Topic: The 100 year rule

[Ahasverus]

More does not always = better. If they wake Dracula up every other week/month/year/ just for the sake of making more Castlevania games, the story and mythology of Castlevania, and the character of Count Dracula, would be cheapened to deplorable levels.

Even more?.. Mmmm I don't think so. Yeah, I0m not talking about Dracula everyweek, but without the rule, we wouldn't bother about a 10 years or 20 years resurrection (Obviously, if they were with a good reason, not for the sake of Dracula -I'm looking at you COD, and POR)

[crisis]

More does not always = better. If they wake Dracula up every other week/month/year/ just for the sake of making more Castlevania games, the story and mythology of Castlevania, and the character of Count Dracula, would be cheapened to deplorable levels. What they actually need to realize (and they... sort of did with the Sorrow games and somewhat Lament if you bend things) is that it is possible to have a Castlevania game without Count Dracula physically present, yet still keep him a focal point of the game's events

The best post in this entire thread.

[darkwzrd4]

The best post in this entire thread.

It's true.  We don't need Dracula for a successful CV game.  As long as we have the elements, the castle, and everything else that makes a good CV, then we don't need Dracula.  Fighting him isn't the whole series and it can't last forever.  Dracula in this series is essentially evil incarnate, but he can be replaced.  As we can see in DoS, the cult is trying to create a new Dark Lord and if they succeeded, it would be fine.  We would just have a new evil to fight.

[Lumas]

It's true.  We don't need Dracula for a successful CV game.  As long as we have the elements, the castle, and everything else that makes a good CV, then we don't need Dracula.  Fighting him isn't the whole series and it can't last forever.  Dracula in this series is essentially evil incarnate, but he can be replaced.  As we can see in DoS, the cult is trying to create a new Dark Lord and if they succeeded, it would be fine.  We would just have a new evil to fight.

Ive yet to see a good successful Castlevania that broke ground with out Dracula. DoS did good with reviewers (Personally I consider it one of the worse in the series) but not every gamer is going to associate Castlevania with out Dracula until a game that really makes a commercial impact like GoW (for example since everyone is comparing LoS to it)  comes out. DoS, AoS, and every other game that came out that really didn't have Dracula in it didn't really make an impact on the over all gaming world. More gamers (not just cv fans) will associate Castlevania as Dracula's Castle.

[Successor The Cruel]

I really don't believe the success of the series is dependent much at all on whether or not Count Dracula physically shows up in some games. I think it has more to do with how good the games are and how well they're marketed, and perhaps just being the right thing at the right time.

Even more?.. Mmmm I don't think so.

Man, would you cool it with these "Iga killed Castlevania" quips or tirades? I don't think it's prudent nor necessary to remind us how you feel nearly every post, especially when you shoe horn it in near entirely unrelated discussions. It just makes you seem obsessively vindictive.

[Ahasverus]

Yes, peghaps, sorry about that, but I'm kind of radical about my position against IGA. I'll try to leave it out for the most part

[Lumas]

I really don't believe the success of the series is dependent much at all on whether or not Count Dracula physically shows up in some games. I think it has more to do with how good the games are and how well they're marketed, and perhaps just being the right thing at the right time.

I do agree, what I was trying to get at was this. DoS was a poor example on how the series could move on without Dracula. Its kind of unfair to say that Castlevania, a game known for having Dracula as it's main villian, could move on without him with a less then stellar game that catered only to fans of the series. Now if they released a ground breaking game that was successful, not because Dracula wasn't in it, but because it contained everything you stated then the overall gaming community could see how the series could move on rather then when they think Castlevania they automatically think Dracula. LoS might be the game to do this but I'm still betting on Dracula being in it. It would be nice to explore other vampiric villians other then Dracula as Lament proved there are other vampire lords in the world. It could possibly open a new door for the series and thus give the Belmonts the true title of vampire hunters when obviously they are just the worlds defense against Dracula.

[Lumas]

Basically what I'm trying to get at is that they need a game that proves that the series can move on with out Dracula. Not only to fans but to other gamers so that the series can seperate itself from Castlevania=Dracula as the main villian. If a game came out and was a smash hit and the villian was oh lets say Baron Meinster (without having Drac appear in some way) from the Dracula movies (Brides of Dracula I think..) then the gaming community could think "Well a great Castlevania without Dracula. Thats freakin awesome." Then I could say that the series could survive without Dracula.

I hope that makes more sense to what I was getting at...

[ReeBob]

I think you've got an excellent point.  They could also do some prequel games, showing Simon's "rise" as the world's greatest vampire hunter as he gradually takes on more and more powerful vampire lords. 

[darkwzrd4]

I think you've got an excellent point.  They could also do some prequel games, showing Simon's "rise" as the world's greatest vampire hunter as he gradually takes on more and more powerful vampire lords. 

They could also do games about what the Belmonts did between LoI and CV3, which is when Mathias/Dracula was in hiding.  After all, at the end of LoI, Leon says and I quote: "From this day on, the Belmont Clan will hunt the night!"  It would also fill in a plot-hole.  At the end of LoI, the Belmonts weren't expert vampire hunters.  Yet, by the beginning of CV3 they are.  I would like to see what they went through during that period of nearly 300 years.

[crisis]

From an '05 interview:





Also, thought I'd might share this:

[Lumas]

From an '05 interview:





Also, thought I'd might share this:

Unfortunately IGA contradicted himself in 2007 with this interview

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.

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

Course you are a little late  since we have already moved on from that part of the discussion. Nagumo was kind enough to already share that with the rest of us earlier.

[Ahasverus]

I won't bash him by your request, but let this face teel what I'm thinking:  :
Can you see it now? Who doesn't care about it? who gives a damn about it? mmm, you know who (And his name has three letters).  

[Nagumo]

I thought you would refrain from the tirades Ahasverus my dear. There are obviously fans who do care about the timeline, because IGA maybe condradicted himself one time doesn't mean the entire timeline is broken like you like to imply.       

[Ahasverus]

It was a typos error xD, I was talking about "you know who" who improvises everytime to make his games fit in the storyline, don't matter what was before there.