Topic: Question about Walter & Crimson Stone

[Kensuke]

Well then, it's going to be interesting to see how Julius accomplishes what no Belmont before him has been able to do.
Namely in fucking Drac over for good.

Hopefully '99 won't blow ass. It's really the last chance, seeing as how the main arc is now boxed in with that termination date.

It's looking kinda hopeful though. IGA has confirmed he wants to do it on console and he's not entirely satisfied with the 3D work he's done to date (meaning it might be 3D, but he'll strive to make it better). Expect Alucard to be back with the usual fanboy/fangirl wanking.

- John

[Steve]

Well then, it's going to be interesting to see how Julius accomplishes what no Belmont before him has been able to do.
Namely in fucking Drac over for good.

We already basically know what happens.

[The Last Belmont]

Correct.  Igarashi confirmed in the interview in the Dawn of Sorrow strategy guide that the Crimson Stone was only needed for Mathias to gain his vampiric powers; after that, its purpose in the story was fulfilled.

yup, it still baffles me how death just shows up and is buddies with him in the end :?

[DragonSlayr81]

It's something that could've been explained. Mathias hailed from a long line of alchemists. It could've been BEFORE the events of LoI that Mathias actually came into the pact with Death. We don't know where the Crimson Stone came from, but we can only assume Mathias's clan was responsible for it's creation(hence it was a mistake of alchemy).

But yeah, the Crimson Stone was just used by Dracula to gain a powerful vampire soul. Many thought that the Crimson Stone was the reason why Soma could absorb monster souls. But IGA shot that notion down. He said that it isn't until the time period after LoI and before CV3 that Dracula acquired the "Power to Rule", which gives him the ability to rule over all monsters. It's this that Soma in herits and that's the reason why he absorbs monster souls(note, Crimson Stone only works on vampires, so adding monsters into the equation would definately send the theory toppling down). But yeah, Dracula got a nice broach out of it. In just about every artpiece, Dracula is wearing a red stone on his chest. Gothic bling!

[Baigan]

The question remains: Where did Walter get HIS powers? Seems like an infinite regression to more Walters. Walter doesn't really explain Dracula, because nobody explains Walter.

[DragonSlayr81]

I don't think Walter's origins were important, or at least IGA didn't think so. Walter was just a reason to give rise to Dracula, or Mathias becoming Dracula. We can speculate about Walter, though. I think he might be pretty old, perhaps dating back to the biblical ages.

[Kensuke]

My understanding is that vampires always existed, but that they didn't become really important or such a threat to mankind until Dracula came about his his extreme hatred of humanity. They were just sorta there...like ghosts, demons, angels, and whatever... Dracula is merely the major domo of vampires.

IRL, vampire lengends existed before Vlad III was turned into Dracula by Bram Stoker's novel. Nor was Stoker's novel the first. "Carmilla" predates it by some 20 years (and she's in the game too).

The thing that really pisses me off about "new timeline" is the fact that they can't make up their mind if they're following Stoker's story or not. Starting with Bloodlines they started to inject a LOT of outside source material...mainly from Stoker. They've even gone as far as to imply that Drac's 189X rising is covered in Stoker's novel (ie. Quincy Morris), and there therefore isn't a need for a game from that time period. And yet, we now have this Mathias guy come along four centuries before Dracula was the MORTAL King of Wallachia.

Two quarters of one, and one half of another.... It's bullshit.

- John

[James Belmont]

I suspect for the 1999 game, Dracula will be defeated by the Crimson Stone somehow being taken away by him. Which would be kinda cool, because it would mean that Death switches allegiance to YOUR side. But I dunno. There's also that whole "solar eclipse" BS.

I've always believed that this would be a great idea. If it used PoR's tag-team thing as a way of doing so, having Death on your side as a playable character would be awesome, and that possessing the Crimson Stone would be the perfect way to accomplish that.

[Steve]

Starting with Bloodlines they started to inject a LOT of outside source material...mainly from Stoker. They've even gone as far as to imply that Drac's 189X rising is covered in Stoker's novel (ie. Quincy Morris), and there therefore isn't a need for a game from that time period. And yet, we now have this Mathias guy come along four centuries before Dracula was the MORTAL King of Wallachia.

This is a common misconception.  Stoker's novel was never attempted to be canonized so much as one of its characters, Quincey Morris, was simply appropriated for Castlevania.  It's just like how they can use Orlok without actually canonizing Nosferatu, or Carmilla without the short story that bears her name, or Dracula himself without the entire actual history of Vlad III.

The Castlevania account has always described Quincey as a hero who killed Dracula in 1897 with the Vampire Killer, whereas in the novel he was just a supporting character who assisted in Dracula's demise--and with a Bowie knife, at that.  It's just a reference.  And Igarashi has stated on occasion that he'd really like to get around to making Quincey's game.

[DragonSlayr81]

That's true. Castlevania's take on Stoker's novel(which has been it's own since Bloodlines's release, predating the new timeline, actually) has always been it's OWN version. Since the conception of Bloodlines, it's been apparant that they meant to tweak the events. First of all, Quincey never had a child and was a bachelor. In Bloodlines, he does have a child. If that can't convince anybody that Stoker's events, in CV's timeline, are different than the novel, I don't know what will.

[Kensuke]

Alright, I'll buy that.

But how to we get the name Vlad Tepes III then?

Who has a castle in Romania no less (as proven by Bloodlines and SotN).

If he was a vampire before the 15th century, does that mean that he WASN'T at one point the King of Wallachia?

- John

[Long John Silver]

Carmilla without the short story that bears her name

Well technically we don't know that. It could be still used as her backstory, and then we have Laura, the novel's main heroine at Carm's side in cv too (rondo mainly, but other than that carmilla wasn't really used except the gaiden cotm).

[Steve]

Don't let your affinity for Lesbians cloud your perception of canon, Serio. 

[Kensuke]

Well technically we don't know that. It could be still used as her backstory, and then we have Laura, the novel's main heroine at Carm's side in cv too (rondo mainly, but other than that carmilla wasn't really used except the gaiden cotm).

It could be used as her backstory, but again, the dates are all wrong. So it wouldn't be used in total. Le Fanu's story takes place in 19th century, while Rondo and SotN is late 18th century. Plus, I'm pretty sure she was one of the only two bosses in Simon's Quest (17th century, but minus Laura).
Mary Shelly's Frankenstien is another literary influence in CV. The titular character proves a bit of an anachronism. Bottom line being that they'll pull characters from a variety of sources, but tend to pay only cursory heed to their stories.

Speaking of Laura...something has always bugged me about her: She looks a lot like Nei/Rika from Sega's Phantasy Star.



- John

[DragonSlayr81]

Alright, I'll buy that.

But how to we get the name Vlad Tepes III then?

Vlad Tepes Dracula(or in the order of "Dracula Vlad Tepes" in SotN). I don't recall(or remember, since some of my memory is fuzzy about certain games) him being called Vlad III in the games. Almost always just "Dracula". And "Dracula", "Vlad" and "Tepes" all are symbolic in meaning. "Dracula" means "Son of the Dragon", which can also mean "Son of the Devil"(as the Devil is represented as the "Red Dragon" in Revelations and "dragons" in Christianity are identified with the Devil). "Vlad" means "Prince". "Tepes" means "Impaler".

Who has a castle in Romania no less (as proven by Bloodlines and SotN).

I don't think you can work with a character of Dracula that doesn't live in Romania or have ties to Romania.

If he was a vampire before the 15th century, does that mean that he WASN'T at one point the King of Wallachia?

We don't know how long he had his castle there, nor how long it was prior to that when he started to settle the area. If we went by CV history, our Vlad III would've been a vampire throughout his rule(and everything regarding his childhood would've been concocted by the Church to cover up him being "The Dark Lord". What we do know is, in CV, during the time that Dracula was suposed to be fighting the Turks in OUR world, nothing happened like that in CV's world. The major threat to Romania, and Europe in general, was when Dracula waged war on humanity(CV3). The CV series, in most titles, never even gave any indication that Romania was at constant war with the Turks. The only game that talked anything about such similar battles was LoI regarding the Crusades. But, other than that, it seems like in CV's world, Romania was peaceful in the periods when Dracula was dead. And even events that are tied to reality (WWI, for instance) are, in the CV series, tied to that fiction. In CV's world, Elizabeth Bartley's responsible for igniting WWI. That's pretty bogus in terms of realism.

- John