Topic: Haunted Castle Theory

[Inccubus]

I was under the impression that Desmond was intended to be Simon's father according to the creators of OoS.
I remember reading an interview with the creator stating that Desmond has red hair specifically to show that he is.

[zangetsu468]

I was under the impression that Desmond was intended to be Simon's father according to the creators of OoS.
I remember reading an interview with the creator stating that Desmond has red hair specifically to show that he is.

I had this discussion with theplottwist. Initially it was intended that OOS was going to be canon, but it wasn't, it takes place in a separate universe. It's not on Iga's official timeline either.

[X]

I was under the impression that Desmond was intended to be Simon's father according to the creators of OoS.
I remember reading an interview with the creator stating that Desmond has red hair specifically to show that he is.

I think the creator missed the part about the original games showing Simon without red hair as it was originally blond.

[Crying Freeman]

I think the creator missed the part about the original games showing Simon without red hair as it was originally blond.

Yeah but hey, Iga was like "Simon has red hair now." after Chronicles. He never blatantly said that of course, but if I recall correctly the only Iga game Simon appears in after Chronicles is Judgement(outside of his classic sprite in HoDissonance and HoDespair), and he had red hair in that... along with the worst design of the character ever seen. And if you go into MoF, red hair again.

[coinilius]

The flaw in the theory of Desmond being after Simon though is that Castlevania occurs in 1691 - there really isn't much time left in the 17th Century for OoS to occur after Simon (unless Desmond and his sisters are Simon's kids, and Simon was the father that was killed... and there is that statue in the Medusa lair... and hmmm).  What really gets me about OoS was that

(click to show/hide)

the Castle didn't crumble at the end.  What was up with that?  Were they hoping for a sequel that didn't happen?

 

Really enjoyed reading your thoughts on the timeline you've constructed and how you came about it. No putting of Adventure Rebirth into one of the alternate timelines?

[zangetsu468]

The flaw in the theory of Desmond being after Simon though is that Castlevania occurs in 1691 - there really isn't much time left in the 17th Century for OoS to occur after Simon (unless Desmond and his sisters are Simon's kids, and Simon was the father that was killed... and there is that statue in the Medusa lair... and hmmm).  What really gets me about OoS was that

(click to show/hide)

the Castle didn't crumble at the end.  What was up with that?  Were they hoping for a sequel that didn't happen?

 

Really enjoyed reading your thoughts on the timeline you've constructed and how you came about it. No putting of Adventure Rebirth into one of the alternate timelines?

Well the reason I placed OOS after SCIV is OOS is because SCIV although intended as a remake/ sequel to the original, no longer has its place in the IGA timeline as it was superseded by CV Chronicles. If the Castle doesn't crumble at the end, either Dracula wasn't actually defeated or it was another castle? Even though I still place it in the alternate timeline maybe there's a game that's supposed to happen directly after?

This coupled with Dracula X/ VK's prologue story basing it "hundreds of years after Simon Belmont" triumphed against Dracula, since legends occurs around c1445 I've compiled these into 1 timeline. I've actually considered moving SCIV prior to Legends. However, this would cause issues as SCIV's prologue makes it clear that this is not Dracula's first incarnation. That and Dracula basically being Vlad (to me at least) in this timeline would just cause issues. I guess I don't have as much of an issue with the alternate timeline having inconsistencies. Unless I place HC before legends and there are 2 Simon's in one timeline. Not crazy about this though.

That's an interesting thought. I never really played the gb entries so I've not really heaps of time into them. Although I know the basic plot points. I tend to think AR is just a reboot though, but because Iga's timeline may have been released before AR it's hard to tell. It's entirely possible it's in the alternate timeline.

[theplottwist]

About Order of Shadows, there are two information snippets that are very important for pinpointing the actual date where it happens:

1. Tyrone Rodriguez's statement about it happening "roughly in the late 1600s".
2. Rohan Krause's statement about it being "nearly 20 years later and he encounters yet another Belmont".

The game could happen as late as 1699, and the previous Belmont to Desmond would exist around 20 years earlier - therefore placing Krause's battle with Desmond's father around the 1680s.

The plot is built in such a way that Desmond can't be Simon's descendant, since Simon's battle happened in 1691.

The more you throw the plot backwards in time from 1699, the more impossible it becomes for Desmond to be Simon's descendant, but it becomes more possible for him to actually be Simon's ancestor.

Simon was born in 1669, which I think still qualifies as "roughly late in the 1600s". This could be very near when Order of Shadows could've happened on an universe where Simon exists.

BUUUUUUUUT this contradicts the info that "Dracula has been dead for 100 years now" appearing in the original Castlevania and its remakes.

But then, if you consider that destroying Dracula on Order of Shadows did not cause the castle to crumble, and we damn well know that the crumbling is triggered by Dracula's destruction, I posit another hypothesis: What if Desmond never fought Dracula at all?

NOTE: This all is based around the idea that all Simons were born in the same year (1669) unless specified otherwise, and their battles against Dracula took place in 1691. Some sources indeed confirm that every Castlevania remake take place in the same year (since, well... They're remakes from the first game after all), but when looking at the manual, no specific year is given besides the first Castlevania.

If this is true and one of these Simon iterations exist in the same timeline as Order of Shadows, then I don't think it is possible for Simon to be Desmond's ancestor, but actually to be his descendant.

Oh well, just adding my two cents, people. Please don't get mad :|

[zangetsu468]

Plot, I was thinking if the castle in OOS didn't crumble then what if Desmond fought the Guardian of Dracula's soul like in 64/ LOD ? In Carrie/ Reinhardt's playthrough, the bad ending only allows you to fight 'old Drac' aka the Guardian to his soul.

Since these instances don't happen on the main timeline anymore, it actually makes sense that the same dynamics apply to the same alternate universe.

[theplottwist]

Plot, I was thinking if the castle in OOS didn't crumble then what if Desmond fought the Guardian of Dracula's soul like in 64/ LOD ? In Carrie/ Reinhardt's playthrough, the bad ending only allows you to fight 'old Drac' aka the Guardian to his soul.

Since these instances don't happen on the main timeline anymore, it actually makes sense that the same dynamics apply to the same alternate universe.

This makes much more sense, specially if you want to insert Order of Shadows in the same timeline as CV64.

There is also one more detail that can give base to what you said: Dracula in OOS knows who Rohan Krause was and that he was the sacrifice to bring him back.

How in the heck does he know that if he was frikkin dead when this happened? Isn't he supposed to be dead for nearly a century on this story? We never, ever see Dracula recognize his servants like that UNLESS they are alive (for instance, Dracula acknowledging Shaft in DXC).

So it could be possible that the vampire here is the Dracula impostor.

[zangetsu468]

@plot This hypothesis is further solidified by Dracula in OOS not having a demonic form.

Only thing is LOD precedes 64 and there's about 130 year gap between 1680/1700 - c1844 when LOD happens.

[KaZudra]

Let's take into account that Every castlevania game is a part of a timeline.
Through these alternate universes, there is one constant, Simon Defeating Dracula, but with these variables, timelines share events, a few examples include...
Bloodlines isn't really Canon to the Iga-verse, but the events are retconed to PoR.
Castlevania 2 and HoD are essentially the same narrative, Collecting parts of Dracula to destory his remnants.

Possibilities are endless, it's quite possible that timelines are sort of infinite, and the current game(s) are just connecting certain parts together.
The Constant is of course Cv1 and remakes.

Legends -> Cv3 -> Scv -> HoD; Belmonts are Dracula descent, explains why Trevor set a grave stone for Dracula in the first place and why Juste is essentially Alucard Belmont.
LoI -> Cv3 -> Cv1 -> Cv2 (bad ending) -> CoTM (OR) [LoD + CV64] -> Bloodlines; More emphasis on the Weapon Vampire Killer, Giving a Master Sword Narrative
IGA timeline; More emphasis on the bloodline narrative
Cv3 -> Bram Stoker's Dracula -> Bloodlines Trilogy (that never happened), self explanitory

Only problem with a solid Timeline is most games are very open ended, but this is very, very good for castlevania.
Let's take into consideration that Every game is in fact Canon, but not all in the same universe. This can benefit everything since a singe timeline with non-canon games leaves a very bloated chain of events, this can actually slim down and organize timelines based on the current game in speculation. giving Castlevania Multiple endings.

Best way to put it, think Shadow the Hedgehog, the story is completely changed every playthrough based on the route the player takes.

[zangetsu468]

Bloodlines isn't really Canon to the Iga-verse, but the events are retconed to PoR.

How exactly do you figure this? Dracula (the novel), Bloodlines and POR are all part of Iga's timeline. I'm staring at it now.
If anything, Dracula's events are retconned to suit Bloodlines and POR.

Castlevania 2 and HoD are essentially the same narrative, Collecting parts of Dracula to destory his remnants.

I don't necessarily agree with this point.
1) Although history is in a sense repeating itself (and CVII is referenced in the prologue) this has been spoken about on other threads in CVD. In HOD, Maxim is possessed by the "remains" of Dracula which is causing him to do things.
2) Dracula "wraith" in HOD doesn't remember the Belmont clan.
3) The Castle itself is effectively a concoction of Maxim's unconscious mind while he is possessed by the remains. Sounds far fetched to some but this fully explains why

(click to show/hide)

the Castle simply vanishes

in the proper ending.
4) In CVII if Simon had found & burned all of Dracula's remains he wouldn't have had the need to fight him, however, Dracula resurrected via the fang which Simon never found. (part of the official Japanese guide).
Hence, CVII was destroying the body parts, thereby destroying Dracula, HOD (and possibly SOTN, see 5) was assembling the body parts/ remains to summon him.
5) In SOTN all of Dracula's body parts are also collected (as relics) and are required

(click to show/hide)

to open the final door to Dracula.

Possibilities are endless......
The Constant is of course Cv1 and remakes.

I agree. Simon Belmont is arguably the most well known Belmont and his battle with Dracula has been the focal point of the series (with remakes) the most. This is why I believe having 3 parallel Simon events actually makes quite a bit of sense to me.

Legends -> Cv3 -> Scv -> HoD; Belmonts are Dracula descent, explains why Trevor set a grave stone for Dracula in the first place and why Juste is essentially Alucard Belmont.
LoI -> Cv3 -> Cv1 -> Cv2 (bad ending) -> CoTM (OR) [LoD + CV64] -> Bloodlines; More emphasis on the Weapon Vampire Killer, Giving a Master Sword Narrative
IGA timeline; More emphasis on the bloodline narrative
Cv3 -> Bram Stoker's Dracula -> Bloodlines Trilogy (that never happened), self explanitory

One small note is COTM is disconnected from most if not all other games, the Castlevania in COTM is in Austria for starters.
I've only placed HC>>>>>COTM because the 2 are so disconnected from all of the other games in the series, and nothing is telling me HC's Castle isn't set in Austria at this point in time. I still acknowledge the 2 could be disconnected and it should really read HC>>>/>>>COTM

Although I acknowledge what you're proposing here, no offense at all but I always have disliked self-enclosed timelines. Why? The whole point of timeline-ing to me is finding solid enough information to map every entry to the franchise. The second reason is that canon is not static as most people believe. You raised an interesting point when you brought up the Master Sword... I'm an avid Zelda timeline theorist as well and always have been. Back in the day I used to debate and even argue with the best of them, but I digress... Hyrule Historia is what I'm getting at here. HH was released to the public, and then ALBW was released, which given its backstory potentially altered what HH dubbed as the 'downfall timeline' - albeit slightly - into change.

My point is I reiterate that timelines and canon are not static objects. The purpose for my CV timeline in my signature it to attempt to explain 'everything' in that universe. This is part of the reason I enjoy timeline-ing, it's a challenge to account for any and everything and debate canon a versus canon b and so forth.

In the case of Zelda with HH, the problem theorists like myself ran into is that although it showed the 3 branching timelines to the Zeldaverse, it didn't explain HOW all of those timelines actually manifested: How in one branch the hero fails while in others the hero succeeds, which order these events happen, the narrative tying those things together. Specifically if Link dies at the end of OOT the downfall timeline occurs where the Hero is defeated, but then if this happens the other timelines can't. Similarly if the Hero is successful, the downfall timeline never occurs which means all the older Zeldas can't occur. Then I asked myself why is that? It's not exactly a multiverse/ multiple timeline theory but more of a 'what if' or schrodinger's cat scenario. 

This is why actually am working on a Zelda timeline which explains HH's timeline in logical and chronological order andshows how the timelines were all created from certain events. There is no what if scenario's in this timeline because simply put they ALL happen. I've also displayed all instances of parallel events occurring in all universes e.g. When Ganon is sealed into a realm in more than 1 timeline, to attempt some sense of causality to how the multiple universes work.. I was actually going to post it under hardcore gaming or otherstuff and this may be a good opportunity. The only thing is, it's not finished yet, and it may take me a long time to complete.

Similarly with CV, I'm trying to account for all games and their context in the canon as of right now, as opposed to what the canon was in the past. So in a sense while I'm not taking every "bad ending" into account, I'm trying to account for all canon events.

Only problem with a solid Timeline is most games are very open ended, but this is very, very good for castlevania.
Let's take into consideration that Every game is in fact Canon, but not all in the same universe. This can benefit everything since a singe timeline with non-canon games leaves a very bloated chain of events, this can actually slim down and organize timelines based on the current game in speculation. giving Castlevania Multiple endings.

I have no issue at all with HH-style 'downfall timelines'. For example I initially placed Haunted Castle and SCIV after Simon's Quest. However, it can't work with Iga's timeline which I consider canon and the other reason being the lesser endings of CVII didn't allow Simon to fight Dracula again because

(click to show/hide)

he died.

Even though I do consider involving incomplete/ less good endings, I tend to count the best endings first and then work back from there as I believe they're the closest to canon as the creators would've intended.

[Crying Freeman]

These are so great! It's like no matter how much we've played the game in the series, there's always something new for us! I'm loving this, KaZudra! One reason because Sonia is my second fav. Belmont and we can include Legends in some form with a series of alternate universes. Like I said, the only thing I like about Judgement is the evidence of these alternate timelines.

[theplottwist]

These are so great! It's like no matter how much we've played the game in the series, there's always something new for us! I'm loving this, KaZudra! One reason because Sonia is my second fav. Belmont and we can include Legends in some form with a series of alternate universes. Like I said, the only thing I like about Judgement is the evidence of these alternate timelines.

And I have even squeezed her in my Lords of Shadow headcanon for my Branching Timeline Hypothesis (similar hypothesis to Zangetsu's, but mine deal with the need for Dracula and interference from time travellers).

Yes, this would mean that the Dracula in Legends is actually Gabriel, and Alucard is Trevor. Sonia is a descendant of LoS' Simon, and her child is hers with Alucard - but is NOT Trevor.

I'm just waiting for a response from Enric Alvarez so this timeline can make sense in my head.

[Crying Freeman]

And I have even squeezed her in my Lords of Shadow headcanon timeline.

Yes, this would mean that the Dracula in Legends is actually Gabriel, and Alucard is Trevor. Sonia is a descendant of LoS' Simon, and her child is hers with Alucard - but is NOT Trevor.

I'm just waiting for a response from Enric Alvarez so this timeline can make sense in my head.

I'm liking that too! But then that would mean that Tevor basically had a child with Sonia  I haven't played MoF, so if Tevor becomes a completely different entity or something when becoming Alucard and has no traces of being trevor left, then I'd be completely down for this theory as well!