Well, well. Nobody considers "Zelda" Cdi as "Zelda", don't they. It works the same. "Castlevania" Pachinko is not "Castlevania".
Don't dare say that I missed ur joke cuz I clearly have different sense of humour.
A joke wasn't being made.
I hate the things as much as the next guy, but they're still Castlevania titles made by Konami. If he was making a comprehensive timeline, they have every reason to be included for consistency's own sake. My disliking them doesn't turn it into a another series or retcon it.
But Plot already beat me to this with the chicken metaphor (really, Plot? Chicken metaphors while referencing Zelda? Are you aiming to cause a death swarm from above?), so I'm just echoing the sentiment.
Actually they're not considered canon Zelda titles, reference Hyrule Historia. Even though Philips used Ninty's license and some of its art, these games don't take place in the same universe(s) as Nintendo's LOZ.
Even the geography and such like "Gamelon" are not a part of Nintendo's canon. In actual fact, they seem to have inspired the animated 90's cartoon more so than anything else.
It's not really about whether something's part of the
Ganon canon. It's just the simple naming convention and subjective principle of it. We don't refer to the CD-I Zeldas as "Lib-Lonk's Rug Adventure of Shitty MSPaint Cutscenes and Awful Game Design, Squadalah!" We refer to them as CD-I Zelda. Saying that isn't declaring them canonized or even of good quality, only that we're addressing them by the name they were released with. It's kinda like fangames--a fanmade Zelda title doesn't stop being Zelda because it's not official, it's still got the usual cast and scenario and setting.
Or more recent of an instance, is AM2R not Metroid because Nintendo didn't officiate it and openly went after it with the intent to kill?
The other part of it is an entirely subjective one. Everyone's gonna have a different definition of what makes a series "Castlevania" or "Zelda" or whatever. For some folks, it's Classicvania or bust. For others, Castleroids take the cake. Neither's more "right" than the other in those opinions. Since it really boils down to the correlation between this and official releases (in that, I could consider something faithful to a series when it's not official, or consider an official entry to be a terrible representation of the series), the only well and true factor that can be looked at from a lens of some objectivity is the simple official naming and licensing.
Do Pachinkovanias suck? I think so.
Are they lazy cashgrabs for a home-targeted market from a company who can't bother to care about the rest of the planet? Of course.
Do I consider them shitty representations of the series at large and what I consider to be thematically and uniquely "Castlevania?" Definitely.
But Konami still made, released, and licensed them under the IP. They count as Castlevanias, even if it
is in nothing but name and basic "whip man beat vampyr" theming. It's Castlevania on all the official paperwork, so I must (begrudgingly) accept it as a valid entry in series officialism.