Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: Nagumo on October 25, 2013, 01:02:35 PM
-
Assuming you care. Poll is self-explanatory, and motivation is encouraged. :)
For myself, I like to see the next game to have a completely original story again. I like IGA's timeline but I think it's time the series is no longer defined by one single set of stories and characters. I also don't like how some older games don't really fit with the ones IGA made. So I wouldn't mind seeing it demolished and being rewriten. Seeing a sequel or a prequel to CotM would be very intriguing, but sadly not something I see happening. Perhaps if Ko-G would direct another game in the series again?
-
Considering IGA's timeline is now quite a mess, I'd say new timeline.
Let LoS2 end the LoS timeline.
Let someone make a 1999 game to end IGA's timeline for good.
Make something new and good.
-
No LOS in the poll? this timeline is still virgin and has the potential to be explode for good in the right hands.
-
The next Castlevania game should take place in the timeline where vampire hunters go into a giant castle filled with monsters on a mission to kill Dracula.
-
IGA's timeline still stands as the official canon for the series. There's a good chance Konami will return to it.
The 1999 game is a must; otherwise, there are still a few spots here and there that can be filled for a new game, if it comes to that.
Of course, we're bound to reach a point where the original timeline will have become overcharged; Castlevania will eventually need to move on to something new. For that purpose, I'll echo Chernabogue's thoughts:
Let LoS2 end the LoS timeline.
Let someone make a 1999 game to end IGA's timeline for good.
Make something new and good.
No LOS in the poll? this timeline is still virgin and has the potential to be explode for good in the right hands.
No. Lords of Shadow leaves with MercurySteam. That's how it was intended to end, and that's how it will end.
Seeing a sequel or a prequel to CotM would be very intriguing, but sadly not something I see happening. Perhaps if Ko-G would direct another game in the series again?
How I'd love to see that. But I don't quite see it happening, either.
-
Just restart the series for real this time. CV1, no gimmicks, no TWEESTS, just Simon vs Dracula.
-
Hard to choose. I want to see the 1999 game wrap up the saga of the official canon, but I also want to see the series get a "proper" reboot. Flame said it best:
Just restart the series for real this time. CV1, no gimmicks, no TWEESTS, just Simon vs Dracula.
We need to go back to this. Back to the classic style that defined what Castlevania was. Then we can go from there (hopefully without any plot holes and predictable, shoehorned storytelling). A simple story; Dracula is Vlad, Dracula is bad, and the hero is the lone Belmont (male or female) who must enter the castle alone and bring him down or all of humanity is doomed.
-
Putting the franchise through another reboot won't isn't guaranteed to help. Overwriting Castlevania again won't make it any cleaner -- it'll just confuse whatever's left of sense in the timeline.
And reboots without gimmicks or twists don't survive nowadays. You can't copy CV1's threadbare story and expect the game to succeed in today's market.
-
It sure would be nice if there was a game that was a continuation of one my stupid fanfics.
You can't copy CV1's threadbare story and expect the game to succeed in today's market.
But Dark Souls did exactly this and it was celebrated as artsy experimental "minimalist" crap.
-
I'd like to see the next Castlevania game return to the original timeline. I'm not a fan of throwing away 20+ years of story to start all over again. It's not fair to the fans.
However I wouldn't say no to a couple of non-canon standalone games either.
-
I couldn't care less. It could be Kid Dracula for all that matters.
-
I put Iga because I feel there are many questions still needing to be answered. However, it seems that they never will be. But in the final word of The Count of Monte Cristo "Wait and hope"
With that being said I think a new timeline could be in order. All I want is a Belmont wielding a whip and tossing sub weapons to make his way through a castle that's impossibly huge while killing monsters and finally having a showdown with Dracula himself. Obviously I want things like The Grim Reaper, candles, hearts, wallmeat, The Belmont Pimp Strut, etc. Honestly they could keep crapping out games like what I've described and I wouldn't get bored of them. All in all I just want some Classicvania.
-
I put Iga because I feel there are many questions still needing to be answered. However, it seems that they never will be. But in the final word of The Count of Monte Cristo "Wait and hope"
Ah, that. Attendre et espérer.
Though surely it was in a different context... ;D
In any case, it actually looks as if "who cares" is the most sensible answer here. After all, as long as we get those classic CV mechanics, the rest is secondary.
-
I couldn't care less. It could be Kid Dracula for all that matters.
I'd love a new Kid Dracula game. Sometimes these games, and even this generation of gamers, takes themselves way to seriously.
-
I wish they'd just start over, and go back to a more Hammer Horror-inspired game. Create a seamless blend of action and platforming. It could be serious or campy...I'd like it either way.
-
I wish they'd just start over, and go back to a more Hammer Horror-inspired game. Create a seamless blend of action and platforming. It could be serious or campy...I'd like it either way.
This. Something like Flame suggested, Belmont Vs Dracula. No twist shit, no "You aren't going to BELIEVE who turns out to be Dracula!". No Belmont is Dracula, not Dracula is Belmont, just keep it simple and to the point. I think the result of problems with story has to do with out of control plot ideas. LoS is able to nip them in the bud because it's not a long continuity. IGA got out of control. Now, that's not saying you can't add a good story to the simple "Simon Vs Dracula" plot. You can. You can flesh out Simon Belmont, just as much as you can flesh out Dracula(again, would love the simple, "He's fuckin' VLAD TEPES!! No Mathias or Gabriel... just Vlad... y'know, inspired by the REAL Vlad III? Yeah, HIM!!".). They can always write something good to allow character growth. And I'd hope it doesn't have anything to do with a "betrayal" story. Keep it simple. spare us the overused plot device shit.
-
^^^ Word 8)
-
Oh gosh, I want everything, so I'm not sure what I want the "next" one to be. I'd like a return to the canon "Iga" universe because I'm so attached to it, but after accepting that Iga is gone and that it might go to another Western studio, I am more willing to let that timeline go. Wouldn't mind if the series floated around with other continuities until it eventually makes it back to a Japanese developer. But I'd like it to have some heavy nods to earlier non-Iga games. I think I would enjoy it most if they remade Legends to use as a new starting point for a new series, then kinda followed the basic outline of the original pre-Iga timeline. I'd love it if they could list all sorts of games that were not part of Iga's timeline to be a part of this timeline, but I think most people have forgotten about those games, so better to do re-imaginations to remind people. Not saying they actually should do something like this, but I'd like it.
-
Every single timeline listed in the poll is ok with me.
Just don't return to the LoS timeline since it is done.
-
I'm hoping for a new direction for the series. Just give some good gameplay and music and I could care less about the rest.
-
Captain N continuity, just to see what would happen. ;D
-
Captain N continuity, just to see what would happen. ;D
Oh God, that would be hilarious! And for shits and giggles when you do certain button configurations, Simon takes off his shirt and flexes his arm muscles lol!
-
Being a fan since the original series, its tough to redefine this series multiple times. Lords of Shadows has really tried to re-connect some missing dots, and establish itself in a unique way. Although not everyone is happy with change, I think if it could continue, it could go through a generations storyline of Belmonts and others we've met before, but haven't had the chance to go on further adventures.
-
Captain N continuity, just to see what would happen. ;D
That would consist of Simon looking into a mirror saying "You don't look so bad yourself, Simon Belmont" :P
I believe the 2d games should follow the IGA continuity, much as some people are tired of Igavania the more classic games were about Dracula continuously being resurrected, also the Battle of 1999 direly needs to be made into a game and be called "..... of Sorrow"
For 3d (or god forbid 2d) / console games, following an entirely new continuity would be better. Gabriel himself in the LOS universe worked really well, but Trevor/ Alucard and Simon just weren't as memorable. Castlevania doesn't need another remake, it just needs reinventing. As long as that 3d (or 2d) game has some fundamental elements like whipping candles, a hauntingly gothic ambience, medusa heads, fast paced platforming and the loss of LOS' puzzles I'm on board.
-
Battle of 1999 or GTFO, as simple as that. After, Konami can do whatever they want. But first I need my conclusion to the original timeline: a 2D Castlevania to end all 2D Castlevanias.
-
Battle of 1999 or GTFO, as simple as that. After, Konami can do whatever they want. But first I need my conclusion to the original timeline: a 2D Castlevania to end all 2D Castlevanias.
We can wish all we want. I too would like that...
But as for the near future, I'm going pessimistic and say, "It ain't gonna happen".
-
end of the old timeline, or at least a variant of the old line, a game with updated 2D graphics (like Dragon Crown)
-
Battle of 1999 or GTFO, as simple as that. After, Konami can do whatever they want. But first I need my conclusion to the original timeline: a 2D Castlevania to end all 2D Castlevanias.
I'd certainly hope it won't "end" all 2D Castlevanias. We're already sorely missing them as it is.
We can wish all we want. I too would like that...
But as for the near future, I'm going pessimistic and say, "It ain't gonna happen".
We really don't know. But I'm actually seeing a return to the classic timeline as a good opportunity for Konami in Castlevania's near future.
-
I think the classic continuity is already too messed up to bother going back to, as much as I loved the earlier games.
Even making the 1999 game doesn't really feel necessary to me, as they've already told everyone basically everything that happens to it and moved on from there.
-
Dragonslayer i think you'll like the reboot mig and i are making. It makes dracula actually dracula again.
It's a fan game but i think our timeline is superior to all of them. I can't wait for all of you to get a chance to know it.
-
I say go for a reboot. The LoS timeline is ending with LoS2 and the original timeline is such a mess. The games were good individually, but when you put the pre-LoS games on the timeline, it was such a mess (most likely IGA's fault). What we really need is a reboot with the classic elements that made the early games good:
1)Dracula is simply very powerful vampire. Nothing more. 2)He has a demonic castle filled with monsters that our character has to fight through to get to him. 3)Our character is a vampire hunter of the Belmont clan. 4) He/she uses a magical whip and wields holy power. 5)He/she uses the classic sub-weapons.
As long as future games retain these elements, I don't think that any of us will have a problem. I just hope that if whoever does the series next plans on a more substantial storyline, it is well thought out and has a clear plan so that there aren't any plot holes.
-
As long as future games retain these elements, I don't think that any of us will have a problem.
Not sure about anyone else, but I would.
I want the castlevania series to have more depth than that.
I want to be able to see the focus not only on a belmont/hunter, but also other heroes who do not wield a whip.
Also want to see Dracula's character fleshed out, not him simply being a "poweful vampire" and us not knowing his history and why he does what he does.
I personally would like to see them reboot it and take elements from Bram Stoker's Dracula but do their own twist on Dracula's origin.
The original series tried to do this, but I want to see it perfected with a possible reboot.
-
I want to be able to see the focus not only on a belmont/hunter, but also other heroes who do not wield a whip.
So long as Dracula is not their villain to fight then I would have no problems with this suggestion. One of the main points of Castlevania is Belmont vs Dracula. No one else save for a Belmont can even hope to kill Dracula. 1) They do not have the vampirekiller and 2) they do not have Belmont blood in them. And those two elements were part of the CV story long before IGA took the reigns. If there is other hunters then they should tackle other evils that exist in the CV universe. Essentially they would star in Castlevania Gaidens that run parallel to the main Castlevania story, but not interfere with the main story over-all. Just add to it to help deepen the lore a bit. Part of the mess up with the original canon was that IGA essentially made it so anyone could kill Dracula thus downgrading the status/importance of the Belmont clan in the CV story. If anyone can kill Dracula then what's the point of having the Belmont family in the first place? It's that kind of storytelling that throws it all right out the window. And as much as I like to play a non-Belmont every once in a while I not like the idea that just anyone can kill the Count. That's a Belmont's job.
-
This. Something like Flame suggested, Belmont Vs Dracula. No twist shit, no "You aren't going to BELIEVE who turns out to be Dracula!". No Belmont is Dracula, not Dracula is Belmont, just keep it simple and to the point. I think the result of problems with story has to do with out of control plot ideas. LoS is able to nip them in the bud because it's not a long continuity. IGA got out of control. Now, that's not saying you can't add a good story to the simple "Simon Vs Dracula" plot. You can. You can flesh out Simon Belmont, just as much as you can flesh out Dracula(again, would love the simple, "He's fuckin' VLAD TEPES!! No Mathias or Gabriel... just Vlad... y'know, inspired by the REAL Vlad III? Yeah, HIM!!".). They can always write something good to allow character growth. And I'd hope it doesn't have anything to do with a "betrayal" story. Keep it simple. spare us the overused plot device shit.
We see this plot enough that I think we need to give if an official name.
I say that from here on if the plot or the big twist is "Let's see who Dracula really!" then the game is a Scoobyvania.
-
Part of the mess up with the original canon was that IGA essentially made it so anyone could kill Dracula thus downgrading the status/importance of the Belmont
I disagree.
Anyone?
He made it where ANYONE could beat Dracula?
Lets recap here
1. is his son who's shares powers similar to his.
2.Is Devel Forgemasters said to have power that rival Death's
3.Is Shanoa who used his own power against him
4.Is the Morris clan who wield the same bane of evil whip the Belmonts use.
So how is that "just anyone"?
You make it sound like IGA made it where any kind of average Hunter with a sword or bow could stroll in and kill Dracula when that is not the case.
And even then the Belmonts STILL reined supreme amongst all of them, something IGA constantly pointed out in each one of his games whether it was Symphony of the night, Dawn of Sorrow or Portrait of Ruin.
The only thing that changed was the focus not entirely being on them, but their importance remained.
Hell, it was a Belmont who IGA had finally kill Dracula for good, so no, I don't think IGA made it to where the Belmonts should not have existed in the first place, especially considering the fact that their powers still reined supreme amongst all vampire hunters, and it was a Belmont who finally killed Dracula in the end.
-
;)
-
I disagree.
Anyone?
He made it where ANYONE could beat Dracula?
Lets recap here
1. is his son who's shares powers similar to his.
2.Is Devel Forgemasters said to have power that rival Death's
3.Is Shanoa who used his own power against him
4.Is the Morris clan who wield the same bane of evil whip the Belmonts use.
So how is that "just anyone"?
You make it sound like IGA made it where any kind of average Hunter with a sword or bow could stroll in and kill Dracula when that is not the case.
And even then the Belmonts STILL reined supreme amongst all of them, something IGA constantly pointed out in each one of his games whether it was Symphony of the night, Dawn of Sorrow or Portrait of Ruin.
The only thing that changed was the focus not entirely being on them, but their importance remained.
Hell, it was a Belmont who IGA had finally kill Dracula for good, so no, I don't think IGA made it to where the Belmonts should not have existed in the first place, especially considering the fact that their powers still reined supreme amongst all vampire hunters, and it was a Belmont who finally killed Dracula in the end.
This, but you missed a few details:
1) Dracula wasn't at his full power when Hector beat him
2) Dracula was only toying with Shanoa (he never used a demon "true" form in the battle). She only won because she used his own power against him. After all, before doing so, Dracula even said: "that won't work!"
3) The Morris clan was able to beat Dracula by using the whip, but suffered side effects that shortened their lives that the Belmonts never experience.
Aside from Alucard, who is Dracula's own son, the only people who have been able to kill Dracula at his full power without side effects are the Belmonts. And, while Shanoa did it, it doesn't count because the only thing that worked against him was Dominous which is his own power and if it wasn't for Albus's soul sacrificing itself, the use of the glyph would of killed her.
-
This, but you missed a few details:
1) Dracula wasn't at his full power when Hector beat him
2) Dracula was only toying with Shanoa (he never used a demon "true" form in the battle). She only won because she used his own power against him. After all, before doing so, Dracula even said: "that won't work!"
3) The Morris clan was able to beat Dracula by using the whip, but suffered side effects that shortened their lives that the Belmonts never experience.
Aside from Alucard, who is Dracula's own son, the only people who have been able to kill Dracula at his full power without side effects are the Belmonts. And, while Shanoa did it, it doesn't count because the only thing that worked against him was Dominous which is his own power and if it wasn't for Albus's soul sacrificing itself, the use of the glyph would of killed her.
Thanks, and that only further adds to my point.
Its not like IGA made it to where anyone could be Dracula, he made Dracula weak in some instances and buffed some of the main characters (Shanao) to make it to where they could win.
Very few have been able to beat Dracula at full power, and most of them are Belmonts.
The Belmonts by no means where irrelevant in the IGA timeline, their power reined supreme over all and worked the best against Dracula.
-
I enjoy the B-movie feel of the original timeline, both before and during IGA's tenure. After the 5th time the words "Dracula has returned... again!" are uttered your timeline is going to get a little goofy, I don't care who you've got writing it. And the original timeline was nothing if not endearingly goofy. But as many have said with this series story concerns are mostly secondary. The most important thing is the gameplay and atmosphere consisting of the iconic music (Bloody Tears, Vampire Killer, Theme of Simon Belmont etc. etc. etc.) gothic castle environment(s) and classic monsters.
-
I'll say it until I'm blue in the face, but a further flung future Sorrow game where Soma is as old or older than Julius. With actual freaky cult members and more varied locales. Whether or not you play as Soma I'm indifferent, but I'd like to see this setting.
Otherwise... I'm not crazy about making more continuities or reboots or whatever. But it would be interesting to see the history of the Castle itself. I like the idea that perhaps the land it was built on was always somehow "bad", and maybe exploring other incarnations of it or who owned it before Dracula was around. (No, not Bernhard. Older, like Roman Empire or even before.)
-
Aside from Alucard, who is Dracula's own son, the only people who have been able to kill Dracula at his full power without side effects are the Belmonts.
Uhm, I would like to add that Drac was not at full power during Symphony (this is also proven during the Alucard Dracula dialogue in Judgment). So, I think only the Belmonts can kill him at full power.
Anyway, correct me if I recall wrongly.
-
I enjoy the B-movie feel of the original timeline, both before and during IGA's tenure. After the 5th time the words "Dracula has returned... again!" are uttered your timeline is going to get a little goofy, I don't care who you've got writing it. And the original timeline was nothing if not endearingly goofy. But as many have said with this series story concerns are mostly secondary. The most important thing is the gameplay and atmosphere consisting of the iconic music (Bloody Tears, Vampire Killer, Theme of Simon Belmont etc. etc. etc.) gothic castle environment(s) and classic monsters.
This! In general, more nods to horror movies rather than mythology(while I like some mythology nods, I always felt CV was more fitting as horror pop culture> world mythology). Things like Leatherface appearing in OoE did put a smile on my face because of that. Also, it's why I prefer the look of LoI's Forgotten One over LoS's Forgotten One(which I still think looks like it could be a monster from Final Fantasy, and actually draws some close comparisons, design-wise, to FFXII's Chaos). A skinned, rotting demon being held up by massive meat-hooks that sicks giant maggots(from his own body) and pours his own fetid blood over you is just soooo fuckin HORROR. It's like getting scrounging up horrorific imagery, and adding a dash of Clive Barker for good measure. At least that's what I prefer, visually.
I'm also not against Dracula looking like this again:
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.annihil.us%2Fu%2Fprod%2Fmarvel%2Fi%2Fmg%2F8%2F50%2F4baa7fbfedfe3%2Fdetail.jpg&hash=b010d8520f6b1b44d360f84df6d52a5139fc6908)
Always been a fan of the classic look.
-
Nathan Graves defeated Dracula. So did Hugh Baldwin. They may no longer be canon, but they should at least be remembered.
Incidentally, they didn't even use the Vampire Killer. The Hunter Whip was their weapon of choice.
Very few have been able to beat Dracula at full power, and most of them are Belmonts.
Few Belmonts have actually faced Dracula at his full power. As far as I'm concerned, only Trevor and Julius have had that privilege.
And to top it off, well... there's Soma.
That man vanquished Chaos itself, which was admittedly the source of Dracula's power. So I'd say he deserves some recognition as well.
I'm also not against Dracula looking like this again:
http://i.annihil.us/u/prod/marvel/i/mg/8/50/4baa7fbfedfe3/detail.jpg (http://i.annihil.us/u/prod/marvel/i/mg/8/50/4baa7fbfedfe3/detail.jpg)
Always been a fan of the classic look.
I can see what your point is, but... please. Not Marvel. Not in Castlevania.
-
I can see what your point is, but... please. Not Marvel. Not in Castlevania.
He's just showing an example of ye olde Bela Lugosi-influenced look, what's wrong with the example happening to be from MAHVEL?
-
Yeah, not Marvel but the look. If you crop off the bottom, the art looks very CV-ish. His particular look reminds me of PoR's Dracula(like VladCT's avatar, which paid major homage to classic Dracula):
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic3.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20081025191459%2Fcastlevania%2Fimages%2F3%2F3f%2FPor_pic_36.jpg&hash=b5db74a39ddc7be1ebd2b76efe945ce3644d3257)
-
Uhm, I would like to add that Drac was not at full power during Symphony (this is also proven during the Alucard Dracula dialogue in Judgment). So, I think only the Belmonts can kill him at full power.
Anyway, correct me if I recall wrongly.
Is judgement even canon?
Or a side game?
Correct me if I'm wrong here.
@Intersection,
Can you provide proof that only Trevor and Julius beat him at full power?
I recall Simon being amongst them as well.
And I did not mention Soma since i was referring to heroes who have beaten Dracula himself, not his source of power and whatnot.
-
In SotN, Dracula is not at full power. He wasn't either when Trevor fought him strangely enough, but that's what it says in Judgment. So the persons who defeated Dracula at full power are Christopher, Simon, Richter, Quincy Morris, and Julius. Alucard defeats fully powered Dracula in the time rift.
-
In SotN, Dracula is not at full power. He wasn't either when Trevor fought him strangely enough, but that's what it says in Judgment. So the persons who defeated Dracula at full power are Christopher, Simon, Richter, Quincy Morris, and Julius. Alucard defeats fully powered Dracula in the time rift.
I'm inclined to agree with DarkPrinceAlucard here. Judgment isn't canon, so I'm not sure if it makes for a good reference.
@Intersection,
Can you provide proof that only Trevor and Julius beat him at full power?
Trevor was the first Belmont (after Leon) to confront Dracula. Between LoI and DC, Mathias's power grows unhindered for centuries. It's only logical for Trevor to have encountered Dracula at his full power.
As for Julius, it's more of an implicit assumption. His victory was a definitive one, permanently sealing Dracula into an eclipse; it's set up to be one of Castlevania's most climactic battles, so the general consensus is that Julius fought Dracula when the latter had regained all of his strength.
Every other Belmont fought Dracula almost immediately after his resurrection. There's been enough emphasis on his weakened state after his successive reincarnations in the series to assume that he was most often defeated before being allowed to reach his full power.
He's just showing an example of ye olde Bela Lugosi-influenced look, what's wrong with the example happening to be from MAHVEL?
Eh, just an old good-natured joke. I'm just as much a fan of classic Dracula artwork as anyone on these forums.
Although I can't say I'm the greatest Marvel enthusiast...
-
I'd love to see a return to the N64 continuity; there was real promise in that one for some properly moody yet irreverent (irrevenant? ;D) fun.
Not to mention that the N64 games are still my favorite attempts at Castlevania in 3D.
-
I always considered a lot of the talk of Dracula not being at full power to be intended as fluff like "We have to stop him before he regains his full power! Oh wait too late, well we'll beat him anyway." But I suppose that's likely my own misconception, though I'd like to lay it on the imprecision and vagaries of translation.
Eh, just an old good-natured joke. I'm just as much a fan of classic Dracula artwork as anyone on these forums.
Although I can't say I'm the greatest Marvel enthusiast...
I dunno, Marvel's Tomb of Dracula series from the 1970s were pretty good, the more adult oriented black and white "magazines" they had for that could be pretty disturbing sometimes. Dunno anything about this new series since I don't follow modern comics. But from what I've read of the 70s Marvel material he was a pure evil, egotistical but magnificent bastard who survived the loneliness and other pains of the undead curse through sheer force of will.
His self description from Tomb of Dracula #15 "I am Dracula, and be me born of human flesh or vampire blood, I am still Dracula... and that is all I ever ask to be."
-
I haven't read much of Marvel's Dracula since they put him in red armor and made him albino, but classic Marvel Dracula was great. There was just such pure evil and arrogance in the character, yet he still managed to pull of being charming, and the artwork was just great.
-
On the one hand I feel LOS continuity needs more love. On the other hand, it's refreshing to see a studio wanting to really end a successful saga, so... new continuity it is.
-
I'm inclined to agree with DarkPrinceAlucard here. Judgment isn't canon, so I'm not sure if it makes for a good reference.
I don't think there is any indication that it isn't supposed to be, so I have to disagree on this one.
-
I don't believe Judgment is canon. IGA did state (correct me if I'm wrong) that Judgment was it's own story, existing outside the main CV Canon. Think of it like the LoS games. They exist in their own universe. Judgment is it's own universe and the original continuity that we all grew up with is it's own universe.
-
I would have agreed with you if that was the case, but IGA never said anything of the sort. I'm pretty sure the characters are supposed to be from the main universe, except Cornell.
-
The very fact that we're having a discussion where people aren't even sure which games are canon should tell you the original timeline might just be beyond saving.
-
The very fact that we're having a discussion where people aren't even sure which games are canon should tell you the original timeline might just be beyond saving.
Agreed. The reason is that over the 25 years of it's existence, there have been multiple people leading the franchise each with their own ideas of where to take the series. Considering that and the fact that games weren't done in order and just shoehorned in the timeline, it isn't surprising that the timeline is in the state that it is in. Not to mention that certain games were removed from the official cannon thus changing the overall story and creating plot holes.
What MS did is that they created their own timeline just for their games with a clear plan and decided to keep is limited to only a few games. Plus, they gave their timeline a clear beginning and are giving it a clear end with no room to continue this timeline. No room for plot holes what so ever. Just a coherent story told over the course of 3 games. All of which are made and released over the course of a few years.
-
The very fact that we're having a discussion where people aren't even sure which games are canon should tell you the original timeline might just be beyond saving.
You would have a point if it where not for the fact that we are talking about a castlevania fighting game as opposed to one that is part of the main series of adventure games.
We all know which ones are canon and none canon or more specifically what IGA considered canon, but Judgement which to me feels like a side game in its own universe due to it being a fighting game and the character's altered appearances has been up for debate as of late.
So lets not try to make this whole thing as black and white as "The old series was a mess and you guys are proving its beyond saving" type of deal.
Seems everyone just likes to take subtle jabs at the old series as of late...
-
The old series is indeed a mess as far as storytelling is concerned. It should have ended with SotN. Perhaps picking back up with Soma's whole reincarnation thing, but still. Those games were built for gameplay, not story logistics, which is fine. Or was. Now, there is no reason to ignore one for the other.
I'm entirely on board with either Staying with the LoS universe a little while longer or starting from scratch again. The LoS universe still has and will have plenty of stories to tell, though not including Dracula. The Belmonts obviously continued after Simon, so one can presume they continued the legacy of Simon since we get Victor in LoS 2. Richter, Johnathan Morris, etc. could all have their own games, just without having Drac as the big bad. Richter could face off against Shaft, and Morris could aim to stop Brauner, was it?
Potential there, I say.
-
The old series is indeed a mess as far as storytelling is concerned. It should have ended with SotN. Perhaps picking back up with Soma's whole reincarnation thing, but still. Those games were built for gameplay, not story logistics, which is fine. Or was. Now, there is no reason to ignore one for the other.
I'm entirely on board with either Staying with the LoS universe a little while longer or starting from scratch again. The LoS universe still has and will have plenty of stories to tell, though not including Dracula. The Belmonts obviously continued after Simon, so one can presume they continued the legacy of Simon since we get Victor in LoS 2. Richter, Johnathan Morris, etc. could all have their own games, just without having Drac as the big bad. Richter could face off against Shaft, and Morris could aim to stop Brauner, was it?
Potential there, I say.
Except that MS already said that the LoS timeline will end with LoS2. Besides, Brauner was killed by Gabriel in LoS1. Yes, Simon's descendants could have continued to fight monsters over the centuries, but without Dracula in some form, it isn't a CV game. He is always in the games in some way.
-
I think that's an interesting question: Is CV about the Belmonts or about Dracula?
I think the answer is relative, but to me it's about the Belmonts.
-
I think that's an interesting question: Is CV about the Belmonts or about Dracula?
I think the answer is relative, but to me it's about the Belmonts.
It was originally about the battle between them. Then IGA came along and screwed everything up by creating games where the ones to beat Dracula aren't Belmonts.
-
without Dracula in some form, it isn't a CV game. He is always in the games in some way.
Indeed
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg546.imageshack.us%2Fimg546%2F6061%2Fujzh.jpg&hash=55fbd1ff8c54d0684abda793f11a7e347e1a5181) (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/2251-Castlevania-Lords-of-Shadow)
(Had to.)
Though I don't think I'd mind so much if there were sequels to specific games following individual characters after they had defeated Dracula. I'd rather like to know the specifics of the later lives of Richter/Maria and the CV64 heroes for example. Though that might be better suited for non-interactive fiction than actual games. Then again, it'd be pretty hard if not impossible to make the new villains seem as threatening. Once you've fought the lord of darkness and the grim reaper, where is there to go? I think we even saw this villain degradation in Dawn of Sorrow to some degree, going from fighting your inner Dracula and chaos to just "some magic guys who are in a cult I guess" simply didn't feel as satisfying.
-
I think that's an interesting question: Is CV about the Belmonts or about Dracula?
It's about neither. They're just labels.
-
It's about neither. They're just labels.
Dracula should not be a label. Dracula should be Dracula.
That's another place where they've really screwed things over.
-
Dracula should not be a label. Dracula should be Dracula.
That's another place where they've really screwed things over.
Technically speaking, "Dracula" has always been a label. Vlad the Impaler's name was not Dracula. That was just a moniker given because of the Order of the Dragon or whatever.
And then in CV lore, Dracula was actually Mathias, the name "Dracula" again being an assumed moniker.
-
I think Castlevania should be about Dracula and his rivals, the Belmont clan. I think IGA's storyline got too convoluted with side stories and unimportant characters. I don't think the conflict between Dracula and the Belmonts was personal enough, and emphasized enough.
I think the problem with LOS is that it took that a step too far in making Dracula a Belmont. They have made Dracula an interesting hero, but they have also made him less of a villain, and far from the monster the character is supposed to be.
I see Dracula as man corrupted by a lifetime of war and imprisonment. A man with nothing but vengeance and self entitlement in his heart. He inflicted unimaginable pain and suffering on his enemies and even his own people. Dracula committed the worst massacres the world had ever seen. He demanded perfect obedience and slaughtered anyone who disobeyed even the most trivial rule. He had not one shred of mercy in him. This was the man he was during his natural life. Imagine a man like that given the powers of a vampire. He is a horrifying monster. This is the character Dracula is in our game.
The Belmont clan was also never given what I feel is the right relationship with Dracula. Dracula was in fact killed by an assassin. This is what is widely believed. It is most likely that this assassin was either a Turk, or a Boyar (the class of people Dracula showed the least amount of mercy to). I have let history be my guide in shaping who the Belmonts are and what their motivation is behind their campaign against Dracula in our reboot.
The name Dracula was more than a moniker, it was Vlad Tepes' patronymic name. He is the real Dracula, and even in Bram Stoker's book, he makes countless references to holding back the Turks. It obvious in Stoker's book who Dracula is.
It feels awkward to me when the character of Dracula is twisted into something else. Especially when he is such a fascinating character to begin with. He is perfect as he is for Castlevania, there was never a need to twist him into someone else. He is tragic and terrifying. A perfect antagonist.
I wish Konami would use what is right in front of them to get the story right.
-
I wish Konami would use what is right in front of them to get the story right.
I have to disagree with this statement, seeing as the entirety of Castlevania is basically fan fiction based on the Stoker novel. The original timeline took what it wanted from the novel and ignored the rest. If they didn't care to "get it right" back in '86 or whenever then I don't think they should start now. Besides, what is there to "get right?" As I said, we are playing a game spun off of a novel, which was heavily fictionalized from the historical Vlad Tepes. Castlevania's own source material is another work of fiction.
Since what we have is a fiction loosely based on a fiction loosely based on a person in history, there really is no "right." There is only a platform for storytelling. I think LoS was/is a great reimagining of this fiction, but certainly it can be done again. That's all I really care about. Good stories and good gameplay. There's little room for historical accuracy with vampires, demons, werewolves, etc.
-
There is plety of room for accuracy in the pre-vampire dracula. After the mortal man is killed and he becomes a vampire the fantasy horror land can begin, just like in stokers book. Doing this on top of the real life horror of who dracula really was amps up the character and makes him more interesting. That is the reason stoker based him on a real person to begin with.
Konami almost did this with the story of Dracula's curse, but then they took another route.
I feel that if they are going to put Dracula in a game, then make him Dracula. Otherwise they should call him by another name.
-
Doing this on top of the real life horror of who dracula really was amps up the character and makes him more interesting.
This is the part where things get relative. There are no correct answers, only opinions. While the LoS story has its flaws, I like the interpretation of Dracula better and find it more interesting. I only wish we could get more games set between LoS 1 and 2 that flesh out Drac's ruthlessness and oppression and the Belmonts that fight to stop him. I'd really like to see more of that villainy that Gabriel is capable of.
-
Asking if Castlevania is more about Dracula or the Belmonts is kind of like asking if reese's cups are more about the chocolate or the peanut butter, they're both essential ingredients. (Which I guess would make OoE/CotM/Bloodlines/PoR/N64/LoD M&Ms? No?)
SNIP
Well, there's a lot to be said for a version inspired by Vlad Tepes. And this inspiration has come through in Dracula's name in some of the games, namely the X series and the N64 games, perhaps more in the original Japanese. But to say that the historical Vlad Tepes is a crucial element is a bit of a misnomer I think. Don't forget that Stoker didn't intend for his vampire to be based on any historical figure initially. According to David J. Skal, Stoker was originally going to call his character "Count Wampyre", and decided to graft the historical Vlad onto the character as "window dressing" after the fact, when he happened across an account of Vlad's misdeeds while researching Romanian history. Also Christopher Lee is given more credit in the original game :P :D
Dracula is like Batman, or Santa Claus, he is many things to many people. But when it comes to Castlevania he hasn't always been tightly tied to the original novel or the historical Vlad Tepes. Though like I said there's a lot going for such an interpretation, the fact that Tepes really did exist and really did brutally torture and kill so many people is chilling, and that could make for a fun foundation to approach the series in a reboot.
-
I feel that if they are going to put Dracula in a game, then make him Dracula. Otherwise they should call him by another name.
I'm with you on this one.
I don't mind the character just being "Count Dracula" but any attempt to explain who he really is that doesn't involve him being Vlad Tepes just feels wrong. The backstory looses more than it gains by saying anyone but Dracula is Dracula.
Honestly, I don't see the point in using "Dracula" and then saying he's actually somebody else. Why use Drac in the first place then?
-
I would LOVE to play a game where a Belmont fights his way through a castle to take down Santa Claus. I'm dead serious.
-
Well, Lament of Innocence takes place in 1094, Vlad Tepes wasn't born until 1431. It's entirely possible within the original timeline (or at least the IGA interpretation of it) that Matthias died sometime in-between those two dates, only to be reincarnated as Vlad Tepes. Which would mean that the Count as we know him didn't start with Matthias but with the undeath of Tepes in 1476, ala Dracula's Curse. It would also give an explanation for why Tepes was such a legendary "bad seed" even before his undeath, and why Dracula Vlad Tepes is the identity he keeps "reverting" to and identifying with once evil consumes the original host personality of the reincarnation. As may have happened with Malus* and almost happened to Soma. Did I say he's like Batman? He's more of a Doctor Who!
*Who is disoriented and talks about how his village was destroyed while those trying to resurrect Dracula were looking for a certain child when you initially meet him.
I would LOVE to play a game where a Belmont fights his way through a castle to take down Santa Claus. I'm dead serious.
We all would, we all would.
"Whohohoat is a gift? A miserable little pile of socks!"
-
We all would, we all would.
"Whohohoat is a gift? A miserable little pile of socks!"
Shut up and take my money!
-
I would LOVE to play a game where a Belmont fights his way through a castle to take down Santa Claus. I'm dead serious.
It's kinda funny and yet I love the idea. Let me add something to this premise:
With the world population approaching 7 billion people, Santa can't keep up with the demands every year. So, he begins dabbling in the occult to try and find a way to get everything done on time. However, in doing this, the rituals release a negative energy that slowly corrupts Santa. By the first Christmas after Santa started dabbling in the occult, he has become a demon intend on terrorizing children and creating chaos. With Dracula freshly defeated and sealed away for a time, the Belmont family now looks to a new hunting ground to stop Santa and make sure that children worldwide won't have to fear the name Santa Claus much longer. Even if it means killing an entity that was once so beloved by children everywhere.
Santa would not be in a castle. It would be in a possessed toy factories/workshops, a residential area where the elves live, underground ice caves, Santa's house, etc. Call it all Santa's Village of the Damned.
-
Well, Lament of Innocence takes place in 1094, Vlad Tepes wasn't born until 1431. It's entirely possible within the original timeline (or at least the IGA interpretation of it) that Matthias died sometime in-between those two dates, only to be reincarnated as Vlad Tepes. Which would mean that the Count as we know him didn't start with Matthias but with the undeath of Tepes in 1476, ala Dracula's Curse. It would also give an explanation for why Tepes was such a legendary "bad seed" even before his undeath, and why Dracula Vlad Tepes is the identity he keeps "reverting" to and identifying with once evil consumes the original host personality of the reincarnation. As may have happened with Malus* and almost happened to Soma. Did I say he's like Batman? He's more of a Doctor Who!
*Who is disoriented and talks about how his village was destroyed while those trying to resurrect Dracula were looking for a certain child when you initially meet him.
This would make far more sense if it were that case. Unfortunately for us fans IGA wasn't a very deep thinker in terms of story plots.
We all would, we all would.
"Whohohoat is a gift? A miserable little pile of socks!"
Shut up and take my money!
LOL!!
-
This would make far more sense if it were that case. Unfortunately for us fans IGA wasn't a very deep thinker in terms of story plots.
It could be an oversight. But judging by IGA's obvious love of CV3 I'd say it's equally possible he was intentionally leaving open a space big enough in the timeline to fit in 2 or 3 more games. Perhaps a "Matthias era trilogy" or somesuch, which would culminate in a Belmont finally vanquishing Matthias (or some other incarnation of him) so that he could be reborn in his more purely evil, more powerful state as Vlad Tepes. This way IGA could a.) open up more spots for games in the timeline. b.) "bookend" (with Curse of Darkness) his favorite game in the series between creations of his own.
-
Does it really matter if Dracula is Vlad Tepes? Seems like a pretty boring mindset to me. It's a cool backstory, but I can totally understand them wanting to change things. This actually gave me an interesting idea for a new topic....
-
I can't understand why you'd want to use a popular villain and then say he's actually somebody else.
-
I think you're too hung up on the interpretation that Dracula from the original novel was supposed to be Vlad Tepes. Van Helsing calls him "that Viode who fought against the Turks", but later in the novel, his past is described as "that other of his race" who lived "in a later age". Meaning, the Vlad Tepes backstory was just one of many possibilities, which is a common trope. "Some say he is X, but others claim he is actually Y", etc. This fits perfectly with Dracula not having a set in stone backstory in media that revolves around him. It's part of the character's mystique and what makes him interesting.
-
I think Castlevania should be about Dracula and his rivals, the Belmont clan. I think IGA's storyline got too convoluted with side stories and unimportant characters. I don't think the conflict between Dracula and the Belmonts was personal enough, and emphasized enough.
I think the problem with LOS is that it took that a step too far in making Dracula a Belmont. They have made Dracula an interesting hero, but they have also made him less of a villain, and far from the monster the character is supposed to be.
I see Dracula as man corrupted by a lifetime of war and imprisonment. A man with nothing but vengeance and self entitlement in his heart. He inflicted unimaginable pain and suffering on his enemies and even his own people. Dracula committed the worst massacres the world had ever seen. He demanded perfect obedience and slaughtered anyone who disobeyed even the most trivial rule. He had not one shred of mercy in him. This was the man he was during his natural life. Imagine a man like that given the powers of a vampire. He is a horrifying monster. This is the character Dracula is in our game.
The Belmont clan was also never given what I feel is the right relationship with Dracula. Dracula was in fact killed by an assassin. This is what is widely believed. It is most likely that this assassin was either a Turk, or a Boyar (the class of people Dracula showed the least amount of mercy to). I have let history be my guide in shaping who the Belmonts are and what their motivation is behind their campaign against Dracula in our reboot.
The name Dracula was more than a moniker, it was Vlad Tepes' patronymic name. He is the real Dracula, and even in Bram Stoker's book, he makes countless references to holding back the Turks. It obvious in Stoker's book who Dracula is.
It feels awkward to me when the character of Dracula is twisted into something else. Especially when he is such a fascinating character to begin with. He is perfect as he is for Castlevania, there was never a need to twist him into someone else. He is tragic and terrifying. A perfect antagonist.
I wish Konami would use what is right in front of them to get the story right.
No argument here. Dracula is Vlad Tepes and no one else. Even in Bram Stoker's novel they are inseparable. While his Count Wampyre was the original concept character, that is simply no longer the case with what Stoker chose in the end. If they plan to use someone else to be Dracula then don't call him Dracula. Simply because they aren't Dracula to begin with. It's no different them monopolizing on a name. You have all these candidates who call themselves the same thing, but who cannot and do not even live up to the real progenitor.
This is the part where things get relative. There are no correct answers, only opinions. While the LoS story has its flaws, I like the interpretation of Dracula better and find it more interesting.
Gabriel is not Dracula. He is Dracul. He even states this in the LoS 2 trailer.
-
Gabriel is not Dracula. He is Dracul. He even states this in the LoS 2 trailer.
Correction, he is whatever Cox,MS, and Konami call him and they all call him Dracula.
They have done this every time when referring to gabriel since his reveal as Dracula.
They even had it in a official guide book I believe.
-
I don't think Stoker left any shred of doubt about who Dracula is in the novel. If he waned the reader to guess whether or not he was Vlad Tepes then he would have called him by a name other than Dracula (which is obviously a name vlad was known by).
Also, i don't think there is anything boring about the vlad tepes backstory for castlevania. He is one of the most brutal, violent, and merciless rulers to ever walk the earth. His life history is more fantastic and horrifying than anything konami has contrived. So i don't understand how Nagumo can call that mindset boring.
-
You know what? I want a black Belmont. Continuity be damned.
-
Correction, he is whatever Cox,MS, and Konami call him and they all call him Dracula.
Ha ha, tell that to the voice actor who read the script and said 'Dracul'. But I guess they can't make up their minds worth a damn.
-
Ha ha, tell that to the voice actor who read the script and said 'Dracul'. But I guess they can't make up their minds worth a damn.
Incompetence on their part I suppose, but I'm going to go by what the creators call him for the time being since its obvious he was intended to be this series version of Dracula.
-
Incompetence on their part I suppose, but I'm going to go by what the creators call him for the time being since its obvious he was intended to be this series version of Dracula.
Unless they're planning to do another "twist" like "Aha! He was never really Dracula! That'll be his son! And this isn't really the end of the series. It is only the beginning!~~~"
-
Unless they're planning to do another "twist" like "Aha! He was never really Dracula! That'll be his son! And this isn't really the end of the series. It is only the beginning!~~~"
No no no.... I hope MS/Konami does not read this. :'(
-
@Jeffrey Montoya
You misunderstand me. I didn't say the backstory itself itself is boring, I said only accepting one possible backstory as definite is. It's a good backstory, but that doesn't mean one of equal quality or one that surpasses it can't be created. And like I said before, at best it's dubious whether or not Dracula in the novel was really Vlad Tepes.
-
No no no.... I hope MS/Konami does not read this. :'(
Yeah I really hope that doesn't happen to, I'd rather see something new or a continuation/proper conclusion to the old timeline. I don't think LoS has been enough of a hit for Konami to force a continuation of it once the developer changes. Especially since MS seems to regard it so strongly as their baby. But this might be a contingency plan they have so I guess we'll just have to brace ourselves against it in case.
-
https://twitter.com/CastlevaniaLOS/status/249940339706691586
He is called "the dragon" (Dracul) in the game. Sometimes referred to as "Dracula" by others but never calls himself that..
Gabriel is Dracul is Dracula in LoS series.
-
I don't think there is anything dubious about it Nagumo. I think it's obvious before you even open the first page of the book. It's called Dracula! I've read it dracula contless times and never had any question of who the character was based on and supposed to be.
-
Yes, but as I pointed out, the characters later back-pedal on the statement that Dracula is Vlad Tepes, and conclude that he must be someone else. I also recall there's evidence Stoker just used the name Dracula because he liked it, and that he didn't too much at all about the historical character.
-
These are words spoken by dracula himself.
Who was it but one of my own race who as Voivode crossed the Danube and beat the Turk on his own ground? This was a Dracula indeed! Woe was it that his own unworthy brother, when he had fallen, sold his people to the Turk and brought the shame of slavery on them! Was it not this Dracula, indeed, who inspired that other of his race who in a later age again and again brought his forces over the great river into Turkey-land; who, when he was beaten back, came again, and again, though he had to come alone from the bloody field where his troops were being slaughtered, since he knew that he alone could ultimately triumph! (Chapter 3, pp 19)
Who else do you think he could be?
Stoker made changes to his novel to make the vampire dracula. He had limited knowlege of vlad tepes III but it's obvious that he put in what he could to make the shoe fit. The connection between Dracula the vampire and dracula the hisotrical man are present through and through.
-
I prefer Dracula as Vlad Tepes not only because it draws connections to reality(the whole Vlad Tepes being an undead Dark Lord providing a sort of "secret history" spin, which is a great part of the CV series being, "the dark, unknown historical battles between good and evil that's kept out of the history books"), but it's prevention of the "Dracula's some Joe Schoe who gains powers then names himself 'Dracula'." plot twist. The first time it might be alright, but if that's what we have to look forward to every reboot of the series, fuck it. Fuck it to hell! And I say this as someone tired of such overused, spammed plot devices, it's just as bad as the "redemption" stories(yeah, I know LoS2 might lean this way). Can't they just bypass the bullshit "ooo"s and "ahhh"s, and lameass sleight of hand ways in trying to say, "See, you never saw THIS coming!!! I'm freakin an original writing visionary that does things NO ONE ELSE EVER THOUGH OF BEFORE!!!". Making Dracula "Vlad Tepes", IMO, would nip that crap at the bud. Like I said earlier, basically just "get to the point" and go from there. No pussyfooting around it, just do it!
-
I feel the exact same way dragonslayr.
That is the type of no BS plot Mig and I will be bringing to the table with our reboot.
Dracula will be Dracula. You will walk through his forest of impaled victims. And you will have to use your skill to not suffer the same fate.
-
It was originally about the battle between them. Then IGA came along and screwed everything up by creating games where the ones to beat Dracula aren't Belmonts.
Well, fuck me for liking these other characters better than any Belmont then...
-
Actually, that quote seems to imply Dracula is somehow related to Vlad Tepes but is not actually him. He refers to himself as "that other of his race", who was inspired by Dracula to, "in a later age", invade Turkey again and again. This is not my own theory. I know several literary scholars have pointed this out before. I also recall reading a simplfied child version of Dracula, and I remember Dracula simply claims he is a descendant of Vlad III. So the author of that version seemed to have the same idea in mind.
-
One could shoot back that Drac was lying in that scene to conceal his great age. And we could go back and forth over the whole thing but I'm not sure it'll get anywhere. Whatever Stoker's original intentions, the character of Dracula has taken on a (un)life of it's own in popular media since then. One which owes as much or more to John Polidori's "The Vampyre" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vampyre) (which created the modern conception of the suave seductive Vampire almost a century before Dracula, which didn't put its title character in this mold) and Bela Lugosi/Christopher Lee/Count Chocula etc. as it does to Tepes and the original book.
Vlad Tepes is a great Dracula, I might even say one of the best. But I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say his is the true Dracula vampire, because that is a fictional character who has had many different forms. He is the character with the most movies made about him after all.
PS- All that said, just getting a character to name himself "Dracula" as a twist is really really lame. Because it assumes the audience already has some investment in the name to begin with. Which even though it may be true, just doesn't sit right. Kind of like how having Khan in the new Star Trek movie was supposed to be a big deal just because the audience would be familiar with another version of the character from older incarnations of Star Trek. Lazy, uninteresting and unsatisfying. Make me believe in and care about your Dracula, don't just assume I will because you gave him that name. The older games in the series were able to do this with little to no text. "Wow? Dracula controls this entire domain, all these monsters AND Death? He's one badass dude." And other little touches like having him sit contemptuously on his throne waiting for the hero to come to him, not deigning to stretch his limbs and show his true form until the fight goes against him.
-
That is the point. He has to put it that way otherwise he's basically telling harker that he is hundreds of years old. You've taken that out of context.
Vlad tepes is the true Dracula because that is what Stoker more than implied in his book, which is the original carnation of the character.
Stretches can be made on the character without stretchig so far as to break who the character is. Mathias and Gabriel stretch it too far. There is no need for them to be Dracula other than the fact that Dracula was the original antagonist of CV. They essentially cram a right shoe on a left foot. It's pointless and almost disrespectful to the character of Dracula. Some fans might not mind, but it rubs me the wrong way and i think it can be done better.
-
In a way, I agree with not stretching the whole Dracula thing. Just keep him Vlad Tepes. That is who he originally was in CV and it didn't have to change. LoI was just fine without Mathias. Actually, the whole Mathias thing was completely unnecessary. That game could have simply be the origin of the Vampire Killer and why the Belmonts are vampire hunters. The whole Dracula versus Belmont thing could simply be that Dracula is the most powerful vampire in existence and the Belmonts are the only ones powerful enough to survive the demonic castle and defeat Dracula. That's it. As for Alucard's existance and origin, it could either be kept the same in that Dracula fell in love with a human woman and got her pregnant Or being the evil bastard that Dracula is, it could be that he raped a human woman who he didn't bite and she got pregnant as a result. In either case, Alucard is Dracula's half-breed son.
In terms of LoS, I like the story so far. I just think that it should not be a CV game and should not have the CV name drops. It should be its completely own thing not related to CV in anyway. Just because there is a powerful vampire in a demonic castle doesn't mean it has to be CV.
-
That is the point. He has to put it that way otherwise he's basically telling harker that he is hundreds of years old. You've taken that out of context.
Vlad tepes is the true Dracula because that is what Stoker more than implied in his book, which is the original carnation of the character.
You would need proof that the Count was lying in that scene. If he was telling the truth, Harker naturally would have assumed he was talking about present day events. I think it's supposed to be dubious in order to make Dracula a more mysterious character. Him being Vlad Tepes is hypothesis that is just taken as fact nowadays. So saying Dracula should always be Vlad Tepes is pointless favoritism.
-
You have to ignore basically all of the back story the character himself provides, and then on top of that, ignore the very name of the character himself to come to your conclusion Nagumo.
You could use any character of any book and use that same logic to say that they are someone else.
It's a useful tactic if you're a story writer who wants to captialize on the name of a famous character and twist them into your own plot at the same time.
-
You know, this argument is starting to sound like the whole "Alucard knocked up Sonia" thing. :P
-
You know, this argument is starting to sound like the whole "Alucard knocked up Sonia" thing. :P
How do we know that was really Alucard and not just John Schmoe claiming to be Alucard?
-
You have to ignore basically all of the back story the character himself provides, and then on top of that, ignore the very name of the character himself to come to your conclusion Nagumo.
You could use any character of any book and use that same logic to say that they are someone else.
What exactly am I ignoring? Dracula himself says he is a different person than Vlad Tepes. Seems like a good enough reason to me to conclude they are not the same. Regarding the name, when Dracula talks about his ancestry it's evident in the text he takes great pride in it. The book says he was inspired by the original Dracula. It's not too far fetched to assume he took on the title of Vlad Tepes. Besides, what you're suggesting makes no sense. You say he lies about being a descendant of Vlad Tepes but him being called Dracula still proves he and Vlad Tepes are one and the same? Seems like a rather ineffective method to hide one's identity.
-
You know, this argument is starting to sound like the whole "Alucard knocked up Sonia" thing. :P
I still think that would be a fantastic origin story for the Belmont clan. And explain not only why they have such "terrifying power", but why they and Dracula are so eternally, inextricably linked. And I think it was probably the original idea for the game to, until later in development management decided to make the game non-canon and it was left more ambiguous.
-
Even if your argument were true and Dracula was telling the truth to harker and not concealing that he was vald tepes, he would still be Vlad's descendant, and Vlad would still be a part of his backstory. That would be a stretch I could live with.
Mathias and Gabriel would still be broken stretches of Dracula.
-
It would make the most sense to conclude the main series, but in grandiose fashion. They really need to go all out with the soundtrack and bring back veteran composers like Hidenori Maezawa/Yamashita. That, and have a decent storyline that ties everything together (maybe have a 70 y/o Johnathan Morris as Julius' mentor). :P
-
I have kind of a crazy idea.
What if we had three separate timelines all happening at once, and each one would culminate in the War of 1999. Each timeline would be a "possibility" of how the events leading up to the War of 1999 could happen. None of them would be THE canon per se, but they'd all be canon in a way because they'd all be one possible outcome of the origin events.
Timeline 1 could be the original timeline. Dracula is Dracula and isnt related in any way to the Belmonts.
Timeline 2 is the LoS timeline where the Belmonts and Dracula share blood, Trevor as Alucard, etc.
Timeline 3 could be something else, maybe Vlad Tepes as Dracula.
And because they'd all be technically happening at once, but in different continuities, we could have more games, different characters that don't necessarily have to overlap timelines, etc. It might get kind of convoluted if not done right, but if the devs took the time and care to organize it could be pretty cool and give everyone the opportunity to tell their story.
The War Of 1999 could be the end of the world or could be where the Belmonts avert such a crisis. Dracula may not even necessarily be a person but more an "essence" that inhabits a worthy vessel when such a vessel is found, hence difference "people" being Dracula.
I dunno, it would be an interesting idea to me. What do you think?
-
Essentially, it's the same thing I would like to see, so I definitely agree. Though I personally wouldn't go with the what-if approach. Other big franchises use systems like that, so it definitely can be done.
-
Essentially, it's the same thing I would like to see, so I definitely agree. Though I personally wouldn't go with the what-if approach. Other big franchises use systems like that, so it definitely can be done.
Personally I think the "what-if" approach yields the most interesting results because it allows for more games to be created without interfering with other games. It gives the devs more leeway to create a story without having be like, "Oh shit, this game already takes place in 17xx so I guess we can't do that. Now we have no choice but to go and do a futuristic CV game!" As long as there are a couple big events (in this case the "birth" as it were, of Dracula and the War Of 1999) then everything else can be whatever the devs want it to be based on the other stories that are already in each timeline.
-
Yeah, I get the reasoning behind it. Though personally I would just say they are seperate worlds, but are connected. You know, like how all Final Fantasy worlds are connected by the Void. It would be basically the same, but I think a "what-if" approach would be a little too complicated and difficult to explain. For example, what would cause the "what-ifs" to come into existence? Would there be a certain point where the timeline would start branching out, or could it happen at any time? etc. That's just personal preference, though. Your idea seems perfectly valid to me.
-
Yeah, I get the reasoning behind it. Though personally I would just say they are seperate worlds, but are connected. You know, like how all Final Fantasy worlds are connected by the Void. It would be basically the same, but I think a "what-if" approach would be a little too complicated and difficult to explain. For example, what would cause the "what-ifs" to come into existence? Would there be a certain point where the timeline would start branching out, or could it happen at any time? etc. That's just personal preference, though. Your idea seems perfectly valid to me.
Maybe what would set each timeline into action would be Dracula's origin. Like, we know he's going to be "born" it's just a matter of how. Regardless, his existence is the event that culminates in the War of 1999.
If a Belmont becomes Dracula then it sets off the LoS timeline, if Vlad Tepes is Dracula, then it sets the 3rd timeline into motion, etc.
I always like the idea of several different possibilities happening all at once in adjoining timelines but having a couple key events that join them. We've already known that the War Of 1999 is one of those events and it would be interesting to make more of it without making an actual game about it.
Maybe Aeon and St.Grrmain could be the arbiters of said timelines, trying to keep them moving along, observers who have a certain interest in seeing a particular timeline prevail or something like that. Maybe they fight each other in an attempt to gain the upper hand. There are a lot of interesting possibilities with a multi-timeline universe I think.