Topic: The 100 year rule

[Nagumo]

You keep ignoring that the Japanese timeline refers to the Dracula Wraith as "false Dracula" silly Succy.   

[X]

Actually WWII started with the invasion of Poland in December of 1939. But the Nazi party was well in existence since the early 1930's, possibly before that decade even. I'd have to research it to find out. In terms of starting the war Braunar had nothing to do with it. That was all Adolf Hitler (you know how Dark entities or Anti-Christs are). But Braunar would've used the souls of the suffering and hatred to summon up Castlevania.

I've just finished my looking into since my last night's post reply. The Nazi party had been around since the early 1920's. Before they became the Nazi party they were a secret society called the Vril Society. Hitler had joined them and transformed them almost overnight. In fact the Nazi symbol, the Swastika is taken from the Vril society itself.

Whew! That's a lot of work 

-X

[Lumas]

It should be very clear that premature resurrections (like Simon's Quest) aren't what are followed concerning Dracula's 100 year slumber. Dracula was also resurrected in 1748 (Harmony of Dissonance), but he awakens in 1792 (roughly 100 years since his full resurrection in which he was killed by Simon).

Ive yet to read anything official stating otherwise, though if there is something that officially states that premature resurrections don't interfere with his 100 year slumber, then I will be inclined to agree. So until then I'm going to file that under "fan speculation." On the same hand according to Nagumo the 100 year thing doesn't even matter, Dracula can be resurrected when people turned toward the darkness or he is resurrected by some other means so in a sense you would be correct but with IGA saying in 2007 that there is a 100 year rule even though it makes more sense that what he said in 2005 about Dracula not needing to revive every 100 years. So until IGA comes out with a new time line or other supplemental reading source explaining these occurrences or who ever is head of the main time line now does we simply do not know and can only speculate because something could come out in the future that could throw something else into the mix. Like say for instance St. Germain's Super Railroad Tycoon Adventures in Time....

You keep ignoring that the Japanese timeline refers to the Dracula Wraith as "false Dracula" silly Succy.  

Again they also call Trevor Belmont Ralph Belmondo in the official story in Japan but I'm still gonna call him Trevor Belmont as Im sure a lot of other people will too here in America. Silly Japanese with their tiny fingers.

[Lumas]

Actually WWII started with the invasion of Poland in December of 1939. But the Nazi party was well in existence since the early 1930's, possibly before that decade even. I'd have to research it to find out. In terms of starting the war Braunar had nothing to do with it. That was all Adolf Hitler (you know how Dark entities or Anti-Christs are). But Braunar would've used the souls of the suffering and hatred to summon up Castlevania.

I've just finished my looking into since my last night's post reply. The Nazi party had been around since the early 1920's. Before they became the Nazi party they were a secret society called the Vril Society. Hitler had joined them and transformed them almost overnight. In fact the Nazi symbol, the Swastika is taken from the Vril society itself.

Whew! That's a lot of work 

-X

Hey awesome history lesson, totally didn't know that. Thanks man.

[Lumas]

There is some speculation that Dracula from Simon's Quest was just a wraith and not his true self, just like in Harmony. Something that support this the Japanese storyline; Dracula put a curse on Simon and wouldn't get resurrected until he died. Obviously, Simon didn't die and I don't think he revived Dracula either. I think that when all the remains of Dracula's body were brought together, an evil spirit (which should be the Dracula Wraith) was born. I believe that's also how the Wraith from Harmony was created.

This might as well be speculation but I think this is the only explanation that makes sense.  

Oh, and premature ressurections don't effect Dracula's ressurection cycle by the way. Although I admit that if the Dracula from Simon's Quest was the real Dracula then you were right that he would have been revived in 1798 because Rondo states that it has been 100 years since his last revival, premature or otherwise.

I hope I don't sound confusing as hell.                                            

Actually it never officially stated that Dracula appeared in his wraith form and there was no speculation about it at the time of its release (least not with me or anyone else I know thats played the game). The curse placed on Simon was a ploy set up by Dracula to gather his scatter remains and burn them to lift the curse. However Simon did not know that the sixth piece would resurrect Dracula. A simple trick Dracula used to prematurely revive himself in order to go another round with Simon and try to get revenge for his defeat and thus attempt to take over the world. He however did not realize the quality of badass Simon was and thus was defeated again. It was either be eaten away by the curse thus killing Simon or he would be revive so he could kill Simon himself either way Dracula could have won. And since it never stated Simon had any children it possibly (in my own opinion) eliminated the Belmont Blood line and HoD was not released. So yes that was the real Dracula and nothing ever stated it was a wraith or this "false" Dracula the japanese speak of. So his revival should have been in 1798 since there has been nothing, especially at that time, officially stated about premature revivals and their effect on his 100 year revival . Of course at the time of Simon's Quest there was no 100 year revival because it was not introduced, but before Rondo given the years of his previous resurrections 1576 hundred years after 1476 and because he did not die until 1591 he returned in 1691. But if his premature revival in Simon's Quest didn't factor into the 100 years thing the date for Rondo would be correct since it didn't state how long Dracula had been active but if it did then only 94 years would have passed and the game's time setting would be off by six years. EDIT Since IGA stated in 2007, the most recent interview on the topic of his 100 year revival even though it makes more sense what he said in 2005, he has lead us to believe there in fact a 100 year rule since no other cannon games have been released to challenge it.

Course thats my opinion on Simon's Quest.

Also might have not pointed out some other info i added to that.

[darkwzrd4]

Actually it never officially stated that Dracula appeared in his wraith form and there was no speculation about it at the time of its release (least not with me or anyone else I know thats played the game). The curse placed on Simon was a ploy set up by Dracula to gather his scatter remains and burn them to lift the curse. However Simon did not know that the sixth piece would resurrect Dracula. A simple trick Dracula used to prematurely revive himself in order to go another round with Simon and try to get revenge for his defeat and thus attempt to take over the world. He however did not realize the quality of badass Simon was and thus was defeated again. It was either be eaten away by the curse thus killing Simon or he would be revive so he could kill Simon himself either way Dracula could have won. And since it never stated Simon had any children it possibly (in my own opinion) eliminated the Belmont Blood line and HoD was not released. So yes that was the real Dracula and nothing ever stated it was a wraith or this "false" Dracula the japanese speak of. So his revival should have been in 1798 since there has been nothing, especially at that time, officially stated about premature revivals. Of course at the time of Simon's Quest there was no 100 year revival and their effect on his 100 year revival because it was not introduced, but before Rondo given the years of his previous resurrections 1576 hundred years after 1476 and because he did not die until 1591 he returned in 1691. But if his premature revival in Simon's Quest didn't factor into the 100 years thing the date for Rondo would be correct since it didn't state how long Dracula had been active but if it did then only 94 years would have passed and the game's time setting would be off by six years.

Course thats my opinion on Simon's Quest.

Ok, I'll give you that, but that wasn't Dracula in HoD.

[Lumas]

Ok, I'll give you that, but that wasn't Dracula in HoD.

Then we can agree on that.

[Lumas]

That's really not entirely certain, but since he looked like Dracula, dressed like Dracula, fought like Dracula, and was called the Dracula Wraith, and the castles crumble when he dies, for the sake of the discussion (and also since he uses that logic above when mentioning Simon's Quest), I'm going to assume he was Dracula.

Also wizard is absolutely right about Dracula in HoD not being Dracula.

The Dracula Wraith is a being born of Dracula Remains and the evil soul that was created inside of Maxim Kischine after he came in contact with the remains. He is the final hidden boss of the game Castlevania: Harmony of Dissonance. He is not actually Dracula himself (he indicates that he has never felt the power of a Belmont before).

He was born of Maxim's soul and thus would have knowledge of Simons Quest since Maxim would no doubt know of Simon's stories from his best friend Juste and legends about him. He become the worlds most famous vampire hunter after all.

So yes he is a "false" Dracula but the real Dracula appears as indicated in the official time line explanation of Simon's Quest because there would have been no evil spirit (simon was by himself) to create the same being that Maxim created though he was in a weakened state and lacked the power to defeat Simon.

So wizard yes I can agree with what you have stated and in a way Maxim was kinda the first Dark Lord candidate.

[darkwzrd4]

Also wizard is absolutely right about Dracula in HoD not being Dracula.

The Dracula Wraith is a being born of Dracula Remains and the evil soul that was created inside of Maxim Kischine after he came in contact with the remains. He is the final hidden boss of the game Castlevania: Harmony of Dissonance. He is not actually Dracula himself (he indicates that he has never felt the power of a Belmont before).

He was born of Maxim's soul and thus would have knowledge of Simons Quest since Maxim would no doubt know of Simon's stories from his best friend Juste and legends about him. He become the worlds most famous vampire hunter after all.

So yes he is a "false" Dracula but the real Dracula appears as indicated in the official time line explanation of Simon's Quest because there would have been no evil spirit (simon was by himself) to create the same being that Maxim created though he was in a weakened state and lacked the power to defeat Simon.

So wizard yes I can agree with what you have stated and in a way Maxim was kinda the first Dark Lord candidate.

I wouldn't really say that he was the first candidate.  It's not like he wanted to become the dark lord.  He just a little jealous of Juste and wanted to try and relieve Juste of his fate by collecting and destroying Dracula's physical remains.  The fact is that the possession of the remains and the fact that he was sort of jealous of Juste gave rise to that evil spirit.  So, you could say that Maxim was a victim of himself.  You could also say that he was a victim of circumstance.

[Lumas]

Hence why I used the qualifier "kinda"

[Lumas]

Which interesting enough Nagumo stated that HoD and AoS in japan are still refered to as Castlevania and not Akumajou Dracula. Both games Dracula isn't present but his influence is. Now what happened to Maxim could have been a precursor to the Dark Lord Candidate idea in AoS. Though not an actual Dark Lord Candidate (which mind I think is the lamest name) kinda like how the Black Ninja from metal gear 2 solid snake was sort of a precursor to the Cyborg Ninja (Gray Fox) in MGS.

Course thats just an idea..

[Nagumo]

Well, if premature ressurections would effect Dracula's cycle of revivels, the 100 year rule wouldn't apply in the first place. Your kind off contradicting yourself their Lumas.         

[Lumas]

Well, if premature ressurections would effect Dracula's cycle of revivels, the 100 year rule wouldn't apply in the first place. Your kind off contradicting yourself their Lumas.         

How would it not apply in the first place if they do effect it? By stating that they would effect the cycle of revivals you are implying that the rule is in place because if it wasn't in place then there would be nothing to effect thus premature resurrections wouldn't matter to begin with.

Also try to keep this grown up, trying to get me heated will get you no where and continuing this argument is becoming a waste of time.

So lets agree to disagree and move on, which I have tried to maturely ask for in previous posts and you have ignored and continued to pursue this argument because you feel the need to try and be right even though I have tried to praise you in other posts. You have taken it upon yourself to endlessly and needlessly take this topic and move it in a different direction then it was first intended. It is partly my fault that I even continued this argument and I'm sorry to everyone that it actually got this far and by that I mean 3 or so pages. You obviously have your way of thinking and I have my own so lets leave it at that. Im done with this conversation with you Nagumo, if you try to pursue it you only be met with me ignoring you. Try to be grown up and agree to disagree so we can move on.

If it helps I'll rephrase the question that was presented earlier.

If there is a 100 year rule do you think it is good for the series because it has been there or otherwise implied by previous games or do think it hinders the series due to lack of placement future games thus complicating the story?

In simpler terms do you think that if there is a 100 year rule is it good for the series or bad for it?

If that helps then answer.

If not then save what time it takes for you to type a response to it and find another topic that interests you.

[Successor The Cruel]

Ive yet to read anything official stating otherwise, though if there is something that officially states that premature resurrections don't interfere with his 100 year slumber, then I will be inclined to agree. So until then I'm going to file that under "fan speculation."

All you have to do is look at the timeline.

Dracula was killed in 1476. He was also killed in 1479, yet he woke up in 1576. Dracula survived his first encounter with Christopher and was killed in 1591. He woke up in 1691. He was brought back with the remains in 1698 and 1748 and killed each time (and no, I'm not going into wishy washy arguments over whether or not that was Real Dracula), yet he woke up in 1792. Dracula was brought back in the early to mid 1800s in Order of Ecclesia, yet he woke up in 1897. He was brought back in 1917 and 1944, yet he wakes up in 1999.

Now, the only thing (and it's pretty minute) that lends some credence to the premature resurrections interfering with his regular 100 year slumber is Symphony of the Night and Bram Stoker's Dracula. Symphony of the Night = 1797, Stoker's novel = 1897. However, Rondo = 1792, so the difference isn't great enough to be convincing considering everything else I just mentioned, at least not to me.

[Lumas]

All you have to do is look at the timeline.

Dracula was killed in 1476. He was also killed in 1479, yet he woke up in 1576. Dracula survived his first encounter with Christopher and was killed in 1591. He woke up in 1691. He was brought back with the remains in 1698 and 1748 and killed each time (and no, I'm not going into wishy washy arguments over whether or not that was Real Dracula), yet he woke up in 1792. Dracula was brought back in the early to mid 1800s in Order of Ecclesia, yet he woke up in 1897. He was brought back in 1917 and 1944, yet he wakes up in 1999.

Now, the only thing (and it's pretty minute) that lends some credence to the premature resurrections interfering with his regular 100 year slumber is Symphony of the Night and Bram Stoker's Dracula. Symphony of the Night = 1797, Stoker's novel = 1897. However, Rondo = 1792, so the difference isn't great enough to be convincing considering everything else I just mentioned, at least not to me.

Please return to the topic at hand by answering the presented question and giving your reason. This is not a topic to discuss the time line because that wasn't the question presented. Thats grand you think that way, really is but it is not the topic of discussion. If you cannot do that then please find another topic that interests you and post there.