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

[Ratty]

No no no.... I hope MS/Konami does not read this. 

Yeah I really hope that doesn't happen to, I'd rather see something new or a continuation/proper conclusion to the old timeline. I don't think LoS has been enough of a hit for Konami to force a continuation of it once the developer changes. Especially since MS seems to regard it so strongly as their baby. But this might be a contingency plan they have so I guess we'll just have to brace ourselves against it in case.

[Koutei]

https://twitter.com/CastlevaniaLOS/status/249940339706691586
He is called "the dragon" (Dracul) in the game. Sometimes referred to as "Dracula" by others but never calls himself that..

Gabriel is Dracul is Dracula in LoS series.

[Belmontoya]

I don't think there is anything dubious about it Nagumo. I think it's obvious before you even open the first page of the book. It's called Dracula! I've read it dracula contless times and never had any question of who the character was based on and supposed to be.

[Nagumo]

Yes, but as I pointed out, the characters later back-pedal on the statement that Dracula is Vlad Tepes, and conclude that he must be someone else. I also recall there's evidence Stoker just used the name Dracula because he liked it, and that he didn't too much at all about the historical character.

[Belmontoya]

These are words spoken by dracula himself.

Who was it but one of my own race who as Voivode crossed the Danube and beat the Turk on his own ground? This was a Dracula indeed! Woe was it that his own unworthy brother, when he had fallen, sold his people to the Turk and brought the shame of slavery on them! Was it not this Dracula, indeed, who inspired that other of his race who in a later age again and again brought his forces over the great river into Turkey-land; who, when he was beaten back, came again, and again, though he had to come alone from the bloody field where his troops were being slaughtered, since he knew that he alone could ultimately triumph! (Chapter 3, pp 19)

Who else do you think he could be?

Stoker made changes to his novel to make the vampire dracula. He had limited knowlege of vlad tepes III but it's obvious that he put in what he could to make the shoe fit. The connection between Dracula the vampire and dracula the hisotrical man are present through and through.

[DragonSlayr81]

I prefer Dracula as Vlad Tepes not only because it draws connections to reality(the whole Vlad Tepes being an undead Dark Lord providing a sort of "secret history" spin, which is a great part of the CV series being, "the dark, unknown historical battles between good and evil that's kept out of the history books"), but it's prevention of the "Dracula's some Joe Schoe who gains powers then names himself 'Dracula'." plot twist. The first time it might be alright, but if that's what we have to look forward to every reboot of the series, fuck it. Fuck it to hell! And I say this as someone tired of such overused, spammed plot devices, it's just as bad as the "redemption" stories(yeah, I know LoS2 might lean this way). Can't they just bypass the bullshit "ooo"s and "ahhh"s, and lameass sleight of hand ways in trying to say, "See, you never saw THIS coming!!! I'm freakin an original writing visionary that does things NO ONE ELSE EVER THOUGH OF BEFORE!!!". Making Dracula "Vlad Tepes", IMO, would nip that crap at the bud. Like I said earlier, basically just "get to the point" and go from there. No pussyfooting around it, just do it!

[Belmontoya]

I feel the exact same way dragonslayr.

That is the type of no BS plot Mig and I will be bringing to the table with our reboot.

Dracula will be Dracula. You will walk through his forest of impaled victims. And you will have to use your skill to not suffer the same fate.

[Maedhros]

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.

Well, fuck me for liking these other characters better than any Belmont then...

[Nagumo]

Actually, that quote seems to imply Dracula is somehow related to Vlad Tepes but is not actually him. He refers to himself as "that other of his race", who was inspired by Dracula to, "in a later age", invade Turkey again and again. This is not my own theory. I know several literary scholars have pointed this out before. I also recall reading a simplfied child version of Dracula, and I remember Dracula simply claims he is a descendant of Vlad III. So the author of that version seemed to have the same idea in mind.               

[Ratty]

One could shoot back that Drac was lying in that scene to conceal his great age. And we could go back and forth over the whole thing but I'm not sure it'll get anywhere. Whatever Stoker's original intentions, the character of Dracula has taken on a (un)life of it's own in popular media since then. One which owes as much or more to John Polidori's "The Vampyre" (which created the modern conception of the suave seductive Vampire almost a century before Dracula, which didn't put its title character in this mold) and Bela Lugosi/Christopher Lee/Count Chocula etc. as it does to Tepes and the original book.

Vlad Tepes is a great Dracula, I might even say one of the best. But I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say his is the true Dracula vampire, because that is a fictional character who has had many different forms. He is the character with the most movies made about him after all.

PS- All that said, just getting a character to name himself "Dracula" as a twist is really really lame. Because it assumes the audience already has some investment in the name to begin with. Which even though it may be true, just doesn't sit right. Kind of like how having Khan in the new Star Trek movie was supposed to be a big deal just because the audience would be familiar with another version of the character from older incarnations of Star Trek. Lazy, uninteresting and unsatisfying. Make me believe in and care about your Dracula, don't just assume I will because you gave him that name. The older games in the series were able to do this with little to no text. "Wow? Dracula controls this entire domain, all these monsters AND Death? He's one badass dude." And other little touches like having him sit contemptuously on his throne waiting for the hero to come to him, not deigning to stretch his limbs and show his true form until the fight goes against him.

[Belmontoya]

That is the point. He has to put it that way otherwise he's basically telling harker that he is hundreds of years old. You've taken that out of context.

Vlad tepes is the true Dracula because that is what Stoker more than implied in his book, which is the original carnation of the character.

Stretches can be made on the character without stretchig so far as to break who the character is. Mathias and Gabriel stretch it too far. There is no need for them to be Dracula other than the fact that Dracula was the original antagonist of CV. They essentially cram a right shoe on a left foot. It's pointless and almost disrespectful to the character of Dracula. Some fans might not mind, but it rubs me the wrong way and i think it can be done better.

[darkwzrd4]

In a way, I agree with not stretching the whole Dracula thing. Just keep him Vlad Tepes. That is who he originally was in CV and it didn't have to change. LoI was just fine without Mathias. Actually, the whole Mathias thing was completely unnecessary. That game could have simply be the origin of the Vampire Killer and why the Belmonts are vampire hunters. The whole Dracula versus Belmont thing could simply be that Dracula is the most powerful vampire in existence and the Belmonts are the only ones powerful enough to survive the demonic castle and defeat Dracula. That's it. As for Alucard's existance and origin, it could either be kept the same in that Dracula fell in love with a human woman and got her pregnant Or being the evil bastard that Dracula is, it could be that he raped a human woman who he didn't bite and she got pregnant as a result. In either case, Alucard is Dracula's half-breed son.

In terms of LoS, I like the story so far. I just think that it should not be a CV game and should not have the CV name drops. It should be its completely own thing not related to CV in anyway. Just because there is a powerful vampire in a demonic castle doesn't mean it has to be CV.

[Nagumo]

That is the point. He has to put it that way otherwise he's basically telling harker that he is hundreds of years old. You've taken that out of context.

Vlad tepes is the true Dracula because that is what Stoker more than implied in his book, which is the original carnation of the character.

You would need proof that the Count was lying in that scene. If he was telling the truth, Harker naturally would have assumed he was talking about present day events. I think it's supposed to be dubious in order to make Dracula a more mysterious character. Him being Vlad Tepes is hypothesis that is just taken as fact nowadays. So saying Dracula should always be Vlad Tepes is pointless favoritism. 

[Belmontoya]

You have to ignore basically all of the back story the character himself provides, and then on top of that, ignore the very name of the character himself to come to your conclusion Nagumo.

You could use any character of any book and use that same logic to say that they are someone else.

It's a useful tactic if you're a story writer who wants to captialize on the name of a famous character and twist them into your own plot at the same time.

[VladCT]

You know, this argument is starting to sound like the whole "Alucard knocked up Sonia" thing.