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

[Giz]

Someone's presumptuous.

[A-Yty]

How can the CV fanbase say story is insignificant to Castlevania while saying IGA has butchered it? The mind boggles. Sometimes, acting as the figurehead of this series seems like the most unforgiving job in the world.

We don't know how much of a restart this will be storywise. And personally, it better not be too far. Modified or not, certain things should be in the newest incarnation too.

And yes, saying IGA's control over anything CV-canon related is presumptous. For all we know, there will two or more continuities.

[justin312]

In Reply To #50

OK, IGA hasn't personally butchered the story, but the story has been butchered over the last ten years while he has been the acting figurehead.  I'm hoping that the new team focuses on telling a good story that fits the classic feel and atmosphere of Castlevania, even if that means sacrificing much of the current canon to do so.  I think the game should include Dracula at some point, but thats about it.  I'm actually hoping that the LoS story is contradictory to the story in Lament of Innocence and retcons it, as I never cared for that as the origin story anyway.

[Nagumo]

In Reply To #51

Without IGA, there never would have been a flowing story in the first place. Before he came around the story was more messed up then it's now (Which, by the way, isn't the case). Just sayin.

[Nagumo]

How could you say that? Before Iga, every 100 years or so, Dracula would resurrect and a Belmont would arrive to slay him?

Things that went wrong with the story before IGA:

- Chris is mentioned to be the first Belmont in CVA and apparently it took place 100 years before Simon's

[A-Yty]

The "Once every century" wasn't contradicted by SQ. It's actually one of the premature resurrection storylines that's both kind of original and keeps with the original game's storyline. Dracula was a ghost and this was because he had hidden the relics before the duel with Simon.

[Nagumo]

In Reply To #55

A premature resurrection is still a resurrection.     

[justin312]

In Reply To #54

I agree that there were many holes in the plot early in the series that prevented a coherent storyline.  However, I think that is because those were 8bit and 16bit games that were really not story driven.  Back then, the story of each game was sort of standalone, with just the simple premise of Dracula resurrecting every hundred years and a Belmont has to stop him.  Over the past 10-12 years or so, IGA has attempted to connect everything together while plugging new stories in where there was room and adding more backstory.  Not knocking him for making the attempt, I think it was an earnest effort, I just think he missed the mark somewhat, and the story is not as coherent as it could be in this day and age of cinematic storytelling in video games.

As far as his timeline and handling of the storyline, I will only criticize him for two things.  First, his retconning of games he didn

[A-Yty]

In Reply To #56

But not an auto-resurrection, which is what the legend was about.

[Nagumo]

In Reply To #54

As far as his timeline and handling of the storyline, I will only criticize him for two things.

[Giz]

He allowed others to be able to defeat Dracula without using the Vampire Killer, retconned games, took away Dracula and turned him into a Japanese teenager, etc.

How many times do I have to tell you that Bloodlines, a non-IGA title, was the game that canon-ized non VK death's? IGA was not the one to start this trend.

But not an auto-resurrection, which is what the legend was about.

No such thing as an 'auto-resurrection'; nor is the 100 years legend in any way shape or form a rule. It's distorted folk-lore based on the fact that people always bring Dracula back.

Also, nobody knows yet if LoS is going to be a reboot in terms of story or a reboot in terms of gameplay, so there's no reason to make assumptions here.

They said it wasn't connected to any of the other CV's, the implications being story-wise~

except Legends I never really got why he did that

It completely contradicts Castlevania III and makes the implications that the Belmonts are part vampire. I can't see why he wouldn't retcon it.

FURTHERMORE;
Whether or not a game is canon, it doesn't matter; being non-canon does not invalidate a games existence nor does it affect your ability to enjoy it.

[justin312]

However it's possible to include them but it's pretty ridicilious to be mad at IGA because he didn't place some games into a timeline which is his own vision of the story.

But ifthey would do a reboot of the story it wouldn't be weird to be mad at them because at least IGA made some efforts to tie up loose ends, they would throw it all away and replace it with their own thing thus making story that has been build upon for years meaningless.

[Giz]

The difference is that IGA never retconned an entire timeline filled with games and characters that people love. Which is, as of now, still unresolved.

If IGA is still along making games, I'm sure nobody will really care that there are two timelines running simultaneously. It might be confusing, but it'll make both parties happy. However if it is just this new game and associated, then people have every right to be upset. Iga taking control was completely different because he respected the original titles and made almost all of them a part of the official timeline, and made them make sense. The only ones he excluded were ones that could quite simply not work.

[Nagumo]

It completely contradicts Castlevania III and makes the implications that the Belmonts are part vampire. I can't see why he wouldn't retcon it.

Arguments please. Also, Alucard + Sonia = Trevor never happend because that's just fandom.

[Giz]

Castlevania III was supposed to be the first time a Belmont and Dracula battled; with Legends taking place before that, that kind of invalidates that.

And If you notice, I said 'implication' which means 'implies'. It implies it but never says anything about it.