Topic: Why Bloodlines didn't need to be "fixed

[justin312]

This is a continuation of the offshoot discussion regarding the plot of Bloodlines in the LoS thread.

[Reinhart77]

Thanks for starting a separate topic for this, it's appreciated.

If Iga is unable to make any more Castlevania games, I'll be disappointed he didn't get a chance to make the Quincy Morris game that he has said he was meaning to do.  That could nicely clear up what parts of the Dracula novel were actually intended to be part of the Castlevania timeline, and which parts were merely borrowed from it. 

[Giz]

Giz, can you explain what exactly is a "full-blooded Belmont"?

[Clara E. Leet]

Oh shut up, It isn't difficult to understand and I understand it perfectly

Nice cop-out excuse to defend a theory that only you see as valid. It doesn't answer the question. Because the Morris's were an "offshoot" of the Belmonts? That just means that a female Belmont married a Morris. It would be the same bloodline if a male Belmont married a female Morris. Even then, if a Female Belmont married a... Smith, their kid (Smith) married a Morris... it's still Belmont, just with a different name!

the issue is that you don't understand what I'm saying.

No, the issue is that he WANTS to understand what you're saying, and you're being rude and immature by saying "Well if you can't figure it out, then you MUST be an idiot." If you're going to make an argument or claim or if you want to debate, be prepared to back up and defend your statements with actual reason.

[Giz]

Hey, Clara, no offense but it'd be cool if you read my post and tried to understand what I meant before jumping at me, because that isn't what I was saying at all. And what theory is that? I proposed no theories, unless you want to count my proposition that it would have run out of eras to use pretty early on if they had kept to the original '100 years' rule, which isn't really a theory so much as a statement of fact - which isn't even relevant to my defending in the first place. But anyway, I digress;

I went so far as to explain where the miscommunication came from, and stated that the fact that I was looking at it from a post-POR perspective may have skewed things somewhat, resulting in the confusion.

Explaining where something came from and why is the exact opposite of saying 'HEH JUST FIGURE IT OUT FOR YOURSELF', so I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

I was referring to the primary Belmont line. The morris' are an offshoot of this line, as such the vampire killer drains their life. Although I suppose the fact that I am looking at it from a post-PoR frame of mind is influencing this and resulted in the present confusion along with a momentary lapse and questionable term usage. My above point may not be valid from a pre-PoR mindset.

I was going by canon facts established by PoR, not by strict genetics or anything else. It treats the Morrises as an offshoot bloodline of the belmonts that isn't quite as belmont as 'the main line', for whatever reason.

If you wanted to jump on me, all you should've said was "be nicer", because that would certainly be more valid then what you just posted.

[justin312]

In Reply To #5

So Giz, lets take PoR completely out of the equation for a moment, pretend it never happened.

[Giz]

It didn't really need to be "fixed" per se, ultimately it works - it just requires a lot of assumption.

I would say that it definitely needed elaboration and context in order to jive smoothly, however, so in my opinion I would say that PoR needed to exist. Regardless of my opinion of the game itself.

And in the process created a bunch of new plot holes that didn't exist before.

Like what, specifically?

[justin312]

In Reply To #7

Well for one, it basically created the plot hole of "where did the Belmonts disappear to between 1797 and 1999, and why?"  If you just took Bloodlines as it was, then the logical assumption was that Morris was a direct Belmont descendent, just with a different last name.  PoR made that impossible, and created the still-unanswered question of where all the Belmonts went for 200 years.

Another plot hole it created was the whole thing about Belmonts not being able to touch the whip until the 100 year cycle.  If thats the case, how do we explain Juste?  He was exactly halfway between Simon and Richter, yet he seemed OK wielding the whip.  That also makes it incredibly difficult to make any future games that feature a new whip wielding Belmont, because you could only have Belmonts as your hero once per century, and we've already filled up the 100 year cycle for the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 20th centuries.

If Iga had just left well enough alone and not tried to "explain" something that didn't need explaining, he wouldn't have created these problems and inconsistencies.

[Sindra]

I was going by canon facts established by PoR, not by strict genetics or anything else.

You're going by IGA's canon. Please be aware not everyone believes IGA's canon is the "true blue" canon of the series just because he's the guy in charge right now. Before SotN, everything between CV1 and Bloodlines was "the established canon". Don't go opening up the can of worms that is the idea that "Because IGA is in charge, everything he has stated in *his* games is law." He almost made things more difficult by trying to throw his twists in concerning Belmont family-branches.

[Aridale]

Its all so obvious... of course only a BELMONT can use the whip... it performs extensive background checks on everyone that touches it and if their last name isnt Belmont it kicks on its "you cant use me cause your a nub" defense

[Giz]

Another plot hole it created was the whole thing about Belmonts not being able to touch the whip until the 100 year cycle.

[Danial]

That's not how canon works. As a fan, you can't just pick and choose what 'canon' is; canon, by definition, is decreed officially by the person/company in charge of the project. Which means, Koji Igarashi and his timeline are the official canon as of this moment in time.

As of this moment in time it seems that Konami has decided that Iga's canon isn't worth keeping around.

[Giz]

We don't really know enough to say that for sure.

LoS has stated only that it is not a part of the main continuity - it is non-canon from the start. A stand-alone title does not make an entirely new canon, and thus far from what I've heard, it sounds more like LoS will be a standalone game, or at the very most a small self-contained two or three games.

Thats the impression I've gotten so far, anyway.

We also do not know for sure the fate of Iga's timeline; if its still going to be perpetuated with new games, or if its done for good.

The last word that we have on the matter is that Iga's timeline is still canon, so the natural assumption is unless otherwise stated that is still the case.

Fan continuity will never be official, but neither will Konami's, at least until they are able to include every game.

[Danial]

In Reply To #13

I tend to think the opposite of you.

[Giz]

But your attempted point that the canon is not official because there are games excluded from it is what I was criticizing - that is an illogical assumption that goes against the very definition of canon.

He didn't so much ignore them as he threw them aside (all four of them, out of what, over 25 games?) because they contradicted previously existing games (and in some instances themselves) or at the very least what he wanted to do.

Sure, we don't know for sure what Konami is doing, but deductive reasoning is showing us that Konami is looking for a different direction for CV than the last 10 years.

Keep in mind, the trailer for the Alucard game was shown after Lords of Shadow was announced - and that 'lack of titles' wouldn't have been a reason, because Order and Judgment were both coming out soon.