Topic: My Thoughts on a New Direction the Series Can Go

[MeSako]

Could be. Lets not forget he created the Alucard Spear which Eric uses to compliment the power of the Vampire Killer.

So the conclution is that Alucard is quit handy

[Lumas]

So the conclution is that Alucard is quit handy

Pretty much.

[Lumas]

I don't think the overall story of CV is getting stale at all, since each game is basically self-contained. Like you said I think the era that has vast room for potential is the 300 years that Dracula was dormant. After the events of CVIII, there's not much to tell in detail since Dracula isn't allowed to survive for more than 1 night (however, there are many questions to be answered about Dracula's whereabouts between CVA & Belmont's Revenge). That's what I like about most of the games; the plots are short and sweet, they don't really require epic storytelling. LoS will have an epic story, though. I still see where you're coming from, future games (preferably Metroidvanias) could expand on the dialogue & characters a bit. OoE had this, but it seemed artificial. Where were the other members of Ecclesia? How did Barlowe receive the knowledge of Dominus? etc.

The other tidbits you mentioned, can possibly be covered in radio dramas, mangas, things like that.

Well here are some of the plot holes Im sure the wizard is talkin about here.

First off Lament of Innocence takes place in 1094 and states that Mathias (Dracula) is 32 which would place his birth roughly around 1062. SotN contradicts this because it states Dracula is around 800 which would mean he would be born 997.  EDIT after further investigation of Rondo and Dracula x both also state that Dracula is over 800 years of age. EDIT Also worth noting is that in The Dracula X Chronicles the manual for both Rondo of Blood and Symphony of the Night neglect to mention the age of both Dracula and Alucard though still mention Richter to be 19 and Maria 12. So there is a chance that the age mentioned in both manual was change so not to contradict Lament of Innocence.EDIT: Also SotN takes place in 1797 and states that Alucard is roughly around 400 placing his birth around 1397. Lisa was executed in 1470 now if she had a normal human life's span that would mean she gave birth to Alucard in her 20s making her birth roughly around 1377, if she did get executed in 1470 that would place her age around 93 even though Alucard remembered her as being youthful. EDIT In hindsight her being 93 when she died could've been the give away that prompted Alucard to realize it was an illusion despite that the succubus made a vital mistake in telling Alucard to get revenge for his mother. If the succubus did get her appearance correct then her age would've been no more then her 40s placing her death around 1417 and making Alucard around his 20s at the time of his mother's death. If Legends was included it took place in 1450 making her age at the time of her death roughly 53.

Second  in CV3 Dracula is defeated in 1476 thus forcing him into a 100 year sleep to regain his powers. CV adventure takes place in 1576, 100 years after his defeat and he is again defeated BUT not killed because it was also revealed in Belmont's Revenge that Dracula managed to survive and bide his time until he had regained his strength but is finally put down again by Christopher in 1591( Read the manual for the details of how Dracula survived and his whereabouts). Now Castlevania takes place in 1691 meaning that when Dracula was defeated in 1591 it would have forced him to sleep for another 100 years thus taking place in 1691. If this is the case then Curse of Darkness which takes place in 1479 he shouldn't  have returned, since Hector defeated him, until 1579 three years after Adventure takes place, thus contradicting the 100 year resting cycle since Dracula seems to resurrect exactly 100 years after his death, Dracula's Curse(1476) and CV Adventure (1576) prove this fact as does Belmont's Revenge (1591) and Castlevania 1691 since Dracula technically did not die until 1591 when Christopher defeated him.

Finally the inclusion of Bram's Novel (I'm assuming they got the rights to say that Quincy was the descendant of the Belmonts being that the Stoker family got pissed when Nosferatu came out in the 20s) Which takes place in 1897, now I can't remember if Bram actually stated Dracula's age but he did use the actual Vlad Tepes which going off of the novel would actually contradict Dracula's entire history being that Vlad was born c. 1431.

I wont even go into the 1800s though my own speculation is this. Nostraduamus predicted the whole end of Dracula thing so as time grew closer I'm sure Death  heard of this prediction and believed it and thus made several attempts at restoring Dracula so that they could change the events predicted.

So in conclusion yes there are plot holes.

Also I thought the japanese were good at math......or is that being too sterotypical?

[Lumas]

Also Simon's quest which takes place in 1698 Dracula was resurrected when his remains were gathered by Simon who then defeated the count. Now Juste also did this in HoD which takes place in 1748 meaning his natural resurrection would have occurred until 1848 but RoB clearly states that his resurrection was premature due to the ritual of the dark priest shaft.

EDIT
I decided to remove the time line here due to the fact that it also stated in Rondo of Blood and Dracula X that Dracula is over 800 years of age which would also prove that theory wrong.

[darkwzrd4]

Could be. Lets not forget he created the Alucard Spear which Eric uses to compliment the power of the Vampire Killer.

That thing about the spear complimenting the whip was only mentioned in Judgment, which is non-canon.  The only information that is canon to my knowledge is the description of the Alucard Spear in PoR, which states: "A spear used by Eric. Has some connection to Alucard."

Well here are some of the plot holes Im sure the wizard is talkin about here.

First off Lament of Innocence takes place in 1094 and states that Mathias (Dracula) is 32 which would place his birth roughly around 1062. SotN contradicts this because it states Dracula is around 800 which would mean he would be born 997.  EDIT after further investigation of Rondo and Dracula x both also state that Dracula is over 800 years of age. EDIT Also worth noting is that in The Dracula X Chronicles the manual for both Rondo of Blood and Symphony of the Night neglect to mention the age of both Dracula and Alucard though still mention Richter to be 19 and Maria 12. So there is a chance that the age mentioned in both manual was change so not to contradict Lament of Innocence.EDIT: Also SotN takes place in 1797 and states that Alucard is roughly around 400 placing his birth around 1397. Lisa was executed in 1470 now if she had a normal human life's span that would mean she gave birth to Alucard in her 20s making her birth roughly around 1377, if she did get executed in 1470 that would place her age around 93 even though Alucard remembered her as being youthful. EDIT In hindsight her being 93 when she died could've been the give away that prompted Alucard to realize it was an illusion despite that the succubus made a vital mistake in telling Alucard to get revenge for his mother. If the succubus did get her appearance correct then her age would've been no more then her 40s placing her death around 1417 and making Alucard around his 20s at the time of his mother's death. If Legends was included it took place in 1450 making her age at the time of her death roughly 53.

Second  in CV3 Dracula is defeated in 1476 thus forcing him into a 100 year sleep to regain his powers. CV adventure takes place in 1576, 100 years after his defeat and he is again defeated BUT not killed because it was also revealed in Belmont's Revenge that Dracula managed to survive and bide his time until he had regained his strength but is finally put down again by Christopher in 1591( Read the manual for the details of how Dracula survived and his whereabouts). Now Castlevania takes place in 1691 meaning that when Dracula was defeated in 1591 it would have forced him to sleep for another 100 years thus taking place in 1691. If this is the case then Curse of Darkness which takes place in 1479 he shouldn't  have returned, since Hector defeated him, until 1579 three years after Adventure takes place, thus contradicting the 100 year resting cycle since Dracula seems to resurrect exactly 100 years after his death, Dracula's Curse(1476) and CV Adventure (1576) prove this fact as does Belmont's Revenge (1591) and Castlevania 1691 since Dracula technically did not die until 1591 when Christopher defeated him.

Finally the inclusion of Bram's Novel (I'm assuming they got the rights to say that Quincy was the descendant of the Belmonts being that the Stoker family got pissed when Nosferatu came out in the 20s) Which takes place in 1897, now I can't remember if Bram actually stated Dracula's age but he did use the actual Vlad Tepes which going off of the novel would actually contradict Dracula's entire history being that Vlad was born c. 1431.

I wont even go into the 1800s though my own speculation is this. Nostraduamus predicted the whole end of Dracula thing so as time grew closer I'm sure Death  heard of this prediction and believed it and thus made several attempts at restoring Dracula so that they could change the events predicted.

So in conclusion yes there are plot holes.

Yes, this is what I was trying to get at.  I'm sorry if my wording in the first post was misleading.  I'm just tired of games being added to the timeline that contradict it and the fact that the already existing plot-holes aren't being fixed or at least reinterpreted.

Also, the whole resurrection thing in CoD doesn't through off the whole 100 year rule.  The reason is that Dracula wasn't truly resurrected in that game.  His spirit was simply given a different vessel (Issac's body).  The HoD thing can be explained by the fact that Dracula's physical remains were gathered in the castle (besides, that wasn't really Dracula. It was only an evil spirit using the remains).  From what I understand, the 100 year rule is for Dracula resurrecting on his own at full power without any of his underlings interfering.

[Lumas]

That thing about the spear complimenting the whip was only mentioned in Judgment, which is non-canon.  The only information that is canon to my knowledge is the description of the Alucard Spear in PoR, which states: "A spear used by Eric. Has some connection to Alucard."

Actually the backgrounds of weapons and characters if you noticed were cannon the event of all of the characters coming across the time rift and over all story of Judgement was not cannon due to the fact they all "forgot" what had happened. Judgement also came out after PoR and there was no need to mention it in OoE. You forget other then OoE there haven't been any other cannon games especially ones with the Lecardes to come out so there would be no need to mention the spear. Even in the official artwork for PoR it has Eric (Wind) with Alucard in the background. So all the character's backstories, their weapons and abilities were cannon just the events of what took place in the time rift however was not cannon.

[Lumas]

Yes, this is what I was trying to get at.  I'm sorry if my wording in the first post was misleading.  I'm just tired of games being added to the timeline that contradict it and the fact that the already existing plot-holes aren't being fixed or at least reinterpreted.

Also, the whole resurrection thing in CoD doesn't through off the whole 100 year rule.  The reason is that Dracula wasn't truly resurrected in that game.  His spirit was simply given a different vessel (Issac's body).  The HoD thing can be explained by the fact that Dracula's physical remains were gathered in the castle (besides, that wasn't really Dracula. It was only an evil spirit using the remains).  From what I understand, the 100 year rule is for Dracula resurrecting on his own at full power without any of his underlings interfering.

Ive heard that it was an evil spirit but from what I've gathered from the official timeline is that Dracula actually manifested but was in a weakened state much like he was after he was defeated in The Adventure. Actually Chris messed him up so bad he couldn't take human form so in a sense the form he takes in HoD is no different then the form he is in prior to Belmont's Revenge. So with that said he physically manifested and thus after his death would not have been able to ressurect without some help until 1848 which does occur when Shaft prematurely awakens him in RoB.

As for Curse of Darkness though Dracula only was called back through Isaac's body he still returned and was actually physically present. I have yet to read anything official stating that was the reason that he didn't return a 100 years later on the appropriate date but have only heard that speculation by fans. Im sure that could be the reason it does make sense (kind of...) but konami and IGA have yet to come out and say "Yes Dracula can only return a 100 years later when he is defeated but if possess another body and physically manifests then that whole 100 year thing doesn't apply."

It just seems like a way to suck more money out of Castlevania and delute the timeline with less than stellar games when he could've focused on creating a more visually stunning game with better graphics and better playability that also related to the story of Dracula's Curse and actually went into detail about Dracula's rebirth cycle since that would've been the first time the count had to go into a 100 years slumber.

[Lumas]

Also another thing, IGA removed Legends because he stated that it contradicted his timeline. Now the game takes place in 1450 Dracula (mathias) has already been around for quite some time now. Dracula's Curse takes place in 1476 Trevor would have been around the age of 19 or 20 when this occured placing his birth 1456-1457 seven years after the events of Legends. So a sense the game couldve been worked in given the new history of Dracula via lament of innocence. Alucard would also been very much alive since his birth was around 1397 (assuming they didn't change his birth to suit Dracula's new age) Sonia wouldve been 17 placing her birth around 1433.

The only thing the game contradicted was her being the first Belmont to kill Dracula and IGA's distaste for the game which I think is unreasonable since he couldn't come out with a decent 3D game. Also the game states that her child would carry the bloodline in dark ways hinting that Alucard would be Trevor's father. Which would be a twist but I can see how many people would dislike this though it could easilly be reinturperted as something else given Alucard would've most likely went into hiding after he was defeated by Sonia thus not being around to knock her up and could've provided yet another tragic love story.

EDIT Also it would contradict the 100 rebirth cycle but IGA obviously likes to neglect this anyway so it wouldn't matter, course IGA is also good at changing information too (Changing Dracula's age and origin for example) so he could also state Dracula managed to survive his fight with Sonia in the same fashion he survived his fight with Christopher in Adventure.

[DragonSlayr81]

Well, about Dracula's age, it was changed BEFORE IGA, actually. It was Rondo of Blood where they stated that Dracula was 800 years old. IGA just decided to roll with that because SotN was the sequel to it(hence Dracula in SotN would be around the same age as he was in RoB). IGA said that LoI was to address why Dracula was that old, but I've always seen that as him covering up for someone else's work. Clearly, from RoB and on, Dracula in the CV series wasn't the same Dracula as portrayed in other lores. Though, I can be content with the CV spin on him. I mean, it's like Marvel's spin on Dracula, which might be different than other lore.

[Lumas]

Well, about Dracula's age, it was changed BEFORE IGA, actually. It was Rondo of Blood where they stated that Dracula was 800 years old. IGA just decided to roll with that because SotN was the sequel to it(hence Dracula in SotN would be around the same age as he was in RoB). IGA said that LoI was to address why Dracula was that old, but I've always seen that as him covering up for someone else's work. Clearly, from RoB and on, Dracula in the CV series wasn't the same Dracula as portrayed in other lores. Though, I can be content with the CV spin on him. I mean, it's like Marvel's spin on Dracula, which might be different than other lore.

Yeah IGA got dealt a bad hand there, if they had left his age alone in RoB then the timeline might be very different now. I have to say I agree, though I dont really like Dracula being a different person I can be content with it now just because it seperates him from Bram's Novel and gives him his own time line and lore.

[Lumas]

Though keep this in mind since Rondo's age clearly isn't consitant with Lament's origin of Dracula and the fact IGA did not state Dracula's age in the manual for The Dracula X Chronicles (it states richter's and maria) and in the section for Symphony of the Night, the 800 year has probably been removed and replaced to suit Lament.

[DragonSlayr81]

About the Dracula being a different person, I agree. The only reason, I can think, of IGA making him a different person is that it was for the sake of mystery within LoI. Y'know, to have the player guess who becomes Dracula(because nobody in that game was named Vlad Tepes). But, it didn't really work that good as a mystery, because it was something you could see a mile away. IGA should've just called Mathias "Vlad", and drop the mystery angle, focus on Leon and Dracula's friendship, which, during the betrayal, it would've had a greater impact.

As for Dracula's age, I think it wasn't mentioned in DXC because IGA's trying to remove the traces of the timeline that might muddle other installments. In RoB and SotN, it was estimated that he was 800 years old. That would mean he would be 100 years OLDER than Mathias. It's evident that IGA is straying from the timeline, especially with OoE, where he said it takes place "sometime in the 1800s", probably to cover his butt and not have it bump with other events in the "phantom timeline".

[Nagumo]

Also another thing, IGA removed Legends because he stated that it contradicted his timeline. Now the game takes place in 1450 Dracula (mathias) has already been around for quite some time now. Dracula's Curse takes place in 1476 Trevor would have been around the age of 19 or 20 when this occured placing his birth 1456-1457 seven years after the events of Legends. So a sense the game couldve been worked in given the new history of Dracula via lament of innocence. Alucard would also been very much alive since his birth was around 1397 (assuming they didn't change his birth to suit Dracula's new age) Sonia wouldve been 17 placing her birth around 1433.

The only thing the game contradicted was her being the first Belmont to kill Dracula and IGA's distaste for the game which I think is unreasonable since he couldn't come out with a decent 3D game. Also the game states that her child would carry the bloodline in dark ways hinting that Alucard would be Trevor's father. Which would be a twist but I can see how many people would dislike this though it could easilly be reinturperted as something else given Alucard would've most likely went into hiding after he was defeated by Sonia thus not being around to knock her up and could've provided yet another tragic love story.

EDIT Also it would contradict the 100 rebirth cycle but IGA obviously likes to neglect this anyway so it wouldn't matter, course IGA is also good at changing information too (Changing Dracula's age and origin for example) so he could also state Dracula managed to survive his fight with Sonia in the same fashion he survived his fight with Christopher in Adventure.

I think I love you.

To me, you seem like someone who actually thinks through instead of immediately shouting that Legends heavily contradicts with Dracula's Curse and that it could never fit within the timeline. Legends' story could work just fine with a few things being cleared up here and there.       

[Jayfeather]

Actually the backgrounds of weapons and characters if you noticed were cannon the event of all of the characters coming across the time rift and over all story of Judgement was not cannon due to the fact they all "forgot" what had happened.

I sure hope that the Grant presented in Judgement is not cannon, I hate what that game did with him.

[darkwzrd4]

I think I love you.

To me, you seem like someone who actually thinks through instead of immediately shouting that Legends heavily contradicts with Dracula's Curse and that it could never fit within the timeline. Legends' story could work just fine with a few things being cleared up here and there.       

I agree that Legends' story can work, if some things are cleared up.  It would at least explain why the Belmonts are the "strongest" vampire hunters.