Castlevania: homogenous or amorphous? And how much?
This is a historical point that has twisted the conversation over the years. Look at it this way: CVII: Simon's Quest was radically different than Castlevania 1, and it remains more or less by itself in the franchise in terms of game design. Despite its flaws, it stands out as something distinctive and interesting in the franchise. Now, SotN, when it was by itself as the only "Castleroid," really stood out as an interesting alternative presentation of Castlevania. It had some tangential roots in Simon's Quest, but was very different in how it was more overtly inspired by Super Metroid. Nevertheless, it worked as a one-off like Simon's Quest.
The reason this happened was because of the lack of an "overseer" in Castlevania. It didn't allow any one style to take root over the franchise's core identity established in CV1; rather, it allowed various rifs on the idea, sometimes very similar, sometimes very different, but always interesting. Super Castlevania IV, Bloodlines, and Rondo all share paternal DNA, but are vastly different creatures in visual style, level design, graphics, etc within a span of a few years. Each team gave their all to their particular vision. The same could be said for the N64 games, which were only made because the lack of an overseer, resulting in two games that pulled from various disparate elements of the series that were vastly different from the latter 3D games. (Despite their lack of recognition, they essentially were what Mario 64 was to Mario). We would have never known that style of a 3D Castlevania was possible if LoI had been the first 3D release. (Conversely, if Mario 64's changed but respectful game design had not been accepted because it wasn't identical to 2D Mario, we never would have had the Mario Galaxy games).
Anyway, IGA kept the series going, and tried to link it all up story-wise, but this resulted in a far more constrained view of Castlevania that began to look at SotN as the paternal DNA, when it was more like a recessive gene that was meant only to pop up from time to time. I read a Nintendo Power interview from circa 2005 where he talks about innovation in gameplay over improved graphics. He meant well, but his innovation came to mean gimmicks on top of a SotN base. On the one hand, even though budget was an issue, Castlevania: The Adventure Rebirth was an intriguing if limited entry made on a shoestring budget, I'd bet. So I can't fully use budget constraints as IGA's main issue. On the other hand, IGA lamented the loss of popularity for earlier Castlevanias, which is one of the reasons he put out Castlevania: Chronicles on PS1. It's confusing. But by and large, it doesn't usually work to keep one person in charge of something for too long. (As much as Hideo Kojima impressed with MGS 1 and 2--since then, it's been a mixed bag that's been more focused on early Cold War imagery rather than near-future stealth).
Whatever the case, Castlevania has hit a huge identity crisis. Many people, especially in the media, had decided nothing but the SotN style will do. In the meantime, the divisive over-saturation of that style led to a slow process of disinterest. Combined with multiple failures in 3D in a 3D-obsessed industry, and it was decided that Castlevania had to be drastically reimagined in a reboot. Rather than paternal DNA from CV1 or SotN, it was decided that a Chimera of popular or acclaimed modern action video games would do the trick: God of War, Shadow of the Colossus, and Uncharted. Now, where they got the idea that an aesthetic based on things like Lord of the Rings, Van Helsing, and Underworld was a solution to making the visuals relevant, I'm not so certain on that logic. But I digress. By my logic of a lack of an overseer being good, LoS, much as I hate to say it, can be accepted as a one-off. But to make it the new "paternal DNA" definition of Castlevania, is a danger that threatens the franchise's future. Because you're starting with a base product that is further and further away from Castlevania's identity.