Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: Nagumo on February 22, 2016, 04:41:50 PM
-
I recently came across something interesting and I developed the following theory: that before IGA created his timeline, the Dracula Densetsu games (The Adventure and Belmont's Revenge) with Christopher Belmont predate Akumajou Densetsu with Ralph/Trevor "Christopher" Belmont. There's a bit more to this theory than I'll probably write in this post, since I'll try to keep this as straight forward as possible. So I present the following evidence:
1. The ending of Dracula Densetsu II/Belmont's Revenge
In the ending it says Dracula was defeated because of Christopher's love for his son and that Soleiyu would succeed Christopher as vampire hunter. In then says the following: "このごベルモンド血すじはバンパイアハンター・ディーとしていくた伝説を生み語りつがれていくことになる。"(From then on it had come to pass that many legends about the Belmont lineage as vampire hunters would be passed on). I'm sure how clear this is reflected in my translation, but this definitely states that from this point forward the Belmont family would become vampire hunters.
2. The manual/opening narration of Akumajou Densetsu
ここにきて正教会はついに、太古にまでさかのぼる古い血筋を持ち、忌まわしき者達との戦いの中で生き延びてきた一族である真正ヴァンパイア・ハンターと呼ばれるベルモンド家にワラキア討伐を依頼することとなった。(Eventually the Orthodox Church decided to request the Belmont family, a family possessing an old lineage dating to ancient times who had survived battles with abominale beings, and were called genuine vampire hunters, to go on on a elimination mission to Wallachia.)
I think it's logical to conclude that 2 follows from 1, correct? In Christopher's time the Belmont family are established as vampire hunters, and by the time of Akumajou Densetsu they had built up their reputation as "genuine vampire hunters" (and before that they had been exiled). Although IGA placed it first in the timeline, nothing in Akumajou Densetsu outright denies Dracula and the Belmont family had a conflict before. (I made to sure to check that).
Another small part of this puzzle, yet an important one, is the following. This is from a fan interview with the scenario writer for Akumajou Densetsu:
Q: 889: ラルフ・C・ベルモンドのCはクリストファーだったのでは？ ドラキュラ伝説が同時期に出て年表がおかしくなったのは社内打合せ不足？
A: 890-891: > ラルフ・C・ベルモンドのCはクリストファー です。表の資料に書いてあるかどうかは知らないけど。 > ドラキュラ伝説が同時期に出て～ 違うチームが作ってたからじゃないかな。その時はもう自分居なかったし。○松さんはその辺こだわる人じゃないように見えたから、そのせいかもしれない。IGA体制後に関しては全く知らない。[...]
Q: Did the "C" from Ralph C. Belmont stand for Christopher back then? Did the condradictions with Dracula Densetsu, which came out at the same time, occur because of lack of internal meetings?
A: The "C" from Ralph C Belmont stands for Christopher. I don't know if this is written in the instruction manual. I wonder if it was because Dracula Densetsu came out and was developed at the same time? At that time I wasn't there anymore. Matsu-san didn't seem like the person who occupied himself with those things, it might be because of that. I'm not at all familar with the IGA system that came afterwards. [...]
So I think that given the above statement and the fact that Akumajou Densetsu takes place 100 years before Simon's era, it can be concluded that Ralph was meant to be the same person as the Christopher who was mentioned to have defeated Dracula 100 years before in the Famicom Akumajou Dracula manual. Christopher in the Famicom manual was said to have had a confrontation with a revived Dracula, so that would be evidence for Dracula to have revived pre-Akumajou Densetsu.
Anyway, it appears that by Simon's time, Ralph became known by his middle name Christopher in the legend that was passed down afterwards. This seems to create a bit of an odd situation where there exist two Christophers: The Dracula Densetsu Christopher and Ralph a.k.a Christopher.
In think this might also explain why Dracula's age is given as 800 years in the Rondo of Blood manual (before the Mathias Cronqvist story was even conceived). Akumajou Densetsu kind of seemed to imply Dracula was the historical Vlad Tepes. However, since the Dracula Densetsu games supposedly take place before that, it opens up the possibility of Dracula being older. Also, there's a magazine preview for Rondo of Blood from a Japanese magazine (http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/castlevania/images/4/46/PC_Engine_Fan_July1993_P037.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20160131101116) that seems to imply the order Christopher --> Ralph --> Simon.
-
Interesting that you have reunited more evidence. But I thought this was granted already (and by yourself proving this in the past) ;D
One thing that bugs me about Christopher is that he wasn't added to the Greatest Five. Such a shame, seeing as he is one of the few heroes who fought Dracula twice and survived.
-
Deja vu... You did the exact same thing years ago Nagumo, now I'm feeling old xD
My point persists, they aren't widely known after CV3, but they became famous after Belmont's Revenge, also its good to see you again here.
-
It's also interesting to note that the official art for Christopher shows him wearing furs with leather strappings. But when we see Trevor and Simon's official art, they're sporting more advanced armors of better quality--either leather, steel, or both. I personally don't mind if Dracula's age pushes him back further then his anointed time in CVIII. It helps with explaining the Alucard bit. But making Dracula into someone else was a no-no. He could have still been Vlad, just much, much older then history officially accounted for.
-
Interesting that you have reunited more evidence. But I thought this was granted already (and by yourself proving this in the past) ;D
One thing that bugs me about Christopher is that he wasn't added to the Greatest Five. Such a shame, seeing as he is one of the few heroes who fought Dracula twice and survived.
Yeah and Juste was included instead! If it was Leon, Trevor, Christopher, Simon and Richter that would have been all the canonical Belmonts who have defeated Dracula during his 100 year resurrection cycles up to that point (and Leon, who started it all).
-
Hmm, I think I made a similar statement in the past, but I erroreously theorized that Akumajou Densetsu and the Dracula Densetsu games were mutually exclusive to each other. I hadn't even considered the possibility before that Christopher actually predated Ralph. So I was quite suprised that, after I came up with that theory, it kept passing my falscification tests.
Deja vu... You did the exact same thing years ago Nagumo, now I'm feeling old xD
My point persists, they aren't widely known after CV3, but they became famous after Belmont's Revenge, also its good to see you again here.
Yeah, I posted that like 3 years ago, didn't I? And it's good to see you again, too. Anyway, but doesn't CV3's plot depend on the Belmonts being famous? I think that also wouldn't quite fit with the Dracula Densetsu games. I didn't mention this, but the phrasing from the manual of the first Dracula Densetsu it's evident this is Dracula's first confrontation with someone else. For example, it says that before that game, Dracula wasn't a Dark Lord yet. So, from what I read in the manuals and so on, I think it's unlikely that Akumajou Densetsu was originally meant to take place first. I also think it's important to mention the intro and manual of Akumajou Densetsu mentions it takes place 100 years before Simon's era, so it would impossible for it to take place earlier than that, at least not without ignoring certain information.
-
Yeah, I posted that like 3 years ago, didn't I? And it's good to see you again, too. Anyway, but doesn't CV3's plot depend on the Belmonts being famous? I think that also wouldn't quite fit with the Dracula Densetsu games. I didn't mention this, but the phrasing from the manual of the first Dracula Densetsu it's evident this is Dracula's first confrontation with someone else. For example, it says that before that game, Dracula wasn't a Dark Lord yet. So, from what I read in the manuals and so on, I think it's unlikely that Akumajou Densetsu was originally meant to take place first. I also think it's important to mention the intro and manual of Akumajou Densetsu mentions it takes place 100 years before Simon's era, so it would impossible for it to take place earlier than that, at least not without ignoring certain information.
That makes things difficult to me. :P
Lets check some info...
Castlevania: Adventure was released October 27, 1989 on Japan.
Castlevania 3 was released December 22, 1989 on Japan.
(by the way, someone should correct the wikia entry, since it says that CVA is named Akumajou Densetsu instead of Dracula Densetsu)
Castlevania 3 japanese intro:
Castlevania Adventure japanese manual:
The text was translated by "Help Me":
"Transylvania, a small country in Europe, is associated even today with a demon's legend. With his powerful evil power, the legacy of
Count Dracula has been dreaded by the people. However, no matter how many times Dracula comes back, he never manages to fully
change the world into darkness as he is always put away by Simon, a descendant of the Belmont clan. However, the devil Dracula has
existed long before his first confrontation. Not as the devil Dracula, but as an evil sorcerer. Count Dracula was a fanatical demon worshipper,
who built a dark castle at the outskirts of Transylvania and conducted evil rituals every night. He has summoned several demons from the
other world to serve him and he himself has been trying to get eternal life by becoming a demon king possesing evil powers. With each
day, Count Dracula's evil powers became more frigtening, as he spread fear and terror to the people of the village. Until one day, a man
stood up. It was Christopher, an ancestor of the Belmont family. Christopher rushed to the dark castle. Many demons and traps layed out
are waiting for him at the castle. Will he be able to defeat the transformed devil, Count Dracula, as expected?"
Castlevania: Belmon's Revenge japanese manual:
The text was translated by "Help Me":
"Count Dracula lives... After the severe battle with Christopher, he survived and escaped from his crumbled castle. However, he used all
his black magic after transforming into a fog and couldn't change back into his human form. The count decided to wait for the right moment
to exact his revenge on the Belmont clan... One day, fifteen years later, Soleiyu, Christopher's son, was celebrating his passage to manhood
at a Transylvanian village. He has officially inherited the title of Vampire Hunter and with the combined vampire hunting powers of father and
son, it was believed that peace at Transylvania would continue for eternity. However, on the next, Soleiyu vanished from the village like a fog.
And on that same night, with deafening roar and evil shadows, four castles appeared. The Count has been waiting all this time. Soleiyu, who
has been taught to use his power for good in his adulthood, has been placed by under a curse by the devil's waning powers and now he has
been using Soleiyu's powers in an attempt to ressurect his flesh. After learning of his son's brainwash, Christopher was horrified. In order to
save his son, he must thwart Dracula's plot. Now, the battle has began anew."
Also there is a entry on the wikia without sources but:
IGA stated this discrepancy happened because of lack of coordination between the teams who were responsible for the games. When IGA created his timeline, he corrected it by placing Dracula's Curse 100 years before The Adventure, which itself takes place 115 years prior to the events of the original Castlevania.
It shows that they really screwed it and at the time, one game nullifies the other as if some people tells the legend in a way while other people change some details while passing it on to another people, feels really like a "legend" (all because they did the game at the same time).
Sure, we can fit Adventure before CV3 because it doesnt mention a date, we would be basically exploiting a weakness on the plot and would need to ignore that they don't mention anywhere in CV3 that Dracula was been defeated before and that he was revived. Call me a heretic, but if we go by manual rules, at the time Adventure would seems to be more canon than CV3, since they mention Christopher and not "Trevor Christopher".
But using "in-game" rules, it nullifies Adventure as being canon at the time. We really have two sides of the same coin here.
Also we need to pay a big attention to something, they first say that Dracula wasn't a Dark Lord/Devil because they were telling you the story about Dracula in a brief, but notice that at the end of the same manual they mention him as a devil. Basically it tells that he became a Dark Lord some time before (years, months, days?) before Christopher decided to make something about it.
Thanks for opening my eyes and showing that these games are paralels to each other, but it seems that they basically tell the same story with a very different perspective. Now I imagine what would happen if we mixed the story from Dracula Densetsu and Akumajo Densetsu, made it work, and named it Akumajo Dracula Densetsu.
-
First of all, I forgot to mention I should try and find some Japanese magazines that contained previews or advertisements about Belmont's Revenge that may reveal if Christopher was indeed regarded as the progenitor of the Belmont family.
Ok, so I assume you are arguing that Christopher's story and Ralph's story cancel each other out, so to speak, correct? I believed this to be true as well before, but there are a couple of weak points to it (these points convinced me to switch to my current theory).
First of all, although this is a relatively minor point, that magazine I mentioned in my first post, which dealt with Rondo of Blood, it mentions Christopher, Ralph, and Simon in the story section in that exact order. This does seem to imply Christopher and Ralph were regarded as seperate people back then.
Secondly, if you would stricly follow the "manual rules" as you mentioned, the Famicom Akumajou Dracula manual mentioned that when Christopher had his confrontation with Dracula, Dracula was said to have been revived. Given that the manual of Akumajou Densetsu mentions the game takes place 100 years before Simon, even if you would ignore Dracula Densetsu, Dracula had to be have revived before Akumajou Densetsu's events if the game doesn't want to conflict with the manual of Akumajou Dracula, regardless if the game itself indicates this or not.
Although it might be argued the game does slightly hint at this. The ending of the game mentions "the demons that Dracula had summoned to earth had once again returned to sleep". Which might imply the situation in Akumajou Densetsu had happend once before in the past, I'm not entirely sure, but when I think about, since in the sentence I'm talking about has "the demons that Dracula had summoned to earth" is the subject of the sentence and about that subject is said "they once again returned to sleep", it would possibily make the sentence grammatically incorrect in Japanese if Dracula hadn't summoned demons to earth before. But I won't fully commit to that argument yet.
Sure, we can fit Adventure before CV3 because it doesnt mention a date, we would be basically exploiting a weakness on the plot and would need to ignore that they don't mention anywhere in CV3 that Dracula was been defeated before and that he was revived. Call me a heretic, but if we go by manual rules, at the time Adventure would seems to be more canon than CV3, since they mention Christopher and not "Trevor Christopher".
But using "in-game" rules, it nullifies Adventure as being canon at the time. We really have two sides of the same coin here.
I disagree it's exploating a weakness in the plot. At least, it might be possible to it like that, but the story writer of Akumajou Densetsu already exploited this weakness, so I don't see that as at all problematic. He retconned the chronology from that time already a little a bit by saying Simon's predecessor was named Ralph and his middle name was Christopher in order to still stay consistent with the Akumajou Dracula manual. This retcon does require a small mental excercise when reading the Akumajou Dracula manual, by assuming Ralph becames known by his middle name later on, but since this mental exercise is "endorsed" by the story writer, it's perfectly valid to use that interpretation.
What I think the root of the problem between Akumajou Densetsu and Dracula Densetsu is that:
1) Akumajou Densetsu was the story about Christopher (actually Ralph) and Dracula's fight 100 years before Simon
1) Dracula Densetsu places itself as the absolute first story in the chronology. So given that fact, the game had to take place at least 200 years before Akumajou Dracula for that to work, yet the protagonist of this story was named Christopher for whatever reason. If the protagonist of that game wasn't named Christopher, it would have been completely straight forward.
Also we need to pay a big attention to something, they first say that Dracula wasn't a Dark Lord/Devil because they were telling you the story about Dracula in a brief, but notice that at the end of the same manual they mention him as a devil. Basically it tells that he became a Dark Lord some time before (years, months, days?) before Christopher decided to make something about it.
Well, there is indeed to telling how much time is covered by the Dracula backstory. It could be years or even centuries of him gaining power. However, given how the story is phrased, it's written like Christopher rising up against Dracula is a direct result of the preceding paragraph (Dracula gaining power). It would feel very forced if you would squeeze a confrontation inbetween those two events. Not to mention, placing Akumajou Densetsu before Dracula Densetsu is impossible without ignoring the former's prologue/manual and the latter's ending (see my previous posts).
-
I think you guys are making too many assumptions about the circumstances of the apparent conflict and over thinking how much emphasis was actually put on continuity.
This whole thing is problematic because one can easily imagine many possibilities...
Perhaps both games were intended to tell the same story and then someone in charge changed their mind and had them add Ralph to the AjDen Chris.
Or...
AjDen was intended to be the Chris story from the start but the DDen team thought that was what they were supposed to be doing but when someone noticed they adjusted AjDen in favor of DDen since it was completed first.
Or...
DDen was intended to be the Chris story all along and the miscommunication was on the AjDen end and the team didn't notice until DDen was finished and then adjusted AjDen the simplest way they could.
Or...
The suits didn't know which system to go with and told both teams to make a Chris game and whoever finished first would get the honor, but when they reviewed AjDen it was so impressive they decided to publish it too with a small adjustment to the Hero's name.
I could go on and on.
I think both teams most likely were working on a Chris story for whatever reasons. Both games using the name Christopher from the AjDrac manual is evidence enough for this. We simply don't know if the hero of AjDen started as Ralph or Christopher and without that crucial piece of information it makes it very difficult to conjecture about which was intended to be what or if there was even any such intent at all. So in truth this intent is currently unknowable.
The only thing that is certain is that there may or may not have been a miscommunication at some point. And when your only certainty is that there is a multiple choice answer then you really have no certainty at all. Either way we have a Belmont named Christopher fighting Dracula 100 years prior to Simon.
-
1. The ending of Dracula Densetsu II/Belmont's Revenge
In the ending it says Dracula was defeated because of Christopher's love for his son and that Soleiyu would succeed Christopher as vampire hunter. In then says the following: "このごベルモンド血すじはバンパイアハンター・ディーとしていくた伝説を生み語りつがれていくことになる。"(From then on it had come to pass that many legends about the Belmont lineage as vampire hunters would be passed on). I'm sure how clear this is reflected in my translation, but this definitely states that from this point forward the Belmont family would become vampire hunters.
Not "become vampire hunters", but be well known as vampire hunters. What is implied here is that they become famous.
2. The manual/opening narration of Akumajou Densetsu
ここにきて正教会はついに、太古にまでさかのぼる古い血筋を持ち、忌まわしき者達との戦いの中で生き延びてきた一族である真正ヴァンパイア・ハンターと呼ばれるベルモンド家にワラキア討伐を依頼することとなった。(Eventually the Orthodox Church decided to request the Belmont family, a family possessing an old lineage dating to ancient times who had survived battles with abominale beings, and were called genuine vampire hunters, to go on on a elimination mission to Wallachia.)
The problem here is that you're assuming that they are being called genuine vampire hunters by the general public. It is not specific and it could mean that they are known as genuine within the church itself.
I think it's logical to conclude that 2 follows from 1, correct? In Christopher's time the Belmont family are established as vampire hunters, and by the time of Akumajou Densetsu they had built up their reputation as "genuine vampire hunters" (and before that they had been exiled). Although IGA placed it first in the timeline, nothing in Akumajou Densetsu outright denies Dracula and the Belmont family had a conflict before. (I made to sure to check that).
I could just as easily say the opposite if I assume that the Belmonts were only known as genuine vampire hunters within the church and that the general public didn't know about them outside of being being feared by whomever it was that exiled them.
Another small part of this puzzle, yet an important one, is the following. This is from a fan interview with the scenario writer for Akumajou Densetsu:
Q: 889: ラルフ・C・ベルモンドのCはクリストファーだったのでは？ ドラキュラ伝説が同時期に出て年表がおかしくなったのは社内打合せ不足？
A: 890-891: > ラルフ・C・ベルモンドのCはクリストファー です。表の資料に書いてあるかどうかは知らないけど。 > ドラキュラ伝説が同時期に出て～ 違うチームが作ってたからじゃないかな。その時はもう自分居なかったし。○松さんはその辺こだわる人じゃないように見えたから、そのせいかもしれない。IGA体制後に関しては全く知らない。[...]
Q: Did the "C" from Ralph C. Belmont stand for Christopher back then? Did the condradictions with Dracula Densetsu, which came out at the same time, occur because of lack of internal meetings?
A: The "C" from Ralph C Belmont stands for Christopher. I don't know if this is written in the instruction manual. I wonder if it was because Dracula Densetsu came out and was developed at the same time? At that time I wasn't there anymore. Matsu-san didn't seem like the person who occupied himself with those things, it might be because of that. I'm not at all familar with the IGA system that came afterwards. [...]
This seems to clearly indicate that there was not a lot of focus on details and continuity.
So I think that given the above statement and the fact that Akumajou Densetsu takes place 100 years before Simon's era, it can be concluded that Ralph was meant to be the same person as the Christopher who was mentioned to have defeated Dracula 100 years before in the Famicom Akumajou Dracula manual. Christopher in the Famicom manual was said to have had a confrontation with a revived Dracula, so that would be evidence for Dracula to have revived pre-Akumajou Densetsu.
Doesn't it say that AjDen takes place "more than 100 years" before Simon as stated in the manual?
I agree it is likely Ralph was intended to be Chris originally, but that is not the case in the end.
The manual of AjDrac does indeed say a Chris fought a revived Dracula, but that is not evidence for it being AjDen instead of DDen.
Anyway, it appears that by Simon's time, Ralph became known by his middle name Christopher in the legend that was passed down afterwards. This seems to create a bit of an odd situation where there exist two Christophers: The Dracula Densetsu Christopher and Ralph a.k.a Christopher.
This is a pretty big assumption that complicates the situation more than it solves anything. And it hinges on other assumptions being true as well. I don't agree with this at all.
In think this might also explain why Dracula's age is given as 800 years in the Rondo of Blood manual (before the Mathias Cronqvist story was even conceived). Akumajou Densetsu kind of seemed to imply Dracula was the historical Vlad Tepes. However, since the Dracula Densetsu games supposedly take place before that, it opens up the possibility of Dracula being older. Also, there's a magazine preview for Rondo of Blood from a Japanese magazine (http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/castlevania/images/4/46/PC_Engine_Fan_July1993_P037.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20160131101116) that seems to imply the order Christopher --> Ralph --> Simon.
I would argue that every game in the series implies that CV Drac is analagous to RL Drac simply because of the name.
Dracula the vampire in the his first literary appearance is outright stated to be one and the same being as Vlad III.
At this point we still only have one solid century to work off of; the 15th as stated in the manual and intro of AjDen.
But then SotN happened...
Dracula's True Origin - [1792-800 = 992]
AjDen - [1400s = X-(100+U)], more than 100 years prior to AjDrac. Best guess is that according to AjDX2 this game must take place in ~1470.
DDen - [X-100 = 1592-V*100], 100 years prior to AjDrac. At minimum this game must take place in 1492.
AjDrac - [X = 1692-V*100], at minimum this game must take place in 1592 according to AjDX2.
Prior to AjDX - [W = 1692]
AjDX - [X+Y*100 = W+100=1792], 100 years after the prior battle. SNES version states multiple centuries since Simon. PCCD manual states Dracula is "800 (?)" years old.
AjDX2 - [1792+4], the Richter vs. Dracula battle is stated to take place in 1792 and that the game starts 4 years later.Dracula, The Undead - [1897]
Bloodlines - [1917], some unknown time after the beginning of World War I.
If You take the stories of the CV games as presented in both their manuals and in-game text up to this point there is a reasonable timeline that fits well enough with the 100 year resurrection mythos. And there is basically nothing to support or deny the possibility the AjDen was intended to come after DDen.
However, I will bring up something that you didn't; Ralph C. Belmont. It is common for a child to have a middle name derived from a parent or grandparent. So Ralph's name could be another indication of intent, but again it is not supported by anything concrete. You would have to make an assumption that Ralph's middle name came from Chris, or that Chris was named after Ralph's middle name. So we are really just back to square 1. We really just don't know enough to say anything for sure.
-
Bloodlines - [1914+Z], some unknown time after the beginning of World War I.
1917 is the year of Bloodlines.
-
1917 is the year of Bloodlines.
Updated. Thanks.
-
The fact unfortunately is that prior to Iga's official timeline, there was virtually no effort to establish a canon by the varying chapters of Konami Computer Entertainment. They just made games and said "yeah that looks good". For the most part, this worked on a game by game basis, but had its own issues. Meanwhile, retroactively shoehorning in a canon timeline caused as many breaks as it mended, and discussions here routinely prove that these are some fairly serious problems.
Even after that, there's translation hiccups and contradictions, remakes of old tales with unclear scaling of canon, and worst of all, endless amounts of incredibly vague and minimalist storytelling. Honestly it all just snowballed into a horrid mess, and after all this time, stuff like the light novels have never been made available in America, so many American fans are left without crucial pieces of the puzzle.
Iga's attempt was noble but damaging, imo, and it's no wonder why headcanon is so rampant in this fandom, as opposed to something like Halo, where things are tightly controlled and always have been.
-
Agreed. I've been refining the facts as I know them and it seems pretty evident how some of this took place.
For example if you take the fact that the manual for RoB it says that Dracula is maybe 800 years old.
If that is true and you take the date for RoB as stated in SotN (both US and Jap) then he has to have been born in 992 AD.
Which is just fine and actually makes a great starting point for figuring out the dates for every game that came before.
However...
When IGA went in and did what I imagine to be the same thing I'm doing he decided to shift some stuff around to make LoI coincide with the start of the Crusades. This helped make it easier to set up some story elements, but also forces you to retcon Dracula's age in RoB.
I've actually never looked at all this myself, but I already have a working timeline. Think I'll even start a new post about it.
-
Thank you for the criticial responses by the way. It's important to be skeptical when considering a theory, since it helps us come closer to the truth.
The problem here is that you're assuming that they are being called genuine vampire hunters by the general public. It is not specific and it could mean that they are known as genuine within the church itself.
Fair enough. You would need more context in order to better judge the contents of that sentence. I didn't provide the translation for the sentence that follows. So this is my fault for not providing the full context. Sorry about that. Anyway, that sentence is as follows: "ベルモンド家はその人間離れした強靭な精神・肉体能力のためヴァンパイアと同じように受け止められ、人々から恐れられ疎んじられてきたために、いつしか人々の前から姿を消していたが、手を尽くして捜索し、ようやくベルモンドの血を受け継ぐ若者を見つけ出した。 " (The Belmont family were treated no differently than vampires because of their superhumanly strong spiritual and physical abilities, for which they came to be feared and shunned by the people, and one day disappeared from the people's presence. However, after relentless searching, at last, a young man who inherited the blood of the Belmont family was found.)
I think it's very clear from this passage that the Belmonts had a reputation among the local population. So your interpretation wouldn't quite work.
Not "become vampire hunters", but be well known as vampire hunters. What is implied here is that they become famous.
Yeah, that's right. Christopher was a vampire hunter already, of course. But I think it's also important to consider that in the sentence before, it's mentioned Soleiyu (or Soleil) would took over Christopher's role as vampire hunter. So, to me, this implies that from that point forward, the Belmont becomes famous as a vampire hunter lineage, the reason for why they weren't famous as a vampire hunter lineage before being that Christopher was the progenitor. I think that is further strengthened by the manual of the first Dracula Densetsu acting like its the origin story of the chronology (not sure if you agreed with that or not).
But let's just go along with your interpreation. I still think even if you would interpret it like that, it supports my argument, because Akumajou Densetsu's plot is dependant on the Belmont family being famous. (see above and my previous posts)
Doesn't it say that AjDen takes place "more than 100 years" before Simon as stated in the manual?
I agree it is likely Ralph was intended to be Chris originally, but that is not the case in the end.
The manual of AjDrac does indeed say a Chris fought a revived Dracula, but that is not evidence for it being AjDen instead of DDen.
I'm glad you brought this up, because I looked into that, and given the phrasing in the Japanese text, it's a bit misleading to translate that line as "more than 100 years". The expression that is used, "100余年", is actually like saying "a 100 odd years ago". Of course, that would sound awkward in English, so I understand why it was translated like it has been, but it's important to be aware of the nuance. But why would they say a 100 odd years ago? That would imply at most 109 years, correct? I think they did that in order to account for Simon's Quest, since if you would go back in that time from that game, technically it would be 107 years. But this means Akumajou Densetsu was definitely meant to take place roughly 100 years before Akumajou Dracula. Because of that, and because the intention of the story writer was for Ralph to be Christopher, I do think combined this is solid evidence for Akumajou Densetsu originally being the same event as the "Christopher vs revived Dracula" conflict .
This is a pretty big assumption that complicates the situation more than it solves anything. And it hinges on other assumptions being true as well. I don't agree with this at all.
Yeah, all my individual points are only convincing when taken all together, so it's a bit hard discuss these points on a case by case basis. Just out of curiosity, what do you think are the assumptions I'm making? Knowing that might be helpful with figuring out what kind of evicende to look for.
I would argue that every game in the series implies that CV Drac is analagous to RL Drac simply because of the name.
Dracula the vampire in the his first literary appearance is outright stated to be one and the same being as Vlad III.
At this point we still only have one solid century to work off of; the 15th as stated in the manual and intro of AjDen.
But then SotN happened...
Actually, don't forgot Rondo of Blood. That one definitely denies Dracula being the historical Vlad Tepes because of his age (unless Rondo of Blood takes place in the 23th century). Dracula's age from that game is actually something what makes me more confident in my theory since I just can't think of any other reason for why else they would go so blatantly against Akumajou Densetsu's story. What also might be interesting to note is that Toru Hagihara worked on both Rondo and Dracula Densetsu II. So he might very well have been aware of CV Dracula predating his Akumajou Densetsu appearance when establishing Dracula's age in the manual.
-
I feel like Rondo of Blood is a turning point where the story almost reboots itself basing it off of the previous games.
Dracula is represented differently, the artwork changes. I feel like this game is the start of what Iga carried on.
And why is Dracula X in the title? What is that part of the title representing or referring to? Why didn't they simply call it Castlevania 5? This is perhaps my biggest question about it.
Is Dracula X referring to a reboot of the character of Dracula in the CV universe? His age being 800 which is more than twice as old as he should have been. It's very peculiar.
-
If You take the stories of the CV games as presented in both their manuals and in-game text up to this point there is a reasonable timeline that fits well enough with the 100 year resurrection mythos. And there is basically nothing to support or deny the possibility the AjDen was intended to come after DDen.
For that same reason there is nothing to support or deny that it comes before.
However, I will bring up something that you didn't; Ralph C. Belmont. It is common for a child to have a middle name derived from a parent or grandparent. So Ralph's name could be another indication of intent, but again it is not supported by anything concrete. You would have to make an assumption that Ralph's middle name came from Chris, or that Chris was named after Ralph's middle name. So we are really just back to square 1. We really just don't know enough to say anything for sure.
Exactly and that is the problem. ;D
The fact unfortunately is that prior to Iga's official timeline, there was virtually no effort to establish a canon by the varying chapters of Konami Computer Entertainment. They just made games and said "yeah that looks good". For the most part, this worked on a game by game basis, but had its own issues. Meanwhile, retroactively shoehorning in a canon timeline caused as many breaks as it mended, and discussions here routinely prove that these are some fairly serious problems.
Problems that have already been resolved by IGA when he did the timeline, we're only having this conversation because we wanted to discuss about things that happened originally, before the fix.
Even after that, there's translation hiccups and contradictions, remakes of old tales with unclear scaling of canon, and worst of all, endless amounts of incredibly vague and minimalist storytelling. Honestly it all just snowballed into a horrid mess, and after all this time, stuff like the light novels have never been made available in America, so many American fans are left without crucial pieces of the puzzle.
Sadly storytelling wasn't a big deal at the time for most games Castlevania games before Rondo of Blood and Symphony of the Night. Light novels hardly are translated to us also (being Konami doesn't help also).
About remakes they are more like reimagining the story and doesn't change the most important thing at the time, that is which Belmont killed Dracula at this year. Ironically now people complain that they're willing to pay for a classicvania or remake even if doesn't have a story or if doesn't is canon, know why? Because after all that is the true essence of the series on its origin (Belmont walks to the castle and kills Dracula, END) and I have no problem with it, while also liking the metroidvania style with a story and dialogues.
Iga's attempt was noble but damaging, imo, and it's no wonder why headcanon is so rampant in this fandom, as opposed to something like Halo, where things are tightly controlled and always have been.
I disagree with this, he fixed something broken and made it work. Also comparing Halo to Castlevania is like comparing orange to apples, since Castlevania is much more older and came from a era where developers didn't cared much about story and sometimes people that would make the next game changed, while Halo is from times where people try to make a cinematic game that have a good story and tend to focus on that.
Dracula is represented differently, the artwork changes. I feel like this game is the start of what Iga carried on.
And why is Dracula X in the title? What is that part of the title representing or referring to? Why didn't they simply call it Castlevania 5? This is perhaps my biggest question about it.
Is Dracula X referring to a reboot of the character of Dracula in the CV universe? His age being 800 which is more than twice as old as he should have been. It's very peculiar.
Rondo of Blood is named Dracula X because it was meant to be a "gaiden" title, so they could test new things without being restricted. In the end it was so good that became canon. The art style that you say is this "anime" style? Because some japanese manual already had this since CV1 or 2 IIRC. IMO they never did this game thinking about the market outside Japan.
-
I disagree with this, he fixed something broken and made it work.
To an extent. He's not that good. IGA has mentioned that he glossed over some elements of all the games when creating the "official" timeline and story, and due to that choice, just as much damage was done as "fixing" it. If IGA had paid careful attention to ALL the details (like plot is doing with his story), no-matter how small, then all the issues with his timeline wouldn't be nearly as noticeable. The man's not perfect and I don't believe he's a perfectionist as he claims. If he was then--again--we'd have a story with virtually no potholes in it.
-
I agree in parts, since I couldn't imagine IGA being able to fixing every hole even with time. To be honest we are able to do more fixes because we had years to think, while receiving material that they produced after the fix that can help in fixing even more. We are a community that thinks about this almost all the time, being able to receive direct feedback and debate with people that care with everyone being equal, thats why its my thought. *hugs*
It only made it work, its far from perfection, but a lot better than before it was fixed. I won't ignore the problems (but please show me, I'm oblivious about them, dead serious) but they don't seem to be a complete mess.
potholes in it.
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bedfordma.gov%2Fsites%2Fbedfordma%2Ffiles%2Fu133%2Fpot-holes.780.jpg&hash=d1ac1ac4392fa7df3fee5205bd2a0c8d1dec8048)
Sorry couldn't resist, but seriously we have a lot of these here, in USA its the same?
-
If he was then--again--we'd have a story with virtually no potholes in it.
'Plot'holes? (not directed at Plottwist btw)
IMO they never did this game thinking about the market outside Japan.
XX is evidence enough of that, right.
-
The fact unfortunately is that prior to Iga's official timeline, there was virtually no effort to establish a canon by the varying chapters of Konami Computer Entertainment. They just made games and said "yeah that looks good". For the most part, this worked on a game by game basis, but had its own issues. Meanwhile, retroactively shoehorning in a canon timeline caused as many breaks as it mended, and discussions here routinely prove that these are some fairly serious problems.
Even after that, there's translation hiccups and contradictions, remakes of old tales with unclear scaling of canon, and worst of all, endless amounts of incredibly vague and minimalist storytelling. Honestly it all just snowballed into a horrid mess, and after all this time, stuff like the light novels have never been made available in America, so many American fans are left without crucial pieces of the puzzle.
Iga's attempt was noble but damaging, imo, and it's no wonder why headcanon is so rampant in this fandom, as opposed to something like Halo, where things are tightly controlled and always have been.
That's the impression I always had with the AJDensetsu translation, cus AjDracula says Chris came 100 years prior. Back in the day devs didn't care about storytelling the way they do now. Hell, ROGs like Hydlide didn't even have a flowing narrative; just save the princess. This is especially bad for action games. Over the years story became bigger in games and now it seems like the only thing reviewers and mainstream players care about. Having mishandled plot in a game today would be suicide for a dev, unless it was meant to be humorous and hardening back to games like CV.
Im not familiar with the staff, but the story writer for AKDensetsu could've been the project lead/director, who decided to make the game more unique and cinematic by adding a background plot with a moving film reel this time, then give the extra players background to add to this plot and world. Since his main concerns were the gameplay and graphics, he had little time to make a fleshed out plot and just wrote something up akin to the back of a game's box and just let it fly. "Consumers won't care, everything else is the best we could do", which is true at the time: nobody really cares about story unless they played PC games like text adventures or ROGs. And then Ninja Gaiden came but that's for another time lol
Miscommunication and no need to worry are my reasons for why they're mixed up. I mean, Chris is the legendary warrior he is in the CV1 manual, so maybe he was originally the first Belmont(let me know if there's any info I'm unaware of that proves this wrong) to fight Drac. Then when the devs started making a game about the first Belmont that fought Drac, Christipher, they heard from the DDensetsu team that THEY were also making that game, and at the last minute they changed AjDensetsu's protagonist to a Ralph C. Bemlondo. This would make sense because when AJDensetsu starts, the Belmonts are far from famous, then after beating Drac, their name will be remembered for centuries, and Ralph will hopefully get the respect he deserves; this could lead into how Chris became the legendary warrior he was in the CV1 manual. Plus the way the CV1 and Vampire Killeer manuals were written, it feels more like a "Your ancestor did this, now you must, Mr. Chosen one" type plot rather than Simon carrying a long running torch from multiple ancestors.
-
Lelygax@
zangestu468@
Hahaha! Didn't even notice my spelling was off ;D
...that's been happening a lot lately ???
-
Chris is the legendary warrior he is in the CV1 manual, so maybe he was originally the first Belmont(let me know if there's any info I'm unaware of that proves this wrong) to fight Drac.
The CV1 manual says something like "once Dracula was brought back in this world" and then continues to recount the Christopher story. This sounds to me like this Christopher was not meant to be the first Belmont who fought Dracula. Unless a non-Belmont fought Dracula before, I guess? So it's pretty odd that afterwards Dracula Densetsu went on to act like this Christopher is the first guy who did this.
-
The CV1 manual says something like "once Dracula was brought back in this world" and then continues to recount the Christopher story. This sounds to me like this Christopher was not meant to be the first Belmont who fought Dracula. Unless a non-Belmont fought Dracula before, I guess? So it's pretty odd that afterwards Dracula Densetsu went on to act like this Christopher is the first guy who did this.
Oh I see. I remember reading the manual once years ago, ought to go through it again.
Now that I think about it, I do own that CV hint book with the full CV4 art on it, and before each game it tells the story, separate from the manuals I beleive. It covers CV1-4 and the first two GB games, so I'll take a look tonight and see what I can scavenge that might add to this.
-
[1]Thank you for the criticial responses by the way. It's important to be skeptical when considering a theory, since it helps us come closer to the truth.
[2]Fair enough. You would need more context in order to better judge the contents of that sentence. I didn't provide the translation for the sentence that follows. So this is my fault for not providing the full context. Sorry about that. Anyway, that sentence is as follows: "ベルモンド家はその人間離れした強靭な精神・肉体能力のためヴァンパイアと同じように受け止められ、人々から恐れられ疎んじられてきたために、いつしか人々の前から姿を消していたが、手を尽くして捜索し、ようやくベルモンドの血を受け継ぐ若者を見つけ出した。 " (The Belmont family were treated no differently than vampires because of their superhumanly strong spiritual and physical abilities, for which they came to be feared and shunned by the people, and one day disappeared from the people's presence. However, after relentless searching, at last, a young man who inherited the blood of the Belmont family was found.)
I think it's very clear from this passage that the Belmonts had a reputation among the local population. So your interpretation wouldn't quite work.
[3]Yeah, that's right. Christopher was a vampire hunter already, of course. But I think it's also important to consider that in the sentence before, it's mentioned Soleiyu (or Soleil) would took over Christopher's role as vampire hunter. So, to me, this implies that from that point forward, the Belmont becomes famous as a vampire hunter lineage, the reason for why they weren't famous as a vampire hunter lineage before being that Christopher was the progenitor. I think that is further strengthened by the manual of the first Dracula Densetsu acting like its the origin story of the chronology (not sure if you agreed with that or not).
But let's just go along with your interpreation. I still think even if you would interpret it like that, it supports my argument, because Akumajou Densetsu's plot is dependant on the Belmont family being famous. (see above and my previous posts)
[4]I'm glad you brought this up, because I looked into that, and given the phrasing in the Japanese text, it's a bit misleading to translate that line as "more than 100 years". The expression that is used, "100余年", is actually like saying "a 100 odd years ago". Of course, that would sound awkward in English, so I understand why it was translated like it has been, but it's important to be aware of the nuance. But why would they say a 100 odd years ago? That would imply at most 109 years, correct? I think they did that in order to account for Simon's Quest, since if you would go back in that time from that game, technically it would be 107 years. But this means Akumajou Densetsu was definitely meant to take place roughly 100 years before Akumajou Dracula. Because of that, and because the intention of the story writer was for Ralph to be Christopher, I do think combined this is solid evidence for Akumajou Densetsu originally being the same event as the "Christopher vs revived Dracula" conflict .
[5]Yeah, all my individual points are only convincing when taken all together, so it's a bit hard discuss these points on a case by case basis. Just out of curiosity, what do you think are the assumptions I'm making? Knowing that might be helpful with figuring out what kind of evicende to look for.
[6]Actually, don't forgot Rondo of Blood. That one definitely denies Dracula being the historical Vlad Tepes because of his age (unless Rondo of Blood takes place in the 23th century). Dracula's age from that game is actually something what makes me more confident in my theory since I just can't think of any other reason for why else they would go so blatantly against Akumajou Densetsu's story. What also might be interesting to note is that Toru Hagihara worked on both Rondo and Dracula Densetsu II. So he might very well have been aware of CV Dracula predating his Akumajou Densetsu appearance when establishing Dracula's age in the manual.
[1] You're welcome. To be honest, I was afraid I might come off as too harsh. :P
[2] Interesting. I wonder about the time frame. And do the people still think that way or have they forgotten by now? Still I think I can concede this point.
[3] Also interesting. Is Soleiyu a mistranslation or is it just the way Soleil is written in Japanese? That is the way I see the existing plot, but I'm not convinced either of our points of view is necessarily correct. Where I stand on it right now I think either could be possible, though.
[4] Hmmm... I should point out that 100 odd years ago is perfectly acceptable grammar outside of the tone in this particular intro. Sounds like it's saying '100 something years' or 'about 100 years'? If so it's kinda hard to say what the number of years beyond 100 it could be without knowing the more about the common use of the original phrase. I'd say at most it's less than 150 years and more than say 101 years. But, yes, I agree on the rest.
[5] Just the two points I mentioned. Didn't mean to imply that there were more.
[6] I don't take that age as a denial. There is no reason to believe that he didn't originate centuries before and simply usurp the name of a line of nobles. For all we know Dracula could be the Real Vlad III and Vlad II and so on and so forth for centuries into the past. If he had followers he could have easily have used them to fake a family or perhaps he may even have had a real family before Lisa on multiple occasions.
I think it might very well be the case that the idea of Dracula being far older than the historical figure was intended from much earlier in the series' development and possibly even from the beginning now that you mention that detail.
The CV1 manual says something like "once Dracula was brought back in this world" and then continues to recount the Christopher story. This sounds to me like this Christopher was not meant to be the first Belmont who fought Dracula. Unless a non-Belmont fought Dracula before, I guess? So it's pretty odd that afterwards Dracula Densetsu went on to act like this Christopher is the first guy who did this.
I call shenanigans on the entire affair surrounding DDen and AjDen! ;D
-
Was watching the gaming historian on youtube, he brought up nintendo power with a CVIII walkthrough. I paused on the game description, and the first sentence read "In Castlevania III, you play the role of Trevor Belmont, youthful hero and originator of the Belmont warlord line."
I know NP isn't the greatest official source or anything, but going by this Trevor was the first Belmont to fight Drac, which obviously fits with Iga's timeline. What makes this more significant is the date, which would've been around the time CV3 came out. So the CV1 manual confirms Chris before Simon, and this can be used to show Trevor was the first, therefore before Chris.
I do have to say, I believe the typo at the beginning really was a mistake based on miscommunication, and that they might've intended for the game to either be about Chris originally but the GB devs were like "No", or they didn't know about Chris and made up Ralph/Trevor so they could make a prequel. The C could be a coincidence, but I believe it was put there later, possibly after they changed him from Chris to Raplh or from when they might've originally written him as Chris. Something else we can use to show it was a mistake was how the English verison doesn't even mention "100 or so years" before Simon, so when they were translating and changing the game for the US and PAL releases it was changed.
-
Actually I'd say that there is nothing official to be found in NP outside of interviews with staff members of given game.
Personally, I don't take the US version of either game into account at all. The original staff of the game was likely not even involved with the localization except to perhaps have provided some notes maybe.
-
Actually I'd say that there is nothing official to be found in NP outside of interviews with staff members of given game.
Personally, I don't take the US version of either game into account at all. The original staff of the game was likely not even involved with the localization except to perhaps have provided some notes maybe.
Yeah US publications in general didn't really care, they just tried to sell the game, but I thought it possibly could've been taken from some original Japanese thing or whatever. It's like old school box art for anime styled games in a way, how they changed the style to realistic, western comic book or metal album style lol.
-
It's like old school box art for anime styled games in a way, how they changed the style to realistic, western comic book or metal album style lol.
#simmonsbelmont #vampiresKISS
-
Yeah US publications in general didn't really care, they just tried to sell the game, but I thought it possibly could've been taken from some original Japanese thing or whatever. It's like old school box art for anime styled games in a way, how they changed the style to realistic, western comic book or metal album style lol.
I can understand your reasoning. However, Trevor being "the originator of the Belmont warlord line" would already conflict with the Japanese manual and intro, since it establishes the Belmonts as already having fighting experience before him. Although I suppose it would be odd for the NoA localisers to call him that. Not sure how Christopher was meant to relate to Simon and Trevor in NoA material.
-
I can understand your reasoning. However, Trevor being "the originator of the Belmont warlord line" would already conflict with the Japanese manual and intro, since it establishes the Belmonts as already having fighting experience before him. Although I suppose it would be odd for the NoA localisers to call him that. Not sure how Christopher was meant to relate to Simon and Trevor in NoA material.
Ooooh yeah that's right lol, I forgot that even in the english intro it says "The Belmonts have a long history of fighting evil". As for Chris, I did take a look in the CV guide book, no story for the GB games. Odd cus the rest of the games (including 4, which claims it's a new game like the english intro). Still a great book, some of the writing is cheesey. Plus the cover has the full art of CV4's US and PAL box, which IMO alone makes it worth getting.
-
I bumped this topic because I found something very interesting:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Czjd5wNXAAALa-a.jpg
This is an advertisement for Akumajou Densetsu. It contains the following sentence: "ドラキュラがまた眠りから覚めるという。" Translation: "It's said Dracula has once again awoken from his slumber". This suggest that Akumajou Densetsu was not originally intented to be the first confrontation between Dracula and the Belmonts.
Furthermore, I also want point something out that's written in the Dracula Densetsu manual. Christopher is called the "progenitor of the Belmont family" (ベルモンド家の先祖). Previous translations have confused "progenitor" with "ancestor" but that's a translation error. Further proof that Dracula Densetsu used to be the origin tale of the series. This also ties into Dracula Densetsu II's ending that states the Belmont family would become a vampire hunter lineage from that point on, firmly placing it before the events of Akumajou Densetsu.
If anyone is interested, I could make a point that summarizes all the evidence I have gathered so far. Without question, Christopher was originally meant to predate Ralph by several centuries.
-
Huh, but wasn't Christopher meant to BE Trevor?
-
If anyone is interested, I could make a point that summarizes all the evidence I have gathered so far. Without question, Christopher was originally meant to predate Ralph by several centuries.
Oh god please do. Very interested!
-
Huh, but wasn't Christopher meant to BE Trevor?
From what I've heard about being talked here in the past, he apparently was.
-
Huh, but wasn't Christopher meant to BE Trevor?
Right. I'll address this in my overview. This confusing naming situation seems to be the result of developers from both games making odd decisions in that regard.
We know Christopher was a pre-existing character in the Castlevania universe even before the games he starred in were released, as he is mentioned in the Japanese manual for the first Famicom Akumajou Dracula. For that reason, let's begin by examining the contents of this manual.
Transylvania, a small, peaceful country in Europe’s Middle Ages. In this country, there is a legend about Dracula.
“Once every hundred years, when powers of Christ weaken, the prayers of those with evil hearts revive the Demon King Dracula. Then, upon his return, his dark powers grow more powerful.”
Once, long ago, Dracula returned to this world. However, Dracula’s ambitions to enshroud the whole world with clouds of evil and rule over a world of darkness were crushed thanks to the hero Christopher Belmont.
Dracula was defeated by Christopher Belmont in a battle to the death, and once again entered a hundred year slumber in the Transylvanian countryside. One Easter night, a town held a grand carnival commemorating the resurrection of Christ. However, in a ruined cathedral on the outskirts of town, heretics poured human blood over the remains of Count Dracula in a Black Mass ceremony, hoping to resurrect the Undying.
Then, at the moment when evil clouds covered the town, and a bolt of lightning tore through the cathedral, the Demon King Dracula, with evil ambition, once again returned to this world.
To solve this crisis, Simon, a young man inheriting the blood of the Belmont line, took up the whip imbued with strange powers, which he inherited from his father, and set off alone towards Castle Dracula."
Let's break the backstory down:
- Dracula revived at some point in the past.
- He was defeated by a person named Christopher Belmont.
- A 100 years passed since then.
- Because there's a legend that says "Dracula revives every 100 years" this implies Dracula has been around for quite a while, at least a couple of centuries.
Moving on to Castlevania: The Adventure/Dracula Densetsu for GB which was the first of the two games to come out in 1989. Let's once again look at the manual.
In Transylvania, a small country in Europe, there still exists a legend about a Warlock. There exists a legend about the Demon King Dracula who possesses strong magical powers and terrifies people.
However, even though Dracula revived many times, without turning the world into darkness, he completely perished. Due to Simon who inherited the blood of the Belmont family...
There were repeated confrontations between Simon and Dracula. However, the Demon King already existed in Transylvania before his first confrontation with Simon. Not as the Demon King Dracula, but as an evil sorcerer.
Count Dracula, who was a fanatic devil worshipper, built a dark castle at the outskirts of Transylvania and performed devil rites every night. Furthermore, he called forth many demons from another world as servants and was trying to become a Demon King with eternal life and magical powers. The people of the town were frightned and scared of Count Dracula whose powers that he obtained became more hideous day by day.
Then a man stood up. Christopher, the progenitor of the Belmont family. Christopher rushed to the dark castle with haste. There are many traps and monsters in the castle. Will he be able to beat Count Dracula who has become Demon King?
We learn the following:
- This is Dracula's origin story.
- Christopher is the first Belmont.
By the way, the tagline of the game is as follows: "すべての戦いはここから始まる。" (All of the fighting will begin from this point on).
If we compare this information with the details that are given about the Christopher backstory in manual of the first game, we can see only one of the neccessary criteria has been met: the fact that the person we are controlling in the game is named Christopher. The rest of the information we have obtained conflicts with the other criteria. Conclusion: The Adventure/Dracula Densetsu is a distant prequel to the first game but not the direct prequel that was set up in the manual. For whatever reason, the name "Christopher" was given to the progenitor Belmont.
Two months later Castlevania III/Akumajou Densetsu comes out for the Famicom. This time let's take a look at the game's intro:
Europe, 15th century. In this dark age there lived a terrifying man. Vlad Ţepeş of Transylvania, also known as Dracula
He, for who enjoying slaughter and causing destruction in every conceivable way was not enough, restored a magic that had been lost in the far distant past and brought back a dark heretic god into this world.
The mad lord asked the heretic god for help, send out abominable demons into the world one after the other, and changed the whole land of Wallachia into a land of darkness and slaughter.
The lord who was blinded by ambition, at last, plotted to extend his demonic hands all over Europe. He was about to defile this land and dye it with blood...
The Orthodox Church who viewed the situation with great concern, immediately took action and sent troops. Furthermore, even this in land there were those who tried to challange Dracula to a fight. However, therer were none who returned with their lives while fully intact...
The Orthodox Church at their wits' end, at last decided to leave the subjugation of Dracula to the Belmont family, who were called true vampire hunters.
The Belmont family was an old lineage dating back to ancient times who survived battles against abominable beings.
However, because their powers were too distant from that of humans, they were feared and shunned by people. For this reason, without notice, they disappeared from the public eye and no-one saw them in a long time...
The Pope used all possible means and finally, he managed to come across a human who inherited the Belmont bloodline. The name of this man was Ralph Belmont.
Some hundred years before the time of Simon Belmont, here and now, the battle between Dracula and humans is about to begin...
Reading this intro, the story doesn't seem to meet the criteria either save for one: the game takes place "some hundred years" before the time of Simon Belmont. Well, that's confusing, isn't?
However, when looking further, we come across the advertisement I mentioned earlier. It contains the sentence: "ドラキュラがまた眠りから覚めるという。" Translation: "It's said Dracula has once again awoken from his slumber". Great! Now we know Dracula has revived. A second criterion has been met!
That leaves us with one more criterion: the name of the protagonist should be "Christopher". When we look at the character profiles in the game's manual, we discover that the main character's full name is "Ralph C. Belmont". What does the initial "C" stand for then? For the answer we have to turn to an interview with the person responsible for the story of this game.
Q: The C of Ralph C. Belmont was Christopher?
A: The C of Ralph C. Belmont is Christopher. I don't know if it's written in the documentation.
Now we know the protagonist's full name is Ralph Christopher Belmont. That leaves us with something to work with. Did Ralph eventually came to be known under the name Christopher in the legends about his exploits? That's just speculation but considering this information I consider that be another criterion that has been met.
Conclusion: Castlevania III/Akumajou Densetsu meets all the criteria of the backstory told in the manual of the first game while The Adventure/Dracula Densetsu doesn't. It's actually an origin story. From the information that's available it's possible to deduct that Ralph is actually the Christopher mentioned in the manual backstory. The Christopher from the GB games is an unrelated character from the distant past. I don't know what caused this confusing naming situation, but one possible theory is that the GB game started out as a direct prequel but was later changed into a distant prequel. For some reason they kept the name Christopher for the main character. I don't know what the reasons are for the Ralph Christopher Belmont situation. It could be because the name Ralph sounded cooler and they decided to retcon Christopher's name into Ralph Christopher Belmont.
Lastly, to further drive home the point that the GB games took place at the very beginning of the timeline, let's take a look at an excerpt from the ending of Belmont's Revenge/Dracula Densetsu II.
At this moment it came to pass that the legend of the Belmont lineage as vampire hunters started to be told.
When Christopher passed on his duty as a vampire hunter on to his son Soleiyu, the Belmont family turned into a vampire hunter lineage. When we get to the era of Ralph, the Belmonts had already built up quite a reputation as vampire hunters.
-
Well while it was mentioned the Belmonts has a history of fighting evil, there's nothing mentioned that they have a history of fighting vampires or even Dracula.
Also about the C in the middle of Ralph Belmont name, let's not forget that the middle initial name was always referring with the mother's last name before marriage, it will be odd that 'Christopher' was used as a last name while it was commonly used as a first name.
-
Well while it was mentioned the Belmonts has a history of fighting evil, there's nothing mentioned that they have a history of fighting vampires or even Dracula.
Also about the C in the middle of Ralph Belmont name, let's not forget that the middle initial name was always referring with the mother's last name before marriage, it will be odd that 'Christopher' was used as a last name while it was commonly used as a first name.
In the 1400's, it might be possible that Ralph's Mother had a surname of Kristofferson, and Ralph just had it shortened for some reason. Or the Church did a churchy thing. Really there's a whole lot of ways that might have gotten shortened.
-
Well while it was mentioned the Belmonts has a history of fighting evil, there's nothing mentioned that they have a history of fighting vampires or even Dracula.
It's mentioned people call them "true vampire hunters" in CV3's intro (see my translation). There's no mention of the Belmonts and Dracula sharing a history, I'll give you that. However, from the advertisement I mentioned we did learn Dracula revived prior to the events of CV3, so someone had to have defeated him. By the way, I'm not saying the GB games take place 100 before the events of CV3. Given that in Rondo Dracula was mentioned to be roughly 800 years old, and at least 200 years pass between the Ralph's era (the 15th century) and Richter's era, that means Christopher's story occurs in 9th century at the earliest. Which means there is a 600-year gap between Christopher and Ralph during which I assume Dracula fought other Belmonts.
Also about the C in the middle of Ralph Belmont name, let's not forget that the middle initial name was always referring with the mother's last name before marriage, it will be odd that 'Christopher' was used as a last name while it was commonly used as a first name.
This may very well be true, but since the Castlevania games never bother being historically accurate I never really pay attention to such real-life details and so bringing those up is kind of pointless. "Christopher" is definitely not intented to be the last name of Ralph's mother. It's reasonable to assume this is actually his middle name.
-
I think using the advertisement as a point to argue canon is pretty weak to be honest... Maybe we've had this discussion before, but saying that Dracula revives again in an advert is just a simplification, it's basically just letting people know "we've got another game, and Dracula's back!" I mean given the kind of incorrect stuff we've seen in advertisements for other games, wherein Simon is the star of Adventure, or that Cv4 is a sequel to Cv1 and 2, I don't really think adverts should be a part of the equation. The other stuff you've mentioned is all pretty interesting though.
-
or that Cv4 is a sequel to Cv1 and 2
Interestingly enough, I recall this from a previous thread. The Japanese version never mentions it's not a sequel, it simply mentions Simon having to face Dracula "again" (simplified). How else can one interpret this aside from being another story?
-
It's mentioned people call them "true vampire hunters" in CV3's intro (see my translation). There's no mention of the Belmonts and Dracula sharing a history, I'll give you that. However, from the advertisement I mentioned we did learn Dracula revived prior to the events of CV3, so someone had to have defeated him. By the way, I'm not saying the GB games take place 100 before the events of CV3. Given that in Rondo Dracula was mentioned to be roughly 800 years old, and at least 200 years pass between the Ralph's era (the 15th century) and Richter's era, that means Christopher's story occurs in 9th century at the earliest. Which means there is a 600-year gap between Christopher and Ralph during which I assume Dracula fought other Belmonts.
As referring from the advertisement that Dracula revived prior to the events of CV3, let's not forget that he was a human once as a tyrant ruler Vlad Tepes(the one who made the advertisement did a good research if he/she thought about it), maybe it was right after his death as a human hundred years before(if we stick to Dracula's age in Rondo)and later somehow revived as a vampire during the events in CV3
-
As referring from the advertisement that Dracula revived prior to the events of CV3, let's not forget that he was a human once as a tyrant ruler Vlad Tepes(the one who made the advertisement did a good research if he/she thought about it), maybe it was right after his death as a human hundred years before(if we stick to Dracula's age in Rondo)and later somehow revived as a vampire during the events in CV3
It's a bit unclear to me what you're trying to argue here. I assume you're disagreeing with me, but I'm not sure about what you're disagreeing with. Could you perhaps clarify?
-
Well I'm quite to disagree that Christopher was supposed to be the first one who fought and defeat Dracula before Ralph and Simon, recently I searched for the japanese manual for Dracula Densetsu which is the japanese release of Castlevania Adventure, thanks to my knowledge with Katakana, hiragana and some kanji's I spotted the name of Simon("Shimon") mentioned in the upper part of sypnosis while the name Christopher(Kurisutopaa) was mentioned below or near the end of sypnosis.
While I'm not really fluent with japanese, we can assume that Simon previously fought Dracula before Christopher does as evident in the manual otherwise it's the other way around or no reference of a previous Belmont who fought Dracula if Christopher was meant to be the first Belmont who fought Dracula.
-
While I'm not really fluent with japanese, we can assume that Simon previously fought Dracula before Christopher does as evident in the manual otherwise it's the other way around or no reference of a previous Belmont who fought Dracula if Christopher was meant to be the first Belmont who fought Dracula.
Yeah, not being fluent in japanese (something Nagumo is) or not understanding what is written there and assuming Simon fought Dracula before Christopher because his name appears first on the story will get you nowhere.
The story is recalling the events of the first Castlevania, which is why it mentions Simon first, before explicitly saying that the events of Dracula Densetsu are set previous to him and introducing Christopher.
-
Thanks plottwist, I was just about to say the same thing. Although I wouldn't say that I'm fluent, in this case I feel its justified to point out my reading comprehension level is N2 (the second highest level), so you can trust that what I'm saying is correct. Once again, if you refer back to my translation of Dracula Densetsu manual you can see, as plottwist already pointed out, that the story is starts by recalling the events of Akumajou Dracula (and I also assume the sequel, Dracula II). This makes sense if we look at the release order the games came out as these games directly preceded Dracula Densetsu (if we ignore the arcade game for a moment). Then the story proceeds to introduce Christopher and it's quite clear these events occur in the past since the origins of both Dracula and the Belmont family are explained to the reader. It's not outright stated how far into the past the story is set but we can deduct that it's more than a 100 years. From the manual of the first Akumajou Dracula we learn that there is a legend that says Dracula revives once every 100 years. For this legend to have come into existence it means someone must have noticed a pattern in the way that Dracula revives. This means Dracula must have been revived at least two times before the legend was created. In this way we can determine Dracula Densetsu occurs at least 300 years before the events of Akumajou Dracula and Dracula II. However, as I mentioned earlier, Dracula's age in Rondo pushed these events even farther back in the chronology.
-
Yesterday I searched the direct translation of the Dracula Densetsu manual. After reading it, I said to myself: "My bad"