Topic: The 100 year rule

[Lumas]

As we know it was established since the start that Dracula could only return after 100 years after being defeated/killed/Blade stabbed him repeatively (ok that last part was a podcast joke) Now the question I have for you is this, do you think establishing that rule was a mistake due to the fact it would eventually run out of room to place games?

Obviously this rule has been ignore since Simon's Quest though they gave a valid reason for that game as well as Belmont's Revenge (since he didn't die in Adventure) . Here is what we know about the rebirth cycle pre SotN (meaning all games created)

1476 Dracula's Curse
1576 The Adventure
1591 Belmont's Revenge
1691 Castlevania
1698 Simon's Quest
1792 Dracula X/Rondo of Blood (awakened prematurely by Shaft as stated)
1892 Dracula is reborn unchallenged and plots to invade England
1897 Quincy stops Dracula/Bram's Novel
1917 Bloodlines (again prematurely awakened by Countess Bartley)

Now had Rondo of Blood not stated Dracula's age to be over 800 years old ( I dont know if the American version meaning Dracula X actually stated it) the timeline would have flowed consistantly though left little room for other games to be involved in medeval times thus making it difficult to continue the story in its natural medeval setting.

Now lets go over every time the 100 year rule has been broken with all the games. Belmonts revenge doesn't count because Dracula was not dead.

Curse of Darkness (1479)
Simon's Quest (1498)
Harmony of Dissonance (1748)
Dracula X/Rondo of Blood (1972)
Symphony of the Night (1797)
Circle of the Moon (1830)
Legacy of Darkness (1844)
Castlevania 64 (1852)
Order of Ecclesia (Mid 1800s)
Bloodlines (1917)
Portrait of Ruin (1944)

Now IGA broke this rule 5 times and other developers broke it 6 times. Thats a total of it being broken 11 times out of 18 cannon games (as of 2006's timeline and Order of Ecclesia added) meaning it was broken over 50% of the time. Though I believe them to have good reason personally because they wanted to make more games since Castlevania became a hit and a beloved series.

What do you think? Should the 100 year rule be kept and honored since it has been around since the start or do you think it has been holding the series back? Did the creators make a mistake in placing that rule upon the series?

Also this isn't a debate about IGA screwing up or some of the games not being cannon or the reason why the 100 year rule was allowed to be broken most of the games give a reason to why yes I know but I want to know if you think the 100 year rule is good or bad for the series.

[Munchy]

They could break or reuse this rule a hundred times and I'd still buy the games no problem.

[The Silverlord]

They could break or reuse this rule a hundred times and I'd still buy the games no problem.

Same here.

[Ahasverus]

The rule is stupid clearly stupid, but more stupid are the circumstances surrounding every Dracula's resurrection. God bless the reboot 

However, I would like to have a reboot with the old characters (Simon, Trevor ,Richter, Alucard...)

[Kale]

The rule is stupid clearly stupid, but more stupid are the circumstances surrounding every Dracula's resurrection. God bless the reboot 

However, I would like to have a reboot with the old characters (Simon, Trevor ,Richter, Alucard...)

I totally agree... I like teh characters stated, but some of the things in the storyline was just ugh.

[ReeBob]

I do think that the 100 year rule has kind of tied the hands of the game developers.  Strict adherence to it would have moved the games too far into the future before long (CastleVania VIII: Dracula in Space!!!).  The only other option, the one they selected, is repeatedly breaking the rule, coming up with more and more justifications for his early resurrection each time.  It was a lose-lose situation.  People would either complain that the early resurrections were getting tiresome, or they would complain that later installments were too sci-fi.  The word "MetroidVania" would have taken on a whole new meaning.      

So yes, I think the 100-year rule was a bad thing.  I agree with Ahasverus.  Bring on the reboot, but give us a reboot with the classic characters.

[Jayfeather]

Is it a "fact" with in the fictional world of Castlevania, or, Like many things in the real world, a rumor or legend?  Why can't we just say, a legend is some times just that, It would seem that history has actually proved it in this case.

[Nagumo]

Well, first I like to point out that the 100 year rule was never a rule in the first place. In Super Castlevania IV, it was stated that the legend was just that: a legend. Now, I also remember an interview with IGA (from the offical Dawn of Sorrow guide) in which he explained that Dracula could only return after mankind was losing their faith. Only then he could be revived, which also explains why Dracula is not always revived on the hundred year mark.

The actual rule should be like this:

Once every hundred years, the minds of men are consumed by darkness when they lose their faith in God. They seek to revive Dracula and are able to do so with a simple human sacrifice. Only then, Dracula is completely ressurected and at full power.            

I think it's more a case of people not understanding rather then bad story telling.

Dracula's ressurection cycle should be like this:

1476
1576
1691
1792
1897
1999                      

[MantapusProductions]

i think dracula comes back every 100 years so that no generation forgets how tough the belmonts are.  right about the time they would be fading from memory another one pops up and kills the lord of evil with a whip and some tire irons.

[Lumas]

Finally some interesting opinions!

[darkwzrd4]

I think the rule was stupid from the beginning.  Sure, it may have worked at first, but anyone with a brain can see that making such a rule would be problematic eventually.  I say remake some of the older games with some modifications to the story of them that can get rid of some of the plot-holes.

[MantapusProductions]

my only real problem with it is the fact that when they make a new game it HAS to be set either 100 years in the past or future..which means it HAS to have a new batch of characters.

i perfer getting a couple games with the same core of characters to get to know them better, so i much perfer something that gives the story more elbow room..id rather have simon 3 or 4 times in a row than get introduced to a new belmont every game..especially since the belmonts are generally just simon but with differnt colored hair and a new trick.

[Ahasverus]

I would killfor a spin-off series showing us the secret agent years of Arikado hiding from the cults and recovering for Maria's death and all those things. I'm not talking about a typical CV game, I'm talking about, for example, a spy themed game, or whatever, with Arikado, when we could know more about his hiding life and how good agent he was  Things like that could make the plot far better, but I'm almost sure that the timeline is too much screwed up, too much to correct it without sacrifices (I'm looking at you, HOD, OOE, POR, COD, ypu must to be deleted and replaced for good )

[X]

The hundred year rule I think was more for story purposes then anything else. If they had to live by that rule but wanted to make more CV games then why not make a bunch of remakes like they did with the original castlevania? I mean there's Castlevania (NES), Haunted castle (arcade), Vampirekiller (MSX), Akumajou Dracula aka Castlevania chronicles (X68000, PSX) and Super Castlevania IV (SNES). All good games in my opinion and all fun to play even though some are more harder then others. I suppose that the SNES version of Dracula X was in that same category; a remake for a different plateform despite the fact that we felt ripped off for not getting the original RoB game the first time. 

-X   

[ReeBob]

Is it a "fact" with in the fictional world of Castlevania, or, Like many things in the real world, a rumor or legend?  Why can't we just say, a legend is some times just that, It would seem that history has actually proved it in this case.

Brilliant way to look at it.  I really hadn't thought about it that way before.