Topic: In which continuity should a future Castlevania game be set?

[Gamermeister]

I think that's an interesting question: Is CV about the Belmonts or about Dracula?

I think the answer is relative, but to me it's about the Belmonts.

[darkwzrd4]

I think that's an interesting question: Is CV about the Belmonts or about Dracula?

I think the answer is relative, but to me it's about the Belmonts.

It was originally about the battle between them. Then IGA came along and screwed everything up by creating games where the ones to beat Dracula aren't Belmonts.

[Ratty]

without Dracula in some form, it isn't a CV game. He is always in the games in some way.

Indeed

(Had to.)

Though I don't think I'd mind so much if there were sequels to specific games following individual characters after they had defeated Dracula. I'd rather like to know the specifics of the later lives of Richter/Maria and the CV64 heroes for example. Though that might be better suited for non-interactive fiction than actual games. Then again, it'd be pretty hard if not impossible to make the new villains seem as threatening. Once you've fought the lord of darkness and the grim reaper, where is there to go? I think we even saw this villain degradation in Dawn of Sorrow to some degree, going from fighting your inner Dracula and chaos to just "some magic guys who are in a cult I guess" simply didn't feel as satisfying.

[Nagumo]

I think that's an interesting question: Is CV about the Belmonts or about Dracula?

It's about neither. They're just labels.

[chainsawmidget]

It's about neither. They're just labels.

Dracula should not be a label.  Dracula should be Dracula. 

That's another place where they've really screwed things over. 

[Gamermeister]

Dracula should not be a label.  Dracula should be Dracula. 

That's another place where they've really screwed things over.

Technically speaking, "Dracula" has always been a label. Vlad the Impaler's name was not Dracula. That was just a moniker given because of the Order of the Dragon or whatever.

And then in CV lore, Dracula was actually Mathias, the name "Dracula" again being an assumed moniker.

[Belmontoya]

I think Castlevania should be about Dracula and his rivals, the Belmont clan. I think IGA's storyline got too convoluted with side stories and unimportant characters. I don't think the conflict between Dracula and the Belmonts was personal enough, and emphasized enough.

I think the problem with LOS is that it took that a step too far in making Dracula a Belmont. They have made Dracula an interesting hero, but they have also made him less of a villain, and far from the monster the character is supposed to be.

I see Dracula as man corrupted by a lifetime of war and imprisonment. A man with nothing but vengeance and self entitlement in his heart. He inflicted unimaginable pain and suffering on his enemies and even his own people. Dracula committed the worst massacres the world had ever seen. He demanded perfect obedience and slaughtered anyone who disobeyed even the most trivial rule. He had not one shred of mercy in him. This was the man he was during his natural life. Imagine a man like that given the powers of a vampire. He is a horrifying monster. This is the character Dracula is in our game.

The Belmont clan was also never given what I feel is the right relationship with Dracula. Dracula was in fact killed by an assassin. This is what is widely believed. It is most likely that this assassin was either a Turk, or a Boyar (the class of people Dracula showed the least amount of mercy to). I have let history be my guide in shaping who the Belmonts are and what their motivation is behind their campaign against Dracula in our reboot.

The name Dracula was more than a moniker, it was Vlad Tepes' patronymic name. He is the real Dracula, and even in Bram Stoker's book, he makes countless references to holding back the Turks. It obvious in Stoker's book who Dracula is.

It feels awkward to me when the character of Dracula is twisted into something else. Especially when he is such a fascinating character to begin with. He is perfect as he is for Castlevania, there was never a need to twist him into someone else. He is tragic and terrifying. A perfect antagonist.

I wish Konami would use what is right in front of them to get the story right.

[Gamermeister]

I wish Konami would use what is right in front of them to get the story right.

I have to disagree with this statement, seeing as the entirety of Castlevania is basically fan fiction based on the Stoker novel. The original timeline took what it wanted from the novel and ignored the rest. If they didn't care to "get it right" back in '86 or whenever then I don't think they should start now. Besides, what is there to "get right?" As I said, we are playing a game spun off of a novel, which was heavily fictionalized from the historical Vlad Tepes. Castlevania's own source material is another work of fiction.

Since what we have is a fiction loosely based on a fiction loosely based on a person in history, there really is no "right." There is only a platform for storytelling. I think LoS was/is a great reimagining of this fiction, but certainly it can be done again. That's all I really care about. Good stories and good gameplay. There's little room for historical accuracy with vampires, demons, werewolves, etc.

[Belmontoya]

There is plety of room for accuracy in the pre-vampire dracula. After the mortal man is killed and he becomes a vampire the fantasy horror land can begin, just like in stokers book. Doing this on top of the real life horror of who dracula really was amps up the character and makes him more interesting. That is the reason stoker based him on a real person to begin with.

Konami almost did this with the story of Dracula's curse, but then they took another route.

I feel that if they are going to put Dracula in a game, then make him Dracula. Otherwise they should call him by another name.

[Gamermeister]

Doing this on top of the real life horror of who dracula really was amps up the character and makes him more interesting.

This is the part where things get relative. There are no correct answers, only opinions. While the LoS story has its flaws, I like the interpretation of Dracula better and find it more interesting. I only wish we could get more games set between LoS 1 and 2 that flesh out Drac's ruthlessness and oppression and the Belmonts that fight to stop him. I'd really like to see more of that villainy that Gabriel is capable of.

[Ratty]

Asking if Castlevania is more about Dracula or the Belmonts is kind of like asking if reese's cups are more about the chocolate or the peanut butter, they're both essential ingredients. (Which I guess would make OoE/CotM/Bloodlines/PoR/N64/LoD M&Ms? No?)

SNIP

Well, there's a lot to be said for a version inspired by Vlad Tepes. And this inspiration has come through in Dracula's name in some of the games, namely the X series and the N64 games, perhaps more in the original Japanese. But to say that the historical Vlad Tepes is a crucial element is a bit of a misnomer I think. Don't forget that Stoker didn't intend for his vampire to be based on any historical figure initially. According to David J. Skal, Stoker was originally going to call his character "Count Wampyre", and decided to graft the historical Vlad onto the character as "window dressing" after the fact, when he happened across an account of Vlad's misdeeds while researching Romanian history. Also Christopher Lee is given more credit in the original game

Dracula is like Batman, or Santa Claus, he is many things to many people. But when it comes to Castlevania he hasn't always been tightly tied to the original novel or the historical Vlad Tepes. Though like I said there's a lot going for such an interpretation, the fact that Tepes really did exist and really did brutally torture and kill so many people is chilling, and that could make for a fun foundation to approach the series in a reboot.

[chainsawmidget]

I feel that if they are going to put Dracula in a game, then make him Dracula. Otherwise they should call him by another name.

I'm with you on this one.

I don't mind the character just being "Count Dracula" but any attempt to explain who he really is that doesn't involve him being Vlad Tepes just feels wrong.  The backstory looses more than it gains by saying anyone but Dracula is Dracula. 

Honestly, I don't see the point in using "Dracula" and then saying he's actually somebody else.  Why use Drac in the first place then?

[Gamermeister]

I would LOVE to play a game where a Belmont fights his way through a castle to take down Santa Claus. I'm dead serious.

[Ratty]

Well, Lament of Innocence takes place in 1094, Vlad Tepes wasn't born until 1431. It's entirely possible within the original timeline (or at least the IGA interpretation of it) that Matthias died sometime in-between those two dates, only to be reincarnated as Vlad Tepes. Which would mean that the Count as we know him didn't start with Matthias but with the undeath of Tepes in 1476, ala Dracula's Curse. It would also give an explanation for why Tepes was such a legendary "bad seed" even before his undeath, and why Dracula Vlad Tepes is the identity he keeps "reverting" to and identifying with once evil consumes the original host personality of the reincarnation. As may have happened with Malus* and almost happened to Soma. Did I say he's like Batman? He's more of a Doctor Who!

*Who is disoriented and talks about how his village was destroyed while those trying to resurrect Dracula were looking for a certain child when you initially meet him.

I would LOVE to play a game where a Belmont fights his way through a castle to take down Santa Claus. I'm dead serious.

We all would, we all would.
"Whohohoat is a gift? A miserable little pile of socks!"

[Gamermeister]

We all would, we all would.
"Whohohoat is a gift? A miserable little pile of socks!"

Shut up and take my money!