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

[superDioplus]

It's pretty easy to deal with this, just creat a parallel universe.

[Profbeanburrito]

I have no problem with games having multiple timelines/universes. Many series do that. As mentioned before Zelda and final fantasy (or just about any other rpg series)do it to a ridiculous extent, metal gear does it with the main series and the terrible acid games. Castlevania should have no problem doing it, plus then we get a nice variety of future games

[crisis]

Professor Bean Burrito is right, Castlevania can certainly include various "stand-alone" titles. But we don't need 2 or 3 separate timelines spanning 1000 years each. Especially when the developers will throw in several *winkwinknudgenudge* tidbits from previous games, like what MercurySteam is doing. Before you know it we'll start reading threads like this


"Hey, that Shaft character was really awesome! But why did he betray Death like that?"
"He never betrayed Death, he was trying to revive Dracula."
"But he only wanted to restore his father's castle, it had nothing to do with Dracula's."
"oh you're talking about the Shaft from TIMELINE B."


That might be exaggerating a bit, but if there's several games like this in the future you can see how confusing it'd eventually get.

[DragonSlayr81]

Professor Bean Burrito is right, Castlevania can certainly include various "stand-alone" titles. But we don't need 2 or 3 separate timelines spanning 1000 years each. Especially when the developers will throw in several *winkwinknudgenudge* tidbits from previous games, like what MercurySteam is doing. Before you know it we'll start reading threads like this


"Hey, that Shaft character was really awesome! But why did he betray Death like that?"
"He never betrayed Death, he was trying to revive Dracula."
"But he only wanted to restore his father's castle, it had nothing to do with Dracula's."
"oh you're talking about the Shaft from TIMELINE B."


That might be exaggerating a bit, but if there's several games like this in the future you can see how confusing it'd eventually get.

^^^ I think that's right on the money, but the problem is NOT the many timelines, but the fact people tend to drop specifics. It would be easy if people wouldn't leave their questions/comments so ambiguous and rich with ignorance. Here's one:

"I wonder how Cid Highwind could jump so high in his Limit Break?"
"It's a reference to the Dragoon class and Richard Highwind, who was a Dragoon!"
"Is he related to Cid?"
"No. Why?"
"They both have the same surname. They HAVE to be related!!"
"Richard Highwind is from Final Fantasy II."
"Final Fantasy II takes place BEFORE FFVII, doesn't it? I mean, it IS part TWO and FFVII IS part SEVEN after all!"

OR...

"I saw the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre! Thomas Hewitt was crazy in that one!!"
"He isn't called Thomas Hewitt. That was a name made up for the remake!" He's Bubba Sawyer!"
"But, the news paper articles and 'lost footage' said it was the Hewitt family! They are real!"
"That was fake, dude! There was no Hewitt family, nor Sawyer family. The TCM was all just Tobe Hooper's take on Ed Gein and a chainsaw crazed killer."
"But, didn't they say it was real in the original too?"
"That was fake, as well!"

[Dremn]

Personally I think starting a new timeline was a good idea. Iga's timeline was getting too crazy, not enough room to keep fitting in games in reasonable eras. The last Iga game we could possibly get that would make sense would be the 1999 game. After that though, I don't see how any other games could be made without making the timeline more claustrophobic and confusing than it already is.

Making a new timeline gives Konami and any other devs more room to stretch their creative legs without the fear of accidentally retconning something or adding something in that wouldn't make sense from a canonical stand point.

That's just how I see it.

As long as Lawds feels like Castlevania I don't think I'll be complaining that much about the timeline/lore, but I am wondering if we'll see Simon, Trevor, Richter, and any other Belmonts in this timeline after Lawds.

[thernz]

I really would not like to see any more name drops in the Lords universe. It should start on a clean slate. If Simon and co were in a later Lords Universe game, I'm hoping they're just extras.

I'm kinda all up for a new timeline with Lords even though it'll be horrendously confusing if IGA's continues, but I think with Lords being non-canon with the IGA timeline, the timeline stuff already got confusing. Just gotta swing with it.

[Kale]

I have no problem with games having multiple timelines/universes. Many series do that. As mentioned before Zelda and final fantasy (or just about any other rpg series)do it to a ridiculous extent, metal gear does it with the main series and the terrible acid games. Castlevania should have no problem doing it, plus then we get a nice variety of future games

See, I don't have a problem with separate timelines, not really, which is why I'm fine with FF. But it's when they try to connect them together, like Zelda was trying to do, and probably still trying to do. Maybe I should've stated that clearer before. But still, I would not like CV to start a crazy 200 multiverse in CV which every game is a different universe with totally different stories.

[e105beta]

Professor Bean Burrito is right, Castlevania can certainly include various "stand-alone" titles. But we don't need 2 or 3 separate timelines spanning 1000 years each. Especially when the developers will throw in several *winkwinknudgenudge* tidbits from previous games, like what MercurySteam is doing. Before you know it we'll start reading threads like this


"Hey, that Shaft character was really awesome! But why did he betray Death like that?"
"He never betrayed Death, he was trying to revive Dracula."
"But he only wanted to restore his father's castle, it had nothing to do with Dracula's."
"oh you're talking about the Shaft from TIMELINE B."


That might be exaggerating a bit, but if there's several games like this in the future you can see how confusing it'd eventually get.

That IS a bit of an exaggeration. Even Ganondorf in Legend of Zelda has pretty much the same origins and goals in every game. It's just the presentation of how he achieves his goals.

I don't mind a series being a bunch of "stand alone" games versus a continuing storyline because it gives the developers more creativity with the story. The more "plot rules" a game has to abide by, the more restrictions are placed on a developer.

[crisis]

So you're saying it's better for Castlevania to take the "Zelda route" by making all future titles stand-alones, and just drop the idea of linked saga altogether?

Dave Cox could've easily placed LoS "sometime in the 12th century," just like how IGA put OoE sometime in the 19th century. In fact, you can possibly fit dozens of games in the 12th/13th/14th centuries, so the idea of the canon timeline running out of slots is ridiculous. Developers won't have to deal with any story problems, because Dracula won't be the main enemy, and they can introduce a shitload of unique enemies/plot devices.

On the other hand, if a producer wanted to set a game in the 16th century to take advantage of whatever gameplay/story mechanics he comes up with, only thing they'd have to do is print "this is a stand-alone story" in the manual or box, not set the entire series that way.

[RegalX7]

So you're saying it's better for Castlevania to take the "Zelda route" by making all future titles stand-alones, and just drop the idea of linked saga altogether?

Zelda didn't drop the idea of a linked saga. In fact, the last Aonuma interview I read, he claimed there is a master timeline only he, Miyamoto, and the director of Skyward Sword know.

[e105beta]

So you're saying it's better for Castlevania to take the "Zelda route" by making all future titles stand-alones, and just drop the idea of linked saga altogether?

Dave Cox could've easily placed LoS "sometime in the 12th century," just like how IGA put OoE sometime in the 19th century. In fact, you can possibly fit dozens of games in the 12th/13th/14th centuries, so the idea of the canon timeline running out of slots is ridiculous. Developers won't have to deal with any story problems, because Dracula won't be the main enemy, and they can introduce a shitload of unique enemies/plot devices.

On the other hand, if a producer wanted to set a game in the 16th century to take advantage of whatever gameplay/story mechanics he comes up with, only thing they'd have to do is print "this is a stand-alone story" in the manual or box, not set the entire series that way.

-I never said better. I think both are fine ways of doing a series. I enjoy having a continuity, but at the same time I won't get angry because somebody decides to make a game that doesn't fall into the continuity.

-Ok, so all the time slots haven't been filled. That wasn't my point at all, but Dave Cox really couldn't have fit Lords of Shadow into the current canon without changing the plot. For one, Gabriel wouldn't be who he is now if he had to be shoehorned into the "official" canon. Secondly, if the plot really does include Dracula or involve Gabriel turning into Dracula like many believe, this is doubly so.
There are still rules that have to be followed. Dracula can only be fought at certain times. 11th-15th centuries cannot have Dracula as a villain lest the main character loses, and anything beyond the 18th century can't have Dracula or Belmonts at all. Belmonts were not vampire hunters before Leon, and they can't have any origin stories after Leon because the clan has already been established. The Vampire Killer has certain restrictions as of its usage, nobody else can tell a story of the origins of Dracula, nobody can have a plot with Dracula in the future because he's Soma, Alucard is asleep from 1476 to 1797, etc, etc, etc. I could go on. These are all features that limit the storytelling of a potential game.
You say nobody will have to BOTHER with Dracula, like it's a burden, but I can imagine most people who develop a Castlevania game are going to want to have Dracula in it.

-That's just as messy. Then instead of a few timelines, you have a bunch of "stand alone" games.
The reason nobody in the history of video games has ever bothered to put "this is a stand alone game" on a box is because, frankly, the game does that itself when you play it and realize there are contradictions with other games. Largely the only people who actually care that everything does not fit in a nice neat package are the people who seem to have some odd desire to have everything they play validated by some company in another country as part of an arbitrary "canon".
Think about it. If Konami never made a single other Castlevania game that fits in with the current "official" canon, does that make those games any less legitimate? No. They have their own canon. In essence, there would be two canons. One that relates to the "old Castlevania" and one that relates to the "new Castlevania". Both would be equally official, as they would be sanctioned by Konami, but neither would be part of the other.

[71m07hySm17h]

So you're saying it's better for Castlevania to take the "Zelda route" by making all future titles stand-alones, and just drop the idea of linked saga altogether?

I honestly have no problem with them being 'stand alone stories,' considering Zelda has done it for what, ever? What's wrong with Castlevania doing it? Just because it's Castlevania? I think the true testament to that would be its gameplay, which is what substantiates all the Zelda fans' lust because it is what they love and enjoy. I kinda wish Castlevania had done what Zelda did. It seems to me that Zelda has done the opposite of Castlevania honestly. Zelda has essentially kept most of the gameplay intact and made some major advancements in 3D games while keeping the stories 'stand alone' and Castlevania has butchered some 3D games while trying to keep the canon intact, if indeed that makes any sense to anybody, I'm probably just babbling.

[Nagumo]

I don't see why putting Dracula in a game is such a big deal though. I mean, its just a name. Castlevania needs more Brauners.
   

[Munchy]

I don't see why putting Dracula in a game is such a big deal though. I mean, its just a name. Castlevania needs more Brauners.
   

I wouldn't mind another game with Elizabeth Bathory/Bartley/Whatever.

[crisis]

-Ok, so all the time slots haven't been filled. That wasn't my point at all, but Dave Cox really couldn't have fit Lords of Shadow into the current canon without changing the plot. For one, Gabriel wouldn't be who he is now if he had to be shoehorned into the "official" canon. Secondly, if the plot really does include Dracula or involve Gabriel turning into Dracula like many believe, this is doubly so.

All he'd have to do is change some characters' names, not change the entire plot. We don't even know the entire plot.

There are still rules that have to be followed. Dracula can only be fought at certain times. 11th-15th centuries cannot have Dracula as a villain lest the main character loses, and anything beyond the 18th century can't have Dracula or Belmonts at all. Belmonts were not vampire hunters before Leon, and they can't have any origin stories after Leon because the clan has already been established. The Vampire Killer has certain restrictions as of its usage, nobody else can tell a story of the origins of Dracula, nobody can have a plot with Dracula in the future because he's Soma, Alucard is asleep from 1476 to 1797, etc, etc, etc. I could go on. These are all features that limit the storytelling of a potential game.

The only thing that's known/established about the 300 years between LoI & CVIII is that the Belmonts were vampire hunters & were feared by the people. Dunno about you but I could think of hundreds of ways developers can tell stories without stepping on anyone else's toes, without any of those "rules" getting in the way. And there can certainly be plots after Soma's time. Alucard does hint that a new Dark Lord would eventually emerge, so they can set a game 100 years after 2036. Does that mean the aesthetic has to change to accomodate futuristic hoverboards? No, because those stories are left wide open for anyone to decide what happens. You're making it seem like everything about the CV universe is so stifling for developers, when it really isn't if you think about it.

And really, how many origin stories do we really need? Once CV turns into a series of reboot after reboot, just because the developers don't want to deal with canon, then...

-That's just as messy. Then instead of a few timelines, you have a bunch of "stand alone" games.
The reason nobody in the history of video games has ever bothered to put "this is a stand alone game" on a box is because, frankly, the game does that itself when you play it and realize there are contradictions with other games. Largely the only people who actually care that everything does not fit in a nice neat package are the people who seem to have some odd desire to have everything they play validated by some company in another country as part of an arbitrary "canon".

Konami has done it with Metal Gear, so the "nobody in the history of video games does that" comment is nonsense.. I don't see a problem with them doing it with CV.

I honestly have no problem with them being 'stand alone stories,' considering Zelda has done it for what, ever? What's wrong with Castlevania doing it? Just because it's Castlevania?

The difference is, Zelda has been doing it since day 1, Castlevania hasn't. For them to suddenly switch everything up would be pretty stupid and unnecessary. It's like they'd be trying to appeal to the Zelda fans, like LoS is trying to get the DMC fans. Just because Nintendo made it "work" for Zelda, doesn't mean Konami can or should make it work for CV.
Castlevania is borrowing a lot these days, lets not add "Zelda" to the list.