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

[DoctaMario]

The amount of overanalysis in this thread is astounding. 

As far as Simon's Quest's ending is concerned, it's possible that the woman who came to Simon (who isn't even mentioned in the US manual as far as I remember) may have mistakenly believed that gathering all the body parts and burning them was the way to permanently destroy Dracula, much like is was mistakenly believed that the God Mask could bring back the dead in LoS. Either way the canon ending is not an error. It's clear that Simon survived but that he didn't exactly finish the job either because he missed a body part or because he received the wrong info.

But either way, I've always though of the various games being their own timelines

cv3
Cv1/ScvIV/Chronicles
Simon's Quest
Harmony of Dissonance

Bloodlines
PoR

Rondo/Dracula X
SoTN

LoS
MoF
LoS2

and so on and so forth. I think it makes more sense to make little trilogies and whatnot than to try to create a whole crazy timeline that is bound to be rife with inconsistencies and stuff that makes no sense, but that's just me.

For the sake of argument, I think LoS was the best thing to happen to CV since DXC. IGa kept doing the same old thing and it got old.

[Nagumo]

Eh, if you're going to flat out say I'm wrong and I'm overanalyzing, at least come up with a decent alternative explanation that actually makes sense. The mystery woman is clearly supposed to be telling the truth. There is no reason for her to be wrong from a narrative standpoint, nor does the story give a reason to not trust her words. She's saying those specific lines for a reason.

Also, let's stick to the topic, please. CVII's ending is at least marginally relevant. Debating which game is more successful is not.

[DoctaMario]

Eh, if you're going to flat out say I'm wrong and I'm overanalyzing, at least come up with a decent alternative explanation that actually makes sense. The mystery woman is clearly supposed to be telling the truth. There is no reason for her to be wrong from a narrative standpoint, nor does the story give a reason to not trust her words. She's saying those specific lines for a reason.

Also, let's stick to the topic, please. CVII's ending is at least marginally relevant. Debating which game is more successful is not.

It wasn't so much you over analyzing as somemof the other posters. You're just taking what I said personally and refusing to put any thought into the alternatives I presented which make plenty of sense. The mystery woman isn't even mentioned in the US manual as far as I can remember. You're trying to apply logic to a story that was put into a game largely before stories in games were more than an afterthought. There are likely going to be inconsistencies and since the canon makes it clear that Simon had offspring and that Dracula DID come back at some point, I don't see how the words of some mystery woman who's little more than a messenger could make you doubt thr outcome of the game.

[Belmontoya]

DoctaMArio is my hero.

[DoctaMario]

DoctaMArio is my hero.

Hahahahahah I love it! I don't think that combination of words has ever been put together before! xD

[Nagumo]

It wasn't so much you over analyzing as somemof the other posters. You're just taking what I said personally and refusing to put any thought into the alternatives I presented which make plenty of sense. The mystery woman isn't even mentioned in the US manual as far as I can remember. You're trying to apply logic to a story that was put into a game largely before stories in games were more than an afterthought. There are likely going to be inconsistencies and since the canon makes it clear that Simon had offspring and that Dracula DID come back at some point, I don't see how the words of some mystery woman who's little more than a messenger could make you doubt thr outcome of the game.

Did you even bother to read this thread? The mystery woman not being is the US manual is completely inrelevant. What matters is the Japanese storyline In case you didn't notice, the ending mentions the same thing. Or do you think you know it better than the actual game?

Your second argument is just a broad generalization. There were plenty of games in those days that had internally consistent stories with plenty of thought put into them.

Thridly, you're using information established after the game to proof your point. What matters is the original intent. The continuity wasn't as tight as it was when IGA started making games. For example, it's possible the writers of Rondo either weren't aware or didn't care about the original intention of Simon's Quest ending. Heck, it's also possible Rondo was supposed to be set in an alternate continuity from CVI-III. Meaning, the fact that they continued past CVII's ending proofs nothing about the original intent.

Also, if you're so sure that I'm wrong, then you have no trouble refuting these points.

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.

Good luck with that.

Seriously, you say how obviously wrong I am, but you know nothing, nor do you care to put actual thought in what you're saying. You're the one being dismissive here, not me.

DoctaMArio is my hero.

Drop the peanut gallery comments.               

[Intersection]

DoctaHero... er, DoctaMario:

The amount of overanalysis in this thread is astounding. 

Of course it is! This forum would be significantly duller if we weren't allowed to have some fun. After all, for what other purpose are we here but to overanalyze? It's our job to overembellish; to overelaborate; to overstate; to overemphasize -- to stretch far and wide, to make mountains out of molehills, to lay it all thick... and do it all with a smile! 

You're trying to apply logic to a story that was put into a game largely before stories in games were more than an afterthought.

Again, you're probably right! Yet I'm following Nagumo's idea because I find it very... interesting. Don't you agree? I want to hear what he has to say.
Because, in the end, why else would we spend five pages talking about an eventuality that will, obviously, never happen?

Remember: in a forum like this, speculation is king! At least, that's what I believe. So, in the absence of anything better to do, we can draw up grandiose, existential debates about things that are really... trifles.

Nagumo:
Take it with humor! I'm sure he doesn't mean any harm. 

[Lelygax]

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.

Point "1" shows that Dracula comes back even if he is supposedly dead, but that happens in CV3 ending too, since they dont mention anything about this 100 year cycle until Super Castlevania IV IIRC, but even so he returns in CV1.

Point "2" says that Dracula would come back, but only because they didnt shown is hand doesnt mean that it doesnt happen, they didnt say "when" or "where" he would return. You have something showing when and where he would return?

I've given some alternatives already, here is a newer and crazier one: Dracula was really been destroyed, but his spirit still lives. They use his relics in rituals to give a new body for him. In HoD he doesnt have a body, but in RoB Shaft does a ritual and so he acquires a new body.

[Inccubus]

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 likelyhood 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...

 I'll just reiterate the above post I made before that seems to have been largely ignored.
And let me emphasize that the above information does lend a lot of credence to the possibility of an error actually having occurred.

[Lelygax]

Sorry, I thought that anyone talked about it already and I forgot about it :/

Yes, I understood it at the first time, a simple value flag change could switch the hand from ON to OFF in all the endings. Like OFF, OFF, ON or ON, ON, OFF.

Its a possibility.

[Inccubus]

Yeap, that's right. And it would be a very easy mistake to make and one that wouldn't have been questioned if someone wasn't specifically looking for it.

[DoctaMario]

Did you even bother to read this thread? The mystery woman not being is the US manual is completely inrelevant. What matters is the Japanese storyline In case you didn't notice, the ending mentions the same thing. Or do you think you know it better than the actual game?

Your second argument is just a broad generalization. There were plenty of games in those days that had internally consistent stories with plenty of thought put into them.

Thridly, you're using information established after the game to proof your point. What matters is the original intent. The continuity wasn't as tight as it was when IGA started making games. For example, it's possible the writers of Rondo either weren't aware or didn't care about the original intention of Simon's Quest ending. Heck, it's also possible Rondo was supposed to be set in an alternate continuity from CVI-III. Meaning, the fact that they continued past CVII's ending proofs nothing about the original intent.

Also, if you're so sure that I'm wrong, then you have no trouble refuting these points.

Good luck with that.

Seriously, you say how obviously wrong I am, but you know nothing, nor do you care to put actual thought in what you're saying. You're the one being dismissive here, not me.

Drop the peanut gallery comments.             

First of all, can you stop taking this so damn personally? You act like I basically just typed "hur hur you're a retard" and left it at that. I gave a well thought out rebuttal and I didn't attack you at all, so quit acting like I have. You and i go back a ways so its disappointing to me that you think im attacking you and are neg repping all my comments (as well as the others of those that disagree with you, but do what you like i guess) And yes, I've read thr entire thread.

For one: Is there some agreement that I don't know about that says Jap Story > All? The mystery woman is a plot device that is never mentioned in game and the fact that you're using an element that isn't even mentioned in the game as the crux of your argument says to me that you have a weak argument. The manuals were seldom written by the same people working on the text for the game. If she were that important, she'd be in the game in some fashion, but she's not.

 I think thr reason Drac's hand pops out is because it's a cool-ass ending. You think you're done, that you've destroyed the ultimate evil. The text in the ending sets you up to believe its all over, but NOPE! To be continued...It set up the possibility of more games. An indeterminent ending is a lot more interesting when well done because of the questions it raises.

As for me knowing it "better than the game," Simon's Quest is the reason I got into Castlevania in the first place and I've played it so many times that I know it like the back of my hand. So come correct because I've been playing the game for a LONG time. 

Two: Your point about them never following up on the resurrection ending uses information created after thr fact just like you accused me of doing. You do it again by invoking the PoR timeline as proof of Simon dies=Drac returns.

Three: You don't currently nor will you ever know the original intent of the designers so this is all Theoryvania anyway. Stop taking it so personally, this is all in good fun.

Yeap, that's right. And it would be a very easy mistake to make and one that wouldn't have been questioned if someone wasn't specifically looking for it.

This is definitely an interesting position to take. I'd like to think that making simple text errors is one thing but that they'd be a lot more careful with something that important. But we have no way of knowing. Are there other evidences of sloppy programming in the game?

I really do think it was just something cool to get the player excited, no more
No less.

And I agree with you Intersection about speculation being fun. I just think sometimes it gets taken to extremes.

[Intersection]

Inccubus: we'd understood your point -- at least, I hope we had. Yes, these kind of errors occur far more often than one might think; I've done a good bit of programming myself, and these kind of errors are notoriously easy to miss. If what you've been told is true, then it's more than possible that an error did actually occur.
But I'm still perplexed as to why the error wouldn't have been found beforehand. Testers could easily have interpreted the ending as a cliffhanger (I know I did); but any self-respecting developer would have the sense to test their own game, and the grave/hand scene wasn't exactly hidden...
Maybe the developers had identified their error but decided to leave it there anyhow -- they might have thought that a minor plot incoherence wasn't all that important? After all, it did give a nice "I will return" effect.

DoctaMario:

For one: Is there some agreement that I don't know about that says Jap Story > All? The mystery woman is a plot device that is never mentioned in game and the fact that you're using an element that isn't even mentioned in the game as the crux of your argument says to me that you have a weak argument. The manuals were seldom written by the same people working on the text for the game. If she were that important, she'd be in the game in some fashion, but she's not.

Generally, when you're looking for the original intentions of the devs, you'd look into the original, Japanese manual, not in the translated versions.
And one of the reasons a manual was needed in the first place was to inject storyline elements that couldn't conveniently be fitted in the game itself. So, in this case, there's no reason why you shouldn't trust it...

Two: Your point about them never following up on the resurrection ending uses information created after thr fact just like you accused me of doing. You do it again by invoking the PoR timeline as proof of Simon dies=Drac returns.

I don't think it's quite the same thing. Whether they followed up or not on the resurrection ending does tell us something of their intentions, since you have to remember that it was essentially the same team that worked on the following games. And what did they do? They went backwards instead, setting Trevor Belmont's quest two centuries before Simon's... Even Christopher's outings came a century before. So why would they have chosen to ignore the cliffhanger they had so painstakingly set up? That was the question.
Now, of course, Portrait of Ruin's story has no bearing on what SQ's team originally intended. But I didn't see Nagumo mentioning it...

Three: You don't currently nor will you ever know the original intent of the designers so this is all Theoryvania anyway. Stop taking it so personally, this is all in good fun.

Yes, yes! Exactly!  It's all in good fun:

And I agree with you Intersection about speculation being fun. I just think sometimes it gets taken to extremes.

Well, it seems you've been taken in as well: just look at how long your post has gotten... 

[DoctaMario]

Generally, when you're looking for the original intentions of the devs, you'd look into the original, Japanese manual, not in the translated versions.
And one of the reasons a manual was needed in the first place was to inject storyline elements that couldn't conveniently be fitted in the game itself. So, in this case, there's no reason why you shouldn't trust it...

OKay, that I understand, but again, if this "mystery woman" (who I'd never heard anything of until I read that Worlds Of Power Simon's Quest book growing up) was SO vitally important to the game's story, why is she not mentioned in game? Why no exposition at the beginning, why does no villager mention her, priest in the church, etc? And given all that, that we have no idea what on earth the designers were shooting for, this is all wild speculation and we have no reason to distrust the game or its endings based on some theory that involves a plot element that wasn't even important enough to be included in the game. If you want to talk about intentions, I'd say that is a big one; that they didn't include her in the game at all.

As someone who grew up in the NES era, played tons of games and read tons of manuals, I've never heard of a plot element that is vital to the story NOT being at least referenced in-game, and I doubt they'd let some story element get in the way of making another game, especially back then.

I don't think it's quite the same thing. Whether they followed up or not on the resurrection ending does tell us something of their intentions, since you have to remember that it was essentially the same team that worked on the following games. And what did they do? They went backwards instead, setting Trevor Belmont's quest two centuries before Simon's... Even Christopher's outings came a century before. So why would they have chosen to ignore the cliffhanger they had so painstakingly set up? That was the question.
Now, of course, Portrait of Ruin's story has no bearing on what SQ's team originally intended. But I didn't see Nagumo mentioning it...

I think you're reaching with this. Do we know that it was essentially the same team that worked on all those games? I've been under the impression that they changed team members pretty frequently back then. And I don't think them using prequels is proof of anything other than them trying to change things up and have a different character in the spotlight. The GB titles really didn't have any story elements contained therein, hell I thought I was playing as Simon in CVA until I joined the Dungeon here and it turned out it was Chris, because there's no reference to his name or any sort of year in-game or in the manual, at least not the American one. 

As for Nagumo, I think she was referencing the timeline that came with PoR, which again, is using information that crystallized well after SQ came out to prove her point. It was in a post about halfway down on page 2 of this thread.

Yes, yes! Exactly!  It's all in good fun:Well, it seems you've been taken in as well: just look at how long your post has gotten... 

Lol, I'm as verbose as they come, so for you, it's a long post, for me it's Monday. xD

[Nagumo]

First of all, can you stop taking this so damn personally? You act like I basically just typed "hur hur you're a retard" and left it at that. I gave a well thought out rebuttal and I didn't attack you at all, so quit acting like I have. You and i go back a ways so its disappointing to me that you think im attacking you and are neg repping all my comments (as well as the others of those that disagree with you, but do what you like i guess) And yes, I've read thr entire thread.

Oh, I see. I think there was a misunderstanding. When you said: "The amount of overanalysis in this thread is astounding. " it came across as mean to me. However, it's difficult to determine the tone of what somebody is saying on the internet. So, never mind my harsh tone. Also, I don't actually downvote people who disagree with me. I only downvote when I think somebody disagrees because of an argument I think is weak. For example, Lelygax disagrees with me too, but I never downvoted him. But I disgress. 

OKay, that I understand, but again, if this "mystery woman" (who I'd never heard anything of until I read that Worlds Of Power Simon's Quest book growing up) was SO vitally important to the game's story, why is she not mentioned in game? Why no exposition at the beginning, why does no villager mention her, priest in the church, etc? And given all that, that we have no idea what on earth the designers were shooting for, this is all wild speculation and we have no reason to distrust the game or its endings based on some theory that involves a plot element that wasn't even important enough to be included in the game. If you want to talk about intentions, I'd say that is a big one; that they didn't include her in the game at all.

As someone who grew up in the NES era, played tons of games and read tons of manuals, I've never heard of a plot element that is vital to the story NOT being at least referenced in-game, and I doubt they'd let some story element get in the way of making another game, especially back then.

It's important to note that the mystery woman and Simon's girlfriend from the Worlds of Power novel are not the same character. They just happen to have similar roles. I doubt the author was aware of the Japanese storyline at all. 

As for your actual point, it may be weird that such an important element is not mentioned in the game itself, but it's definitely canon. For example, the guidebook of the game mentions Dracula has a sixth body part, and that he is revived through this body part when Simon burns the other five in Dracula's castle. You would think this is something wacky the author of the guidebook came up with, but the PoR timeline I mentioned earlier mentions it too. Therefore, the information is definitely legitimate. It also mentions the mystery woman. So, I don't think there should be doubt about the reliability of the manual story.         
 

I think you're reaching with this. Do we know that it was essentially the same team that worked on all those games? I've been under the impression that they changed team members pretty frequently back then. And I don't think them using prequels is proof of anything other than them trying to change things up and have a different character in the spotlight. The GB titles really didn't have any story elements contained therein, hell I thought I was playing as Simon in CVA until I joined the Dungeon here and it turned out it was Chris, because there's no reference to his name or any sort of year in-game or in the manual, at least not the American one. 

H. Akamatsu is the director of all three NES games. The director of Castlevania IV confirmed this in an interview recently. He mentions CVIII was made by "the same people who made CVI and II." 

As for my "they never picked up on the cliff hanger ending" argument, we have established earlier in this thread that IGA treats the NES and GB games as canon but sometimes straight up ignores things from them. However, assuming the cliff hanger is the originally intented ending, why do both Rondo and HoD, both direct sequels at the time of their release, completely ignore it? He ignores a lot of things but I can't imagine him ignoring such an important story hook. That's one big reason why I don't believe that ending is canon.     

As for Nagumo, I think she was referencing the timeline that came with PoR, which again, is using information that crystallized well after SQ came out to prove her point. It was in a post about halfway down on page 2 of this thread.

I'm very confident it's in the Japanese manual as well. However, I only have acces to one translation, which contains some errors. For example, it makes the same translation mistake made by TheouAegis earlier in this thread. That's why I think it's probably in there somewhere, but the translator just skipped over it or something. Also, the PoR timeline only takes information from earlier sources. The mystery woman and Dracula's sixth body piece weren't original invention, so why should this be?