Castlevania Discussion Thread: Simon's Quest

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

And those other 600 years don't count because??? Also Trevor being the first doesn't mean he's the only one who can. John, Eric, Jonathan, Charlotte and Shanoa are proof of that.

Eric and Charlotte were allied with members of the Morris clan who wielded the Vampire Killer, and Shanoa used Dominus, which was Dracula's own power.

They're literally not, the fact you say that despite the other games that do not have a belmont in it that have killed Dracula in the past shows you're not paying attention to the story. Also only the Belmonts, are we forgetting Maria is stated before to have powers that rival that of a Belmont and we have confirmation she fought and defeated Dracula alongside Richter? The fact that's stated numerous times in the series shoots your argument in the foot.

Maria fought alongside Richter—yes, a Belmont wielding the Vampire Killer.

Richter's statements of Dracula rising has been proven wrong like numerous times dude, the anniversary collection literally states that the legend of Dracula rising every century is not accurate at all so idk why you're banking on Richter's statement of Dracula rising every century being real when the series itself disproves that, and it's only a legend and nothing more.

You missed my point. If Dracula had actually resurrected multiple times in less than a century, that would mean every Belmont generation had the chance to defeat him repeatedly within their own lifetime.
Richter’s statements and objectives in SotN make no sense if that’s the case, and that’s not the only problem with this "720+ resurrections" nonsense:

- If any Belmont or Morris had defeated Dracula more than once in their lifetime, it would have been mentioned by now.

- If plenty of other people (vampire hunters, sorcerers, or whatever) defeated Dracula multiple times while the Belmonts/Morris only did it once per generation, it implies the latter aren't nearly as important or special as we think. It undermines the significance of the Belmonts and the Vampire Killer from a narrative standpoint. Whether the Belmonts and the Vampire Killer are involved or not makes no difference, since a bunch of random, unnamed people could just go and beat Dracula 720+ times.

If literally no one here sees the problem with that, it would be worrying.

That still counts as a kill. She killed Dracula in her game, same with Hector, so again the Belmonts being the only ones to fight and beat Dracula are just not true, especially when Grant and Sypha are not relatives to the Belmonts at the time and Trevor acknowledges he had help from them and Alucard to defeat them.

Grant and Sypha fought alongside a Belmont wielding the Vampire Killer and with Dracula's own son. Shanoa possessed Dracula's own power. Hector defeated a weakened Dracula—who was likely no stronger than Death (and thus didn't even add a layer).

 

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

Besides, the legend of Dracula's resurrection every 100 years isn't wrong at all. In Grimoire of Souls (the latest canonical game prior to the release of Belmont Curse), it is reiterated several times that Dracula can resurrect by himself every 100 years due to human negative emotions; if we look at the dates of two games, the 100-year rule is strictly adhered to:

• Belmont's Revenge (1591) - Castlevania (1691) = 100 years

The other times occur when Dracula is resurrected by others. So, the 100-year rule holds true, except when others resurrect Dracula beforehand.

 

[Lgamer099_99]

Inoltre, la leggenda della resurrezione di Dracula ogni 100 anni non è affatto errata. In Grimoire of Souls (l'ultimo gioco canonico precedente all'uscita di Belmont Curse), viene ribadito più volte che Dracula può resuscitare da solo ogni 100 anni a causa delle emozioni negative umane; se guardiamo le date di alcuni giochi, la regola dei 100 anni viene rigorosamente rispettata:

• La vendetta di Belmont (1591) - Castlevania (1691) = 100 anni
• Simon's Quest (1698 d.C.) - Harmony of Dissonance (1748 d.C.) = 100 anni

Le altre volte ciò accade quando Dracula viene resuscitato da altri. Quindi, la regola dei 100 anni è valida, tranne quando altri resuscitano Dracula prima.

I agree, the every 100 years seem to be legit when you don't force his resurrection. Let's see if he's forced again in the new game. Thing is, I personally still wouldn't exclude the idea that those books contain other parallel timelines as well, but oh well. Thing is, even if we ignore the showed books it doesn't make much sense lore wise that the library has like what 15 books?

 

[Theglassman12]

Eric and Charlotte still contributed to killing Dracula, Shanoa is still not a belmont and she killed Dracula, the point remains people that aren't a literal belmont can kill Dracula. Again if Grant and Sypha was only being backed up by Trevor and Alucard, explain why Trevor had to emphasize that he had help from allies when Hector asked if he killed Dracula.

Maria's power is stated to rival that of a Belmont, and we in SOTN she turns the tide of the fight to help Richter fight Dracula when he was getting overwhelmed, again your point being?

Yes, it's almost like we see that happen with Simon Belmont of all people when he revived and killed Dracula in Simon's quest, if you're this clueless to the series and how the events happened then stop trying to lecture to me on how the series works, and you banking on Richter's statement when he literally is reviving Dracula 5 years after Rondo AND THE FACT KONAMI THEMSELVES literally say that the legend is not at all accurate in their Anniversary collection book tells me you're not at all engaging with the arguments. Address the point where Konami literally says the 100 year legend is not accurate whatsoever or stop with this debate, because you're not doing yourself any favor by just ignoring what Konami and the games have told and shown us in this entire franchise.

 

[EL_xWatcher1234x]

What's the deal with 720 layers ?

 

[Theglassman12]

Every single time Dracula's resurrected, he grows stronger and in Castlevania it shows that being stronger results in stronger hax and stronger resistances, and in Grimoire of Souls they have a literal library that documented every single time Dracula and his forces fought any hunters and have fallen, which goes to roughly 720 books by counting every single one of them given the entire point of the library is to know how Dracula functions, and documenting every single event of his war against humanity is something Elgos planned to counteract if and when he came back.

 

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

again your point being?

stop trying to lecture to me on how the series works

If you don't understand one of the most basic narrative, of course I'm going to lecture you.
If the 720+ resurrections and defeats of Dracula are true, that means the Belmonts and the Vampire Killer serve absolutely NO purpose in the story, since any random, unnamed characters can defeat Dracula without the help of the Belmonts or the Vampire Killer.

All the examples you brought up involve either characters related to the Belmonts who have access to the Vampire Killer, characters teaming up with the Belmonts, and characters who wield Dracula's power (and even a character who defeated a weakened version of Dracula—which probably doesn't even count in the 720+ layers). There’s no way all the unnamed characters among the 700+ who defeated Dracula had access to all that.

AND THE FACT KONAMI THEMSELVES literally say that the legend is not at all accurate in their Anniversary collection book tells me you're not at all engaging with the arguments. Address the point where Konami literally says the 100 year legend is not accurate whatsoever or stop with this debate, because you're not doing yourself any favor by just ignoring what Konami and the games have told and shown us in this entire franchise.

I have already proven that the 100-year gap is real, because there are 100 years between Belmont's Revenge and Castlevania, and between Simon's Quest and Harmony of Dissonance.

Konami themselves state the same thing in the Anniversary Collection, confirming that there is a 100-year gap between Belmont's Revenge and Castlevania and explicitly confirming that Dracula slept for 100 years between these two games. Grimoire of Souls, released a few months after the Anniversary Collection, confirms multiple times that Dracula can resurrect every 100 years.

Konami's statement that the cycle is "not accurate at all" refers to the fact that Dracula was resurrected multiple times before the 100-year mark had passed in many instances.

and you banking on Richter's statement when he literally is reviving Dracula 5 years

That literally just proves my point even more. The reason Richter does that is precisely because he wants the chance to face Dracula more than once; since the cycle spans 100 years, each generation of Belmonts only gets one chance to face Dracula in their lifetime (usually).

 

[Theglassman12]

In what way does it serve no purpose when it can still kill Dracula? The fact people literally rose to fight in the Belmont's place because they inspired hope into everyone is the complete opposite of being pointless. If you played Grimoire of Souls you'd know this. Also again, what part of them having some way to kill Dracula that isn't the whip debunks the point that people exist in Castlevania that killed Dracula? Answer the question because you're assuming the Belmonts can only do it when that was never stated at all. For someone who has to lecture to me on the lore you sure as **** love to ignore important details like Trevor admitting that he couldn't defeat Dracula on his own and needed help from Sypha, Grant and Alucard.

If the 100 year gap is real explain the gap between the first Castlevania and Simon's quest, or Rondo of Blood and SOTN, you gonna explain this or no because you're not doing any favors by self reporting you didn't pay attention to the story. Also no Richter is literally wrong, Simon killing Dracula twice in his own games disproves what Richter says. If you're not gonna address this or what Konami said where it's literally just a legend and not accurate at all I don't see why I should continue this conversation.

 

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

In what way does it serve no purpose when it can still kill Dracula?

Because even if they didn't exist, hundreds of people could do it, given the 720+ resurrections?

The fact people literally rose to fight in the Belmont's place because they inspired hope into everyone is the complete opposite of being pointless.

True, because they are the most powerful and renowned vampire hunters in history, and Trevor is a symbol of hope as the first to defeat Dracula. But that changes absolutely nothing regarding the fact that—if the "720+" ressurection is accurate—it would mean over a hundred non-Belmonts defeated Dracula. Consequently, whether the Belmonts were present or not would have made absolutely no difference, and there would be no reason for them to be so important.

Also again, what part of them having some way to kill Dracula that isn't the whip debunks the point that people exist in Castlevania that killed Dracula? Answer the question because you're assuming the Belmonts can only do it when that was never stated at all.

Because there is no way—or a very, very slim chance—that those 720+ unnamed characters received help from a Belmont (or other Vampire Killer users like the Morris), wielded the Vampire Killer themselves, had access to Dracula's power or were children of Dracula. These are the scenarios that could explain how people other than the Belmonts are capable of defeating Dracula (along with defeating a Dracula who isn't fully resurrected—though that instance wouldn't count towards the 720+ layers).

For someone who has to lecture to me on the lore you sure as **** love to ignore important details like Trevor admitting that he couldn't defeat Dracula on his own and needed help from Sypha, Grant and Alucard.

You’re the one deliberately ignoring my point. Yes, Trevor had the help of Grant, Sypha, and Alucard to defeat Dracula, but none of the three—at the time of CV3—could have beaten him either without the help of Trevor himself and the Vampire Killer. Mentioning that Trevor needed their help doesn't contradict my point at all.

If the 100 year gap is real explain the gap between the first Castlevania and Simon's quest, or Rondo of Blood and SOTN, you gonna explain this or no because you're not doing any favors by self reporting you didn't pay attention to the story. Also no Richter is literally wrong, Simon killing Dracula twice in his own games disproves what Richter says.

Are you kidding? I’ve explained several times that the "100-year gap" is real but that in many (if not most) cases, Dracula was resurrected by others before the 100 years were up. That’s why there isn’t a 100-year gap between CV1 and Simon’s Quest, or between Rondo of Blood and SotN. If no one resurrects Dracula, he’ll do it himself 100 years later. It’s as simple as that.

Richter isn't "literally wrong." Simon faced Dracula twice because he had to resurrect him himself to lift a curse. That’s an exception, not the rule.

If you're not gonna address this or what Konami said where it's literally just a legend and not accurate at all I don't see why I should continue this conversation.

Are you kidding x2? I literally addressed that and even showed that Konami explicitly stated the 100-year cycle is real.

 

[Theglassman12]

Ok so you're being willfully ignorant to the point you're just not paying attention to what Konami said where they literally said the legend is not at all accurate, I'm not wasting my time arguing with someone who's not paying attention to the facts or the timeline.

 

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

Ok so you're being willfully ignorant to the point you're just not paying attention to what Konami said where they literally said the legend is not at all accurate,

So you're just repeating that over and over without understanding it, while literally ignoring all the other evidence to the contrary provided by Konami themselves?

 

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

Actually, whether the 100-year cycle is real or not wouldn't change anything regarding the 720+ resurrections anyway, because, as explained, Dracula can be resurrected before the 100 years are up.

The real problem with Dracula's 720+ resurrections is, as explained, a narrative one.

 

[Hasty12345]

Ok so you're being willfully ignorant to the point you're just not paying attention to what Konami said where they literally said the legend is not at all accurate, I'm not wasting my time arguing with someone who's not paying attention to the facts or the timeline.

I don't think that's what HE'S doing.