Castlevania has a long timeline that tries to tie all of its games not only one historical continuity, but Bram Stoker's Dracula novel as well. The thing is, as primarily action oriented games, does this really even make a difference?

Castlevania originated in a time when there often wasn't much of a plot to games. There was an explanation to what you were doing, and that's about it. Mega Man was just "Kill robots, get their evil creator", Zelda was "The Triforce is the key to power. Ganon's evil and wants it, so stop him". Few games had or required twists, turns and plots. They didn't have the room and they didn't need them. When my family got an NES, I was about 3, and my older brother lost all the instruction manuals, so I never knew what the point was other than to kill the final guy. While there is that, there's also the action and depth that can be gained from a plot. SotN was the first CV game I really played that had characters talking (they interacted and certain conversations carried on to another one) and I got a feel of what the characters were like, and was a little intrigued. Also, the whole "What's up with Richter?" idea opened the way to multiple endings and more possibilities in exploration. I believe that it should depend on the game itself. DO you really need a plot other than "Dracula's back, you know what to do."? If a game has as simple of a concept as just getting thorugh the castle, you know what's going on anyway, and don't need any extra crap bogging down on ass kicking. Oh sure, it's fun, but do you really care? People play through so many games and never know why this stuff is happening, or care (Did you REALLY care about the plot to any of the Kirby games?) They were fun and that's all I ever needed. However, a plot can make things just as interesting. I love plots in games, I just feel they're best used in games like RPGs or something that isn't just action, but needs it's own complete tale to keep the game going. In FF, if there was no plot, you'd just be sort of wandering, and that wouldn't be much of a game. But the CV series is based on a different concept and system, so there doesn't have to be a plot for there to be purpose -Moonen

One of the reasons, I think, that RPGs have plots is because you NEED to devote at least 20 to 60 hours of your life, and you want something to keep playing for that stretch. This at least seems to be the case with most RPGs, though someone should really poke the Dragon Warrior 7 team and tell them to get with the times. (Maybe it's my short attention span, but spending 120 hours with boring characters and a worthless plot is not my idea of enjoyment.)

Castlevania, on the other hand, doesn't quite have that same necessity. Even the RPG-driven ones take maybe ten hours out of your life, at max. You don't really need that extra story to keep playing.

On the other hand, the story, if its good, can really get you involved in the events and characters. Remember Ninja Gaiden? You weren't just randomly jumping through snow covered mountains and mercilessly killing birds - you were chasing the bastards that stole your statue. Wasn't it absolutely mind blowing when Ryu was shot by a random girl, and the game became a quest to find out the mystery behind her? (Well, it was back in 1989.) The entire Ninja Gaiden series is probably the first console game to pull off the whole "story" thing well (and those cutscenes looked amazing to boot.)

Some games toss in a plot where they really aren't needed. I mean, Sonic Adventure 2 was a decent game and all, but I really didn't care at all about the Saturday morning cartoon plot regarding Robotnik's grandfather and some "ultimate being". These scenes were often several minutes long, and utterly pointless - I see them as little more than wastes of 1s and 0s. I know this is Sonic and it's technically targeted towads the younger crowd, so I'm not expecting any great philosphical musings, but jeez, they were boring.

Good afternoon Kurt,       Well, I am glad to see the next column is up and about, this has been a great idea to have an expressive forum for all of us to get our thoughts out.  Thanks! Hmmm, interesting topic this time around.  Storylines for Castlevania.  I, myself, love the storylines contained within the recent Castlevania games.  They add the atmosphere to an otherwise simple concept.  Granted, those of us who go out and buy a Castlevania game have a general idea as to what we are getting into, but the storylines also get the main part of what Konami wants, new customers.  Even though it may be redundant to you and I about what we are doing in the game, the new people do not.       Granted, this isn't like Final Fantasy where every game is reset and there is always a new story within each game that never ties in to the previous one (sadly, that looks to be over with the release of FF X #2, the first techincal "sequel" in the making for Tidus and the gang).  It would be very confusing if say Castlevania III had you fight of Dracula with Trevor, then came back with Castlevania IV, where a Non-Belmont fought someone like Carmilla or Bathory, though the main storyline is still there, kill a vampire. I say it adds character to those main characters than anything else (save for Legecy of Darkness, still confused on that one).  I mean, who would care about Nathan Graves?  What is the first thing missing fromt hat name?  It isn't a Belmont.  Well, that clicks the Castlevania heads off like a broken lightbulb.  So, how do they explain it?  They bust out the short background story and *Poof*, Nathan is one of the family. Same thing with the new Harmony of Discord coming to the states here in the summer (already having twitching fits and cramps in my thumbs and I haven't even touched my GBA today).  Some people wouldn't have the slightest clue as to what the Belendes family name means to the series in itself.  Presto, this is an instant doorway to say 'Hey, go find yourself a copy of Castlevania III, sit down, get comfy and play until you find the blue robed character.' or even better 'Remember that boss fight in SotN, the inverted castle part where you fought the three "mummies" that turned out to be another Belmont with a whip, a pirate and a female mage?  This new guy is her great, great, great, great *yawn* grandson.' But see, we already know this.  That is what it is for a markering tool.  We also know the marketing aspect, but I tend to think that it illuminates the character that I control.  Much like a good series of books, a good series of comic books, a great series of games, or just life in general; you want to know everything about that particular person because you will be spending alot of time with that character (not to mention missing out on dates, losing sleep, draining batteries and not eating well).       Well, that is my stance at least.  I say bring on the storyline.  Heck, pubilsh a friggin book with some background stories on the whole Belmont clan.  I know I would have 2 copies of that, one to destroy by reading and the other to put on my shelf of Castlevania goodness.  Anyway, thanks again for the forum and I will look forward to the next topic.   -Matt "I am not a Belmont, but I want to be"

I think the long history of the Belmonts - especially when it refers back to older CV games, like SotN and Harmony of Dissonance, makes the series feel like a big heroic epic that spans hundreds of centuries. The effect has absolutely no effect on gameplay, but it's cool, idn't it?

Having a "cool" hero is something that's become very important within the last decade or so. Remember when Sonic the Hedgehog came out, and other companies were scrambling to make games that featured "attitude" and whatnot? It's even the same philosophy behind something more adult like Duke Nukem - an interesting protagonist helps identify the game as being unique, and adds a little bit more depth where there wasn't any before.

I think Castlevania suceeded with Alucard - even though the story scenes were fairly minimal, they made him to be a DAMN cool character. For someone with so few speaking lines, you couldn't help but feel for the poor guy's plight. There's more internal struggle within him than any of the Belmonts. Granted, this is basically lifted from any Anne Rice novel, and the romance between Alucard and Maria is a bit silly, but at that point, it's the effort that counts, right?

On the other hand, Circle of the Moon wasn't quite as interesting. Hugh was a jerk...you knew you were going to have to fight him, save the world, etc, etc. Not horribly offensive, but not that good either.

I was glad when you chose the topic "Do Castlevania games need a storyline?"  For years, that question has plagued me, and I've only played CV, CV2, and COTM! However, a quick glance through the "Story" section of the site confirmed that the plot of CV games hasn't changed much.   I mean, let's be honest. No matter which members of whatever demon-slaying family you have, what time period, what items and abilities, Castlevania games always revolve around a simple formula: Dracula has risen after x-number of years, (early or on-time) and it's up to Y-person to put him back to sleep again.   Anyone bored yet?  Oddly enough, no.  Now, it is my opinion that story helps a game to be truly enjoyable, and fun to play.  One of my main reasons to continue most adventure games is because I want to know "What happens next?"  But with Castlevania, I already know.  I'm gonna fight a bunch of weird monsters, and Drac himself, at some point.  I'll beat him, after a while, and he'll go nighty-night once more. After the third time of this, I really should stop, get bored, and lay CV to rest.  So why don't I? Why don't we all? I guess it's simple.  (Most) Castlevania games are well designed, fun to play, and different in their own ways.  There's something very enjoyable about destroying the most evil creatures of hell, and their lord of darkness.  It's the ultimate hero's fantasy, and the reason that it never changes?  Konami knows it.  Even though I've done it a bundle of times before, I still look forward to fighting Dracula, seeing his different forms, and putting him to rest with a whip and some holy water.       Of course, to say that it's always the same would be unfair.  For example, COTM gave us the new trading card spell system, which was truly great.  Who knows what new joys await us next time?  I guess story doesn't matter to Castlevania, at least, not a different story.  The same one will do, this time, and the next.    Just give me my whip.   Scooby

This letter was indicative of most of the responses, but it does a good job of summing everything up.

I don't think the plot makes much of a difference to me personally. Linking the games together is fine if they want a headache, but its not a make or break feature. I mean lets look at the earlier Castlevianias. They had no "real" relevance to eachother whatsoever. Did we care? no. But then again, Simon couldn't whip in all directions either. What I mean is, I  acknowledge the increase in detail that next generations games are expected to have, but I feel as if the overall story linking the history of castlevanias together is futile. It is however important to have an innovative plot within a single game. ie; Simon's Quest. Where it wasn't simply "kill Dracula" as the main point of the game. It was find all of Dracula's relic like parts and resurrect him,. . . .then kill him to release the curse. Its kinda funny now that I think about it. But anyway. Good example of an internal plot that drove the game but had little bearing or resemblance to the first castlevania. Even though it was supposed to take place after the first one it was on its own. When we get to part III, I already knew the lineage was fucked up. Trevor and the late dates. It seems to me that Castlevania cannot continue if Konami pays such attention to the timeline. They should treat it like a comic book superhero series. A hero, a foe, many battles a rough timeline but who's counting. ya know?   cough!   alwaysinit

Trust me - if you've read any of the GameFAQs boards...a LOT of people of counting.

Going onto other video game series - is there any REAL continuity between any of the Zelda games? I think there's some vague excuses to tie the games together (at least, there used to be) but I always liked they think they were more or less seperate from each other.

My viewpoint is that story is always a minor concern in a Castlevania. I always saw the individual games as having very limited stories individually. But when placed together they form an epic. I have become slightly frustrated with the timeline ever since Castlevania 64. It seems that many of the new stories have taken place during the 1800s and every recent Belmont has had a different last name. This makes it hard to figure out the lineage. But in all fairness, it's hard to place so many games within a timeframe without having to make a present-day or futuristic game. I find that when I play a Castlevania, I become so intent on "Kill Dracula!" that I tend to forget about the story until a cut-scene pops up out of nowhere, as it often happens in these games. The stories are fun but nowhere near necessary. Many people would disagree but I say that if Konami released a brand new, not remade, Castlevania with no story but "Kill Dracula!" I would buy it and enjoy it as long as it's fun. Tony T. Tiger

A lot of people seem concerned about Castlevania protagonists that don't have the last name Belmont. Doesn't anyone remember the famous Simpsons quote? "A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. Unless it's a stinkweed." Or something. Yeah. But that brings up what was pretty much the whole point of this column - but people MUST care about the story and characters if such a minor thing actually makes a difference to them.

First off I'd like to second your shout out to the GIA in the last column. I will miss them terribly. I even bought their T-shirt. Bloody cruel way to go out though, on the one day of the year when no one would think it was true.   Tying up other loose ends, I'd like to respond to Cruel Angel's Thesis's comment that "the US [has not] put out a comic worth reading in the last 5 years." If you can't find a comic worth reading, then I would suggest that you're not looking very hard. I'm not sure when Maus or Sandman finished up their runs, but it can't have been more than five years ago. These are just big name titles. Talented comics artists are always at work; whether they get much publicity or not is another matter, of course. I like manga just as much as the next dude, but to think that the Japanese aren't just as capable of churning out tired clichés as American artists is a little narrow minded. Maybe I'm reading too much into your statements. If so, I apologize. As for you Kurt, I'm not certain that we're talking about the same thing, but my conjecture is that the thing sticking out of the wolf's neck is Alucard's sheathed sword. See, it's strapped to the wolf's back as if he was still carrying his equipment. So the topic: personally I would love it if there was some kind of consistent epic storyline, but it's far too late for that. The timeline is far too screwed up already, and worse still, they've managed to set up a situation where the struggle is eternal, and frankly that's a real saga killer in my book. When Dracula is finally slain by another one of his bratty great-grandchildren, it's no big deal because we all know that it's going to happen again. And again. If there can be no end, there can be no climax and climax is central to a good drama. If I may digress for a moment, think about Star Trek: Voyager. Whatever other problems that show may have had, you could already sense that it was doomed from the start because of the nature of it's premise. We're lost in space. Okay, so next episode you're still lost in space. The writers have shot themselves in the foot from the very beginning because the moment they finally find their way home (for real this time) the series is over. My hope is that the rumor of Harmony's having a new antagonist is true. The Count is such a distant foe. You rarely get a sense of his motivations and he doesn't seem to get much into your business, preferring to send out his dark minions and patiently await your arrival in his elaborate chambers. True, he is a most refined and dignified abomination of evil, but the stand-and-watch routine gets a little stale after a while. Imagine, instead, a foe that you can truly hate, an evil that dogs your every step and makes you seethe with rage. That's what Castlevania needs. Maybe we'll never get that given the nature of the gameplay structure, but in any case, the addition of new villains should only make the Castlevania mythos grow stronger.   Christopher Lundgren

About the comics - I've never had much in interest in them for some reason, despite my nerdly upbringing, and apart from a few cases, I don't find much interesting in them now (with the exception of serious works like Maus, which is excellent.) Whenever I go into the comic book store, I see nearly all of the American comics are the superhero types that I find very dull. I read manga because it's more diverse - then again, most of my favorites are romance-driven things like Love Hina and Peach Girl. They may be just as cliche filled as anything, but at least they're different cliches.

Several people wrote in about the sword-on-the-wolf-thingie from last column. Well, at least now I know.

And I can make the same parallel about Voyager with Gilligan's Island - the show's plot was the same damn thing every episode, and they failed every time - because if they didn't fail, it would end.

God, I hated that show.

Right. The Castlevania games have always been great games to play (with the odd exception every now and then) but I think the Storyline element is responsible for taking the classic games of the Nes and allowing them to grow into the vibrant piece of culture they have become today. When Castlevania first started out Storyline wasn't really much of an issue but back in the frontiere days of the late 80's games didn't have to make any sense or have a plot. The market was awash with games that were fun to play but in terms of depth and story were pretty crappy. Examples being rubbish like Bad Dudes v's Dragon Ninga. (Is it possible for a game to be more cliché) Now this style of gaming was fine for the early days of the industry. But systems got more powerful, programmers learnt new tricks and we, the consumers, started to ask for more. We wanted to know why our little hero was storming through level after level to kill this dude. Purely because he was Dracula was not enough. Castlevania 3 (arguably the best ever NES game) was the first CV game to really make a go at the story element. With multiple characters each with their own histories and motivations the game took on a real depth. That is why to this day Castlevania 3 is regarded by many as one of the best of the series. Symphony of the Night, probably the most popular Castlevania game in general, is also the most indepth in terms of story and character. We live in a world where as computer games, and systems evolve, Gaming style is moving towards a more cinematic style. It is no longer just the RPG that requires a decent plot and indepth characters. Beat'em ups, 1st and 3rd person shooters, Real Time Strategy, all of these genres have each in their own way become more cinematic over recent years, look ayt hits like HalfLife for example. It's crazy to say that Castlevania could function in this day and age without a decent storyline. It wouldn't still be here today if the series had not developed into the deep piece of culture it has become. We all acknowledge the "Castlevania Universe" just like the Star Trek or Starwars ones. In order to stay alive Castlevania had to evolve from the basic no plot geames of the 80's and early 90's. That brings us to a new problem though, where does the series go from here. I must admit even i'm getting a little tired of "Look the count has risen and we must venture forth into his castle and slay him". Now Symphony did do something to play with the idea, and it sounds as if White Night Concherto will alter the general plot as bit as well. But the Castlevania series needs to evolve once more or it will grow stale. Like any good fan I have my own ideas about what direction it could take. But i'll save that for another time. Perhaps that might make an interesting column one day....Is there a serious direction the series can take that alters the age old pattern? Yours Faithfully Simon "Belmont" Strain

Sadly, I'm not sure if there's too much Konami can do with altering the general Castlevania plotline template.

Half Life is one of the best examples of how a wheezing genre was taken to the next level with the help of a story. It added quite a lot of emotional investment and excitement compared to the likes of Doom, Quake or Unreal.

I remember ever since I was a kid playing the NES Castlevanias, I was intrigued by the storyline. It became a very important thing for me to figure out what happened when and who did what. In fact, I was obsessed with CV 3: Dracula's Curse (and still am) and Trevor became my favorite Belmont. The game manual specifically stated that he was the "father of the Belmont vampire hunter chromosome" or something like that; basically that he was the first Belmont to fight Dracula. In my mind, this made him even cooler, because it was he who started the whole epic battle of the series; it was thus he who would be Dracula's most personal enemy, being the first to defeat him and show him that he could be destroyed. So when CV: Legends came out for the Gameboy, and said that Sonia was the first Belmont to fight Dracula, I was a bit ticked off. All the mythos I'd given Trevor was dashed to pieces--the storyline had simply been thrown aside to make another game. Or so it seemed to me. Now I've gotten used to it, but my point is this: a storyline that makes sense, that logically fits together without departing from itself has greater strength. It always irks me a little when a game in the series (like N64) says, "It's been one hundred years since Dracula was destroyed..." and you know that another game in the series (like COTM) supposedly takes place only 15 or so years before. It makes a legend more cool if it isn't contradicted every time a new game comes out. All that having been said, I do think it is cool to have some ambiguity about dates and chronology at times. In real history, we don't know exact dates off all the important events that shaped our reality. So it becomes a fun and intriguing challenge to try to figure things out, to put your own spin on it--you use your own imagination and form your own version of the ways things fit together ("well because of what is said in this game, I think that so and so knew that something or other was going to happen, so that would mean that..."). Some ambiguity adds to the "legend" mythos; it makes more mystery. One last thought: It seems to me that a lot of the problems with the contradicting / unclear storyline have to do with the simple fact that the Castlevania series is running out of hundred year increments to resurrect Dracula; if he first came about around the late 1400's (Legends), then he would supposedly have only come back around 5 or 6 times, yet there are over 11 games in the series. So I have an idea. What if in an upcoming game in the series it is subtely hinted (not laid out clearly) that there might be other parallel dimensions where the war between the Belmonts and Dracula rages? It would really add to the mythos and mystery of the whole legend if that were a possibility, while making it possible for seemingly overlapping games and stories to exist. Interesting, eh? Castlevania rocks: it is the reason video games were invented. -Quinn J.

I bet the Castlevania designers must HATE us, the fans who pick apart the timeline and scream bloody murder when we find their screw-ups.

From what i've seen, heard and read about the Castlevania games i would have to say that the Time Line, while not overly important to regular gameplayers, does have a HUGE impact on die hard fans, the biggest problem being Super Casltevania 4, a seemingly new generation with the same now 120 year old simon belmont, seems a little funny to me.  I would say that aside from that they have done fairly well in keeping a timeline that doesn't conflict too much with the other games, although for dracula to be killed in 1792 by Richter, then in 1800 by Alucard, then agian in 1830 by Nathan Graves, yet one more time in 1844 by Cornell and then 1852 by Reinhardt and last in 1897 in Bram Strokers Dracula does seem like Dracula went through a bunch of Shi* during that 100 year time. Allthough most people would agree that the time line does make each Castlevania more interesting when it gives referneces to other games, Take Symphony of the Night, it was a direct sequel to Rondo of Blood and gave refernce to Draculas Curse, which was a good idea.  However the two Gameboy games had little to do with any other CV and COTM plus Legacy of Darkness were somewhat on thier own as far as timeline goes.  It is my opinion that the Timeline, while not completely accurate and of the upmost importance does make each game more interesting to those who know it. I personally would like to see them re-make some of the old titles and update them, for the new systems or release a pack that has the old ones in it.  Because if they keep adding to the timeline it's going to get way to complicated to even bother with. -Axes4u

It's already too complicated to bother with, but they'll keep trying.

~Ah my least favorite subject, stories lol! To be perfectly honest I have little to no interest in stories what-so-ever. This feeling is so bad that when people complain about a bad story in a game or movie or anime I need a translator to understand this. ~When exactly did story become so important in gameplay? Back in the Nintendo days of yore I wasn't playing Zelda 2, Willow and Secret of Mana because I thought that the stories were enthralling and compelling, I played and enjoyed games like that because of fun gameplay. Does a game have to completely draw you in to a overdramatic soap opera to be enjoyable? And who are these people sitting on the edge of their seat wating for the next plot twist in a game? I attribute Final Fantasy's overzealous cinematic direction to this new "watch the game" attitude, (which people have the nerve to complain about). I'd rather be playing the game myself, but I guess that idea is a bit too archaic for an industry in dire need of a new revolution. ~Now I'm about to contradict myself by saying that I can appreciate good stories, although never immediately. Where good stories do find their place in gaming is within epic, long, and drawn out games. However they should not be fall-backs points of a boring game. Reluctantly using Lunar as an example it has a great, (if a somewhat too familiar) story where finding out what happens at the end is a major reason to play thru the game, (if *ahem* even the only reason). With Symphony of the Night however,... the story was as good as the gameplay. Neither element outshined the other IMO and the game was balanced in almost all respects. I think that is the way it should be. And I also think that the kill Dracula "non-story story" should be left to the arcades where it began, so as not to spoil the series. I'm truly beginning to detest fighting Dr. Wily and Sigma because of some ridiculous loophole pulled out of the rears of creatively lacking writers. ~And then some people always compare Devil May Cry to Castlevania, which I think is underestimating the series integrity. When Devil May Cry 3 comes out people will be wondering why Capcom is dragging it's feet with that rusty old thing, when by that time the new home console Castlevania will have blown everyone away, and raised the bar of game entertainment once again. And frankly I think that they could do it with or without a deep story.

Megaman X in particular is another series that fans seem to be very critical about when it comes to story. As much as I love the game, it never really mattered to me - I just liked shooting robots, and I didn't even bother with most of the cutscenes in the recent games (the shoddy translation shows that Capcom must not care much either.) But apparently a lot of people find the backstory behind the X series (and its relation to the original games) very interesting...and if that's a selling point for people, you better damn well bet that companies are going to add it in.

And to be honest, I have no problem with the "watch the game" method of game design that's been sneaking into some more recent games (especially anything done by Hideo Kojima.) Snatcher is one of my favorite games of all time, and it's barely even a game, so much as an exercise in flipping through menus. I just found the storyline, the characters, everything, to be absolutely entrancing. It was like an extremely well-done movie that I was a part of, that I could control. I don't want all games to become like that, asthat would be more than a little bit boring in large doses.

Well this is sort of a yes/no answer. Games are becoming more and more story driven the more time goes by (just look at the Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy series') and they've certainly become much more than ninja's kidnapping the president with all the world relying on you and you magical sword of flame to thwart the terrorist ninjas plan.    Now, as an avid reader of pretty much anything that's good, yes, story is very important to me. It gives your characters depth and the game itself emotional overtones that add plenty to the experience. Story is also a very good feature in that it helps to elevate games to an art, after all isn't story-telling (or literature) the final key in the puzzle of what constitutes art (next to music and illustration)?   On the other hand, story simply isn't the most important feature in a game (as we all know that is, of course, the gameplay) and therefore is expendable when it comes down to it. For example, the entire series of Mega Man games (and all spin-offs) and pretty much any fighting game series. While these have less than stellar plots (which are really just vehicles to move the play around) the games are really still fun; it doesn't ultimately detract from the gameplay. In terms of Castlevania, just look at the foundations of the series and notice that most of them fall into the above category in terms of plot. In fact, none of them really elaborted on story up until Rondo of Blood and their story and motivation really was "KILL DRACULA!" Did it detract from the experience? No, while it would have been great to have an epic story to go along with the great gameplay, no it really wasn't necessary and the games were still fun. Now let's talk a look a the story-driven, plot-laden  gems of the Castlevania universe SotN, RoB, and even to some extent CotM. Granted even these games didn't develop the story as good as a Final Fantasy or MGS game, but you have to consider that these games A) weren't nearly as long and B) had a much more "arcade action" style than say any RPG or the plot twisting MGS. And y'know that reminds me, maybe that's just what Castlevania needs to beef up it's story a good old-fashioned plot twist and some really heavy story. In the end though, story, (as great as it is) much like music and art is just another shaving that, if taken off still leaves you with the most important part, the core, which is the gameplay.     Josh, who must leave now to save the president

Ninjas have time travelled and kidnapped The Pope! Are you a bad enough Belmont to kick their asses?

Goddamn, I want to write video game plots.

The timeline is loved by the fans cause now somehting is linking the games together. Its like there is a actual story to the series now. The timeline was probably created for two reasons;1. the fans wanted it, 2.Konami wants to figure this whole Castlevania mess. Castlevania is older then Final Fanasty and in such in order to keep the Castlevania series going you need to make sense of all this. Unlike Final Fastany where each story is a seperate universe. Actually for a long time there was a rumor from Squaresoft that the FF sereis were connected, but it seems that was just a rumor. Konami not wanting to do the seperate universe per game did the timeline to show the fans its all connected this isn't some game that changes everytime, but a fight between good and evil that will continue on forever. However this will hurt Konami as well. The timeline is to give the fans something to see. They can see that is a continuing story, the battle isn't over because you beat Dracula as Simon, you must take the mantle of vampire hunter again and show why the Belmonts rule. The simple 2-D kill dracule premise died a long time ago. Many old dog gamers remember that time. Games were simple, you just did was needed in a simple format. Castlevania-Send Dracula packin', Mario Brothers-Let Bowser taste flaming Lava, Street Fighter-Beat the crap out of your opponent. But now as we old dogs fade away the younger kids want substance, they want every game to be bigger then a Hollywood movie. Don't believe me, look at the the first Castlevania (Vampire Killer) and then look at Circle of the Moon. Very different. The game processing power may of changed, but the fans want more and this industry is built on what the fans want and they shall get it. I being a otaku (hard core anime fan for those who don't know), like having a story to go with the game, also the timeline makes sense. The Castlevania series were never really linked, Konami had hinted strongly at that and Bam! SotN did that, linked the stories and now the fans had something to look at! They were playing in a universe where actions made in the past came back to haunt them in the present being SotN at the time. Now fans had something to look at, everytime they gave Dracula his last rites, they knew in another game they have to rise again to put him back into the grave. You feel a sense of purpose and have to continue the fight to make Dracula realize you won't give up. You now have to take down the only Castlevania you couldn't beat, tie a bandana around your head, and start talking with a Romanian accent, you have the restore the timeline you have to put Dracula back in his place, you are a Belmont and its your density. THe timeline is a link as a Castlevania fan, NO a Belmont by blood so to speak its your density to put Dracula back into his grave, as a Belmont you must win. And when you are done you can take joy in knowing you saved the world. You have done your job, and soon you will have to do it again. We all enjoy that timeline for that purpose, we have a sense of duty and honor to fulfill, we are all Belmonts in some way and we must make sure the timeline follows it path. Dracula must be destroyed, we swear it. Cruel Angel's Thesis

It's hilarious when I read reviews of fighting games and their actually list "bad plot" as a negative. While I do admit that characters with interesting backstories is a little bit fun, does it really matter in anyway? Especially when its and idiotic and hackneyed as, say, Dead or Alive?

I think there's this whole epic continuity in the SNK fighting games too, but not knowing much them and their crazy Orochi powers, I can't comment much.

I'm surprised that no one brought up Castlevania 64 at all, which had some bare minimum of a story - at least as much as Symphony of the Night did (what, with that whole Rosa thing going on.) I'm willing to bet these were ignored because the protagonists just weren't very interesting.

So, the general gist of this column is: fans find the storyline important and it adds a little bit of depth to the series...but it really isn't tied together all that well. It's not overly important to a game series like this, but it's nice to have.

Onto to the next topic, a controversial one: emulation. Though the actualy software is legal, let's face it - if you download a game ROM, you're doing something illegal, no bones about it. Heck, technically I'm breaking the law by offering games on this site. But without emulation, most of us would've never got to play Haunted Castle, or Vampire Killer, or Castlevania X68000 (at least, until Chronicles came out.)

How important is emulation to you and your discovery of the Castlevania, or other classic game series? Should it be legalized in any way? Are we all sinners, forcing some poor Japanese programmers out into the streets to defend for themselves every time we play a ten year old game without paying for it? What do you feel about Konami's ban on the distribution of the Dracula X ISO (which they don't seem to be enforcing, but I'm not taking my chances.) Please, do share.

-Kurt, who finds Christopher Walken to be quite the interesting person.