Topic: The 100 year rule

[Successor The Cruel]

Wait, let me get this straight. The topic is titled "The 100 year rule," and everything I said had everything to do with that topic. You said something to me, and I gave a reasonable, sensible response. If you can't take that, well... I'm not sure what to say, except you may want to reconsider posting on internet message boards:-X

[Lumas]

Wait, let me get this straight. The topic is titled "The 100 year rule," and everything I said had everything to do with that topic. You said something, and I gave a reasonable, sensible response. If you can't take that, well... I'm not sure what to say

Well if you read the first post you have realized this little tid bit.

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.

It was also rephrased here

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.

So yes you were off topic please either answer the question presented or find another topic that suits you. Your obvious trolling attempt to disrupt the topic and start another argument will be ignored. However if you just didn't read the first post it is understandable you give a response like that however now that you are aware (and if you aren't then that's a personal thing you will have to deal with) you can either answer and give an appropriate response or find another topic.

[Successor The Cruel]

Wow, you are some piece of work.
Discussions often evolve past the very base element that they began with, yet they can still be on topic. I followed that evolution and responded to something you said to me. I never tried to start an argument, I merely gave a response. But, you know, whatever. If you don't want me posting in your topic, that's no skin off my nose.  

[Lumas]

Wow, you are some piece of work.
Discussions often evolve past the very base element that they began with, yet they can still be on topic. I followed that evolution and responded to something you said to me. I never tried to start an argument, I merely gave a response. But, you know, whatever, if you don't want me posting in your topic, that's no skin off my nose. 

No it just was stated numerous times that the topic had went into a direction that was growing to far from the presented question thus other who would join (like yourself) would become confused on what was supposed to be the topic. It was also rephrased so that we could get back to the original topic which you clearly misread. Now that you are aware of it you are upset, angry, agitated whatever it is that your feeling thats negative towards me (given that you called me some piece of work) because things did not go your way. What that was I have no idea.

If you have an opinion about the question presented then I would love to hear it because thats why I started this topic, but in all honestly given your previous post you seem like you have yourself up on a high chair and having someone like that in this topic is something I would like to avoid but with all forums that cannot be avoided but I would still like to hear your opinion,I am fair after all,  though i doubt that will happen now since you opted to cop out.

Thanks for stopping by though.

[Successor The Cruel]

If you have an opinion about the question presented then I would love to hear it because thats why I started this topic, but in all honestly given your previous post you seem like you have yourself up on a high chair and having someone like that in this topic is something I would like to avoid but with all forums that cannot be avoided but I would still like to hear your opinion,I am fair after all,  though i doubt that will happen now since you opted to cop out.

You'd do well just to read the text I write and take it for what it is instead of trying to make assumptions about whatever feelings you think there may be to it.

For the record, I don't have any problem with the 100 year rule. It's fine by me. Though, it was established VERY early on (Simon's Quest) that there are ways around it for Dracula to return. I also have no problem with that.

[X]

I think the 100 year rule does apply but only just. Dracula, being as powerful and influential as he is can only be entombed for a maximum sleep duration of 100 years before being resurrected on his own. But because so many wicked people are drawn to him, they have forced him to arise prematurely before his 'proper' time and as such he's not at his full power. So you could say that all the inconsistencies in the timeline are all just premature awakenings by the bad folk and not himself.

-X

[MeSako]

I have no problems with the premature awakenings either.
Heck, they can wake Dracula the very day after he's defeated, but he would be very weak
But if he is left dead for 100 years, he would wake by himself..

This is how I figured it all to work.

[Ahasverus]

I just want the rule to be removed, so premature resurrections would be normal resurrections and we could have more Castlevania, and we all want more castlevania

[Lumas]

I just want the rule to be removed, so premature resurrections would be normal resurrections and we could have more Castlevania, and we all want more castlevania

Yeah I agree that the rule, if there was a said rule, should be removed. Then we wouldn't have "premature" resurrections we would just have good ol regular ones brought on by crazy cults, evil corrupt people, and sacrificed maidens. And that way we could throw in more games or even continue more games like with Simon. I think everyone would like another Simon Belmont game.

[Ahasverus]

I would love a new, 3D, action-adventure Simon Belmont game  (Even if it's a remake of SQ)

[Lumas]

I would love a new, 3D, action-adventure Simon Belmont game  (Even if it's a remake of SQ)

Yeah same here seeing Simon Belmont in 3 D (his original design not miss Kojima's) kicking down the counts door would be badass.

[Successor The Cruel]

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

[Lumas]

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) is that it is possible to have a Castlevania game without Count Dracula, yet still keep him a focal point of the game's events.

Yeah I can agree with that to an extent, course a game with Simon going on to hunt other vampires would suffice for me.

[Successor The Cruel]

Well, yes, if you think about it, did having Dracula (of FAKE DRACULA) in games like Curse of Darkness and Harmony of Dissonance really add that much from a story point of view? They could have ended HoD with the Maxim battle and it would have been fine, and quite possibly better.

[Lumas]

Well, yes, if you think about it, did having Dracula (of FAKE DRACULA) in games like Curse of Darkness and Harmony of Dissonance really add that much from a story point of view? They could have ended HoD with the Maxim battle and it would have been fine, and quite possibly better.

Yeah true could have been more tragic in both cases to actually kill your best friend. I dont think either really advanced the plot or really add anything. I've found the idea of Simon going on to hunt other vampires to be a nice one, having some of Dracula's "children" upset and going on to try and plunge the world into darkness and try and kill Simon for their master's death would be a nice premise for a game.