A bit of a side tangent, but I always thought it was pretty silly they felt the need to use a fictional fantasy war as backstory for a Castlevania game, which has always been more grounded in real world myths. There are plenty of interesting legends they could have used. For example, SotN references mythology related to the Goths and the Visgoths. They could have done something with that instead and it would have enriched the lore more than a generic sounding event such as the "Necromantic Wars" ever could.
To be fair, if they were going to add a ruined lost city that wasnt Atlantis, they had to explain it somehow (well they didnt have to, but i prefer it that way)
How about fucking NO.
After the abortion that was LoS2 you really want another Alvarez fueled mistake?
Over #eroticviolence? Of course.
No thanks. This would just continue taking Castlevania down a road further and further away from what it ever was. I mean look at your storyline descriptions and ask yourself does this sound like a Castlevania? It's like suggesting a game where we play as the wizard boss from chronicles.
Yeah playing as a guy with a sword with necromantic powers, a transforming witch and a werewolf is absolutely unprecedented in Castlevania. What was i thinking
I'd rather LoS be more obscure than information about the 32x canceled Bloodletting. LoS is a blight on the Castlevania name and was an early sign of what bullfuckery Konami was soon to pull.
IIRC LoS is the best selling CV is the best selling CV game ever made (and will probably remain like that) so i find that unlikely