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

[Intersection]

It does seem to be the most logical solution.
I'd actually never given it much thought; Nagumo was the first to point it out.

Yet in a way C Belmont also has a point. I don't think this 'error' has ever been mentioned by the creators of the game; yet, if it did occur, it would have been so huge a blunder that it could scarcely go unnoticed... Well, that's yet another Castlevania mystery.
So, of course, if you can give a better explanation, I'm all ears...

[Pfil]

No, I never thought about it until I read this thread.
So far, it seems the most plausible explanation to me.
I don't go crazy about timeline and all that, but I like it, and it would be nice if Konami some day cares a little about CV and releases a book explaining everything and tying all loose-ends, like Nintendo did with Zelda.
But then again... we're talking about Nintendo, a company that cares and takes care of its franchises and its respective fans, and we're talking about Konami... we know how Konami is.

[C Belmont]

IGA and co deliberately ignored the cliff hanger ending. They must have done this for a reason

This is irrelevant IGA has ignored entire games because they didn't fit with his vision of Castlevania.

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

Note the use of "us" and "our"  by the narrator in the original famicom disk system version. This reads like the player is being addressed by a Transylvanian. A person unlikely to be privy to all the facts and definitely not expecting Dracula's prompt return.

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

Except that no matter what ending you pair the hand rising from the grave with it creates a contradiction. Before getting any of the endings you need to first complete all the tasks that the manual says will destroy Dracula forever. Swapping the text or graphics doesn't solve anything.

[Lelygax]

Note the use of "us" and "our"  by the narrator in the original famicom disk system version. This reads like the player is being addressed by a Transylvanian. A person unlikely to be privy to all the facts and definitely not expecting Dracula's prompt return.

A character cant interact with a player unless its shown beforehand in the story, they wont change rules in the last moment, also we have a narrator in the intro too, that possible being the same narrator.

One thing is sure: if you doubt the narrator, whatever you say wont be taken as serious. How I can say that? We're already entering in the 3rd cycle of this repetitive "narrator lies - no, he doesnt".

Even so, I hardly believe that some of these ending have some error in it, but even so if someone could check that for us I would be grateful.

As I've said before I think that this scene with Dracula's hand was meant to be more like "I'll return someday/This series isnt over yet" like in movies than it being taken serious and meaning that Dracula's wasnt dead at this time. Maybe to pay a homage to CV1 credits with these movie actors names they have decided to do a movie-like ending.

The only major conflict here is that woman saying that Dracula's would be destroyed forever, but the ending clearly shows that she was wrong or have a wrong concept of "forever". If you never see someone again in your life, you could say that this person disappeared forever, since you will die before it appearing again, you will never see it again, but in the future other people could meet this person. That is a example of wrong/deranged concept of forever.

[Nagumo]

I don't go crazy about timeline and all that, but I like it, and it would be nice if Konami some day cares a little about CV and releases a book explaining everything and tying all loose-ends, like Nintendo did with Zelda.

I wish I could write such a book. 

Except that no matter what ending you pair the hand rising from the grave with it creates a contradiction. Before getting any of the endings you need to first complete all the tasks that the manual says will destroy Dracula forever. Swapping the text or graphics doesn't solve anything.

It's established that if Simon dies of the wounds inflicted by the curse, Dracula will come back to live. Therefore, I think it goes without saying that "don't die as a result of the curse" is a requirement. Meaning, it's a requirement that Simon failed to accomplish in the middle ending, resulting in Dracula not being destroyed forever.   

[Pfil]

And that would explain why he kept resurrecting after Simon's Quest.
This seems the most logical one to me.

[Nagumo]

And that would explain why he kept resurrecting after Simon's Quest.
This seems the most logical one to me.

Hmmm, well, I don't want to sound confusing, but I think the canon ending is the "Dracula is destroyed forever" ending. I think IGA simply ignored the "forever" part since he has a tendency to ignore information established in old games like CV3, CVA, and CV2. Otherwise games like Rondo, SotN etc. wouldn't be able to occur. 

[Intersection]

Note the use of "us" and "our"  by the narrator in the original famicom disk system version. This reads like the player is being addressed by a Transylvanian. A person unlikely to be privy to all the facts and definitely not expecting Dracula's prompt return.

Here's the text from the original Famicom version:

AND THE BATTLE ENDED. SIMON BELMONT PUT AN ETERNAL PERIOD TO THE LEGEND OF DRACULA. HIS BLOOD AND SWEAT PENETRATED INTO THE GROUND OF TRANSYLVANIA WILL BRING US FULL-BLOWN FLOWERS WITH HAPPINESS IN NEXT SPRING.

If anything, this text does even more to support Nagumo's idea. Instead of having "put an end to the eternal darkness", Simon has now "put an eternal period the legend of Dracula". Which means that Simon's encounter was, indeed, definitive; an end has been given to Dracula's legend for eternity.
As for the use of "us", it's merely a more poetic manner of conveying the universal impact of Simon's victory; it's "us" as a people, "us" as humanity -- all of us can be thankful for Simon's noble actions, for he has brought happiness back to the land. You can think of that "happily ever after" segment from all fairy tales. It's that voice we hear in every epilogue, which is only there to give suitable closure. It has nothing to do with anyone "unlikely to be privy to all the facts".

Except that no matter what ending you pair the hand rising from the grave with it creates a contradiction. Before getting any of the endings you need to first complete all the tasks that the manual says will destroy Dracula forever. Swapping the text or graphics doesn't solve anything.

That actually isn't true. Read my previous post:

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.

As I've said before I think that this scene with Dracula's hand was meant to be more like "I'll return someday/This series isnt over yet" like in movies than it being taken serious and meaning that Dracula's wasnt dead at this time. Maybe to pay a homage to CV1 credits with these movie actors names they have decided to do a movie-like ending.

Well, that's plausible. The developers might not have been as attentive to their story as we've been expecting them to be. They might only have wanted to make sure that fans knew the series wasn't over -- it'd be more of a "James Bond will return" pitch than anything else. And in the end, it's true that this "switching error" idea can feel a bit artificial at times.

[Pfil]

Hmmm, well, I don't want to sound confusing, but I think the canon ending is the "Dracula is destroyed forever" ending. I think IGA simply ignored the "forever" part since he has a tendency to ignore information established in old games like CV3, CVA, and CV2. Otherwise games like Rondo, SotN etc. wouldn't be able to occur.

We have a timeline inconsistency here, so it seems...

[Intersection]

All right. It's taken four pages to achieve it, but it seems everything's been straightened out.
Now we can really start to speculate -- the best part of any thread.

Nagumo:

If CV I-III were to form their own trilogy, how do you think the transition should be handled? You're taking three of Konami's most loved games and essentially removing them from the canon storyline (= retcon, in a way). Not so many people would like that. I'll also add that much of IGA's timeline was created to accommodate and build upon these original titles; by cutting them out you'd be removing one of the continuity's more important foundations.

Should anything be added or changed from the original games to make them fit better as a trilogy? How would you suggest optimizing them for their new status?

Now for the canon timeline. How do we fill in the holes?
You'd mentioned that remakes of the missing games could be introduced. Now that's an idea I like. Not only would it free up space for future games, but it would be an extraordinary opportunity to revive some of CV's most loved classics...
So for now, go ahead and tell us: Which games do you suggest remaking? How do you suggest remaking them? Do you wish for them to stay close to the spirit of the originals, or would you be open to some more experimenting? Should they be added to? Cleaned up? Kept precisely the same? Are you leaning more towards a reboot or a faithful remake? What should they look like? Sound like? And who should lead the team?

[Nagumo]

Yes, we're finally getting to the good stuff now. I'm suprised and glad that somebody thinks my idea is interesting enough to further question me about it. 

If CV I-III were to form their own trilogy, how do you think the transition should be handled? You're taking three of Konami's most loved games and essentially removing them from the canon storyline (= retcon, in a way). Not so many people would like that. I'll also add that much of IGA's timeline was created to accommodate and build upon these original titles; by cutting them out you'd be removing one of the continuity's more important foundations.

Hmm, I'm going to try answer that question like I were the producer of the series.

First of all, I would make clear that Castlevania is not one storyline. It's a collection of stories that all share a similar world view. They all draw from the same well of accumulated assets (music, enemies, areas), but the details can be filled in by developers as desired. I would emphasize all storylines are equally as valid. Secondly, I would explain that treating CV1-III as a stand alone continuity would be following the original intent of Akumetsu's team (they created all three games). Thirdly, I'd argue the offical timeline was never supposed to be published and that it was leaked (I can provide the source), meaning it was originally supposed to be kept hidden so it could be revised as many times as the developers saw fit. Lastly, I would point out the games never really fitted well in IGA's canon, and that removing them would fix some continuity issues.

I would then proceed to publish a revised chronology in a guidebook, on the offical website, or perhaps as part of a pre-order bonus (whatever would be the most convenient at the time), putting my movation containing the above mentioned four points at the beginning. Alongside the revised IGA continuity, it would also list the CVI-III and Lords of Shadow canon.       
           

Should anything be added or changed from the original games to make them fit better as a trilogy? How would you suggest optimizing them for their new status?

Personally, I wouldn't change anything about them. I would stricly follow the original intent: Dracula is Vlad Tepes, he became a vampire because of a devil pact, etc. It would probably be important to explain Trevor and Christopher are the same character in this canon to avoid any confusion. Though, this may be or not be original intent also. For the sake of the discussion, I'm going to assume that it is.   

I'll address your third question tomorrow. 

[Pfil]

I find it to be a very interesting idea too.

[Inccubus]

If the ending texts truly are combined with the wrong visuals, both points would be adhered to. In the middle ending Simon dies, so Dracula comes back, in the best ending Simon overcomes the curse, so Dracula stays dead. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all.

It was confirmed to me that the code in the game that makes the hand coming out of the ground animation happen is dependent on one single instruction. If that one value is changed to it's alternative instruction that animation will appear in all endings except the best ending.
To explain, the instructions in question are the ASM codes BNE and BEQ. Without explaining exactly what these do, I'll just say that these two instructions being mixed up are responsible for a multitude of glitches in various ASM coded games.
Furthermore, the type of glitch this might be is what is called a "logic error". As a programmer myself, I can tell you that logic errors are the bane of all programmers. The reason is that unlike syntax errors which are pointed out by your code editor or at runtime by your compiler, logic errors give no indication except the running program itself and observing what happens. Thus, if during play testing the testers assumed the hand animation was meant to leave the game open to a sequel they may not have reported it.
So, given that mixing up those two instructions is such a common logic error, that changing it makes the endings make a hell of a lot more sense, and the likely hood that if it is an error that it wouldn't have been reported then strengthens the possibility that there may actually be a glitch here.
Or maybe it's exactly how it should be.
If we could only ask the original scenario writer...

[Lelygax]

Yes, we're finally getting to the good stuff now. I'm suprised and glad that somebody thinks my idea is interesting enough to further question me about it.

Sorry if I made it sound uninteresting, Im interested in it, its only difficult to me accept it as a fact, thats all. Thats not something that Im doing on purpose, its my nature I think. Im only defending my point of view, not trying to disrespect yours.

[Inccubus]

Yes, we're finally getting to the good stuff now. I'm suprised and glad that somebody thinks my idea is interesting enough to further question me about it. 


Hmm, I'm going to try answer that question like I were the producer of the series.

First of all, I would make clear that Castlevania is not one storyline. It's a collection of stories that all share a similar world view. They all draw from the same well of accumulated assets (music, enemies, areas), but the details can be filled in by developers as desired. I would emphasize all storylines are equally as valid. Secondly, I would explain that treating CV1-III as a stand alone continuity would be following the original intent of Akumetsu's team (they created all three games). Thirdly, I'd argue the offical timeline was never supposed to be published and that it was leaked (I can provide the source), meaning it was originally supposed to be kept hidden so it could be revised as many times as the developers saw fit. Lastly, I would point out the games never really fitted well in IGA's canon, and that removing them would fix some continuity issues.

I would then proceed to publish a revised chronology in a guidebook, on the offical website, or perhaps as part of a pre-order bonus (whatever would be the most convenient at the time), putting my movation containing the above mentioned four points at the beginning. Alongside the revised IGA continuity, it would also list the CVI-III and Lords of Shadow canon.       
           
Personally, I wouldn't change anything about them. I would stricly follow the original intent: Dracula is Vlad Tepes, he became a vampire because of a devil pact, etc. It would probably be important to explain Trevor and Christopher are the same character in this canon to avoid any confusion. Though, this may be or not be original intent also. For the sake of the discussion, I'm going to assume that it is.   

I'll address your third question tomorrow. 

I pretty much agree with all this. It's plainly obvious from the games themselves that CV1-3 are meant to be a closed story arc. It wasn't until the demand for sequels that the contradictions started... well except for CVA.

What I would do is remake CV1, CV2SQ, CV2BR, and combine CV3 with CVA. There seems to be more than enough evidence that Trevor was intended to be Christopher. And having a remake of CV2BR with CV3 as part of it's immediate back story would roXXor h4rd! Very metal.

The more that I analyze all this the more it seems like having 3 continuities makes sense. Not the least reason for which is the excuse to make more remakes and thus more CV games.

Accommodating in later games.

And as far as the later games having been made to accommodate the original trilogy, well, that's objectively not what was done. All the later games retcon things in the original trilogy. The dates of CV3 & CVA are retconned. Trevor C. and Christopher are taken as separate characters by retconning the dates. LoI retcons Dracula's origin. Only the later games establish 100 year rule. Yeah... that doesn't sound like anything was being accommodated.