Topic: Konami: "Taking risks with CV prevented it from becoming another Megaman"

[crisis]

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

"And nothing of value was lost!" - The Critic

[son_the_vampire]

Well not yet. Ill check tomorrow for sure at GameStop. Just gonna own in some HoDes till then

[A-Yty]

I didn't like it when IGA removed Sonia from the canon, I think it's the worst thing he did (the only one I didn't like, by the way). IGA himself proved wrong that statement, when Charlotte and Shanoa were female protagonists in vampire stories.

Maybe he retconned a game instead of a character. Sonia just happened to be in it.

[X]

On top of that, it does make an amount of sense that the focus is on the male heirs of a bloodline, the ones who pass the genetics, in a series concentrating on the lineage of a family.

I have to disagree with this on the fact that it's not only men whom pass on genetics but also women. Remember 50/50. That's how we work. The human body consists of 42 chromosomes. A man's sperm has only 24; only half of the required genetic material necessary to create life. But in the end the woman has the greater role then the man does. Once a man knocks up a woman, that's it. His role has ended. But a woman must carry the developing fetus, give birth to the child and nurse the child till they're old enough. A man isn't required to do some of the things a woman does because he can't. It goes against what nature has intended for the species. The only reason why most would think otherwise is because we're all taught to believe that it's the man who's important while the woman isn't. It must be the man whom passes on his DNA to the next generation while the woman is just there to help make it possible. Wrong. That's all wrong. It is only through the patriarchal belief (heavily influenced by the church) that such a way of thinking has been allowed to proliferate throughout history with no real result of consequences for man's poor actions. I see absolutely nothing wrong with a woman Belmont lead because I'm not held back by the patriarchal system.

And in case some of you aren't aware of; All vertebrates and I do mean all, are inherently female. To make one male the developing fetus must receive hormones at the right developmental stage to make them male. This is a scientific fact. Look it up if you're skeptical.

[crisis]

[Belmontoya]

You're a little off base with that comment X. You made correct comments about genetics, but none of those facts have anything to do with this particular topic.

If you want to say that you disagree because of genetics, that's one thing. But I think anyone who has taken a physical anthropology class is aware that in most mammals, including humans; males are typically larger and more suited for physical tasks, such as hunting and defending. This is the way our roles evolved because the female who is pregnant or nursing is not suited to do the work of hunting and defending, this is typically the males job. They are equally important roles within a society and family. Obviously the lines between these roles have blurred significantly in these modern times and will most likely continue to blur.

There is nothing sexist about it, but in the days of hand to hand combat, it played a larger role. Nowadays a battlefield is more equal among sexes than it used to be because wars are fought at a distance with guns and explosives.

But all battles leading up to the 20th century were typically fought by males. Sure there are plenty of exceptions, and Castelvania is obviously a fictitious story. But I think that is what IGA was trying to say is the reason for seeing more male protagonists.

In response to another topic, Castlevania has had sexy women and strong male characters long before LOS. And I agree with Flame that LOS actually seemed to tone that down a bit. The anime style games feature male characters with more feminine features because that's part of the style of anime. They still do not lack the nude females and the boobs. And if you look, while the faces of characters like Alucard and Richter may appear more feminine, they are still by no means scrawny wimps. So while I think the DUDEBRO jokes are funny, this complaint should be absurd to anyone who has a pair of eyes. On top of that, vampires are monsters that radiate sex. The vampire uses sexual attraction to lure it's prey. It goes with the folklore. So this really should not even be worth mentioning.

[uzo]

What I meant to say more is that we have a concept, now as well as back then, where the males carry on whats considered the main family, the true bloodline. Females marry off and create 'branch families'. If you're focusing on the Belmont clan, then you focus on the members who remain and pass on the name Belmont, and not get married off to branch families.

[Belmontoya]

That's a good point too, Uzo.

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

This is kinda what I think happened to all the branch families... the Morrises, the Graves, the Lecardes, the Renards, the Schneiders, etc.
They lost the name but didn't really lose the bloodline's powers.

[Successor The Cruel]

In European feudalistic societies, the heir was usually the oldest male offspring, so it makes a lot of sense that the males would be the ones to inherit the vampire killer whip, and in turn are the ones we wind up playing as.

[Pfil]

Legends plays out like the typical 90s anime of "forbidden love,"Dracula even says, referring to Simon, that "He is a

One of the things I love about Legends...

Belmont. I cannot allow that bloodline to suffer any longer!" This struck me a certain way, because it shows Dracula/Gabriel might still have some remorse left in him. It's the "tragic irony, or poetic justice" scenario that's got me intruiged, which lead me to kinda understand Legends' approach despite all it's other flaws, and to understand those fans' reasoning for accepting that particular origin tale.

...and the thing I really liked about LoS timeline. Gabriel's tale is very moving.

prunyuu

funyaa!

@Pfil: To clarify, IGA said that female protagonists in the series were hard to justify historically, more so as the games get chronologically older.
The game was most likely removed from the timeline due to those many dates, events, and character ages that do not match the other games before it, not because Sonia was a female protagonist.
Some developers are told by management that they CANNOT make a game with a female protagonist period.

That makes more sense. Anyway, Legends is one of my favourite stories from the series, I love the fact that the Belmonts and Dracula could be related by blood.
And about the developers, I think that is stupid. Whay do they think? That girls don't play games?

Charlotte was actually the better character in PoR. After her spell damage is considered, if you outfitted her with the right gear, she was just about as powerful as Johnathan in the attack and defense categories.

I always said that Charlotte is my favourite 2D sprite-based gameplay, I could literally blow the castle away with her. I made her so powerful that I was able to beat the final boss in less than 30 seconds.

[The Silverlord]

Mercurysteam felt that Castlevania wasn't dudebro enough, so they need to add in protagonists with HULKING MUSCLES and lots of enemies with BOOBS. THE MORE THE BETTER. Cause those are direct indicators of how MATURE a game is, bro.

You forgot Oscar's more 'masculine' score, casting Patrick Stewart as Zobek/narrator and those ball-breaking titan battles.  Much more mature, right?

Tongue in cheek there, mate.

Themes and storyline are important contributors to this 'maturity' angle, let's include but also look beyond tits, muscles and gore, no? If we go superficially though, could you see Dracula's Curse or Super IV done in 3D with the likes of Mercurysteam's brilliant artwork?

[uzo]

And about the developers, I think that is stupid. Whay do they think? That girls don't play games?

If you're interested in 'further reading' with that subject, this is a good place to start: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7044-The-Creepy-Cull-of-Female-Protagonists

[DoctaMario]

@Nagumo: I'm with you. I don't have any problem with hot women, but I just don't like it when they are kept in the background like some secondary character.
And by the way, LoS women aren't even pretty. None of them. And that wasn't the case in previous games, even not-IGA games.

I didn't like it when IGA removed Sonia from the canon, I think it's the worst thing he did (the only one I didn't like, by the way). IGA himself proved wrong that statement, when Charlotte and Shanoa were female protagonists in vampire stories.

Does that really matter though? I mean, if there's a strong female character in the game, but she's unattractive, does that make her a worse character? As much as I love looking at beautiful women in-game and in real life, I'd rather a female character be unattractive yet interesting than the other way around. Lol maybe I'm just old, but....

I think if Legends hadn't been a shit game, it would have been harder to retcon. But as it is, it's a shit game with a questionable first cause story, so that made it a pretty easy target.

Uzo said pretty much what I would have as far as the genetics/last name thing goes.

I think if there was a strong, believable female lead, the community would probably get behind her. But we've never really had that in CV before. I mean, if we had someone like Trish in DMC who didn't have to compete with a male lead like Dante or Gabriel and it was made clear that she was the lead, then I think the community would probably support it.

That Escapist video Uzo posted was pretty interesting though. It's kind of sad really. I don't know about anyone else, but if I have the choice of looking at a hot female character for however many hours I'll be playing a game or a dude, I'll gladly take the former (my first character in Guilty Gear was Ino, partially for that reason. xD)