Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: Lumi Kløvstad on July 03, 2016, 08:16:47 AM
-
Let's say tomorrow Konami announced a brave new world of Castlevania (they won't -- probably ever -- but it's nice to dream) and they'd be doing a whole new series of games.
Furthermore, fan favorite games like Symphony and Lament would be canon to these new games. But there's a catch: they are reinventing the canon. Not all the games remain important.
Say it's only half the canon that gets carried over while a new second half is constructed to reconnect everything in new ways and allow for new games to be made that supercede older ones like Simon's Quest.
Be honest: would you be cool with it or would you flip?
Knowing me, I'd try to enjoy the new canon. I'd probably end up enjoying it too, or at least appreciating what it tried to do. But I'd never love it the same way.
It's like a second marriage, that way.
-
I follow the existing canon simply because it's what they stated it was. I'm too lazy to come up with some form of headcanon or all that.
If (BIG if here) Konami decided to rework the canon for a new game, I'd be all for it. Everyone's already aware that Castlevania's canon is full of problems.
-
The rough framework of the canon remains mostly intact if LoI and SotN are still included. So does that mean you would just like to get rid of what comes after 1797?
-
If some of the games are irrelevant then we're exactly where we are now with Legends, 64/LOD and certain others being retconned.
In my eyes whichever games are no longer in the main canon shift over to timeline B and so forth.
I like the current canon though. But if changes meant new (good) games and revitalising the franchise I would support it.
-
I'd see precisely zero problems with it -- both canons can exist. Would be confusing as fuck, but they can exist.
The only reason why IGA's canon is considered "the main canon" is because he's the only one who bothered to do it, and it is the only one to include the classic stories as main entries.
-
I would only be cool with it if they did a 1999 game first, after that they can do whatever they want to reinvent the existing canon.
-
I'd probably end up enjoying it too, or at least appreciating what it tried to do. But I'd never love it the same way.
Yeah, I think I'd most likely be the same. I don't think it would be impossible to do super well though, perhaps even enough to "win me over" to it.
I mean, if someone was actually dedicated to it and had a vision to pursue (that was worth pursuing)...I get that they're redoing the canon but the point should still be to make a good and faithful(ish) game, right? Even though I find the LoS games enjoyable, I feel (for some reason) like the name "Castlevania" was just tacked on to try and curry favor or something. I wouldn't want that feeling from this new canon. I have a few Star Trek fans who feel the movie reboots did that (even though I know there are fans who would disagree).
I would only be cool with it if they did a 1999 game first, after that they can do whatever they want to reinvent the existing canon.
That's a nifty thought.
-
Honestly, I think I'd like to see Konami just start from scratch completely. The canon has gotten long in the tooth...I mean, how many times can the same clan (and others) beat Dracula and not have it seem like a joke?
I respect that the canon is extensive and long-standing, but it kind of diminishes Dracula's role when he's been beaten dozens of times.
What I'd like to see is something similar to Zelda's canon...or at least how people at one point speculated how Zelda's canon worked (I haven't kept up): have every two or so games directly related to each other, but separate from the rest. That way you don't have everything on the same timeline. This would be my preferred way of handling the canon.
-
I still only follow the CV Canon before IGA took over. It's a lot less convoluted--and in some cases--ridiculous. But if Konami decided to redo the series from scratch then I'll just have to wait and see what develops out of it.
-
I am willing to go into new canons as long as Konami makes a new Castlevania that is not a cop out.
-
A new canon would be fine so long as the tone and aesthetics are similar to the other Castlevania games.
-
What I would prefer if Konami were to ever re-start the series in a way, would be for them to respect the canon in general, but retell it in a more elaborate, thought out way. Tell us stories longtime fans may already know, but give it to a real writer, flesh it out, connect it. I would love to see the series lore discovered throughout the world like in the Elder Scrolls games, with the stories of classic transcribed from first and second hand accounts in books, and from villagers. They could change some details, even some big ones. But leave the high notes alone, and keep from creating glaring contradictions.
A more likely but still acceptable option would be continuous soft reboots. Different games, with no real canon to connect them, but the same basic themes and gameplay mechanics. I would love to see a more dark gothic game in the style of the vampire section from LoS aesthetically. A more medieval fantasy type game, with a similar feel to the art style of Cv3, maybe even like someone else mentioned a campy tongue in cheek monster mash in the vein of the original game, an alternate Cv2 in a way. I didn't like LoS's specific take on the series, but I am certainly down for experimentation.
-
Id Love for them to work on a Brand new Timeline, sort of LOS did, but keep all the older stuff in it, like The Real Vampire Killer, and, so forth. And I would love it if they could have a Crack at doing it in 3D, But have an NPC coming with you and brakeing off from you, like lets say it was A belmondo ( the player) and Alucard and you would meet in the castle. Then you would team up but like if there was two ways to go But it took you to the same place you could split up. It be cool to see him running above you, and he would find keys and unlock doors and such. And be all like "I found this you may need it" and could be like a whip stone.
And here is the one that I've always a want to see. Your trying to get up to the 5th floor, when all of a sudden the whole room shakes, Then the roof caves in.
The player would see Alucard falling as he is fighting a Boss, and when they both come crashing down as the boss would be Huge, the floor would smash. So you would be dragged down to the catacombs.
So then there'd be a falling boss fight, then when you land after beating the boss, there would be a cut scene with Alucard talking to the player and say something along the lines of "Sorry and thank you for the help, I hope I did not set you to far of your path" ands then you would be given a choice on how to respond. Kind, neutral, angry.
Oh man it would be soo cool. Id love to Do what Bioshock Did with Elizabeth, and make the NPC helpful and really Smart, full of Character. Like he's a real person, and fits in with the world, and reacts to it. But I really don't wanna make him like"oh Man he's stuck again, better load up again, dag haven't saved for hours.
Its funny that no one has tired to make another Elizabeth, Well its impossible to make another one. As there will only ever be one. But it does strike me as odd that no body has made one in a similar vein.
But yeah a new Time would be amazing, oh WHY KONAMI, WHYYYY :'(
-
I love the series lore but the gameplay and atmosphere are more important than the canon. Continuity is nice but for me a Castlevania game doesn't have to be beholden to any particular timeline, it's just got to hit the right notes.
In addition to good gameplay it needs to have-
-A Gothic spooky Castle setting for the majority of the game, bonus points for outside areas being in various states of decay.
-A menagerie of fun and interesting monsters to fight, including the signature medusa heads and flea men, culminating in an epic multi-form boss fight, preferably with Dracula himself.
-The classic mood-setting and blood pumping musical tracks we all know and love.
-Strong protagonist(s)
-
I just can't be bored with the existing canon.
If they make another 100 Castlevania games like the SotN, CotM, HoD, AoS, DoS, PoR and OoE I will buy them and play them.
-
I don't give a fuck.
Dracula's Curse, Super, Belmont's Revenge, and Symphony will remain the greatest experiences of my life. If 1999 and a proper Portrait of Ruin would ever happen, that could be swell. On that note, there was a spectacular opportunity of working Saint Germain ("...there is something in the future I have to attend to!") into PoR (& '99).
To lock the universe into a canon introduces the risk of short-circuiting CastleVania's potential again. Let CastleVania be an endless collection of episodic pageants of badassery! They can occasionally run a line, for sure, but let's not once again bear witness to one chronicle being milked into fucking cheapness, Richter!
-
Not tied to it much at all. Story is way too convoluted, and the guy behind most of it jumped ship to make a kickstarter funded Castlevania clone. Just flush the canon and start from scratch.
-
Not tied to it much at all. Story is way too convoluted, and the guy behind most of it jumped ship to make a kickstarter funded Castlevania clone. Just flush the canon and start from scratch.
I think that is a pretty unfair twist on the IGA situation. Sensing a little hostility. And I never got why people found the old canon so convoluted... I mean you could write out the whole thing in about 2 or 3 pages.
-
Story is way too convoluted
#calamitycanon
I think that is a pretty unfair twist on the IGA situation. Sensing a little hostility. And I never got why people found the old canon so convoluted... I mean you could write out the whole thing in about 2 or 3 pages.
Just a little?
CV's timeline is only convoluted if you count the games which were retconned. Even so the timeline is fairly straightforward.
Hell a series like Zelda's timeline (even with HH) is not that easy to understand for some of the hardcore fans, forget about the average gamer.
-
And I never got why people found the old canon so convoluted... I mean you could write out the whole thing in about 2 or 3 pages.
only convoluted if you count the games which were retconned. Even so the timeline is fairly straightforward.
Hell a series like Zelda's timeline (even with HH) is not that easy to understand for some of the hardcore fans, forget about the average gamer.
It's good to hear voices I agree with. This "it's too convoluted" idea is getting to the point where people want to outright expunge specific entries on the canon because they can't/couldn't comprehend it (and no, this is not a mention to Scholar's "ricordanza should be expunged" thread, as what I'm pointing out is different from his view on that particular instance).
The issue people have with the canon comes from the fact that we, on the west, didn't get the entire thing clearly explained to us while the series progressed, as the eastern audience did. When manuals came out for us, the stories within were heavily altered, if not outright invented or plain wrong. And this is something from before IGA. Then, when IGA started building his stories and talking about things we couldn't get (because we didn't have the proper context), we blamed him for "plot-holes" when his concepts were rooted quite firmly on ideas established before him that, again, we had no access to.
Hell, the majority of the Castlevania audience still sees Dracula as ~le spooky vampire on the creepy castle~ instead of the analogous to Satan he is supposed to be, constantly downplaying him. And this is thanks in no small part to the horrible supplementary material we got for the older games (seriously, compare the JP and ENG versions of the first Castlevania manual) and careless translations in many instances of the modern games ("Satan's Ring" comes to mind). So, when IGA made these nuances more obvious in the games, it became "his fault" for making it "too convoluted" and opened a big leeway for people to see "inconsistencies" where there are none*.
Konami of America is to blame. They painted Castlevania in an overly simplified manner for us, when this was never the case. Hell, there are instances of three-page plots being turned into offhand mentions on the english manuals. When the localization teams couldn't give a single flying fuck for the complex stories behind these games, how could the player be expected to do it?
What I'm trying to say is: The plot is not convoluted when you know what it is.
* = I'm not saying IGA is the next Shakespeare. There are holes to be filled on his plots. What I'm saying is that most criticism of his writing stems from unintentional misunderstandings of the source-material, since said source-material is either heavily altered for english audiences or not translated at all. e.g.: people saying Order of Ecclesia makes no sense to exist along with Circle of the Moon and Legacy of Darkness because these two were added for some goddamn reason on the english timeline when they shouldn't. Or people giving him shit for having removed Legends because they don't have access to the timeline flat out stating the date of Lisa' death to compare with Legends' year.
-
I am very tightly tied to EVERY Castlevania games before the LOS triology happened!
I considered each Castlevania game as a long huge timeline 'cept Chronicles and Super Castlevania 4 since they technically are remakes of Castlevania 1 same goes for Dracula X and Chronicle X wich are also remakes of Rondo of blood and i consider Harmony of despair not really canon since basically if my memory is correct it happened because of a certain grimoire in Dracula's castle that has recorded EVERY event inside! wich come to think of it i am really curious on HOW & WHY Harmony of despair happened =) so technically i consider all of the original Castlevania games (including the prologues mangas of SotN, CoD, the light novel Ricordanza of the abyss(if i wrote it right)) canon Iga ad non-Iga wise!
But the one thing i consider the most important element of Castlevania is: The Story telling. I love Lament of Innocence for it's origin story of WHY Castlevania happened while i love Curse of Darkness for it's what happened after Dracula's Curse, surely even if Dracula is dead there must be some sort remnants of his dark powers and allies? My favorite by far is the stories of: Harmony of disonnance, Order of Ecclesia, Circle of the moon, 64/Legacy of darkness, Portrait of ruins, both Aria and Dawn of sorrows! What i think Konami should have done before doing the LOS trilogy was to give us the most important story of Castlevania: The 1999 Demon War/The final End of Dracula!
Sure we keep hearing it but never seen it even today untill one Castlevania fan decided to bring this story to life: of course i'm talking aboth theplottwist's Castlevania: Umbra of Sorrow! He is so dedicated that he had built the lore of WHY & HOW for the 1999 Demon War!
As for the LOS trilogy: 1st one had a great story 'till the after credit scene, Mirror of fate was Average but i din't like the story too much ('cept for Simon's story was pretty nice), and the 2nd got me type-2 bad story-betes... yeah that badly.
So overvall the thing that i am the most tied to the canon is it's amazing storytelling! Overall i give the entire Castlevania Franchise before LOS a solid 10/10, 5 Platinum Stars.
-
The following thoughts are simply my opinion.
I've said this a billion times here but I don't care what the timeline is as long as the following is in it (this being said I do enjoy the Iga timeline):
Belmont as the hero and as just a regular person. I don't want him to secretly Dracula or the son of Alucard or whatever. I just want a guy (or girl) who is just straight up human with maybe some divine powers. Moreover, I want them to be the hero and not a supporting character.
A simple plot. I've never taken CV to have the deepest plot. I'm not saying it can't or doesn't but in truth, it's a game about a guy with a whip fighting monsters in a giant castle. As long as that key element is there we're good.
Candles and hearts. This might seem anal but I feel these elements are important. I know some games don't have candles or hearts but I feel at this point they've become part of the CV feel.
A giant castle. I'm sure some feel differently but I don't want to travel around the world or to different areas of the land but just in a giant impossibly huge castle.
This is going to sound weird but I wish they'd get rid of the leveling system. If they had to have one I vote they use the LoI version. I feel that with leveling it's not so much talent or skill that beats the game but rather grinding till you're strong enough to do so. I'm sure people disagree but I'm just speaking my mind.
Killer soundtrack.
An atmosphere of something like LoI and the CV games.
Finally elements from the 64 games. I know people aren't the biggest fans of the 64 titles but they have some really cool elements. Just to list a few: I think the fact that vampires are common enemies is a neat idea. Also, I've always loved the fact that the vampires can bite you and possibly turn you into a vampire thus you receiving a game over. The day and night system I think works in it. Your inventory is simple and I like that. We need another merchant like the one in CV 64. Finally platforming (yes I know it needed work) where you could die. I love the Iga games but it always bugged me that I would jump from the highest point of the castle and land safely on my feet.
I love the newer titles but I wish they would go back to some of the basics that I love.
-
While it's undeniably true that Konami of America is mainly responsible for the convoluted nature of the games' stories, IGA also played his part. He did mention glossing over some elements of the games in order to tie them all together. But by doing so, almost as much damage was done. That, and he had no editors to proof-check his work, much less ones' whom had intimate knowledge of CV before he came aboard. Bloodstained will be a chance for IGA to start fresh and do his own thing, and it shouldn't get as messed up as easily as CV had gotten since Bloodstained is his baby. I do like some of the things IGA's canon brought to the stage. It did make the series feel deeper then before. However there are also other elements that he should not have touched upon as they were already firmly entrenched in popular culture and our minds. Dracula's origins was the big one.
-
I'd actually love to see them start from scratch, so long as they went in the same direction as the early games. A whip-wielding Belmont against Dracula, his castle, and his legion of creatures. I'd love to see them go back to the somewhat campy horror vibe they had to begin with, and a plus if they gave it a good story.
The canon just seems like it's run its course at this point...it already feels like it's been stretched out too far.
I'd even be excited for a multiverse, so that the series characters could be reinterpreted in different, interesting ways. As long as they stayed completely separate from each other...
-
While it's undeniably true that Konami of America is mainly responsible for the convoluted nature of the games' stories, IGA also played his part. He did mention glossing over some elements of the games in order to tie them all together. But by doing so, almost as much damage was done. That, and he had no editors to proof-check his work, much less ones' whom had intimate knowledge of CV before he came aboard. Bloodstained will be a chance for IGA to start fresh and do his own thing, and it shouldn't get as messed up as easily as CV had gotten since Bloodstained is his baby. I do like some of the things IGA's canon brought to the stage. It did make the series feel deeper then before. However there are also other elements that he should not have touched upon as they were already firmly entrenched in popular culture and our minds. Dracula's origins was the big one.
Are you aware that Dracula's origins were established to be very different than the historical figure years before IGA came on board? In the manuals of the original NES and GB games. This is the same issue mentioned above. If you are unfamiliar with the actual established continuity pre-Iga, and only know the English translation, the story gets wonky. If not then you can see that IGA actually did a wonderful job of keeping the story consistant and contradiction free.
-
Technically Dracula was never Vlad Tepes, not even in the original novel despite the (incorrect) claims to the contrary. It's an idea very much ingrained in pop culture but it's based on a misinterpretation. I'm not sure if anyone remembers but I brought up a scholary article that pretty much debunked that idea. If you're affliated with an university you can read the article yourself.
Regarding the debate about whether or not Count Dracula in Stoker's novel is really Vlad Tepes, I read a very interesting scholary article about this (written by a certain Andrew Collins from the the university of Otago) from 2011 which argues he definitely was not. To summarize his point briefly, he states the only source mentioned in Stoker's notes from he which he could have gotten his information about the historical Dracula is "An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia" (he also links all the passages from the novel that relate to historical events to information in this book) which mention two Dracula's: Vlad II and Vlad III. So, the author further goes on that the novel mentions on a few occasians two Dracula's:
1) A Dracula who ‘crossed the Danube and beat the Turk on his own ground’, whose ‘unworthy brother, when he had fallen, sold his people to the Turk and brought the shame of slavery on them’.
2) A second Dracula who was inspired by Vlad the Impaler’s military exploits.
Citaat
Was it not this Dracula, indeed, who inspired that other of his race who in a later age again and again brought his forces over the great river into Turkey-land, who, when he was beaten back, came again, and again, though he had to come alone from the bloody field where his troops were being slaughtered, since he knew that he alone could ultimately triumph! They said that he thought only of himself. Bah! What good are peasants without a leader? Where ends the war without a brain and heart to conduct it?
This second Dracula is supposed to have fought in the battle of Mohács, which took place in 1526, as mentioned in the novel.
The author argues that Stoker assumed because of the multiple uses of Dracula in the book he consulted, Dracula was actually a lineage, not simply a title. So this means that Stoker actually meant for Count Dracula to be a fictionalized relative of Vlad Tepes who also happend to have fought Turks at a later point in time, but also dabbled in black magic, alchemy, and so on.
The Vlad Tepes backstory is pretty interesting but, despite being championed as the most legitimate, it's just one of many backgrounds attributed to Dracula in popculture. Come to think of it, I don't know a single piece of media that actually gets Dracula's identity right. So in the end, it doesn't matter who Dracula was originally. Part of the fun is that you can pretty much make him anyone you want him to be.
-
I don't think that article disproves Dracula's origin as Tepes.
We know that stoker didn't add the Tepes backstory until later, but t still holds water. He made the change later and with limited info, but enough was given.
Why? Because this article tries to debunk his identity by stating Dracula is someone else who is related some 100 years later as a contradiction; but then, Dracula himself is an immortal vampire. And there is still the first clear reference to Tepes in the lines before that that if anything, debunk this authors theory the same way.
Is the idea of him posing as a relative to Tepes 100 years later not the exact thing any logical vampire would do who needed to hide the fact that he was undead? It is after all the exact thing he is doing as he speaks these lines to Jonathan Harker.
Van Helsing clearly identifies him in the novel as well.
"He must, indeed, have been that Voivode Dracula who won his name against the Turk, over the great river on the very frontier of Turkey-land." (Chapter 18, p 145)
Even the Wikipedia for the novel states that historical facts are present in the novel that unequivocally point to Vlad III.
-
I thought about your interpreation Belmontya, and I have to disagree. First I would like to emphasize that the only known source Stoker was known to have used definitely could have been interpreted by him to mean that the name "Dracula' indicated a lineage. So the idea of there being multiple Draculas is not something the author came up with out of nowhere.
Moving on, here's a brief overview of the history that transpired in the world of Stoker's novel:
1) A Voivode by the name of Dracula "crossed the Danube and beat the Turk on his own ground".
2) When this Dracula had died in battle, "Woe was it that his own unworthy brother, [...] sold his people to the Turk and brought the shame of slavery on them!"
3) This event inspired "that other of his race" (a different Dracula) to gather an army "and again and again, brought his forces over The Great River into Turkey Land, who when he was beaten back, came again, and again, and again, though he had to come alone from the bloody field where his troops were being slaughtered, since he knew that he alone could ultimately triumph."
The quote you mentioned can thus refer to both the original Dracula (Vlad Tepes) or the Dracula "from a later age".
What I think definitely disproves your interpreation is that at some point Van Helsing obtains information about Count Dracula from when he was still alive (the fact that he was a scholar, alchemist, and occultist who attented the Scholomance) and this information is then explicitly linked to the Dracula who fought in the battle of Mohács. The novel seems to imply that Dracula's involvement in the black arts is what caused him to come back as a vampire after death. So the novel seems to place Dracula's transformation into a vampire around that time. Thus, he isn't Vlad Tepes.
-
I think we had this exact same conversation 2 years ago Nagumo! Haha
-
Yeah, I remember. :) Too bad we can't simply ask the author...
-
Well more then not, I strongly feel the Stoker's Dracula and the Historical Dracula are on and the same, even if the author didn't start it out that way, but it did become such in the end. And I felt strongly betrayed when some noobie not-Dracula replaced the traditional true CV Dracula the fans grew up with. The fact the I felt betrayed tells me how much I loved the old canon. How tied am I to the existing old canon? kinda like this;
CV classic canon -acknowledged as the true canon-
the IGAvania canon -relegated to a separate universal existence which shares the original games in mention only-
CV Judgement canon -out of sight, out of mind-
LoS canon -out of sight, out of mind-
-
You and I have always seemed to see eye to eye on this one X.
But I've been inching towards a place where it doesn't bother me as much because I'm starting to feel that the moment Vlad the Impaler becomes fictionalized into a vampire, he instantly becomes less terrifying to me. The fact that someone was really capable of what he did is just insane, and no lonely, lovesick vampire version of him can ever compete with that.
But I still do feel that the character of Dracula the vampire is exponentially better as Vlad the Impaler. I just think Vlad is scarier kept in reality.
Not sure if I'm making sense, I hope I am.
Anyways, it will be very interesting when Mig and I start back on Wallachia with the real Vlad no fictional monsters motto. I can't wait to start developing that concept again with him. Should make for an interesting action game!
-
I just think Vlad is scarier kept in reality.
Oh he is! Truth is stranger then fiction. Absolutely no arguments here. And I've always found that having both the vampire and the real life counterpart being the same in CV, brings out the ultimate version that is Dracula.
-
Vlad III himself is scary in mythology, but the truth of it is that many contemporary Romanians consider him a national hero in the epilogues of history. Admittedly he did some fucked up shit, but in comparison to what other people of power were doing back then, there wasn't a massive discrepancy. Gruesome, yes, but plenty of powerful leaders have killed. Killing and torture have been around for a long time.
-
Also too true. It's kinda the same thing as the British view Oliver Cromwell as a hero while the Irish view him as a man whom raped and pillaged his way across Ireland. One peoples' villain is another peoples' hero. Vlad did what he did mainly because Romania at that time was very unpredictable. He had to rule it with an iron fist as to maintain some for of order since the political climate was so unstable. That, and the threat of the Ottoman Empire warring its way across eastern Europe. But Vlad also partook in his favourite pastime and viewed it as necessary (torture, impalement, etc). To me Dracula is a the ultimate villain in CV while his real life counterpart is something to be admired, as well as feared. I honestly can't help be feel some form of a bit of admiration for Vlad. He had a very though life when you think about it and the end result was him trying to take some form of control over it so as to have it not seem so chaotic.
-
True X.
I think Dracula and Vlad are actually the perfect allegorical fusions of mythology and history.
On one hand you have Vlad, who did all the impalement etc and when he was finally brought to justice his remains were nowhere to be found (with accounts varying). Then we have Dracula, possibly the most iconic figure in history, somewhat still shrouded in mystery.
The two are like the yin and the yang, the fact that both retain some form of mystery and uncertainty - though with a mainly consistent context - actually makes their "union" more complete. People want to believe Dracula is real>people want to believe Vlad didn't die>people want to believe Vlad is Dracula. There is something alluring and sexual to the vampire's kiss/bite and it has ties to bloodlust which fits nobody better than it fits Vlad.
-
There are a lot of things I like about Castlevania, but when it comes down to it, it's the game elements rather than the story one that draw me in.
It's got a great atmosphere, music, enemy selection, and all that. It's just that whenever they feel the need to try to give anything an origin, it seems to me like they blow it completely.
I really didn't need to know that the whip was created with alchemy and continated somebody's soul or that Dracula wasn't really Dracula, for example.
-
#calamitycanon
Just a little?
CV's timeline is only convoluted if you count the games which were retconned. Even so the timeline is fairly straightforward.
That works both ways, you know. You could also say the timeline is only convoluted if you count the IGA games. If you stick to the Castlevanias released before he became series producer, the story was fairly simple to follow.
-
I agree with most of X's points. I don't like that they took a character that was iconic in pop culture, and decided to make him into something else. Why bother using Dracula as your villain then, if he just ends up being some guy named Mathias?
Also, I'm not concerned about what was written in instruction manuals of 8-bit games, whether Japanese manuals or English. Back in the 8-bit days, the games told their stories by showing, rather than telling, and your imagination filled in the blanks. If the original story intent was to invoke Satan, then why did you also clearly have Frankenstein and Mummies featured as bosses, if they weren't going for traditional pop culture Dracula as the big bad guy?
-
Ghost and Goblins got the idea of a guy fighting Satan across perfectly.
For starters, he actually FOUGHT SATAN.
Then he fought demons and things that looked like Satan.
On top of that, he went through areas that were clearly meant to resemble Hell.
Simon on the other hand, he fought the Universal Monsters in a creepy old castle. If they were going for a satanic angle, they really really missed it.
-
Yes, agree 100%, chainsawmidget. Ghosts N Goblins was about a warrior battling Satan and other minions from Hell. Castlevania took most of its cues from classic monster movies, like Universal and Hammer, and even Harryhausen.