This is a total reboot and reimagining of the series. It's dumb to think MercurySteam was going to follow the old games.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Konami puts up teaser page for Castlevania: Lord of Shadows sequel
- Thread starter jokkir
- Start date
This is a total reboot and reimagining of the series. It's dumb to think MercurySteam was going to follow the old games.
Yes, the devs have affirmed that. Numerous times.
LoS provides a wholly different origin story for Dracula and possibly even completely alternate people of the Belmont lineage while still retaining certain themes from the original series. It's an interesting concept, even if I don't feel it was quite warranted.
skullomania
Member
I haven't read all the spoilers properly, and I am only recalling a lot of the Castlvania lore from when I read up on it before LOS came out ...but...
I noticed when LOS was first announced, they had a different date for when it was supposed to be set, later it was changed to be 1047. I also remember them adding in the references to the Cronqvist family later in the dev cycle, as I think the text on the scrolls was the only reference in game to this....also the mention of Rinalodo Gandolfi was probably added in at the end of the development of the game. This leads me to believe that a conscious effort was actually made to try an connect the game to the existing lore at some point late in the dev cycle.
The change frm the orignal date, to 1047, meant it was closer to the events of Lament of Innocence, set in 1094, and kept the "25-odd" year gap between generations that the rest of the games follow (therefore Leon from LOI would be Gabriels grandson.)
At the end of LOS, there is no real event that suggests Gabriel changes to Dracula straight away...only the 1999 (if it is 1999) epilogue shows this. Anthing could happen in those years in between!
When the DLC was announced, I saw some mention of Gabriel needing to retrieve an item from Carmilla in the castle, and REALLY hoped it would end up being the CRIMSON STONE from LOI. If it was, then it fitted in perfectly with Mathius's plot in LOI, as Mathius would simply be Gabriel who had found out about his past, taken his old Cronqvist name, and simply not aged in the past 53 years! But, alas it didn't show any of that...though it didn't contradict it either.
If this rumor about the trailer is true...then if this new Simon Belmont is Garbriel's son...the he could simply be an ancestor of our 1600 Simon Belmont. This 1081 version of Simon Belmont would also be the perfect age to be Leon Belmont's father.
So, nothig is actually contradicted..and all Castlevania games can exist in one timeline!
Disclaimer: a lot of the above was done from memory of my understanding of the original Castlevania timelines. If there are any factual errors, let me know!!!
EDIT: forgot about the whole Bernhardt castle plot points that connect Lords of Shadow with Lament of Innocnce...another hint that there is supposed to be some connection!
The change frm the orignal date, to 1047, meant it was closer to the events of Lament of Innocence, set in 1094, and kept the "25-odd" year gap between generations that the rest of the games follow (therefore Leon from LOI would be Gabriels grandson.)
At the end of LOS, there is no real event that suggests Gabriel changes to Dracula straight away...only the 1999 (if it is 1999) epilogue shows this. Anthing could happen in those years in between!
When the DLC was announced, I saw some mention of Gabriel needing to retrieve an item from Carmilla in the castle, and REALLY hoped it would end up being the CRIMSON STONE from LOI. If it was, then it fitted in perfectly with Mathius's plot in LOI, as Mathius would simply be Gabriel who had found out about his past, taken his old Cronqvist name, and simply not aged in the past 53 years! But, alas it didn't show any of that...though it didn't contradict it either.
If this rumor about the trailer is true...then if this new Simon Belmont is Garbriel's son...the he could simply be an ancestor of our 1600 Simon Belmont. This 1081 version of Simon Belmont would also be the perfect age to be Leon Belmont's father.
So, nothig is actually contradicted..and all Castlevania games can exist in one timeline!
Disclaimer: a lot of the above was done from memory of my understanding of the original Castlevania timelines. If there are any factual errors, let me know!!!
EDIT: forgot about the whole Bernhardt castle plot points that connect Lords of Shadow with Lament of Innocnce...another hint that there is supposed to be some connection!
We don't have anything but rumor at this point, so I don't know what to believe. I would be okay if they switched those two characters' position in the timeline.
As for
Trevor being half-half-vampire, I didn't mind it so much. It felt like a reason for the Belmonts to have supernatural-like powers, but they're still firmly human. I don't think of them as "1 quarter vampire" so much as "Oh, they have a little vampire blood". By the time the series gets to Simon, it would be 'there' but very diluted.
Never bothered me, but then, remember that the Castlevania story predates all of the recent ugliness with vampires (and half vampires and such) getting popular. Castlevania existed in a pre-Twilight/Blade/Buffy time.
As goldenpp72 mentioned above, there really isn't that much of a storyline to Castlevania, and I'm aware that I'm obviously hung up about it because, as a huge CV fan, I've spent more time looking at it than others. If LoS is just a clean-slate reboot in a fantasy world (it's obvious LoS is not set in Europe), that's just something we'll have to deal with. I just hope they don't try any awkward ties to the main series, which is what that rumor about
Simon
Just so long as we get some 2-D games that play like old Castlevania, I guess that's fine.
I just feel like they could have left out the ending of LoS (along with the subsequent DLC that tied them together) and it would have bridged with the regular CV series just fine. The little twist at the end is the only issue that screws everything up. That and LoS' world obviously not being Europe.Bleh. I feel like an old man shaking his cane at Change. I guess I'm just sick of people taking over a beloved series and retconning whatever they like to bend the storyline to their ideals. Castlevania feels like an old enough series that people should respectfully integrate their stuff into the existing order rather than just slash it up and sew it back together however they like.
Disclaimer: a lot of the above was done from memory of my understanding of the original Castlevania timelines. If there are any factual errors, let me know!!!
At this point, the pre-existing games and various IGA re-writes have created such a clusterfuck that I honestly welcome a clean-slate approach. Fuck it, might as well start from scratch than try to make sense of that mess (which is only hurt since there was so little connective tissue between the games anyways).
LoS does breathe some fresh air into the series, and as an origin is at least better than Lament. I guess old men like me just need to accept this new direction and try and forget the past, at least in terms of story.
Yeah, probably. In all honesty, I think I would've preferred that too.
However, my biggest issue with this isn't so much the fact they're rebooting the franchise (as much as I feel like they're following a fad that's painfully overdone by this point) but the rumors themselves and what they insinuate - Trevor is Simon's son? Simon being a dhampir? The Belmont lineage has vampire blood thrown in the mix? I know this is a different continuity, but this sounds like a horrible way of mixing things up when the very thing that made the Belmonts so appealing in the original series lied in the fact they were usually human characters entirely. They were extraordinary in overall strength/ability as it was, so this just reeks of absurdity. And if they're going so far as to outright remake specific games like Castlevania III, I'm going to be disgusted.
I should've seen it coming, though, if the ending of LoS was of any indication.
I dunno, I kind of like it because it reminds me of Buffy. The First Slayer was part demon, and that trait passed down to all who were called thereafter. All humans chosen to do the whole stand-against-evil thing, but what gives them that power is having a slice of what they're fighting. Makes a kind of sense to me, as much as fantastical, metaphysical mumbo-jumbo can, anyway.
Not gonna mark this as spoilers since it's A) Retconned out by IGA and B) based on a Gameboy game from 1997;
In Castlevania Legends, Sonia Belmont encounters Alucard before the game starts (based on the Manual) and then again as a boss (he is 'testing her'). In their pre-fight dialogue, she mentions her love for him, implying they're romantically involved.
If you beat the game with all 5 hidden items, you get an extra bit of dialogue that shows Sonia and an infant Trevor, talking about how he is 'burdened with a cursed fate' and will 'one day be praised as a hero'.
It heavily implies Alucard is the Father and that the Belmonts all have some degree of vampire blood in them, but it's not Muary Povich-level proof. IGA took issue with the whole affair and retconned it out. But even before LoS's ending, the whole vampire-blood thing was already in the series.
Exactly. I'm fully aware of Legends, but obviously I'm not gonna mention a game that isn't considered canonical anymore.
I know everyone likes to shit on IGA for that move, but I bluntly and honestly think it's one of the greatest decisions he ever made for reasons outlined above. The idea that Alucard and a Belmont would fall in love and procreate was incredibly silly even by series standards.
If this is true then it's weird because it implies
Simon is Dracula. Thing is, LOS doesn't really contradict this since Gabriel refers to himself as "Dracul."
Well, he retconned it out, but when Konami put together an official timeline it was back in. Nobody knows what's canon anymore, which is why a reboot is probably for the best. I just wish that reboot was better, but if it means Castlevania can continue (and thus, the possibility for a return to linear 2D games) then I'll live with it.
As for as shitting on IGA goes, so far as Legends is concerned, I feel like he ripped it out for the wrong reasons; instead of saying "that sucks, I don't like it", he made a big stink about Women-can't-be-Belmonts and are too weak. The right move for the wrong reason.
Overall, I give IGA shit for milking the shit out of SotN. He gets a lot of credit for SotN when he only came on late during development (earning an Assistant Producer credit was generous, Toru Hagihara had pretty much defined the entire game before he left the project) and 'redefining' Castlevania. All he did was distill SotN down to formula and churned out a shitload of them.
And that's probably why he's off the series, because he let it grow stagnant and formulaic. Good riddance.
Edit: Sorry, I know most CV threads inevitably turn into IGA-bashing/defense arguments. I think my dislike of him as a producer is justified however.
^ Another one who gets it! 8D
One of my favorite moments involving IGA was how he supposedly "struggled with the idea of how to make a CV game for the Wii". Most of his fans probably would've been happy enough with yet another Castletroid. Something more ambitious could've been akin to that Castlevania arcade game that was released a few years ago.
But instead of any of that, what does he go on to greenlight? "Let's call in 8ing and get them to make a CV 'fighting game'!" And it wasn't even that good of a fighter, which probably speaks more to the actual direction of the game, than because 8ing got involved.
Sad thing is, Serio's Mugen Castlevania game is probably much closer to what people really wanted out of a CV fighter than whatever Judgment was supposed to be.
Are you referring to the official timeline released with the 20th anniversary Portrait of Ruin package? Circle of the Moon and the N64/PS games were included back in (albeit as largely unimportant side titles apparently, since they didn't have a description) but Legends was always and still is considered non-canonical from my knowledge. I've never seen its inclusion in any officially released Castlevania timeline after its retcon.
And while I agree that some of IGA's visions for the series have been less than admirable, I hardly think the series absolutely needed a reboot. The retconned games were fairly obscure. The gameplay and story quality of the most recent handheld titles were superb, and even though I don't by any means oppose the notion of re-imagining the franchise altogether I just think they could've shaken up this stuff in a far more interesting and pleasing way. LoS had it right for the most part, but I can't say I'm liking what the sequels have to offer if the rumors are true.
Yeah, although now that I look at it Legends is absent from it (though all of the other games IGA cut out are included again). I thought Legends was on there, guess I was wrong.
I agree that the existing CV storyline could have been ironed out rather than ditched, but based on how Konami has treated the series recently I think it would have ended badly.
I suppose we should be thankful for LoS, if only because it allows the series to continue (and increases the chances that we'll see a return to the classic style, slim as that may be).
But yeah, I don't like the 'twist' of LoS and what it portents for the series, but all we have right now are rumors that honestly sound kinda flimsy. We'll just have to wait until E3 to get more details and then we can return to this discussion.
At least we're getting a new 2D Castlevania, right?
Kontergurke
Member
Just wanted to add one thing to the "why is it not canon?" point:
IIRC Iga removed Legends mostly because it directly contradicted Castlevania 3.
People feared the Belmonts, but after Trevor defeated Dracula (which was supposedly the first time ever Dracula advanced against humanity), the Belmonts were cherished ever since then.
But in Legends Dracula is again waging his war for the first time, and now Sonia is the first Belmont to defeat Dracula. Also, Sonia had "superpowers" already. Why would you need a story explanation for how Belmonts got so powerful through vampire blood if she already could beat Dracula without it?
The "women can't be Belmont heroes"-comment, even though highly inappropriate, was most likely not the (only) reason for the Legends removal.
IIRC Iga removed Legends mostly because it directly contradicted Castlevania 3.
People feared the Belmonts, but after Trevor defeated Dracula (which was supposedly the first time ever Dracula advanced against humanity), the Belmonts were cherished ever since then.
But in Legends Dracula is again waging his war for the first time, and now Sonia is the first Belmont to defeat Dracula. Also, Sonia had "superpowers" already. Why would you need a story explanation for how Belmonts got so powerful through vampire blood if she already could beat Dracula without it?
The "women can't be Belmont heroes"-comment, even though highly inappropriate, was most likely not the (only) reason for the Legends removal.
He actually said that? Jesus. Miss him even less now.
I'm on my mobile at the moment so I can't paste in the quote, but it's on this page under "Castlevania Retcon Controversy": http://castlevania.wikia.com/wiki/Koji_Igarashi
brandonh83
Banned
I JUST WANT TO SEE IT
ONE SCREEN
1
ONE SCREEN
1
Calm down your tits man, we all want to see one too. May 31 isn't that far.
He said in the early part of the cronology, it was difficult to put a woman into a hero role. Hell, he made the best woman hero after that (IMO). Shanoa is great.
kunonabi
Member
While I agree that Judgment wasn't the smartest choice for a Wii game(Pandora's Tower's template would have worked better) it was a really good arena fighter. Grant was a little overpowered and Dracula was a little weak but it had a really solid engine behind it, flexible combo system and multiple playstyles represented. Online worked pretty well too and it was fairly competitive and fun scene for awhile.
You forgot the part where you tell you are kidding.
kunonabi
Member
No I actually play games with an open mind before forming an opinion. Most people saw the character designs and just wrote it off without actually giving it a fair shot. The game isn't perfect by any stretch but it wasn't the abortion people make it out to be. High level play was actually pretty solid for how small a community it had.
lunchwithyuzo
Banned
From what I've seen of the game, it really does seem like a 3D CV. Too bad Iga never hooked up with Ganbarion when hr had the chance.
"I HAVE DONE...QUESTIONABLE THINGS."
brandonh83
Banned
The controls and gameplay were pretty shit when I played.
Saint Gregory
Member
Like another poster noted earlier in the thread I lost interest in the game about half way through even though I was really enjoying it up to that point. After reading the thread yesterday I tried jumping back in last night but the game is really difficult to pick up again after a long lay off. I can't remeber a lot of the game's mechanics and going back to replay chapters doesn't help because whatever hints and tutorials there may have been on the first playthoughs of those levels don't repeat when you go back.
To give an example on the Dead Bog level of chapter one I was stuck for almost an hour killing an endless hoard of goblins because the game didn't repeat whatever tutorial was supposed to let me know that I needed to grenade the large tree in the middle of the goblin village. Had I not paused the game and looked it up online I might still be sitting there right now killing goblins with my fingers bleeding
At least I got that 50 goblin trial ten times over though.
To give an example on the Dead Bog level of chapter one I was stuck for almost an hour killing an endless hoard of goblins because the game didn't repeat whatever tutorial was supposed to let me know that I needed to grenade the large tree in the middle of the goblin village. Had I not paused the game and looked it up online I might still be sitting there right now killing goblins with my fingers bleeding
At least I got that 50 goblin trial ten times over though.
kunonabi
Member
controls were fine although the default button configs were awful. gameplay was solid as long as you took the time to learn the mechanics and spent time in training mode. Online play was key to getting the most out of it since the cpu didn't play well at all.
I kind of loved LOS, but not necessarily as a Castlevania game. The one thing I did appreciate it bringing to the series, though, was the Western feel. Japan's take on horror-themed fantasy is always a little too cartoony and exaggerated for my taste, and in particular I grew kind of tired of the increasingly anime influence on the series. Earlier games did it well largely because of the abstraction factor, and I enjoy Kojima's artwork, but LOS was more along the lines of how I imagined the series would look in 3D back when playing the original or Super Castlevania IV. Even if it didn't line up with my expectations for a Castlevania game in the grand scheme of things, I appreciated the potential for later games to perhaps be truer to the brand but maintain this aesthetic and feel.
Also, I really enjoyed the gameplay. I'm not in love with God of War but I find it fun enough, and LOS kind of raised the bar for me in that regard. I felt the combat had a bit more depth (particularly when magic and the Ikaruga-like polarity aspect came into play), and in general just felt right. Even if it wasn't a 2D platformer with branching paths, it was fun, and certainly better than any of the other 3D Castlevania games I'd played.
It's an imperfect game, and a pretty bad (in the sense of it being consistent with the brand) Castlevania game, but I thought it was a surprisingly solid jumping-off point for a new direction for the franchise. I have high hopes for the sequels (both 2D and 3D) and think the series is in pretty good hands. I just hope this Mirror of Fate game is what I want it to be (something more along the lines of Dracula's Curse, and less Symphony of the Night-ish).
Also, I really enjoyed the gameplay. I'm not in love with God of War but I find it fun enough, and LOS kind of raised the bar for me in that regard. I felt the combat had a bit more depth (particularly when magic and the Ikaruga-like polarity aspect came into play), and in general just felt right. Even if it wasn't a 2D platformer with branching paths, it was fun, and certainly better than any of the other 3D Castlevania games I'd played.
It's an imperfect game, and a pretty bad (in the sense of it being consistent with the brand) Castlevania game, but I thought it was a surprisingly solid jumping-off point for a new direction for the franchise. I have high hopes for the sequels (both 2D and 3D) and think the series is in pretty good hands. I just hope this Mirror of Fate game is what I want it to be (something more along the lines of Dracula's Curse, and less Symphony of the Night-ish).
I was looking for an excuse to post this. Konami and their teases.
I really enjoyed LOS though and I so want this to be a sequel handled by Mercury Steam.
I really enjoyed LOS though and I so want this to be a sequel handled by Mercury Steam.
His reason for saying it more involved that era in time. Remember, that's the same century where Sypha is implied to be a guy in order to not be killed for being a witch, so perhaps a woman warrior seems just as much of heresy. After all, IGA's had a number of games released under his belt that allow you to play as females.
I dunno. I read the quote Retro linked to and before that, he says this:
Maybe he just worded it awkwardly, but that still sounds pretty shitty.
And I have a tough time giving him much credit for Shanoa, since she's basically the product of people demanding a female protagonist for years. Then there's the whole thing about her being a soulless automaton controlled by a man for most of the game, but maybe that's reading into it a bit too much :lol. Either way his comments don't sit well with me.
Maybe he just worded it awkwardly, but that still sounds pretty shitty.
And I have a tough time giving him much credit for Shanoa, since she's basically the product of people demanding a female protagonist for years. Then there's the whole thing about her being a soulless automaton controlled by a man for most of the game, but maybe that's reading into it a bit too much :lol. Either way his comments don't sit well with me.
dancrane212
Member
Speaking of OoE, is it worth picking up? Someone had mentioned that it had more in common with pre-SotN Castlevania than the previous couple of handheld games. Any truth to that?
The areas have more linearity to them, and a greater emphasis is put on bosses that put you through the floor in terms of difficulty.
It's wonderful, and I think the best game IGA's ever had a hand in.
The game just keeps going, and going, and going, and going....I never finished it but had fun. Framerate was frustrating.
dancrane212
Member
Sounds good, after Portrait I felt burned out on the DS games. I didn't realize OoE mixed things up, I have to give it a look.
it's a much better game than portrait for sure. The level design is some of the laziest in the series though; some of the levels are literally just one long hallway. Still worth a play.
Portrait is a weird game. As a 20th anniversary title, it does a lot in terms of references and homages to as many games as possible, which is superb. As a standalone game, it's one of the worst Metroidvanias.
AlphaDragoon
Member
This is my problem with it. I hope they decide LoS is alternate or something because dropping all the awesome previous CV history for a bad story with a "tweest" is kinda meh.
dancrane212
Member
Didn't they say this was it's own, rebooted, standalone universe from the very start?
This LoS2 news prompted me to watch this LoS preview again, set to the intro music from Super Castlevania IV SNES. Love it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQtzxlZ0IAw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQtzxlZ0IAw
Because these areas aren't really important at all, they're transition maps meant to remember the first titles.
dancrane212
Member
Such a great tease, I love that entire epilogue scene.
AlphaDragoon
Member
Somebody on here (I think in the 3DS game thread) was saying something about them adopting it as the new canon.
dancrane212
Member
The new "current" canon, similar to the way DmC is separate from the Devil May Cry 1-4 universe.
RedAssedApe
Banned
hope there is more omph to the combat. i always found it hard to tell if i was actually making contact with some of the baddies