Hold on, I didn't intend to sound condescending. I'm just trying to explain why I think you're being a bit hasty with your conclusion.
Okay. Your conclusion re: my conclusion sounds hasty to me.
Yes, but you said in your previous post:
You were talking about a cliff hanger that is not to be taken literally. That's already getting very specific.
No it isn't. It's been done in plenty of movies and games that never even had sequels and some that did, but the next iteration had little to nothing to do with the prequel.
Examples of movies:
Masters of the Universe - Skeletor returns after credits
Street Fighter the movie (live action) - Bison returns after the credits (hand goes up, which is the same cliché element)
Lawnmower Man - at the end of the film every telephone in the world rings meaning the villain succeeded, even though the sequel has nothing to do with the first
Examples of games:
Alone in the Dark - games ends, main character gets into a car, the driver turns around and a skeleton is driving the car, laughs loudly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd9WLFlXnz8I can go on but I will leave it there. It's an interpretation of the ending signifying that Dracula never dies - or at least he didn't back then prior to AoS' backstory, given he resurrects every 100 years.
Also if you want to argue that it's a specific interpretation, there is an alternate one being that the Japanese version of SCVIV never explicitly states it's not a sequel to SQ. Therefore anyone can marry up the grave which Simon is standing by in SQ's ending with the one in SCVIV's intro and call it a sequel.
The grave itself in the ending is also more than likely retconned by now, given that Iga's timeline never considered Vlad III to be Dracula.
The thing to all of this is, my interpretations are just that but they are also based on reasonable assumptions which I've listed - they're not specific to this game. Your interpretations are also based on assumptions - yes you have a guide, but that guide is obviously not referencing the latest version of the game which has 3 endings.
Speaking from personal experience, all the cliff hangers I've seen were meant to be taken literally. Furthermore, even if such a thing was common in fiction, that fact would only serve as secondary evidence for your theory, not as primary evidence. There would be no guarantee the developers intented that specific interpretation of their ending. It could still be possible, I'm just saying there's no conclusive evidence for it.
Then interpret the endings in a better way and use other evidence. All you're currently telling us is that you believe this guide is evidence the endings were mixed up. However, if we're going by what is in-game this doesn't hold water unless you chop it up to a programming error.
However, when I propose a theory, you cry foul and state I require developer's commentary. No sorry, there's one set of rules in this dungeon.
I don't understand what you mean. In the Japanse, the game counts the number of in-game days it took to beat the game. At the end of the video it says the player beat the game in 7 days. Therefore, it doesn't show what happens if you beat the game in 3 days or less.
You previously mentioned 3 days or less and queried whether there was a video.
I'm not certain where the 3 days or less came from regarding the endings which is why I sent the link which states in the final version of the game, the endings are as follows:
7 days or less = Good
8-14 days = normal
15 days + = bad
I'm not even sure it's possible to beat the game within three days, given the youtube link I sent is still relatively fast for a run. (EDIT: I did write "
3 days or less = hand" which wasn't intentional, it was a reply to your initial post)
Double Edit: this thread talks about the Japanese endings
https://legendsoflocalization.com/did-castlevania-iis-endings-get-mixed-up/