Topic: IGA's Timeline.

[le052383]

My answer is Yes.  The Castlevania series was originally never story-focused.  The original plots of both Dracula's Curse and CV Adventure on Game Boy state the setting to be 100 years before Simon Belmont, directly contradicting each other.  Super Castlevania IV is just a retelling of the original story, as was Akumajo Dracula X68000.  Through most of the 90s, Castlevania games all seemed to be self-contained stories, only very loosely connected by the following general framework: Dracula resurrects, a Belmont descendent must kill him.  There was just enough story present to set up the gameplay.  This was true of Bloodlines, of CV64, and of Rondo.  It wasn't until SotN that story started to become a series focus, and the games started to directly interconnect (the events in SotN directly following those in Rondo, and it also linked to CV3 by having Alucard as its hero).  Now with those three games (CV3, Rondo, SotN) directly linked together, you started to see the story thread forming.  Circle of the Moon went back to the more traditional series approach of a self-contained story that just followed the general framework, and then when Iga took control of the series the timeline began in earnest.

And it is very difficult to tie together a series of games that for so long really weren't intended to be connected directly together.  By connecting all of these games together, by establishing a clear canon and concrete story elements that must be followed, you make it more difficult to tell a new individual story because you now have to make sure everything ties out.  For example: If Lords of Shadow had come out in, say 1996, they wouldn't have had to say "forget everything you know about Castlevania".  They could have just told their story the way they wanted to tell it, and it would have fit.  But because you add all this complex backstory and ruleset, it is now much more difficult to tell an effective story, because you constantly have to make sure that it is "obeying the rules" of the complex continuity and fitting in to one of the few available timeline gaps.

Thats why in the Legend of Zelda series, the games DON'T all tie in together.  Link to the Past doesn't connect to the events of Ocarina of Time.  That allows them to tell stories in those individual games that follow the general framework but with specific story elements that are self-contained. They don't have to stop and say "Oh wait, we can't make Link start as a novice boy warrior here, because he was already a novice boy who became a famous hero in this other game."  The Castlevania series used to be similar, until Iga started connecting all the games and creating the timeline.  And when some prior games didn't fit with the timeline he envisioned, they got retconned (which annoyed and alienated many fans).

It is true that the zelda games do not all connect to each other.  However, that is just speculation on our part because Nintendo, though has an official timeline, hasn't released it to gamers.  The snes game may be in an official zelda timeline.  

For those who are not aware, the zelda timeline splits off in two different directions because of what occured in Orcana of Time.  Nintendo splitting the timeline in two and not releasing it to the public is a wise dicision because they can easily alter their own timeline via removing games or moving their storyline from timeline A to B and vice versa.  This way, the fans won't get angry if a game like Twilight Princess was taken out of timeline A and inserted to timeline B.

[Kale]

i like it but there are things I definitely don't like so i gotta go with no.

[Profbeanburrito]

I'm glad that the Castlevania games connect, I don't want more Zelda or Final Fantasy(or almost any RPG sequel)  bullshit.

Anyways, I like what IGA did for the series, I enjoy the games he's done, and I would like to see him do another CV game.

As far as non-Canon games go, I'm glad that some were taken out of the series timeline, and I like that some are acknowledged as happening, but as side stories. I also hope that Lords of Shadow is one of those games that remains as a side story and does not get included in IGA's canon

[Mobius]

*shrugs*

The only issue I've ever had with Igarashi-sama's futzing with the timeline is that his solution for inconsistencies has been to simply deny as opposed to actually put some effort into fixing the problems for the sake of his target audience. Rather than take the time to explain why someone else's failed attempt to raise Dracula makes sense, he chooses to declare that said attempts never happened while his own equally uneven setups become the new official canon. *shrugs* Hey, with great power, man... But then again, it took two decades for creative fans of Star Wars to add to the series and enhance it with their own takes on the mythos through books, music, radio programs and video games while George Lucas himself, the creator of the series, managed to wreck all that with one movie. - Followed by two sequels. Dude, Igarashi-sama ain't got nothin' on Darth Lucas.

Seriously though, it takes only a bit of creativity to iron out a series like this so that it make sense. You don't believe me? Then you obviously haven't tried. ^_^

[darkwzrd4]

Yes and No.  I like some of the games and timeline line changes, but there are somethings in regards which I just scratch my head and say WTF?  I liked LoI, CoD, CV3, The Adventure, Belmont's Revenge, CV4, CV2, HoD, RoB/DXC, SotN, and AoS.  Everything in between SotN and AoS I didn't really like because of the horrible storylines and lack of explanation of why such things happened.
I'm mean everything from LoI though SotN was good, but then things get bad until AoS.  I mean what happens to Alucard after SotN? Why do the Belmonts disappear until 1999? In OoE, Dracula's remains have a seal on them, but there is no explanation of why and who put the seal on them.  We know little of what actually happened in 1999. 
The only reason I liked AoS is because it was a nice change in gameplay and potentially opened a new path for the series in which instead of protecting world from Dracula, you, as Dracula's reincarnation, would protect humanity for new kinds of evil.  However, DoS was horrible and, in my opinion, killed any chances of that happening.

[Nagumo]

In OoE, Dracula's remains have a seal on them, but there is no explanation of why and who put the seal on them.  

That was Alucard's doing. He sealed Dracula with his own blood or something like that. It was explained in the radio drama. It's was pretty much the only noteable plot point as nothing else was explained about the entire Belmont off-shoot affair.      

The more you know.        

[silvermoonlight]

I'd say yes, I do agree with the canon so far. I also agree with the fact that it's WAY too confusing and convoluted. However, IGA should exercise some caution at this point. He continues to include things that only complicate the canon, and makes it harder on himself in upcoming games to stretch and try to explain why things are the way they are. As a result, the canon will probably soon become even more convoluted and be broken. But that's just how I see it.