Talk:Castlevania Legends

Actual Date of Castlevania Legends
Can anyone confirm or deny 1450 as a Konami-dictated date for this game? I'm fairly sure an official timeline showing it was published long before Igarashi decided to "improve" it, but a quick check of the game box, text, and manual reveals absolutely no date, so it is a possibility that this date worked its way into my own unofficial version of the timeline from an unauthoritative fan source, and was inadvertently transferred here as a canon detail. I'd appreciate it if anybody could find a source confirming or denying this.--QuasarTE 03:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

To Anonymous Editor
Your IP keeps changing so it is impossible to leave you any messages. Please register an account so we can talk about changes to the page. I had left a message for one of your previous IPs on the talk page, but it seems to be gone now. Happy wiki editing :) --QuasarTE 23:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is my reply: "Reply by said anonymous user: That's fine. Sorry if any personal feelings came across in my changes (I also agree that the game's information is more important then the retcon). I appreciate your edit to the article, and you have my understanding. If you wish to restore the pictures I removed, considor it done. Though I don't know how to undo that as of now. And likewise, thanks for your help. :)"

To whoever says that this canon in the US
Legends is not canon in both countries. Stop writing this because you dislike the changes. Konami US have no consequence on the official timeline. Please keep your edits in these articles as facts, not opinions.

apollogies but I believe I'm correct in this
I've emailed Konami USA prior to making these changes, and Konami USA does not acknowledge alterations made to the timeline. In this case I'm merely relaying a fact from an official source. Removing my edit is in fact merely preventing factual information from being presented.

Wikipedia is not for expressing opinion no matter how adamant you may be in that opinion. Please do not alter articles only to support personal feelings.


 * Konamia US left the retconned games out. This is evident in the Xtreme Desktop timeline.

Timeline Changes
The refrences you edited out were actually to a Konami Timeline printed in an issue of Nintendo Power in the last year or so. I thought I was clear to point out that Konami of America at first did not acknowledge Japan's timeline in that timeline, but have recently conformed to to the Japanese timeline in their most recent extreme timeline.

It was merely for historical note to point out that there have been changes in Konami of America's views in the recent years.

When I find a copy of that timeline do you have a suggestion where I can post it in order to point out the history behind Konami USA's take on the series.

Please don't suggest I put my own views into it the post. Infact it was quite neutral, and just stating historical facts on the issue. Infact I actually was editing someone else's post on the matter that did not quote any sources for his viewpoint, and correcting him by pointing out the Xtreme Timeline.

May I suggest you get an account so that I can leave you messages? The fact that you post on anonymous IP makes it difficult to leave any messages to youDraculvania 05:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Side Note/Interesting References
This game has a lot in common with the 1985 film, Vampire Hunter D. Alucard looks like D, fights with a sword, has supernatural powers, and also meets a whip-wielding blonde woman like D does. Also, in Castlevania: Curse of Darkness, there is a joke about a vampire hunter who comes after C.

Japanese title change
I noticed the Japanese language title has been changed from what it was to simply being an Engrish spelling of "Dark Night Prelude". Which is correct? Tuxedo Mark (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Motion to move this back into the Main Series section.
Despite being either unofficially or officially removed from the timeline, Castlevania Legends exists just as much as any of the Konami Kobe games. Whether it's canon or not is irrelevant because it was initially created with the intention of it's being in the regular series. If this is a side-story, then Castlevania 64, Legacy of Darkness and Circle of the Moon are side-stories as well because there is no indication other than Koji Igarashi's various timelines that any of them should be any more separate than any other. If one timeline is the reference, then there are many inconsistencies from various sources about what games do or do not belong in the timeline. For instance some articles claim that all three Kobe games mentioned above were developed from the beginning to be side-stories... (Legacy of Darkness has the word Gaiden in it's very title in Japan) however this was not the case with Castlevania Legends. The very notion of it being a side-story apart from the other 3 games is open for debate because some of the series main characters (A Belmont, Alucard and Dracula) are in the game, and therefore it would have as much to do with the timeline as any other game in the franchise. All attempts made to clarify what games do and do not belong in the true lineage have been largely ignored by Konami to the point of Iga regretting ever having made the timeline to begin with. Keeping this game separate with no clarification as to why suggests a biased stance lacking in facts to support the position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.183.238 (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. I think Iga is a fool to consider this game "an embarrassment" to the series. His own words in describing Sonia as an unacceptable character for the series sound misogynistic and biased. I know he says otherwise, but it is very curious how he removed many games he wasn't responsible for making from the timeline. If anything replacing Legends (which would've been the earliest entry) with Lament was a poor choice as its storyline only makes the canon timeline/storyline confusing and hard to understand.--Dakmordian (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)