Topic: Why did they take out Sonia from the series

[X]

Fun fact about the date of Legends: the game itself never provided this date. An early timeline lists the date as just sometime during the 15th century, in fact. The date 1450 was later added to a timeline from 2005. Since no date was ever given to the game before then, I suspect they just rounded the date to 1450 and just went with that.

Here's another fun fact: Apparently there was another date for Legends to take place in. This would've been before the 2005 timeline update. I had heard that Legends took place in 1472. Ten years after Vlad became Dracula in the Bram Stoker story. And since this was before IGA started mucking about with the timeline, CVIII took place in 1492. So CVIII would've happened after his assassination in 1476 leading the people to believe that Vlad was a vampire since to this day his burial site still has no body in it which everyone can see

[KaZudra]

its easy, Iga didn't like the guys who did Legends and the 64 games, so he ommited those,
but the 64 dev team worked on CotM and sucked his dick to get the games canon.

Legends would have been a good twist in the series which would have explained the Belmonts' abnormal abilities.
but Iga doesn't like interesting plots.

[thernz]

But Sonia already had abnormal abilities and a whip whose origins were left unexplained. On the other hand, Leon has a mysterious double jump gene.

[Nagumo]

Not to mention Juste's decoration gene comes completely out of the blue. Damn you, IGA!

[thernz]

Every Belmont is an interior designer by genetics.

[Nagumo]

Yes, Belmont Warlord Chromosomes are at work.

[Sonic_Reaper]

Eh, Leon Belmont trumps the whole "Trevor was first" thing.

Leon never fought Dracula.  The final boss was Death.

From Iga's comments, I can see why some people would lable him as misogynistic.  And I hate using this as an "excuse", but really, if you look at his age and where he's from, it's not that crazy of a point of view.  Women have struggled especially hard in Japan for rights and freedoms they should be entitled too.  I'm not saying he's right, but knowing where he's coming from, I am not surprised by his comments in the least.  At the same time however, he did create OoE.  The funny part though, is that Shanoa doesn't exhibit any particularly feminine traits.  She has the standard and expected anime whore in her get-up, but she's very emotionless and robotic for 98% of the game.  Even her final scene with Albus, the roles could have been reserved, that is to say, man or woman, in that situation, would become emotional.  But I digress.

As for the timeline.  Why do people seriously care?  If you like the game, for whatever reason, include it in YOUR timeline.  Because it isn't included in an "official" timeline, doesn't mean the game no longer exists.  And I don't see how someone's enjoyment of the game is marred by that same fact.  Whether it is included or not, the game still exists, and if you enjoy it, keep it in your personal timeline.  Remember folks, you have the freedom to come to your own conclusions and write your own canons.  The fan base is filled with some very intelligent and talented people.  Just because Iga is the creator of his timeline, doesn't diminish your views, thoughts, and feelings related to the series.  This should be especially true as people get older.  For example, I detest the Resident Evil games after 2, and hate what they did with the storylines.  So while others may enjoy them, I more or less disregard them.  Same thing with the FF series (which was never really a series, but alas), but again I am beginning to digress.

[Mortificator]

Yeah, the Internet idea of canon as "what really happened in imaginationland" is pretty silly.

Ten years after Vlad became Dracula in the Bram Stoker story.

"Dracula = Vlad" has been repeated so many times it's easy to take as gospel, but Bram Stoker's novel actually never equates its title character with Vlad Tepes.

[Sonic_Reaper]

With regards to the Dracula legend, the ACTUAL one, the games touch on key dates here and there, but it's obvious they're taking that idea at its basest and playing with it.  LoI made this especially apparent.  There are some games in the middle of the timeline, such as SotN and CVIII that try to fit it into the real world mythos with either timeline or environment, but it becomes obvious once CoD and AoS/DoS roll around that this is strictly in the realm of fiction.

[Koutei]

KONAMI Akumajo Dracula official time line version July 31, 2000

[X]

"Dracula = Vlad" has been repeated so many times it's easy to take as gospel, but Bram Stoker's novel actually never equates its title character with Vlad Tepes.

Have you ever read Dracula: the undead? It's the official sequel to Bram Stoker's original book or 'notes' and it explain very clearly by authors Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt the Vlad the impaler and Dracula are one and the same. It also goes into actual historical accounts which further solidifies this. I've found it a very good read and to me it settles the whole 'who is the true Dracula' argument once and for all.

[KaZudra]

Have you ever read Dracula: the undead? It's the official sequel to Bram Stoker's original book or 'notes' and it explain very clearly by authors Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt the Vlad the impaler and Dracula are one and the same. It also goes into actual historical accounts which further solidifies this. I've found it a very good read and to me it settles the whole 'who is the true Dracula' argument once and for all.

Really?
Vlad the Impaler was Always Dracula, I knew that since kindergarden!
Trying to question what always has been known only makes a laughable argument.
Why Iga Ruined Castlevania = Vlad the impaler isn't Dracula,
Then Why are you canoning Bloodlines if you just falsified it's mythos?
Why did you change something intended since day 1?
Lament of Innocence was a complete disgrace to Dracula and Castlevania, it both fucked up the already setup mythos and the flow of its own timeline.
Lord of shadow Didn't make that mistake, they established who Dracula was in day 1.
Sonia would have at least made a plot twist in later games, and made a Believable point where Ritcher Goes Evil because it would have been similar how Alucard was "Evil" or something like that.

[whitedragon_nall]

To my knowledge, Vlad III the Impaler became the vampire Dracula in the Bram Stroker's Dracula movie. That's where it was popularized. I mean, historically Vlad III the Impaler is Dracula...just not of the vampire variety. Somebody slap me if I have this wrong, but wasn't Vlad III's father, Vlad II, inducted into The Order of the Dragon and earned the name Vlad Dracul...Dracul meaning 'Dragon'. Vlad III, being his son, was known as Vlad Dracula...meaning 'Son of the Dragon'.

I'm not sure which one you "knew since kindergarten", but if you believe that Vlad the Impaler has always been Dracula, then I believe you are misinformed.

Like Mortificator mentioned, the original novel never makes that connection...at least until the sequel that X spoke of. Even so, the original novel is what is said to be canon in the Castlevania timeline. The sequel was never canonized. I remember SotN mentioning Drac's name as 'Dracula Vlad Tepes', but I don't remember if there was ever an explanation why. I do vaguely recall IGA bringing it up in an interview though.

[KaZudra]

To my knowledge, Vlad III the Impaler became the vampire Dracula in the Bram Stroker's Dracula movie. That's where it was popularized. I mean, historically Vlad III the Impaler is Dracula...just not of the vampire variety. Somebody slap me if I have this wrong, but wasn't Vlad III's father, Vlad II, inducted into The Order of the Dragon and earned the name Vlad Dracul...Dracul meaning 'Dragon'. Vlad III, being his son, was known as Vlad Dracula...meaning 'Son of the Dragon'.

I'm not sure which one you "knew since kindergarten", but if you believe that Vlad the Impaler has always been Dracula, then I believe you are misinformed.

Like Mortificator mentioned, the original novel never makes that connection...at least until the sequel that X spoke of. Even so, the original novel is what is said to be canon in the Castlevania timeline. The sequel was never canonized. I remember SotN mentioning Drac's name as 'Dracula Vlad Tepes', but I don't remember if there was ever an explanation why. I do vaguely recall IGA bringing it up in an interview though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_III_the_Impaler
Vlad III = Vlad the Impaler = Vlad Dracula.
Please slap yourself in the face for saying I'm misinformed as we Both make the same point.

[Sonic_Reaper]

Vlad Tepes has always been Dracula.  That is what people called him.  But not because he was a vampire.  Stoker popularized the IDEA of Vampires.  Dracula got entangled with it, and thus an icon that represented universal vampires was created.  Vlad Tepes, as he was referred, was better known among the country folk for impaling his enemies and people that stole from him.  Thus, Tepes, which doesn't really mean "the impaler", but is derived from a root word that means, to impale.

Stoker heard of these stories, and other similar ones, I'm sure there was some rumors tossed in there by his enemies, and wove a fictional story about an eccentric man, possessing of all these qualities, but who also happened to be an undead being who drank of human blood.  I'm not really sure why it became so popular, but somehow became associated almost universally with Vlad Tepes = Dracula = Vampires, and so on.

Just to be anal, Dracula doesn't really mean anything in Romanian.  I am not sure if it did at one point, or if the language was vastly different back then, or some sort of bastardization happened, but the current day word, drac, means either devil, devilish or demon.  Or something along those lines.  It's more commonly associated with some sort of hellish, otherworldly forces, of the evil/mischievous variety.  For example;

a-l a pucat dracii, literally, means, "devils/demons got a hold of him".  It's used when someone loses their temper, or otherwise does something out of character.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if somewhere down the line, the idea that drac somehow meant dragon, was mixed in there.  It makes MORE sense that it was meant in the form of the above, relating to devils or demons.  It just makes more sense his enemies would call him that, than the obscure dragon, which doesn't make any sense in Romanian, and as far as I know, they have no word for.  Try to look up dragon in an English-Romanian dictionary, and you'll get the literal "dragon" (borrowed from English) or other words that don't even closely resemble it.

Another example, to tell someone to go to hell,

du-te ta la dracului!, "go to the devil", obviously, "go to hell", where the devil would preside.

I know this is kind of off topic and an interjection, but it pisses me the f* off whenever someone says that drac means dragon.  No, sorry, it doesn't.  The best part about it, it makes more sense with the Castlevania mythos.  Whether the developers were aware of this or not, well, it's pretty cool either way.  Because to his enemies, Dracula was either a devil, or a symbol associated with darkness and evil.

Another example to further solidify my point,

Ce dracu vrei?, means, rudely, "what the hell do you want?"

I don't see how a dragon fits into there.  At all.  To be even further anal, the naming convention is borrowed from a different culture.  It seems more likely to me that the name was derived from a Slavic interpretation of the name, than Romanian itself.  Adding the "a" to the last name of a newborn is a common convention in Russia, for example.  Well, Wallachia, very close to Russia, probably part of it at one point.  Not too big of a stretch.  His enemies probably referred to him as the devil, or the devilish one, or something similar.  It's most probably a name that stuck, and wouldn't have been popular with the Romanian people, at least, the ones that supported him.  But it makes for good fiction, so it was used by Stoker.

There seems to be a lot of mixed history, and even Wikipedia has some of the facts fudged up.  The worst one I see tossed around is that Dracula means Dragon, or son of Dragon, or some other such nonsense.  Whether his father was of the order of the dragon or not, is irrelevant to that fact.  I think people just see the two words and automatically associated them together.  Language is complicated and has changed a lot throughout history.  The Greeks seem to have a word for Dragon that is close, roughly (the characters may not show up, so VERY rough interpretation) drakon.  But was associated more with serpents or snakes.  If we tie that back to the bible, the serpent/snake = satan.  Ta da, we are back at square one.  So please will you all stop saying Dracula means dragon.