Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: crisis on May 19, 2014, 01:43:10 AM
-
given the controversy the timeline has caused in the last decade or so, do you think the next series of CV games should be set in a specific year/century? or does it really matter because
what i liekd about Order of Ecclesia was the fact that it gave us an ambigious date, "sometime in the 19th century" leaving us to try n pinpoint when it couldve took place (arguments say it takes place around 1830, but thats of course debatable). the positives for having dates is the fact that they can tie into real historical events into the mythos, such as an eclipse in Europe in 1999 and another one in 2035 and i think thats really cool
Lords of Shadow gave us a set date, but they couldve just as easily put "in medieval times" or "sometime during the medieval period" instead. and i dont even think they gave us an exact year for when LoS2 takes place
in an old interview IGA was asked what he thinks the biggest mistake concerning Castlevania was, and he said "probably when we put out the timeline. Because since Dracula only appears every 100 years, we made the whole timeline and ran out of places to put in another game. I made the timeline, but I shouldn't have actually released it, because now it's all official. That was a bad decision."
so should next reboot not repeat this "mistake?"
-
I like the idea of each game being contained in it's own universe like Circle of the Moon is. Each game could be a retelling of the same legend in new ways with new characters.
I'm not against a new timeline since I enjoy reading up on fictional lore and histories, but it might save Konami a headache or two by not having to try keeping things consistent that adhere to a timeline or law established like "only the Belmonts can wield the Vampire Killer."
-
I've always been a fan of a timeline following the Belmonts.
-
I am pretty much neutral about this topic. They can create a timeline but it would be difficult to add more games to it as the timeline grows. Or they can just go the final fantasy route.
-
Don't care.
Give me a one shot, or a new series of games in a timeline, either one works for me.
-
I really like the timeline, it allows for diferent games in the series to be linked together much more easily, than say like in FF. That depth of family history is one one of the things that I like about the Castlevania games.
-
Having a timeline for CV is inevitable I feel and the only time it becomes a mistake is if it gets out of hand as what had happened with the original series. One way or another a consecutive chain of events will happen for any new or rebooted CV. It did with the original series and obviously with LoS too. Having a CV series that does what FF does ie. each new game takes place in it's own universe (including those that have their own sequels) is also a novel idea. And yes it would save Konami much headache in the long-run. They wouldn't have to reboot the franchise nearly so often. However the bottom line that I cannot stress enough as a fan of the series, is that CV is about the Belmont family wielding the vampirekiller against Dracula and his forces. Nothing else.
-
Give me a one shot, or a new series of games in a timeline, either one works for me.
Pretty much this. However, if the characters/story are good, I'd definitively be happy with more games, like for LoS.
-
They should just focus on developing an arc. If everything is wrapped up nicely in one game then that's great, if it is actually required to add more games then that's great, too. Most "epic stories" suffer from "trilogy syndrome" where they are trilogies for the sake of being trilogies.
-
I feel timeline is a bad idea. Since many different people will have their take over a period of years... Different visions will make it feel weird. Like bloodlines and portrait of ruin.
-
I could care less about a timeline, I just want a lineage.
A BELMONT LINEAGE.
-
I've always believed that the CV series is a series about generations of terror. Dracula is defeated, but eventually rises again while a descendant of the Belmont family has to step forth to put him to rest. The whole concept of family lends itself to a timeline and each generation acts as a means of progression.
You CAN have an ambiguous setting retaining the whole family/generational progression, but you have to be crafty regarding how you reference "so-and-so" Belmont is the father of "that guy" Belmont.
For me, it's not relatively hard to follow a timeline as long as you are a stickler for continuity. That's one of the main killers of a timeline. Even Bryan Singer's been called out regarding the X-Men movie timeline and he's said ALL the movies so far are canon, and whatever inconsistencies there are, "just forget about them". The problem here usually lies with writer/directors that don't take much care inserting stories into an existing timeline, hence the clutter, retcons and continuity errors. I think timelines can be done right if you take the timeline into heavy consideration with each additonal story you create. From what I've seen, especially when you get new writers on board, it seems like they are more interested in telling a new story rather than thinking about how they can fit it into an existing world without going against established canon. That's a problem that I'd wish more writers would consider addressing. If you want to write something new, do it for a new world(establish your own world to do as you please), but when writing for an established franchise with an existing canon, you are bound by the rules. You better school yourself in the existing history of the previous stories and school yourself GOOD! There's no excuse. If any layman fanboy can do it, sure as hell someone within the company, getting PAID to do it can as well. Really, I'm pretty hard on this because I hate when stupid retcons are made for the sake of, "Oops, I forgot THIS event happened differently! My bad!!". There's no excuse whatsoever.
-
^
Have to agree with this.
-
Like other posts have already mentioned, the theme of family is one of the things I love the most about Castlevania. The Belmont Clan/Lineage is the most interesting part of the entire series for me, I hope that's something that remains a staple of the franchise.
-
Another reboot? No, thanks, dood.
...But, i prefer a timeline with the statement (in the "X" century). I see a specific year brings a few problems, with the time neccesary to Dracula to arise... or to a new Belmont to appear...
-
To be honest, LoS wasn't bad, but it was a letdown. I would really like to see the Vampire Killer (Bloodlines) Trilogy in action. I consider PoR to be an alternate universe sequel but not direct. CotM and Cv64 is an open timeline too but if the game is good and establish something worthwhile, I'm okay with a reboot, but no more origin stories. Origin stories are overplayed.
-
To be honest, LoS wasn't bad, but it was a letdown. I would really like to see the Vampire Killer (Bloodlines) Trilogy in action. I consider PoR to be an alternate universe sequel but not direct. CotM and Cv64 is an open timeline too but if the game is good and establish something worthwhile, I'm okay with a reboot, but no more origin stories. Origin stories are overplayed.
Totally agree with this. A few games seems to follow that route nowadays. I simply can`t understand why...
-
Totally agree with this. A few games seems to follow that route nowadays. I simply can`t understand why...
Because origin stories are so easy to tell. It's very easy to show the main character's personal journey through the rise and/or fall that leads to their adopted persona, you can continually introduce new characters without worrying about previously introduced ones, you don't necessarily need to resolve every plot point introduced because of the expectation of sequels, and you don't have to worry about backstory.
-
Because origin stories are so easy to tell. It's very easy to show the main character's personal journey through the rise and/or fall that leads to their adopted persona, you can continually introduce new characters without worrying about previously introduced ones, you don't necessarily need to resolve every plot point introduced because of the expectation of sequels, and you don't have to worry about backstory.
Yeah, its true, but personally I don`t like that treatment in sagas like Castlevania. Maybe a lot of people likes the LoS reboot because of the plotholes in the timeline stablished by Igarashi. Is a reboot the only solution? Lets talk about a reenginering...
-
It's like writers today are good at establishing and reestablish characters, but absolute shit at developing characters, Examples include...
The Dark knight Trilogy
Lords of Shadow 2
X-men movies (Post david hayder)
Hunger games (0 character development)
I don't get it, you take a character, and you make them go somewhere. Imagine Zelda starting with a Coward link, then in the end becomes the symbol of courage, see? it's not that hard especially if you're getting paid to do it.
-
I always liked the idea of a timeline. It tells the overall story of the series and shows what happened when in order. That being said, we don't need a specific year when a particular game took place. We only need to know what order the games happened in.
As for origin stories, we don't need one for Dracula. He's a vampire who is immensely powerful and wants to destroy humanity. That's all we need to know about him. As for the origin of the whip and the reason why the Belmonts have it, that could be taken care of in the prologue of the first game. We don't need an entire game devoted to that.
-
It's like writers today are good at establishing and reestablish characters, but absolute shit at developing characters, Examples include...
The Dark knight Trilogy
Lords of Shadow 2
X-men movies (Post david hayder)
Hunger games (0 character development)
I don't get it, you take a character, and you make them go somewhere. Imagine Zelda starting with a Coward link, then in the end becomes the symbol of courage, see? it's not that hard especially if you're getting paid to do it.
Unfortunately we live in an age where good writing is almost completely underplayed in favor of earning a paycheck. Hollywood is a very strong example of this trend of absolute suck. Almost nobody nowadays wants to even remotely make the effort to write up a good story to tell the viewer, solidifying his/her reputation due to their work, and thus honestly earning their pay for a job well-done. I can't help but feel that something important was lost in translation.
-
Unfortunately we live in an age where good writing is almost completely underplayed in favor of earning a paycheck. Hollywood is a very strong example of this trend of absolute suck. Almost nobody nowadays wants to even remotely make the effort to write up a good story to tell the viewer, solidifying his/her reputation due to their work, and thus honestly earning their pay for a job well-done. I can't help but feel that something important was lost in translation.
There are still some out there, My favorite director, Wes Anderson is one of them. but I really can't name a too many more after that.
Peter Jackson used to be like that, but his work on the hobbit proved otherwise (remember when hobbit was only gonna be two parts?)
-
I could ramble on about old Pete Jackson but I'll save you boys/girls the trouble
I really just want Belmont's. I think a timeline would be cool but I'm good with just various games where you play as *insert first name here* Belmont.
-
Like other posts have already mentioned, the theme of family is one of the things I love the most about Castlevania. The Belmont Clan/Lineage is the most interesting part of the entire series for me, I hope that's something that remains a staple of the franchise.
I've always said the name Belmont is perfect for Dracula hunters. 8)
There are still some out there, My favorite director, Wes Anderson is one of them. but I really can't name a too many more after that.
Peter Jackson used to be like that, but his work on the hobbit proved otherwise (remember when hobbit was only gonna be two parts?)
And directed by Guillermo Del Toro :'( #regrets
-
Im ok with self contained Castlevania's. Just make a new Belmont, a castle full of a wide variety of monsters lead by Dracula and a whip. No need to fluff it up with an overarching storyline that will get lost along the way due to directors changing hands.
-
Timelines keep new people from playing some series do they not? At least for me, I totally understand why people would be intimidated by 25+ years of continuity. I feel like it would be best for the series to do the final fantasy thing.
-
Eh, I think it depends who you are. I got into CV with LoI and didn't have a hard time catching up with old and new games. However, that's only me.
-
I personally like the timeline idea...the story of a family whose descendants are ever fighting off evil when it rises (often with new methods and new friends), but too much specificity can easily kill it as several have said. I think few titles happening in a specific time could work just fine (provided the writers took the time to make such a thing sensibly fit within whatever canon was established) but most titles should be, "...in this era..." or "...sometime in X century" or something like that. Descendants could sometimes be specific and work (again, if people were careful to make it fit and not just shove their square peg in any hole they pleased), but again, if they were simply a descendant of X Belmont or Belmont-friend...
...seems to me that stuff would make a timeline last longer.