Topic: The 100 year rule

[Lumas]

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                      

A quote from an interview with IGA

How tied are you to the 100 years between episodes? Do you think you could do a Castlevania without Dracula?

KI: The 100-year rule is... I started as a producer on Symphony of the Night, so it's not a rule I created. It was something that was already there. I know there's a rule there, and I can't really break it, but I kind of deviated a little bit.

If you look at this new Castlevania, Dracula X, it's two games within seven years of each other. I do it that way. There are rules, even though he revives every 100 years. There's some half-revival things that happen. It's a very difficult question you posed. In America, it's Castlevania, so I suppose you can do that, but in Japan, it's called Akumajou Dracula, so it would be kind of weird to not have Dracula in there.

So I am sorry according to IGA it is a rule.

[Nagumo]

I'm not claiming that I'm right or something but that quote seems to condradict with what IGA later said.

http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv-dos/packaging/dosusg-248-249.jpg

Check it out, the question at the bottom.

"I have to let you know, he (Dracula) doesn't revamp every 100 years. It's said in the myth "every 100 years when the faith in God is forgotten" so I consider the faith is God the most important part."           

Do you know how old that interview is in which he said that? Maybe he changed his mind about it.     

[Lumas]

I'm not claiming that I'm right or something but that quote seems to condradict with what IGA later said.

http://www.vgmuseum.com/mrp/cv-dos/packaging/dosusg-248-249.jpg

Check it out, the question at the bottom.

Do you know how old that interview is in which he said that? Maybe he changed his mind about it.     

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=16730

it was state in December of 2007

[Lumas]

Also can't quite seem to find what you posted. Please try a different method.

[Nagumo]

Direct quote:

"I have to let you know, he (Dracula) doesn't revamp every 100 years. It's said in the myth "every 100 years when the faith in God is forgotten" so I consider the faith is God the most important part."           

[Lumas]

Direct quote:

Thank you but since he stated that in 05 he must've had a change of heart and thus retconned that statement in 2007 with that interview. Either that or he doesn't know what he is talking about.

[Lumas]

Thank you but since he stated that in 05 he must've had a change of heart and thus retconned that statement with that interview that took place in 07. Either that or he doesn't know what he is talking about.

is what I meant to put, i hate having dyslexia

[Nagumo]

Thank you but since he stated that in 05 he must've had a change of heart and thus retconned that statement in 2007 with that interview. Either that or he doesn't know what he is talking about.

...why?

I absolutely fail to see the logic in that.       

[Lumas]

...why?

I absolutely fail to see the logic in that.       

How can you not see the logic in that?

2005 he states its not a rule

2007 comes back states that it is a rule

Obviously he made a mistake by stating in 2005 and remedied that in 2007 by stating it was a rule that had been in place before he came on with Symphony of the Night. Either that or he was mistranslated in one of the interviews or he just changes things as he goes or maybe he was drunk I dont know.

The point of this thread is too see if the 100 year rebirth cycle is good or bad there is no need in trying and debunk it. All you have to do is say whether you like it or you do not like and then give a reason to why. It wasn't a debate about IGA screwing up, or how premature rebirths work or if its a legend thus it could probably not be that he revives every hundred years or anything like that. Just a simple  Yes I think it works because......or a simple no I dont like because.......or how silverlord and muchy so boringly put It doesn't matter to me because..... Its not hard people try not to over think it.

[Nagumo]

I don't see the logic behind it because his statement doesn't make sense. The 100 year rule was first introduced and only spoken off in Castlevania IV if I remember correctly. The game only mentioned that it was a legend, so IGA doesn't have to take this rule into account. Not to mention that IGA's explanation from 2005 makes a lot of sense and works perfectly.                 

[Lumas]

I don't see the logic behind it because his statement doesn't make sense. The 100 years was first introduced and only spoken off in Castlevania IV if I remember correctly. The game only mentioned that it was a legend, so IGA doesn't has to take this rule into account. Not to mention that IGA's explanation from 2005 makes a lot of sense and works perfectly.                  

Obviously he did in 2007 when he was quoted in that statement.

"The 100-year rule is...  I started as a producer on Symphony of the Night, so it's not a rule I created. It was something that was already there. I know there's a rule there, and I can't really break it, but I kind of deviated a little bit."

How can you not understand this sentence??

Im sorry if I'm coming off rude but I dont understand how you cannot understand a sentence clearly stating he did not make that rule and that particular rule has been there longer then him and that he acknowledges there is a rule.

And obviously you missed the point of my last post so ill paste it here

The point of this thread is too see if the 100 year rebirth cycle is good or bad there is no need in trying and debunk it. All you have to do is say whether you like it or you do not like and then give a reason to why. It wasn't a debate about IGA screwing up, or how premature rebirths work or if its a legend thus it could probably not be that he revives every hundred years or anything like that. Just a simple  Yes I think it works because......or a simple no I dont like because.......or how silverlord and muchy so boringly put It doesn't matter to me because..... Its not hard people try not to over think it.

So now back on topic.

[Nagumo]

I understand your setence, it just never said that the 100 year rule was an actual rule. Never.  It's not a plot hole.   

[Lumas]

I understand your setence, it just never said that the 100 year rule was an actual rule. Never.  It's not a plot hole.  

*Face palm* okay lets try this one last time

IGA, obviously the former lead (or current that hasn't be released) on Castlevania, stated that there was an actual 100 year rule and that he acknowledges that said rule when asked the question how tied he was to that.

1691: first game in the series (1986)

1698: second game in the series (1988)

1576: though not stated in the manual by the use of math the sequel would confirm the year this happened (1989)

1476: Fourth game in the series (1990)

Super Castlevania 4: remake of the first entry of series stating the legend of the 100 year revival (1991)

1591: sixth entry in the series confirming the hero in The Adventure to be Christopher and that he had not killed Dracula goes and kills Dracula setting up his rebirth to be a 100 years later falling on 1691 the events of CV (1991)

So I think it was a rule being since they released super castlevania 4 as a remake (though in america it was hinted to be a new adventure) explaining why Dracula appeared 100 years prior, stating the legend as said rule. Also all those games came out before 92 before there was NOT a lot of media on video games and press releases that could very state such a rule video game developers didn't get many interviews back then.

But again not the point of this thread nagumo. Read the first post and if it helps you cope pretend there is a rule. Im not explaining this any further. EDIT also I dont know where you got a plothole from? No one suggested it. "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?" was the question present nothing about plotholes was mentioned.

Now back on topic

100 year rebirth cycle good for the series?
100 year rebirth cycle bad  for the series?
Or do you just not care?

[Nagumo]

*Face palm* okay lets try this one last time

IGA, obviously the former lead (or current that hasn't be released) on Castlevania, stated that there was an actual 100 year rule and that he acknowledges that said rule when asked the question how tied he was to that.

Hmm, I think I misunderstood you. Though, what kind off 100 year rule are you talking about? Do you mean that Dracula can only be revived ONCE every century or that he only can revived COMPLETELY every century? If it's the latter I understand where my confusion lays. *reads  everything over again* I think, I understand now. I don't think Igarashi condradicted himself, I think rule works like this: Once every century, Dracula can completely revived because of that whole people losing their faith issue (which isn't necessarily exactly after hundred years after his last complete revival'. All those premature ressurections result in Dracula being only half revived, as noted by IGA. So, in a way, it's true that Dracula can be revived only once every century (I think only a full ressurection can be counted as a real one). I think only the 100 year thing is part of the supposed legend since it could also be 101 years (Rondo) or 105 years (Stoker novel) for Dracula to completely return. If that was what you were trying to say, then I apologise for not realising it any sooner. If not, I hope this at least made a little sense to you.   

 

[Lumas]

I think only the 100 year thing is part of the supposed legend since it could also be 101 years (Rondo) or 105 years (Stoker novel) for Dracula to completely return. If that was what you were trying to say, then I apologise for not realising it any sooner. If not, I hope this at least made a little sense to you.   

 

Actually....no... in Rondo he was  prematurely awakened by Shaft in 1792 when he shouldve be revived in 1798 also in Bloodlines he was awakened prematurely by Countess Bartley due to the first world war. Both games coming out before SotN which meant at the time SotN could not be factored in with Bloodlines thus since Richter killed him in 1792 he would have revived in 1892 and be finally put the rest in Stoker's Novel in 1897 setting up the premature awakening in Bloodlines.

But it doesn't matter, its cool, lets just move on with the topic.