Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: AlexCalvo on January 17, 2016, 04:59:35 AM
-
I almost hate to say it... But I think most of us can admit it's true. Dracula is, in a way at least, holding Castlevania back. I know, I know, it sounds like blasphemy, but hear me out. Dracula as a character in general, has gone well beyond the cheesy line. Castlevania came about at least partly due to a coincidental re-surge in popularity of the classic universal studios monsters in the 1980's. So at that time it was a major selling point for the game.
But let's be honest. Not even talking about Castlevania what kind of images are evoked when you hear the name Dracula? What do you think most people, gamers or not think of when they think of Dracula? Campy old movies? Boring Halloween costumes? The count from Sesame Street? Maybe I am exaggerating a little but I think you get the idea. It is hard for most people to take Dracula stories seriously these days. Maybe it comes from decades of movies that range from way too serious to stupid, vapid kids movies. *cough Dracula Untold cough Hotel Transylvania cough*
Iga handled this by not taking his stories too seriously, the LoS team handled it by just ignoring it and slipping Dracula in post credits, then going full on melodrama in the sequels, and while both their levels of success are debatable I think we can all agree that the series could do a lot better, storytelling wise. So what do you think the answer to this is? I personally wouldn't mind a semi-rebooted series that refers to the final boss as Mathias, Lord Cronqvist, or maybe simply “The Dark Lord” or something like “The Dragon”. Or maybe I am just crazy? Or you have a good idea of how to handle Dracula. What do you guys think?
-
I don't get it. Your issue is with Dracula as a character, or with Dracula as how he was portrayed outside Castlevania, or? You think the tropes associated with "Dracula" name itself detracts from the potential for the character inside the series, is that it?
-
Back when I was a regular on the Anti-Chapel forums, I championed the idea of "filler episode games" wherein fan favorite Belmonts like Simon hunted down Dracula's worshipers and top lieutenants, but Dracula himself did not directly appear in the game. It made good sense to me that most of a Belmont's life would be spent dealing with threats other than Dracula himself, and it would also preserve the impact of Dracula's resurrection, keeping it an "OH SHIT! HE'S AWAKE!" rather than the "Whoops it's 9:45 PM. GUESS WHO'S BACK FROM THE GRAVE GUYS." his resurrections eventually became while still allowing for a regular release of titles.
Dracula is also wasted as a villain. He doesn't do anything, usually, just kind of sitting around and waiting for the Belmont to come along and kill him. Rondo of Blood and the N64 games are the only games to really have him involved in the story (in the latter case via Malus, but it counts). We never see good examples of why Dracula is this guy to be feared and dreaded. Mirror of Fate, for all its faults, showed that Gabriel-as-Dracul did deploy his armies, and yes, they did destroy a lot of towns and lives. Dracula needed to be used more effectively as a villain -- as a true antagonist, rather than a gameplay objective. He needed to do evil things, show up regularly to taunt the hero, and generally prove himself a threat, which Rondo of Blood and Mirror of Fate excepting he never really did.
That's one of the reasons I loved Evil Maxim, Walter Bernhard, Zead, and Isaac as villains: they did VILLAIN THINGS. They were antagonists, in the true sense of the word; Zead most insidiously of all by going the full "Corrupting Darth Sidious" route.
The sad truth is that, even when he IS present, Dracula is less of an antagonist than his servants. Death has been fairly involved in several stories, Carmilla was the real antagonist of Circle of the Moon, and Gilles de Rais made for a more effective Dracula in CV64 than Dracula himself usually does. Castlevania has a lot of great villains, but Dracula is only extremely rarely one of them.
-
I don't get it. Your issue is with Dracula as a character, or with Dracula as how he was portrayed outside Castlevania, or? You think the tropes associated with "Dracula" name itself detracts from the potential for the character inside the series, is that it?
The third one.
-
The third one.
I respectfully disagree. I think that when most people hear the Dracula name, it keys them in that he's a big bad vampire, but he's been portrayed so differently over the years (even as a Marvel Comics superhero in the 1970's!) that he's pretty immune from prejudice on the part of the audience.
The name is a set up for certain expectations and qualities, but most people in my experience are more willing to see how the story handles the character behind the name. As a side note, most people who I know think of the Gary Oldman Dracula when the name is mentioned, or Christopher Lee's portrayal.
-
RE: Dracula as "more of a villain" I always thought it would be cool if there were more than one Dracula fight kind of like how you fight Vergil 3 different times in DMC3 even though he's the final boss. Each fight could escalate Dracula's powers somewhat and it would make him a little more visible.
-
RE: Dracula as "more of a villain" I always thought it would be cool if there were more than one Dracula fight kind of like how you fight Vergil 3 different times in DMC3 even though he's the final boss. Each fight could escalate Dracula's powers somewhat and it would make him a little more visible.
That might have worked once or twice in the series, with Dracula unleashing greater extremes of his power in later fights as it becomes apparent that you won't be flattened so easily.
But, as I've already argued, literally having Dracula do ANYTHING AT ALL is already grounds for him being more menacing than the series generally treated him. The whole "Orcus on His Throne" deal was acceptable in the NES days due to resource constraints, but it ended up becoming an obsolete holdover as game technology and storytelling got more advanced. That's the biggest cockblock that the series faced: was that it was unwilling to let certain conventions from earlier hardware generations die of old age and be replaced. By the time we got games that were willing to take chances, the damage had already been done.
I remember playing DXC the first time and, as Shaft is being creepy towards Anette in the beginning of the game, I was flabbergasted that Dracula showed up, even if it was just a phantom saying "bring her to my bedroom" villain cameo. I was legitimately shocked that Dracula made an appearance of any kind, especially a voiced appearance, prior to me fighting him.
At least Harmony of Dissonance had a good in-story reason for the Dracula Wraith appearing only at the very end -- it quite literally didn't even exist as a Dracula Wraith until that moment. Prior to that, it's Evil Maxim. I don't think any of the other games justified it at all.
Although... based on the Succubus' profuse apologies to Gabeula in Mirror of Fate, I feel like the implication there was that he didn't even feel like getting off his throne should have even been necessary; "My minions are pretty tough. No doubt they've got this one in the bag-- oh. Play this cool Drac. Talk tough. Be tough. You are the man."
-
I think AoS already remedied this by introducing which is the source of Dracula's power and his centennial (as well as other) resurrections.
DoS did less of an inventive job with but still found a way to create a threatening final boss void of the Dark Lord himself.
@DoctaMario I would recommend Castlevania 64 and LOD in that case.
For anyone who believes Dracula doesn't seem threatening, although it wasn't my favourite portrayal I thought COD's was pretty threatening in his final form.
Dracula untold was a decent movie imo, I just wish they didn't go down the "hero" route of LOS. If he had been ruthless and some historical anecdotes of him impaling people had been carried out it would have been a better film. Also who was that original Vampire that gave him his powers? The LOS ending was interesting, but it didn't help its case.
-
For anyone who believes Dracula doesn't seem threatening, although it wasn't my favourite portrayal I thought COD's was pretty threatening in his final form.
Courtesy of Steve Blum's badass voice acting lending all the villainy Dracula deserved from day one. He's still the definitive Dracula voice, in my mind. And then Robert Carlyle was probably the worst (although he did get one shining moment across two scenes as Dracula in MoF -- he did pretty good there). DXC and Symphony were... tolerable. OoE didn't really get enough spoken dialog from him to warrant a mention, but what WAS there was pretty good.
Nobody can top Walter's glorious baritone though. Holy crap. Evil is a ham and cheese sandwich for sure. Are we sure he and Isaac aren't relations?
-
Dracula is for me, a badass villian (at least he was until IGA turned him into a f@#kin' emo, of which he is not and should not have been). Is he holding CV back? No. Dracula is the absolute representative of all that is evil in the CV universe so it makes sense that he would be the final villain in almost every game. But that shouldn't stop game developers from doing CV side-story games that don't have Dracula in them. And it also makes sense from a game/story prospective that in order to destroy the ultimate evil, one needs the ultimate champion, hence, the Belmont family. It's no different then Mario Vs Bowser or Link Vs Ganon.
-
I don't know that I would say Dracula is holding Castlevania back, as far as the original canon goes. I won't even consider the LoS canon...but I do feel that he needs a face lift and should go back to what he once was - more of a menacing, undead revenant with great power instead of the woe-is-me emo that he became. There's certainly nothing wrong with expounding on a character's backstory, but sometimes the mystique is what makes things so great. I think it worked fairly well for SotN since you played as Alucard who was not entirely human, so it helped make things a bit more relatable all around but after that he became just too damn romanticized. It even worked pretty well in OoE, as it felt separated enough from the usual. But for the most part he just didn't feel all that threatening after his backstory was explained in SotN. Death on the other hand was greatly improved and felt much more sinister.
-
I think people are misunderstanding the point I tried to make a little bit. I fully understand that Dracula is representative of pure evil in the series. And I am not saying that they should make games with a different final boss. I am just asking the question of is the cultural baggage of the character turning casual gamers off to the series, and is it limiting the series storytelling potential. Given the series storyline, I think not using that name so directly so often could help.
I also don't get the emo moniker... terrible tragedy has been the driving force behind most great villains throughout history... fictional and real. I don't think they uppended the mystique so much with the Mathias storyline, as we still know very little about his hsistory or rise to power, just the spark that started the fire. Well fires, Elisabetha and Lisa.
-
I think people are misunderstanding the point I tried to make a little bit. I fully understand that Dracula is representative of pure evil in the series. And I am not saying that they should make games with a different final boss. I am just asking the question of is the cultural baggage of the character turning casual gamers off to the series, and is it limiting the series storytelling potential. Given the series storyline, I think not using that name so directly so often could help.
I also don't get the emo moniker... terrible tragedy has been the driving force behind most great villains throughout history... fictional and real. I don't think they uppended the mystique so much with the Mathias storyline, as we still know very little about his hsistory or rise to power, just the spark that started the fire. Well fires, Elisabetha and Lisa.
I couldn't disagree with you more and I'm actually a little annoyed by what you said.
First off without Dracula, CV likely wouldn't have been a hit. Secondly, he is handled wonderfully up until post SOTN. Wonderfully because they didn't reveal much about him. They kept him mysterious and threatening.
Thirdly, CV ruined Dracula later in the series by ignoring his true, and horrific background. Dracula as Mathias is bullshit. Dracula as Gabriel is bullshit. And the Soma Dracula thing was pretty lame too IMO. They ruined the character and now here you are complaining as if it were Dracula as a character that is bad. They took one of the most terrifying characters in history and made him bad by stripping him of his backstory and replacing it with crap. The fear and uncertainty we're supposed to feel around him was washed away.
CV had a chance to do Dracula justice (something not often done in movies) and they blew it.
Let's talk about the Mathias and Gabriel problem rather than blaming the star character who made the series successful in the first place.
This is ridiculous.
-
I don't think that cultural baggage has any role here, but I could be wrong. It's my opinion that the games themselves as a whole have turned off the casual gamer. But then again, this series was never really for the casual gamer. But what I mean by that is the games range in playstyles and can be VERY different. You have classicvanias, metroidvanias, the different playstyles of the 3d games including Lords of Shadow. There are only bursts of consistency and that may turn a lot of people off because they don't know what to expect from game to game. You can take Mario to compare against, in that there are tons of games with Mario out there that play very differently, but somehow you always know what to expect when you put in a Mario game. The casual gamer can easily be turned off by the inconsistency alone with Castlevania.
My point of view with the emo moniker isn't the circumstances that led Dracula to his evil nature, but rather his personality after the fact. He's too romanticized. The original games were paid as tribute to the Hammer movies and I have often wondered if the new Dracula was inspired by 1994's Interview with a Vampire. But I don't even think that his current personality is what keeps casual gamer at bay. I just don't think this series is really for the casual player and never really has been.
-
I couldn't disagree with you more and I'm actually a little annoyed by what you said.
First off without Dracula, CV likely wouldn't have been a hit. Secondly, he is handled wonderfully up until post SOTN. Wonderfully because they didn't reveal much about him. They kept him mysterious and threatening.
Thirdly, CV ruined Dracula later in the series by ignoring his true, and horrific background. Dracula as Mathias is bullshit. Dracula as Gabriel is bullshit. And the Soma Dracula thing was pretty lame too IMO. They ruined the character and now here you are complaining as if it were Dracula as a character that is bad. They took one of the most terrifying characters in history and made him bad by stripping him of his backstory and replacing it with crap. The fear and uncertainty we're supposed to feel around him was washed away.
CV had a chance to do Dracula justice (something not often done in movies) and they blew it.
Let's talk about the Mathias and Gabriel problem rather than blaming the star character who made the series successful in the first place.
This is ridiculous.
Calm down man. Don't get mad over fictional characters.
You are also misunderstanding my point pretty considerably. I know Dracula was the reason the series caught on, I even touched on that in my original post. Dracula as a villain is about as 2-Dimensional as exists in the western canon. At least that is what he has become. Of course that worked up to SoTN because that kind of storytelling worked fine for NES/SNES games. Nobody wanted more from games as a storytelling medium. But that certainly changed right around the time of Playstation 1. And continues to change, as gamers expect more and more from games as a storytelling medium.
Now, I have always been a gameplay first kind of guy, so it doesn't take much away from me if a story is very basic, and the gameplay is great. But this topic is specifically directed at the series potential in storytelling. A good story doesn't make a a bad game good, but it certainly makes a good game better. Now, this problem of Dracula's cultural image has been dealt with in varying ways. Iga tried to make him into a different character, a "Dracula in name only" kind of situation, and he was far from the first person to do this with the Dracula story. LoS did the same thing.
But the difference in the two approaches is one seemed to be aware that Dracula as a menacing figure has somewhat diminished in the public eye, so he didn't try to make us think of him all that much, and used more in the sense of "Generic big bad" he gave him a tragic story, that was essentially ripped right from the movie Bram Stoker's Dracula. While the other tried to lean into a cultural idea that doesn't really exist that much anymore... Dracula as a dramatic, prolific character.
My question is this. How should he be handled in future Castlevania stories? Do you really want the two demensional, evil for evil's sake character of the old, virtually story-less games? Or is their a way to make him a great, dynamic character, a truly great villain while still holding on to baggage the name Dracula brings with it? It is not just Castlevania that has tinkered with Dracula's image, it is not even close to the most prolific use of the character. But in the world today Dracula is seen as a cheesy, cartoonish character. If you deny that, I don't really see the point in having a conversation, as you are using your opinion of the character and holding it up as the primary image most people have. So what to do? If you have an idea please do tell.
-
From a Castlevania standpoint I don't think I'd ever say that the series has ever exactly been known for it's A-grade story ("Die Monster!"). Consequently, it's never really needed much depth in terms of a villain.
As such, and as stated previously, Dracula is pretty much just "there" out of necessity. Ever since the beginning, I never really expected much out of him. The essence of his existence can be primarily summed as his being the Big End to whipping my way through countless hordes of ghouls, spirits and undead, living only for me to defeat him.
Ultimately, the series has always been more about style, gameplay and music. I don't think it can ever stand on its own as a story, and shouldn't really try to take itself too seriously as such, as it's never really been about that.
Just my two cents. Carry on.
-
Calm down man. Don't get mad over fictional characters.
You are also misunderstanding my point pretty considerably. I know Dracula was the reason the series caught on, I even touched on that in my original post. Dracula as a villain is about as 2-Dimensional as exists in the western canon. At least that is what he has become. Of course that worked up to SoTN because that kind of storytelling worked fine for NES/SNES games. Nobody wanted more from games as a storytelling medium. But that certainly changed right around the time of Playstation 1. And continues to change, as gamers expect more and more from games as a storytelling medium.
Now, I have always been a gameplay first kind of guy, so it doesn't take much away from me if a story is very basic, and the gameplay is great. But this topic is specifically directed at the series potential in storytelling. A good story doesn't make a a bad game good, but it certainly makes a good game better. Now, this problem of Dracula's cultural image has been dealt with in varying ways. Iga tried to make him into a different character, a "Dracula in name only" kind of situation, and he was far from the first person to do this with the Dracula story. LoS did the same thing.
But the difference in the two approaches is one seemed to be aware that Dracula as a menacing figure has somewhat diminished in the public eye, so he didn't try to make us think of him all that much, and used more in the sense of "Generic big bad" he gave him a tragic story, that was essentially ripped right from the movie Bram Stoker's Dracula. While the other tried to lean into a cultural idea that doesn't really exist that much anymore... Dracula as a dramatic, prolific character.
My question is this. How should he be handled in future Castlevania stories? Do you really want the two demensional, evil for evil's sake character of the old, virtually story-less games? Or is their a way to make him a great, dynamic character, a truly great villain while still holding on to baggage the name Dracula brings with it? It is not just Castlevania that has tinkered with Dracula's image, it is not even close to the most prolific use of the character. But in the world today Dracula is seen as a cheesy, cartoonish character. If you deny that, I don't really see the point in having a conversation, as you are using your opinion of the character and holding it up as the primary image most people have. So what to do? If you have an idea please do tell.
I'm not misunderstanding your point. You're not the first person to bring this up around here and it's not the first time I've gotten heated about it. Sorry for getting worked up. This and CV4 are buttons of mine that I tend to be a dick on the internet about. Sorry.
But let me clarify a little.
I don't consider Dracula a fictitious character. I consider him what he is. A real historical, terrifying man, who has had fiction written around him. Like Adolf Hitler.
The vampire myth works well for him because his body was never found. And it is rumored that he would eat his supper while watching his impalement victims suffer. And of course there is the rumor that he dipped his bread in the blood of his enemies. The vampire shoe fits nicely with him, so stoker gave it to him.
Few of the movies or games about him get his story right, and make him as terrifying as he actually was. When you stack the vampire myth on top of his real past, he becomes one of the most intimidating villains imaginable. That is what CV should have done with him in my opinion.
But CV built itself around him. Taking him out of the equation would be a major mistake in my opinion and at that point if the CV name were to stay in the title, you need to make a sub title like Mig has done with The Lecarde Chronicles. It takes the focus off Dracula and puts it on the protagonist while still letting the player know that they can expect classic Castlevania gameplay.
But further more, I think people expect storylines to hand you every detail these days. Giving an explanation for everything rips the mystique out of a plot. Horror films of the past got this right more often. Some films today still manage to pull it off, but they are rare. A good story doesn't mean that every character needs a backstory and motive. When the viewer has to use their imagination to fill in blanks in a storyline it can have a bigger impact on them and make the story seem bigger and scarier than it otherwise would be. Good writers know where to leave these voids in a story.
I think Dracula in fiction is best handled this way. Leaving his past a mystery doesn't validate the real history, and it also doesn't deny it.
Just take Iago from Othello. He seems to enjoy evil just for the sake of it. That doesn't make him less of a fleshed out villain. In fact it makes him one of Shakespear's most sinister villains.
It shows when these types of voids are used tastefully as opposed to just lazy writing. Watch Herzog's Nosferatu. It tells us virtually nothing about the Vampire but still gives us glimpses of his humanity and loneliness. But it doesn't come off as weakness. It turns a common human emotion into a driving force of evil. It's brilliant.
Sorry, I'm in a ranting mood today. And sorry again for being a dick!
Basically I think CV should have made a small connection to Vlad the Impaler, and left Dracula's backstory a mystery from there. Which is basically what Stoker did. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. Use it as a strength.
-
I think you make some really good points, and in the right type of game that would be a fine way to handle the character, but I just want to make 2 quick comments.
1. There is a fine line between giving every detail of a character's backstory, and producing a bland 2 dimensional, undeveloped character. I am the school of thought that an undeveloped character can almost never be interesting, or powerfully effect the story they take place in. You need to care about characters, good or bad, love them or hate them, but if you don't know them at all, they have no weight to throw around the story. That said I think Iga was very far from over exposing Dracula's background. We know nothing of his time before the crusades, though it is heavily implied he was already involved with dark magic, we know virtually nothing about what he did between LoI and the events leading to Cv3. All we know is that his fall started with the death of his wife.
2. I think the idea of holding Dracula, the fictional character, as Vlad III is pretty tenuous at best. Given that Bram Stoker had plotted out most of the story before he even landed on the name Dracula. For most of the writing process he was referred to as Count Vampyr. There certainly is a connective DNA between the two, but I think it is much weaker then some would argue. Stoker's own notes seem to imply that he just wanted his Dracula to be of relation to the notorious family, and not just Vlad. So I think demanding that all versions of Dracula make him Vlad are a little unfounded, as this connection is never directly made in Stoker's book.
-
1. There is a fine line between giving every detail of a character's backstory, and producing a bland 2 dimensional, undeveloped character. I am the school of thought that an undeveloped character can almost never be interesting, or powerfully effect the story they take place in. You need to care about characters, good or bad, love them or hate them, but if you don't know them at all, they have no weight to throw around the story. That said I think Iga was very far from over exposing Dracula's background. We know nothing of his time before the crusades, though it is heavily implied he was already involved with dark magic, we know virtually nothing about what he did between LoI and the events leading to Cv3. All we know is that his fall started with the death of his wife.
Mathias was pretty fucked up (in a good way for an antagonist) to me. He basically sacrifices Leon's betrothed to a powerful Vampire so that Leon will destroy him and he can claim their soul. This after God took his own spouse/betrothed/whatever is quite messed up in more ways than one. We don't even see the guy until the end of the game, he's still that "cloaked in mystery" character even prior to becoming Dracula. (It also fits his character that he was a war tactician which could be one explanation as to why he's such an efficient ruler who is rarely seen.) Short of him and Leon being brothers, I don't think the end to a brotherhood and the start of a millennium-long rivalry could have been any more tragic. (If you want a much better example of a similar tragic story, please read the Berserk manga's golden arc or watch the full anime series - portraying this better imho)
Having said all of this, I don't believe Dracula needs to be handled like this in every single game. Iga was making an origins story to fit his timeline and substantiate his own canon (with Legends going out the window canonically). As much as I like Iga's origins story, maybe for every other game he should remain shrouded in mystery until the end, akin to Ganondorf from TP.
As I've mentioned CoD's Dracula was badass, with barely 5 - 10 minutes in the game at all, and it worked!
To be fair most of the older and newer CV titles carry one thing in common, one thing that always intrigued me with every Cv title the anticipation of Dracula. The game we are playing building to that final point, rather than focusing purely on the characterisation of Dracula himself. Although imo some games did this more than others and they did it well:
- LOI: Origins story, the man himself is still cloaked in mystery until the bitter end.
- 64/ LOD: Guardian of his spirit/ Malus seen in snippets until the true being is revealed.
- AoS: Building up the return of a Dark Lord only to find at the end of the game.
The best analogy I can think of: this anticipation is like the anticipation of making love/having sex, it's often more of a driving/motivating force itself than the end point. It keeps the experiencer interested via their own imagination rather than divulging all facts about the antagonist (as Belmontoya said). Plus this analogy seems to fit because there's no denying there's always been sexual connotation to the allure of The Vampire, particularly to do with biting women on the neck. (But that's a story for another time).
So yeah, in conclusion Julius Belmont said it best himself that hearing the name of "Dracula" struck fear into him. "Dracula" is largely associated with fear. It's not how tall, looming or "cliche evil" he necessarily is. It's that through the legends - themselves which are so terrifying - passed down about him, he has instilled fear into the hearts of countless men who wouldn't even know him.
-
My question is this. How should he be handled in future Castlevania stories? Do you really want the two demensional, evil for evil's sake character of the old, virtually story-less games? Or is their a way to make him a great, dynamic character, a truly great villain while still holding on to baggage the name Dracula brings with it?
Dracula was never the type of villain who was 2 dimensional. It seems that way but he's actually got a very complex story behind him--Both Bram Stoker's fictional Vampire, and his real life counterpart; Vlad III. CV needs to go back to this Dracula. It's what it started out with. The Japanese love their emo villains so (unfortunately) Dracula got caught up in the mess. But before SotN he was a villain who pulled no punches. He didn't waste time talking out his feelings. He only wanted to do one thing and one thing alone; Ending you, the hero. The only exception was Alucard for being his only son. That's how far it should have gone and where it should have stayed. Dracula has no intimate business with the Belmonts. They're nothing more then a barrier--a hindrance to his ultimate goal.
-
Dracula was never the type of villain who was 2 dimensional. It seems that way but he's actually got a very complex story behind him--Both Bram Stoker's fictional Vampire, and his real life counterpart; Vlad III. CV needs to go back to this Dracula. It's what it started out with. The Japanese love their emo villains so (unfortunately) Dracula got caught up in the mess. But before SotN he was a villain who pulled no punches. He didn't waste time talking out his feelings. He only wanted to do one thing and one thing alone; Ending you, the hero. The only exception was Alucard for being his only son. That's how far it should have gone and where it should have stayed. Dracula has no intimate business with the Belmonts. They're nothing more then a barrier--a hindrance to his ultimate goal.
Man, that's one critique I absolutelly don't get.
Dracula gets an emotional character development in TWO games: SotN and Lament. In SotN it's his son, in Lament it's his turn to darkness, his tragic origin story, which makes sense to me - only something very tragic to turn a man of lawfulness into a demon of the night.
In ALL the others he's portrayed just like the genocidal maniac with a god-complex we expect him to be. But people (*glares at X*) keep saying he's being "emo", that he was "ruthless" before SotN. When he's just as ruthless after SotN. His CoD character development is literally "Humans are shit, I'm a god. You're shit too, you'll die".
Also, pre-SotN Dracula was as bidimensional as it comes - Big vampire wants to kill everyone because reasons. Get up there and kill him.
This is such a silly critique, IMO.
-
But before SotN he was a villain who pulled no punches. He didn't waste time talking out his feelings. He only wanted to do one thing and one thing alone; Ending you, the hero. The only exception was Alucard for being his only son. That's how far it should have gone and where it should have stayed. Dracula has no intimate business with the Belmonts. They're nothing more then a barrier--a hindrance to his ultimate goal.
Really, then why did he not bite and turn Soleiyu or Annette when he had the chance? Why even give the Belmonts that were after him a chance to reclaim their loved ones? FYI the first level's track on RoB/ XX is called "Opposing Bloodlines", if that's not indicative of something intimate between Dracula and the Belmonts damn near 600 years after LOI then I don't know what is.
-
Man, that's one critique I absolutelly don't get.
If you don't get it that's fine.
Dracula gets an emotional character development in TWO games: SotN and Lament. In SotN it's his son, in Lament it's his turn to darkness, his tragic origin story, which makes sense to me - only something very tragic to turn a man of lawfulness into a demon of the night.
The real life Dracula had just as much a tragic backstory (if not more-so) then IGA's replacement did. Believe me on some level I feel sorry for the guy from what he was forced to go through.
In ALL the others he's portrayed just like the genocidal maniac with a god-complex we expect him to be.
True enough. No argument here.
When he's just as ruthless after SotN. His CoD character development is literally "Humans are shit, I'm a god. You're shit too, you'll die".
And that's true as well.
Also, pre-SotN Dracula was as bidimensional as it comes - Big vampire wants to kill everyone because reasons. Get up there and kill him.
Well he is the embodiment of all that is evil in CV so yeah. But he's still far from being a typical 2D villain.
This is such a silly critique, IMO.
There's nothing silly about expressing yourself on a subject. If you felt that someone or someones' altered your favorite villain or hero to suit their personal views you'd be just as much up in arms as anyone else. Be mindful of others as they would be of you.
Really, then why did he not bite and turn Soleiyu or Annette when he had the chance? Why even give the Belmonts that were after him a chance to reclaim their loved ones? FYI the first level's track on RoB/ XX is called "Opposing Bloodlines", if that's not indicative of something intimate between Dracula and the Belmonts damn near 600 years after LOI then I don't know what is.
When I said intimate I was referring to family. In this case that of Dracula and Alucard. The Belmonts don't have that kind of relationship with Dracula, especially since IGA canned Legends.
-
When I said intimate I was referring to family. In this case that of Dracula and Alucard. The Belmonts don't have that kind of relationship with Dracula, especially since IGA canned Legends.
From LOI's script:
Leon Belmont, a courageous man who feared nothing and whose combat abilities were second to none, and Mathias Cronqvist, a genius tactician, whose learning made him an exception in a largely illiterate society.
They trusted each other completely, and they were bound by an old friendship.
Leon: You wretched fool.
Mathias: What?
Leon: Is this what the woman you loved would have wanted? The Mathias I know would not have loved such a woman.
Mathias and the Belmonts will not meet again for hundreds of years....
The years before their next meeting pass slowly and quietly, but with finality: the intermission in this exquisite play from which two souls will never escape.
Absolute fucking bollocks. Leon knew Mathias prior to him being Dracula which makes it all the more meaningful and tragic they have to keep destroying him over and over.
-
The gist of the point seems to be "the name Dracula automatically connotates cartoony 'I vant to suck your blood, vwa ha ha!' mental images and themes and because of this his consistent appearances in a series about his bachelor pad is holding that series back."
(Obviously I'm poking some fun, but that's basically how I'm interpreting it.)
If this is remotely accurate, then it's a ridiculous point. The connotations of the name Dracula will not be the same for one person as they are for another, and trying to insinuate as such is just silly.
I hear that name, and I'm drawn to mental images of a ruthless warlord from the fifteenth century who drenched his countryside in the blood of his enemies mostly because their leader took him as a political hostage as a kid and killed several of his family in political assassinations. And some religious zealot reasons too, probably.
The person beside me might be made to think of Bela Lugosi in a cape and fangs.
The person beside them might be thinking of Gary Oldman rocking a sharp Victorian suit and sultry Romanian accent.
The dude way in the back of the room eating nachos could be thinking of whatever the hell that thing in Blade III was.
The woman in the bathroom could imagine Adam Sandler in that animated movie her kids enjoyed.
See where I'm going with this? Everybody connotates something differently.
Dracula as a character isn't really holding anything back. The recycled formula that shows up throughout most of the series, on the other hand...an argument could be made there. But the specific reasons detailed in the OP of this thread, as far as I understand them (if I'm understanding them properly, that is), are not solid or well-founded enough to justify the primary claim of the argument.
Do correct me if I've misinterpreted that particular point, as I'd prefer not to discuss based on faulty interpretations.
-
You're absolutely right.
I, like you, think of the warlord.
My daughter is gonna watch a movie before bed tonight and she just asked to watch the Dracula movie. She thinks of Adam Sandler...
For Castlevania I don't know what to think anymore because they muddled him up into a bunch of blah blah blah.
-
The gist of the point seems to be "the name Dracula automatically connotates cartoony 'I vant to suck your blood, vwa ha ha!' mental images and themes and because of this his consistent appearances in a series about his bachelor pad is holding that series back."
(Obviously I'm poking some fun, but that's basically how I'm interpreting it.)
If this is remotely accurate, then it's a ridiculous point. The connotations of the name Dracula will not be the same for one person as they are for another, and trying to insinuate as such is just silly.
I hear that name, and I'm drawn to mental images of a ruthless warlord from the fifteenth century who drenched his countryside in the blood of his enemies mostly because their leader took him as a political hostage as a kid and killed several of his family in political assassinations. And some religious zealot reasons too, probably.
The person beside me might be made to think of Bela Lugosi in a cape and fangs.
The person beside them might be thinking of Gary Oldman rocking a sharp Victorian suit and sultry Romanian accent.
The dude way in the back of the room eating nachos could be thinking of whatever the hell that thing in Blade III was.
The woman in the bathroom could imagine Adam Sandler in that animated movie her kids enjoyed.
See where I'm going with this? Everybody connotates something differently.
Dracula as a character isn't really holding anything back. The recycled formula that shows up throughout most of the series, on the other hand...an argument could be made there. But the specific reasons detailed in the OP of this thread, as far as I understand them (if I'm understanding them properly, that is), are not solid or well-founded enough to justify the primary claim of the argument.
Do correct me if I've misinterpreted that particular point, as I'd prefer not to discuss based on faulty interpretations.
Once again D9 says what I'm thinking.
You rock.
-
When I think about SOTN Drac and the fact his attire is more eccentric, it doesn't surprise me as his English voice and character seem slightly white-poet-warlord (though more serious and stern) than Seinfeld's J. Peterman
-
So it sounds like basically there are two issues here. First, making Dracula so innocuous and almost nonexistent to the fact that when you least expect it he appears. Second when he does finally appear, fighting him ranges from difficult to him actually putting the Akuma in Akumajou Dracula. Does that about cover it?
Side note, a quality CV fighter would be most welcome in my world.
But that goes without saying. Even still. YES I SAID IT!!!!!
-
Side note, a quality CV fighter would be most welcome in my world.
Serio answered your prayers some time ago bruv.
-
Serio answered your prayers some time ago bruv.
No disrespect to Serio but no I just dont feel it. And I have been on this forum for ages trust me I know about that home brew. To quote Mike Tyson or was it Luke Skywalker I take my hand off to him but I am still hoping on a Castlevania fighter with Street Fighter sized characters where you can see their facial features. There's a thought, a Castlevania game that plays like a platformer until you get to boss and then it plays like a fighting game. Granted most fighting games are based off of the boss battle sequences from franchises like CV, Mega Man and sech.
Sorry Serio just my opinion. It's an impressive labor of love. I have to say I am envious of your passion to see it through to the end and for your programming skills. I can't even get my Game maker idea to work proper. At some point I will probably go back to it.
As for you Bloody to paraphrase Kingsmen "It ain't that kind of movie.....love." ;)
-
No disrespect to Serio but no I just dont feel it. And I have been on this forum for ages trust me I know about that home brew. To quote Mike Tyson or was it Luke Skywalker I take my hand off to him but I am still hoping on a Castlevania fighter with Street Fighter sized characters where you can see their facial features. There's a thought, a Castlevania game that plays like a platformer until you get to boss and then it plays like a fighting game. Granted most fighting games are based off of the boss battle sequences from franchises like CV, Mega Man and sech.
Sorry Serio just my opinion. It's an impressive labor of love. I have to say I am envious of your passion to see it through to the end and for your programming skills. I can't even get my Game maker idea to work proper. At some point I will probably go back to it.
As for you Bloody to paraphrase Kingsmen "It ain't that kind of movie.....love." ;)
The closest game would be Golden Axe: The Duel for Sega Saturn.
Spewing that wasn't a ps1 game back in the day, I'd have bought it!
-
There's a thought, a Castlevania game that plays like a platformer until you get to boss and then it plays like a fighting game.
So Chippoke Ralph No Daibouken? Seriously, this is exactly what happens in this game, and its a very good platform game.
-
I'd say more people would be drawn to the game rather than turned away from it.
Just to sum the plot up in a sentence, "You're a barbarian (or whatever) and you go to a creepy old castle to kill DRACULA."
There are people that will go "Dracula? That's stupid," sure, but I'd imagine there are many more that would go "Dracula? Hell yeah!" Really you have to embrace what something is and accept it's limitations. Freddy Kruegar might be a bit silly as a character, but when you watch those movies, you're willing to put that aside and accept that he's this evil nasty boogeyman. If you don't, you're probably not going to watch them. Nobody goes to see Schwarzenegger expecting Shakespeare.
Having said that, who would you replace him with? Some guy named Walter? Mathias? Count Vladimire Bloodcreep the Thirteenth? As cool as they might be, they're not DRACULA. Whether you think he's a cute cartoon guy that runs a hotel or a bloodthirst warlord, you know that when they bring out Dracula for anything, they're bringing out THE Vampire.
It's like having your evil General be Hitler, the pirate you're up against be Blackbeard, or finding out the crimeboss you're tracking is Al Capone. They're the big names. You have to do a ton of work with an original character to get them even close to the impression thse guys can make just by introducing themselves.
-
Having said that, who would you replace him with? Some guy named Walter? Mathias? Count Vladimire Bloodcreep the Thirteenth? As cool as they might be, they're not DRACULA.
Exactly. None of them are Dracula. But sadly enough IGA couldn't resist altering the already established villain. And now, thanks to that decision, we have a split in the CV fan base that's just as damaging as was LoS' conception.
-
Exactly. None of them are Dracula. But sadly enough IGA couldn't resist altering the already established villain. And now, thanks to that decision, we have a split in the CV fan base that's just as damaging as was LoS' conception.
I'd say 90% of fans don't like LOS due to LOS1's sequels being garbage in the holistic sense. Of course any other split is going to be larger than this.
-
First of all, let's get one thing out of the way: there's nothing wrong with Dracula as a story, as a concept, or as a character. The only problem right now is the idea that there's something wrong with Dracula that needs changing, and every time someone comes along with a "fix" they think will work, it only causes more problems and turns more people away from the character and everything surrounding him.
Frankly, one could argue the Castlevania series has a similar issue. Some of the worst entries came about because of people trying to fix something that wasn't broken in the first place. So no, there is no "Dracula problem" here.
Second of all, with that said, I always thought it would be fun to branch out a little bit, maybe even explore other classical monsters. What about a Frankenstein-based story? Or one inspired by the Phantom of the Opera? It'd be interesting if other monstrous tales took place within Castlevania while Dracula was sleeping.
-
If you throw more of "The Creature" into Castlevania, you will wind up with Van Helsing.
There's nothing technically wrong with the characterisation of Dracula through the CV series.
The main gripe from what seems to be a minority of fans:
- They don't like The Sorrow Series' characterisation and "Japanisation" of Dracula being replaced with Soma.
The main gripes from what seems to be a divided fanbase are:
- LOI's Mathias replacing traditional Dracula
The main gripes from majority of fans:
- The don't like LOS2's direction of Gabula playing the role of the "anti-hero"/ protagonist (which is how Dracula Untold painted him; essentially as a Superhero)
Anyone bitching about why Dracula's characterisation is bad in any of the other games really needs to calm their anal rage and chill tfo.
A few of the games found different and innovative ways to bring about Dracula (or at least what appeared to be him) along with his resurrection and/or how it played out:
- CV64/ LOD (Best "characterisation" and resurrection of Dracula imo)
- HoD (Not Dracula, but hey it was close)
- COD
- OOE (going the extra mile with explaining another way Dracula could be defeated)
-
Cv64 really did do a great job with Dracula and vampires in general. The music is good too. I did a new version of a song from it for Lecarde chronicles 2 and it gave me a renewed appreciation for the music in that game.
-
Cv64 really did do a great job with Dracula and vampires in general. The music is good too. I did a new version of a song from it for Lecarde chronicles 2 and it gave me a renewed appreciation for the music in that game.
The cutscene in the second stage (just as you open the second gate) where "Dracula" appears and taunts you always sticks with me just because it's a rare moment where someone who's seemingly Dracula (even though he isn't) comes and taunts you. It's a nice little moment that gives you a glimpse of the villain (even though it's Fake Dracula). Also I find the music to be quite atmospheric in general, which is something that I like.
-
The cutscene in the second stage (just as you open the second gate) where "Dracula" appears and taunts you always sticks with me just because it's a rare moment where someone who's seemingly Dracula (even though he isn't) comes and taunts you. It's a nice little moment that gives you a glimpse of the villain (even though it's Fake Dracula). Also I find the music to be quite atmospheric in general, which is something that I like.
The Castle keep. I love that stage, and that particular moment.
He's saying "Come and get me b*** ass punk"
-
The main gripe from what seems to be a minority of fans:
- They don't like The Sorrow Series' characterisation and "Japanisation" of Dracula being replaced with Soma.
The main gripes from what seems to be a divided fanbase are:
- LOI's Mathias replacing traditional Dracula
The main gripes from majority of fans:
- The don't like LOS2's direction of Gabula playing the role of the "anti-hero"/ protagonist (which is how Dracula Untold painted him; essentially as a Superhero)
All of those problem boil down to "Dracula isn't really Dracula, he's somebody else."
People don't WANT somebody else. We want Dracula.
-
All of those problem boil down to "Dracula isn't really Dracula, he's somebody else."
People don't WANT somebody else. We want Dracula.
Except in the CVverse he IS Mathias. As I said not everyone hates LOI's story, the fan base seems to be quite divided. (I'm pro-Mathias)
But if people want Vlad III + the Dracula myth I can understand that.
-
Except in the CVverse he IS Mathias.
Except in Smphany of the Night where ther Power of Sire clearly showed that Dracula used to be Vlad the Impaler (or at least somebody that looked a lot closer to him than Mathias ever did.)
As I said not everyone hates LOI's story, the fan base seems to be quite divided. (I'm pro-Mathias)
That's okay. Everyone has the right to be wrong once in a while. :P
-
Except in Smphany of the Night where ther Power of Sire clearly showed that Dracula used to be Vlad the Impaler (or at least somebody that looked a lot closer to him than Mathias ever did.)
Canon retconned, but also Dracula could have easily assumed his position/ power as "Sire"(as King of Wallachia) upon Vlad's Death starting the actual Dracula Legend. It makes perfect sense in context as a power play to amass followers, but also indulging in blood drinking and massacring a people who would blindly follow him anyway (and praise him) for being their king. Vlad III was considered a national hero and still is today.
Looking different to the previous king is no issue when you don't leave your throne room during the day.
That's okay. Everyone has the right to be wrong once in a while. :P
That's cool everyone has the right to be a hayyyyta, but don't hate the playa hate the vania ;)
-
Canon retconned, but also Dracula could have easily assumed his position/ power as "Sire"(as King of Wallachia) upon Vlad's Death starting the actual Dracula Legend.
I fully agree. Dracula's Curse happens in the year Vlad III declared his third reign (1476). He died a couple of months later. And I think the CoD manga implies he sent Hector and Isaac to "destroy the land he once protected" (or so says the Wiki. I can't be fully sure since I haven't read the manga).