The lack of Dracula

I'm fine with no Dracula. In fact, I welcome it. Using Dracula was a cool hook for the Castlevania games but kept their stories (and final bosses) kind of predictable. I want something new from Bloodstained.

Not much I can add to this thoughtful discussion, but I will say this...

Aria of Sorrow was a step beyond Dracula, and it was a good step.

This wasn't a problem for me from the start. Look at Order of Ecclesia, a pretty well-received game and a strong Igavania for most. The Belmonts are entirely absent and I feel that if Dracula and his castle were replaced with another demonic entity and its castle, I wouldn't have minded strongly either way. I would have missed Demon Castle Dracula, but not as much the man himself. At that point, OoE minus the count, you have a game that is pretty similar conceptually to Bloodstained, which is what I had originally imagined this game was going to be from learning about the character and the basics of gameplay. I was excited for that, because the Metroidvania style of game is IGA's definite strong point, and I always felt like OoE was a step forward in evolving the formula of the games.

If it's more Symphony than Order, that's certainly fine too. Interestingly enough, according to that interview shmuplations translated, the game originally was a countryside-traveling game. Had a male protagonist, though. I wonder what he looked like...and if Zangetsu or Johannes have any remants of that design...

Just because Dracula is gone does not mean they could not add other vampires into bloodstained.

Dracula wasn't even the first vampire in Castlevania. Walter Bernhard was. There are plenty of more original and interesting vampires that could come about. Bloodstained will be Draculackin!