Topic: Mirror of Fate's plot makes no sense

[zangetsu468]

That said I thought it was done well. gave me some chills when they zoom out on Trevor's coffin and it says "Alucard". And the ending with Gabe trying to revive trevor and failing I thought were well done

Did nobody else think that this scene was the lamest shit ever? First off we don't need to be told it's Trevor's coffin due to the preceding scene. Secondly, the original series actually had a reason for Dracula's son to adopt the name Alucard, which is never explained in MoF, and makes no sense as to why Dracula would assign Trevor this name. It would have made more sense if post-vamp Trevor didn't go by any name. Thirdly, why did he have to stamp the name Alucard on the coffin? What was he going to forget his son was in there? Absolute shenanigans that whole scene.

[Super Waffle]

Gotta have that pandering.

[Shinobi]

Did nobody else think that this scene was the lamest shit ever? First off we don't need to be told it's Trevor's coffin due to the preceding scene. Secondly, the original series actually had a reason for Dracula's son to adopt the name Alucard, which is never explained in MoF, and makes no sense as to why Dracula would assign Trevor this name. It would have made more sense if post-vamp Trevor didn't go by any name. Thirdly, why did he have to stamp the name Alucard on the coffin? What was he going to forget his son was in there? Absolute shenanigans that whole scene.

IMO I don't think it was a stamp intentionally made by Dracula, just some kind of breaking the fourth wall stuff to show to the players that trevor is Alucard.

[Belmontoya]

You don't think that it might be dracula's way of claiming him as an underling or something like that? In that sense the name on the coffin could be seen as a slap in the face, or a stamp of ownership. There are a few decent reasons I can think of and any one of them would be fine.

It's hardly an issue IMO.

[Chernabogue]

Maybe the castle chose the name, as Trevor clearly was the opposite of Dracula.

[Belmontoya]

Yeah. Compared to all of the problems MOF has, that one (if you can call it that) is minor.

[piscesdreams]

I don't want to bash MoF, or LoS for that matter, but then again I do. The entire series' plot was nonsense to me. Not necessarily in the idea that it just doesn't make sense, but it just seems so twisted and out of place. It just feels...off.

[Flame]

The reason Dracula names his Son's tomb "Alucard" is because he never learned his name before he died.

But, His son represented the complete opposite of himself. Trevor was a carbon copy of gabriel when he was in the brotherhood, and stood opposed to his father, who had thrown all that away and cursed it.

So, Since he is Dracula, he dubbed his unnamed Son in memory of his defiance of him.

basically its the exact same as it is in the classic series, only this time Dracula named him it instead of him picking it out himself. It still represents him as being opposed to his father.

[Nagumo]

I don't want to bash MoF, or LoS for that matter, but then again I do. The entire series' plot was nonsense to me. Not necessarily in the idea that it just doesn't make sense, but it just seems so twisted and out of place. It just feels...off.

It's actually fascinating how bad the plot is depite not being intentionally written that way.       

[Belmontoya]

It's actually fascinating how bad the plot is depite not being intentionally written that way.       

How so? Because the Castlevania series had already raised the plot standards so high before LOS?

Come on now...

The plot isn't the problem in MOF. It's the shitty gameplay, drab levels and boring music.
LOS1 had none of these problems IMO and is one of the best CV's in the series.
LOS2 on the other hand. I'd say it's towards the bottom.



 

[Nagumo]

I was talking about the LoS trilogy as a whole actually. But the way MoF fits into the overall narrative is pretty terrible actually. I've already talked about more extensively before so I'll keep it short.

First of all, it's hilariously overwritten. Especially the first game suffered from this with anything before the DLC being meaningless, padded fluff. Secondly, there's the pandering for the sake of pandering i.e using the same story beats from the previous canon without any regard for if making sense or meaningful in the story. There're also awful moments such as two "Et tu, Brute?" moments mere minutes from each other in the first game, and the nonsensical Gabula-Alucard gambit in the second. Last but not least, you're supposed to take all the awful scenes completely seriously: that stupid explosion scene, giant robots attacking Dracula's castle, Castlevania city, etc. It's all so distasteful. It's like a child's idea of what's dark and mature.

Quality of the previous games' narratives doesn't excuse the quality of the LoS series, so that's irrelevant. However, I'll bite. Say what you will about the writing of the pre-LoS games, but at least the writing is coherent and straight forward. I'm not saying it's great but at least it's compelling and easy to grasp.

[piscesdreams]

I think it is due to Castlevania having decades to tell its story arc, and LoS tried to cram a whole bunch of references in three games while changing details, Brauner for example.

The old canon seems to try and take its time. LoS felt like it was trying to rush everything after the first game and had an identity crisis. To me. Others may disagree. But I think that is the problem overall with the LoS feeling off. But for me, it is also how Dracula IS a Belmont and while connections are good, it is not needed. Hero meets villain works just as well vs hero is villains son, emotions, blah.

[zaxiou]

It felt like they really needed an editor to kick them back on track but they couldn't find one, so they had Cox write the story.

[crisis]

tha mane difference between the "akumajo dracula" series & "lords of shadow" series is that in the classic, all of the humor was tongue-in-cheek, not whimsical but cheesy. whereas in loshadow all the humour seems forced & tasteless. however i did thoroughly enjoy the Toy Maker section, reenacting the play, him narrating the boss battle, etc. that was very charming & unique

as for alucard/trevor, according to mercurysteam logic he should've been named Dracula, since Gabrian calls himself "Dracul" and we all know what the name Dracula means. so theyre going against their own logic when they called him alucard. but whatever. plz dont try n justify it becuz no matter what argument u have, it still makes no sense

LoS felt like it was trying to rush everything after the first game and had an identity crisis.

thnx for the shout-out bruh

[Nagumo]

If they wanted to bring Dracula into modern times so badly, and assuming they were planning on making only 2 or 3 games from the beginning, why set the first game 1000 years before that? There's a huge space of nothing inbetween the two games, so what's the point? So many "what were they thinking?" moments.

It felt like they really needed an editor to kick them back on track but they couldn't find one, so they had Cox write the story.

I'd say it would be a benefit if next time they're trying to be ambitious with the story they hire an author/somebody who actually knows how to write. 

as for alucard/trevor, according to mercurysteam logic he should've been named Dracula, since Gabrian calls himself "Dracul" and we all know what the name Dracula means. so theyre going against their own logic when they called him alucard. but whatever. plz dont try n justify it becuz no matter

 

Haha, I never thought of that before. It would make 100% more sense for Gabula to have called him that.