Topic: Why does IGA keep writing checks he never cashes?

[Clara E. Leet]

In Reply To #17

Ooh! And to say that "Well IGA made the next game so it overrides it" would be the same as saying "Kojima's game is made next so it overrides anything IGA did for the same time period"

Amirite?

[Lumas]

In Reply To #17

Ooh! And to say that "Well IGA made the next game so it overrides it" would be the same as saying "Kojima's game is made next so it overrides anything IGA did for the same time period"

Amirite?

This would be true but Kojima and MS have stated it will have nothing to do with the previous games thus this will keep IGA's timeline intact until Konami, IGA, or Kojima (who would have to have the authority to confirm) has stated otherwise.

But without that you would be very correct clara it would be the same thing

My own speculation is going to be they are going to do the same thing with Lament, where a vampire is the main villian (not Dracula) and tell tales of not just a struggle against Dracula but all undead enemies.

[Giz]

Hmph. You're a little presumptuous, aren't you?

It was published by Konami Digital Entertaiment and also comes with an artbook with a speech from IGA, Yamane as well as Ayami thanking the fans. IGA was also credited in the making of Portrait of Ruin and wanted to give the fans something special for the 20th anniversary of Castlevania.

I was saying the timeline we recieved was US only, and last I knew Iga may not have been necessarily directly connected to that TIMELINE.

[Lumas]

Hmph. You're a little presumptuous, aren't you?
I was saying the timeline we recieved was US only, and last I knew Iga may not have been necessarily directly connected to the title.

[Lumas]

Also IGA is credited as the main designer for Portrait of Ruin thus proving my point since he as a producer and head of making Castlevania allowed the release of the time line included in the bonus package of Portrait of Ruin.

[Lumas]

and also

"which has not received the 'this is not canon' treatment inherently"

I never stated it was a non canon I simply implied that it contradicted the time line that IGA released prior to the release of OoE

[Giz]

Yes you are right I dont have a japanese copy of the special edition that IGA included with the game if you preordered it nor do I know how to read japanese so it might be different but nothing I have found proves this correct so thus it is the most updated and official time line to go off of whether you prefer it or not.

With your opinion stated about those three games I'm assuming you mean LoD/64, CoM and Legends. Unfortunately the time line states Lod/64 and CoM meaning IGA has currently placed them back into the time line except Legends which remains removed.

And by your logic, CoM (it was placed back into the time line) was replaced by OoE

[Lumas]

What?
No,
that

That entire post is so illogical I can hardly even begin to explain why.

Peace~

Then I'll place it in simple terms for you.

IGA designed PoR.

IGA authorized the release of the time included with the bonus package of PoR proving that the official time line includes CoM and LoD/64

And by your logic or the logic Clara was probably referring to is this.

CoM (despite being place back in the time line by IGA) doesn't matter because OoE was developed by IGA and thus it doesn't matter to the time line because you thought it was a better game and it came after it.

By that logic Kojima's would replace IGA's timeline because it was released after OoE.

Now all with all that, IGA timeline has already been safe guarded since MS stated that LoS will have nothing to do the other games meaning the games that have been designed previous to this one.

I understand that you can't comprehend that IGA might have contradicted himself, this is hard to believe since he contradicted Dracula's appearance as an evil overlord in the games the chronologically came after SotN. I understand you love IGA's games and you are willing to argue blue in the face to prove that but officially he has contradicted himself.

So that's what I meant since you had a hard time understanding it and with that I consider the matter closed despite i would love to see your response (if it is intelligent and has some proof to back it up) to my points I feel they are very valid.

[Danial]

In Reply To #21

There is no Japanese version of the PoR preorder bonus.

[Clara E. Leet]

In Reply To #24

Odd. I understood every word.

[Lumas]

In Reply To #24

Odd. I understood every word.

Thank you Clara Im glad to see other intelligent CV fans.

In Reply To #21

There is no Japanese version of the PoR preorder bonus.

[Lumas]

Though he said "peace" meaning Im assuming he is done with this discussion Im still awaiting Giz's response since he will probably will want to justify his point that IGA's games are superior to all the other CVs.

[Danial]

Since CotM took place in 1830, and the only thing we know about OoE is that it took place in the early 19th century.  I think that gives OoE about thirty years, plenty of time, to fit into the timeline with CotM.

I don't really think Iga is concerned with making the CotM fit in though.  I was a little annoyed when he didn't give a date for OoE, but given the chance, I can also see him replacing CotM with it.  So I'm glad he didn't do that at least.

[Lumas]

"So much of that post is irrelevant and illogical and false personall assumption, I don't even know how to respond to that"

Im assuming he meant "personal" but anyway adding to my point it isn't assumptions I have (and probably more people have this too) the time line right here you probably could google it. It clearly states in the 1800 block 1830 Casltevania Circle of the Moon, 1844 Castlevania Legacy of Darkness and 1852 Casltevania 64. Also the artbook included has the some of the art work from all three of those games. And since it is stated that OoE took place in the mid 1800s it contradicts OoE unless it took place after 64 but we wont know until IGA or Konami who has more say state other wise by putting out an updated time line. If i was IGA i would have paid more attention and placed it in the 1900s.

[Lumas]

and again Giz you dont know how to respond to it because you lack the concrete evidence to support your points.

Its a shame you left again I think my points a very valid.

Now since some of us are humble enough to swallow our pride maybe you can too.