Topic: I knew it! Castlevania: Lords of Shadow!(SPOILERS HERE, PLZ USE THE SPOILER TAG)

[Reinhart77]

you know, Gabriel already has a cross weapon, so there's really no need to introduce the cross sub-weapon.  it would be great if one of the Combat Cross's new abilities that it gains is the ability to throw it like a boomerang   .  If there's two other sub-weapons, then it would have to be the Axe and Stopwatch to be faithful to Super Castlevania IV.

when did David Cox say that the game would take place in a bubble of the Castlevania continuity?  that's what i had been hoping for since before we knew for sure it was a Castlevania title, but i don't recall him saying anything like that.  i heard him stress over and over again how it's not connected "at all" to the rest of the continuity.  he said a fans might put it in the timeline because it takes during a specific year.  i think he means the fans could try to pigeon hole it in with the rest of the series, because it's what we like to do, but that would really only amount to fan fiction and it wouldn't be correct.  he did state specifically that the game was not canon (using the actual word 'canon', not some ambiguous term like 'side quest' or 'gaiden').  it might be written in a way as to not actually contradict anything in the current timeline, so we could use our imagination to fit it in, but he says for the record it's not connected.  but i wouldn't be surprised to read in one of the scrolls that Trevor C Belmont fought Dracula in the year 852.

since he keeps talking about this being a "new direction" and "rebirth" for the series, i have to think that they have potential sequels in mind.  but that could just be use of dramatic language.

[Ahasverus]

It's impossible not to interfere. Gabriel is a Belmont, Death is in there, and both things are very relevant to the main continuity.
This is getting weirder!

[Reinhart77]

about Walter Bernhart, he strikes me as a powerful man who has no ambition.  he probably has no interest in taking over the world, its too much bother.  he's obsessed with power for its own sake, but has no plan to actually use it.  he's bored to tears with the power he has obtained and just wants to fight strong opponents.

that voice at the end of the trailer was so epic.  if it wasn't Dracula, it would surely lose much of its epicness.

[Ahasverus]

But Reinhardt... Trevor fought at 1476...

I would like this to be a REBOOT! If this is ionside the already messed up canon, it will be even worse. I think it's time to ask Cox himself?

[shelverton.]

Am I the only one who's not confused? Cox already said this game has nothing to do with the established timeline. In LoS, none of the other games or events have happened, nor will they ever happen. Same universe perhaps, but that only means that we're probably going back to Transylvania. Any familiar characters are in NAME only. Therefor, it won't interfer with IGA timeline cause they have nothing to do with eachother.

When Cox said this game is not canon, he was probably just saying that Mercury Steam has no intention to go in and destroy everything that IGA has built in the past few years. However, LoS is obviously canon in the alternate timeline that hasn't been written yet. I think people take the word "reboot" too seriously. It's just a game series that wants a fresh start. You can still play the older games, they still exist. They're still Castlevania.

[Nagumo]

Nono, Lords of Shadow is not canon.  Reinhardt's post explains it well:   

when did David Cox say that the game would take place in a bubble of the Castlevania continuity?  that's what i had been hoping for since before we knew for sure it was a Castlevania title, but i don't recall him saying anything like that.  i heard him stress over and over again how it's not connected "at all" to the rest of the continuity.  he said a fans might put it in the timeline because it takes during a specific year.  i think he means the fans could try to pigeon hole it in with the rest of the series, because it's what we like to do, but that would really only amount to fan fiction and it wouldn't be correct.  he did state specifically that the game was not canon (using the actual word 'canon', not some ambiguous term like 'side quest' or 'gaiden').  it might be written in a way as to not actually contradict anything in the current timeline, so we could use our imagination to fit it in, but he says for the record it's not connected.   

I think people take the word "reboot" too seriously. It's just a game series that wants a fresh start. You can still play the older games, they still exist. They're still Castlevania.

Ugh, I always hate it when people say that. I don't know about other people, but for me, that isn't the problem at all. I guess I just have a strange obsession with continuity and I want everything to included in one main universe. Eh, it just turns me off if certain games are labeled to be "non-canon" or even worse, try to overwrite other events. It makes me enjoy the series as whole considerably less.

tl;dr version:

shit no one cares about                       

[Reinhart77]

But Reinhardt... Trevor fought at 1476...

I would like this to be a REBOOT! If this is ionside the already messed up canon, it will be even worse. I think it's time to ask Cox himself?

Ack, either the reason for my reference to Trevor fighting Dracula in 852 was too subtle, or you understand what I meant and I'm missing the sarcasm.  Anyways, if a scroll in LoS stated that Trevor fought Dracula in 852 (ie, 200 years before Gabriel's time in LoS, just like it was 200 years before Simon's time in the canon timeline in 1476), it would be nearly impossible to reconcile the two timelines, and we would have to accept that they don't share the same timeline.  I wouldn't be surprised if we found out all sorts of facts that contradict the canon timeline, making it unambiguous that this game could not possibly take place in the original timeline, even if we wanted to "fit" it in.  they can have the same characters, just new versions of them with new background stories.

[Nagumo]

I doubt any other Belmont will get mentioned though. The Belmont's history won't be touched upon in the game.   

[Reinhart77]

i think the Belmont history will be touched on.  the Dracula-esque voice mentioned wiping out the name "Belmont" forever, and i think that means that the Belmonts have been around a long time before this game and he has a reason for wanting to wipe them out.  the end of the trailer even says "Revenge 2010", making me think that Gabriel's ancestors defeated this character long ago.  i do expect to see something about who last did the deed in a scroll.  of course, they might not reuse any familiar names, its just a possibility.

[shelverton.]

Ugh, I always hate it when people say that. I don't know about other people, but for me, that isn't the problem at all. I guess I just have a strange obsession with continuity and I want everything to included in one main universe. Eh, it just turns me off if certain games are labeled to be "non-canon" or even worse, try to overwrite other events. It makes me enjoy the series as whole considerably less.                    

Wow, I don't understand this. Or actually, I do understand cause people in general want continuity, I'm no different. But when it comes to video games... not so much. And I honestly think the Castlevania storyline is so terrible I hardly ever think about it when I play. But yeah, I see your point.

[Munchy]

Maybe the Poltergeist King is among the Lords of Shadow. I'd laugh so hard if some reference to him came up in LoS. Or if it had an achievement called "Forks - Sorry, No Spoons".

...Yeah, as a whole CV's storyline is pretty dopey. I wish they included more things from the Japanese stories about the Vatican and WWI and whatnot.

[DingusBelmondo]

How would you guys feel about one of the Lords being a vampire extremely similar to Dracula, but doesn't hold that name, as a part of the whole original reboot not taking from those classic monster movies and being a standalone. Like, if there was just a Vampire lord, and maybe a death like lord who isnt actually DEATH.

[Reinhart77]

How would you guys feel about one of the Lords being a vampire extremely similar to Dracula, but doesn't hold that name, as a part of the whole original reboot not taking from those classic monster movies and being a standalone. Like, if there was just a Vampire lord, and maybe a death like lord who isnt actually DEATH.

bah, i'd be happy if that meant it could be a part of the rest of the Castlevania continuum (wouldn't mind it being Olrox).  but if that's not the case, and i don't think it is, it's better to have Dracula himself.  they're trying to return us to the core of what Castlevania is, and that's really Dracula vs the Belmonts.

[DragonSlayr81]

How would you guys feel about one of the Lords being a vampire extremely similar to Dracula, but doesn't hold that name, as a part of the whole original reboot not taking from those classic monster movies and being a standalone. Like, if there was just a Vampire lord, and maybe a death like lord who isnt actually DEATH.

I don't know. Moving away from Dracula in a Castlevania game(not having him in some sort of form, or at least referenced) is like having a Legend of Zelda game without Link.

[castlemaniablog]

I agree. If it's going to walk like Death and talk like Death, it should be Death. The same goes for Dracula. I'm OK with other master villains, as long as they're something fresh. Shaft comes to mind as a good example, Brauner as bad.