Topic: Mathias or Dracula

[justin312]

But Dracula never cursed their bloodline in CVIII.

Well, the title of the game was "Dracula's Curse" after all.  And since we were all kind of just making up stories to justify various plot points, I figured I would throw my own out there.  I know Iga later created his own explanation for what "Dracula's curse" was referring to in Curse of Darkness, but I wasn't a big fan of that story direction, either.

[thernz]

Yeah, but it was just a title. A title by the localization team at that. It really had no significance to the story at all. At the very least, it inspired the curse in Curse of Darkness. Curse of Darkness was basically useless story-wise anyway, but it was probably just to introduce Saint Germain and Saint Germain is great.

[justin312]

I understand it was just a title.  I guess my point was that, once upon a time long ago, Castlevania III represented the "origin" of the eternal grudge match between Dracula and the Belmonts.  I know that has long since been changed, first with Legends and then Lament, so that now CVIII just represents one more link in the Belmont vs Dracula chain (and Trevor's contributions have become pretty minor, since his victory in CVIII only held Dracula at bay for three years and it was ultimately Hector who put Drac down for the next century while Trevor sat on the bench, per CoD).  I would have preferred that they just left it the way it was.  Dracula and his evil army taking over Europe, he appears to be unstoppable, but then Trevor and his companions save the day and Dracula vows eternal revenge by rising every 100 years (kinda like a "Curse", no?).  If they wanted to do a prequel game that expands on the Belmont's "long history of fighting evil", but had the Belmont's fighting some other evil villain and left Dracula out of the picture, that would have been fine by me.  I just felt that the "epic Dracula vs Belmont origin" game was unnecessary, since we already had an epic Dracula vs Belmont origin with CVIII.