his last dialogue line. Would be weird O.oWell, he does have a legit claim to the throne by birthright. So, it's possible. He just doesn't want it and chose to side with good. It would take a significant trauma to drive Alucard to follow in his father's footsteps.
Dario wasn't a kid. He was 37. He and Demetri, like Graham, were supposedly born at the exact moment Dracula was defeated in 1999 and apparently absorbed some of his power.
I was also thinking, since it takes place in the way distant future, it'd be cool to do a new Getsu Fuma Den as a sort of spiritual successor to Castlevania. AoS already has glimpses of a focus on stuff happening in Japan.
Yeah I should've remembered about that. But his attitude is definitely that of a kid's.
1. Retelling of Bram Stoker's Dracula
I'm all up for that, but I don't think that the action in the novel comes up until the climax. That would make for a boring game.
I'm all up for that, but I don't think that the action in the novel comes up until the climax. That would make for a boring game.How about fighting some baddies during the pursuit? Like some of Drac's minions will try to mess with some towns and attack Quincy and the crew.
About the idea on returning of Sonia Belmont on the storyline, here's mine:
- She should exist in the era of Shanoa, Reinhart, or the Baldwins (different universe though)
- Female Belmont as a transition to other family (the Morris, Scheneider, etc.)
That would make sense since you can't retain your family name if you get married to someone as a girl.
just another fascist of male dominance and Sonia's much stronger willed then that.Tell that to the pre-20th century world.
Not to mention im pretty sure the Male heir would get the whip over the Female heir. Interesting plot would be if the designated male heir was kidnapped by Dracula or something, and therefore Sonia sets out to find him, since their father is either too old, or tries himself and fails.Interestingly enough, that's similar to the idea I mentioned. Sonia being born the elder, and her brother being younger, but him being chosen because he was the male heir to the Vampire Killer, but something happens, and he's unable to wield it. Without a hero to rise to the occassion and knowing her little brother's too young to be burdened with such a task, Sonia takes up the VK and sets off to battle the evil. I think something of the such sounds awesome(Sonia as a maverick, defying her elders and taking the VK because "SOMEONE HAS TO DO IT".
Tell that to the pre-20th century world.
While the Belmonts themselves might be different due to what they do, and therefore somewhat disconnected from social norms, A Woman was still a Woman, and if she were to marry, she would lose her name and whatever rights she had, to her husband. pretty sure it would be tough for ol daddy Belmont to find a Husband willing to let Sonia be empowered and free willed and retain her surname.
Not to mention im pretty sure the Male heir would get the whip over the Female heir. Interesting plot would be if the designated male heir was kidnapped by Dracula or something, and therefore Sonia sets out to find him, since their father is either too old, or tries himself and fails.
Whenever there is talk of reintroducing Sonia, one has to take into account that as a Woman in the pre-modern world, (before the 20th century) ESPECIALLY if you retain her in the 15th century, or put her in one of the more popular ones like 18th and 19th- you have to deal with how Women are treated and how their societal norms are. Granted, Castlevania doesnt have the best track record with historical accuracy... (Maria Renard wearing an outfit in Symphony which would get her called a slut in real life,) but for the Belmonts, if you want to keep the family name, you have to find some way to work around the fact that a married woman lost her name.
As to her name having to stay 'Belmont'...can't she just fight vampires before marriage? I guess I'm not seeing the issue.Her descendants would lose the surname Belmont
Really? You cant make your own conclusions there?Nah. I'm just being sarcastic. I just find it funny that he declare himself alone as a clan when he haven't even find Sara's replacement. Counting chickens before they hatched as some say. As I asked earlier, why did the people of Wallachia feared them? Who did they fought that people saw their tremendous power?
He eventually married another woman, and continued the bloodline. Each generation was trained as a Vampire Hunter, and eventually relocated to Romania, probably tracking down Mathias. As they did their shit, the people of Wallachia began to fear their incredible almost supernatural powers, and therefore exiled them. Until the events of CV3 where they had to suck it up and search for the current member of the Belmont family to fight Dracula.
As I asked earlier, why did the people of Wallachia feared them? Who did they fought that people saw their tremendous power?
Hey, they accused a doctor who used nothing but freakin' herbs of witchcraft. As far as I'm concerned, all it takes is someone pointing at you and shouting "WITCH!" to get the mob on your ass, even if you just saved said person's ass.
*grumble*Lousy ingrates.*grumble*
Even if it was divine power.It might just be my own strange reasoning, but I always saw the whole ritual to create the VK as purifying the vampire soul through transmutation, changing it from something that was dark into something that was holy.
Although ironically, even though AoS considers it a Holy element, Vampire Killer should TECHNICALLY be a Dark element considering it was created from the soul of a Vampire.
Even if it was divine power.
Although ironically, even though AoS considers it a Holy element, Vampire Killer should TECHNICALLY be a Dark element considering it was created from the soul of a Vampire.
It might just be my own strange reasoning, but I always saw the whole ritual to create the VK as purifying the vampire soul through transmutation, changing it from something that was dark into something that was holy.
I brought up this point a year or two ago and people got pissed as if I committed blasphemy. It's odd. If you ask me, it should be neither holy or dark. Just because it destroys vampires and all creatures connected to them doesn't make it holy. I mean yes the sub weapons are holy, but not the whip. I think people call holy because it's very effective against dark entities and is wielded by devout christians.
The Mystic whip is what many of us referred to it whenever we talked of Casltevania. It was only until IGA came along that it became something else all-together.
Wait, what are you talking about? Everyone since the 90's Angelfire days referred to it as the Vampire Killer. The whip was already called Vampire Killer before SotN.
And IGA was also the one to coin it throughout his games too.
Not really. His second game, Castlevania Chronicles, referred to it as just 'the mysterious whip.'
I think they should also make a game about Quincy Morris. Yeah we know that IGA took a page from Bram Stroker's novel in Bloodlines but I'm still curious how would the plot turn out. My friend read the novel and he said he didn't find any Quincy Morris there. How did the Belmont clan lost their powers and how did the Morris take over the vampire killer?Uhh, whoever read it didn't really read it... Quincy Morris was the only main character to die in that book besides Lucy... and I really don't think they should make a Castlevania version of Bram Stoker's Dracula, especially if the plot point is that Morris is the Belmont when Van Helsing and Harker do practically all the work, and Morris's only moment of being interesting is stabbing Dracula in the heart while Harker lopped off Drac's head with his Ghurka knife... The game would have to throw Morris into the spotlight which wouldn't do good for the story at all without making anyone who read and actually enjoyed reading Dracula (if they exist, I haven't met anyone who enjoyed reading that) mad. But I digress... I just enjoyed the fact that 1800s 100 year resurrection of Dracula was the novel. That was a stroke of genius in the story, as long as they don't make it a game and try to explain it... keeping it vague on how it connects, to me, works pretty well.
It's a little too late to think that making a CV version of Bram Stoker's Dracula would force Quincy into the spotlight because CV: Bloodlines has already done that. And if you put it in this perspective; If Quincy is a Belmont by blood then Harker would not have been able to cut off Dracula's head prior to Quincy inflicting the mortal wound with his knife. The book states that Quincy impaled Dracula's Heart with his knife, correct? So now that Dracula is severely weakened due to Belmont influence, Harker was then able to sever Dracula's head with little trouble. Bram Stoker's Dracula can be worked into the CV universe. People just have to sit down and run it through our heads until they come up with solutions that can make it work without creating continuity errors.Or, Castlevania's depiction of those events are different. Maybe, in CV's depction, Quincey Morris didn't inflict the wound with a knife. Maybe in CV's depction, he he wen't all out "Belmont Lineage", asked Harker and the others to step back, brought out the VK and had a CV-esque battle with the Dark Lord. Hell, maybe he went up ahead(left Harker and the others behind) and did the full battle, defeating Dracula(no need from Harker), but was left on the verge of death. CV's take on Stoker's events would be just as "different" as CV's takes on WWI were, creative liberties and all.
Currently, I would be the most interested in a plot set after SoTN detailing how all the Belmonts got amnesia and couldn't touch the whip until 1999. And perhaps a story that follows up on that cliff hanger ending from Simon's Quest?
The only true sequel to Simon's Quest is Harmony of Dissonance. I say this because it is the ONLY Castlevania game to pick up after Simon. Yes, Rondo onward did that, but I'm talking about almost immediately after Simon. Juste makes mention to Simon in the beginning of the game.
Except that the true ending of Simon's Quest shows Dracula's hand come out from his grave, whilst in HoD there is no Dracula to be had. Instead we are introduced to Maxim's evil doppelganger brought about by his possession of Dracula's remains. And at the end Maxim's evil self could not corrupt Maxim so instead he couples with the remains to bring about a new body for himself. While it is Dracula's body the soul of Dracula doesn't resurrect with it. And HoD takes place 50 years after CV II whereas the true sequel that has to do with Dracula's hand coming out of his grave has yet to be touched upon.Given the way that the rest of the series shows Dracula's subsequent resurrections, the hand popping out of the grave isn't truly important. It was also established that Dracula resurrects every 100 years. For him to be defeated by Simon and then suddenly rise again would violate that part of the series' canon.
Given the way that the rest of the series shows Dracula's subsequent resurrections, the hand popping out of the grave isn't truly important. It was also established that Dracula resurrects every 100 years. For him to be defeated by Simon and then suddenly rise again would violate that part of the series' canon.
True. But wasn't it CVIII's story that established the hundred year cycle or close to it? So by that reckoning Konami could have easily made more sequel games with Simon vs Dracula had CVIII not come out. I always felt that SCV4 would've made an excellent sequel to CVII just because of the similarities of the tombstone in both the game's cutscenes.I feel basically the exact same way about SCV4. Due to the added levels and extra bosses, the game truly could have been a sequel. I think CV3 did something about the 100 year cycle, but I'm not sure.
In some of the original games Dracula hasn't needed a sacrifice to resurrect. Although I've never read the instruction manuals for some of the games I'm quite sure that even if there is no sacrifice Dracula can still resurrect due to the hundred year cycle. When a hundred years is up Dracula comes back with or without help. He can only be entombed for so long before somethings gives way.
I personally feel that a sacrifice is only necessary to resurrect Dracula prematurely, but is not needed after a full century.Seconded. Either that or a sudden, massive influx of strife and chaos (i.e. the World Wars).
In some of the original games Dracula hasn't needed a sacrifice to resurrect. Although I've never read the instruction manuals for some of the games I'm quite sure that even if there is no sacrifice Dracula can still resurrect due to the hundred year cycle. When a hundred years is up Dracula comes back with or without help. He can only be entombed for so long before somethings gives way.
Seconded. Either that or a sudden, massive influx of strife and chaos (i.e. the World Wars).Woudnt that technically count as sacrifice, considering the massive losses of life? if someone were to utilize or channel the deaths in such a way as to count them as sacrifices?
Woudnt that technically count as sacrifice, considering the massive losses of life? if someone were to utilize or channel the deaths in such a way as to count them as sacrifices?...And this is why hindsight is not best sight.