![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Who merge my Vampire Killer article? It was a good idea, but I don't think that one can overlook the extra strenght of Trevor and Richter.( LonerXL ( talk) 22:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC))
What's important is that it is noted. It would be completely idiotic if it wasnt. ;P ( LonerXL ( talk) 02:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC))
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)
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)
There isn't a Castlevania game for the Game Boy Color system, yet the opening statement says that there was. Shouldn't this be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.54.86 ( talk) 19:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
That isn't Game Boy Color. It's just the normal Game Boy system! I am going to ONCE AGAIN remove "Game Boy Color" from the intro paragraph. 71.116.54.86 ( talk) 22:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
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).
There was one- it got deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.97.186 ( talk) 06:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
The Xbox 360 is missing in the listing of systems in the introduction. 84.138.86.45 ( talk) 10:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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
Everybody feel free to comment with your opinion. -- xDCDx 13:31, 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)
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)
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)
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)
The article should mention the cancelled Castlevanias: Bloodletting (Sega 32X) and Resurrection (Dreamcast).
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)
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)
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)
"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 Vision Draculvania 15:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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]
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.
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)
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)
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)
Good explanation, thank you Seancdaug. -- WorldsCollide 04:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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?
Answer to Megata Sanshiro: Again, if one wants to have it super-pedantic, it is to be worded "Akumajō officially translated Devil's Castle", but I see really no reason to as the title is so straightforward. If there were other places to put "Dracula" that made it not sound nonsensical, or more than those few words, I would totally agree on it being original research (same for other problematic games), but there seems to be just this one way in this case. And even if we give the literal translation, "akuma" still means "devil" in the Castlevania series: It's the title Dracula is frequently addressed to as in the Japanese versions. Prime Blue ( talk) 14:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Though Dracula X Chronicles is official product and uses "Devil's" in the opening sequence, it's not necessary a real term for official usage. (Is there any other official usage of "Devil's Castle"?) Just like " Dracula's Satanic Castle", which is official, but not commonly known. We should use "Demon Castle" for now until Konami widely use the term "Devil's Castle" or other terms. OR, using a compromised way, put both of them on the page, something like:
''Demon Castle'' or ''Devil's Castle''<ref>According to the ''DXC''</ref>
-- TX55 TALK 07:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
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))
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
I think that due to mistranslations over the years, potential historic connections between the game and history have been lost. For example, Castlevania III refers to the town of Warakiya, which is a near perfect mistranslation of the genuine town of Vlad the Impaler, Wallachia. Furthermore, in Lament of Innocence, the character Matthias Corqvist is a possible mistranslation for the Hungarian king, Matthias Corvinus. Both men had wives they lost at an early age named Elisabeth, both men were master strategists and both men had definite connections to Vlad "Dracula". Check out the article of Matthias Corvinus to see what I'm getting at. -- He2etic ( talk) 18:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by He2etic ( talk • contribs) 18:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The section dealing with rarity/availability needs clean up. It spends time describing the Akumajō Dracula X Chi no Rondo software--including details about production value and the PC Engine CD platform. That information would be better presented elsewhere. The section would read better if it dealt with the availability alone.
The use of the term "Holy Grail" is poor style. It would be better to simply state that the game is highly sought after. This also needs citation.
I have removed the claim: "...the game (Akumajō Dracula X Chi no Rondo) is huge and considered to be the most true Castlevania game ever made." This is not written from a neutral point of view and represents the author's enthusiasm for Akumajō Dracula X Chi no Rondo. If you can find a reliable source to solidify Akumajō Dracula X Chi no Rondo as: "the most true Castlevania ever made", go ahead and cite it.
I question the true rarity of Symphony of the Night. This needs citation.
My only other concern about this section is related to geography. Are the claims in the article based on the availability of these titles in North America/Canada? What about inside Japan or in European markets? More clarity would be an improvement. 68.102.77.56 ( talk) 23:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
A new Castlevania game was shown at TGS 2008. http://www.gametrailers.com/player/41243.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.179.4 ( talk) 07:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I added a screenshot of the original game and removed the screenshot request. Nave.notnilc ( talk) 20:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Accoriding to IGN the feature film is in limbo, possibly because of Rogue Pictures being bought out by Relativity Media as well as the possibility of an upcoming actors strike. http://movies.ign.com/articles/939/939622p1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.124.190 ( talk) 05:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I think separate music articles should be merged into the "history" section, in their own paragraph or under a separarate heading of "Music." However, as to the huge lists detailing what games the music has been in, I'm not sure what to do.-- ZXCVBNM 18:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Castlevania Dracula's Curse http://castlevaniadraculascurse.com/
The following sentenced needs a citation: In the chapter W is for Winner of Maddox humor book The Alphabet of Manliness, Castlevania is listed as an example of a winner. In particular, he names the first game, Dracula's Curse, Super Castlevania IV, Symphony of the Night and Dawn of Sorrow as "winners".
May I ask why? The source is included in the sentence itself, anyone who owns or buys the book can clearly read it him/herself.
Oh, sorry, I forgot! This is Wikipedia: books are not valid information anymore, because everything has to be found on the internet. Nice, very nice. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.130.22.154 (
talk)
02:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The Breakbot remix to Evil Nine's "They Live" seems to use bits of "Aquarius", the track from Castlevania III: Curse of Dracula's Block 7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.190.34 ( talk) 06:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
"Bloody Tears is often incorrectly attributed to Cradle of Filth on various peer-to-peer networks,[citation needed]". I don't think a citation is needed here. Just search the two names together on Google and you'll find nothing but torrents and downloads of the song improperly credited to CoF. 24.49.230.134 ( talk) 20:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Why is the chronology template being removed without any disscussion? Atleast there should be a census on it. Please somebody take this serious matter into consideration 124.253.68.37 ( talk) 07:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)