It doesn't seem like this game is going to use 3D like I expected it to, where backgrounds give the illusion of turning corners like in Klonoa or Megaman X8. That seems a shame. Though, the combo stuff is already enough to turn me off pretty bad. I checked, and a Bone Pillar in IV takes three hits with a full-strength whip, an average skeleton takes one. What are we really gaining except "flash" with all these crazy combos? Take a step back. Let's just put out a rational and theoretical statement: If Mario had to stomp every Goomba twenty times to flatten them, or it took a dozen fire flower shots to take out a Koopa Troopa, would that make Mario games "better"? Moreover, how do things like combos make things more Castlevania than not Castlevania, because Cox often insists these games are throwbacks to "Classicvania."
EDIT: let's be clear that Castlevania was never "hack n' slash," which has a lot in common with beat-em-ups. Castlevania was action-platformer, with occasional adventure elements in its early days, which, again, Cox says is what LoS is bringing back. (?)
Enemies in Mario have one action, and the two mario actions you described are singular, unchanging, and limited methods of approach and attack, so no, jumping on them 20 times would not make it any better unless you found a way to seriously overhaul the jump mechanic or the fireball mechanic and the enemy AI. It's not a viable comparison.
It's not about the number of hits. The whole idea of the combo system is to create situations where your enemies are closer to your level of formidability and require responses beyond the initial approach and few hits. Where as in older platformers each enemy is a singular obstacle, in action combat games each enemy is a series of obstacles that must be surmounted to proceed. The only other way to simulate this gameplay is to have the player constantly ducking and dodging, and give the enemy very few windows in which it can be struck. Sure, you'll hit it less, but the player will be on the defense more than on the offense, which isn't all that fun.
Whether you like the mechanic or not is your business, but over simplifying the whole concept isn't the most productive way of approaching the topic.
Also, everyone, including David Cox, knows what the old Castlevania's are and how they played, so I'm not quite sure why you keep trying to find some sort of fault in Cox's logic. He never said the games were going to be Classicvania's, he said the games hearkened back to those times, and they do in quite a few ways:
1. Focus returned to the Belmonts
2. Focus returned to whip focused gameplay
3. No item grinding
4. No gear system
Yes, they added a new mechanic, one which dominated most of LoS and took the game in a very different gameplay direction than past iterations, but as someone who likes to see franchises explore different gameplay styles, I don't equivocate one strict style of gameplay as the defining feature of a series as long as it continues to retain elements of past iterations.
I mean, look at Megaman. The .exe games were some of the best in the series and they played NOTHING like the originals.
I don't think chiseling away at enemies again would be the way I would've preferred, but I'm open to it, I guess. I just hope (but also assume) we won't get graded on style points, level completion time, or any crap like that. Despite liking Devil May Cry, Bayonetta, etc., being graded at the end of every level is one of my pet peeves in gaming.
I know I'm alone on this, but the one enemy that I thought benefited from having a crazy amount of health was The Forgotten One. That was a frustrating, yet ultimately fun and rewarding fight to me. I can see how others would find it annoying, though, especially when you had to deal with it for the entire game.
Those damn uberskeletons can go straight to hell, though.
100% agree on those skeletons. They're goddamn skeletons, they need to crumple and die, and if they do get the ability to resurrect, make them die just as fast the second time.