Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: whipsmemory on April 30, 2014, 08:34:20 AM
-
Starting as a basically "plot-less" - old movie's mood inspired action game Castlevania has built, over the years (and titles), a very complex storyline and universe. What i find extremely interesting and fascinating is that, unlike most of videogames universes which can be clearly zoned as works of pure fantasy, despite its main themes, the Cv's one actually seems to take place in "our world", it's storyline walking side by side with at least a part of our history, always (or almost) indicating a precise year in which the events take place. I think that's one of the things that fascinates me the most about this serie. Even if sometimes inaccurate, many events in the games suggest actual historical backgrounds i.e.
Lament of Innocence - 1094 ,takes place during the first crusade (which actually begun in 1096, so 2 years after LoI)
Dracula's Curse - 1476 , the canon suggests that Mathias, now known as Vlad Tsepes Dracula, wages war towards humanity and is eventually slain by Ralph Belmont and his comrades; so "first death" of Dracula as we know it. In actual history Vlad Tsepes becomes ruler of Wallachia for the third time and eventually dies the same year.
Bloodlines\Vampire Killer - 1917 - It's undoubtful the most tied with real history above all the games, suggesting that the trigger event leading to world war I, death of archduke Francesco Ferdinando, ties with a master plan plotted by Elizabeth Bartley to resurrect Lord Dracula.
So there's quite a number of interesting examples and thus the point of the thread is- can Castlevania be considered as a work of historical fiction, one of the few in videogames franchises?
Do you think a storyline of pure fantasy, dismissing times and places, like the lords of shadows saga seemed to do, works quite as well as the old one does, which would be the pros and cons of both choices?
Also if you recall any other interesting examples of matching fiction and historical facts, call em out here.
hope this strikes interest in someone else as well, discuss!
p.s.
English is not my native language, so i did my best to be as clear as possible in writing this, bear with me if I didn't succeed !
-
Man, that's always been the weird thing about the series. I know some people say it takes place in an alternate world, but most of the games' plots after CVIII tie into actual historical events and presents themselves as such. SotN's beginning directly states 'journey back to 1792 and the Transylvanian countryside of Romania' and AoS with '2036, Japan.'
I just assume that it is indeed meant to take place 'in the real world.'
Some people point to the 'but demon castle wars desu' but that whole thing comes from the Zombie Soldier's enemy description - which in turn was just a nod back to the Bloody Zombie from SotN. Pretty sure it would've been a quick special forces raid that went awry a la MGS2's Navy SEAL raid on the Big Shell, and not a full-blown war or whatever.
All in all, AoS already hand-waved the whole thing with Graham Jones explaining that the Church keeps all the events under wraps, which is reinforced in OoE with the Church establishing secret organizations like Ecclesia.
-
It roughly follows our world history but pretty much every minor detail is inaccurate in some way. Whether that means it takes place in the "real world" or not is up to your own interpretation. I see no point in making the distinction.
-
I would consider Castlevania a work of historical fiction as it seems to lend itself in that way. IGA obviously felt that way too as he tied in lots of actual history with his CV stories.
In actual history Vlad Tepes becomes ruler of Wallachia for the third time and eventually dies the same year.
He doesn't die actually. He was assassinated (apples and oranges I know). And later on, his grave where he was supposedly buried was found empty, thus helping to perpetuating the vampire story. Nobody today really knows where his actual resting place is and there are several locations where historians believe his is entombed. I've always found Konami's timeline involving CVIII fits in with this explanation the most rather then IGA's. IGA tells us that it was Trevor whom kill Dracula in 1476. In the Konami timeline (before IGA's) Dracula was killed by Trevor in 1492, after he was assassinated (it fits in with his real assassination) and arose from his grave as the undead king of vampires. Thus explaining why his tomb is now empty.
-
A terrible one, yes.
-
Personally I always like how the classic games have a tie with our history, as the examples that whipsmemory mentions.
The only problem will always be when we discuss the accurate of the events. It`s like c`mon guys, is only fiction. If we want that the history of Castlevania is the same as our history, the we will have problems...
-
I always liked how Grant Denasty and his backstory is a reference to the real life Danesti family being bitter rivals with the Draculas.
EDIT: Oh, and also in Bloodlines, Drolta, the witch who serves Bartley (Bathory), shares the same name as a real woman who was arrested as a witch working under the real life Bathory and helped her kill those girls. They burned her at a stake when they walled Bathory up in her castle. Always liked that little nod too.
-
The series' historical ties has always been one of the strongest points of the story. Dracula reviving every 100 years or so except the myriad times when he's resurrected early gets pretty stale, but it's the historical notes and relation to real-life people and events that actually makes the Castlevania canon interesting. I like that IGA worked to create an official timeline and bring it all together, I just wish the writing in the games had actually been good.
Bram Stoker supposed that Dracula is Vlad Tepes. I've always liked the hints that Castlevania's Dracula is the same from the novel, and is the Impaler—the US manual for SOTN even says so. I always kind of resented Lament of Innocence for changing this. I suppose you can make it work in some way, but to me it's a stretch.
-
My favorite CV is Bloodlines mainly because it feels the most real, on account of traversing real life locations, as opposed to just a fantasy countryside.
Either is fine, but seeing CV interpretations of real locations was cool.
-
Bram Stoker supposed that Dracula is Vlad Tepes. I've always liked the hints that Castlevania's Dracula is the same from the novel, and is the Impaler—the US manual for SOTN even says so. I always kind of resented Lament of Innocence for changing this. I suppose you can make it work in some way, but to me it's a stretch.
but that same manual stated he was estimated to be 800 years old.. making it impossible for him to have been born in the 15th century o.o;;
-
The series' historical ties has always been one of the strongest points of the story.
I totally agree on this.
i guess its pretty much due to the nature of Dracula as a literary character being heavily tied to actual history and folklore. The historical ties work so well in the game and add so much fascination to the whole mood since the character itself is actually on the edge between that of an historical figure and myth. Which is what LoS saga heavily lacks imho.
About the whole Vlad tsepes thing, i could totally see mathias go into hiding after LoI and eventually conquer and rule Wallachia under a new identity, probably even hiding his true vampiric nature until dracula's curse events. Doesn't sound so much as a stretch to me, but i understand that could easily be not everyones cup.
Personally I always like how the classic games have a tie with our history, as the examples that whipsmemory mentions.
The only problem will always be when we discuss the accurate of the events. It`s like c`mon guys, is only fiction. If we want that the history of Castlevania is the same as our history, the we will have problems...
Ahaha thats not the case for sure, I just guessed it would be interesting analyzing the matter and the whole "historical fiction" device which, at least to my knowledge, isnt that much recurring in videogames or at least in a such long lasting franchise as it is in Castlevania and in other entertainment medias as books or tv series
-
Ahaha thats not the case for sure, I just guessed it would be interesting analyzing the matter and the whole "historical fiction" device which, at least to my knowledge, isnt that much recurring in videogames or at least in a such long lasting franchise as it is in Castlevania and in other entertainment medias as books or tv series
Hehe, I think that my argument lacks from completition, sorry. With "having problems", I am refering to a sector of the fanbase trying to prove that the historic events have real ties with our beloved saga, and other people (sometimes from the fanbase too) denying it. Personally, as I said, I like that ties from a fiction point of view, because I feel the saga more real, with names and location I know from history.
-
but that same manual stated he was estimated to be 800 years old.. making it impossible for him to have been born in the 15th century o.o;;
Ha, fair enoughz, it's been so long since I've flipped through the manual that's not something I remembered or paid attention to.
I guess then Cronqvist makes sense. This wikia profile (http://castlevania.wikia.com/wiki/Dracula) seems to do a pretty good job of piecing all the details together. Something I'll have to give a full read.
-
Original canon is supposed to be a "secret history" type thing, where it IS a fictional take on history, but compared to the "rest of the world", stuff like the battle between good and evil was happening along side events of history, just "behind the scenes". I do like how it does try to ground itself in OUR world by mentioning events and even locations. While people brought up the explosion in LoS2, the LoS series never really mentioned anything regarding our world. It seemed to distance itself from not only the original Castlevania canon, but history itself.
And call me a fanboy of the OG canon, I really DO love the nods regarding CV and history. 1476 being the year Trevor defeats Dracula(as being the year of his purposed death, give or take a year, as it's debatable) fits. In the series, to that point, Dracula never really DIED. So, in our reality, where we are told one story, the truth was the TREVOR killed Dracula, his body disappearing representing his ascent into his undead state... love unlive the Dark Lord! Little things like that, I feel, are cool as hell. Mind you, CV3 was also established before IGA's "Dracula was 800 years old" thing, so if you just go by CV3's original intention, it's not that hard to swallow. In a way, if they reboot it(like I said, I'd actually want Dracula to be Vlad, not Mathias, nor Gabriel, but Vlad Tepes), I'd love for them to keep the little nods towards history. Doesn't have to be exactly like the original canon, but seeing a few little winks towards different historical events would be cool as fuck!
-
but that same manual stated he was estimated to be 800 years old.. making it impossible for him to have been born in the 15th century o.o;;
My guess is that IGA made a mistake about Dracula's age in SOTN, he doesn't pay attention when he comes up that age or he's bad at math on that time LOL, I read somewhere that IGA admits that mistake(If my memory is right) and Lament of Innocence was made as an explanation or a cover up to Dracula's age in SOTN.
-
It could be considered as historical fiction but not an accurate one.
-
It could be considered as historical fiction but not an accurate one.
Historical fiction or fiction in general is never accurate because it's...well, fiction. In fiction there will always be an element or elements that differ minutely or greatly from actual events of history, hence the word 'fiction'. If it were accurate to history then it wouldn't be fiction at all. Sorry about the rant Shiroi. I work in a bookstore, and as you can see I just brought my work home with me, lol ;D But it's also true that even history itself is not be entirely accurate as those in power or who have great influence are the ones who write the history books. So who knows? Maybe bits of our very history itself is fictional in the regard.
-
My guess is that IGA made a mistake about Dracula's age in SOTN, he doesn't pay attention when he comes up that age or he's bad at math on that time LOL, I read somewhere that IGA admits that mistake(If my memory is right) and Lament of Innocence was made as an explanation or a cover up to Dracula's age in SOTN.
It's not a mistake because Rondo established it before SotN did. Most likely that was a result of there being no continuity at all between games outside the NES trilogy. For and intents and purposes, CV3 Dracula and Rondo Dracula where two different people. This changed when IGA to tie everything together in one timeline with SotN. His policy was to include everything but ignore contradictions where they may arose. That's why he felt he had the liberty to establish a new identify for Dracula. And fans have tried to nonsensically fit the two backstories with each other ever since.
-
His policy was to include everything but ignore contradictions where they may arose. That's why he felt he had the liberty to establish a new identify for Dracula.
The problem with that though, is if his entire motivation was to make the series more cohesive and get rid of the contradictions, then that still in no way created a need for him to create a new identity for Dracula. IGA decided to start making CV games that took place before 1431 of his own volition, without any preexisting reason other than his own imagination. Keeping the CV Drac as "Dracula" was not a hindrance to the storyline. UNLESS one counts "Castlevania Legends," because if it took place when it did, then it would be mighty hard for Alucard to be an adult in the 1450s. But, IGA retconned it anyhow. Basically, what I'm saying is, the decision to make "Dracula" turn out to be someone else had no basis in necessity. It was merely a whim.
-
I think he wanted to justify the bit about Dracula being 800 years old, which was irreconcilable with the Vlad Tepes backstory. Since he had a mindset of including everything but ignoring certain details if they were contradictory, he probably figured he could ignore it.
-
I've always liked how Castlevania games felt anchored, one way or another, in the real world.
Looking back on it, the thing that felt the least "Castlevania" about LoS was its lack of relation to a real world timeline. It felt like it took place in a fictional world, rather than Europe.
-
I think he wanted to justify the bit about Dracula being 800 years old, which was irreconcilable with the Vlad Tepes backstory. Since he had a mindset of including everything but ignoring certain details if they were contradictory, he probably figured he could ignore it.
It would have been better for him to ignore Dracula's supposed 800 year age rather then create a whole new identity for him. It would have saved him a lot of flack in the end.
Looking back on it, the thing that felt the least "Castlevania" about LoS was its lack of relation to a real world timeline. It felt like it took place in a fictional world, rather than Europe.
This is especially true in the later chapters after Carmilla's castle. And the chapters before the castle (excluding the village area) felt like they did indeed belong in a fantasy game.
-
teh main thing that indicates LoS saga takes place in "our world" is the crucifix & Jesus in the chapel
-
Historical fiction or fiction in general is never accurate because it's...well, fiction. In fiction there will always be an element or elements that differ minutely or greatly from actual events of history, hence the word 'fiction'. If it were accurate to history then it wouldn't be fiction at all. Sorry about the rant Shiroi. I work in a bookstore, and as you can see I just brought my work home with me, lol ;D But it's also true that even history itself is not be entirely accurate as those in power or who have great influence are the ones who write the history books. So who knows? Maybe bits of our very history itself is fictional in the regard.
No prob. Thanks for clarifying it.
teh main thing that indicates LoS saga takes place in "our world" is the crucifix & Jesus in the chapel
Who can say that a parallel world doesn't have Jesus?
-
No prob. Thanks for clarifying it.
Who can say that a parallel world doesn't have Jesus?
Or at least the concept of him. It's not an alien planet, it's still Earth(but perhaps an Earth that, historically evolved differently, of course, we wouldn't know because how vague it was). You can also say the same regarding the classic canon compared to our reality. Classic canon's Earth shares a similar geographical landscape and history, but obviously due to the fictional "secret history" aspects, is also different. You can say most works of fiction that take place in our world are similar. Sometimes the change is drastic(like history is altered to the point that while geographically the world is the same, different countries exist where others do not).
-
well dracula´s curse could be pestilence?
-
Or at least the concept of him. It's not an alien planet, it's still Earth(but perhaps an Earth that, historically evolved differently, of course, we wouldn't know because how vague it was). You can also say the same regarding the classic canon compared to our reality. Classic canon's Earth shares a similar geographical landscape and history, but obviously due to the fictional "secret history" aspects, is also different. You can say most works of fiction that take place in our world are similar. Sometimes the change is drastic(like history is altered to the point that while geographically the world is the same, different countries exist where others do not).
This is essentually how it is in the Ys series. It's still Earth but in another reality very similar to our own.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1euqy5wRoqQ/T_bxzss-TVI/AAAAAAAANeo/6Uxl7OJML0Y/s1600/ncYsFoliageOceaninCelceta_21.jpg)
-
well dracula´s curse could be pestilence?
I thought about that as weel, after a small research i found this
http://books.google.it/books?id=qmrynckrEKYC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=europe+1476+pestilence&source=bl&ots=yuoZMcuncr&sig=8ttH5xvToNZkMZKIx9VLlX-ATFo&hl=it&sa=X&ei=LNhjU8L9OerhsASWyICICQ&ved=0CEsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=europe%201476%20pestilence&f=false (http://books.google.it/books?id=qmrynckrEKYC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=europe+1476+pestilence&source=bl&ots=yuoZMcuncr&sig=8ttH5xvToNZkMZKIx9VLlX-ATFo&hl=it&sa=X&ei=LNhjU8L9OerhsASWyICICQ&ved=0CEsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=europe%201476%20pestilence&f=false)
page 14 states there has been a pestilence in europe in 1477 in fact.
Don't really think this was intentional to Iga or anyone else involved in picking the dates for the storyline tho ahah