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

[Lelygax]

Its okay to doubt a character (even I doubt this mysterious woman a bit) but if you doubt the narrative then you lose your focus and start making your own story, that isnt part of the source material.

Also your logic starts falling apart at this moment:

"The game manual said ... and they wouldn't say that if--"
Sure they would, otherwise you'd have no reason to do all that crap. Simon could die like any other normal human and the world could wait 100 years for Dracula to come back as normal. Instead, we have this odd request from a mysterious figure that tells Simon to...

RESURRECT DRACULA.

She never said to Simon resurrect Dracula, she said to him burn all Dracula parts inside his castle. Simon did it wrong leaving a part untouched (like in Evil Dead 3 when the protagonist say the wrong words for the Necronomicon) and then Dracula revives. Thats why I think Dracula isnt gone for good, since Simon didnt used the correct method. Also this woman could be lying like another NPCs about this "annihilated for good" part.

Seriously, the moment that you doubt what the game is saying to you (not a NPC, not a signpost or a letter in game, but the narrative and manual) you start creating things instead of trying to understand the game.

[C Belmont]

There is of course one gaping hole with the theory that the best ending is an error because it contradicts the manual...

Other games do it 

Consider Metroid. The game manual deliberately misleads the player into believing that Samus is a man. Should we conclude that Samus is a man because the manual says so? is that a man in a pixel bikini?

This is a perfect example of a manual telling you something that contradicts the game for dramatic effect.
Why should we consider castlevania II any different?

[Nagumo]

I checked the offical Japanese guidebook. In the section that deals with the Dracula boss fight, it says at the end you (the player) has defeated Dracula forever. Please don't tell me you think the offical guidebook was also lying for dramatic effect.

[C Belmont]

I checked the official Japanese guidebook. In the section that deals with the Dracula boss fight, it says at the end you (the player) has defeated Dracula forever. Please don't tell me you think the offical guidebook was also lying for dramatic effect.

yes, I do.

Like the manual, the guidebook will lead the player to believe that Dracula has been defeated forever until the dramatic reveal. This uncited quote does nothing to support your theory.


 

[Nagumo]

Like I mentioned before, if the endings aren't mixed up, the story doesn't make sense otherwise.

1.) We would have ending where Dracula is supposed to be dead...then comes back anyway.
2.) We would have ending where Dracula is supposed to come back...but doesn't.

Also, they never followed up on the "Dracula resurrection" ending anyway. In fact, HoD downright ignores it.

Refute these points first, then you can play the "lying for dramatic effect" card.

[C Belmont]

The problem is that you are using later material to conclude that the earlier endings must be wrong, when at the time they were created there would have been nothing amiss & no reason to discount the lying for dramatic effect card.

[Intersection]

I'm sorry, but games don't have "blatantly lying for dramatic effect" cards. Especially not in 1987.
When you read something in a game manual, you take it for granted. End of story.
As for Metroid:

Samus' true identity as a woman was a heavily guarded secret, and was obscured by the already simple Power Suit’s androgynous appearance. The game manuals for Metroid in Japan uses pronouns like "it" mainly because the Japanese language only has gender-neutral pronouns like aista. The American manuals instead used male pronouns like "he", but it is unknown if this was a botched attempt to keep Samus' gender a secret or simply a mistranslation. Only by beating the game in under an hour could the player gain access to a secret ending where Samus would remove her Power Suit and reveal herself to be a woman.

Source: Metroid wikia -- Samus Aran

The point is, it makes no sense to doubt a game's narrative -- for the simple reason that it's all you've got. Remove the narrative and you've removed the story.
Simon might as well have been a chicken in that regard. They might have been lying for dramatic effect... Right?

[C Belmont]

The point is, it makes no sense to doubt a game's narrative -- for the simple reason that it's all you've got

You know what, I agree completely. The best ending is after all a part of the games narrative & it confirms that in the end Dracula was not destroyed for good even if a character from the manual or the narrator says so.

[Nagumo]

Yes, but like I already pointed out, the story doesn't make sense if the endings weren't switched. So, there's legitimate reason for doubt.

[Intersection]

You know what, I agree completely. The best ending is after all a part of the games narrative & it confirms that in the end Dracula was not destroyed for good even if a character from the manual or the narrator says so.

Look: what's happening here is that the game's ending conflicts with what is written in the game's official manual. In fact, it seems to conflict with itself -- right before that confusing "hand out of grave" scene, you can clearly read: "The encounter with Dracula is terminated. Simon Belmont has put an end to the eternal darkness in Transylvania. His blood and sweat have penetrated the earth and will induce magic and happiness for those who walk on this land." After that, you'd expect closure; it doesn't quite sound like "Dracula will soon be revived", does it?
But now look at the "Good" ending. Here's the text: "Although the confrontation between Simon and Dracula has concluded, Simon couldn't survive his fatal wounds. Transylvania's only hope is a young man who will triumph over evil and rid the city of Dracula's deadly curse." Now that sounds more like it - it seems Dracula's curse has not yet lifted. And perhaps he might even be resurrected... That's far more fitting for what we saw.
So here's where Nagumo's logic comes in: the endings might have been inverted, essentially switching the "good" and "best" ending animations. Thus, Simon would die in the good ending, allowing for Dracula's eventual revival (hence the grave scene). But in the best ending (the intended canon), Simon has triumphs over the curse and lives, having defeated Dracula for eternity. It's far more climactic, and gives an appropriate sense of closure to the story. And it makes more sense.
Of course, that's only a possibility. But, so far, it's the most logical one.

And to put the matter to rest once and for all: game manuals don't lie. They don't today, and certainly didn't in 1987 -- if anything, they're intended as a reference. I'll say it again: if there is anything we do know, it's that this ending confusion is the result of an error, and certainly not of an intentional deception. Unless, of course, the developers were utterly incompetent. But that's for you to decide...

[Belmontoya]

I've always considered CV 1,2, and 3 to be their own timeline. I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way.

Those games were never written and made with the intention of being a part of some huge storyline anyways. And they just don't feel like they belong in IGA's universe.

I love the idea of the series being wrapped up in a trilogy.

I can't wait to unveil the new CV storyline for The Rise of Castlevania! It has a lot in common with Dracula's Curse.

[C Belmont]

I'll say it again: if there is anything we do know, it's that this ending confusion is the result of an error, and certainly not of an intentional deception.

This is not a known fact.

So far your only evidence to support the theory that there is a programming error is that a contradiction exists.
However the theory that Dracula's revival was a plot twist to reward the player for his effort and  that the creators were utilizing an "unreliable narrator" also explains the contradiction and is a well established narrative device.

So what other evidence do you have that an error occurred?
Have any of the developers mentioned that the endings were mixed up?
Why should I accept your theory when the facts can easily be explained without positing a hypothetical error?

[Nagumo]

@Jeffrey Montoya

Yes, I definitely agree. I've always had trouble imagining CV1 and SotN co-existing in the same world. It just doesn't feel right to me.

@C Belmont
Well, first of all, I don't agree with the "unreliable narrator" bit. That doesn't occur in third-person narrative. Intersection pointed out the Metroid example was a case of a necessary translation choice instead of unreliable narration. Secondly, HoD was written in such a way that it's a direct sequel to CV2. Meaning, IGA and co deliberately ignored the cliff hanger ending. They must have done this for a reason.
 

[Intersection]

This is not a known fact.

Now here you're right, it isn't. I was writing too fast. No, it isn't a known fact, though it is the most logical possibility. But here's the message I had meant to get across: "if there is anything we do know, it's that this ending confusion was not the result of an intentional deception."

So far your only evidence to support the theory that there is a programming error is that a contradiction exists.
However the theory that Dracula's revival was a plot twist to reward the player for his effort and  that the creators were utilizing an "unreliable narrator" also explains the contradiction and is a well established narrative device.

So what other evidence do you have that an error occurred?
Have any of the developers mentioned that the endings were mixed up?
Why should I accept your theory when the facts can easily be explained without positing a hypothetical error?

Because your explanation isn't valid.
The ending statements are part of a third-person, omniscient narrative. Why? Because they're told in the third person, cannot be assimilated to any singular voice, and make broad, sweeping assertions that can't be attributed to any subjective point of view. So by definition they cannot come from an unreliable narrator. The terms "omniscient" and "unreliable" are mutually exclusive in literature. An omniscient narrator can omit parts of a story (hence the Metroid surprise), but doesn't lie.
Now, for the game manual. A game manual is an objective reference. What don't you understand about it? It's there to give a factual backstory to the game. It's not a novel -- it's a manual. It's there to instruct. That's all.
So I'll say it again, for the last time: Simon's Quest does not use unreliable narration.

So why does Nagumo pose the "error" hypothesis? Because it's the one that makes the most sense. It's as simple as that.

[Pfil]

So, in the end, chances are the bad ending is indeed the canonical ending?