Topic: What if they made CV1, 2, and 3 a seperate continuity?

[Nagumo]

I've been playing with this idea for a couple of days now. It may seem a bit random, but I definitely think they should do it. I'll try to explain as briefly as possible why I think so.

First of all, and I don't know how many people are aware of this, but CV3 has a few continuity between it and details later established by IGA. For example, according to CV3, Dracula is actually Vlad Tepes who made a pact with an evil deity, which turned him into a vampire. Alucard was Vlad's human son who also got turned into a vampire as a result of the pact. Also, Dracula's motivation for being evil is stated to be greed. Nothing is mentioned about a dead wife. As far as I know, no real attempt has been to retcon any of this.

Secondly, CV2, despite being the third game in the series, was supposed to be the finale of the storyline already. According to the Japanese manual story, the method of burning Dracula's body parts would mean his permanent destruction. This is further supported by the Japanese ending which appears in the best ending, which says:

“And the battle ended. Simmon Belmont put an eternal period to the legend of Dracula. His blood and sweat penetrared into the ground of Transylvania will bring us full-blown flowers with happiness next spring.”

So, once again, we have a situation where the original intent was ignored, in this case by Rondo of Blood, but with no retcon offered.

Thirdly, there is a possibility Trevor and Christopher being the same person. As mentioned in the Akumajo Densetsu interview thread, Trevor's middle initial stands for Christopher according to someone who worked on the game. This would mean CV1, 2, and 3 could form a tight storyline on their own, with a clear beginning and an ending that wraps everything up.

The final reason for doing it could be to preserve the original character designs. IGA has a bit of a tendency to overwrite old character designs. Case in point, Simon and Richter's redesigns for the respective remakes of their games. Personally, I understand his reasoning for doing so, it makes the universe he created more consistent, but on the other hand, I think it's a bit of a shame that the old designs get thrown out of the window. Although I really like the designs from Symphony and onwards, I do have a soft spot for some of the old artwork, especially the manual illustrations for CV1 and 2. I think it would be kind off neat to have a blond Simon and a Bela Lugosi-like Dracula again.



I imagine they coul do it like this: let CV1, 2 and 3 form their own mini continuity. They could call it the "Akumajo Dracula" timeline. IGA's timeline could be called the "Akumajo Dracula X" timeline. As a result of this, there would be a few gaps in IGA's timeline. However, they could perhaps fill these up with new games that reimagine the stories, but without the contradictory details, just like what they did with The Adventure Rebirth. In case of CV1, I would propose to replace it with the Arrange version of Castlevania Chronicles.

Akumajo Dracula timeline:

CV3-->CV1->CV2

Akumajo Dracula X (IGA's) timeline:

Exactly the same, but without the above mentioned games, which are replaced.   

If they would do this, how would you feel about it?

[Intersection]

Interesting. I'd never given much thought to that.
It's actually a rather good idea. But there would be a few problems:
- Cutting out the original trilogy would mean removing some of Castlevania's most important foundations. I'm not sure if IGA's timeline could still stand as it is: if the first CV's weren't made with 28 future games in mind, IGA's continuity is manifestly built upon that base. Taking it out wouldn't be a very practical (or popular) decision.
- Letting the first three games form their own timeline would technically have the same effect as retconning the trilogy and overwriting it with newer games. I don't think many fans would like that.
- What would happen with the Adventure games you'd mentioned? If they were really written with the "original" timeline in mind, they too should be included in it. And Soleiyu would pose a problem...

On the other hand, this would certainly free up space to remake some of Castlevania's most iconic titles... Something I'd be very eager to see. In itself, respecting the original developers' intentions is a noble idea. If it could conceivably work out, I wouldn't be one to oppose it.

[Beaumont_Belmont]

TC makes a good point about the Good ending of Simon's Quest; however, has it been unquestionably established that this is the canon ending? And for that matter, the supposed "Good" ending is the one with Dracula reaching out of the grave.

[Intersection]

TC makes a good point about the Good ending of Simon's Quest; however, has it been unquestionably established that this is the canon ending? And for that matter, the supposed "Good" ending is the one with Dracula reaching out of the grave.

Best endings are usually canon.
Another good indication that SQ was intended as an ending: Konami chose to move backwards instead of forwards for the next game. CVIII, CVA, CVAII all occurred before Simon's time.

[Beaumont_Belmont]

That's a solid point. I think around the time of Super Castlevania IV, Konami must have realized they were running out of room for a flagship series and thus we got Rondo and Bloodlines.

[Nagumo]

- What would happen with the Adventure games you'd mentioned? If they were really written with the "original" timeline in mind, they too should be included in it. And Soleiyu would pose a problem...

Good question. To answer it, I have to elaborate on my third point. Like I mentioned before, supposedly someone who worked on CV3 stated Trevor was supposed to be the same character as Christopher. Trevor's middle initial, "C.", was meant to stand for Christopher according to him. It should also be noted the NES trilogy was created by the same director, Akamatsu, and a couple of recurring staff. CV3 and Adventure were in development at the same time. From the Japanese storylines of both games it's apparent they both tell the first story in the timeline. However, both games disregard each other since they both claim to be the very first time a Belmont fought Dracula. So, at the time, there were two mutually exclusive prequels set 100 years before CV1.

CVA-->CV1->CV2

CV3-->CV1->CV2

That's why I personally wouldn't include Adventure and Belmont's Revenge in the same timeline as CV1, 2 and 3. However, I wouldn't include them in IGA's timeline either. The Japanese storyline of The Adventure has the same issues as CV3's. It claims Dracula became a vampire because of a devil pact etc. Therefore, I would probably treat The Adventure and Belmont's Revenge as yet another seperate continuity. I would replace The Adventure with Adventure Rebirth, and I would make a reimagining of Belmont's Revenge to act as a substitute (Belmont's Revenge Rebirth, perhaps?)

Overview:

Akumajo Dracula timeline:

CV3-->CV1->CV2 [END]

Dracula Densetsu timeline:

CVA->CV:BR--->??

Akumajo Dracula X (IGA's) timeline:

Exactly the same, but without the above mentioned games, which are replaced.

CV1 ---> replaced by Castlevania Chronicles Arrange version
CVA ---> replaced by The Adventure Rebirth
CV2 ---> replaced by ??
CV3 ---> replaced by ??
CV:BR -> replaced by ??     
     

[Intersection]

Whoa, that makes too many timelines. Try to keep it simple. I wouldn't suggest creating new timelines for every game that doesn't work with IGA's continuity...

But here's my main objection at the moment:
Taking into consideration the games alone, none of the titles you've mentioned so far actually conflict with IGA's timeline (except maybe for SQ). The finer plot points you gave all belong to game manuals or come from staff interviews. If we were to remove or update that "extra" information to fit it with the IGA chronology, there would be no need to create a new timeline. The games themselves could easily remain.

Yet if the games were somehow to be replaced, I'd hope to see them integrally remade! Using Chronicles to replace Castlevania would be disappointing.

On the side, would you know where I could find translations for the manuals? My level of Japanese isn't quite up to par yet...

[Pfil]

Excellent idea!
That way, they could add more games into whatever timeline thay want to.
And they'd all make sense, also.

[Lelygax]

Secondly, CV2, despite being the third game in the series, was supposed to be the finale of the storyline already. According to the Japanese manual story, the method of burning Dracula's body parts would mean his permanent destruction. This is further supported by the Japanese ending which appears in the best ending, which says:

“And the battle ended. Simmon Belmont put an eternal period to the legend of Dracula. His blood and sweat penetrared into the ground of Transylvania will bring us full-blown flowers with happiness next spring.”

So, once again, we have a situation where the original intent was ignored, in this case by Rondo of Blood, but with no retcon offered.

The best ending shows Dracula's hand, showing that he would return someday. They say that Simon could destroy Dracula forever if he burned all parts, but he burned only five.

Now answering the thread title, it would make more sense if they did a remake correcting these logic errors than excluding the original ones from the timeline. But if really needed, it would be good to use these 3 classics as a base for a new AU.

[Nagumo]

But here's my main objection at the moment:
Taking into consideration the games alone, none of the titles you've mentioned so far actually conflict with IGA's timeline (except maybe for SQ). The finer plot points you gave all belong to game manuals or come from staff interviews. If we were to remove or update that "extra" information to fit it with the IGA chronology, there would be no need to create a new timeline. The games themselves could easily remain.

Yes, that would make it a lot easier. However, to me, that would feel a bit like cheating.  I prefer to not disregard any information. Also, if you would count every non-canon game as it's own seperate timeline, we already have a lot of them...

You can find the translated Japanese stories at Mr P's Castlevania Realm. Go to the game section for each respective game, then you go to media, and then click on "Translated Japanese manual story". 

The best ending shows Dracula's hand, showing that he would return someday. They say that Simon could destroy Dracula forever if he burned all parts, but he burned only five.

   

I was thinking about addressing this too, but it wasn't directly related to what I was writing about, and I didn't feel like making my post even longer. 

I think Dracula's hand rising from the grave is a programming error. I think the visuals and text of the best and middle endings got mixed up. My motivation:

1.) Altough it happend in the best ending, this story hooked never got picked up again. HoD seems to act like nothing Dracula-related happend since Simon broke his curse. I think they would have been forced to mention it, otherwise.

2.) I think the visuals of the best ending belong actually to the middle ending, and the visuals of the best ending belong to the middle ending. Why do I think this?

• It makes sense with what is established in the storyline. If Simon dies of the curse, Dracula would be revived. (This is mentioned in the PoR timeline. You can check at Mr P's site). Simon dies in the middle ending, so it would make sense if Dracula would come back afterwards.
• Visually, the middle ending looks the most happy. So, I think it would make sense if those visuals were actually made for the best ending.

     

[Lelygax]

But if it was a programming error, how couldnt they notice that dont you think? Since its the ending of the game they would check it at least some times. I could even understand if it was a error in the middle of the game.

[Nagumo]

If it wasn't, why did they never follow up on that ending, then?

[Pfil]

So it turns out the canonical ending is a different one, after all?

[Lelygax]

If it wasn't, why did they never follow up on that ending, then?

But they did. I've ever seen this to be like these ending from terror movies, that shows that the villain will return someday, not as an actual "Im alive and will return tomorrow". We've a plenty of sense of humor in CV, so I wont put it past them.

[Nagumo]

I doubt it, personally. Why allude to Dracula being defeated forever in the manual, enforce it once again in the ending, but then drop it?

I wonder if taking a look at the game's code would reveal something?