Ok. First of all I should inform you that the majority of all people that I met that insisted on that (emphasis on the "that I met") was due to a burning hatred of IGA. They believed IGA to be arrogant, his games to be soulless, so you have to consider that this person might not accept the evidence, as flat out solid as it may be. I have come across some people that no matter how much evidence I presented, they insisted on the opposite and double-backed on their belief stronger than before.
If this happens, don't be rude. Just move on and let them be. And, again, this might not be the case here, the dude might just concede. I'm just speaking from personal experience of meeting a ton of people with this thought process, and the resulting fight is never worth it. You're already calling the dude "the worst kind of person, a know-it-all" and some of us (including me and you) are probably seen as one of these by some people.
CIRCLE OF THE MOON:
Konami Magazine (Vol 20, March 2001) released together with Circle of the Moon (March 21, 2001), says:
ぞの最新作となる本作のストーリーは、今までのベルモント家やモリス家とは異なる時間軸で流れていく。だが、そこで描かれる新たな物語は、紛れもなくドラキユラと人間の戦い。
"The story of this latest work flows on a different timeline from the conventional Belmont and Morris families'. However, the new story unfolding here is unquestionably a fight between Dracula and humans."Pretty much as final as it can be.
This is a long time before IGA said anything. This is not "IGA" speaking proprietarily, it's Konami, and most likely the Kobe team behind this game, but that's assumption on my part. The assumption does, however, line up with what IGA said later:
That Circle of the Moon is not canon because its developers intended for it.And be prepared for it to be raised that "IGA hated the game" when IGA was, in fact, speaking from developer position. In other words: He had to point the flaws on the last work and highlight the enhancements on the new instalment. He did it to CotM, he did it to himself. And he did it because he had to get the new stuff sold. "IGA called it shit" is not a valid argument (besides I seem to have read him praise the game, but I can't quite recall where now. Nonetheless, it is true IGA criticized a number of things in it).
CASTLEVANIA 64/LOD:
This one is more complicated. There is a majority of evidence against it being canon but, at some point in the past, it was a much muddier subject, with it appearing in certain Japanese timelines and not others. The consensus back then was not as clear as Circle.
As per IGA statement, it was the intention of the devs for it to not be canon. Despite people squinting at the claim, I'm pretty sure IGA knows an ocean's worth of information more about this than us. Hence, I think it's safe to go from his word. Besides, the game itself presents information contradicting past titles, one contradiction being Dracula somehow existing on a period that Rondo claimed he didn't.
About that Gamestop Portrait of Ruin timeline: Doesn't exist in Japan. Contradicts ealier and future statements.
Contradicted Japanese timeline kept up to date at the time (notice the distinct lack of 1820, 1830, 1844 and 1852 entries around 2006 and 2007, but the addition of the "1944" entry. This persisted forever, until the site died.).
Although the timeline is reliable on certain places, it SURE AS HELL is not concerning the inclusion of both CV64 and Circle (hell these games contradict
even each other!).
He also has this really stupid idea that Nathan Graves is somehow Alucard's son (with Maria. Ugh.).
Convoluted out-of-character theories aside,
I'm pretty sure they aren't his parents lolbut why does it matter
Same I always say. It doesn't matter, people have this impression that if a game is not canon it "means less" and this is just not true at all. Circle is a great game, canon is irrelevant to its merits. Same for LoD, which has the best Dracula intellect-wise on my opinion (the canon would have more to GAIN from having this smart of a Dracula in it, and I still am content that it isn't canon).
I've seen a few people argue that "Castlevania story is irrelevant" and, in the same breath, call bullshit on these games not being canon. Son, you can't hold that story is irrelevant then throw a fit that "the story is not canon." Oh well, we all are passionate on our own ways I guess.