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

[Inccubus]

Yes, it was their surname (Remember, the royal rumanian family was divided into two lineages: Draculea and DaNesty -Sound familiar?  -) However, they took it because Vlad I was part of the Order of The Dragon (Dracul Order) and was a fierce warrior, his father was not called Dracula, but Mircea Basarbab.
So Draculea or Dracul, was a acquired title, even so, if the new lord vampire is called dracula even if he's not Vlad tepes or Mathias Cronqvist, he could be called in that way, if he wants to be called son of the dragon. That's a word, and it was not copyrighted by the romanian family 

I'm sorry to say you are mistaken on several points. First the family that was thought to be a rival to Dracula was Dinesti. DeNasty was a bad translation, and DeNesty is just wrong. Second Mircea the first was Dracula's grandfather. Third, Basarab II was the man made Price of Wallachia by the Hungarians after they defeated Mircea II, Dracula's eldest brother, in 1443. Fourth, Dracula is no more a title than Leif Ericson's surname is. Lastly, surnames can't be copyrighted to begin with.

The one thing I can agree with you on is that Konami/Cox CAN say that Dracula is a title and run with it. (That's the beauty of fictional works.) However, there's no reason for it that can be extrapolated from the real Dracula's name.

It's never implied the novel dracula is Vlad Tepes. He's never referred to as Vlad Dracula either if I remember. The atilla the hun connection is right though. And yeah, Dracula was not is birth name. Neither was Tepes. Tepes means impaler, right? What, did the midwife just look at the baby and go, "here's a trouble maker!". Im assuming He got the title Tepes from his fondness for impaling, and because of this, was dubbed son of the devil, or dragon. Because his dad was also a bastard.

I've read at least a dozen books on the subject of Vlad Dracula. It was my favorite subject matter in school when I needed to do a book report or a research paper. The first person in the family that had "Dracula" as his surname was Vlad III, who is the basis for the character in Bram Stoker's novel (as stated by Stoker's own notes) and is in fact implied to be the historical figure by virtue of the fact that he's a centuries old vampire. Tepes was a moniker given to him later mostly by his detractors because of his propensity for impalement as a punishment and a psychological war tactic. The name Dracul did indeed come about as a reference to the order of the dragon of which his immediate ancestors were members. And as I posted earlier, Vlad the third took/was given Dracula as a surname that the family used for centuries.

[DingusBelmondo]

I find this extremely interesting. I love the book Dracula... but i always thought he was merely based off of him. Not that he was suppose to be the same historical figure.

[Inccubus]

It's part of Dracula's charm as a fictional character I think.
If you ever get a chance to track it down, read "Anno Dracula" by Kim Newman and co-developed by Neil Gaiman.
It's a sequel to Bram Stoker's book in a "what if Dracula had succeeded" sort of way.

Sweet! I just found out it's a series of books. Now I gotta track down the other books myself. ^_^

[shelverton.]

i never came of as agressive wut are you talking about?
i never attacked you are anything i'm just haveing a discussion thats all.
name 1 part in my post that suggested i was becomeing agressive with you? otherwise don't say such things without proof ok. its just a battle of opinions and i never become agressive towards people just because there opinions differ.
ONTOPIC.
Symphony had EVERYTHING the other CVs had like i said such as monsters,music,and levels while LOS at first only had a whip swinging hero. How does that posibly make it have more CV like then symhony when it first came out when symphony clearly had many of the CV elements intact? LOS simply doesn't have more CV elements then symphony and if so i dare you to name all of them and i'll counter with all symphony has and you will clearly see who has more "currently"

I understand your point, but I still don't agree on SotN. The gothic themes are there, but many of the things we today consider "classic Castlevania elements" were in fact introduced in Symphony of the Night - not in the original games - which only goes to show that we all embraced SotN as a real Castlevania despite it being completely different. LoS has plenty of Castlevania elements and it also seems to pay homage to the old games in a way SotN did not, because it has a Belmont with a whip, it has level-by-level progression, it's not as "romantic" as SotN (which makes it even more like, say, Castlevania III), and it seem to have a very european, medieval setting (again, this is how the original games were). Also, it's not an action-RPG. So, LoS has both plenty of Castlevania elements AND classic gameplay to match (if we should trust a single word Dave Cox says, that is).

And I understand you're beginning to like LoS more and more, which is good for you. I liked it from the very beginning, that's all I'm saying, despite the fact that many of you wrote it off as "not worthy". And I felt it looked like a proper Castlevania, more so than my initial impression of SotN. Also, it's quite possible to like BOTH LoS and SotN. I realise LoS can go either way - I'm not saying it's gonna be OMG TEH BEST CV EVAH! But it looks promising.

Let's leave it at that.

[RichterB]

OK, so we've seen how the Combat Cross is going to be used as a versatile tool in LoS. Well, I just picked up 2008's "Rygar: The Battle of Argus" for Wii (a somewhat altered/enhanced port of 2002's "Rygar: The Legendary Adventure" for PS2). Wow, this game was WAY ahead of its time and has many things Castlevania should have learned from a long time ago.

I have no idea how the PS2 Castlevanias (despite their perks) were so far behind in gameplay and design. If I had played this before the PS2 Castlevanias, I probably would have been more disappointed. In Rygar, you have a shield linked to a chain that besides combo-attacking, can be used to open sealed doors, break walls and objects, defend, swing across gaps, pull yourself up to a ledge, summon familiars, use as a zipline, grab onto enemies and toss them, or slingshot yourself across a gap.

In LoS, it seems the Combat Cross will finally get some of this back into Castlevania (which has largely been missing since the 16-bit games, despite unrealized CV64 demos and LoI's half-hearted flicking across gaps). Given that Rygar came before the PS2 Castlevanias, and that Rygar and Castlevania franchises were created around the same time (1986/1987), I'm surprised that we didn't see more innovation in the PS2 era of Castlevanias, and had to wait till now for a more ambitious attempt.

[Tavis Belmont]

The PS2 Rygar also gives you different shields that have varying attack speeds and strength. There is a quick one that spins around in fast and deadly circles for higher combinations, while the slow one hits like a ton of bricks. I'm glad you mentioned this game, because I totally forgot about it. You are absolutely right, Richter B. The advances in Rygar, at the time, were ahead of the pace. I never beat the PS2 version, because the shield latching sequences at the end became pretty difficult. Looking back, however, the game did incorporated some nice combat/platforming elements. Good eye!

[Inccubus]

Rygar is awesome.
The only complaint I have with the remake is I hate the new costume they gave him.
I liked the gladiator outfit better.
I remember the first time I played it on the GameCube I thought to myself that it would make a great engine for a 3d CV game.

[Munchy]

Glad someone mentioned Rygar. That game was godly for its time. The bit of whip-swinging in LoS trailers reminds me more of Rygar than God of War.

[shelverton.]

I have the PS2 Rygar somewhere, I never played beyond the first stage, but I remember I really liked it! I must've forgotten about it. I'mma gonna play it as soon as I'm finished with Legend of Kage 2 for DS (shouldn't take too long, but I only started playing today. It has some really good Castlevania-esque music and fun boss encounters, but the stages are kinda bland and easy so far. I got my ass handed to me by the sixth boss, some flying sorceress woman in a vertical boss chamber... But enough of that, where were we? Oh yes, LoS!  )

[Kale]

I have the PS2 Rygar somewhere, I never played beyond the first stage, but I remember I really liked it! I must've forgotten about it. I'mma gonna play it as soon as I'm finished with Legend of Kage 2 for DS (shouldn't take too long, but I only started playing today. It has some really good Castlevania-esque music and fun boss encounters, but the stages are kinda bland and easy so far. I got my ass handed to me by the sixth boss, some flying sorceress woman in a vertical boss chamber... But enough of that, where were we? Oh yes, LoS!  )

Dude, I just can not beat that dirty whore, I get really close and she beats me.

[Munchy]

I wonder if LoS is an old-school game to the point that Gabriel will fall through staircases unless the player holds Up.

[Ahasverus]

That would suck 

[Inccubus]

That would be crappier than "diarrhea shit from an asshole fountain".

[shelverton.]

Dude, I just can not beat that dirty whore, I get really close and she beats me.

Yeah, I've tried 3 times now and I still die.  I've figured out her pattern and 90% of her attacks are easily avoided. But then, at some point she suddenly starts using a completely NEW and unavoidable attack with the two horizontal lightning/orb/thingies that completely corners me and then finishes me off in just a few hits.

(Sorry for me being completely Off Topic, but until there's more LoS info, there's no harm in a little OT right?  )

[Kale]

Yea... that's the one that usually gets me. I haven't played in a while but I think I managed to dodge that a couple of times.

As for LoS, new stuff is supposed to come tomorrow right?