Topic: In defense of Harmony of Despair

[Charlotte-nyo:3]

Iga's games always veered away from the Belmonts, and I'm not sure why he didn't like them as main characters.

He probably likes having the more varied weaponry set--swords, knuckles, rods, etc rather than just the whip. PoR sort of got around that issue though (although with a Morris and not a Belmont). I don't really feel like there'd be anything wrong with them making a game with a Belmont who can use more than the Vampire Killer though.

[Chernabogue]

I think IGA wanted to emphasize the RPG aspect. Having only a Belmont using his VK whip takes away the fact he could equip other weapons.

[X]

Where did it say he was a Belmont by blood?

Its been a while since I played COTM so you will have to enlighten me.

It doesn't. This is a conclusion that I've come to as he is the only one in the game to take down Dracula and he uses a whip. While they don't call it the vampirekiller in CotM (rather the "Hunter whip" as Hugh put it) I'm fairly confident that it is one and the same. -Hunter/Vampirekiller- both speak of slaying though one is more direct in meaning.

And even if he is, at the most he is probably just a distinct relative similar to the Morris Clan which does not make him a Direct Descendant of the Belmont clan and thus not a Belmont. Just someone who is related to them.

For me I can only assume that Nathan is either a direct descendant who's name was changed (like Reinhardt Schneider) or is a blood-relative like the Morris'. I feel that it is option one. Partially the year in which the game takes place which is in 1830 and SotN takes place in 1797. Not a whole lot of time between the two, but I'll try to elaborate my theory:

After SotN Richter goes back home with Anett. Instead of having a son he has a daughter. She is schooled as a hunter and uses the vampirekiller. once of age she falls in love with a man who's last name is Graves. They marry and have a son, Nathan Graves. They also are good friends with the Baldwins; another hunter family not related to the Belmonts (otherwise Hugh would be the hero in CotM and not Nathan). Both Nathan's parents are killed by Dracula and Morris Baldwin barely survives. He then raises up Nathan along with his son Hugh to be Vampire hunters. In the end, Morris names Nathan the successor and gives him back his family's heirloom weapon much to the dismay of Hugh who thought that it was his right to wield it (I'm quite certain that Hugh was never told about the true nature of the whip or that it belonged to Nathan's family). The only other fact on hand here is that only one of Belmont blood can slay the Count. So in order for Nathan to have a ghost of a chance at killing Dracula he would need the Belmont blood in him. Having the Hunter whip helps of course.

The story of CotM isn't really clear so through deductive reasoning I had to fill in the blanks.

[DarkPrinceAlucard]

It doesn't. This is a conclusion that I've come to as he is the only one in the game to take down Dracula and he uses a whip. While they don't call it the vampirekiller in CotM (rather the "Hunter whip" as Hugh put it) I'm fairly confident that it is one and the same. -Hunter/Vampirekiller- both speak of slaying though one is more direct in meaning.

For me I can only assume that Nathan is either a direct descendant who's name was changed (like Reinhardt Schneider) or is a blood-relative like the Morris'. I feel that it is option one. Partially the year in which the game takes place which is in 1830 and SotN takes place in 1797. Not a whole lot of time between the two, but I'll try to elaborate my theory:

After SotN Richter goes back home with Anett. Instead of having a son he has a daughter. She is schooled as a hunter and uses the vampirekiller. once of age she falls in love with a man who's last name is Graves. They marry and have a son, Nathan Graves. They also are good friends with the Baldwins; another hunter family not related to the Belmonts (otherwise Hugh would be the hero in CotM and not Nathan). Both Nathan's parents are killed by Dracula and Morris Baldwin barely survives. He then raises up Nathan along with his son Hugh to be Vampire hunters. In the end, Morris names Nathan the successor and gives him back his family's heirloom weapon much to the dismay of Hugh who thought that it was his right to wield it (I'm quite certain that Hugh was never told about the true nature of the whip or that it belonged to Nathan's family). The only other fact on hand here is that only one of Belmont blood can slay the Count. So in order for Nathan to have a ghost of a chance at killing Dracula he would need the Belmont blood in him. Having the Hunter whip helps of course.

The story of CotM isn't really clear so through deductive reasoning I had to fill in the blanks.

Oh....

So this is all just ASSUMPTIONS on your part and not cold hard facts?

Well thats a shame...

Its just that you replied to me as if you where stating a fact by saying that CITM did indeed have a belmont in it by Blood named Nathan Graves.

When really its all just a theory you produced yourself.

No matter how you try to reason it the fact remains that the whip in the game is not called the Vampire Killer but the Hunter Whip. Fact is that it never was said that he was a belmont or related to them despite the fact that he does posses skills similar to theirs.

Its all assumptions and theories on your part.

So my point stands that CITM and OOE are the only castlevania games to not feature a Belmont.

[Sonic_Reaper]

What is your point exactly?  So just because it isn't stated in official documents, it MUST be thrown out, without question?  That is absurd.  And X's reasoning makes A LOT of sense.  Especially the part about the names being entirely arbitrary (I don't know why people place SO much emphasis on names, anyway, a rose by any other name, and so on) and that only one of the Belmont blood could effectively wield and destroy Dracula using the whip.  It's perfectly logical deduction, and is far more useful than just sitting on our hands and saying "IZT KNOT TROO CUZ IGZA SUD NAW!!!11!1shiftone!!!".

[DarkPrinceAlucard]

What is your point exactly? 

My point.....

*looks at the letters AFTER I posted "my point"*

And here I thought I made my point clear lol.

But just to spell it out for you, my point is that COTM does not have a CONFIRMED belmont character in it.

Never said that X's theory was not plausible.

Never said that it was not reasonable.

Just told the truth, and the truth is its all THEORIES and not FACT.

Whats "absurd" is the fact that your defending something that does not need to be defended. He gave his "theories" and I pointed out the "facts".

I never dismissed his theory.

So lighten up and calm down next time before going off the handle as if I was attacking X or something.

I'm pretty sure he could defend himself if I was....

[Sonic_Reaper]

What I meant was, you're simply arguing it.  No duh there's no official statement on CotM.  Hell, it was previously retconned.  The fact we will never get an official statement, we might as well look elsewhere.  I don't really see any point in simply restating that "there's no official Belmont in CotM".  It's a pointless, completely obvious and arbitrary statement.

[DarkPrinceAlucard]

What I meant was, you're simply arguing it.  No duh there's no official statement on CotM.  Hell, it was previously retconned.  The fact we will never get an official statement, we might as well look elsewhere.  I don't really see any point in simply restating that "there's no official Belmont in CotM".  It's a pointless, completely obvious and arbitrary statement.

I didn't argue anything.

Someone posted earlier about IGA neglecting to add Belmonts to MOST of the metroidvania games.

I pointed out that only 2 left out Belmonts which is COTM and OOE.

It was X who came in and stated (as if it were fact) that a Belmont was indeed in COTM and is one by BLOOD. I myself only asked him to confirm this and he could not.

I pointed out the truth about him only bringing ASSUMPTIONS to the table and you are the one who decided to bring this back up by trying to defend him when really he did not need it. The discussion was over with and yet you make it seem as if I am throwing salt on X's theories.

His theories or indeed possible and logical.

But at the end of the day they are only THEORIES and not FACTS.

[X]

Okay I don't mean to interrupt you two, however...

All I presented was a theory about CotM. If it did indeed come off as sounding like fact then I apologize for the confusion. I did not intend for it to sound like fact rather then assumption but it was the only way I could explain it. I do thank you Sonic_Reaper for sticking up for me, however like DarkPrinceAlucard said it wasn't necessary. He didn't nail me to the wall or anything like that (which is a good thing considering my current mental/emotional health  ), he simply laid out the carpet. For me, my theory of CotM is alright in my mind and since it's not canon anymore then it's left up to everyone for their own interpretations.