I can look at either old or newer Castelvanias and I know it's a [tornado fang]ing Castlevania.
Why? What exactly is that spark that makes you recognize them as Castlevania aside from the title?
If you can see SotN and think Castlevania Just like with CV1, Then what about LoS suddenly doesn't do that? Can you tell me? Because I see plenty Castlevania in both.
Granted, what I DON'T see in LoS, is metroidvania. At all. Which I insist, is the reason many disliked it. You have to realize just how long metroidvania and Ayami Kojima's aesthetics, Just how long, IGA's vision was the face of the franchise. SotN came out in '97, LoS came out in 2010. That's 13 years. LoS was the most radical change to the series in 13 years since Symphony itself radically shook things up. And many people, myself included, were brought into the franchise through the metroidvanias that followed in SotN's footsteps. There are people who've never played the classic games for a bunch of reasons- and have only played SotN and it's sequels. Conversely, there are people that never liked SotN's changes, and fell out with the series after that. Some people who are SotN kids hated LoS because they did not see what they know in it, and some people who are Classicvania kids, liked it because it was more familiar to what they know. Now, that does go both ways, again. Nothing is ever so black and white. But that seems to be the majority of what I myself have seen.
LoS was trying to be a Classicvania, drawing heavily in inspiration from SCIV, which is Dave Cox's favorite. And having played basically all the main series CV games from 1 to, well, LoS- I can see the Classicvania in LoS. i can see the SCIV in it quite a bit in the first third of the game. What I don't see, is SotN.
But to say that it's just "not Castlevania" or that you just can't recognize it as one? That Is well, just your opinion. Because "what makes Castlevania?" is a terribly subjective question. There are so many different things that mean different things to different people.
I look at LoS and I see... an okay action game in style of God of War, and the like. But if not for the names of characters and some shitty references, I wouldn't be able to see it's Castlevania.
I look at LoS and see Lament of Innocence.
Also, I could say the same about SotN. If not for the names and title and such, what exactly ties it down to what came before?
It could just be another exceptional 90's platformer with a detailed gothic anime aesthetic.
If LoS had not been named as a Castlevania, all the people who say it isn't one would be talking about how similar it is to Castlevania, and wondering why they didn't just make a new CV game instead of making it a new IP.
That's the main point, and that is simply why I think many dislike LoS. Because it might be a reboot or AU or whatever, but to them it just doesn't feel like a typical Castlevania.
the fact that it was described as a Reboot has to be one of the biggest parts of it. The behind the scenes stuff as well. The attitude behind it irked many. The whole "forget what you know about Castlevania" pissed people off more than it probably should have.
And the stuff that turned out not to be true did as well. The trailers outright lied, suggesting that Dracula was the antagonist, while we were told there would be no QTE's, and the game was full of them.
Which leads to a lot of hate for the game based on that alone, without even trying to like the game. people went in hating it based on pre-release nonsense, and they hated it more because it wasn't their Castlevania.