Topic: Castlevania - The Plot Hole Thread

[Koutei]

Woah, really?

http://koutei65535uhauha.hp.infoseek.co.jp/kyassuru/sfc/index.html

[darkwzrd4]

It seems to me that CV4, CV1, and Chronicles are just different versions of the same event.

[Archangel]

Same here. Even though Simon´s an awesome character, him fighting Dracula three times sounds a bit.... well.... unlikely.

Wasn´t The Adventure also believed to be another of Simons exploits to Castlevania because translators were making things up again? So, Simon Belmont! Go forth and fight Drac 4 times till CV5 arrives!

 


Oh yeah, I´m also referring to normal life expectations at the time, which, as far as I know, wasn´t as high as it is today.

[Inccubus]

One of the guys at ROMHacking.net is re-translating the text.
It'll be interesting to see the differences in nuance between different translators.

[thernz]

http://koutei65535uhauha.hp.infoseek.co.jp/kyassuru/sfc/index.html

Ohhh. You're restarting the site? Nice.
Though yeah, the story is really just vague about things. It could be either a retelling or third encounter no problem. Super CVIV was the one to introduce the hundred year rule wasn't it? I guess it'd be logical to guess it takes place on the 100th year mark thus, even if it didn't specifically date when it takes place.

[Mobius]

It seems like only yesterday that I was enjoying another fun-filled romp through Super CV IV; lights out in my room, surround sound turned up, watching the intro again like a good little super fan. For the life of me though, I do not recall it mentioning anywhere at any point that Simon and Dracula's confrontation was now taking place at the hundred year mark. It was the first time the 100 year rule was established, true, but it did not state specifically that this latest encounter was part of the cycle at all. -And I could quote that opening scrawl text word for word back then. In fact, what does stand out now is how it mentions that "once again" Simon Belmont must confront Dracula, setting it up as a true sequel.

Now it was my understanding that the original Japanese version was another remake and that the American translation had tweaked things to make it appear as if this were the third time Simon ventured into the castle. Not the other way around as is now being speculated.

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

@Nagumo:
You made me lawlz so hard just now! XD
Hokuto No Ken is also awesomesauce!
But... wow yeah!  :O

[Inccubus]

Now it was my understanding that the original Japanese version was another remake and that the American translation had tweaked things to make it appear as if this were the third time Simon ventured into the castle. Not the other way around as is now being speculated.

You are correct. There is nothing in the original Japanese text that says anything to even imply that Simon had fought Dracula before.
That game is a remake, nothing more. The American mumbo-jumbo is just that.

On the subject of the hundred year thing, do we have any info on the games previous to SCV4? Japanese manual scans, in-game text?
Anything at all that would indicate the rule?

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

Well, Trevor fought Dracula twice.
And so did Christopher.
It's not that far-fetched to have the main hero of the series do it three times.  After all, that 2nd time was a joke.  xD
"BLARRRRGH I AM DRACULA REBORNNNN!!!"
"Yeah dude but I took real bad care of your parts, I made sure to bump the sack into every tree, boulder and archway on my way here soooo"
"ARRRRRRRRRH WHY AM I ALL FUBAR?!??!?"
"Yeah here"
**puts a garlic down in front of Drac**
"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhhhhhhHFFFFFffff fffffffffffffffff" **dies**

"Yeah that'll teach ya to have the hero collect your remains to revive you."
(mental note: using his parts to revive him always yields a fucked up weak-ass Drac.  Better tell my children and grandchildren)

Fast-forward a few years:
"Grandpappy, you killed Dracula three times?"
"Yeah Juste, but I really don't count the 2nd time, he was all messed up.  Come here with your old grandpappy and I'll tell ya all about it"
"Ok! :3 "

[Nagumo]

Alucard did it three times and nobody is complaining about that....

Oh, I have another plothole: Simon had to ressurect Dracula in CV2 (which he did) to break his curse, but Rondo/DXC seem to ignore this because of the it-has-been-100-years-since-Dracula-is revived thing.     

 

[thernz]

I have decided that I will believe Simon fought Dracula 3 times just because Simon is cool enough.

[Thomas Belmont]

I always assumed that it was common knowledge that Super Castlevania 4 was a retelling of Simon's first encounter with Dracula. As a kid, when it was first released, I remember being confused but then common sense kicked in.

[darkwzrd4]

Well, Trevor fought Dracula twice.
And so did Christopher.
It's not that far-fetched to have the main hero of the series do it three times.  After all, that 2nd time was a joke.  xD
"BLARRRRGH I AM DRACULA REBORNNNN!!!"
"Yeah dude but I took real bad care of your parts, I made sure to bump the sack into every tree, boulder and archway on my way here soooo"
"ARRRRRRRRRH WHY AM I ALL FUBAR?!??!?"
"Yeah here"
**puts a garlic down in front of Drac**
"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhhhhhhHFFFFFffff fffffffffffffffff" **dies**

"Yeah that'll teach ya to have the hero collect your remains to revive you."
(mental note: using his parts to revive him always yields a fucked up weak-ass Drac.  Better tell my children and grandchildren)

Fast-forward a few years:
"Grandpappy, you killed Dracula three times?"
"Yeah Juste, but I really don't count the 2nd time, he was all messed up.  Come here with your old grandpappy and I'll tell ya all about it"
"Ok! :3 "

Wait, Trevor only fought him once (CV3).  When was the other time?

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

I'm with Thernz on this one.
Simon's just full of win and awesome.

@DarkWzrd:  You're right, Curse of Darkness doesn't have him fight Dracula... per se.

EDIT (adding):
@Nagumo:  I think that the 100-years rule is just a rule for when the forces of good start to weaken.  Thus, around this time, you're likely to get a more Powerful Dracula than at other times.

So, while you can resurrect Dracula at any time (as many games have shown), that Dracula will inevitably be weaker depending on when you do it, or what current events are around to augment/offset this.  For example, you can resurrect Dracula 'out of season' if there's a major event that will help him (like in Bloodlines and the souls of World War 1, or Portrait of Ruin and the souls of War World II, etc.).
Bringing him forth 'out of season' and on a relatively peaceful time period will result in a weak Dracula (Harmony of Dissonance).

[Reinhart77]

One of the characters in Castlevania 64 or Legacy of Darkness (don't remember who) said something like "don't be ridiculous, Dracula's not due to return for some time now".  It is a "legend" that Dracula revives every 100 years, and that what everyone expects.  But do funny things like using man-wolf power to enable Dracula to re-incarnate in a new body, and you can get him to bypass that cycle.

One thing that's a real shame is that Super Castlevania IV talks about the fact that Dracula had been resurrected "many" times every one hundred years and that there was always a Belmont to take him down, and yet Super Castlevania IV only represents his second 100 year resurrection cycle.  i thought that since Lament of Innocence took place in a thousand years ago, that it was making room for several 100 year resurrections.  but they decided to adhere to the "Trevor Belmont is the first Belmont to kill Dracula" line, so that didn't happen.

You know, Super Castlevania IV really gave you a sense of many many 100 year confrontations between the Belmonts and Dracula.  Lords of Shadows takes place way back in the 1050s and "seems" to already have established that Dracula hates the Belmonts, making me think they go back possibly many centuries before that.  Lords of Shadows might recapture some of that long family history that the canon series boxed itself out of.

I wonder if the 100 year confrontation between the Belmonts and Dracula still took place between LoI and CV III, even if the end result wasn't the Belmonts actually killing Dracula, just putting a stop to his plans during the time he was at his most powerful.  Iga thought he was living quite peaceably during this time period, but I wonder.