My point, from the very beginning, that you can't seem to comprehend, is that CoD is a forced sequel. By not including the characters from Castlevania 3, besides Trevor, who isn't even playable UNTIL AFTER YOU
BEAT THE GAME, it doesn't feel like a direct sequel. I don't just want a mention of what happened to them. I want to see them, I want to play as them. As I previously said, this could have been a sequel to almost any other Castlevania.
No, it couldn't have. Because this title deals specifically with the fact that it's Dracula's first resurrection, hence the fact that St.Germain even appeared in the first place.
Regardless, I don't care if you think it's a "forced sequel" or not. I really, really don't, because in the end I disagree with your assessment. Your personal opinion is irrelevant to me.
But what you must keep in mind is that this is
not Dracula's Curse; this is a different game and it deals with his resurrection process and the initial post-dracula death scenario. Grant, Alucard and Sypha are irrelevant to the story and that's a fact and one that I honestly don't care if you agree with or not.
Why would Hector's triumph over St. Germain change the outcome of what was to transpire if Germain wasn't supposed to interfere in the first place? However, I'm not even going to argue over time travel because neither of us have the answers.
That's wrong, however, because I
do have answers and know what I'm talking about.
I said his minor interferences, not 'because they battled'. Germain planted doubt in Hector's heart about Zead and the true motives of what was going on. This doubt in combination with Hector's physical strength and strength of will was what changed the potential course of events and proved to St.Germain he was no longer needed.
furthermore, Germain is not allowed to physically interfere or unveil actual information about the future; and he didn't. His conflict was specifically with Death, an entity with an existence similar to his own. By directly manipulating the course of events, he was violating those same rules - Germain's actions were specifically geared to make Death's involvement ultimately irrelevant. That is it.
You do realize that I'm talking about Dracula and not you, right? You might want to reread your post. Anyway, so why wasn't Dracula's strength weak in Rondo of Blood due to the fact that Shaft and the cult sacrificed an ordinary woman to resurrect Dracula?
Haha, wrong word, my bad.
Different kinds of rituals. With a Sacrifice, it's likely that the entirety of the individuals energy is given to Dracula, allowing for a full resurrection. However, with a possession/using a vessel, the individual in question not only still remains but Dracula is simply inhabiting the body, not even entirely, due to the fact that he reverted back to Isaac upon his death and we've witnessed several partial possessions in the past. Not being Dracula's own body (remains), the power isn't going to be exactly the same and will more then likely weaker.
Hmmm...to beat Bloodlines, I used the Vampire Killer.
...Did you completely miss what I said? Because that wasn't it. I wasn't saying John morris killed drac with a stake in Bloodlines. I said that Bloodlines was the game and scenario that canon-ized Bram Stoker's Dracula, with a few minor differences; among them being the fact that Quincey Morris apparently killed Dracula by stabbing him with a stake.
That's what I was referring to. Learn to listen, please.