Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: theplottwist on March 15, 2017, 10:20:10 PM
-
Not really. But I gotta have dat clickbait, fam.
This timeline was made originally for the audiences of my country, but I adapted it to english too.
What it doesn't contain: Platform of each game, Gamebooks or Novels too obscure to track down or to actually enrich any knowledge, Ports. If you see a game you think is a port in there, then it's there because it was confirmed to be a different timeline/universe rather than merely a port.
It's color coded for convenience, too. AND, if it's not obvious enough, the timeline is read vertically, not horizontally.
There might be errors. Probably are. I have plans to evolve it further in the future, but the goal was to make as simple to follow as possible, hence why there are no fancy summaries or game platforms. You'll also notice that the criteria used for colunm positioning places Lords of Shadow the furthest from the classic canon. Done intentionally to drive home that LoS is a separate continuity completelly unrelated to the classic canon.
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fq3ZIv6K.png&hash=442775d7a5b00d955fb397921f8ce5712fcefcd5)
Full size: http://imgur.com/a/GVxvK (http://imgur.com/a/GVxvK)
"But why does Legacy have its own timeline?"
It was made that way initially because, on the alternate continuity, LoD is both the only one to have a true sequel plot and system-wise, and the only one whose character is more connected to IGA's canon (Cornell, through Judgment).
Kid Dracula has a "sequel".... In that it's only an excuse to port/arrange Kid Dracula for the GB. Although it would fall on the "port" category and not be included, its plot says that GB Kid Dracula is actually a sequel. Soooo in it goes.
Contrary to what it may look like, Kid Dracula isn't more connected to IGA's canon "because of Galamoth". Galamoth, in Castlevania, may be a completelly separated character from Kid Dracula's Galamoth, while the Cornell showing up on Judgment is the real deal from LoD.
"But why then are the Pachinkos coming before Kid Dracula and the other alternate continuities?"
This may be an oversight on my part and may be redone later, but the initial rationale is that the Pachinkos are branching from the classic canon being more true to the classic canon's plot formula, when Kid Dracula, while also branching from the classic canon, heavily deviates from the classic canon's plot formula, activelly trying to not have an horror atmosphere at all.
But I may change that based on "importance", which the alternate continuities truly are: Much more important than the Pachinkos and far outweighting Kid Dracula on the plot formula fidelity.
Yeah redid it. Keeping the pachinkos above the alternate continuities was just wrong.
"Why is Mirror of Fate listed twice?"
This game happens during two ages, and one is the "sequel" from the other within the same game.
-
Why did the makers even considered that bloody Pachinko as a legit Castlevania? It should be treated like Zelda Cdi and should be denied from existence.
Not cool. Not cool.
-
Because personal opinions of quality don't change that it's an official title.
-
Because personal opinions of quality don't change that it's an official title.
Well, well. Nobody considers "Zelda" Cdi as "Zelda", don't they. It works the same. "Castlevania" Pachinko is not "Castlevania".
Don't dare say that I missed ur joke cuz I clearly have different sense of humour.
-
It's cool, but I think I've said my peace on CV's timeline :P
Also Pachinko = canon entry? :/
-
It's cool, but I think I've said my peace on CV's timeline :P
Also Pachinko = canon entry? :/
Pachislot timeline is its own timeline. Which is why it's far away from the IGA canon. Also, the "pachislot canon" is Pachi-Akumajo 3, 1, 2. CR Pachinko and The Medal are not confirmed to be sequels to the Pachi-Akumajo games.
The horizontal lines are NOT "branchings". They are guides to help your eyes connect them with the years only. For instance: Dracula X connected to Rondo of Blood doesn't mean it's branching from Rondo. It means that it happens on a parallel timeline on the same year.
Well, well. Nobody considers "Zelda" Cdi as "Zelda", don't they. It works the same. "Castlevania" Pachinko is not "Castlevania".
Don't dare say that I missed ur joke cuz I clearly have different sense of humour.
They considering Zelda CDI "not Zelda" doesn't make it less Zelda. It has the name "Zelda", it was licensed, was approved at the time, so it's Zelda. It may suck major balls, but it's Zelda.
Say someone makes you chicken. You love chicken, but this person sucks at cooking and their chicken tastes horrible. It's not "not chicken". It's just bad chicken.
-
They considering Zelda CDI "not Zelda" doesn't make it less Zelda. It has the name "Zelda", it was licensed, was approved at the time, so it's Zelda. It may suck major balls, but it's Zelda.
Actually they're not considered canon Zelda titles, reference Hyrule Historia. Even though Philips used Ninty's license and some of its art, these games don't take place in the same universe(s) as Nintendo's LOZ.
Even the geography and such like "Gamelon" are not a part of Nintendo's canon. In actual fact, they seem to have inspired the animated 90's cartoon more so than anything else.
-
Actually they're not considered canon Zelda titles, reference Hyrule Historia. Even though Philips used Ninty's license and some of its art, these games don't take place in the same universe(s) as Nintendo's LOZ.
Even the geography and such like "Gamelon" are not a part of Nintendo's canon. In actual fact, they seem to have inspired the animated 90's cartoon more so than anything else.
To add that, Most of non-canon CVs are considered spinoff or Alternative canon, unlike Pachinko which is just irrelevant from Castlevania except for Pachinko imitation the look of Castlevania. Like People consider Hyrule Warriors as a Zelda game and CotM as a Castlevania, even though they do not fit in canon timeline unlike Zelda Cdi or Pachinko Castlevania.
-
Well, well. Nobody considers "Zelda" Cdi as "Zelda", don't they. It works the same. "Castlevania" Pachinko is not "Castlevania".
Don't dare say that I missed ur joke cuz I clearly have different sense of humour.
A joke wasn't being made.
I hate the things as much as the next guy, but they're still Castlevania titles made by Konami. If he was making a comprehensive timeline, they have every reason to be included for consistency's own sake. My disliking them doesn't turn it into a another series or retcon it.
But Plot already beat me to this with the chicken metaphor (really, Plot? Chicken metaphors while referencing Zelda? Are you aiming to cause a death swarm from above?), so I'm just echoing the sentiment.
Actually they're not considered canon Zelda titles, reference Hyrule Historia. Even though Philips used Ninty's license and some of its art, these games don't take place in the same universe(s) as Nintendo's LOZ.
Even the geography and such like "Gamelon" are not a part of Nintendo's canon. In actual fact, they seem to have inspired the animated 90's cartoon more so than anything else.
It's not really about whether something's part of the Ganon canon. It's just the simple naming convention and subjective principle of it. We don't refer to the CD-I Zeldas as "Lib-Lonk's Rug Adventure of Shitty MSPaint Cutscenes and Awful Game Design, Squadalah!" We refer to them as CD-I Zelda. Saying that isn't declaring them canonized or even of good quality, only that we're addressing them by the name they were released with. It's kinda like fangames--a fanmade Zelda title doesn't stop being Zelda because it's not official, it's still got the usual cast and scenario and setting.
Or more recent of an instance, is AM2R not Metroid because Nintendo didn't officiate it and openly went after it with the intent to kill?
The other part of it is an entirely subjective one. Everyone's gonna have a different definition of what makes a series "Castlevania" or "Zelda" or whatever. For some folks, it's Classicvania or bust. For others, Castleroids take the cake. Neither's more "right" than the other in those opinions. Since it really boils down to the correlation between this and official releases (in that, I could consider something faithful to a series when it's not official, or consider an official entry to be a terrible representation of the series), the only well and true factor that can be looked at from a lens of some objectivity is the simple official naming and licensing.
Do Pachinkovanias suck? I think so.
Are they lazy cashgrabs for a home-targeted market from a company who can't bother to care about the rest of the planet? Of course.
Do I consider them shitty representations of the series at large and what I consider to be thematically and uniquely "Castlevania?" Definitely.
But Konami still made, released, and licensed them under the IP. They count as Castlevanias, even if it is in nothing but name and basic "whip man beat vampyr" theming. It's Castlevania on all the official paperwork, so I must (begrudgingly) accept it as a valid entry in series officialism.
-
Apart from the clickbait, this is a really nice infography. Nice job, Mr. Plot! :)
-
This is very nice BUT the names of the games are really hard to read.
-
Just one question: why is Order of Shadows after Castlevania/Simon's Quest, even in an alternate timeline? For it to take place in the 'late 1600's' it would have to be before Castlevania/Simon's Quest, or be alternate to the events of those games. Or is that because there was nothing to actually say what date Haunted Castle took place in? I'm just remembering a previous conversation we had about Order of Shadows and its 'timeline' placement in this thread: http://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/index.php/topic,8587.0.html (http://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/index.php/topic,8587.0.html)
-
This is very nice BUT the names of the games are really hard to read.
This timeline is actually GIGANTIC. Imgur scrunches it to fit your screen even if you click the image. To get the full image, right-click on the magnified image and "Open on another tab".
Just one question: why is Order of Shadows after Castlevania/Simon's Quest, even in an alternate timeline? For it to take place in the 'late 1600's' it would have to be before Castlevania/Simon's Quest, or be alternate to the events of those games. Or is that because there was nothing to actually say what date Haunted Castle took place in? I'm just remembering a previous conversation we had about Order of Shadows and its 'timeline' placement in this thread: http://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/index.php/topic,8587.0.html (http://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/index.php/topic,8587.0.html)
The only official word we have from Order of Shadows is that "it takes place late in the 1600s". For all we know, Simon could've not even existed on Order of Shadows' universe, cameo appearance aside.
So the safe bet was to place it last on the "1600s games", giving precedence to the many Simon adventures first. Though it IS quite possible it happened before or at the same time as "Castlevania", we don't have ultimate proof.
Haunted Castle is treated as an alternate tale of the original game, so the date is largely assumed to be the same as the original game's. Haunted Castle was not proven to exist on the Order of Shadows universe.
It's also important to note that this timeline doesn't represent how I view the "branchings" of the CV universe. I particularly believe that Kid Dracula is actually a distorted telling of an actual event on the CV universe. But I have no proof of this, so I cannot place it on the IGA timeline. It's a timeline as clean as possible of unnoficial inference.
-
I'd like to see Konami's official pre-IGA timeline in there since they got pretty much everything else.
-
I'd like to see Konami's official pre-IGA timeline in there since they got pretty much everything else.
Probably the most interesting timeline of them all because it's really difficult to tell what the original intented connenctions between the games were. What also makes it difficult to figure this out is that is requires digging through dusty old magazines of which no scans exist online. Even now there still remain a lot of question marks. At the very least I have the feeling I'm close to proving that Vampire Killer/Bloodlines wasn't part of this "pre-IGA timeline". (stay tuned on that by the way).
-
I'd like to see Konami's official pre-IGA timeline in there since they got pretty much everything else.
As far as I'm aware, there isn't such a thing as an official pre-IGA timeline, as in "including everything done previous to IGA's timeline was revealed". They simply appear to not have cared about this.
The games with canon connections (if you can call it that) are CVIII, The Adventure, Belmont's Revenge, CV, Simon's Quest and Rondo of Blood. What they all have in common is the explicit mention of Simon Belmont having existed at some point, referring to CV.
I can't list that because that would be redundant to IGA's timeline as he already listed them on their intended order. There is the largely accepted idea -- given all the evidence -- that Christopher was intended to be Trevor. Not even that would be enough to change this pre-IGA timeline because the first Castlevania says Christopher defeated Dracula a hundred years prior, and CVIII's intro says that its events happen "more than a 100 years" prior to Simon, meaning that it still comes before The Adventure.
Then you have Bloodlines and the CV64 games, which are loosely connected to the classic canon by mentioning a previously existing "Dracula vs Belmont" legend. I can't go and put those games into a "pre-IGA" timeline when I have no idea if they are even meant to be sequels at all to the initial games, instead of being sequels to this "Dracula" legend.
What came after the initial games listed above were games with no apparent intention to be sequels (to specific games) at all. About Bloodlines there is no clear official statement, but Igarashi DID say that the 64 games are being treated as their creators intended -- meaning that they are not meant to belong into a connected timeline (except between themselves, for obvious reasons).
Then...
Probably the most interesting timeline of them all because it's really difficult to tell what the original intented connenctions between the games were.
Or if there even IS an official timeline at all. The initial games were sequels and prequels to Simon's story, and that was it. That's the closest thing to a pre-IGA "canon" that we can observe (which is not to say I'd not like to know if there IS this timeline, though).
So, again, the making such a timeline would be more a confusing hassle than actually serve its purpose (be easy to grasp). It would include stuff such as giving long-winded explanations about how Christopher and Trevor were likely meant to be the same character previous to IGA's interference. On top, of course, of placing LoD/64 and Bloodlines in it without a explicit connection with Simon, as the others have.
EDIT: I should mention I AM aware that CV64 and LoD came after IGA became the Castlevania-man. When I say these games are "pre-IGA" I mean "pre-IGA TIMELINE", not "pre-IGA development".
-
I don't have a quote for this, but I distinctly remember reading an interview where the director, Victor Rodriguez, stated that Desmond was Simon's father. Then again from what I read on wikipedia (o_O), the game's plat and characters went through a lot of changes during development.
-
Just one question: why is Order of Shadows after Castlevania/Simon's Quest, even in an alternate timeline? For it to take place in the 'late 1600's' it would have to be before Castlevania/Simon's Quest, or be alternate to the events of those games. Or is that because there was nothing to actually say what date Haunted Castle took place in? I'm just remembering a previous conversation we had about Order of Shadows and its 'timeline' placement in this thread: http://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/index.php/topic,8587.0.html (http://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/index.php/topic,8587.0.html)
My theory is that because in OOS you only fight old man Dracula and the Castle itself remains standing after he is defeated, it was only the Guardian of his sleeping Spirit (referenced in CV64/ LOD) that was defeated. The same things happens in the non-canon endings of the 64 games.
-
Wow that's really fantastic I can't believe this is not official, so id say calling this the mother of all timelines is more then a fair title description.
I mean when I saw this I really thought this was something that Konami had released recently. But no, and I really like the professionalism and dedication to your work by Adding the LOS timeline too. As most don't bother with it as they don't consider it as anything to do with CV. again really good work. And thank you for your work as its really nice to have something that you can just look at when you need it, and its soo in-depth.
I'd like to see Konami's official pre-IGA timeline in there since they got pretty much everything else.
Yes I agree but the prob is that The classic timeline really contradicts one another Yes there was parts that kept from game to game That's what was so great about IGA he fixed thing and made things work.
But what would be great if someone could try to put the classic timeline together
as there was all that with the Legend of Christopher, and yes I know we had the Legend of Christopher in the IGA timeline but Trevor seems to have replaced him as the big figure of the clan, But there may have meant to have been a Belmont before Christopher as the first game speaks of Dracula being resurrected once before, so someone had killed him before Christopher.
and we also learn about the tower of Colbert, its ashame there was not more of that.
(this could be just another name for the one of the count's castles, but I think its unlikely as his castle and the tower are talked about separately) and we find out that back in Christopher's day the count was a evil sorcerer and not a demon/Vampire, and I'm not sure if he was one when Christopher fought him. I thought he was as he preformed Dark rituals and gained powers but on the flipside when you fight the count in The Legend of Dracula.
You see his necklace flash when ever he attacks, and it looks like that he draws the power from his necklace. Something I find note worthy to point out is that,
in The Legend of Dracula II, his powers seem to have gotten stronger becoming a full vampire as he does not have the Necklace.
But I doubt it as 1, he uses The Crimson Stone and The Ebony Stone In IGA's timeline. Although I always thought that it was more of a merging thing so both stones became one, and then they became part of his soul.
So like even if you knocked him out, you couldn't take it off no matter how hard you tried. As its a part of him now, in form of a necklace. And that's its down side, as its on, display so one can attack it.
sort of like his greatest strength is also his greatest weakness but yeah that's just my take on it.
And 2 that he later in the boss fight he becomes a bat.
But something else comes to mind, in CV3 the count uses a staff to battle not his usual first form way of Fighting. So to me it looks like they trying to match up the story from The Legend of Dracula to fit in with there story. The count, Evil sorcerer turned Vampire.
It would be nice to work on something like this, trying to make the older timeline whole.
What would be great is if there was a Eng CV site that had all Jp stories and other stuff, some where that one could look anything up, like.. "hmmm what was the Japanese story to CV1, I'll just go and look it up" that be something id like to do if i knew how to make a website... and I could translate . But it be great if Plots timeline could be in there.
-
As far as I'm aware, there isn't such a thing as an official pre-IGA timeline
Google Dengeki N64 1999 vol2, that's the closest thing to an "official" pre-Igarashi canon timeline
-
Or if there even IS an official timeline at all.
There was. It was featured in the Dungeon's pages before IGA put together his official timeline (which then prompted the Dungeon's pages to be updated). I do believe that CV Legends was the latest game produced by Konami at the time when it was drawn out. And Konami's official timeline did not extend past CV Bloodlines since Aria of Sorrow had not been conceptualised yet. Neither had Lament of Innocence for that matter. And I think I still have those old CV timeline pages printed off somewhere. I'd have to look around for them.
-
Thanks for the answer on the reasoning behind the OoS placement, plot :)
-
There was. It was featured in the Dungeon's pages before IGA put together his official timeline (which then prompted the Dungeon's pages to be updated). I do believe that CV Legends was the latest game produced by Konami at the time when it was drawn out. And Konami's official timeline did not extend past CV Bloodlines since Aria of Sorrow had not been conceptualised yet. Neither had Lament of Innocence for that matter. And I think I still have those old CV timeline pages printed off somewhere. I'd have to look around for them.
But was it official?
Like, I'm aware there was a number of timelines before, such as:
Google Dengeki N64 1999 vol2, that's the closest thing to an "official" pre-Igarashi canon timeline
But as Aensland said, that doesn't appear to actually be KONAMI's words.
If you locate that one you mean, point me to it, please.
-
Google Dengeki N64 1999 vol2, that's the closest thing to an "official" pre-Igarashi canon timeline
The IGA timeline was actually created during the development of SotN. The earliest publication of this timeline that I'm aware of is from 1997.
and we also learn about the tower of Colbert, its ashame there was not more of that.
This is actually a mistranslation. It's supposed to be the "Carpathian Tower" (a reference to the Carpathian mountains). In the manual of the MSX version of Akumajou Dracula it's stated that this is the last stage of the game. So it refers to the tower in which Dracula resides.
-
The IGA timeline was actually created during the development of SotN. The earliest publication of this timeline that I'm aware of is from 1997.
Then maybe this is the timeline I was thinking of. But it doesn't make sense since CV Legends was counted as part of the timeline and IGA retconned the game.
-
Then maybe this is the timeline I was thinking of. But it doesn't make sense since CV Legends was counted as part of the timeline and IGA retconned the game.
It sounds like you're thinking of this timeline (from 1997):
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/castlevania/images/b/b9/Konamimagazinevolume03-page071.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120421141929 (http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/castlevania/images/b/b9/Konamimagazinevolume03-page071.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120421141929)
-
Possibly. But I'm not sure.
-
Awesome job man. One critique I would say is that I think the classic games should exist in more than just the Iga timeline. I think it is safe to assume that in the 64 games for example, that at least the NES games Are considered Canon.
A definite example of this is Legends clearly existing in a world with Cv3, and SoTN too, probably more.
But that is being really nit picky. I like it a lot man.
-
A definite example of this is Legends clearly existing in a world with Cv3, and SoTN too, probably more.
The director of the Legends actually came out and said Legends existed separately from the official timeline and that there was no connection. Frankly, that explains a lot. I believe there were some shenanigans with Legends being on the timeline regardless of what the director said, but this can be explained by the fact that KCEK threw all the games in the series together on one timeline without any regard for conflicts. It was mentioned on the old official website that some games in the timeline "might be gaiden".
-
I think game developers words only go so far. This is actually a great example of a point I've been wanting to make for a little bit of time. I don't think developer interview should be considered as rock solid to the Canon as what is in game. For example, if a game came out that contradicted something Iga said in an interview, I wouldn't really lose any sleep over it. It's great supplemental information, but not even close to the relevance of what appears in game, everything said in an interview is fair game to disregard if/When a new developed takes on the series, and I wouldn't consider them doing so to be retconning.
By the same token I think it's a little disingenuous to make claims like that Legends wasn't meant to be in the same world as other games in the series. Anyone who plays it and knows the series can see how it obviously calls back to previous games in the series(in a pretty inconsiderate/contradictory manner, but that's immaterial to the point). Alucard's presence and look confirm this, regardless of what the director said later to try and justify his games continuity errors.
If Iga were to come out and say for example that AoS was not meant to be part of the timeline it would change literally nothing about the fact that it was. I guess my point is that just saying something doesn't make it true, even for the directors/developers. Especially given how fickle so many seem to be after the fact.
-
The director of the Legends actually came out and said Legends existed separately from the official timeline and that there was no connection. Frankly, that explains a lot. I believe there were some shenanigans with Legends being on the timeline regardless of what the director said, but this can be explained by the fact that KCEK threw all the games in the series together on one timeline without any regard for conflicts. It was mentioned on the old official website that some games in the timeline "might be gaiden".
It brings up another interesting set of hypothetical questions.
If this was the case, was Sonia and Alucard's baby supposed to then spawn a different timeline altogether; with the Belmonts being part vampire by blood?
With this in mind, was "Resurrection" going to be created under the same premise, meaning that Victor Belmont may have also been part vampire?
Either way, what I believe is that Legends' canon does exist as the origins story to timeline B, all it would mean is that baby potentially becomes Simon, rather than Trevor.
-
I think game developers words only go so far. This is actually a great example of a point I've been wanting to make for a little bit of time. I don't think developer interview should be considered as rock solid to the Canon as what is in game. For example, if a game came out that contradicted something Iga said in an interview, I wouldn't really lose any sleep over it. It's great supplemental information, but not even close to the relevance of what appears in game, everything said in an interview is fair game to disregard if/When a new developed takes on the series, and I wouldn't consider them doing so to be retconning.
By the same token I think it's a little disingenuous to make claims like that Legends wasn't meant to be in the same world as other games in the series. Anyone who plays it and knows the series can see how it obviously calls back to previous games in the series(in a pretty inconsiderate/contradictory manner, but that's immaterial to the point). Alucard's presence and look confirm this, regardless of what the director said later to try and justify his games continuity errors.
If Iga were to come out and say for example that AoS was not meant to be part of the timeline it would change literally nothing about the fact that it was. I guess my point is that just saying something doesn't make it true, even for the directors/developers. Especially given how fickle so many seem to be after the fact.
BloodyAperture look! You got a buddy!
I'll say the exact same thing I said to Sir Aperture: The only difference between a game and an interview (plot-wise) is that the developer speaks through one with storytelling, and through the other with exposition.
Whenever the developer speaks on an interview while still working on the series officially, he's speaking on behalf of the series. He is representing the banner. He's still speaking about the story he's writing, and still expects people to pick on what they revealed. In other words: When the dev is asked to take and official instance under the banner they represent on an interview, then I consider that canon, because it's a public statement that will be paid to be acquired (mainly through a magazine), and will be quoted in the future as evidence, exactly like the game itself will.
Now, of course, I personally take some rules for that. For instance, I only give the developer precedence when what they're saying is not contradicting the game. Fortunatelly IGA is extremelly consistent, so I'm still to find something he said that directly contradicts the games he made. All the information I know he provided has, so far, only filled in the blanks. Hence this information stands.
Now, to quote a popular case: Poison, from Final Fight. Mountains upon mountains of official material states that she's a trans character. Enter Nishitani years later: Tweets that Poison is actually a cis woman and that the trans thing was an excuse. Then Akiman: Says the Poison is a cis girl. Double-backs and says she's trans. Triple-backs and says she is cis again.
Well fam, Poison is trans. That is the canon and these guys do not represent Final Fight anymore. When they did, they made her trans. Inside the world of the game, there is no such thing as "excuses". And I'll listen to the canon first, ESPECIALLY if the creators can't make up their mind on the subject and are known to change it in a heartbeat.
-
Restricting the "canon" to just the games and nothing else is very arbitrary distinction to make and it's not how we fans are encouraged to interact with the Castlevania series. First of all, you have to consider the games themselves don't exists in a vacuum. For example, they come packaged with manuals with provide more background on the story and characters. In the early days of the series this was sometimes the only place where any kind of "canon" was to be found. I doubt anyone contests that the protagonist of Castlevania: The Adventure is Christopher despite the fact that his name is never mentioned anywhere in the game itself. Why are the games themselves privileged over manuals or developer comments? Secondly, the mere fact that people like IGA respond to lore questions in interviews means that they intend their words to have a certain kind of weight. Why would anyone care to listen to these people if they don't?
-
I would consider something in the manual to be as official as anything in the game, nothing I said even hinted otherwise, so focusing on that aspect is border line straw manning. I was just saying that the games should be the primary source, manuals included. And not just in what they outright say. Everything else is secondary. Especially given the fact that this series has been passed from director to director.
I am actually only saying about the same as plot is, but maybe I am not as stringent about what is set in stone. I did specifically give examples for a reason. I said in instances where what a director says contradicts the Canon or seems to at least heavily go against what is implied, that I wouldn't consider it as rock solid truth just because the director said so. I think it is obvious that makers of Legends intended for it to be a prequel to Cv3, there is ample evidence for this. So for them to say that it actually exists separately with no ties to previous games doesn't fly with me.
I would never say something like "A village didn't form around Simon Belmont because I don't like that idea." But I might say "Given what is established in the Cv3 epilogue I am inclined to ignore the idea that the villagers still hated the Belmonts in Simon's era." I think there is a world of difference here.
-
In a side not could you guys drop the condescending tones? It's uncharacteristic of you both.
I wasn't being condescending. The joke about Aperture is really because he said almost the exact thing over the Discord chat. I wasn't being condescending on the rest of my response at all. I was making a point about the "officiality" of things, and that I find it weird that you guys elect to consider one thing "more canon" than others based on pretty arbitrary reasons.
Like, I believe that for something to be canon, it only has to come from an official source. A creator giving exposition under the work's banner is an official source, so the information given is canon. Same as the game -- it's nothing more than the creator giving exposition under the work's banner. I've not yet seen a compelling point against this, though I do understand more or less where it comes from.
I think it is obvious that makers of Legends intended for it to be a prequel to Cv3, there is ample evidence for this
Could you list them, please?
-
Honestly, I really like what Star Wars had done as the Expanded Universe began to balloon. They had to establish a system to keep everything straight, and they ended up with a common sense approach.
In decreasing scale of "canon priority"
1) Anything said in the films is absolutely inviolable unless knocked down by a later film.
2) Below this, Television programming (with the written exclusion of the Holiday Special because everyone regretted making that) could only be superceded by a film.
3) Here you have the "Recent Works" canon, which is probably the shiftiest layer. Consisting of all recent works (and many older works) released under the name of Star Wars: books, comics, games, cartoons, non-theatrical films, and more. Games were a special case, as generally only the stories were canon, while things like stats and gameplay may not have been; they also offered non-canonical options to the player, such as choosing female gender for a canonically male character. Some of these elements have appeared in the movies, making them Tier 1 canon; examples include the name "Coruscant," swoop bikes, Quinlan Vos, Aayla Secura, YT-2400 freighters and Action VI transports. In this layer, only the most recent work to address a subject would be considered canon: a 1994 novel and a 2001 novel which conflicted would have canon precedence given to the 2001 novel.
4) Secondary Canon; these materials were available to be used or ignored as needed by authors. This included mostly older works, such as much of the original Marvel Star Wars comics, that predated a consistent effort to maintain continuity; it also contained certain elements of a few otherwise non-canon stories, and other things that "may not fit just right." Many formerly Secondary canon elements were elevated to Recent Works canon through their inclusion in more recent works by continuity-minded authors, while many other older works (such as The Han Solo Adventures) were accounted for in continuity from the start despite their age, and thus were always recent works canon.
5) Detours Canon, used for material hailing from Star Wars Detours.
6) Directly non-canon. What-if stories (such as stories published under the Infinities label) and anything else directly and irreconcilably contradicted by higher canon ended up here. This was the only level that was not considered canon by Lucasfilm. Information cut from canon, deleted scenes, or canceled Star Wars works fell into this category as well, unless another canonical work referenced it and it was moved to a higher level of canonicity.
Now, Castlevania is FAR from that mangled, but if you like, you can use this as a baseline for your own interpretations. For me, I'd probably put (with heavy thought given in each case) clarifying interviews and such probably about where Leland Chee put TV shows in terms of canon: as it comes from a primary developer, it's probably fairly solid, but cannot in any instance take precedence over what is said or shown in a game.
So basically, a Castlevania scale could look like this:
1) Games that fit in the officially endorsed Konami timeline take precedence over everything else, full stop.
2) Manuals, Developer notes, interview comments and clarifications
3) Novels, comics, or other spin-off media, giving priority to more recent works
4) Elements of non-canon games that do not conflict with any of the above in any manner
5) Pre-canon materials (anything Konami might have missed while Iga was building an official timeline for them)
6) Noncanon materials which DO conflict
6.5) Pachislot shitstains
It's not perfect, and as loathe as I am to accept anything outside the games as canon in any way, just going by that basic structure is probably gonna help iron out a LOT of arguments before they start. Feel free to agree/disagree in your own time with this. I certainly do. But for civility's sake, I think we need to have some basic rules of priority as far as canonicity goes for debate and discussion and this seems to me about as agreeable as anything else that might be put forward. Some rules to play, by just to stop auto-gainsaying in discussions.
-
I wasn't being condensing, either. Anyway, I personally haven't noticed anything in Legends that is direct evidence it was ever meant to be a prequel to CV3. So I don't see this situation as a conflict between the intent of the director and the game's story itself. Alucard looking sort of the same as SotN (although I think there are some notable differences) doesn't indicate much in my opinion.
-
(with the written exclusion of the Holiday Special because everyone regretted making that)
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FALukwwP.gif&hash=b786d47a0c06ca60b66495039a149bb8a14ef552)
-
I wasn't being condensing, either. Anyway, I personally haven't noticed anything in Legends that is direct evidence it was ever meant to be a prequel to CV3. So I don't see this situation as a conflict between the intent of the director and the game's story itself. Alucard looking sort of the same as SotN (although I think there are some notable differences) doesn't indicate much in my opinion.
Not that I believe that Legends>CVIII is a valid thing, however the only thing binding the 2 in terms of plot would be their context; 1450>1476.
However, this interferes with the CVIII>SOTN connection of Dracula waging war against humanity after Lisa's death. It also means he needs to be resurrected again prior to CVIII and accrue all of this monstrous power with two and a bit decades, which was clearly not the intention, as we know Mathias doesn't resurface until CVIII and has never been killed.
In terms of context as well as creator/developer's commentary, the commentary still matters. Zelda (prior to Hyrule Historia's release) is one of the best examples. Although not as straight forward as Castlevania, the developers did make several comments during interviews regarding the individual games' order.
-
I wasn't being condensing, either.
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fg1.addtext.ft-uc.com%2FMjAxNzAzMTg%2Faddtext_com_MjExNTE1MzQ1OTg.png&hash=1a14abab0b0fb84c24325fe77d26466a2eb2a96b)
-
@The Bloody Aperture: LOL
I think she meant to write: I wasn't being condescending.
-
Admittedly, it wasn't until I was doing something else when I realized why you posted that image.
-
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fg1.addtext.ft-uc.com%2FMjAxNzAzMTg%2Faddtext_com_MjExNTE1MzQ1OTg.png&hash=1a14abab0b0fb84c24325fe77d26466a2eb2a96b)
I lel'd ;)
-
I lel'd ;)
lol'd ;D
-
Gotta remember one thing about Castlevania Canon; It started with a spin-off game, a damn good spin-off game, but a spin-off game nonetheless.