IGA's transitional mindset from Castlevania to Bloodstained?

Thank you! I've read stuff from that site before, but never saw this somehow. Amazing (if tragic) information. I always did get the impression III was the design compromise between I and II.

(Along these same lines, there's good insight into the development of Super Castlevania IV here: castlevania.fandom.com/wiki/Talk:Super_Castlevania_IV#Interview ...like, IIRC from when I read it, the back-to-basics after III was partially due to the two projects being developed almost simultaneously by different teams, and they didn't fully communicate with one another.)

As for Konami's very unfortunate yet probably fairly standard business practices...my digging into the N64 development has suggested a similar pattern, yet ironically has also shown a genuine love within the company's employees, circa 1998/1999, to get the chance to work on a Castlevania game. Regardless, it's looking like when CV64's development took longer than expected, it was pushed out the door, hence why we got two versions of the game in one year, and why neither had everything promised and/or shown during its development. Rare late-development screenshots, and commentary from that time, from the last playable build shown at a trade show seemed to have partially implemented game mechanics completely dropped from the final game released just four months later. (I wonder what happened to that build?) After that build was shown, the game was delayed, and it was announced that a lot of material would be cut out for polish, and that this could help with a what a Konami sales rep later called a "direct sequel." But even Legacy of Darkness, if that's what was meant, didn't have the kind of things cut from this September 1998 build. Moreover, EGM seemed to suggest the game was only 40% done one month prior to its launch, after it was reported at around 20% done 10 months before launch, which suggests a huge amount of stuff had to be removed or altered to get it to market in a hurry. And it definitely was done in a hurry, because Nintendo Power's feature/review issue for the game's launch mentioned one of the interesting game mechanics from the September 1998 build that isn't in the final game, and they openly admitted in the following issue they didn't get a to-market build of the game to play and review until AFTER they had reviewed the game. (They received some build that was after the September 1998 one, but before the January one, presumably.) Beyond that, the code of the game is littered with extra items and effects that can be seen with a GameShark, suggesting a lot of quick partitions put into the code--that last part about the code has been reported in detail by Unseen64, but I've got some potentially corroborating evidence now. Business is business, but I'm disappointed to see this game wasn't given one more grace period for development. This and more data I'll get into when I get around to finishing my CV64 article, hopefully sometime in the summer. Though given the game's reputation, I'm not sure what the interest level will be for such a piece.

As for the talk about Turtles in your links...well, those were some really great games--TMNT 2, 3, and 4. But it's sad that it cost Castlevania as a result. It is surprising to hear that that's why we never heard from the founding creators. One of the rumors I recall hearing was that it was about shame for their work, but that doesn't seem to be it at all. I'm amazed by the extra thought put in...and it kind of destroys the theory that the LoS mask was on Dracula in Castlevania 1. Man, I take my hat off to the same team making 1-3. Hard to believe. EDIT: Also, the enlightenment about Dracula's second form is something I never expected and shows a lot of attention to lore. He visually seeded Simon's Quest in Castlevania 1!