Topic: SC4 Japanese plot translated?

[Crying Freeman]

Does anyone know if the Japanese text for SCV's intro is to the English translation, as there was with CVIII and AKumajou Densetsu? Other than the ending we got that claimed Simon is "once again" taking down Drac.

Or is it pretty much the same?

[zangetsu468]

From what I've read in the last couple of weeks, SCIV's Japanese plot is actually CV1 (prior to CV Chronicles' release) whereas the NA version talks about Simon wielding the VK "again" to face Dracula.

People have stated to me that the Japanese version was hinted at being the sequel to SQ, but from what I've read I'm learning it's the opposite.

CV Chronicles overtook it on the main timeline which is why I place SCIV on the alternate timeline. 

[Nagumo]

From Vampire Killer:

http://castlevania.neo-romance.net/translations.php?other

Once every hundred years, when the strength of this world is weakened, the demon lord is revived by the prayers of humans with evil hearts.

Many times in the past, the demon lord has revived in this world in all manner of forms. But the demon lord's ambition to cover the whole world with a cloud of darkness and rule a world of night has been crushed by the heroic Belmont clan.

In the hundred years since the demon lord was destroyed in the fight with the Belmonts and banished from the human world, the drought in Transylvania has continued and a shadow has fallen over its former prosperity....

One day, an evil thudercloud covered a town, and a single flash of lightning pierced the silence. At that moment, the strongest demon lord to ever wield the power of darkness returned to this world along with a strong demon army.

A young man named Simon, who was descended from the Belmont clan, swore to free the human world from this crisis. Though worried about the odds he faced, he took up a whip with mysterious powers inherited from his ancestors and went into the demon's castle....

[Crying Freeman]

From what I've read in the last couple of weeks, SCIV's Japanese plot is actually CV1 (prior to CV Chronicles' release) whereas the NA version talks about Simon wielding the VK "again" to face Dracula.

People have stated to me that the Japanese version was hinted at being the sequel to SQ, but from what I've read I'm learning it's the opposite.

CV Chronicles overtook it on the main timeline which is why I place SCIV on the alternate timeline.

Makes sense. Btw, love your alternate timeline theory!

[Crying Freeman]

From Vampire Killer:

http://castlevania.neo-romance.net/translations.php?other

Awesome, man! I see it doesn't even mention Dracula ironically, but hey, we know "Demon Lord" is him, but it does seem like there are multiple Demon Lords, or forms rather that he takes up, and Drac is just one of them. Find that intriguing.

Also, seems like they made it the second time a Belmont fought Drac, and that multiple Belmonts killed him 100 years prior. But hey, CVIII Famicom says "100 years before Simon Belmont" so the classics haven't distanced themselves from plotholes.

I know its a bit cheesey and melodramatic, but there's also something reay eerie about it. Maybe it's lack of detail, can't quite put my finger on it.

[zangetsu468]

Also, seems like they made it the second time a Belmont fought Drac, and that multiple Belmonts killed him 100 years prior. But hey, CVIII Famicom says "100 years before Simon Belmont" so the classics haven't distanced themselves from plotholes.

See, now I like this because it supports my timeline theory 

The prologue definitely makes it seem he's been defeated once before.

[Crying Freeman]

See, now I like this because it supports my timeline theory 

The prologue definitely makes it seem he's been defeated once before.

Works out  I like the idea of the Simon games being in different universes/timelines the most because of how different they all are.

[zangetsu468]

Works out  I like the idea of the Simon games being in different universes/timelines the most because of how different they all are.

I chop this up to causality, with each timeline being slightly different thereby the outcomes being different chains of events.
I also like that this allows room for at least 2 Dracula's, one being Mathias and one actually being Vlad Tepes. (which is not to say that in the main timeline this form is not eventually assumed by Mathias)

[Crying Freeman]

I chop this up to causality, with each timeline being slightly different thereby the outcomes being different chains of events.
I also like that this allows room for at least 2 Dracula's, one being Mathias and one actually being Vlad Tepes. (which is not to say that in the main timeline this form is not eventually assumed by Mathias)

So in Belmonts revenge would you say hes Vlad or Mathias?

[Belmontoya]

I'm really not a fan of this Mathias backstory. Never have been, never will be.

Dracula is Vlad Tepes. No further back story or alias is needed. Tell his true story. It's far more horrific and entertaining than any writer can conjure. It could have worked in the CV timeline just fine.

Gabriel as Dracula was even worse.

LOI was a great game but they didn't have to try to make it a back story for Dracula. It was awesome up to that point. The Belmont back story was enough. It would have been fine with Drac showing up later for Castlevania 3.

He was never Mathias, he was never Gabriel. He was born Dracula damn it.

[zangetsu468]

So in Belmonts revenge would you say hes Vlad or Mathias?

It's the Iga timeline so still Mathias.
What I'm saying is that even on the Iga timeline the SOTN manual states Dracula's and Alucard's last names being Tepes (Vlad and Adrian as first names).
Assuming Vlad Tepes is reference to Vlad Tepes III aka the historical figure the masses know as Dracula, his birth would have been 1431. While I understand this would occur prior to CV3, Iga's timeline states that "Mathias changes him name to Vlad Tepes and continues to live on for hundreds of years" http://nichegamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/timeline-side2.jpg
CV3 is the first time we know that "Mathias" Dracula was destroyed as he was never destroyed before and the timeline is telling us that he's merely assumed this alias.

Therefore one can only conclude that in the Iga timeline, at some point - hundreds of years prior to CV3 - Mathias changed his name to Vlad Tepes. There is no reference in Iga's timeline to the historical figure of Vlad III who was born in 1431.
LOI's post credit script state that
"The Belmonts and Mathias will not meet again for hundreds of years..
Eventually he names himself Lord of the Vampires, King of the Night"
This also agrees with what was later written in Iga's timeline, meaning if Vlad III does live in this reality, he is not the Count Dracula of it.

Vlad III who was born in 1431 and was also Dracula imo only appears in the timeline of Legends>>>VK, which is based on our reality/ history.

Dracula is Vlad Tepes. No further back story or alias is needed. Tell his true story. It's far more horrific and entertaining than any writer can conjure.

Stoker would like a word ;P

Gabriel as Dracula was even worse.

Yes, he made a better Belmont.

LOI was a great game but they didn't have to try to make it a back story for Dracula. It was awesome up to that point. The Belmont back story was enough. It would have been fine with Drac showing up later for Castlevania 3.

I like the Mathias/ Leon aspect, supposedly it's like a blood feud that was bound to be for eternity (or at least until 1999.)
Blood feuds or people as close as blood are never ending, just look at Wolverine and Sabretooth.

He was never Mathias, he was never Gabriel. He was born Dracula damn it.

Well technically he was born 'Kid Dracula' 
Then he became the man!

[X]

I'm really not a fan of this Mathias backstory. Never have been, never will be.

Dracula is Vlad Tepes. No further back story or alias is needed. Tell his true story. It's far more horrific and entertaining than any writer can conjure. It could have worked in the CV timeline just fine.

Gabriel as Dracula was even worse.

LOI was a great game but they didn't have to try to make it a back story for Dracula. It was awesome up to that point. The Belmont back story was enough. It would have been fine with Drac showing up later for Castlevania 3.

He was never Mathias, he was never Gabriel. He was born Dracula damn it.

Word 

I like the Mathias/ Leon aspect, supposedly it's like a blood feud that was bound to be for eternity (or at least until 1999.)
Blood feuds or people as close as blood are never ending, just look at Wolverine and Sabretooth.

This was fine for LoI. And really the whole Dracula thing was not needed for it. It felt tacked on and unnecessary. IGA stated that Mathias is Dracula but in-game there is no direct mentioning. It is mentioned at the end that Mathias goes into hiding and that he won't emerge for hundreds of years, but that still doesn't necessarily mean that Mathias has to be Dracula or is Dracula. Mathias and Leon could have had their rivalry without needing to involve the whole Dracula backstory shtick. It was just one more thing IGA added to his game that really wasn't needed. And the game itself could have stayed the way it is even without the mention. Mathias would be just another vampire lord for the Belmont family to hunt down and slay while working up to face the ultimate King of the vampires; Vlad Basarab Dracula III.

[zangetsu468]

This was fine for LoI. And really the whole Dracula thing was not needed for it. It felt tacked on and unnecessary. IGA stated that Mathias is Dracula but in-game there is no direct mentioning. It is mentioned at the end that Mathias goes into hiding and that he won't emerge for hundreds of years, but that still doesn't necessarily mean that Mathias has to be Dracula or is Dracula.

Mate, it was mentioned in LOI's ending if you watch after the credits
"The Belmonts and Mathias will not meet again for hundreds of years..
Eventually he names himself Lord of the Vampires, King of the Night"
Iga's timeline as I've posted above explicity states that Mathias changed his name to "Vlad Tepes" as per SOTN's manual, not  Vlad Basarab Dracula III. The two aren't the same in the Iga/ main timeline.
If you have your own canon and don't believe in the Iga one that's entirely up to you. 

[X]

"The Belmonts and Mathias will not meet again for hundreds of years..
Eventually he names himself Lord of the Vampires, King of the Night"

Yes, I'm aware of this though I didn't mention the last bit of the story. Though to be fair any vampire can lay claim the title of 'King of the vampires' as they are very prideful creatures. But only Dracula himself has ever truly demonstrated his claim over others of his kind with success.

Iga's timeline as I've posted above explicity states that Mathias changed his name to "Vlad Tepes" as per SOTN's manual, not  Vlad Basarab Dracula III.

Yes, I'm aware of this too, but again it was never mentioned directly in-game. The word 'Tepes' isn't Vlad's name so much as it is a title, as you know. He was the impaler therefore he was called Vlad Tepes (Vlad the impaler) Not sure why IGA didn't see this though. And as you already know by now 'Dracula' is another title, however Dracula's real name is in fact Vlad Basarab of the house of Basarab. Certainly not in Castlevania since IGA took over the franchise, but definitely in real world history.

Mate

Okay I have to ask, are you from Australia..? Just being curious here 

[zangetsu468]

Yes, I'm aware of this though I didn't mention the last bit of the story. Though to be fair any vampire can lay claim the title of 'King of the vampires' as they are very prideful creatures. But only Dracula himself has ever truly demonstrated his claim over others of his kind with success.

As well as LOI stating the Crimson Stone makes the wielder 'The Lord of The Vampires.'
This in addition to Walter's castle supposing to have crumbled after Walter's defeat, yet Mathias took ownership of said Castle which he passed onto Death - post Walter's defeat/ soul being absorbed into the Crimson Stone for Mathias (via Death).
more than enough evidence is present.

Yes, I'm aware of this too, but again it was never mentioned directly in-game. The word 'Tepes' isn't Vlad's name so much as it is a title, as you know. He was the impaler therefore he was called Vlad Tepes (Vlad the impaler) Not sure why IGA didn't see this though. And as you already know by now 'Dracula' is another title, however Dracula's real name is in fact Vlad Basarab of the house of Basarab. Certainly not in Castlevania since IGA took over the franchise, but definitely in real world history.

Yes, I was merely pointing out Iga's universe the alias/ name "Vlad Tepes" is exactly what Mathias changes his name to though. If this wasn't true, he wouldn't have called his son "Adrian Farenheit Tepes". In this context it has become an assumed name. This is not historically correct if we assume the real figure of Vlad III.

Okay I have to ask, are you from Australia..? Just being curious here 

Yup, not originally but I've always lived in Australia.