Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: Nagumo on September 10, 2013, 08:12:08 AM
-
I've been playing with this idea for a couple of days now. It may seem a bit random, but I definitely think they should do it. I'll try to explain as briefly as possible why I think so.
First of all, and I don't know how many people are aware of this, but CV3 has a few continuity between it and details later established by IGA. For example, according to CV3, Dracula is actually Vlad Tepes who made a pact with an evil deity, which turned him into a vampire. Alucard was Vlad's human son who also got turned into a vampire as a result of the pact. Also, Dracula's motivation for being evil is stated to be greed. Nothing is mentioned about a dead wife. As far as I know, no real attempt has been to retcon any of this.
Secondly, CV2, despite being the third game in the series, was supposed to be the finale of the storyline already. According to the Japanese manual story, the method of burning Dracula's body parts would mean his permanent destruction. This is further supported by the Japanese ending which appears in the best ending, which says:
“And the battle ended. Simmon Belmont put an eternal period to the legend of Dracula. His blood and sweat penetrared into the ground of Transylvania will bring us full-blown flowers with happiness next spring.”
So, once again, we have a situation where the original intent was ignored, in this case by Rondo of Blood, but with no retcon offered.
Thirdly, there is a possibility Trevor and Christopher being the same person. As mentioned in the Akumajo Densetsu interview thread, Trevor's middle initial stands for Christopher according to someone who worked on the game. This would mean CV1, 2, and 3 could form a tight storyline on their own, with a clear beginning and an ending that wraps everything up.
The final reason for doing it could be to preserve the original character designs. IGA has a bit of a tendency to overwrite old character designs. Case in point, Simon and Richter's redesigns for the respective remakes of their games. Personally, I understand his reasoning for doing so, it makes the universe he created more consistent, but on the other hand, I think it's a bit of a shame that the old designs get thrown out of the window. Although I really like the designs from Symphony and onwards, I do have a soft spot for some of the old artwork, especially the manual illustrations for CV1 and 2. I think it would be kind off neat to have a blond Simon and a Bela Lugosi-like Dracula again.
(http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/731/q2ws.png) (http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/4595/xckf.jpg)
I imagine they coul do it like this: let CV1, 2 and 3 form their own mini continuity. They could call it the "Akumajo Dracula" timeline. IGA's timeline could be called the "Akumajo Dracula X" timeline. As a result of this, there would be a few gaps in IGA's timeline. However, they could perhaps fill these up with new games that reimagine the stories, but without the contradictory details, just like what they did with The Adventure Rebirth. In case of CV1, I would propose to replace it with the Arrange version of Castlevania Chronicles.
Akumajo Dracula timeline:
CV3-->CV1->CV2
Akumajo Dracula X (IGA's) timeline:
Exactly the same, but without the above mentioned games, which are replaced.
If they would do this, how would you feel about it?
-
Interesting. I'd never given much thought to that.
It's actually a rather good idea. But there would be a few problems:
- Cutting out the original trilogy would mean removing some of Castlevania's most important foundations. I'm not sure if IGA's timeline could still stand as it is: if the first CV's weren't made with 28 future games in mind, IGA's continuity is manifestly built upon that base. Taking it out wouldn't be a very practical (or popular) decision.
- Letting the first three games form their own timeline would technically have the same effect as retconning the trilogy and overwriting it with newer games. I don't think many fans would like that.
- What would happen with the Adventure games you'd mentioned? If they were really written with the "original" timeline in mind, they too should be included in it. And Soleiyu would pose a problem...
On the other hand, this would certainly free up space to remake some of Castlevania's most iconic titles... Something I'd be very eager to see. In itself, respecting the original developers' intentions is a noble idea. If it could conceivably work out, I wouldn't be one to oppose it.
-
TC makes a good point about the Good ending of Simon's Quest; however, has it been unquestionably established that this is the canon ending? And for that matter, the supposed "Good" ending is the one with Dracula reaching out of the grave.
-
TC makes a good point about the Good ending of Simon's Quest; however, has it been unquestionably established that this is the canon ending? And for that matter, the supposed "Good" ending is the one with Dracula reaching out of the grave.
Best endings are usually canon.
Another good indication that SQ was intended as an ending: Konami chose to move backwards instead of forwards for the next game. CVIII, CVA, CVAII all occurred before Simon's time.
-
That's a solid point. I think around the time of Super Castlevania IV, Konami must have realized they were running out of room for a flagship series and thus we got Rondo and Bloodlines.
-
- What would happen with the Adventure games you'd mentioned? If they were really written with the "original" timeline in mind, they too should be included in it. And Soleiyu would pose a problem...
Good question. To answer it, I have to elaborate on my third point. Like I mentioned before, supposedly someone who worked on CV3 stated Trevor was supposed to be the same character as Christopher. Trevor's middle initial, "C.", was meant to stand for Christopher according to him. It should also be noted the NES trilogy was created by the same director, Akamatsu, and a couple of recurring staff. CV3 and Adventure were in development at the same time. From the Japanese storylines of both games it's apparent they both tell the first story in the timeline. However, both games disregard each other since they both claim to be the very first time a Belmont fought Dracula. So, at the time, there were two mutually exclusive prequels set 100 years before CV1.
CVA-->CV1->CV2
CV3-->CV1->CV2
That's why I personally wouldn't include Adventure and Belmont's Revenge in the same timeline as CV1, 2 and 3. However, I wouldn't include them in IGA's timeline either. The Japanese storyline of The Adventure has the same issues as CV3's. It claims Dracula became a vampire because of a devil pact etc. Therefore, I would probably treat The Adventure and Belmont's Revenge as yet another seperate continuity. I would replace The Adventure with Adventure Rebirth, and I would make a reimagining of Belmont's Revenge to act as a substitute (Belmont's Revenge Rebirth, perhaps?)
Overview:
Akumajo Dracula timeline:
CV3-->CV1->CV2 [END]
Dracula Densetsu timeline:
CVA->CV:BR--->??
Akumajo Dracula X (IGA's) timeline:
Exactly the same, but without the above mentioned games, which are replaced.
CV1 ---> replaced by Castlevania Chronicles Arrange version
CVA ---> replaced by The Adventure Rebirth
CV2 ---> replaced by ??
CV3 ---> replaced by ??
CV:BR -> replaced by ??
-
Whoa, that makes too many timelines. Try to keep it simple. I wouldn't suggest creating new timelines for every game that doesn't work with IGA's continuity...
But here's my main objection at the moment:
Taking into consideration the games alone, none of the titles you've mentioned so far actually conflict with IGA's timeline (except maybe for SQ). The finer plot points you gave all belong to game manuals or come from staff interviews. If we were to remove or update that "extra" information to fit it with the IGA chronology, there would be no need to create a new timeline. The games themselves could easily remain.
Yet if the games were somehow to be replaced, I'd hope to see them integrally remade! Using Chronicles to replace Castlevania would be disappointing.
On the side, would you know where I could find translations for the manuals? My level of Japanese isn't quite up to par yet...
-
Excellent idea!
That way, they could add more games into whatever timeline thay want to.
And they'd all make sense, also.
-
Secondly, CV2, despite being the third game in the series, was supposed to be the finale of the storyline already. According to the Japanese manual story, the method of burning Dracula's body parts would mean his permanent destruction. This is further supported by the Japanese ending which appears in the best ending, which says:
“And the battle ended. Simmon Belmont put an eternal period to the legend of Dracula. His blood and sweat penetrared into the ground of Transylvania will bring us full-blown flowers with happiness next spring.”
So, once again, we have a situation where the original intent was ignored, in this case by Rondo of Blood, but with no retcon offered.
The best ending shows Dracula's hand, showing that he would return someday. They say that Simon could destroy Dracula forever if he burned all parts, but he burned only five.
Now answering the thread title, it would make more sense if they did a remake correcting these logic errors than excluding the original ones from the timeline. But if really needed, it would be good to use these 3 classics as a base for a new AU.
-
But here's my main objection at the moment:
Taking into consideration the games alone, none of the titles you've mentioned so far actually conflict with IGA's timeline (except maybe for SQ). The finer plot points you gave all belong to game manuals or come from staff interviews. If we were to remove or update that "extra" information to fit it with the IGA chronology, there would be no need to create a new timeline. The games themselves could easily remain.
Yes, that would make it a lot easier. However, to me, that would feel a bit like cheating. :P I prefer to not disregard any information. Also, if you would count every non-canon game as it's own seperate timeline, we already have a lot of them...
You can find the translated Japanese stories at Mr P's Castlevania Realm. Go to the game section for each respective game, then you go to media, and then click on "Translated Japanese manual story".
The best ending shows Dracula's hand, showing that he would return someday. They say that Simon could destroy Dracula forever if he burned all parts, but he burned only five.
I was thinking about addressing this too, but it wasn't directly related to what I was writing about, and I didn't feel like making my post even longer. :P
I think Dracula's hand rising from the grave is a programming error. I think the visuals and text of the best and middle endings got mixed up. My motivation:
1.) Altough it happend in the best ending, this story hooked never got picked up again. HoD seems to act like nothing Dracula-related happend since Simon broke his curse. I think they would have been forced to mention it, otherwise.
2.) I think the visuals of the best ending belong actually to the middle ending, and the visuals of the best ending belong to the middle ending. Why do I think this?
- It makes sense with what is established in the storyline. If Simon dies of the curse, Dracula would be revived. (This is mentioned in the PoR timeline. You can check at Mr P's site). Simon dies in the middle ending, so it would make sense if Dracula would come back afterwards.
- Visually, the middle ending looks the most happy. So, I think it would make sense if those visuals were actually made for the best ending.
-
But if it was a programming error, how couldnt they notice that dont you think? Since its the ending of the game they would check it at least some times. I could even understand if it was a error in the middle of the game.
-
If it wasn't, why did they never follow up on that ending, then? :P
-
So it turns out the canonical ending is a different one, after all?
-
If it wasn't, why did they never follow up on that ending, then? :P
But they did. I've ever seen this to be like these ending from terror movies, that shows that the villain will return someday, not as an actual "Im alive and will return tomorrow". We've a plenty of sense of humor in CV, so I wont put it past them.
-
I doubt it, personally. Why allude to Dracula being defeated forever in the manual, enforce it once again in the ending, but then drop it?
I wonder if taking a look at the game's code would reveal something?
-
Thats a good call, maybe no one did that and shared information yet, someone with time and knowledge should try.
-
Well we can all translate the Japanese manual however we want, but if you look at the most significant line in question...
この方法でしかドラキュラを永久に消滅させることはできません。
Kono hōhōde shika dorakyura o eikyū ni shōmetsu sa seru koto wa dekimasen.
The simplest English translation is, "Only in this way can Dracula be annihilated for good." Semantically though, that's not quite right. Semantically, a closer translation would be, "Except by such method, there is no way Dracula can be annihilated for good."
It's tempting to jump to the assumption that both translations are essentially the same, but semantically they are quite different. The former translation has a slight connotation that the end result will be Dracula's annihilation. The latter translation has the slight connotation that if and only if such method is used can there be any hope of annihilating Dracula.
In either case, the most important aspect is that the woman never once said Dracula will be defeated. She would have otherwise said:
この方法でしかドラキュラを永久に消滅させません。
Kono hōhōde shika dorakyura o eikyū ni shōmetsu sa semasen.
"Except by this method, Dracula will not be annihilated for good."
She didn't say that. She said, "Except by this method, Dracula cannot be annihilated for good." So nowhere in the game (manual or otherwise) does it say Dracula was finally annihilated. There never was any guarantee that even if Simon assembled the parts and defeated Dracula again that D would be gone for good; all that was said was unless Simon did that, no one would ever be able to defeat Dracula once and for all. If anything that suggests that Dracula was either possessing Simon or that he tried to curse the Belmont bloodline. Maybe Simon had spinal cancer and that would have prevented him from fucking some girl, but by defeating Dracula's spirit Simon was cured of his cancer.
-
I'm pretty sure you're incorrect. The Castlevania Realm has a translation of the manual story as well, and there's a special note by someone who I know is Japanese (JPCVFAN) that says "Only in this way can Dracula be annihilated for good." is the correct translation.
I'm more inclined to trust a native Japanese speaker.
Also, there is this:
http://www.oocities.org/nec43xkq3/diinfmst.html (http://www.oocities.org/nec43xkq3/diinfmst.html)
Koutei can affirm what I'm saying.
-
It is not good at English translation at JPCVFAN(JP??FAN) and me. Nobody is skillful in English in my Akumajo Dracula fan team. hehe.
But, Mystery woman says that Dracula will disappear permanently.
-
That's very interesting. I never really made the connection with those inconsistencies.
Though, even if it wasn't a rewrite of the original continuity, ti could be the basis for a reboot / remake of that segment of the timeline. A definite beginning and end point for the reboot series. Give it a solid reworking, but keep everything true to the spirit of the original franchise. Castlevania II being the end point, perhaps give it a post original ending special finisher to the reboot series. Blow our minds with some crazy twist or event.
-
The simplest English translation is, "Only in this way can Dracula be annihilated for good." Semantically though, that's not quite right. Semantically, a closer translation would be, "Except by such method, there is no way Dracula can be annihilated for good."
It's tempting to jump to the assumption that both translations are essentially the same, but semantically they are quite different. The former translation has a slight connotation that the end result will be Dracula's annihilation. The latter translation has the slight connotation that if and only if such method is used can there be any hope of annihilating Dracula.
The connotation of the statement doesn't matter.
It's actually simple logic. No matter how you translate the statement, this proposition remains true:
"Dracula can be annihilated for good using that method".
Yet Simon did manifestly use that method.
Ergo, Dracula was annihilated.
There never was any guarantee that even if Simon assembled the parts and defeated Dracula again that D would be gone for good; all that was said was unless Simon did that, no one would ever be able to defeat Dracula once and for all.
That isn't true. The statement clearly describes a method that results in the destruction of Dracula, not a condition for his annihilation.
-
Very interesting info! In the back of my mind I always thought the "best" ending seemed odd somehow, just never connected the dots.
As for the issues with CV3 and CVA being alternate versions of each other, then I guess we can stop blaming IGA for screwing up the timeline since it's quite obvious that it's always been a bit of a disaster from nearly the beginning! :P
-
"Only in this way can Dracula be annihilated for good."
Still essentially what I said. And connotations aside? Nowhere did she ever say Dracula will be destroyed for good. How would she even know? "Can be" and "will be" and "could be" are not the same thing at all. They never have been the same thing until the education systems failed in recent decades. And how do you know Simon did exactly what the woman told him to? Because you played as Simon and you know you did everything right because you're infallible and because Simon -- as the protagonist of the game -- is infallible? If you or Simon were infallible, why were there multiple endings? By the very nature of the existence of multiple endings, the fallacy of infallibility is apparent.
I can jump off a skyscraper roof and live.
I could jump off a skyscraper roof and live.
I will jump off a skyscraper roof and live.
If you actually think those three statements are identical, then please, go jump off a building.
-
How's this for a different way of interpreting the endings.
The normal ending was the one you were expecting the one the manual set you up for, the middle ending introduced a surprise twist, & the best ending blew all your expectations out of the water.
when you look at it that way there isn't much reason to question their order, the best ending has the biggest payoff.
-
@TheouAegis
The best ending says Simon defeated Dracula permanently also. It doesn't matter if the mystery woman said "can be" or "will be" (Koutei says it's "will be", though), so that argument is moot. Or are we seriously going to question the credibly of the game's narration?
Besides, for what possible reason would it NOT make sense for the mystery woman to say "Dracula will disappear permanently" and not be correct about? From a story telling POV, something is clearly being foreshadowed or alluded to. The only reason for this not being the case would be just to support your argument.
Two things are set up in the storyline:
1.) Dracula will be destroyed forever.
2.) If Simon dies of the curse, Dracula will be revived (source is PoR timeline).
If the ending texts truly are combined with the wrong visuals, both points would be adhered to. In the middle ending Simon dies, so Dracula comes back, in the best ending Simon overcomes the curse, so Dracula stays dead. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all.
Tell me to jump of a building as many times as you like, but there is no way I'm wrong about this. :P
-
I translated newly again.
Only in this method, Dracula can be permanently eliminated.
oocities cannot be renewed.
-
"Only in this way can Dracula be annihilated for good."
Still essentially what I said. And connotations aside? Nowhere did she ever say Dracula will be destroyed for good. How would she even know? "Can be" and "will be" and "could be" are not the same thing at all. They never have been the same thing until the education systems failed in recent decades. And how do you know Simon did exactly what the woman told him to? Because you played as Simon and you know you did everything right because you're infallible and because Simon -- as the protagonist of the game -- is infallible? If you or Simon were infallible, why were there multiple endings? By the very nature of the existence of multiple endings, the fallacy of infallibility is apparent.
I can jump off a skyscraper roof and live.
I could jump off a skyscraper roof and live.
I will jump off a skyscraper roof and live.
If you actually think those three statements are identical, then please, go jump off a building.
My dear friend, there's no need to be so aggressive. Trust me, telling me to jump off a roof won't help.
Without a doubt, "can" and "will" are entirely different. But then, if you hadn't yet realized it, "could" is the conditional tense of "can". So, technically, they do have the same meaning. Tsk, tsk, those educational systems nowadays...
Yet if you'd actually taken the time to follow my reasoning, you'd realize that both sentences use "can":
The simplest English translation is, "Only in this way can Dracula be annihilated for good." Semantically though, that's not quite right. Semantically, a closer translation would be, "Except by such method, there is no way Dracula can be annihilated for good."
So your approach is absurd.
What I was asserting, however, is that both sentences imply the same thing. Let me explain:
"Only in this way can Dracula be annihilated for good." Let's have fun and translate it mathematically. Let "Dracula can be annihilated for good" be proposition p. What the sentence says is: "There exists a unique 'method' x such that p is true."
Now, for the other sentence.
"Except by such method, there is no way Dracula can be annihilated for good". Let "Dracula cannot be annihilated for good" be proposition q. What the sentence says is: "There exists a unique 'method' y such that q is false." Yet what does "q is false" mean? It means "not q" is true. And what is "not q"? Well, it's p: "Dracula can be annihilated for good".
So to conclude, we've found both sentences include one, unique case in which Dracula can be annihilated for good. So, you see, the connotation didn't matter. That was my point.
Now, to be absolutely rigorous, I must admit that "can" expresses a possibility, not a certainty. So, to your credit, it is possible that the method in question was used against Dracula, but failed to work.
Yet we need to look a bit further here: why on earth would Konami bother to explain that only one, unique method can be used to permanently defeat Dracula, adding that Simon did use that method, if it didn't want to imply that Dracula was, in the end, permanently defeated?
Here lies that little jump in logic you have to make to understand Nagumo's point. It's not perfectly rigorous, but it makes more sense than anything else.
As for your "infallibility" argument, I don't understand it. Why would it matter whether Simon or the player were fallible or not? We're talking about a video game that has a set story to tell. The fact that the game has multiple endings means nothing: every game in the series has had a single, canon ending. Or are you telling me that DoS actually isn't possible because Soma turned into Dracula before it?
-
And the game was told from the viewpoint of a narrator like any story. Was the narrator omniscient? You just assume so. When have seemingly omniscient narrators said something like, "And the world lived happily ever after," or "and the evil menace was gone for good," only to be proven wrong in the sequel? Of course the narrator is going to tell the reader/viewer something like, "And the evil dark lord was finally destroyed forever and the people of Romania lived in peace once again." If the narrator didn't tell you that, you'd be like, "Well then what the fuck was all that for anyway? Why the fuck did I listen to all those retarded villagers that didn't know what they were talking about?" You put too much stock in the narrator.
"The game ending said--"
Epilogue narrators are rarely omniscient. A good twist is set up by a narrator that fools you into thinking it's omniscient.
"The game manual said ... and they wouldn't say that if--"
Sure they would, otherwise you'd have no reason to do all that crap. Simon could die like any other normal human and the world could wait 100 years for Dracula to come back as normal. Instead, we have this odd request from a mysterious figure that tells Simon to...
RESURRECT DRACULA.
Has nobody even questioned her motives? Sure, Simon feels better after beating Dracula, but did Dracula really place the curse on him? How do you know? Because the manual/game told you? Because the narrator told you it was Dracula? Simon doesn't know this woman. You don't know this woman. How do you even know it was really a woman? Because the manual/game told you it was a woman? Oh yeah, books and movies have always told you right up front the gender of someone. Was it human? Was it spirit? Was it angel? Was it demon?
Dracula only comes back every 100 years? SQ was the part of the story where the narrative spat in the face of the other narratives and explained how Dracula could come back before 100 years. Sure, he wouldn't be very powerful right then and there, but to be fair with Drac, Simon was standing right there when he woke up. In the other Castlevanias he did have a few months to recuperate, or at the very least a couple days.
So Simon and you believe Dracula will come back after 100 years just like when Ralph/Christopher defeated him and D came back after 100 years to fight Simon, but a woman straight up tells him that's not necessarily the case and then Simon goes and resurrects Dracula. What if Simon, crippled with a bad back as he was, failed to kill Dracula? Then Dracula would be free to take over the world and there would likely be no one to stop him. He would have played right into the mystery woman's nefarious plot.
How did Simon know she wasn't one of the gypsies that served Dracula? Because she mysteriously disappeared? Batman mysteriously disappears. He pays with hearts because she took all his money! If she was human, why would Simon believe a woman knew how to beat Dracula once and for all? If she wasn't human, Simon talks to ghosts? How would this one ghost know and none others?
Was she an angel because he was a holy man? It hasn't always been good angels that confront holy men. Also, that's not really in the realm of God's doing. Jesus was the only time I'm aware of "God" told humans how to defeat an evil -- and he said to do so in his name, not with a whip. With the rise of Dracula, Romania is overrun by ghosts and demons and zombies. An angel telling Simon how to defeat Dracula is much less plausible than a demon cursing Simon and disguising itself as a woman and telling Simon how to bring Dracula back back under the pretense that by his own actions could Dracula be destroyed forever. It's much more plausible that a demon or gypsy was trying to trick Simon into resurrecting Dracula wholly expecting Simon to be unable to defeat even a groggy Dracula in his accursed crippled state.
But if any of that was the case, why didn't the game just tell you? Because the narrator didn't know. The narrator is only truly omniscient in shitty literature. Also, you wouldn't resurrect Dracula either if you knew one of his minions told you to.
-
TheouAegis -- You know what? I really like your idea. It would make for a very interesting twist to the original game's storyline.
Blow our minds with some crazy twist or event.
Well, there you are.
But let's move back to reality. A game isn't a book, especially not a 1987 Castlevania. When you're told that "the evil dark lord was finally destroyed forever", you take it for face value. Especially when the game manual confirms it.
And I assume the narration to be omniscient because it is. If you read "the world lived happily ever" in an epilogue, and cannot attribute it to any single or subjective voice, then you know that by definition it's omniscient. Even the statement itself is far too general to come from a more limited point of view.
And do you honestly believe that the developers actually planned for their very own narrative to be misleading? "Hah, we'll slyly deceive the gamers by deliberately lying in the game and make them think Dracula was actually dead," they thought... Eh, I don't think so.
-
@TheouAegis
Don't be ridiculous. Video game narration told in third-person is always omniscient. There's no reason why it shouldn't be. Condradictions still occur, but that's always because of oversights, not because it's an aspect of that specific narration voice. There's no way you can refute my first argument, so my point still stands.
As for your second point, I think I can safely say that a rule of thumb in fiction is that you're supposed to take everything what is told in a story at face value, unless the story gives you a reason not to. So, I don't think your argument amounts to anything.
-
Its okay to doubt a character (even I doubt this mysterious woman a bit) but if you doubt the narrative then you lose your focus and start making your own story, that isnt part of the source material.
Also your logic starts falling apart at this moment:
"The game manual said ... and they wouldn't say that if--"
Sure they would, otherwise you'd have no reason to do all that crap. Simon could die like any other normal human and the world could wait 100 years for Dracula to come back as normal. Instead, we have this odd request from a mysterious figure that tells Simon to...
RESURRECT DRACULA.
She never said to Simon resurrect Dracula, she said to him burn all Dracula parts inside his castle. Simon did it wrong leaving a part untouched (like in Evil Dead 3 when the protagonist say the wrong words for the Necronomicon) and then Dracula revives. Thats why I think Dracula isnt gone for good, since Simon didnt used the correct method. Also this woman could be lying like another NPCs about this "annihilated for good" part.
Seriously, the moment that you doubt what the game is saying to you (not a NPC, not a signpost or a letter in game, but the narrative and manual) you start creating things instead of trying to understand the game.
-
There is of course one gaping hole with the theory that the best ending is an error because it contradicts the manual...
Other games do it :o
Consider Metroid. The game manual deliberately misleads the player into believing that Samus is a man. Should we conclude that Samus is a man because the manual says so? is that a man in a pixel bikini?
This is a perfect example of a manual telling you something that contradicts the game for dramatic effect.
Why should we consider castlevania II any different?
-
I checked the offical Japanese guidebook. In the section that deals with the Dracula boss fight, it says at the end you (the player) has defeated Dracula forever. Please don't tell me you think the offical guidebook was also lying for dramatic effect.
-
I checked the official Japanese guidebook. In the section that deals with the Dracula boss fight, it says at the end you (the player) has defeated Dracula forever. Please don't tell me you think the offical guidebook was also lying for dramatic effect.
yes, I do.
Like the manual, the guidebook will lead the player to believe that Dracula has been defeated forever until the dramatic reveal. This uncited quote does nothing to support your theory.
-
Like I mentioned before, if the endings aren't mixed up, the story doesn't make sense otherwise.
1.) We would have ending where Dracula is supposed to be dead...then comes back anyway.
2.) We would have ending where Dracula is supposed to come back...but doesn't.
Also, they never followed up on the "Dracula resurrection" ending anyway. In fact, HoD downright ignores it.
Refute these points first, then you can play the "lying for dramatic effect" card.
-
The problem is that you are using later material to conclude that the earlier endings must be wrong, when at the time they were created there would have been nothing amiss & no reason to discount the lying for dramatic effect card.
-
I'm sorry, but games don't have "blatantly lying for dramatic effect" cards. Especially not in 1987.
When you read something in a game manual, you take it for granted. End of story.
As for Metroid:
Samus' true identity as a woman was a heavily guarded secret, and was obscured by the already simple Power Suit’s androgynous appearance. The game manuals for Metroid in Japan uses pronouns like "it" mainly because the Japanese language only has gender-neutral pronouns like aista. The American manuals instead used male pronouns like "he", but it is unknown if this was a botched attempt to keep Samus' gender a secret or simply a mistranslation. Only by beating the game in under an hour could the player gain access to a secret ending where Samus would remove her Power Suit and reveal herself to be a woman.
Source: Metroid wikia -- Samus Aran
The point is, it makes no sense to doubt a game's narrative -- for the simple reason that it's all you've got. Remove the narrative and you've removed the story.
Simon might as well have been a chicken in that regard. They might have been lying for dramatic effect... Right?
-
The point is, it makes no sense to doubt a game's narrative -- for the simple reason that it's all you've got
You know what, I agree completely. The best ending is after all a part of the games narrative & it confirms that in the end Dracula was not destroyed for good even if a character from the manual or the narrator says so.
-
Yes, but like I already pointed out, the story doesn't make sense if the endings weren't switched. So, there's legitimate reason for doubt.
-
You know what, I agree completely. The best ending is after all a part of the games narrative & it confirms that in the end Dracula was not destroyed for good even if a character from the manual or the narrator says so.
Look: what's happening here is that the game's ending conflicts with what is written in the game's official manual. In fact, it seems to conflict with itself -- right before that confusing "hand out of grave" scene, you can clearly read: "The encounter with Dracula is terminated. Simon Belmont has put an end to the eternal darkness in Transylvania. His blood and sweat have penetrated the earth and will induce magic and happiness for those who walk on this land." After that, you'd expect closure; it doesn't quite sound like "Dracula will soon be revived", does it?
But now look at the "Good" ending. Here's the text: "Although the confrontation between Simon and Dracula has concluded, Simon couldn't survive his fatal wounds. Transylvania's only hope is a young man who will triumph over evil and rid the city of Dracula's deadly curse." Now that sounds more like it - it seems Dracula's curse has not yet lifted. And perhaps he might even be resurrected... That's far more fitting for what we saw.
So here's where Nagumo's logic comes in: the endings might have been inverted, essentially switching the "good" and "best" ending animations. Thus, Simon would die in the good ending, allowing for Dracula's eventual revival (hence the grave scene). But in the best ending (the intended canon), Simon has triumphs over the curse and lives, having defeated Dracula for eternity. It's far more climactic, and gives an appropriate sense of closure to the story. And it makes more sense.
Of course, that's only a possibility. But, so far, it's the most logical one.
And to put the matter to rest once and for all: game manuals don't lie. They don't today, and certainly didn't in 1987 -- if anything, they're intended as a reference. I'll say it again: if there is anything we do know, it's that this ending confusion is the result of an error, and certainly not of an intentional deception. Unless, of course, the developers were utterly incompetent. But that's for you to decide...
-
I've always considered CV 1,2, and 3 to be their own timeline. I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Those games were never written and made with the intention of being a part of some huge storyline anyways. And they just don't feel like they belong in IGA's universe.
I love the idea of the series being wrapped up in a trilogy.
I can't wait to unveil the new CV storyline for The Rise of Castlevania! It has a lot in common with Dracula's Curse.
-
I'll say it again: if there is anything we do know, it's that this ending confusion is the result of an error, and certainly not of an intentional deception.
This is not a known fact.
So far your only evidence to support the theory that there is a programming error is that a contradiction exists.
However the theory that Dracula's revival was a plot twist to reward the player for his effort and that the creators were utilizing an "unreliable narrator" also explains the contradiction and is a well established narrative device.
So what other evidence do you have that an error occurred?
Have any of the developers mentioned that the endings were mixed up?
Why should I accept your theory when the facts can easily be explained without positing a hypothetical error?
-
@Jeffrey Montoya
Yes, I definitely agree. I've always had trouble imagining CV1 and SotN co-existing in the same world. It just doesn't feel right to me.
@C Belmont
Well, first of all, I don't agree with the "unreliable narrator" bit. That doesn't occur in third-person narrative. Intersection pointed out the Metroid example was a case of a necessary translation choice instead of unreliable narration. Secondly, HoD was written in such a way that it's a direct sequel to CV2. Meaning, IGA and co deliberately ignored the cliff hanger ending. They must have done this for a reason.
-
This is not a known fact.
Now here you're right, it isn't. I was writing too fast. No, it isn't a known fact, though it is the most logical possibility. But here's the message I had meant to get across: "if there is anything we do know, it's that this ending confusion was not the result of an intentional deception."
So far your only evidence to support the theory that there is a programming error is that a contradiction exists.
However the theory that Dracula's revival was a plot twist to reward the player for his effort and that the creators were utilizing an "unreliable narrator" also explains the contradiction and is a well established narrative device.
So what other evidence do you have that an error occurred?
Have any of the developers mentioned that the endings were mixed up?
Why should I accept your theory when the facts can easily be explained without positing a hypothetical error?
Because your explanation isn't valid.
The ending statements are part of a third-person, omniscient narrative. Why? Because they're told in the third person, cannot be assimilated to any singular voice, and make broad, sweeping assertions that can't be attributed to any subjective point of view. So by definition they cannot come from an unreliable narrator. The terms "omniscient" and "unreliable" are mutually exclusive in literature. An omniscient narrator can omit parts of a story (hence the Metroid surprise), but doesn't lie.
Now, for the game manual. A game manual is an objective reference. What don't you understand about it? It's there to give a factual backstory to the game. It's not a novel -- it's a manual. It's there to instruct. That's all.
So I'll say it again, for the last time: Simon's Quest does not use unreliable narration.
So why does Nagumo pose the "error" hypothesis? Because it's the one that makes the most sense. It's as simple as that.
-
So, in the end, chances are the bad ending is indeed the canonical ending?
-
It does seem to be the most logical solution.
I'd actually never given it much thought; Nagumo was the first to point it out.
Yet in a way C Belmont also has a point. I don't think this 'error' has ever been mentioned by the creators of the game; yet, if it did occur, it would have been so huge a blunder that it could scarcely go unnoticed... Well, that's yet another Castlevania mystery.
So, of course, if you can give a better explanation, I'm all ears...
-
No, I never thought about it until I read this thread.
So far, it seems the most plausible explanation to me.
I don't go crazy about timeline and all that, but I like it, and it would be nice if Konami some day cares a little about CV and releases a book explaining everything and tying all loose-ends, like Nintendo did with Zelda.
But then again... we're talking about Nintendo, a company that cares and takes care of its franchises and its respective fans, and we're talking about Konami... we know how Konami is.
-
IGA and co deliberately ignored the cliff hanger ending. They must have done this for a reason
This is irrelevant IGA has ignored entire games because they didn't fit with his vision of Castlevania.
The ending statements are part of a third-person, omniscient narrative. Why? Because they're told in the third person, cannot be assimilated to any singular voice, and make broad, sweeping assertions that can't be attributed to any subjective point of view
Note the use of "us" and "our" by the narrator in the original famicom disk system version. This reads like the player is being addressed by a Transylvanian. A person unlikely to be privy to all the facts and definitely not expecting Dracula's prompt return.
So why does Nagumo pose the "error" hypothesis? Because it's the one that makes the most sense. It's as simple as that.
Except that no matter what ending you pair the hand rising from the grave with it creates a contradiction. Before getting any of the endings you need to first complete all the tasks that the manual says will destroy Dracula forever. Swapping the text or graphics doesn't solve anything.
-
Note the use of "us" and "our" by the narrator in the original famicom disk system version. This reads like the player is being addressed by a Transylvanian. A person unlikely to be privy to all the facts and definitely not expecting Dracula's prompt return.
A character cant interact with a player unless its shown beforehand in the story, they wont change rules in the last moment, also we have a narrator in the intro too, that possible being the same narrator.
One thing is sure: if you doubt the narrator, whatever you say wont be taken as serious. How I can say that? We're already entering in the 3rd cycle of this repetitive "narrator lies - no, he doesnt".
Even so, I hardly believe that some of these ending have some error in it, but even so if someone could check that for us I would be grateful.
As I've said before I think that this scene with Dracula's hand was meant to be more like "I'll return someday/This series isnt over yet" like in movies than it being taken serious and meaning that Dracula's wasnt dead at this time. Maybe to pay a homage to CV1 credits with these movie actors names they have decided to do a movie-like ending.
The only major conflict here is that woman saying that Dracula's would be destroyed forever, but the ending clearly shows that she was wrong or have a wrong concept of "forever". If you never see someone again in your life, you could say that this person disappeared forever, since you will die before it appearing again, you will never see it again, but in the future other people could meet this person. That is a example of wrong/deranged concept of forever.
-
I don't go crazy about timeline and all that, but I like it, and it would be nice if Konami some day cares a little about CV and releases a book explaining everything and tying all loose-ends, like Nintendo did with Zelda.
I wish I could write such a book. :P
Except that no matter what ending you pair the hand rising from the grave with it creates a contradiction. Before getting any of the endings you need to first complete all the tasks that the manual says will destroy Dracula forever. Swapping the text or graphics doesn't solve anything.
It's established that if Simon dies of the wounds inflicted by the curse, Dracula will come back to live. Therefore, I think it goes without saying that "don't die as a result of the curse" is a requirement. Meaning, it's a requirement that Simon failed to accomplish in the middle ending, resulting in Dracula not being destroyed forever.
-
And that would explain why he kept resurrecting after Simon's Quest.
This seems the most logical one to me.
-
And that would explain why he kept resurrecting after Simon's Quest.
This seems the most logical one to me.
Hmmm, well, I don't want to sound confusing, but I think the canon ending is the "Dracula is destroyed forever" ending. I think IGA simply ignored the "forever" part since he has a tendency to ignore information established in old games like CV3, CVA, and CV2. Otherwise games like Rondo, SotN etc. wouldn't be able to occur.
-
Note the use of "us" and "our" by the narrator in the original famicom disk system version. This reads like the player is being addressed by a Transylvanian. A person unlikely to be privy to all the facts and definitely not expecting Dracula's prompt return.
Here's the text from the original Famicom version:
AND THE BATTLE ENDED. SIMON BELMONT PUT AN ETERNAL PERIOD TO THE LEGEND OF DRACULA. HIS BLOOD AND SWEAT PENETRATED INTO THE GROUND OF TRANSYLVANIA WILL BRING US FULL-BLOWN FLOWERS WITH HAPPINESS IN NEXT SPRING.
If anything, this text does even more to support Nagumo's idea. Instead of having "put an end to the eternal darkness", Simon has now "put an eternal period the legend of Dracula". Which means that Simon's encounter was, indeed, definitive; an end has been given to Dracula's legend for eternity.
As for the use of "us", it's merely a more poetic manner of conveying the universal impact of Simon's victory; it's "us" as a people, "us" as humanity -- all of us can be thankful for Simon's noble actions, for he has brought happiness back to the land. You can think of that "happily ever after" segment from all fairy tales. It's that voice we hear in every epilogue, which is only there to give suitable closure. It has nothing to do with anyone "unlikely to be privy to all the facts".
Except that no matter what ending you pair the hand rising from the grave with it creates a contradiction. Before getting any of the endings you need to first complete all the tasks that the manual says will destroy Dracula forever. Swapping the text or graphics doesn't solve anything.
That actually isn't true. Read my previous post:
But now look at the "Good" ending. Here's the text: "Although the confrontation between Simon and Dracula has concluded, Simon couldn't survive his fatal wounds. Transylvania's only hope is a young man who will triumph over evil and rid the city of Dracula's deadly curse." Now that sounds more like it - it seems Dracula's curse has not yet lifted. And perhaps he might even be resurrected... That's far more fitting for what we saw.
As I've said before I think that this scene with Dracula's hand was meant to be more like "I'll return someday/This series isnt over yet" like in movies than it being taken serious and meaning that Dracula's wasnt dead at this time. Maybe to pay a homage to CV1 credits with these movie actors names they have decided to do a movie-like ending.
Well, that's plausible. The developers might not have been as attentive to their story as we've been expecting them to be. They might only have wanted to make sure that fans knew the series wasn't over -- it'd be more of a "James Bond will return" pitch than anything else. And in the end, it's true that this "switching error" idea can feel a bit artificial at times.
-
Hmmm, well, I don't want to sound confusing, but I think the canon ending is the "Dracula is destroyed forever" ending. I think IGA simply ignored the "forever" part since he has a tendency to ignore information established in old games like CV3, CVA, and CV2. Otherwise games like Rondo, SotN etc. wouldn't be able to occur.
We have a timeline inconsistency here, so it seems...
-
All right. It's taken four pages to achieve it, but it seems everything's been straightened out.
Now we can really start to speculate -- the best part of any thread.
Nagumo:
If CV I-III were to form their own trilogy, how do you think the transition should be handled? You're taking three of Konami's most loved games and essentially removing them from the canon storyline (= retcon, in a way). Not so many people would like that. I'll also add that much of IGA's timeline was created to accommodate and build upon these original titles; by cutting them out you'd be removing one of the continuity's more important foundations.
Should anything be added or changed from the original games to make them fit better as a trilogy? How would you suggest optimizing them for their new status?
Now for the canon timeline. How do we fill in the holes?
You'd mentioned that remakes of the missing games could be introduced. Now that's an idea I like. Not only would it free up space for future games, but it would be an extraordinary opportunity to revive some of CV's most loved classics...
So for now, go ahead and tell us: Which games do you suggest remaking? How do you suggest remaking them? Do you wish for them to stay close to the spirit of the originals, or would you be open to some more experimenting? Should they be added to? Cleaned up? Kept precisely the same? Are you leaning more towards a reboot or a faithful remake? What should they look like? Sound like? And who should lead the team?
-
Yes, we're finally getting to the good stuff now. I'm suprised and glad that somebody thinks my idea is interesting enough to further question me about it.
If CV I-III were to form their own trilogy, how do you think the transition should be handled? You're taking three of Konami's most loved games and essentially removing them from the canon storyline (= retcon, in a way). Not so many people would like that. I'll also add that much of IGA's timeline was created to accommodate and build upon these original titles; by cutting them out you'd be removing one of the continuity's more important foundations.
Hmm, I'm going to try answer that question like I were the producer of the series.
First of all, I would make clear that Castlevania is not one storyline. It's a collection of stories that all share a similar world view. They all draw from the same well of accumulated assets (music, enemies, areas), but the details can be filled in by developers as desired. I would emphasize all storylines are equally as valid. Secondly, I would explain that treating CV1-III as a stand alone continuity would be following the original intent of Akumetsu's team (they created all three games). Thirdly, I'd argue the offical timeline was never supposed to be published and that it was leaked (I can provide the source), meaning it was originally supposed to be kept hidden so it could be revised as many times as the developers saw fit. Lastly, I would point out the games never really fitted well in IGA's canon, and that removing them would fix some continuity issues.
I would then proceed to publish a revised chronology in a guidebook, on the offical website, or perhaps as part of a pre-order bonus (whatever would be the most convenient at the time), putting my movation containing the above mentioned four points at the beginning. Alongside the revised IGA continuity, it would also list the CVI-III and Lords of Shadow canon.
Should anything be added or changed from the original games to make them fit better as a trilogy? How would you suggest optimizing them for their new status?
Personally, I wouldn't change anything about them. I would stricly follow the original intent: Dracula is Vlad Tepes, he became a vampire because of a devil pact, etc. It would probably be important to explain Trevor and Christopher are the same character in this canon to avoid any confusion. Though, this may be or not be original intent also. For the sake of the discussion, I'm going to assume that it is.
I'll address your third question tomorrow. :)
-
I find it to be a very interesting idea too.
-
If the ending texts truly are combined with the wrong visuals, both points would be adhered to. In the middle ending Simon dies, so Dracula comes back, in the best ending Simon overcomes the curse, so Dracula stays dead. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all.
It was confirmed to me that the code in the game that makes the hand coming out of the ground animation happen is dependent on one single instruction. If that one value is changed to it's alternative instruction that animation will appear in all endings except the best ending.
To explain, the instructions in question are the ASM codes BNE and BEQ. Without explaining exactly what these do, I'll just say that these two instructions being mixed up are responsible for a multitude of glitches in various ASM coded games.
Furthermore, the type of glitch this might be is what is called a "logic error". As a programmer myself, I can tell you that logic errors are the bane of all programmers. The reason is that unlike syntax errors which are pointed out by your code editor or at runtime by your compiler, logic errors give no indication except the running program itself and observing what happens. Thus, if during play testing the testers assumed the hand animation was meant to leave the game open to a sequel they may not have reported it.
So, given that mixing up those two instructions is such a common logic error, that changing it makes the endings make a hell of a lot more sense, and the likely hood that if it is an error that it wouldn't have been reported then strengthens the possibility that there may actually be a glitch here.
Or maybe it's exactly how it should be.
If we could only ask the original scenario writer...
-
Yes, we're finally getting to the good stuff now. I'm suprised and glad that somebody thinks my idea is interesting enough to further question me about it.
Sorry if I made it sound uninteresting, Im interested in it, its only difficult to me accept it as a fact, thats all. Thats not something that Im doing on purpose, its my nature I think. Im only defending my point of view, not trying to disrespect yours.
-
Yes, we're finally getting to the good stuff now. I'm suprised and glad that somebody thinks my idea is interesting enough to further question me about it.
Hmm, I'm going to try answer that question like I were the producer of the series.
First of all, I would make clear that Castlevania is not one storyline. It's a collection of stories that all share a similar world view. They all draw from the same well of accumulated assets (music, enemies, areas), but the details can be filled in by developers as desired. I would emphasize all storylines are equally as valid. Secondly, I would explain that treating CV1-III as a stand alone continuity would be following the original intent of Akumetsu's team (they created all three games). Thirdly, I'd argue the offical timeline was never supposed to be published and that it was leaked (I can provide the source), meaning it was originally supposed to be kept hidden so it could be revised as many times as the developers saw fit. Lastly, I would point out the games never really fitted well in IGA's canon, and that removing them would fix some continuity issues.
I would then proceed to publish a revised chronology in a guidebook, on the offical website, or perhaps as part of a pre-order bonus (whatever would be the most convenient at the time), putting my movation containing the above mentioned four points at the beginning. Alongside the revised IGA continuity, it would also list the CVI-III and Lords of Shadow canon.
Personally, I wouldn't change anything about them. I would stricly follow the original intent: Dracula is Vlad Tepes, he became a vampire because of a devil pact, etc. It would probably be important to explain Trevor and Christopher are the same character in this canon to avoid any confusion. Though, this may be or not be original intent also. For the sake of the discussion, I'm going to assume that it is.
I'll address your third question tomorrow. :)
I pretty much agree with all this. It's plainly obvious from the games themselves that CV1-3 are meant to be a closed story arc. It wasn't until the demand for sequels that the contradictions started... well except for CVA.
What I would do is remake CV1, CV2SQ, CV2BR, and combine CV3 with CVA. There seems to be more than enough evidence that Trevor was intended to be Christopher. And having a remake of CV2BR with CV3 as part of it's immediate back story would roXXor h4rd! Very metal.
The more that I analyze all this the more it seems like having 3 continuities makes sense. Not the least reason for which is the excuse to make more remakes and thus more CV games.
Accommodating in later games.
And as far as the later games having been made to accommodate the original trilogy, well, that's objectively not what was done. All the later games retcon things in the original trilogy. The dates of CV3 & CVA are retconned. Trevor C. and Christopher are taken as separate characters by retconning the dates. LoI retcons Dracula's origin. Only the later games establish 100 year rule. Yeah... that doesn't sound like anything was being accommodated.
-
I just want to throw this out there- I think it's possible that Dracula was destroyed FOREVER...until someone resurrected him. In Rondo, Circle of the Moon, 64/LoD and Bloodlines you have people that are actively working to bring Dracula back to life- he's not reviving because of the every 100 years/whenever evil grows stronger deal.
-
Now for the canon timeline. How do we fill in the holes?
You'd mentioned that remakes of the missing games could be introduced. Now that's an idea I like. Not only would it free up space for future games, but it would be an extraordinary opportunity to revive some of CV's most loved classics...
So for now, go ahead and tell us: Which games do you suggest remaking? How do you suggest remaking them? Do you wish for them to stay close to the spirit of the originals, or would you be open to some more experimenting? Should they be added to? Cleaned up? Kept precisely the same? Are you leaning more towards a reboot or a faithful remake? What should they look like? Sound like? And who should lead the team?
The games I suggest should be remade are CVIII, CVII, and Belmont's Revenge. Adventure Rebirth would take Adventure's place, and I personally prefer CV1 being replaced by the Arrange mode of Chronicles. I think that would fit nicely since Kojima redesigned Simon and Dracula in her usual style, which I think fits in very well with IGA's take on the series. However, they could remake CV1 yet again, but I personally think that's unneccessary since I think Chronicles is a suitable enough replacement.
I think these games should be close to the spirit of IGA's games. For example, a CVIII remake should aesthetically be done in the same vain as Symphony, Aria, etc. Kojima doesn't necessarily have to be in charge of the designs, but I would expect the characters to look gothic and elegant.
In case of CVII and III, the storylines should definitely be expanded and rewritten to form a nice flowing narrative with IGA's other games. For example, CVIII's story could be rewritten to actually tie in with SotN, LoI, and CoD. Having Lisa make an actual appearance would be very interesting. They could perhaps make Hector and Isaac make a cameo at the very least. Heck, Alucard's friend, Lyudmil (from the radio drama), could have a role in the story. Personally, I would also try to play as much as possible with the player's expectations of the story. For example, Trevor rescues Sypha from the Cyclops in the original, but the same scenario wouldn't neccesarily need to happen in the remake. I'm trying to think of something really unexpected. The only think I could come up with would be to give Trevor an extra ally. However, I don't think that fits with later canon...
In case of Belmont's Revenge, I think it would be nice if they made it a Rebirth style remake. Then it would fit very well with Adventure Rebirth.
Since these remakes would tie in with IGA's storyline, I think he should be the one to head the projects.
-
I just want to throw this out there- I think it's possible that Dracula was destroyed FOREVER...until someone resurrected him. In Rondo, Circle of the Moon, 64/LoD and Bloodlines you have people that are actively working to bring Dracula back to life- he's not reviving because of the every 100 years/whenever evil grows stronger deal.
In fact, I think the famous 100 years rule never actually happened in a game, it's just kind of a myth... isn't it?
-
This actually happened in Super Castlevania IV intro.
-
Nagumo:
Do you really think Chronicles should replace CVI? You're taking one of the series' most legendary games and replacing it with a middling PSX remake. Taking its place should be a game of at least equal caliber... But I'd still prefer for an entirely new game to be made. You mentioned that CII and III should be remade in IGA's style -- it wouldn't feel consistent if CI wasn't as well.
Rebirth is a decent replacement, of course, but a remake wouldn't be a bad idea. You'd hope for a remake of Christopher's entries to be slightly more fleshed out. And it wouldn't be viable to do BR in the style of Rebirth; if you expect the game to gather any kind of success in today's market, you'll need for it to be far more substantial than a simple HD port, no matter how good it is.
I'd actually be very interested in seeing classic CV's remade in IGA's style. He's made his mark in the series like no one else has. Yet I'm not sure if all fans would be comfortable watching his distinctive style invading yet another set of CV classics...
But if it was up to me, I'd be all for it. IGA for the win!
As for Kojima, God knows how I would love for her to return. In fact, I don't think I could stand to see another game without here involved in it... Although, in all fairness, I'd be perfectly content with some equally excellent artwork in the same vein.
Now, you haven't mentioned music yet. Does that mean I must compose it? I'm ready to, you know; and I'm not too bad at that kind of thing, either. Several years of harmonic studies can't hurt in that regard... ;D
Back to reality: are you considering a literal OST remake, an entirely different soundtrack, a mixture of both?
And just for the sake of asking, if you had the choice, who'd you take as the next composer? It's actually quite an open field, since Yamane isn't the only great CV musician out there...
-
I'd actually be very interested in seeing classic CV's remade in IGA's style. He's made his mark in the series like no one else has. Yet I'm not sure if all fans would be comfortable watching his distinctive style invading yet another set of CV classics...
But if it was up to me, I'd be all for it. IGA for the win!
As for Kojima, God knows how I would love for her to return. In fact, I don't think I could stand to see another game without here involved in it... Although, in all fairness, I'd be perfectly content with some equally excellent artwork in the same vein.
Oh f*#@^% no.
The series absolutely stagnated under IGA. Lords of Shadow was a mess, but at least it wasn't another hollow, lazy Metroidvania.
-
Now its not hollow, but full, complete, a complete trainwreck Gowvania ^^
-
'd actually be very interested in seeing classic CV's remade in IGA's style. He's made his mark in the series like no one else has. Yet I'm not sure if all fans would be comfortable watching his distinctive style invading yet another set of CV classics...
But if it was up to me, I'd be all for it. IGA for the win!
As for Kojima, God knows how I would love for her to return. In fact, I don't think I could stand to see another game without here involved in it... Although, in all fairness, I'd be perfectly content with some equally excellent artwork in the same vein.
Me too :)
-
Oh f*#@^% no.
The series absolutely stagnated under IGA. Lords of Shadow was a mess, but at least it wasn't another hollow, lazy Metroidvania.
The series was arguably at its best under IGA. There aren't that many ways to do a game right, and IGA was always spot-on. His games had quite a lot of substance, if you looked for it in the right place.
His games never really stagnated; IGA was moving forward, even if it wasn't as fast as many of us would have liked. Yet, among other things, I pride myself in having some degree of... patience. I, for one, don't expect a revolution at every release. If we'd let IGA continue to tread through the steady path he had set for the series, back in the time when he was working on the handhelds, I'm confident we would have gone somewhere truly significant. Instead, Konami chose to bow to the constant pressure of the modern market -- and things went downhill from there. Even IGA couldn't save the franchise.
You said you didn't wish for the series to stagnate. Well, you should be pleased, then. Lords of Shadow? Of course it wasn't a hollow, lazy Metroidvania. But to be exact, it almost wasn't a Castlevania at all...
-
That's actually false because none of IGA's games sold as well as his first game. He peaked right away and consistently released less successful games from that point. Castlevania slowly declined under his leadership.
The series was at its best before IGA or Mercurysteam ever touched it.
The idea of CV 1-3 being done by IGA makes me cringe. All I can is thank god that will never happen.
-
@Beaumont_Belmont
I didn't say these "remakes" would need to be Metroid-type games. I just said they would need the same visual style so that you can clearly tell it takes place in the same universe as SotN etc.
@Intersection
That's a difficult question. I always liked Tomokuni Katayama's violin rendition of Bloody Tears. If he's still around, maybe he could provide a few original songs? Honestly, as long as it isn't Araujo I would probably be fine with it. I would go for original songs, but I'd like a few remixes also, but probably not from the games themselves.
-
That's actually false because none of IGA's games sold as well as his first game. He peaked right away and consistently released less successful games from that point. Castlevania slowly declined under his leadership.
The series was at its best before IGA or Mercurysteam ever touched it.
The idea of CV 1-3 being done by IGA makes me cringe. All I can is thank god that will never happen.
Please don't invoke the sales argument again. All it ever does is have us go in circles. You're telling me Lords of Shadow was the best Castlevania game ever made, right? Because that's what sales figures tell us.
Castlevania was great before IGA touched it. For me, it remained great, albeit in different ways, while he was involved.
You and I both agree with the first sentence. That's good enough, I think. :)
-
The sales figures strengthen what most people already believe. And that is that SOTN was his best game. A poll recently posted on this forum by Pfil produced the same result. It's an opinion, supported by facts.
That means every game IGA made after SOTN was deductive. He had something like a decade to top or match his own game and he couldn't do it. That's not my idea of succesfuly carrying a franchise.
And SOTN was not a perfect game. The fans deserved to see CV taken to the next level, and all we got was a weaker version of the same game over and over again.
The sales figures indicate that LOS is the highest selling, best received game since SOTN.
I would love to see Arc System Works or Wayforward remake the original CV trilogy, or release their own new take on CV.
I would like to see mercurysteam off of CV after LoS2, and I would like IGA to stay off of Cv for the rest of his career.
-
The sales figures strengthen what most people already believe. And that is that SOTN was his best game. A poll recently posted on this forum by Pfil produced the same result. It's an opinion, supported by facts.
That means every game IGA made after SOTN was deductive. He had something like a decade to top or match his own game and he couldn't do it. That's not my idea of succesfuly carrying a franchise.
And SOTN was not a perfect game. The fans deserved to see CV taken to the next level, and all we got was a weaker version of the same game over and over again.
The sales figures indicate that LOS is the highest selling, best received game since SOTN.
I would love to see Arc System Works or Wayforward remake the original CV trilogy, or release their own new take on CV.
I would like to see mercurysteam off of CV after LoS2, and I would like IGA to stay off of Cv for the rest of his career.
I'm telling you, sales figures are never a good reference for evaluating a game. You need to take into account the platform the game's released on, the audience the game is intended to appeal to, the style the game has adopted, the media coverage it's gotten, the state of the market, etc... There are too many factors involved for sales numbers alone to act as an objective argument. Good sales are not always indicative of a good game, nor are poor sales indicative of bad one. There are great games out there that have been overlooked, and massively marketed games can gather large revenues without having to be extraordinary. The bottom line: the link between a game's quality and its sales is an exceedingly complicated and unstable one. Best not to invoke it.
But if you really want to argue based on sales:
That's actually false because none of IGA's games sold as well as his first game. He peaked right away and consistently released less successful games from that point. Castlevania slowly declined under his leadership.
No, what you wrote isn't quite true. First of all, I need your sources. But from what I've seen:
Between IGA's GBA/DS titles, which form the core of his golden era, sales numbers have remained essentially constant, even increasing with some of his particularly well-received games. As for the gap between SoTN's sales and those on the handhelds, that's normal: they're two very different platforms.
As for the 3D games: Lament of Innocence seems to have gathered comparable, if slightly inferior, sales to SoTN; Curse of Darkness, however, seems to have done considerably worse.
But again, these numbers don't mean much; we're treading on shifty sands here.
Now, from a critical viewpoint, you're completely off target. IGA's handhelds have received consistent praise from critics, and many of them come quite close the level of acclaim SoTN had gathered.
His 3D games have generally been less well received, but these can't be compared as easily to Symphony.
As for your poll argument, that hardly makes for an objective fact.
And of course that's what most people believe: SoTN holds a legendary status in the Castlevania series. But while the games that followed were certainly similar, that doesn't mean that they aren't good. In fact, they're terrific.
In my opinion? I'd like to see MercurySteam off of CV after LoS2, and would love to see IGA return afterwards.
But why don't we put this argument aside, and get back to the topic at hand?
-
The majority of the Metroidvanias were turgid bores. They could have at least offered a hard difficulty. That's my biggest issue with that style- not the cookie cutter protagonists, not the re-used assets, not the lazy environments- the lack of challenge or surprise. No one will argue that Castlevania I through Bloodlines aren't tough as nails games. Then you come to Symphony where you can level up and use potions anywhere. It's not fun to me if there's no real resistance, if I can just level grind my way to victory instead of mastering a pattern to beat a boss.
-
The amount of overanalysis in this thread is astounding. :o
As far as Simon's Quest's ending is concerned, it's possible that the woman who came to Simon (who isn't even mentioned in the US manual as far as I remember) may have mistakenly believed that gathering all the body parts and burning them was the way to permanently destroy Dracula, much like is was mistakenly believed that the God Mask could bring back the dead in LoS. Either way the canon ending is not an error. It's clear that Simon survived but that he didn't exactly finish the job either because he missed a body part or because he received the wrong info.
But either way, I've always though of the various games being their own timelines
cv3
Cv1/ScvIV/Chronicles
Simon's Quest
Harmony of Dissonance
Bloodlines
PoR
Rondo/Dracula X
SoTN
LoS
MoF
LoS2
and so on and so forth. I think it makes more sense to make little trilogies and whatnot than to try to create a whole crazy timeline that is bound to be rife with inconsistencies and stuff that makes no sense, but that's just me.
For the sake of argument, I think LoS was the best thing to happen to CV since DXC. IGa kept doing the same old thing and it got old.
-
Eh, if you're going to flat out say I'm wrong and I'm overanalyzing, at least come up with a decent alternative explanation that actually makes sense. The mystery woman is clearly supposed to be telling the truth. There is no reason for her to be wrong from a narrative standpoint, nor does the story give a reason to not trust her words. She's saying those specific lines for a reason.
Also, let's stick to the topic, please. CVII's ending is at least marginally relevant. Debating which game is more successful is not.
-
Eh, if you're going to flat out say I'm wrong and I'm overanalyzing, at least come up with a decent alternative explanation that actually makes sense. The mystery woman is clearly supposed to be telling the truth. There is no reason for her to be wrong from a narrative standpoint, nor does the story give a reason to not trust her words. She's saying those specific lines for a reason.
Also, let's stick to the topic, please. CVII's ending is at least marginally relevant. Debating which game is more successful is not.
It wasn't so much you over analyzing as somemof the other posters. You're just taking what I said personally and refusing to put any thought into the alternatives I presented which make plenty of sense. The mystery woman isn't even mentioned in the US manual as far as I can remember. You're trying to apply logic to a story that was put into a game largely before stories in games were more than an afterthought. There are likely going to be inconsistencies and since the canon makes it clear that Simon had offspring and that Dracula DID come back at some point, I don't see how the words of some mystery woman who's little more than a messenger could make you doubt thr outcome of the game.
-
DoctaMArio is my hero.
-
DoctaMArio is my hero.
Hahahahahah I love it! I don't think that combination of words has ever been put together before! xD
-
It wasn't so much you over analyzing as somemof the other posters. You're just taking what I said personally and refusing to put any thought into the alternatives I presented which make plenty of sense. The mystery woman isn't even mentioned in the US manual as far as I can remember. You're trying to apply logic to a story that was put into a game largely before stories in games were more than an afterthought. There are likely going to be inconsistencies and since the canon makes it clear that Simon had offspring and that Dracula DID come back at some point, I don't see how the words of some mystery woman who's little more than a messenger could make you doubt thr outcome of the game.
Did you even bother to read this thread? The mystery woman not being is the US manual is completely inrelevant. What matters is the Japanese storyline In case you didn't notice, the ending mentions the same thing. Or do you think you know it better than the actual game?
Your second argument is just a broad generalization. There were plenty of games in those days that had internally consistent stories with plenty of thought put into them.
Thridly, you're using information established after the game to proof your point. What matters is the original intent. The continuity wasn't as tight as it was when IGA started making games. For example, it's possible the writers of Rondo either weren't aware or didn't care about the original intention of Simon's Quest ending. Heck, it's also possible Rondo was supposed to be set in an alternate continuity from CVI-III. Meaning, the fact that they continued past CVII's ending proofs nothing about the original intent.
Also, if you're so sure that I'm wrong, then you have no trouble refuting these points.
Like I mentioned before, if the endings aren't mixed up, the story doesn't make sense otherwise.
1.) We would have ending where Dracula is supposed to be dead...then comes back anyway.
2.) We would have ending where Dracula is supposed to come back...but doesn't.
Also, they never followed up on the "Dracula resurrection" ending anyway. In fact, HoD downright ignores it.
Good luck with that.
Seriously, you say how obviously wrong I am, but you know nothing, nor do you care to put actual thought in what you're saying. You're the one being dismissive here, not me.
DoctaMArio is my hero.
Drop the peanut gallery comments.
-
DoctaHero... er, DoctaMario:
The amount of overanalysis in this thread is astounding. :o
Of course it is! This forum would be significantly duller if we weren't allowed to have some fun. After all, for what other purpose are we here but to overanalyze? It's our job to overembellish; to overelaborate; to overstate; to overemphasize -- to stretch far and wide, to make mountains out of molehills, to lay it all thick... and do it all with a smile! ;D
You're trying to apply logic to a story that was put into a game largely before stories in games were more than an afterthought.
Again, you're probably right! Yet I'm following Nagumo's idea because I find it very... interesting. Don't you agree? I want to hear what he has to say.
Because, in the end, why else would we spend five pages talking about an eventuality that will, obviously, never happen?
Remember: in a forum like this, speculation is king! At least, that's what I believe. So, in the absence of anything better to do, we can draw up grandiose, existential debates about things that are really... trifles.
Nagumo:
Take it with humor! I'm sure he doesn't mean any harm. ;)
-
Like I mentioned before, if the endings aren't mixed up, the story doesn't make sense otherwise.
1.) We would have ending where Dracula is supposed to be dead...then comes back anyway.
2.) We would have ending where Dracula is supposed to come back...but doesn't.
Also, they never followed up on the "Dracula resurrection" ending anyway. In fact, HoD downright ignores it.
Point "1" shows that Dracula comes back even if he is supposedly dead, but that happens in CV3 ending too, since they dont mention anything about this 100 year cycle until Super Castlevania IV IIRC, but even so he returns in CV1.
Point "2" says that Dracula would come back, but only because they didnt shown is hand doesnt mean that it doesnt happen, they didnt say "when" or "where" he would return. You have something showing when and where he would return?
I've given some alternatives already, here is a newer and crazier one: Dracula was really been destroyed, but his spirit still lives. They use his relics in rituals to give a new body for him. In HoD he doesnt have a body, but in RoB Shaft does a ritual and so he acquires a new body.
-
It was confirmed to me that the code in the game that makes the hand coming out of the ground animation happen is dependent on one single instruction.
If that one value is changed to it's alternative instruction that animation will appear in all endings except the best ending.
To explain, the instructions in question are the ASM codes BNE and BEQ.
Without explaining exactly what these do, I'll just say that these two instructions being mixed up are responsible for a multitude of glitches in various ASM coded games.
Furthermore, the type of glitch this might be is what is called a "logic error".
As a programmer myself, I can tell you that logic errors are the bane of all programmers.
The reason is that unlike syntax errors which are pointed out by your code editor or at runtime by your compiler, logic errors give no indication except the running program itself and observing what happens.
Thus, if during play testing the testers assumed the hand animation was meant to leave the game open to a sequel they may not have reported it.
So, given that mixing up those two instructions is such a common logic error, that changing it makes the endings make a hell of a lot more sense, and the likelyhood that if it is an error that it wouldn't have been reported then strengthens the possibility that there may actually be a glitch here.
Or maybe it's exactly how it should be.
If we could only ask the original scenario writer...
I'll just reiterate the above post I made before that seems to have been largely ignored.
And let me emphasize that the above information does lend a lot of credence to the possibility of an error actually having occurred.
-
Sorry, I thought that anyone talked about it already and I forgot about it :/
Yes, I understood it at the first time, a simple value flag change could switch the hand from ON to OFF in all the endings. Like OFF, OFF, ON or ON, ON, OFF.
Its a possibility.
-
Yeap, that's right. And it would be a very easy mistake to make and one that wouldn't have been questioned if someone wasn't specifically looking for it.
-
Did you even bother to read this thread? The mystery woman not being is the US manual is completely inrelevant. What matters is the Japanese storyline In case you didn't notice, the ending mentions the same thing. Or do you think you know it better than the actual game?
Your second argument is just a broad generalization. There were plenty of games in those days that had internally consistent stories with plenty of thought put into them.
Thridly, you're using information established after the game to proof your point. What matters is the original intent. The continuity wasn't as tight as it was when IGA started making games. For example, it's possible the writers of Rondo either weren't aware or didn't care about the original intention of Simon's Quest ending. Heck, it's also possible Rondo was supposed to be set in an alternate continuity from CVI-III. Meaning, the fact that they continued past CVII's ending proofs nothing about the original intent.
Also, if you're so sure that I'm wrong, then you have no trouble refuting these points.
Good luck with that.
Seriously, you say how obviously wrong I am, but you know nothing, nor do you care to put actual thought in what you're saying. You're the one being dismissive here, not me.
Drop the peanut gallery comments.
First of all, can you stop taking this so damn personally? You act like I basically just typed "hur hur you're a retard" and left it at that. I gave a well thought out rebuttal and I didn't attack you at all, so quit acting like I have. You and i go back a ways so its disappointing to me that you think im attacking you and are neg repping all my comments (as well as the others of those that disagree with you, but do what you like i guess) And yes, I've read thr entire thread.
For one: Is there some agreement that I don't know about that says Jap Story > All? The mystery woman is a plot device that is never mentioned in game and the fact that you're using an element that isn't even mentioned in the game as the crux of your argument says to me that you have a weak argument. The manuals were seldom written by the same people working on the text for the game. If she were that important, she'd be in the game in some fashion, but she's not.
I think thr reason Drac's hand pops out is because it's a cool-ass ending. You think you're done, that you've destroyed the ultimate evil. The text in the ending sets you up to believe its all over, but NOPE! To be continued...It set up the possibility of more games. An indeterminent ending is a lot more interesting when well done because of the questions it raises.
As for me knowing it "better than the game," Simon's Quest is the reason I got into Castlevania in the first place and I've played it so many times that I know it like the back of my hand. So come correct because I've been playing the game for a LONG time.
Two: Your point about them never following up on the resurrection ending uses information created after thr fact just like you accused me of doing. You do it again by invoking the PoR timeline as proof of Simon dies=Drac returns.
Three: You don't currently nor will you ever know the original intent of the designers so this is all Theoryvania anyway. Stop taking it so personally, this is all in good fun.
Yeap, that's right. And it would be a very easy mistake to make and one that wouldn't have been questioned if someone wasn't specifically looking for it.
This is definitely an interesting position to take. I'd like to think that making simple text errors is one thing but that they'd be a lot more careful with something that important. But we have no way of knowing. Are there other evidences of sloppy programming in the game?
I really do think it was just something cool to get the player excited, no more
No less.
And I agree with you Intersection about speculation being fun. I just think sometimes it gets taken to extremes.
-
Inccubus: we'd understood your point -- at least, I hope we had. Yes, these kind of errors occur far more often than one might think; I've done a good bit of programming myself, and these kind of errors are notoriously easy to miss. If what you've been told is true, then it's more than possible that an error did actually occur.
But I'm still perplexed as to why the error wouldn't have been found beforehand. Testers could easily have interpreted the ending as a cliffhanger (I know I did); but any self-respecting developer would have the sense to test their own game, and the grave/hand scene wasn't exactly hidden...
Maybe the developers had identified their error but decided to leave it there anyhow -- they might have thought that a minor plot incoherence wasn't all that important? After all, it did give a nice "I will return" effect.
DoctaMario:
For one: Is there some agreement that I don't know about that says Jap Story > All? The mystery woman is a plot device that is never mentioned in game and the fact that you're using an element that isn't even mentioned in the game as the crux of your argument says to me that you have a weak argument. The manuals were seldom written by the same people working on the text for the game. If she were that important, she'd be in the game in some fashion, but she's not.
Generally, when you're looking for the original intentions of the devs, you'd look into the original, Japanese manual, not in the translated versions.
And one of the reasons a manual was needed in the first place was to inject storyline elements that couldn't conveniently be fitted in the game itself. So, in this case, there's no reason why you shouldn't trust it...
Two: Your point about them never following up on the resurrection ending uses information created after thr fact just like you accused me of doing. You do it again by invoking the PoR timeline as proof of Simon dies=Drac returns.
I don't think it's quite the same thing. Whether they followed up or not on the resurrection ending does tell us something of their intentions, since you have to remember that it was essentially the same team that worked on the following games. And what did they do? They went backwards instead, setting Trevor Belmont's quest two centuries before Simon's... Even Christopher's outings came a century before. So why would they have chosen to ignore the cliffhanger they had so painstakingly set up? That was the question.
Now, of course, Portrait of Ruin's story has no bearing on what SQ's team originally intended. But I didn't see Nagumo mentioning it...
Three: You don't currently nor will you ever know the original intent of the designers so this is all Theoryvania anyway. Stop taking it so personally, this is all in good fun.
Yes, yes! Exactly! :D It's all in good fun:
And I agree with you Intersection about speculation being fun. I just think sometimes it gets taken to extremes.
Well, it seems you've been taken in as well: just look at how long your post has gotten... ;)
-
Generally, when you're looking for the original intentions of the devs, you'd look into the original, Japanese manual, not in the translated versions.
And one of the reasons a manual was needed in the first place was to inject storyline elements that couldn't conveniently be fitted in the game itself. So, in this case, there's no reason why you shouldn't trust it...
OKay, that I understand, but again, if this "mystery woman" (who I'd never heard anything of until I read that Worlds Of Power Simon's Quest book growing up) was SO vitally important to the game's story, why is she not mentioned in game? Why no exposition at the beginning, why does no villager mention her, priest in the church, etc? And given all that, that we have no idea what on earth the designers were shooting for, this is all wild speculation and we have no reason to distrust the game or its endings based on some theory that involves a plot element that wasn't even important enough to be included in the game. If you want to talk about intentions, I'd say that is a big one; that they didn't include her in the game at all.
As someone who grew up in the NES era, played tons of games and read tons of manuals, I've never heard of a plot element that is vital to the story NOT being at least referenced in-game, and I doubt they'd let some story element get in the way of making another game, especially back then.
I don't think it's quite the same thing. Whether they followed up or not on the resurrection ending does tell us something of their intentions, since you have to remember that it was essentially the same team that worked on the following games. And what did they do? They went backwards instead, setting Trevor Belmont's quest two centuries before Simon's... Even Christopher's outings came a century before. So why would they have chosen to ignore the cliffhanger they had so painstakingly set up? That was the question.
Now, of course, Portrait of Ruin's story has no bearing on what SQ's team originally intended. But I didn't see Nagumo mentioning it...
I think you're reaching with this. Do we know that it was essentially the same team that worked on all those games? I've been under the impression that they changed team members pretty frequently back then. And I don't think them using prequels is proof of anything other than them trying to change things up and have a different character in the spotlight. The GB titles really didn't have any story elements contained therein, hell I thought I was playing as Simon in CVA until I joined the Dungeon here and it turned out it was Chris, because there's no reference to his name or any sort of year in-game or in the manual, at least not the American one.
As for Nagumo, I think she was referencing the timeline that came with PoR, which again, is using information that crystallized well after SQ came out to prove her point. It was in a post about halfway down on page 2 of this thread.
Yes, yes! Exactly! :D It's all in good fun:Well, it seems you've been taken in as well: just look at how long your post has gotten... ;)
Lol, I'm as verbose as they come, so for you, it's a long post, for me it's Monday. xD
-
First of all, can you stop taking this so damn personally? You act like I basically just typed "hur hur you're a retard" and left it at that. I gave a well thought out rebuttal and I didn't attack you at all, so quit acting like I have. You and i go back a ways so its disappointing to me that you think im attacking you and are neg repping all my comments (as well as the others of those that disagree with you, but do what you like i guess) And yes, I've read thr entire thread.
Oh, I see. I think there was a misunderstanding. When you said: "The amount of overanalysis in this thread is astounding. " it came across as mean to me. However, it's difficult to determine the tone of what somebody is saying on the internet. So, never mind my harsh tone. Also, I don't actually downvote people who disagree with me. I only downvote when I think somebody disagrees because of an argument I think is weak. For example, Lelygax disagrees with me too, but I never downvoted him. But I disgress. :P
OKay, that I understand, but again, if this "mystery woman" (who I'd never heard anything of until I read that Worlds Of Power Simon's Quest book growing up) was SO vitally important to the game's story, why is she not mentioned in game? Why no exposition at the beginning, why does no villager mention her, priest in the church, etc? And given all that, that we have no idea what on earth the designers were shooting for, this is all wild speculation and we have no reason to distrust the game or its endings based on some theory that involves a plot element that wasn't even important enough to be included in the game. If you want to talk about intentions, I'd say that is a big one; that they didn't include her in the game at all.
As someone who grew up in the NES era, played tons of games and read tons of manuals, I've never heard of a plot element that is vital to the story NOT being at least referenced in-game, and I doubt they'd let some story element get in the way of making another game, especially back then.
It's important to note that the mystery woman and Simon's girlfriend from the Worlds of Power novel are not the same character. They just happen to have similar roles. I doubt the author was aware of the Japanese storyline at all. :P
As for your actual point, it may be weird that such an important element is not mentioned in the game itself, but it's definitely canon. For example, the guidebook of the game mentions Dracula has a sixth body part, and that he is revived through this body part when Simon burns the other five in Dracula's castle. You would think this is something wacky the author of the guidebook came up with, but the PoR timeline I mentioned earlier mentions it too. Therefore, the information is definitely legitimate. It also mentions the mystery woman. So, I don't think there should be doubt about the reliability of the manual story.
I think you're reaching with this. Do we know that it was essentially the same team that worked on all those games? I've been under the impression that they changed team members pretty frequently back then. And I don't think them using prequels is proof of anything other than them trying to change things up and have a different character in the spotlight. The GB titles really didn't have any story elements contained therein, hell I thought I was playing as Simon in CVA until I joined the Dungeon here and it turned out it was Chris, because there's no reference to his name or any sort of year in-game or in the manual, at least not the American one.
H. Akamatsu is the director of all three NES games. The director of Castlevania IV confirmed this in an interview recently. He mentions CVIII was made by "the same people who made CVI and II."
As for my "they never picked up on the cliff hanger ending" argument, we have established earlier in this thread that IGA treats the NES and GB games as canon but sometimes straight up ignores things from them. However, assuming the cliff hanger is the originally intented ending, why do both Rondo and HoD, both direct sequels at the time of their release, completely ignore it? He ignores a lot of things but I can't imagine him ignoring such an important story hook. That's one big reason why I don't believe that ending is canon.
As for Nagumo, I think she was referencing the timeline that came with PoR, which again, is using information that crystallized well after SQ came out to prove her point. It was in a post about halfway down on page 2 of this thread.
I'm very confident it's in the Japanese manual as well. However, I only have acces to one translation, which contains some errors. For example, it makes the same translation mistake made by TheouAegis earlier in this thread. That's why I think it's probably in there somewhere, but the translator just skipped over it or something. Also, the PoR timeline only takes information from earlier sources. The mystery woman and Dracula's sixth body piece weren't original invention, so why should this be?
-
I believe Iga topped or at least matched SotN with AoS and OoE (from a more universal PoV) and PoR (from a personal tastes PoV).
-
You know what, I wouldn't mind getting to the bottom of this -- once and for all. I've been gathering some useful information, and here are a few links:
http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv2/documents/CV2J.txt (http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv2/documents/CV2J.txt)
http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/NewCV/manual-jcv2.htm (http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/NewCV/manual-jcv2.htm)
http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv2/manual-jacv2.htm (http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv2/manual-jacv2.htm)
http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/NewCV/manual-ecv2.htm (http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/NewCV/manual-ecv2.htm)
And, of course, it's a complete mess. Can anyone here reliably translate Japanese? I'd rather not rely upon one single source. And does anyone know who this "JPCVFAN" is supposed to be?
As for the French version, I can take care of that; and from what I've read it's a word to word translation of the American manual... which doesn't help at all.
Castlevania: The Adventure manuals:
http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/manual-gb.htm (http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/manual-gb.htm)
http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cvgb1/documents/CVAJ.txt (http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cvgb1/documents/CVAJ.txt)
http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/2/manual-jgb1.htm (http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/2/manual-jgb1.htm)
http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/NewCV/manual-egb.htm (http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/NewCV/manual-egb.htm)
The Japanese manual seems to show that Christopher did indeed come before Simon.
The American manual doesn't mention any specific name, however. And if my German isn't very good, I'm pretty sure it's another word-to-word translation of the American manual.
Simon's Quest development credits:
PROGRAMMED WITH THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTIC INVINCIBILITY AKAMATSU PERMANENCE IWASA PHILOSOPHY TOGAKUSHI MASTERPIECE KAWANISHI SENSITIVITY HATANO EXCELLENCE TERASHIMA AMBIVALENCE KUWAHARA FLOURISH HIGASA ADMIRATION OHYAMA WARM-HEART MATSUOKA SUPERIORITY MURATA SYNCHRONISM MATSUBARA CIRCUMSTANCE KONAMI
Dracula's curse credits:
Programmer:
H. Akamatsu
Y. Okuda
Sound:
Y. Sasaki
J. Funahashi
Y. Morimoto
Planner:
S. Urata
Director:
H. Akamatsu
Special thanks to:
H. Maezawa
M. Takemoto
S. Kitamoto
N. Togakushi
K. Ogawa
Two names appear in both SQ and DC: Akamatsu and Togakushi.
Adventure credits:
http://www.giantbomb.com/castlevania-the-adventure/3030-8654/credits/ (http://www.giantbomb.com/castlevania-the-adventure/3030-8654/credits/)
So far that's the best I can find...
-
Can anyone here reliably translate Japanese?
Shiroi :P
-
Oh, I see. I think there was a misunderstanding. When you said: "The amount of overanalysis in this thread is astounding. " it came across as mean to me. However, it's difficult to determine the tone of what somebody is saying on the internet. So, never mind my harsh tone. Also, I don't actually downvote people who disagree with me. I only downvote when I think somebody disagrees because of an argument I think is weak. For example, Lelygax disagrees with me too, but I never downvoted him. But I disgress. :P
OKay good. Glad we got that out of the way. :)
It's important to note that the mystery woman and Simon's girlfriend from the Worlds of Power novel are not the same character. They just happen to have similar roles. I doubt the author was aware of the Japanese storyline at all. :P
As for your actual point, it may be weird that such an important element is not mentioned in the game itself, but it's definitely canon. For example, the guidebook of the game mentions Dracula has a sixth body part, and that he is revived through this body part when Simon burns the other five in Dracula's castle. You would think this is something wacky the author of the guidebook came up with, but the PoR timeline I mentioned earlier mentions it too. Therefore, the information is definitely legitimate. It also mentions the mystery woman. So, I don't think there should be doubt about the reliability of the manual story.
Yeah I figured that they weren't the same person (that WoP book was hilarious for those who haven't read it!)
And which guidebook are you referring to? One for Simon's Quest itself or the PoR one....? Either way, Simon missing the 6th body part would be a good enough reason for the canon ending to be the right one. It's a perfect way for him to not only survive, but for Dracula to also be able to be revived. It's not really mentioned in the game, but it seems more plausible than the woman's words and at least it's referenced in a sequel game (HoD.) The villagers are idiots and don't know what they're talking about, how do we know this woman isn't a dead gossiping villager? :P
I still think our mystery woman's words are rather inconsequential given the other things we know. It just seems like kind of a random way to get Simon active. Who is she, why is the coming to him, is she good, is she evil? We don't know. And there's enough uncertainty surrounding her that I don't think she's a reliable way to argue that the canon ending isn't the right one.
H. Akamatsu is the director of all three NES games. The director of Castlevania IV confirmed this in an interview recently. He mentions CVIII was made by "the same people who made CVI and II."
As for my "they never picked up on the cliff hanger ending" argument, we have established earlier in this thread that IGA treats the NES and GB games as canon but sometimes straight up ignores things from them. However, assuming the cliff hanger is the originally intented ending, why do both Rondo and HoD, both direct sequels at the time of their release, completely ignore it? He ignores a lot of things but I can't imagine him ignoring such an important story hook. That's one big reason why I don't believe that ending is canon.
How do you feel he ignored that plot hook? If anything, Dracula coming back as a wraith rather than in his full form in HoD makes it seem like he just barely made it back after being almost completely destroyed and hadn't reached full power at that point; two things I think really support the canon ending. We know Simon missed a body part, we know Juste is his grandson so he obviously reproduced. And what other things do you think IGA ignored specifically? They each have such a threadbare story that there really doesn't seem like there's enough there to ignore in the first place.
I'm very confident it's in the Japanese manual as well. However, I only have acces to one translation, which contains some errors. For example, it makes the same translation mistake made by TheouAegis earlier in this thread. That's why I think it's probably in there somewhere, but the translator just skipped over it or something. Also, the PoR timeline only takes information from earlier sources. The mystery woman and Dracula's sixth body piece weren't original invention, so why should this be?
Again, I think there are too many variables here that could possibly be mistranslated for us to just naturally assume the ending is wrong. It's a leap to assume that the designers were incompetent and either switched the ending texts or had a logic error present. Grammatical/translation errors in a game are one thing, but actually messing up the ending like that is something I just can't believe happened.
However, even with this method, there's no guarantee that Dracula will be destroyed forever. (Note: Contributor JPCVFAN says that the line's actual
translation is "Only by this method can Dracula be permanently eliminated.")
Whaaaaat? So the line itself in question could possibly be the opposite. I wish Raven-kun was still around. Besides being a cool guy he was fluent in both Japanese and English and did some translating over at the Chapel. We don't know JPCVFAN's level of English fluency and if there's debate over that line, then we surely can't use that as the crux of the argument.
-
Some things that I've said earlier in this thread, that DoctaMario seems to have thought too:
The best ending shows Dracula's hand, showing that he would return someday. They say that Simon could destroy Dracula forever if he burned all parts, but he burned only five.
She never said to Simon resurrect Dracula, she said to him burn all Dracula parts inside his castle. Simon did it wrong leaving a part untouched (like in Evil Dead 3 when the protagonist say the wrong words for the Necronomicon) and then Dracula revives. Thats why I think Dracula isnt gone for good, since Simon didnt used the correct method. Also this woman could be lying like another NPCs about this "annihilated for good" part.
Also, since Im feeling like no one really did read that:
I've given some alternatives already, here is a newer and crazier one: Dracula was really been destroyed, but his spirit still lives. They use his relics in rituals to give a new body for him. In HoD he doesnt have a body, but in RoB Shaft does a ritual and so he acquires a new body.
-
All right. So now that we've gotten a few facts down (I'll leave it up to you all to put them in order :P):
Nagumo:
As for your actual point, it may be weird that such an important element is not mentioned in the game itself, but it's definitely canon. For example, the guidebook of the game mentions Dracula has a sixth body part, and that he is revived through this body part when Simon burns the other five in Dracula's castle. You would think this is something wacky the author of the guidebook came up with, but the PoR timeline I mentioned earlier mentions it too. Therefore, the information is definitely legitimate. It also mentions the mystery woman. So, I don't think there should be doubt about the reliability of the manual story.
Where does it say that Dracula has a sixth body part from which he revives? I couldn't find that in any of the game manuals.
Incidentally, the fact that IGA's timeline mentions it doesn't tell us anything. Remember, we're dealing with the devs' original intentions.
And why would this "mystery woman" be so important? She appears in both introductions as a benevolent fairy, there to bestow her wisdom upon a tired Simon... From the way she's presented, I'm pretty sure we're expected to take her for her word.
But why would it matter if she was mentioned or not? If anything, it would have helped your argument, since it would have meant that the manual took an even more direct approach to the story.
As for my "they never picked up on the cliff hanger ending" argument, we have established earlier in this thread that IGA treats the NES and GB games as canon but sometimes straight up ignores things from them. However, assuming the cliff hanger is the originally intented ending, why do both Rondo and HoD, both direct sequels at the time of their release, completely ignore it? He ignores a lot of things but I can't imagine him ignoring such an important story hook. That's one big reason why I don't believe that ending is canon.
I don't think that's a very strong point. Rondo and HoD both came much later, and under different development teams. And as much as I believe in IGA's good will, I don't think it'll tell us much about what the SQ team had intended at first...
Oh, and one last thing. Did you notice the color of the background in the three different SQ endings? You'd expect them to follow a logical pattern: the best ending would correspond to the most joyful colors (daytime), the good ending to the slightly more foreboding dusk, and the worst ending to the dark night. Yet that's not how they were arranged: the best ending is allotted with a dark orange, dusk-like background while the good ending receives bright midday colors. Doesn't quite make sense when you think about it...
EDIT: Ooh, there were new posts while I was writing.
And which guidebook are you referring to? One for Simon's Quest itself or the PoR one....? Either way, Simon missing the 6th body part would be a good enough reason for the canon ending to be the right one. It's a perfect way for him to not only survive, but for Dracula to also be able to be revived. It's not really mentioned in the game, but it seems more plausible than the woman's words and at least it's referenced in a sequel game (HoD.) The villagers are idiots and don't know what they're talking about, how do we know this woman isn't a dead gossiping villager? :P
I still think our mystery woman's words are rather inconsequential given the other things we know. It just seems like kind of a random way to get Simon active. Who is she, why is the coming to him, is she good, is she evil? We don't know. And there's enough uncertainty surrounding her that I don't think she's a reliable way to argue that the canon ending isn't the right one.
The "mysterious woman" was introduced with a strongly positive image: "beautiful woman"; "soft voice", "beautiful vision". Here words are reassuring, strengthening... they seem hardly evil. Of course, we don't know much about her, and she could be as evil as anything else. But judging from how the short narrative presents her and from what the backstory was intended to achieve, I still think she's meant to be taken for her word. In context, she seems more like an archetype of the 'all-knowing goddess' than a "dead, gossiping villager", as much as I like the idea. ;D
Whaaaaat? So the line itself in question could possibly be the opposite. I wish Raven-kun was still around. Besides being a cool guy he was fluent in both Japanese and English and did some translating over at the Chapel. We don't know JPCVFAN's level of English fluency and if there's debate over that line, then we surely can't use that as the crux of the argument.
Yep. Which is why I am completely, utterly confused at this point.
Lelygax:
I did read what you'd posted earlier, and I think I'd mentioned that I thought it was a pretty solid argument.
And I like the "crazier" one...
But there's still that nagging feeling of uncertainty you would feel when you play through the "best" ending. Even when I'd achieved it for the first time, and took the grave scene for granted, it felt strangely out of place.
And among other things, the best ending seems, well, worse than "good" ending. Not very intuitive, is it? That was more or less why I had found myself so interested in Nagumo's topic...
-
And which guidebook are you referring to? One for Simon's Quest itself or the PoR one....? Either way, Simon missing the 6th body part would be a good enough reason for the canon ending to be the right one. It's a perfect way for him to not only survive, but for Dracula to also be able to be revived. It's not really mentioned in the game, but it seems more plausible than the woman's words and at least it's referenced in a sequel game (HoD.)
All right. So now that we've gotten a few facts down (I'll leave it up to you all to put them in order :P):
Nagumo:Where does it say that Dracula has a sixth body part from which he revives? I couldn't find that in any of the game manuals.
Incidentally, the fact that IGA's timeline mentions it doesn't tell us anything. Remember, we're dealing with the devs' original intentions.
The guidebook I'm talking about is "Dracula II: Noroi no Fūin Kanzen Hisshōbon". The offical Japanese guidebook released for the game in 1987. Since it's such an old guidebook, and the PoR timeline references it, I think that's proof enough the guidebook reflect the developer's original intentions.
Either way, Simon missing the 6th body part would be a good enough reason for the canon ending to be the right one. It's a perfect way for him to not only survive, but for Dracula to also be able to be revived. It's not really mentioned in the game, but it seems more plausible than the woman's words and at least it's referenced in a sequel game (HoD.)
The mystery woman says that if Simon burns Dracula's body parts, he would be destroyed permanently and
he would recover from the curse. From the way it's phrased, it seems the two things aren't mutually exclusive. If one thing happens, then the other thing also happens. So, personally, I don't believe in that theory. It would make for a good retcon in the IGA canon, though.
The villagers are idiots and don't know what they're talking about, how do we know this woman isn't a dead gossiping villager? :P
I still think our mystery woman's words are rather inconsequential given the other things we know. It just seems like kind of a random way to get Simon active. Who is she, why is the coming to him, is she good, is she evil? We don't know. And there's enough uncertainty surrounding her that I don't think she's a reliable way to argue that the canon ending isn't the right one.
I mentioned before that I think a general rule of thumb in fiction is that you're supposed to take any information given at face value, unless you're given reason to doubt it's reliability. I should also point out the villagers aren't really lying. The nonsense they say is a result of bad translation.
http://bisqwit.iki.fi/cv2fin/diff (http://bisqwit.iki.fi/cv2fin/diff)
How do you feel he ignored that plot hook? If anything, Dracula coming back as a wraith rather than in his full form in HoD makes it seem like he just barely made it back after being almost completely destroyed and hadn't reached full power at that point; two things I think really support the canon ending. We know Simon missed a body part, we know Juste is his grandson so he obviously reproduced. And what other things do you think IGA ignored specifically? They each have such a threadbare story that there really doesn't seem like there's enough there to ignore in the first place.
Actually, I'm completely sure HoD doesn't follow up on CVII's ending. The "Dracula" in the game is actually an evil spirit who isn't the true Dracula. He's called "Dracula Wraith" in the game. This evil spirit was born out of Maxim's jealousy for Juste. Proof is the dialogue and this timeline (it refers to Dracula Wraith as "Fake Dracula"):
http://castlevania.armster.org/translations.php?timeline (http://castlevania.armster.org/translations.php?timeline)
Whaaaaat? So the line itself in question could possibly be the opposite. I wish Raven-kun was still around. Besides being a cool guy he was fluent in both Japanese and English and did some translating over at the Chapel. We don't know JPCVFAN's level of English fluency and if there's debate over that line, then we surely can't use that as the crux of the argument.
No. It's definitely "Only by this method will Dracula be destroyed forever". Koutei, who is Japan, confirmed it earlier in this thread. He and JPCVFAN know each other and used to run a CV website together. What he says can be trusted.
I've given some alternatives already, here is a newer and crazier one: Dracula was really been destroyed, but his spirit still lives. They use his relics in rituals to give a new body for him. In HoD he doesnt have a body, but in RoB Shaft does a ritual and so he acquires a new body.
I should point out the Dracula from CVII also appears as a spirit. So, I don't think that theory works.
http://www.oocities.org/nec43xkq3/diinfs.html (http://www.oocities.org/nec43xkq3/diinfs.html)
-
The guidebook I'm talking about is "Dracula II: Noroi no Fūin Kanzen Hisshōbon". The offical Japanese guidebook released for the game in 1987. Since it's such an old guidebook, and the PoR timeline references it, I think that's proof enough the guidebook reflect the developer's original intentions.
Oh dear, another guidebook. Could someone find a link for it? I'm pretty tired at this point... But yes, it's 1987, official, probably backed by the original team, so it's a good reference.
I mentioned before that I think a general rule of thumb in fiction is that you're supposed to take any information given at face value, unless you're given reason to doubt it's reliability. I should also point out the villagers aren't really lying. The nonsense they say is a result of bad translation.
http://bisqwit.iki.fi/cv2fin/diff (http://bisqwit.iki.fi/cv2fin/diff)
Agreed. That age of narrative experimentation hadn't quite arrived yet -- not for video games. Especially when they're presented in the way SQ does, you take take what you're told at face value.
But I've seen that you too have stumbled upon the the "biscuit" website... Hmm, it makes me hungry.
Actually, I'm completely sure HoD doesn't follow up on CVII's ending. The "Dracula" in the game is actually an evil spirit who isn't the true Dracula. He's called "Dracula Wraith" in the game. This evil spirit was born out of Maxim's jealousy for Juste. Proof is the dialogue and this timeline (it refers to Dracula Wraith as "Fake Dracula").
Yes, I remember. But the Dracula Wraith was born from Dracula's genuine remains...
No. It's definitely "Only by this method will Dracula be destroyed forever". Koutei, who is Japan, confirmed it earlier in this thread. He and JPCVFAN know each other and used to run a CV website together. What he says can be trusted.
Did he? Good, then; it seems that the translation is indeed trustworthy.
But still... Just in case:
Shiroi? Where are you? We might just need your help!
-
I should point out the Dracula from CVII also appears as a spirit. So, I don't think that theory works.
http://www.oocities.org/nec43xkq3/diinfs.html (http://www.oocities.org/nec43xkq3/diinfs.html)
You know that what you just said also acts as a reinforcement to what I said right? Since it would be strange if Dracula possessed his own nail, imagine you fighting a giant nail. xD
What I mean is that Dracula's body was destroyed when Simon burned these parts, but since this Nail remained it could regenerate his another relics. Another theory is that his relics are a personification of evil in people's hearts, so they ever returns in a dormant state.
ending 3
AND THE BATTLE
ENDED. NOW THE
PEACE AND CALM
HAVE ARRIVED
BACK AT TRANS-
YLVANIA JUST
LIVE BEFORE.
THE NAME OF
THE HERO WILL
BE ETCHED UPON
OUR MIND DEEP-
LY. HIS NAME
IS SIMMON BEL-
MONT,THAT IS
THE NAME OF
YOURSELF.
TOAST TO
YOUR 24DAYS'
BATTLE
Beat game at day 15-99. String numbers: Japanese=32-47; 48-81, English=32-47
Explanation: The word, "live", is an authentic typo in the Japanese version.
The Japanese version contains an easter egg: If the game was beat exactly on day 69 (not before, not later), an extra line is displayed after the text: SEE YOU AGAIN. The English version still contains this check, but it does not work, because the text is shorter and thus never reaches line number 80.
Well, this "See you again" shows that it wouldnt be the last game. This is open for interpretation if the next game would be a sequel or prequel, but certainly another game would be made.
Oh dear, another guidebook. Could someone find a link for it? I'm pretty tired at this point... But yes, it's 1987, official, probably backed by the original team, so it's a good reference.
Nagumo already did it in his last post. http://www.oocities.org/nec43xkq3/diinfs.html (http://www.oocities.org/nec43xkq3/diinfs.html)
edit:
Actually, I'm completely sure HoD doesn't follow up on CVII's ending. The "Dracula" in the game is actually an evil spirit who isn't the true Dracula. He's called "Dracula Wraith" in the game. This evil spirit was born out of Maxim's jealousy for Juste. Proof is the dialogue and this timeline (it refers to Dracula Wraith as "Fake Dracula"):
http://castlevania.armster.org/translations.php?timeline (http://castlevania.armster.org/translations.php?timeline)
From your link:
1748
On the day when 50 years have passed since Simon's battle, a mysterious castle appears. Is it Dracula's castle? In order to rescue his childhood friend Lydie who was kidnapped, Juste Belmont and his close friend, Maxim Kishine, enter the castle. At the end of a heroic battle, the false Dracula's castle disappears.
Game - GBA "Castlevania: Harmony of Dissonance"
Its a false Dracula's castle, not a false Dracula. Some people tend to say that its a fake Dracula while it truly isnt. A wraith is like a ghost, its Dracula's ghost.
I've used Ctrl+F to find "wraith" and "fake" in this webpage without sucess.
Wraith
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wraith is a Scottish dialectal word for "ghost," "spirit", see Ghosts in European culture.
While I've played this game a lot of time, I never saw something that shows that he isnt truly Dracula. Surely while he is "inside" Maxim he acts a little different, but starts to act more like Dracula near the end and truly like him when he regains a partial form.
From VGMuseum (http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv-hod/documents/dialogue.txt (http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv-hod/documents/dialogue.txt)):
(If you have collected all six relics and beat Maxim while wearing JB's Bracelet and Maxim's Bracelet)
Maxim : Aargh. Tha-that...that bracelet...you wore it for me...
Juste : ?! Maxim? Is that you?
Evil Maxim: Wh-why do you still live within me?! I thought you were dead!!!
Juste : Remember, Maxim!!! You're stronger than this!!!
Maxim : You-you're right..but compared to the training we had...this is nothing.
Evil Maxim: Why?! Why can I not free myself of you?!!!
Maxim : Because I choose not to free you. Juste! Finish me off!!
Evil Maxim: Aaargh...I sense a strong magic at work...
Juste : The-the remains...
<Dracula's relics which Juste had collected float into the air>
Evil Maxim: As long as I have this power, I have no need for this body! Here, have it!
Maxim : Aaaah!
<Maxim falls unconscious> <Dracula Wraith materializes>
Dracula : Hmph...I'm not stable, but your blood will once again make me whole.
Juste : Take it if you can...do not underestimate the power of Belmont...
Dracula : Ok, let us begin? I will enjoy destroying you.
-
I'd like to add to this the re-translation of the manual story that was added to a new custom intro for the CV2 re-translation patch by Bisqwit.
This is the transcript of the new intro:
http://bisqwit.iki.fi/cv2fin/dev/cv2retrans-prologue-2.9.8.txt (http://bisqwit.iki.fi/cv2fin/dev/cv2retrans-prologue-2.9.8.txt)
-
Oh, and one last thing. Did you notice the color of the background in the three different SQ endings? You'd expect them to follow a logical pattern: the best ending would correspond to the most joyful colors (daytime), the good ending to the slightly more foreboding dusk, and the worst ending to the dark night. Yet that's not how they were arranged: the best ending is allotted with a dark orange, dusk-like background while the good ending receives bright midday colors. Doesn't quite make sense when you think about it...
For what it’s worth I think the colour in the endings makes perfect sense.
The Normal ending – B & W photo
Good ending – Day
Best Ending – Sundown
Hand sequence – Night
The best ending has a reddish orange colour which corresponds with sundown. Sundown is often used in film to symbolise the end of an adventure & at the same time the promise of a new one (Think of that old western cliché where the hero rides off into the sunset)
No. It's definitely "Only by this method will Dracula be destroyed forever". Koutei, who is Japan, confirmed it earlier in this thread. He and JPCVFAN know each other and used to run a CV website together. What he says can be trusted
Koutei also said that no one on his team has very strong English, so I'm not convinced that we should rely on his translation alone. A detailed explanation of his translation would be useful for those of us who don't understand Japanese & find it difficult to see how you can go from one thing to the polar opposite in a translation.
-
But still... Just in case:
Shiroi? Where are you? We might just need your help!
Hi dearies~♥
I'm still alive, although, I am not in the mood for translations as of this moment. :-\
If you guys really insist, please keep all things I need to translate in one place, and maybe I'll take a look at it, if and when I am free.
-
Nagumo already did it in his last post. http://www.oocities.org/nec43xkq3/diinfs.html (http://www.oocities.org/nec43xkq3/diinfs.html)
edit:
From your link:
1748
On the day when 50 years have passed since Simon's battle, a mysterious castle appears. Is it Dracula's castle? In order to rescue his childhood friend Lydie who was kidnapped, Juste Belmont and his close friend, Maxim Kishine, enter the castle. At the end of a heroic battle, the false Dracula's castle disappears.
Game - GBA "Castlevania: Harmony of Dissonance"
Its a false Dracula's castle, not a false Dracula. Some people tend to say that its a fake Dracula while it truly isnt. A wraith is like a ghost, its Dracula's ghost.
What you're suggesting is grammatically impossible in English. If what you're suggesting would have been true it would have said: "Dracula's false castle". For example, you say "Dracula's large castle", not "Large Dracula's castle". :P
While I've played this game a lot of time, I never saw something that shows that he isnt truly Dracula. Surely while he is "inside" Maxim he acts a little different, but starts to act more like Dracula near the end and truly like him when he regains a partial form.
I don't think that's correct. It's explained very well here: http://www.oocities.org/nec43xkq3/hod/index.html (http://www.oocities.org/nec43xkq3/hod/index.html)
I'd like to add to this the re-translation of the manual story that was added to a new custom intro for the CV2 re-translation patch by Bisqwit.
This is the transcript of the new intro:
http://bisqwit.iki.fi/cv2fin/dev/cv2retrans-prologue-2.9.8.txt (http://bisqwit.iki.fi/cv2fin/dev/cv2retrans-prologue-2.9.8.txt)
Thank you very much, Inccubus! This clarifies a lot of things. As you can you see, the correct translation is "Dracula will be destroyed forever". So, I think we can put that discussion to rest. It also supports what I said about Dracula slowly resurrecting as the curse grows stronger. Meaning, if the curse completely consumes Simon, Dracula will come back to life.
-
Well, this "See you again" shows that it wouldnt be the last game. This is open for interpretation if the next game would be a sequel or prequel, but certainly another game would be made.
I don't think so. Rembember, it's the worst ending we're talking about, and it only appears when your playtime is ridiculously long... I strongly doubt it was intended as a "teaser" for a next game.
If anything, it would have meant: "see you again" in a different playthrough of the game, where you'll probably try, well, not to take as long.
:
From your link:
1748
On the day when 50 years have passed since Simon's battle, a mysterious castle appears. Is it Dracula's castle? In order to rescue his childhood friend Lydie who was kidnapped, Juste Belmont and his close friend, Maxim Kishine, enter the castle. At the end of a heroic battle, the false Dracula's castle disappears.
Game - GBA "Castlevania: Harmony of Dissonance"
Its a false Dracula's castle, not a false Dracula. Some people tend to say that its a fake Dracula while it truly isnt. A wraith is like a ghost, its Dracula's ghost.
I've used Ctrl+F to find "wraith" and "fake" in this webpage without sucess.
Wraith
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wraith is a Scottish dialectal word for "ghost," "spirit", see Ghosts in European culture.
While I've played this game a lot of time, I never saw something that shows that he isnt truly Dracula. Surely while he is "inside" Maxim he acts a little different, but starts to act more like Dracula near the end and truly like him when he regains a partial form.
From VGMuseum (http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv-hod/documents/dialogue.txt (http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv-hod/documents/dialogue.txt)):
(If you have collected all six relics and beat Maxim while wearing JB's Bracelet and Maxim's Bracelet)
Maxim : Aargh. Tha-that...that bracelet...you wore it for me...
Juste : ?! Maxim? Is that you?
Evil Maxim: Wh-why do you still live within me?! I thought you were dead!!!
Juste : Remember, Maxim!!! You're stronger than this!!!
Maxim : You-you're right..but compared to the training we had...this is nothing.
Evil Maxim: Why?! Why can I not free myself of you?!!!
Maxim : Because I choose not to free you. Juste! Finish me off!!
Evil Maxim: Aaargh...I sense a strong magic at work...
Juste : The-the remains...
<Dracula's relics which Juste had collected float into the air>
Evil Maxim: As long as I have this power, I have no need for this body! Here, have it!
Maxim : Aaaah!
<Maxim falls unconscious> <Dracula Wraith materializes>
Dracula : Hmph...I'm not stable, but your blood will once again make me whole.
Juste : Take it if you can...do not underestimate the power of Belmont...
Dracula : Ok, let us begin. I will enjoy destroying you.
No, I'm certain that HoD's "Dracula wraith" wasn't Dracula's genuine spirit.
First of all, if you didn't already know, the final boss that appears in the best ending is called "Dracula Wraith". You can see its name both in the dialogue at the end of the game (it's not "Dracula", but "Dracula wraith" that shows), and when you attack it in the final battle ("Dracula wraith" shows in the lower right-hand corner). They wouldn't have bothered to distinguish the names if Juste was truly fighting Dracula.
Now, you've given me the first part of the ending dialogue, but not the rest. Here's what happens after the battle:
Dracula Wraith: Argggh!!
Juste: I told you so. Do not underestimate the power of my bloodline!!
Dracula Wraith: So- so this is the power of Belmont...
Juste: Vile spawn of Maxim, you are not worthy of being my opponent.
Dracula Wraith: I will now fade from this world... But I find pleasure in this...
Dracula Wraith: With the cursed powers of yours, destiny calls you to hunt for all eternity.
The Dracula Wraith has never met a Belmont before, and discovers the bloodline's power in that very battle... It obviously isn't Dracula's true spirit.
Note that Juste calls it a "vile spawn of Maxim", and that's exactly right: the spirit that used Dracula's remains to take on a physical form is only an evil contamination of Maxim's own soul -- one he created himself when he set out to resurrect Dracula on his own, driven by jealousy and even hate. It has nothing to do with Dracula's own soul.
For what it’s worth I think the colour in the endings makes perfect sense.
The Normal ending – B & W photo
Good ending – Day
Best Ending – Sundown
Hand sequence – Night
The best ending has a reddish orange colour which corresponds with sundown. Sundown is often used in film to symbolise the end of an adventure & at the same time the promise of a new one (Think of that old western cliché where the hero rides off into the sunset)
I don't think that's the case here. Note that the bright blue colors of daytime seem far more joyful, and far more indicative of a "best" ending than the darker, orange tinge of dusk. Now, I don't believe the worst ending is there as a "black and white photo". Remember, the endings depend on how long you take to complete the game. So here's how they should have been ordered:
The worst ending: Night
The good ending: Dusk
The best ending: Daytime
See? Doesn't that make more sense? And yet that's not how it's done in the game...
I'd like to add to this the re-translation of the manual story that was added to a new custom intro for the CV2 re-translation patch by Bisqwit.
This is the transcript of the new intro:
http://bisqwit.iki.fi/cv2fin/dev/cv2retrans-prologue-2.9.8.txt (http://bisqwit.iki.fi/cv2fin/dev/cv2retrans-prologue-2.9.8.txt)
Thanks! We've finally found an alternative source.
And this one does seem to validate Nagumo's idea...
-
I mentioned before that I think a general rule of thumb in fiction is that you're supposed to take any information given at face value, unless you're given reason to doubt it's reliability. I should also point out the villagers aren't really lying. The nonsense they say is a result of bad translation.
http://bisqwit.iki.fi/cv2fin/diff (http://bisqwit.iki.fi/cv2fin/diff)
Not true actually. If you read the link further, they detail not only the things that got lost in translation, but aspects of the game that WERE flat out lies (the bit about the boatman loving garlic for example, but there are several others.)
Actually, I'm completely sure HoD doesn't follow up on CVII's ending. The "Dracula" in the game is actually an evil spirit who isn't the true Dracula. He's called "Dracula Wraith" in the game. This evil spirit was born out of Maxim's jealousy for Juste. Proof is the dialogue and this timeline (it refers to Dracula Wraith as "Fake Dracula"):
http://castlevania.armster.org/translations.php?timeline (http://castlevania.armster.org/translations.php?timeline)
It's still Dracula's essence. Maxim's jealousy+Dracula's Essence=Dracula Wraith. So it's him but it's not him. I don't know if that counts. But with that said, none of the canon had been established, so it was more like, "Dracula comes back in his full form, or not at all" at that point.
No. It's definitely "Only by this method will Dracula be destroyed forever". Koutei, who is Japan, confirmed it earlier in this thread. He and JPCVFAN know each other and used to run a CV website together. What he says can be trusted.
I think much like the importance of the mystery woman, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Especially in light of what C Belmont said about Koutei saying no one was really a strong English speaker. I'd be more inclined to believe something Shiroi translated as her English is strong. But either way, we'll agree to disagree on this one. :)
I should point out the Dracula from CVII also appears as a spirit. So, I don't think that theory works.
http://www.oocities.org/nec43xkq3/diinfs.html (http://www.oocities.org/nec43xkq3/diinfs.html)
If anything that link supports the theory that Simon missed the fang and therefore Dracula was able to come back because one of his body parts wasn't burned. Simon beats Drac and breaks the curse, but Drac is still able to return via that technicality.
-
Not true actually. If you read the link further, they detail not only the things that got lost in translation, but aspects of the game that WERE flat out lies (the bit about the boatman loving garlic for example, but there are several others.)
Sure, but they are always half truths to point you in the right direction. The game itself also indicated this in the Japanese version because the villager sometimes say "rumor has it", and so on. So, I don't think you can use that argument to say that our mystery woman was lying to Simon.
It's still Dracula's essence. Maxim's jealousy+Dracula's Essence=Dracula Wraith. So it's him but it's not him. I don't know if that counts. But with that said, none of the canon had been established, so it was more like, "Dracula comes back in his full form, or not at all" at that point.
Sure. But the Dracula Wraith didn't exist until about one year before HoD's events. Therefore, it's impossible for Dracula's hand from CVII to be the Dracula Wraith. Trust me, I considered that possibility before. :P
I think much like the importance of the mystery woman, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Especially in light of what C Belmont said about Koutei saying no one was really a strong English speaker. I'd be more inclined to believe something Shiroi translated as her English is strong. But either way, we'll agree to disagree on this one. :)
Actually, Inccubus linked to an alternate translation by another person who translated it the same way as Koutei and JPCVFAN. It's the same guy who translated the game's dialogue, so you can't say his English is also insufficient. :P
If anything that link supports the theory that Simon missed the fang and therefore Dracula was able to come back because one of his body parts wasn't burned. Simon beats Drac and breaks the curse, but Drac is still able to return via that technicality.
That's impossible because Simon could only break the curse until he burned all body parts. Dracula bursts into flames when you defeat him, so I assume that Simon burned the final body part at that moment and then broke the curse.
-
What you're suggesting is grammatically impossible in English. If what you're suggesting would have been true it would have said: "Dracula's false castle". For example, you say "Dracula's large castle", not "Large Dracula's castle". :P
Its not a suggestion, its indeed what is written in this page. a "'s" after something means that its talking about something owned by this person.
I don't think that's correct. It's explained very well here: http://www.oocities.org/nec43xkq3/hod/index.html (http://www.oocities.org/nec43xkq3/hod/index.html)
Okay, even so its Dracula, a incomplete Dracula like I've said earlier. Also its not a official explation, but even so Im not discarding it.
I don't think so. Rembember, it's the worst ending we're talking about, and it only appears when your playtime is ridiculously long... I strongly doubt it was intended as a "teaser" for a next game.
If anything, it would have meant: "see you again" in a different playthrough of the game, where you'll probably try, well, not to take as long.
Please, re-read it or go read it in bisqwit's website, this message only appears on the best ending and isnt related to a variable flag, only the hand is.
Now, you've given me the first part of the ending dialogue, but not the rest. Here's what happens after the battle.
Sorry thats not my intention, I've only pasted everything that I've seen, I forgot about the dialogue that happens after that. Even so Simon Wraith is named Shimon in the japanese version IIRC correctly, me or someone else would need to check that. While Shimon is meant to be a pun, Dracula isnt.
I don't think that's the case here. Note that the bright blue colors of daytime seem far more joyful, and far more indicative of a "best" ending than the darker, orange tinge of dusk. Now, I don't believe the worst ending is there as a "black and white photo". Remember, the endings depend on how long you take to complete the game. So here's how they should have been ordered:
The worst ending: Night
The good ending: Dusk
The best ending: Daytime
See? Doesn't that make more sense? And yet that's not how it's done in the game...
This doesnt seem to change anything, since the game itself doesnt happens in one day only. Even so I compliment you because this explanation is very good.
Sure. But the Dracula Wraith didn't exist until about one year before HoD's events. Therefore, it's impossible for Dracula's hand from CVII to be the Dracula Wraith. Trust me, I considered that possibility before. :P
Sure, because no one found it until then. Only because they dont discovered something yet, doesnt means that it doesnt exists. We only need to take a look in HoD to see that Dracula was in a very weak state.
Actually, Inccubus linked to an alternate translation by another person who translated it the same way as Koutei and JPCVFAN. It's the same guy who translated the game's dialogue, so you can't say his English is also insufficient. :P
Well, we should need to check that, I've noticed that his translation in Finnish have some puns adapted while its left out in the English version, being a translation without adapting the joke. This shows that maybe he had some difficulty to translate it, so while its very well translated maybe something could've slipped.
That's impossible because Simon could only break the curse until he burned all body parts. Dracula bursts into flames when you defeat him, so I assume that Simon burned the final body part at that moment and then broke the curse.
Are you being serious? Almost all enemies burns when they die in a Castlevania game, its really difficult to say it now, since we dont know if self-combustion still counts. :-\
But remember that Dracula would return when the curse kills Simon, here he returned before that, maybe the curse was broken because Dracula has been defeated?
Also try to dont take it personally, but you are trying to act like some old user using "impossible" in almost every response. Only wanted to point your that since I've never seen you act like that before, so if someone is hurting you in some way is better to talk with this user instead of holding this grudge and acting like that.
-
Now, I don't believe the worst ending is there as a "black and white photo".
Well it certainly can’t be night because the hand sequence shows what the night palette looks like and its colouring even closely matches how night is depicted in the rest of the game.
Note that the bright blue colors of daytime seem far more joyful and far more indicative of a "best" ending”
Personally I think the day colours just look boring & undramatic, even the shadow of the grave in the endings seems like it was made to fit with a more dramatic time of day. You’re also assuming that the “best” ending must necessarily be a happy one but all it needs to do is reward the player somehow. If you examine the endings next to each other you will notice that in the order the game uses the player is given increasingly more for their effort and the best ending is the longest sequence with the most reward.
-
Sure, but they are always half truths to point you in the right direction. The game itself also indicated this in the Japanese version because the villager sometimes say "rumor has it", and so on. So, I don't think you can use that argument to say that our mystery woman was lying to Simon.
Not always. I wasnt really trying to use that to make the case that she was lying, I guess the big problem we have is that the different versions of the game say different things. So in a way, we almost have different versions of the same story. And given that, I almost
Don't see the point of debating this any further.
Sure. But the Dracula Wraith didn't exist until about one year before HoD's events. Therefore, it's impossible for Dracula's hand from CVII to be the Dracula Wraith. Trust me, I considered that possibility before. :P
I know the hand isn't the Dracula Wraith. What I was saying was that back around CV2 Dracula was either alive or dead, there were no ghostly versions of him because they hadnt gotten that far into thr canon yet to establish that he could return in a less than physical form.
Actually, Inccubus linked to an alternate translation by another person who translated it the same way as Koutei and JPCVFAN. It's the same guy who translated the game's dialogue, so you can't say his English is also insufficient. :P
Honestly that jive looked like some fanfic stuff. Was it a translation of a cutscene or something? All the stage directions and stuff. Is it supposed to be a translation of the Jap manual? I'd still be more inclined to believe Shiroui than some random guy with all sorts of stage plotting around it. But it's whatever.
That's impossible because Simon could only break the curse until he burned all body parts. Dracula bursts into flames when you defeat him, so I assume that Simon burned the final body part at that moment and then broke the curse.
So then he didn't break thr curse because according to the guidebook you mentioned, there was a 6th body part we don't obtain in the game.
At this juncture I think I'm out. Seeing as his we have to rely on translations (which are based on the translator's whims really, as we've found out from the translations of the game's text) I just see us going roujd and round on this. I don feel the mystery woman or her words are that important to the story because they aren't referenced in the game, and as we know, Simon lived on, yet Dracula came back. How? DRACULA'S MAGIC!! (dun dun dunnnnnn)
-
Its not a suggestion, its indeed what is written in this page. a "'s" after something means that its talking about something owned by this person.
Yes, the castle is owned by the false Dracula. There's no other way to interpret it. Ask any native English speaking person on this board. :P
Okay, even so its Dracula, a incomplete Dracula like I've said earlier. Also its not a official explation, but even so Im not discarding it.
What I linked to uses evidence from the game itself to proof that it's correct. I don't want to sound arrogant, but that is the offical explanation.
Sure, because no one found it until then. Only because they dont discovered something yet, doesnt means that it doesnt exists. We only need to take a look in HoD to see that Dracula was in a very weak state.
If you take a look at the link I posted, you can see it's impossible for the Dracula Wraith to exists before 1748. To follow the simple explanation from the website:
Wicked spirit + Dracula's remains = Dracula Wraith
The wicked spirit is Maxim's alternate persona created because of the power of Dracula's remains. Although Dracula's remains existed in 1698, Maxim's wicked spirit did not. Therefore, it's not possible for the Dracula Wraith to exist at that time.
Are you being serious? Almost all enemies burns when they die in a Castlevania game, its really difficult to say it now, since we dont know if self-combustion still counts. :-\
What's your point? Combustion is still combustion. It counts. :P
But remember that Dracula would return when the curse kills Simon, here he returned before that, maybe the curse was broken because Dracula has been defeated?
Technically, he returned as a ghost. That doesn't count as a revival because he's still dead. I think when the curse reaches it's peak and Simon dies, it would result in Dracula actually coming back to life. I think Simon broke the curse in the end because Dracula's last body part was burned (which you can clearly see since Dracula has a pretty elaborate burning animation when he is defeated).
Also try to dont take it personally, but you are trying to act like some old user using "impossible" in almost every response. Only wanted to point your that since I've never seen you act like that before, so if someone is hurting you in some way is better to talk with this user instead of holding this grudge and acting like that.
Don't worry, I'm just being objective. Some of the things you suggested are not compatible with the storyline. I don't mean to offend anyone when I say that.
Not always. I wasnt really trying to use that to make the case that she was lying, I guess the big problem we have is that the different versions of the game say different things. So in a way, we almost have different versions of the same story. And given that, I almost
Don't see the point of debating this any further.
I don't see the point either because I don't understand the relevance of it. :P The American version is different because of poor localization. OK, what's your point? The Japanese storyline always takes precedence over the English storyline because the Japanese version is the original version of the game. In any case, just ignore what the American version says.
I know the hand isn't the Dracula Wraith. What I was saying was that back around CV2 Dracula was either alive or dead, there were no ghostly versions of him because they hadnt gotten that far into thr canon yet to establish that he could return in a less than physical form.
Dracula II: Noroi no Fūin Kanzen Hisshōbo says Dracula appears as a ghost at the end of the game.
Honestly that jive looked like some fanfic stuff. Was it a translation of a cutscene or something? All the stage directions and stuff. Is it supposed to be a translation of the Jap manual? I'd still be more inclined to believe Shiroui than some random guy with all sorts of stage plotting around it. But it's whatever.
Bisqwit wanted to add a new custom intro for his re-translation of Simon's Quest. That explains all the stage direction stuff. Because he faithfully translated the dialogue, you can also assume he did the same thing with the intro. I don't think it's fair how my evidence keeps getting dismissed. I proofed three times already what the correct translation is.
So then he didn't break thr curse because according to the guidebook you mentioned, there was a 6th body part we don't obtain in the game.
Simon burns the body part when he defeats Dracula, though. That's the moment he breaks the curse. Not before.
-
Bisqwit wanted to add a new custom intro for his re-translation of Simon's Quest. That explains all the stage direction stuff. Because he faithfully translated the dialogue, you can also assume he did the same thing with the intro. I don't think it's fair how my evidence keeps getting dismissed. I proofed three times already what the correct translation is.
I'm not trying to be dismissive (although you did your fair share of being dismissive in the first couple exchanges we had) but there wasn't any context to that link Inccubus posted. It looks like a mockup of a cutscene or something and there's no indication that that was supposed to be a translation of the manual. If that's what it is, then I believe you, but you guys can't just come up posting links without context and expect the rest of us to just take your word for it, especially not if you're trying to use it as proof of your already shaky point. :P
Simon burns the body part when he defeats Dracula, though. That's the moment he breaks the curse. Not before.
Is the fang already on Dracula's person? If not where does it come from since Simon never possesses it in game? The way I looked at it, if he doesn't burn all the body parts, then Dracula's defeat at Simon's hands was more like a "KO" rather than death. Maybe KO'ing Dracula was enough to lift the curse somehow. I don't know, this is all speculation.
-
I think this is a good point to break off the discussion. I don't get anything new to say. Let's agree to disagree for now. Since we argued for so long I think we almost deserve to get a definite answer somehow. :P
However, if anyone wants to talk about another aspect of my theory, feel free to do so.
-
Yup, seems we've gone as far as we can go here. Yet it shouldn't be so difficult. I had hoped all of the links I'd piled up on my other post could come to good use. Well, it seems they'll be for another time.
I'm curious as to why so many translations of what's essentially the same text can have such contradictory meanings. There aren't exactly that many ways in which to translate a language. It shouldn't get this confusing...
Please, re-read it or go read it in bisqwit's website, this message only appears on the best ending and isnt related to a variable flag, only the hand is.
Here's the text from bisqwit's website:
Beat game at day 15-99. String numbers: Japanese=32-47; 48-81, English=32-47
Explanation: The word, "live", is an authentic typo in the Japanese version.
The Japanese version contains an easter egg: If the game was beat exactly on day 69 (not before, not later), an extra line is displayed after the text: SEE YOU AGAIN. The English version still contains this check, but it does not work, because the text is shorter and thus never reaches line number 80.
So it is from the worst ending, and you need to take 69 days to beat the game to obtain it.
Nagumo:
I'll grant you a few questions. :)
How are you considering transitioning CVI-III's classic style to a more... IGA-ish approach? Does that mean a full switch to the Metroidvania gameplay style, or should it be more of the compromise? Unless you were just commenting about the story or the art style?
-
Here's the text from bisqwit's website:So it is from the worst ending, and you need to take 69 days to beat the game to obtain it.
.... :)
.
.
.
.
I cant believe that I made this mistake!!!
Phoenix Wright's Breakdown (With Music) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2_Xtqr4bCQ#)
I've remembered something only now, Castlevania had different names in Japan, so this is really strange. CV1 is Akumajou Dracula and CV2 is Dracula II, until this part I can understand, since Dracula's castle barely appears in CV2. But why CV3 is named Akumajou Densetsu if its barely tells something about the castle?
Now we have also Dracula Densetsu that is Castlevania Adventure, a game that doesnt show anything about Dracula backstory like CV3 did.
I know that its just names, but maybe this can be holding a hidden meaning in it.
-
I think this is a good point to break off the discussion. I don't get anything new to say. Let's agree to disagree for now. Since we argued for so long I think we almost deserve to get a definite answer somehow. :P
However, if anyone wants to talk about another aspect of my theory, feel free to do so.
Agreed. Interesting debate though. I learned a few things about a game I thought I knew everything about. I wonder if one of our Japanese speaking members could get in touch with someone who worked on the games and glean a little info to get more concrete answers?
I'm curious as to why so many translations of what's essentially the same text can have such contradictory meanings. There aren't exactly that many ways in which to translate a language. It shouldn't get this confusing...
There's an art to translation. It's a matter of the translator deciding which words preserve thr meaning of the original text the best and different translators have different opinions which can change meanings as languages evolve. It's part of why the Bible is so misunderstood sometimes.
-
Nagumo:
I'll grant you a few questions. :)
How are you considering transitioning CVI-III's classic style to a more... IGA-ish approach? Does that mean a full switch to the Metroidvania gameplay style, or should it be more of the compromise? Unless you were just commenting about the story or the art style?
I would personally go for something entirely original, but if I had to choose I would go for full-on metroidvania. No point in adhering to the original besides the (tweaked) story and characters, I think.
-
.... :)
.
.
.
.
I cant believe that I made this mistake!!!
Phoenix Wright's Breakdown (With Music) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2_Xtqr4bCQ#)
I laughed to pieces when I saw that.
Funny how the same animations you've seen for years can still surprise you...
I've remembered something only now, Castlevania had different names in Japan, so this is really strange. CV1 is Akumajou Dracula and CV2 is Dracula II, until this part I can understand, since Dracula's castle barely appears in CV2. But why CV3 is named Akumajou Densetsu if its barely tells something about the castle?
Now we have also Dracula Densetsu that is Castlevania Adventure, a game that doesnt show anything about Dracula backstory like CV3 did.
I know that its just names, but maybe this can be holding a hidden meaning in it.
That's another mystery. Conjecture as we may, I don't think we'll ever solve this one either. But it's always fun to try. ;)
Agreed. Interesting debate though. I learned a few things about a game I thought I knew everything about. I wonder if one of our Japanese speaking members could get in touch with someone who worked on the games and glean a little info to get more concrete answers?
If we could achieve that, we'd strike gold. I'm not sure what we could achieve that others haven't already (these people aren't known to be generous with information), but it's always worth a try. I'm all for it.
There's an art to translation. It's a matter of the translator deciding which words preserve thr meaning of the original text the best and different translators have different opinions which can change meanings as languages evolve. It's part of why the Bible is so misunderstood sometimes.
I happen to know that firsthand. Yet even then, alternative translations shouldn't be so inconsistent as to give entirely contradictory meanings... I still feel there's something we're missing in that matter...
I would personally go for something entirely original, but if I had to choose I would go for full-on metroidvania. No point in adhering to the original besides the (tweaked) story and characters, I think.
Well, now. This thread has now gotten so much more interesting.
-
I'm not trying to be dismissive (although you did your fair share of being dismissive in the first couple exchanges we had) but there wasn't any context to that link Inccubus posted. It looks like a mockup of a cutscene or something and there's no indication that that was supposed to be a translation of the manual. If that's what it is, then I believe you, but you guys can't just come up posting links without context and expect the rest of us to just take your word for it, especially not if you're trying to use it as proof of your already shaky point. :P
I'd like to add to this the re-translation of the manual story that was added to a new custom intro for the CV2 re-translation patch by Bisqwit.
This is the transcript of the new intro:
http://bisqwit.iki.fi/cv2fin/dev/cv2retrans-prologue-2.9.8.txt (http://bisqwit.iki.fi/cv2fin/dev/cv2retrans-prologue-2.9.8.txt)
I explained what it was in my original post. I don't see how that can be interpreted as being out of context.
I'm curious as to why so many translations of what's essentially the same text can have such contradictory meanings. There aren't exactly that many ways in which to translate a language. It shouldn't get this confusing...
I should add that Japanese is difficult to translate because it relies heavily on context. More so than any of the romance languages.
I would personally go for something entirely original, but if I had to choose I would go for full-on metroidvania. No point in adhering to the original besides the (tweaked) story and characters, I think.
I imagine it would be something like the group mode in Dawn of Sorrow.
-
I explained what it was in my original post. I don't see how that can be interpreted as being out of context.
Does that mean we all can agree what the correct translation is? Or do we need to bring in another expert? :P
Well, now. This thread has now gotten so much more interesting.
I was thinking yesterday how a CV3 reimagining would be the perfect opportunity to make its story actually fit it with the IGA story arc. As it stands now, it feels really disconnected. Not to mention, you actually have to ignore stuff to make it work. Seems such a waste of all the cool plot ideas that the game has, but have to be ignored so that it can fit into a larger framework.
For example, they could tie in the story with LoI, CoD, SotN, and maybe elements from the radio drama and Judgment. Besides the original cast they could add a whole bunch of characters in order to help expand the story. The ones I thought up so far are: Lisa, Lyudmil (Alucard's friend), Master Librarian (he and Alucard have a history, so it would make sense to fit that in somewhere), Hector, Isaac, and maybe Sara (as the Vampire Killer's consciousness). So, that would allow for plenty of extra content, I'd say.
-
I was thinking yesterday how a CV3 reimagining would be the perfect opportunity to make its story actually fit it with the IGA story arc. As it stands now, it feels really disconnected. Not to mention, you actually have to ignore stuff to make it work. Seems such a waste of all the cool plot ideas that the game has, but have to be ignored so that it can fit into a larger framework.
For example, they could tie in the story with LoI, CoD, SotN, and maybe elements from the radio drama and Judgment. Besides the original cast they could add a whole bunch of characters in order to help expand the story. The ones I thought up so far are: Lisa, Lyudmil (Alucard's friend), Master Librarian (he and Alucard have a history, so it would make sense to fit that in somewhere), Hector, Isaac, and maybe Sara (as the Vampire Killer's consciousness). So, that would allow for plenty of extra content, I'd say.
Lyudmil is Alucard's butler.
Yes. that would be a nice retelling for CV3. I'd buy that game. :D
-
For example, they could tie in the story with LoI, CoD, SotN, and maybe elements from the radio drama and Judgment. Besides the original cast they could add a whole bunch of characters in order to help expand the story. The ones I thought up so far are: Lisa, Lyudmil (Alucard's friend), Master Librarian (he and Alucard have a history, so it would make sense to fit that in somewhere), Hector, Isaac, and maybe Sara (as the Vampire Killer's consciousness). So, that would allow for plenty of extra content, I'd say.
While I'm all for extra content in CV3, IGA introduced nothing that I'd like to see brought over into it.... well, maybe the Librarian. He was kinda neat.