Topic: The Future of the Castlevania Series

[zangetsu468]

And that nature is old, tired, and boring. The series can't exist without him in some form, so why not give the guy a little more screen time and actually make something of him?

And no, it was Mathias. Mathias wasn't "Dracula" until the very end of the game when he took Walters power.

Dracula is the constant in every CV game, your opinion on the nature of CV games does not change that nature, nor of the Historical and Mythical Creature which is Dracula. He is one of the most well known historical and mythical figures that has been used countless times in pop culture. In the context of those references we have seen him in the manner you're referring has been used, but it doesn't suit the context of CV games in my opinion.
I do agree it would be something of benefit to have more character development during the game, but it would have to be tactful while still being cruel. Like sipping a goblet of blood while the screen pans up to find his own henchmen dead and skewered, dripping blood into his goblet.
There is some merit to shrouding the character in mystery though, as this is how historically, the mythical Dracula has evolved. If the general consensus don't wish for another anti-hero in dracula then it's best to preserve this type of characterisation imo. 

The fact he had the Crimson Stone makes him "Lord of the Vampires".. He already had the Crimson Stone before the game, when Leon was betrayed and Sara was lured into The Castle in eternal night. Mathias/ Dracula simply used Walter so that he could be on the brink of defeat and be absorbed. This purportedly is where the spell "Soul Steal" would have originated (from possession of the crimson stone>being lord of the vampires). i.e. He already has the power to do this, he is already technically Dracula at the start of the game.

[Viskod]

I had an argument but like I said earlier, petty semantics and hair splitting zangetsu is all we're down to now, I don't even know what you're trying to argue anymore. You agree with me that the series revolves around Dracula and couldn't exist without him so I don't know where you're even going with this anymore.

Lords of Shadow brought him into the front of the series, and I don't think he should return to just being that guy you fight in the last room, and nothing more.

[zangetsu468]

I had an argument but like I said earlier, petty semantics and hair splitting zangetsu is all we're down to now

We... No

Oh you had one, I see

I articulated my ideas as clearly as possible, you just have nothing to say - thus you label it petty, which ironically is a petty action in and of itself. It's fine if you have absolutely nothing to say, just own it and don't make it like it's an issue with 'us' as there is no us, and I am indifferent to you/ your ideas.

I don't even know what you're trying to argue anymore.

Poor you.. Woe is you

You agree with me that the series revolves around Dracula and couldn't exist without him so I don't know where you're even going with this anymore.

You not knowing = not my problem.. moving along..

Lords of Shadow brought him into the front of the series, and I don't think he should return to just being that guy you fight in the last room, and nothing more.

[/quote]
Yet people still complain that it's poor characterisation even thought he commits violence and evil deeds, don't they?
This is my point, the way you suggested he be characterised will make absolutely no difference. Dracula is the Lord of All Vampires, he was a genius tactician who fought during the crusades, in the backstory of some of the games he had committed atrocities, as he did in history. Examples of all of this were given in previous posts.

Making him seem like an arsehole by killing some randoms in view of the camera will make him seem one dimensional, there needs to be more to it. Have him kill his own soldiers/ minions, show the hold he has over the most powerful monsters he has in the underworld like a boa constrictor, show through personification of his character that he relishes the all the things which regular people consider evil, add subtlety to the boiling pot to exemplify his malice for humanity... etc The Vampire is a mysterious character, he has appeared like mist, nobody knows his true origins or how he came about, this is part of the mystery and the allure of the character who is Dracula.

[Viskod]

I meant that our discussion of at what point of the game Lament of Innocence was Matthias *technically* Dracula. That's getting down to semantics and hair splitting and there's not much of a point in continuing to beat the dead horse. I think he's not actually Dracula until he takes Walters soul at the end of the game, and actually becomes a vampire there in the final scene. To me, all of the other actions he took in the story before that point were the actions of an evil man named Matthias and you disagree, I was just ceding that discussion to you by saying I could still argue my point, but why bother? We both stated our positions clearly.

No, I'm not really sure what your point is anymore. You agree that Dracula is central to the franchise but you seem to have totally misunderstood what I meant by giving him more time in the game other than being just the end boss and nothing more. I never said how other than perhaps in one game Dracula isn't even in his castle, but off doing *something* whatever that may be would be up to the writers of said game. I'd just like to see him doing something, even if its just popping up from time to time to taunt our protagonist, making himself known at the beginning of the game in some way.

I'd rather it not be as you described personally, to me all of that sounds pretty one dimensional.

[zangetsu468]

Aww. Don't be like that mayyyne, give us a hug

[Viskod]

uhh... ok? /hug.

I am so confused right now.

[DragonSlayr81]

I had an argument but like I said earlier, petty semantics and hair splitting zangetsu is all we're down to now, I don't even know what you're trying to argue anymore. You agree with me that the series revolves around Dracula and couldn't exist without him so I don't know where you're even going with this anymore.
Lords of Shadow brought him into the front of the series, and I don't think he should return to just being that guy you fight in the last room, and nothing more.

Except the FIRST LoS, which.... didn't have Dracula until the very end(and only showed how he became a vampire with DLC, UNLIKE LoS, in which he WAS a vampire by the end of the game and said, in the ending, that he became Dracula. LoI and LoS are really close in depicting Mathias/Gabriel's origins as Dracula, as in being super vague as hell and never relishing in the transformation within the base game(not counting DLC of LoS).

But, I don't agree with you, either. Dracula's theme and presence(even if he isn't around) is the thing that should remain. He doesn't have to be the star or main villain of EACH game. I wouldn't mind having Carmilla as a main villain, Elizabeth Bartley as a main villain, Orlok/Olrox as a main villain.

[Viskod]

I wouldn't mind that either. I think that would be a nice change of pace, just as long as they to were more than just some person you see for the first time in the last room of the game without any story to them.

Lords of Shadow 1 was supposed to be about the person that would become Dracula and how that happened, but then they shoved all of that into that ridiculous DLC. So it was still about him in a sense, just like how Lament of Innocence was about how it all started in the traditional continuity.

[zangetsu468]

I meant that our discussion of at what point of the game Lament of Innocence was Matthias *technically* Dracula. That's getting down to semantics and hair splitting and there's not much of a point in continuing to beat the dead horse. I think he's not actually Dracula until he takes Walters soul at the end of the game, and actually becomes a vampire there in the final scene. To me, all of the other actions he took in the story before that point were the actions of an evil man named Matthias and you disagree, I was just ceding that discussion to you by saying I could still argue my point, but why bother? We both stated our positions clearly.

No, I'm not really sure what your point is anymore. You agree that Dracula is central to the franchise but you seem to have totally misunderstood what I meant by giving him more time in the game other than being just the end boss and nothing more. I never said how other than perhaps in one game Dracula isn't even in his castle, but off doing *something* whatever that may be would be up to the writers of said game. I'd just like to see him doing something, even if its just popping up from time to time to taunt our protagonist, making himself known at the beginning of the game in some way.

I'd rather it not be as you described personally, to me all of that sounds pretty one dimensional.

Agree to disagree.

Also thanks for the hug, sorry to confuse you.

Except the FIRST LoS, which.... didn't have Dracula until the very end(and only showed how he became a vampire with DLC, UNLIKE LoS, in which he WAS a vampire by the end of the game and said, in the ending, that he became Dracula. LoI and LoS are really close in depicting Mathias/Gabriel's origins as Dracula, as in being super vague as hell and never relishing in the transformation within the base game(not counting DLC of LoS).

Yep. Although LOS is a different execution of CV, I've always noted that it reused a lot of things from the older series.

But, I don't agree with you, either. Dracula's theme and presence(even if he isn't around) is the thing that should remain. He doesn't have to be the star or main villain of EACH game.

This. Couldn't have said it better or more succinctly myself
It's all about the feeling of Dracula, much like Xmas day where you feel xmas, but it doesn't necessarily get up in your grill all day... you just feel immersed in it.

[Asgardwolf]

They didn't set a specific time during which Alucard put Dracula to sleep. They could always just say, "That happened in 1400" and then give themselves about 300 years for games against Dracula, and 400 years for games with no Dracula.

it happens in 1547 i think (based on the scrolls found in LOS2). 446 years after MOF.

[e105beta]

it happens in 1547 i think (based on the scrolls found in LOS2). 446 years after MOF.

That's perfect. Plenty of room for medieval Belmont games, something the old canon is lacking in.

EDIT:
So it seems Konami may still be satisfied with LoS2's sales, seeing as Cox went out of his way on twitter to restate that:

Eurogamer on UK charts..."Mind you, LOS2 still recorded the second best week-one sales in the entire Castlevania franchise (behind LOS1)"

What that means for the series going forward, I don't know, but I imagine it has some impact.