Topic: Vampire Killer/Castlevania to Simon's Quest connection

[Lelygax]

Vampire Killer Stage 6 (Part 2) by beingthehero

Look at 5:37 .

I've noticed it only now, since in NES this still happens but in a less explicit way (much faster and with different coloration and design) but these things could be Dracula's parts from Simon's Quest right? Even if someone says that there are only 5 to collect, Dracula is revived because of a 6th hidden relic in the same room that Simon burns these parts, Tooth of Vlad.

If you count we can see 6 parts from his body flying away in both Vampire Kiler and Castlevania. So I was mistaken and Simon's Quest was planned beforehand after all?

Also they even say that Simon had bring peace to its "town", not land, country or Transylvania, but town.

[JILost]

I've wondered about that for a while, too, actually. I think it first occurred to me a few years ago when I beat CV1 for the thousandth time (but not literally the thousandth). It's probably just coincidence, but we'll likely never know. It would be really cool if the creators actually had that much foresight, though, and I like to pretend that's actually the case sometimes when I beat Dracula.

[A-Yty]

Nice detail. I was initially going to say it's highly doubtful, but it's not completely out of the question. After all, the Japanese CV manual mentioned Christopher long before CVA.

[Pfil]

Maybe when they decided to make a sequel, when replaying the game someone came up with this idea when he saw the 6 parts.
I'd say that's more probable than CV2 being planned when they were making the first game.
But it's a nice detail, and something I'd never saw myself if you didn't say it.

[Nagumo]

Could be. It would explain how his body parts ended up in the mansions to begin with. 

[Pfil]

Could be. It would explain how his body parts ended up in the mansions to begin with. 

What I never understood is why would Simon want to collect Dracula's parts in order to revive him just to kill him again. Wouldn't it be better is Dracula just stays dead?
And now that I see this, I have another question: why the parts weren't again jumping in the air in different directions? Does it make a difference that he is killing Dracula for the 2nd time?
Is there any kind of explanation for this in the japanese manuals?

[Nagumo]

I can answer both questions for you. 

It's a common misunderstanding that Simon had to be revive Dracula. He didn't have to. He just had to burn Dracula's five body parts. However, he wasn't aware there was a sixth body piece, Dracula's fang, and Dracula is reborn through this sixth body piece.

As for your second question, the original intention was for Dracula to die permantently in CV2. For example, the Japanese manual has a mysterious woman character who explains to Simon that buring Dracula's body parts would destroy him forever. Also, the Japanese best ending says something like: "You have put an end to the legend of Dracula forever". So, CV2 was basically the 1999 of its time.
 

[Lelygax]

I can answer both questions for you. 

It's a common misunderstanding that Simon had to be revive Dracula. He didn't have to. He just had to burn Dracula's five body parts. However, he wasn't aware there was a sixth body piece, Dracula's fang, and Dracula is reborn through this sixth body piece.

As for your second question, the original intention was for Dracula to die permantently in CV2. For example, the Japanese manual has a mysterious woman character who explains to Simon that buring Dracula's body parts would destroy him forever. Also, the Japanese best ending says something like: "You have put an end to the legend of Dracula forever". So, CV2 was basically the 1999 of its time.

Also if Simon really burned these 5 parts, I think it would need some years to they reappear.

[Pfil]

It seems they didn't plan to continue the saga at that times, and they never imagined it would have so many games, so they were giving it some kind of ending. I guess?

And I still don't understand which dictates when Dracula revives, because it isn't always 100 years as the rule says.

[Lelygax]

It seems they didn't plan to continue the saga at that times, and they never imagined it would have so many games, so they were giving it some kind of ending. I guess?

And I still don't understand which dictates when Dracula revives, because it isn't always 100 years as the rule says.

I can explain it again to you in my own way:

Each 100 years Dracula revives normally, but this can happen between this cycle if someone tries to summon it, but then he will be weaker.

[beingthehero]

However, he wasn't aware there was a sixth body piece, Dracula's fang, and Dracula is reborn through this sixth body piece.

I've seen this before. Where was this mentioned? I know it was made canon, because it's in both HoD and SotN.

[Lelygax]

I've seen this before. Where was this mentioned? I know it was made canon, because it's in both HoD and SotN.

I thought it was IGa idea, but checking CV wiki yesterday I've found that this information came from a strategy guide.

[Puwexil]

Yeah, this one here. Dracula literally throws his teeth at Simon, which is simultaneously bewildering and amazing.

[Nagumo]

And I still don't understand which dictates when Dracula revives, because it isn't always 100 years as the rule says.

I can explain this, too. The legend in it's entirely is: “Once every 100 years, when the faith in God is forgotten, Dracula will come back to live”. IGA explained once that the "forgetting faith in God" part is what dictates Dracula's ressurection. It just so happens to occur roughly every 100 years. Which means it can be slightly off by a few years.   

[The Puritan]

I thought it was IGa idea, but checking CV wiki yesterday I've found that this information came from a strategy guide.

The POR pre-order bonus timeline had it too. Think most of us fans saw it there if they didn't see it in that strategy guide.