Talk:Castlevania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article is on a subject of High priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
	A request for a screenshot has been made to help better illustrate the article. (VG images department)
VG To-do: edit  Peer review: Video game, Crash of the Titans, Xbox Live Arcade, List of Final Fantasy compilation albums, Metal Gear Solid, Shigeru Miyamoto, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess‎, Myst III: Exile, Blade Runner, Zanac Cleanup: List of characters from The King of Fighters, Hellgate: London, LeChuck Featured article candidates: List of songs in Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s (FLC), Crackdown, Halo (series), List of Sega 32X games (FLC), Alleyway Good article nominations: Ayu Tsukimiya, Music of the Final Fantasy Tactics series, Super Smash Bros., Music of Final Fantasy XI, Day of Defeat: Source Article status review: GA Review – None; FA Review – The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, 3D Monster Maze; FT Review – Final Fantasy titles Articles for Deletion: Participate in video game related deletion discussions. Images: Add box-art and screenshots to articles. Make sure to include a valid non-free use rationale. Monitor the following related changes pages: changes to WP:VG and changes to this to-do list. Announce your new articles Sign up for the new VG Newsletter.

Contents 1 New handheld entry 2 Timeline/Chronology 3 Music? 4 WikiProject: Castlevania 5 New Stuff 6 Introduction 7 Retconning 8 New Games Table 9 Nintendo 64 games 10 Logos 11 The lost games 12 Akumajo Dracula 13 New paragraph 14 Is it a girl or...? 15 Notice to whoever said that 'Konami US acknowledges all the games as canon 16 US timeline 17 Regarding Alternate Timelines 18 Another Story 19 Chronology 20 Castlevania: Dual Moons 21 Merge from Castleroid 22 The I.D's 23 Question marks? 24 Weapons and other stuff 25 Translation 26 Merge from Castlevania recurrences 27 Castlevania: Curse of Darkness 28 Rarity 29 Rewrite and style note 30 Split off game list 31 New Game For Cell Phone 32 20th Anniversery Timeline

[edit] New handheld entry

Konami patented the name "Castlevania: Order of Ecclesia", which the ESRB has already rated, so I added it to the list. There's not much info about the actual game right now, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.137.130.105 (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline/Chronology

It's been a while since the 20th anniversary timeline was released. Would it be a good idea to put it under Chronology, or give it it's own page, detailing the chances it's underwent? I have a copy of it, BTW. Just wondering! Fallen Reality 09:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music?

The music of Castlevania has always been a very big part of the series, and may deserve mention in the article (a section, perhaps, referencing some of the most famous pieces).

[edit] WikiProject: Castlevania

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Castlevania

I propose the creation of a WikiProject for the Castlevania series of pages here on Wikipedia. The reason I suggest this is so we can get together and streamline these pages. Afterall, they are getting sloppy and messy. Yes, they are looking better once people take the notion to make them that way, but others aren't getting that way. This project could also be used to create and list any and all templates that we may come up with to streamline the pages. I don't know, it's just a thought. Eric42 01:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Resurrected and created a temp page at the link above. Check it out, people. --Edwin Herdman 00:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Stuff

FINALLY, all of the Castlevania game pages are up and running. Just finished the final one, Castlevania Chronicles, just now.

So, I know that at least one had to see the changes to the Games Tables that I made. I seperated the table into a North American release table and a Japanese release table and put them to their own pages. I think it looks better this way, but the pages themselves looks kinda plain. Anyone that wants to tweak it should go ahead.

My next project is a seperate page for the Chronology stuff, but for this to be justified, I'll have to add a lot more than the table that's currently on the Castlevania page. So it'll be a couple days as I gather up information.

Also, I have a favor to ask of present and future editors to this page. As I keep an eye on this page, I try to keep a personal page updated with any new pages and redirects that anyone adds to the Castlevania pages. That page is located @ User:Eric42/castlevaniapages and I ask that if you add a new page or redirect a page to something else, add it to that page. It'll help me keep track. You don't have to, but it's something that all of us can use as a reference too. Eric42 02:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Having seperate pages for the Japanese and North American release lists is profoundly redundant. Besides, one of the most important reasons for having the list is to be able to compare what North American game corresponds to what Japanese game. Frankly, I don't see why we need to have a seperate page for the game list to begin with, since the main Castlevania page is by no means long enough to need to be split. But even if we do have it on a different page, we should only have the one. Once again, I humbly suggest the table I threw together here. It's compliant with the Wikipedia Manual of Style for Japan-related pages, and follows roughly the same format you've set up in your tables.

I've gone ahead and replaced the links to the two seperate pages with that table. The list should have the context provided by the introductory paragraphs, and the page isn't anywhere near long enough to need breaking down. If nothing else, Castlevania Japan Games should be eliminated: it's meaningless to most English readers without being able to tell that, say, Dracula II: The Accursed Seal is the same thing as Castlevania II: Simon's Quest. That's my $.02, anyway. –Seancdaug 10:46, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

I acknowledge the differences between english and japanese versions due to all the cuts made by translations (like errors on names, origins, and mainly timelines) destroy the real story of the game. And I seriously doubt that Wikipedia would let the real information contained in the japanese games (in contrast to all the mistakes made in english versions) should let be deleted because someone said it, that someone should remember that english is the simplest language for everyone looking for information for Castlevania timelines, origins, differences among Ntsc/Pal versions, and complete info; not just the info in english versions, but all the info of the game, despite the versions differences.

[edit] Introduction

The Xbox 360 is missing in the listing of systems in the introduction.

[edit] Retconning

So, I redid the Chronology table today, putting the years first which just seemed to make since to me when I thought about it. But while I redid it, I noticed that several of the games have notes in them that say that they have been retconned. I don't understand this. I've seen plenty of sites fit the games into the timeline so I don't really know if they have been officially retconned out of the series or not. Does anyone have any sources (storyline or otherwise) that would confirm this? Eric42 17:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From what I remember, when KCET took full control over the series (it was developed by multiple studios beforehand) they changed the timeline to this: http://www.konamityo.co.jp/CV21/products/chronological/popup/images/chrono_m.gif --Boco XLVII 04:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Games Table

Been working on a brand new table for the games list. I thought this might have been a good idea, but after implementing it, I think it looks way to crowded. If anyone wants to take it and work on a new idea. Eric42 04:14, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, that's hard to know. You just moved the notes parts from the right to the bottom of each item, right? Well, I think it got a little hard to see things now. I'm not sure why. Perhaps it would be better to leave it the way it was before. I think it looks clearer that way, but I really don't know. I'm not that good at messing with tables, so I can't think of many ways of making this one better. Sorry.--Kaonashi 23:44, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's really a good idea to be using a table here to begin with, honestly. A simple list seems more appropriate. Something like:

• Castlevania — Famicom Disk System/NES (1986)
  • Also released on the Commodore 64, Amiga, DOS, Microsoft Windows, Game Boy Advance and in video arcades (Nintendo Vs. Series and Play Choice 10); 悪魔城ドラキュラ (AkumaJō Dracula) in Japan

Using a table for a list like this just makes things look cluttered, period, plus it makes the page a lot larger than in needs to be, and harder to edit. Just my two cents, though Seancdaug 09:47, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

I like the tables better, but to be honest, I've not compared the two types, so I'll make something up tonight after work and see how they look. But from what I "see" in my mind, I don't think the list format would look any better. At least, with tables, the name of the game is easy to see and everything about it is to the right (not below, which is one problem with my idea above.) Eric42 17:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The major problem with tables is that they tend to scale very poorly: at smaller screen resolutions, they look extremely cluttered. Tables are useful for managing lots of information, but, frankly, we're not dealing with a lot of information, here: there's the game title, the platform, and the year. Most detailed information should be on a seperate page for the game itself, or at least in a seperate section. Tables should be used only for quick reference, anyway: information about Castlevania III's special music chip, for instance, doesn't belong there.

I think the best would to handle it, especially given the various different titles depending on the region, would be an ordered list, wherein the first line is basic information (Name — System (Year)), and a seperate sublist for strongly relevant reference info. Taking, as an example, the entry on Castlevania: Dracula X, you'd have something like this:

• Castlevania: Dracula X — Super Nintendo Entertainment System (1995)
  • Akumajō Dracula XX in Japan
  • Castlevania: Vampire's Kiss in Europe
  • Remake of Dracula X: The Rondo of Blood

This is generally easier to read, as well: the current table layout is only really useful if you know the American title. With a list like above, a European gamer doesn't need to rooting through a column to find out that it refers to Vampire's Kiss. I'm putting something together to show what I have in mind at the moment: I'll post a link when I'm done. Seancdaug 00:17, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Here we go. Take a look. Seancdaug 00:55, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Like I said before, I think the table thing looks fine (the way it was before), but yes, I agree certain bits of info should stay out, like Castlevania III's music chip. It really doesn't belong there. So, if the table is to be kept, it would be better to only list what's really important on it. That's subjective, I know, but I don't think it'd be too hard to figure that out. However, Sean's (I can call you that way, right?) test looks good too. So, I'm not really sure. Maybe making the games' titles both Italics and bold would make things better. Even more visible.--Kaonashi 01:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, game titles probably should be in bold. I went ahead and changed that. I also started playing away to see what I could do with a table, and put up what I came up. There's probably some room for improvement, and I still don't like it as much as a simple list, but I thought I'd share and see what everyone thinks. Once more, here we go. -Seancdaug 06:22, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nintendo 64 games

To user:Mackeriv or anybody that knows it. I was pretty sure that the second Nintendo 64 Castlevania game was rehash of the first, with more characters, better graphics and some plot and gameplay expansion. The modification you did to the following sentence

(the second N64 game is seen by some as an improved version of the first one)

implies some kind of controversy regarding if the game is an improved version of the first or not. Who are the ones that believe the game is not it? Maybe this phrase would be better

(the second N64 game is a superset of the first, with many features added)

Everybody feel free to comment with your opinion. --xDCDx 13:31, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, let me explain. I've played both games for the first time just some days ago, but I didn't make it far. From what I could tell, Legacy of Darkness looks a lot different from the first game. The opening sequence is completely different, and so is the story text from the beginning. You start controlling a different character, in a different place. For those reasons, I thought that saying "the second N64 game is an improved version of the first one" kind of sounded like a generalization, even if it's not that far from the truth. For me, this game seems like it has a very different premise. Take a look at this info from The Castlevania Dungeon, for example:

"To be honest, I expected pathetically little out of Castlevania: Legacy of Darkness. On the surface, it seemed to be a pathetic way for Konami to eek some more money out of the successful Castlevania name. It uses pretty much the same engine (although it supports the expansion pack), reuses some old levels...heck, I even figured they'd use the same music again.

I can't say that the my expectations weren't completely false - a lot does seem recycled from Castlevania 64. But in a good way. There's a slew of new levels, most of which are rather cool. The opening level is a short pirate ship where you must fight a giant sea serpent on a bridge. Later on, you have to tackle the outer wall, egyptian-like ruins and an art gallery.

Although there are levels that are "technically" the same, the layouts and goals are entirely differents. For instance, you still have to go through the Castle Villa, but instead to chasing a kid while being followed by a psychotic Frankenstein-thing, you now have to lead a little kid named Henry through the maze, plus search down two crests to open up the door leading to the end level. The Tower of Execution looks basically the same, but there are all new traps and the route is totally different. It looks similar, but in reality, it's not. With all of these stages, the overall game is longer, about 13 stages total."

Looks like it reuses several elements from Castlevania 64, yeah. I just thought I could make that part "less generalized" by saying that some people think of it as an improved version. I don't think it sounded very innacurate that way.

Anyway, I think the phrase you suggested sounds good, too. – Kaonashi 19:09, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I see, all is clear now. If you don't mind I'll rephrase the sentence so some kind of controversy is not hinted. --xDCDx 19:28, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sure. It looks alright now. – Kaonashi 20:25, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alright. I know this issue was settled quite a while ago already, but I have some new things to add here now. I've played and beat both games by now (Castlevania 64 once, and three times Legacy of Darkness, to be more exact), and well, looks like Legacy is pretty much everything the first game was supposed to be, and also almost everything it was.

I'll explain. You start Legacy by playing as Cornell, but the entire C64 game is there, built-in. Cornell's story works as a prelude to the story in C64. When you're done with him, you automatically unlock the Henry character. If you sucessfully reach his goals in a new game (to rescue a group of children in a few days), you'll unlock new features. Among those, Carrie and Reinhardt, the characters of the first game.

When you play with them, you'll notice those games are indeed what you see in C64, with some very small differences. For example, the first level (Forest of Silence) is different for them, but the game resumes just like in C64 afterwards. Some voice samples seen in C64 (Carrie's, Reinhardt's and Dracula's) are missing on Legacy, as well as the two secret costumes from that game (you have different ones on Legacy.

So yeah, I think that's all. You were right, I'm sorry. Anyway, this sounds like a gimmick pulled off by Konami, whether intentional or not. If I were to buy those games, for example (and knew about this all), I'd get Legacy and leave C64 alone. It's not really worth it. – Kaonashi 05:13, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed update. I think the sentence that I added describing the N64 games is still valid, but if you see a way to make it more informative, feel free to update it. --xDCDx 13:18, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It should also be noted that anytime Reinhardt and Carrie's levels overlap with Cornell's levels, the game just reuses Cornell's levels, and Henry's versions of the levels, rather than using the alternate version of the levels and puzzles as seen in Castlevania 64. So the maps for the forest, tower of execution, tower of science, etc, are the same in every quest in LOD. Levels that belong to Henry, that Reinhardt and Carrie quests reuse, have modified enemy encounters (which can make some quests much harder, you now have to worry about cerberi while carrying the Nitro, as I recall) and usually a boss at the end of each level. Because of the repetitive nature of the bonus characters in LOD reusing Cornell's and Henry's versions of the missions, it still makes Castlevania 64 still worth playing if people are interested in playing a different set of level maps with a different layout and puzzles. I personally recommend owning both.Draculvania 17:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Logos

I noticed something happened to the logos on this page, but I'm not sure what. They were all changed to different versions, but for me, they don't look any better (on the very contrary), and the size is larger too. What happened anyway? I really do think things were better before that.--Kaonashi 03:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That was me. I thought the originals were... well... ugly. Particularly the Japanese logo (which was off-color and far too small, and the original U.S. logo (which was inexplicably tinged blue). I replaced them, and I thought they looked much better. What about them makes them look worse to you, Kaonashi? – Seancdaug 16:45, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

The logos are discoulored. It's like the colours are faded. I can see that very easily on the Akumajo logo and the American NES Castlevania logo. It's pretty obvious to me. The colours are considerably less vibrant. Just look at those reds. I really can't see how this is better than it was before. Anyway, the opinion of other people would be greatly appreciated here.--Kaonashi 20:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PS: I'm not trying to diss your work, Daug. You did many good things to these articles, as I can see. It's just these logos that look a little odd to me, but that'll be sorted out eventually. Everything else you added to the other articles looks good to me.--Kaonashi 21:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, no offense taken (and sorry for the delayed reply...). I think the problem is that the images were taken directly from emulator screenshots. The palettes in use were designed to accurately emulate NTSC color palettes (as opposed to the old loopy/Nesticle palettes, which are more of an approximation). I didn't really think about it at the time, as I'm so used to it, and it does seem like it's closer to the original design (well, to me, I guess...), but I see your point. It's not too much of a problem to redo them with a different palette, though, which I can do tonight, if it really bothers people. -Seancdaug 16:10, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The lost games

The article should mention the cancelled Castlevanias: Bloodletting (Sega 32X) and Resurrection (Dreamcast).

I agree, I've tried to mention Castlevania: Resurrection in the article on a few occasions but people keep removing it!Buzda 23:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Added. - Stormwatch 23:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Akumajo Dracula

Didn't the creator drop that title, since there had been more and more games not involving Dracula (or, at least, not primarily)? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:30, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Igarashi did abandon the Akumajo title for a while (specifically, from Castlevania: Harmony of Dissonance through Castlevania: Lament of Innocence (which was, somewhat confusingly, simply called Castlevania in Japan). However, the upcoming sequel to Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow for the Nintendo DS seems to have readopted the original Japanese moniker, because the "Castlevania" name wasn't particularly well-received in Japan. All of this is already in the article, actually (end of the second introductory paragraph), though it probably could be presented better. – Seancdaug 21:05, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New paragraph

This question goes to everybody, but I'm aiming it more at Sean and Eric who watch over Castlevania's articles a lot. What do you think of the recently added paragraph about characters names? I've been away from Castlevania and its story for a while now, so I'm not very sure of what to think of it, but at least parts of it seem off to me.--Kaonashi 16:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is it a girl or...?

Okay, is it just me or are the Castlevania "male-leads" getting seriously, overly effeminite?

Maybe you could kind of say that, yeah. But we can put that in better terms. I think the lead characters in Castlevania are just following a less "macho" look, which is what they used to have on their early days (see original Simon). The very first male-leads looked pretty much like Conan, and that's pretty manly if you ask me. But yes, you could say they look kinda androgyne now. Ever since Ayami Kojima took the role as Castlevania's character designer, the characters got more androgyne looks because that is her style. I think one of the few exceptions (and maybe the only one right now) is the new Dawn of Sorrow game. That one didn't have Kojima on the design team. Also, something that also changed a lot was their outfits. They changed just as much as the characters' looks. You can read a little about that in the article. I wrote that myself, actually.

But anyway, the change doesn't really bother me. I think I prefer it the way it is now. I like Kojima's work, and I didn't really like what they did to Dawn. =P --Kaonashi 02:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

If you mean the redhead, that in fact is not the original Simon, that's the Chronicles-remake. The original Simon was in fact very masculine already in Vampire Killer and he bore perhaps a bit of a resemblance to Dolph Lundgren (Castlevania 2 box). The characters started getting a lot more effeminite around the time Symphony and that may have worked for Alucard but after that it's just gotten crazier... I don't even need to point out Soma but have you seen the villain for the upcoming game? He has high-heels for god's sake! I just feel that it should be mentioned in the article, even if Castlevania-fans aren't bothered I'm sure it's enough to raise an eyebrow amongst other gamers.

The original Castlevania series ended with Bloodlines, you see... Symphony of the Night was the first one in a completely unrelated series that just happens to have the same name and vaguely similar themes. Then it's not that characters are "getting effeminate", they've been that way since the series was started, in 1997. ;-) - Stormwatch 01:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notice to whoever said that 'Konami US acknowledges all the games as canon

This is not true. Konami US has nothing to do with the official Castlevania timeline. The Japanese and US continuities are not seperate from eachother. The US translations are just butchered with censorship (take the Poltergeist King as an example, who never existed, and was just created in order to replace the Church from CV3 Japan).

If you're mad with IGA's changes, this is no place to show that, and this no place to make people think otherwise. Wikipedia is for facts, not opinions. And it is a fact that IGA has retconned some titles, and as a result, it's no longer canon. It is not a fact that the US or Konami US acknowledges these titles as canon - they never had and never will have any consequence on the official timeline. Only IGA will, because he is the director and producer, and he will see to it what is official, and what is not.

You can, however, alternatively write that most of the fans outside of Japan do not know of IGA's changes. But don't go beyond that. Don't say "Most fans hate IGA for this". That's not true. There are just as many who appreciate his revised timeline.

If anybody wishes to argue about the timeline, do it here. But not in the CV article. Please keep the opinions in here.

[edit] US timeline

Personal opinion aside (and no I'm not the person who made the original edit regarding a US edit though it did lead me to do some reasearch)

I checked my back issues of Nintendo Power and I located an official US timeline from Konami published just prior to Arai of Sorrow's release.

There are other differences as well. Aparently the US release of CV4 was altered as well making it a follow up to CV2 rather than a remake of CV1.

-- This does actually have some merit. The eding sequence of CV2 (the cross on the gravestone) matches the Japanese intro to CV4 (again, the cross on the gravestone). It seems implied, although not officially acknoledged, that CV4 was to be a follow up.

I'd like to see it included on the main page but perhapse I should show it here first. Would it be inapropriate to trnascribe an item of such length within these discussions?

~~Since everyone seems to think the US Konami Timeline doesn't exist, and thinks everything I said was only some made up opinion, even though all I actually mentioned were facts(see my discussion below) you should try to scan up the timeline and link to it. If you can't do that then transcribe it to a word file and link to it, if people don't want the timeline posted in full on this discussion page?Draculvania 01:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Alternate Timelines

"Don't say "Most fans hate IGA for this". That's not true. There are just as many who appreciate his revised timeline."

For the person that claimed that, I never once said most fans hated IGA for changing the timeline in my post about the U.S. alternate timeline. Infact I kept the post quite neutral. I only brought up the fact that the U.S. Konami doesn't always acknowledge the exact same things as Japan. Which infact creates an alternate universe timeline to that of what goes on in Japan. As this person above brought up there is infact differences, between the timeline. This is not a validity issue, of which one is better, or most valid(we online Castlevania buffs all know which one is more valid).

You also notice that a recent timeline in Japan, essentially considers those 4 games as alternate histories for castlevania as well, not part of the main castlevania universe, but still Castlevania. But for those who missed it and think I somehow think I said most fans hate IGA, well here is the original post showing I never made such claims;

"This timeline makes up the Akumajou Dracula timeline in Japan. It should be noted that that version of the timeline has never been released in the U.S. in any form, and is probably not known by the average Castlevania fan, besides the few that actually read fan websites, or visit the Japanese official website.

It should be noted however, that in the US, Konami of America, and Nintendo has produced an 'official' timeline that was printed in a recent issue of Nintendo Power for American audiences, in preperation of the release of the "Sorrow" titles. The American timeline is fundamentally different than the one used in Japan. The Konami of America timeline includes the games that IGA left out, and certain games that were intended as remakes in Japan are actually modified to be sequels in the American "Castlevania" series (for example Castlevania IV's prologue was modified to make the game a sequel to Castlevania II). Debates between the American Timeline fans vs. Japanese Timeline Fans, and other forms of fanon timelines (certain fan groups actually try to tie in historical Dracula's history into series) are quite common on internet forums, and fan websites. Though on the internet the Japanese timeline advocates are probably the most vocal compared to the American Timeline advocates. The printed American Timeline, and American versions of the games are however more common knowledge to the average offline castlevania community in the U.S.

Other differences between American and Japanese timelines include differences in the names of characters, enemies, game text, location names, and even the titles of the games.

Because of the differences between the Japanese Timeline, including their versions of the games, and American Timeline, including their versions of the games, the two versions of the series can be considered AU of each other. The two universes can be considered the Akumajou Dracula universe(Japanese version), and the Castlevania universe(westernized American version). Both versions are not compatibible with each other.

Perhaps facts about the differences of the US Timeline should be under its own heading or wiki page rather than main "chronology" heading just to show the differences between the alternate histories from the main history, for those that are interested.

Its far worse for people to hide factual details from the public, which is the case, since there is a difference, everything I mentioned were infact facts, not opinions.

There are infact different 'official' printed timelines in the U.S. than there is in Japan. By 'Official', I'm using the definition as it pertains to an authorized company releasing authorized material to the public. It should be remembered that by defintion 'canon' and 'official' are not equivocal. They do not mean the same exact thing. Authorized published material is "official", but not necessarily "canon". Those "alternate histories", or "Another Story" as Japanese put it, in Marvel or DC comics for example are all 'official' but only one timeline is actually "canon".

There are infact Fanon groups that devise their own unofficial timelines, that try to incorporate historical events such as the historical Dracula into their timelines(i'm not endorsing them, just mentioning the fact).

It is a fact that games played in America, are infact not exactly the same as the games played in Japan, due to localization changes, creating a different storyline, and changing the names of characters.

Again it would probably be better to put any facts about alternate chronology information in a seperate subtopic, or its own Wiki page, than clutter the 'official' Japanese chronology subtopic, since they are about "another story", rather than the story IGA is trying to portray. I suggest using the subtitle, "Alternate Chronology", perhaps?

But in no way did I ever say "most fans hate IGA", or toss up my own opinions. Please don't put words in my mouth. Draculvania 17:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

However, due to the release of the most recent Xtreme desktop timeline, previous Konami timeline should be listed as a historical note in the direction of the U.S. chronology, since it appears that Konami USA has changed their decision, and appears to have brought the series timeline closer to IGA's VisionDraculvania 15:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another Story

I suggest based on this quote from the newest official Japanese timeline;

"The following titles: Castlevania Legends (GB), Circle of the moon (GBA), Castlevania 64 (N64), Legacy of Darkness (N64), are considered as "another story", and therefore are not included into the timeline. They respectively take place in 1450, 1830, 1844, and 1852"1

That we replace all "Retroactively Removed from the series timeline by Koji Igarashi" quotes, and replace them with the one that in line with the wording of Koji Igarashi's own view of the series as stated in the newest timeline;

Considered as "another story", and therefore are not included into the timeline by Koji Igarashi.

Draculvania 04:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology

When talking about the fans who are opposed to IGA's reconning, words describing them as "a small portion" or " a minority" is not very NPOV. It sounds like someone pro IGA assuming the majority shares his/her same opinion. How do we know how many people are for or against his decisions as CV producer? It's not like there's a nationwide census conducted to prove this. Buzda 00:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not very into this specific subject in Castlevania, but you're probably right. In cases like this it's better to use indefinite pronouns. "Some" would work pretty well here, because it tells almost nothing about the amount of people in question.--Kaonashi 01:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Castlevania: Dual Moons

According to GamersReports, quoting GamePro, the next Castlevania to be released for Nintendo DS is titled Castlevania: Dual Moons. [1] -- ReyBrujo 01:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As most fans have already found out, it's not Dual Moons. It is Portrait of Ruin. The GamePro cover was a clever April Fool's joke. Check Castlevania Dungeon's news section for April 13 (not sure of exact date...). [2]

Indeed, the date is April 13 [3]. Many websites reproduced the information as fact because they have no journalistic integrity. The shop was done by one of the Castlevania Dungeon's forumgoers. Guermantes 02:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Castleroid

Since the consensus on what constitutes a "Castleroid" has changed from "any Metroid-like game" to "any Metroid-like Castlevania game", it now makes more sense to merge that article into the main Castlevania article, since it refers exclusively to a specific subset of Castlevania games. See the discussion on the Castleroid page for more details. Luvcraft 16:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

-- I disagree. While it would make sense to have it as a reference article on the games in it's sub-genre (specifically Symphony of the Night, et all, I think it makes more sense to leave it as a definition page than just one more chunk of text on the main series page.

--I disagree also. The Castleroid term is (as stated in it's article) an umbrella/category of videogames. Castlevania is it's own subject, and while there should of course be a link to castlevania and/or a subarticle, it is not under the full subject of a Castleroid nor is Casteroid to Castlevania.

[edit] The I.D's

I can think many people would've come here to check out how to evolve their I.D's. I suggest that we add an I.D grid, showing what Evolution crystals are needed to reach a certain I.D and what path you must've taken. I ask of any one who is good at making grids or charts make one of these. The information can be found in any game site that offers walkthroughs. Boudi140 7 May 6:30 (GMT)

FAQs/walkthroughs are really better suited to gamefaqs.com . Wikipedia is more for general information. Luvcraft 16:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question marks?

I have a question regarding the question marks that often precede the english translation of the Japanese name for the games. Is this the result of non-Latin script, the name of the game in Japanese characters? --WorldsCollide 03:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a non-Latin script. See Help:Special characters. – Seancdaug 04:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you Seancdaug. If you can't tell, I'm new. This begs the question, is it necessary to have the name in non-Latin script? --WorldsCollide 04:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's not really any other way to present the name in Japanese, since Japanese isn't a Latin language Template:Grin. More to the point, its consistent with Wikipedia manual of style rules regarding Japanese-language topics: English translation (Japanese script + romanization). Generally speaking, if you've not configured your OS/browser to display the script, then you probably won't get much from seeing it. But there are researchers who are interested in that kind of information, which is why we include it. – Seancdaug 04:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Good explanation, thank you Seancdaug. --WorldsCollide 04:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weapons and other stuff

Is there/could there be an article about the Castlevania weapons and other items?(The food, hearts, etc.) SRodgers--65.24.77.104 18:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation

I was looking at the translations and disregarding the jo at the end isn't Akuma translated as Devil, and Oni as Demon? or does the jo change it into Demon?

Reply:

Akuma is devil or demon etc, but the "jo" is actually the word for "Castle" so Akumajo would be Devil's Castle or Demon Castle.Yajaec 17:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Castlevania recurrences

The whole article is redundant and crufty. Thoughts? Tzaquiel 06:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The Castlevania recurrences article does seem like it belongs on the the main Castlevania article in its own section titled something like "Recurring Themes". If there was more information regarding why they are in the series, or why the developers chose to put those elements in, then it would probably warrant a separate article. So, while there are plenty of elements in the Castlevania series to fill an article, it would seem more appropriate to have them listed/condensed on the main article. My two cents (Guyinblack25 05:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Castlevania: Curse of Darkness

Could someone please tell me if there's anything inappropriate in Castlevania: Curse of Darkness? I know it's M but I've had my eyes on it for a while. Also, I don't believe that this page mentions that Castlevania: Legends was taken out of canon. Wait, I just saw it here. But, could somebody tell me about CoD? Please? I'm begging you! Why do you neglect me?! ARGGG! I've had this up for more than a week now, and I'm beginning to feel insulted. Now it's been more than a week and a half, and I'm getting irritated. Please answer, or I'll stop being polite about it! It's been almost a MONTH now, and I'm beginning to get angry. Also, I found some form of a glitch in PoR. I can't move anyhting with Charlotte/Jonathan combined! Nothing will move! I can't get into the Tower of Death!

I really do not think this is the place to talk about how your stuck. Most Castlevania games are rated M for stuff do with satanism, blood, gore, violence, you know. The works. This isn't really the place to get all freaked out, cause mabey you could just look at the article and see why it is rated that way. -- Gloomy Sunday GloomySunday 00:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion page is to discuss changes to be made or that have been made to the article. There are probably a thousand websites dedicated to videogames with forums where you could take this sort of thing. While I'm here I might as well say if you can't handle flaming gay, insane men wearing little clothing, don't buy CoD. Bhree (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rarity

Article sez: "Demon Castle Dracula X: Rondo of Blood, considered by many Castlevania fans to be the "Holy Grail" of the series due to having been released solely on the Japanese PC Engine CD console, still easily sells for over two hundred dollars, as does the original Japanese version of the MSX installment, Vampire Killer."

This is...well, totally wrong these days. Even on eBay, neither game will normally reach this lofty price in most circumstances (perhaps Dracula X, if in exceptional condition with spine card/sealed), and has not in the many years I have been watching the prices on these games. The X68000 game is rarer than both, although scarcity of X68000 computer systems keeps the demand down.

Also, "rarity" is a misnomer. A better term would be "availability," and the section would serve a better purpose to be more oriented towards what versions were available where. --Edwin Herdman 03:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that Symphony Of The Night is rarer than Dracula X or Chi No Rondo. It is sought after more, I think. --Gloomy Sunday GloomySunday 00:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sought after more, no; at least not yet (look at Rondo's price). It might be that their print runs are quite similar, but SotN was printed for three broad "markets," so perhaps! We would need some facts or at least good estimates before we could compare print runs, though. But I think that's an interesting comment. --Edwin Herdman 07:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite and style note

I made a major rewrite to the first paragraph...something about it seems clunky to me, but there's more detail in there. Maybe too much, in fact. Mess around with it and maybe something better will come of it! Also, "Akumajō Dracula X68000" is not quite an accurate rendering of the official name of the X68000 game - the official title is just Akumajō Dracula. --Edwin Herdman 04:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split off game list

Just a thought that could maybe help clean up the article. Should maybe the list of games be split of into a "List of Castlevania titles" similar to the List of Final Fantasy titles? The film and other media could be included as well. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC))

I agree whole-heartedly. It would smooth out the main Castlevania article a bit. ~ Hibana 21:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a test page on my sandbox so people could get a better idea of what I'm talking about. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

It's been nearly one month; I'd say go ahead and create the article. Kariteh 17:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Game For Cell Phone

I just read about this, just wondered if this is enough to get this mentioned on here yet. Here is the site address from IGN about the new game. http://wireless.ign.com/objects/958/958506.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.31.45.49 (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 20th Anniversery Timeline

It is speculated, that this was likely to show all of the games for the series that had been released in North America (as the three games mentioned above are merely given titles and dates, with no story information given). However this hypothesis doesn't explain the lack of Castlevania Legends and its date on the timeline, although the game appears in the accompanying box artwork book.

I removed this line because it gives speculation, for "why" there was an inclusion of the N64 Castlevanias and COTM on the timeline. I removed the line because it is fan speculation, I.E. original research, and has no citeable evidence.

If we allowed speculation of that type, then other interpretations of the timeline could be listed as well. Including, Konami (either Konami of America, or all Konami) decided that those three games (but not Legends) fit within the history of Castlevania, even if they are "side stories", I.E. they are events happened (although not as important to include full descriptions)...or even possibly that IGA changed his mind, and decided those three games and only those three games (not Legends) fit on the timeline (again as side stories, so not requiring detailed descriptions).

However, giving out all the interpretations would go beyond the scope of the page.

I have replaced the line with another sentence, pointing out that no explanation was given by Konami (Konami of America, or whoever was involved with the timeline) as to why the inclusion of those specific dates.Splintercell007 (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)