However I don't think it's just the developer's fault. From what I've noticed, after the influx of 2D series switching to 3D games in the late 90s, all a lot of fans want is to sit there and play the games they grew up with, whether they're dated or not.
Why would anyone want to look at the Mona Lisa or Starry Night when there are so many new works of art out there to view?
Just because something is old or, as you've put it, "dated" doesn't mean it somehow loses everything that made it great in the first place. Mega Man 2 will always be a game that I can pick up and play in between online CoD matches or sidequests in Skyrim not so much because of nostalgia (if that were true, I'd be playing Silver Surfer for the NES right now simply because it's something I did in my youth) but because it simply is a masterpiece of video game design. Certain modern games would get that distinction from me. Certain others would not. I love my classic games, but I don't feel the need to fight the future, either. I love my modern games, but I don't feel the need to abandon everything that came before it in the name of "progress".
There's actually an old saying that somehow seems pretty apt: "You can't know where you're going if you don't know where you've been." Looking backward is just as important as looking forward, and, sadly, I'd say there are just as many folks who want to dismiss classic games simply because they're old as there are "hardcore gamers" who want to dismiss modern games simply because they're new. One is as closed-minded as the other, and likely the silent majority falls somewhere in the middle.
All IMO, of course.
I won't bother touching the mess that is Sonic fans, but significantly large portions of fans from numerous other fanbases explode in protest when developers try and expand their audience, either with arguments of "too casual!" or "too different!" whether those claims are warranted at all. This ultimately drove the whole retro thing, and we started getting games like Megaman 9 and 10, or Sonic the Hedgehog 4, which good or bad, did absolutely nothing for gaming as a whole.
That seems awfully general, and probably more than a little biased. The Bionic Commando fan community seemed very receptive to a 3D BC game, especially after GRIN's work on BC: Rearmed promised a new experience that stays in touch with what came before. Unfortunately, poor gameplay and nonsensical story sank that battleship before it even left the harbor. Or maybe you mean the Mega Man fan community, which seemed pretty pumped for Legends 3 until Capcom inexplicably pulled the plug for reasons that are nebulous at best, and whose last serious 3D Mega Man offering was the control-and-camera angle nightmare known as X7. How about Contra: Legacy of War? There was a brilliant attempt at bringing Contra into 3D. Of course, it sacrificed everything that made Contra what it was in the first place, but we can overlook that, right?
And you seem to be forgetting all of the jumps that were successful. While you may be quick to say that Mario 64 sold so well because Mario can sell anything, the fact remains that it's actually a perfect translation of Mario's world and mechanics into the third dimension, making it a really solid game. You're also wrong--for all his name power, Mario couldn't sell a Phillips CD-i. Legend of Zelda made the jump successfully with Ocarina of Time. Fans of Metroid really had their worlds rocked with not only a jump to 3D, but also a completely different play style in the form of an FPS with Prime. And remember when I mentioned Mega Man Legends? Though Capcom has gone completely bonkers as of late, I think the fan support proves that Legends was a successful experiment in bringing Mega Man to 3D. The same is true of Metal Gear, Ninja Gaiden, and Final Fantasy.
The fact of the matter is that some conversions have worked and some have not. Instead of pointing the finger at the fanbase and blaming them for being resistant to change, instead consider that they may just be resistant to crap. Not everything is golden simply because it's new or "modern", just as everything old isn't automatically awesome simply by virtue of being old.
And as for Mega Man 9 and 10 contributing "nothing", I highly disagree. That would be like saying that an artist using watercolors contributes nothing to the art world simply because we now have the ability to use photoshop. If nothing else, games like MM9 and 10 prove that, in the hands of a skilled master, materials dismissed as "dated" can still be used to create masterpieces.
Thus why I can't support OA. I don't want Castlevania III HD or Castlevania Demon Castle War of the Night. I want a new game.
You got God of Inferno May Cry. While it's certainly new-er than Metroidvania (1993 compared to 2001), it's still not exactly what I'd call "current" or "fresh".
I agree with you in that I'm pretty sure the word Castlevania is an 1980's attempt at getting Americans to play a Japanese game by making it sound less Japanese.
That, along with the fact that Western censors seemed to shy away from anything with religious undertones (i.e. "Demon Castle", holy cross becomes "boomerang", holy water becomes "fire bomb", etc.).
Which is why I have to ask: didn't Cox only say Lords of Shadow wasn't an Akumajo game AFTER Operation Akumajo made the distinction?
It seems to me that they were asking for clarification on why it wasn't called Akumajo Dracula in Japan and David Cox confirmed that it was because Lords of Shadow is, in fact, a member of a different genus known as "Castlevania". Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense, considering there really was no difference until Cox said there was.
Because by his own words he sees it as a Castlevania game, and if his ultimate goal is to differentiate Akumajo Dracula and Castlevania, then he'd be putting Lords of Shadow in the same bin as Harmony of Dissonance, Aria of Sorrow, and Lament of Innocence.
Except you're ignoring three important points.
1. The later games in the Akumajo Dracula series (such as Dawn of Sorrow--a direct sequel to Aria of Sorrow--and Portrait of Ruin) pull Dissonance, Aria, and Lament into the same timeline as the rest with both in-game references and officially released supplemental timelines.
2. There was and is little to indicate that Dissonance, Aria, and Lament have anything in common with Lords of Shadow other than the fact that they're called "Castlevania" in Japan--and, until Lords of Shadow came along, that meant next to nothing.
3. David Cox isn't exactly the poster child for "doing the research", so I somehow doubt he knows even as much as we do about the original name change and what truly makes Castlevania different from Akumajo Dracula (nothing but region and now, apparently, Lords of Shadow).
It's a title, and everyone needs to get over it.
...except David Cox is the one who seems to think that there's some huge difference between Akumajo Dracula and Castlevania--which there wasn't until he insisted that there should be. Any issues due to difference in name are because he's made the distinction something more than it ever was or should have been in the first place.