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

[CristopherLee]

I'm requesting them to do so though, I want to know if it makes any sense to say "DRacul" and then nappear as "Dracula" O.o

There is only one reason: "En Saut Dracul!" is cooler than ""En Saut Draculea!".

I recomend you stop that discussion with "presumptions" because sooner o later some users who know A LOT (seriously) about the whole tepes-vlad-dracula hsitorical thing will come.

The historical prince of Wallachia and the vampire count have ZERO in common. Stoker only took the name because it sounds good. Believe me or not, but, actually, I know a lot about the life of Vlad Tepes "The Impaler".

And Castlevania universe is based in old horror movies, not in medieval facts.

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

It makes more sense to say Dracul than Dracula.
"Dracula" means "Son of the Dragon(Demon)".

It really cheapens the phrase if he says "I am the son of the Dragon(Demon)" since he had no father figure to speak of in the game, thus no frame of reference, and would have been hilariously confusing to anyone playing it who knows of the meaning of the word.  So I understand why Gabriel would say that.

"Dracul", in our world's history, is Vlad Dracula III's father, Vlad II.
"Vlad II received the surname Dracul in 1431, after being inducted into the Order of the Dragon, founded in 1410 by Sigismund, the Holy Roman Emperor, as part of a design to gain political favor for the Catholic Church and to aid in protecting Wallachia against the Ottoman Empire." -Wikipedia-

Vlad Dracula III is 'the' Dracula that's the figure that our Castlevania Dracula and Stoker's Dracula and others are based on.  He would be son of Vlad II (no last name).  He would be called Dracula to mean "Son of the Dragon" or "Son of one from the Order of the Dragon", but was mis-characterized due to a translation error so that "dragon" became "demon".

His other title "Tepes" literally means "The Impaler".  It is not a last name, but rather a glorified nickname he was given.  Thus, when people say things like "Vlad Tepes III", they're misinformed.  His true name would be "Vlad Dracula III".

That's the very very loose connection between our world's and Castlevania's world's Dracula character.

[darkwzrd4]

It makes more sense to say Dracul than Dracula.
"Dracula" means "Son of the Dragon(Demon)".

It really cheapens the phrase if he says "I am the son of the Dragon(Demon)" since he had no father figure to speak of in the game, thus no frame of reference, and would have been hilariously confusing to anyone playing it who knows of the meaning of the word.  So I understand why Gabriel would say that.

"Dracul", in our world's history, is Vlad Dracula III's father, Vlad II.
"Vlad II received the surname Dracul in 1431, after being inducted into the Order of the Dragon, founded in 1410 by Sigismund, the Holy Roman Emperor, as part of a design to gain political favor for the Catholic Church and to aid in protecting Wallachia against the Ottoman Empire." -Wikipedia-

Vlad Dracula III is 'the' Dracula that's the figure that our Castlevania Dracula and Stoker's Dracula and others are based on.  He would be son of Vlad II (no last name).  He would be called Dracula to mean "Son of the Dragon" or "Son of one from the Order of the Dragon", but was mis-characterized due to a translation error so that "dragon" became "demon".

His other title "Tepes" literally means "The Impaler".  It is not a last name, but rather a glorified nickname he was given.  Thus, when people say things like "Vlad Tepes III", they're misinformed.  His true name would be "Vlad Dracula III".

That's the very very loose connection between our world's and Castlevania's world's Dracula character.

Very interesting. 

[thernz]

Probably better to just disregard any connection with the real world counterpart. But yeah, I guess Son of Dragon would imply there being a Dragon and the only possible choice would be Satan, unless there's some guy above Dracula but that'd just be uguu.

[crisis]

But this is the new Castlevania thernz-chan. There can be a stronger vampires than Dracula... the Belmonts don't have to be human beings anymore... the Grim Reaper doesn't even have to look like the Grim Reaper. Anything goes! 

[X]

It's true that anything goes for the CV reboot, but it is unfortunate at the same time. In the traditional series, Belmont's were the main heros who represented good while Dracula represented the ultimate evil that not even satan himself could best. This was the main staple (the bible) of the classic series and it was only when IGA came along that this bible was altered...and not in a good way. Dracula was no-longer the ultimate evil since that title seems to be pointing towards Galamoth for whatever reason. The Belmonts are no-longer the main heros and have since been replaced with lesser known characters who seem to be able to kill Dracula with no problems...bad move on IGA's part. I feel it's through these reasons that CV was given a revamp so as to have more flexability in some degree or another; essentually wiping the slate clean and starting anew. But by doing so, we lose that which made the traditional series 'classic' and cool.

-X

[Wallachia]

You guys see Cox' twitter lately? I wonder if some of his comments are related to DLC coming soon..
http://twitter.com/CastlevaniaLoS

[Nagumo]

The skies have cleared. The storm is gone and now the Dawn approaches.

If you mean this, then no. That's a reference to Golden Sun: Dark Dawn. 

[Dremn]

I don't know, sounds like he is talking about Castlevania going by the tweets on his page. He also says DLC info is "imminent," so I guess we can expect something very soon!

[Kingshango]

Saturday seems like the best bet for news about the DLC.

[shelverton.]

If nothing else, the Consumer Electronics Show 2011 is on the 6-9th of january, which is sooner than it actually sounds... I wonder if we'll hear something about the DLC there - or even better - something about the next entry in the series. I don't remember if Castlevanias were ever revealed during CES in the past though...

[Dremn]

Doubt we'll hear anything about the sequel for another year. As for the DLC announcement I'm wagering either around or after Christmas, maybe even New Years Eve.

[Ahasverus]

I just replayed thw whole game.. damn that Carmilla battle is sooo epic, the cinematic is better than the whole Van Helsing movie 

[CristopherLee]

I just replayed thw whole game.. damn that Carmilla battle is sooo epic, the cinematic is better than the whole Van Helsing movie

Even the "cinematics" from Castlevania Legends are better than the whole Van Helsing movie.

[Foffy]

It's true that anything goes for the CV reboot, but it is unfortunate at the same time. In the traditional series, Belmont's were the main heros who represented good while Dracula represented the ultimate evil that not even satan himself could best. This was the main staple (the bible) of the classic series and it was only when IGA came along that this bible was altered...and not in a good way. Dracula was no-longer the ultimate evil since that title seems to be pointing towards Galamoth for whatever reason. The Belmonts are no-longer the main heros and have since been replaced with lesser known characters who seem to be able to kill Dracula with no problems...bad move on IGA's part. I feel it's through these reasons that CV was given a revamp so as to have more flexability in some degree or another; essentually wiping the slate clean and starting anew. But by doing so, we lose that which made the traditional series 'classic' and cool.

-X

By 'that' title, are you referring to Judgment? I mean, it was sort of implied in a number of instances that Galamoth was a big baddy in the context of the series, what with the Kid Dracula parody games and assuming that the deity Dracula obtained power form before the events of Dracula's Curse was Galamoth (It's not outright STATED it's Galamoth, though this theory would make the most sense, considering Galamoth's eventual rebellion in Judgment).