Topic: What would *you* change about the CV Universe?

[Nagumo]

You have to keep in mind that SCIV status of "remake" was made up to rationalise its position in canon after the fact. Before IGA there was no canon, everybody did whatever they wanted. My personal theory is that the story of the NES games, which formed a small cohesive canon by themselves, was basically finished, with no more holes to fill. CV3 told the origin story and CV2 was the definite conclusion. Therefore, they basically rebooted the storyline with SCIV. Simon and Dracula are back, only the setting is different. That's my personal view of the game.

[Kaneda]

As for the state of SCV4 as a sequel in NA, I see the release in Japan as overriding whatever shinanigans were done by the US offices.
For me the original release version of anything trumps any localization.

That's fair enough and I tend to agree with that approach, as well. Especially when it ends up sounding better in its Japanese incarnation. Particularly with regards to their Western manuals. The Contra series immediately jumps to mind.

Poor Metal Gear and Snake's Revenge, reputations soiled by Ultra's manual writers. 

[SiFi270]

The worst localized manual I've ever seen is for Castlevania: The Adventure. There's just too much to quote.

[X]

Haha! That was a cheesy retro read 

[zangetsu468]

The worst localized manual I've ever seen is for Castlevania: The Adventure. There's just too much to quote.

I lol'd at 'madman'... Mudman?

[Inccubus]

LONG ASS POST!!

You have to keep in mind that SCIV status of "remake" was made up to rationalise its position in canon after the fact. Before IGA there was no canon, everybody did whatever they wanted. My personal theory is that the story of the NES games, which formed a small cohesive canon by themselves, was basically finished, with no more holes to fill. CV3 told the origin story and CV2 was the definite conclusion. Therefore, they basically rebooted the storyline with SCIV. Simon and Dracula are back, only the setting is different. That's my personal view of the game.

While you *can* take the first three games like that, they most definitely left CV2 open to further sequels and there is no reason to exclude CVtA or it's sequel.

SCV4 is a remake; there is no doubt about it.
But just for clarity, let me explain what certain terms mean to me.
Port: a recreation of a game that was originally on a different platform with the exact same story, setting, and game play with minimal to no changes.
Remake: a revision of an earlier game that retains the majority of the original game play mechanics and retells the same story.
Reboot: a complete reimagining of an existing game series with minimal story elements and varying game play mechanics reused if any at all.

SCV4 was originally titled Akuma-jou Dracula when released in Japan.
It has nearly the same story in it's manual as Akuma-jou Dracula for FDS/FC and Akuma-jou Dracula for MSX.
The only difference being that Christopher Belmont and the details of his battle with Dracula are not mentioned at all.
The majority of the game play mechanics of the original game are still intact with numerous upgrades.
The setting has been greatly expanded with little left to resemble the original.

That fits my definition of a remake and it does not match a port or a reboot.
On a side note, CVX68k falls somewhere in between a port and a remake being partially a port of CV1 and of SCV4 simultaneously.
Then there is Haunted Castle which leans much more towards reboot than any of the other remakes.

Anyway, back to the issue of the original trilogy, there is another way to look at it:
CVtA -> CV1 -> CV2

Analysis:

*Akuma-jou Dracula (FDS/FC) manual states specifically that Dracula is resurrected every 100 years. Then it continues to state that the previous Belmont to defeat Dracula was Christopher.

*Akuma-jou Dracula (MSX) manual matches the story of the FDS/FC version and  further specifies that Dracula was sealed in the Tower of Colbert.

*Dracula 2: Noroi no Fuuin (FDS) manual states the game takes place 7 years after CV1. Simon is only specified to have dies in Ending 2. And I should also note that the original Japanese wording says that the people will pray for a young man like Simon will appear one day to fight evil. That is a very different tone from the localization that sounds like they are talking about a specific young man.

*Dracula Densetsu (GB) here is where the series first began to have problems. The story here states that Christopher is fighting not the Vampire Dracula, but the Sorcerer Dracula. IIRC it was stated in some interview or something that CVtA and CV3 were developed simultaneously. However, CVtA came out first.
The game itself, though fits in very nicely with the story set forth in the manual of CV1 for both FC & MSX. The only thing missing is the Tower of Colbert, which we can only assume is somewhere else and that the sealing takes place after CV2BR.

So there you have a very concise trilogy with no plot holes.
As I mentioned the first problems with first few games happens because of the contradiction between CVtA and CV3.

*Akuma-jou Densetsu (FC) manual and game intro both state that the game takes place in the 15th century. The manual states that the story takes place more than 100 years before Simon Belmont's time. Finally, it states that Dracula is already a vampire which retcons the story in the CVtA manual.

If Dracula became a vampire before the events of CV3 which is implicitly stated to take place more than 100 years before Simon's first battle with him, then he couldn't have been a non-vampire sorcerer 100 years later when he was resurrected in CVtA.
Mind you that all of this is before there was an official timeline or any concrete dates were specified in the games and their associated works.
As of CV3 we know that CV3 takes place the 1400's presumably some time after the real world death of Vlad III Dracula in 1476+.
Because it is stated in every manual to date that Dracula is resurrected every 100 years, CVtA must take place some time around 1576.
Thus, CV1 happens in 1676+ and CV2 7 years later in 1683+

My guess is that CVtA and CV3 were originally going to be two tellings of the same story but CV3 was then placed before CVtA some time during development.
Of course, with little direct evidence from beta versions of the game I can't say that for sure.
Really the only clue to this is that Trevor's real name is Ralph C. Belmont and both games state that Dracula was a human sorcerer before becoming a vampire.
However, the most plot hole free version of an original trilogy is definitely more CV1/CV2/CVtA than CV1/CV2/CV3.

[JR]

Eh, this is probably a very unpopular opinion around these parts, but I wouldn't mind Bloodlines/PoR's ties with the Stoker novel to be severed. It's hard for me to imagine both of these occupying the same continuity, just because the CV franchise seems just so much more heavily steeped in fantasy...it makes the novel rather mundane in comparison.

On that note, I could take or leave CV Drac being Vlad Tepes, too. I don't hate the idea, but it doesn't really add much to the series for me, either. Maybe I'm weird?

[JR]

I lol'd at 'madman'... Mudman?

Hey...that's a pretty frightful dude you're talking about right there.

[Nagumo]

Incubus, you should read this thread.

It's a long story.

I suppose the best visualization would be like this:

CV3 --> CV1 --> CV2 [The End]

Or
         
CVA --> CV:BR --> CV1 -->CV2 [The End]   

IGA later retconned this by making Trevor and Christopher two seperate people (see the source in the thread).           

[zangetsu468]

Eh, this is probably a very unpopular opinion around these parts, but I wouldn't mind Bloodlines/PoR's ties with the Stoker novel to be severed. It's hard for me to imagine both of these occupying the same continuity, just because the CV franchise seems just so much more heavily steeped in fantasy...it makes the novel rather mundane in comparison.

On that note, I could take or leave CV Drac being Vlad Tepes, too. I don't hate the idea, but it doesn't really add much to the series for me, either. Maybe I'm weird?

I dislike the idea of removing Stoker's novel tbh. If you do this you may as well retcon Bloodlines, and I like Bloodlines along with its timeline placement. I do however, prefer Iga's idea that Alucard kills Dracula rather than Quincy. I think a manga or prologue would have been nice and sufficed to reaffirm the connection between novel<->game.

I like the idea of Vlad Tepes, but I prefer the idea of Mathias>Vlad. I don't even mind the idea that Mathias(Dracula) and Vlad could have been confused with the same historical figure, or in the CV timeline, just replace Vlad with him instead. He and Leon were like blood brothers, and the longest wars both start and end with blood.

The issue I take with Vlad in reality is that he was considered a national hero, despite his atrocities. People of Rumania still see it this way today, the crew he committed weren't as badly regarded as the western populous believes. Vlad is ruthless, Mathias is ruthless but much more underhanded, malicious and cunning imo.

[SiFi270]

It's hard for me to imagine both of these occupying the same continuity, just because the CV franchise seems just so much more heavily steeped in fantasy...it makes the novel rather mundane in comparison.

It's possible that there were more supernatural elements in the novel than those explicitly mentioned. When Jonathan returns the England, the person who finds him says he was rambling about ghosts and witches and suchlike. Stoker also wrote Dracula's Guest, which in terms of supernatural occurences just gets weird. That's speculated to be an early first draft of the book or something along those lines.

[Kaneda]

The novel is about Dracula moving to England with the intention of propagating the land with more vampires and taking it under his control. Taken within the context of Castlevania, Dracula seems like a telling of events that would lead to what we recognized as the usual CV story.

It would be like telling the story of how Dracula returns as a vampire and the steps he takes toward ruling Romania again. Castlevania stories always take place after the fact. Dracula's got an army and he's already conquered many lands with many more on the way.   

[Inccubus]

Incubus, you should read this thread.

I suppose the best visualization would be like this:

CV3 --> CV1 --> CV2 [The End]

Or
         
CVA --> CV:BR --> CV1 -->CV2 [The End]   

IGA later retconned this by making Trevor and Christopher two seperate people (see the source in the thread).           

I will. :3
But until then I still maintain that what was actually released in Japan was already trying to make a distinction between Ralph and Christopher from the get go despite their original intentions during development.

[X]

I do however, prefer Iga's idea that Alucard kills Dracula rather than Quincy.

This would not make any sense from Bloodlines' point of view considering the manual states Quincy to be the one to slay him in 1897. I'm glad IGA never took such an unnecessary step or the CV universe would be even more ambiguous then it currently is. Quincy was made a Belmont by blood in CV Bloodlines' back story therefore he can kill Dracula. The only thing that really needs fleshing out is Quincy's son Jon, and Jon's friend Eric being present at the final confrontation. Alucard does not need to be there.

[SiFi270]

That reminds me of another thing I'd change. John and Eric didn't see Quincy die. They'd have to be master stowaways to follow him to Transylvania, and they were, what, two years old?