I'm staying away from full reviews, but I listened to IGN's afterthoughts. I think it will be an amusing game, and its definitely a game I'll consider at some point. That said, I don't know that it's capitalizing on the series' potential by any means, and I think these IGN guys made some good points, especially when they said: "[MoF] puts all these influences together...[but] it doesn't stop to ask 'why did these things work to begin with?'"
That's been my contention, and OSM's borrowed diagram kind of demonstrates this. (The command prompt auto-swinging over gaps is another concrete example). Regardless, I don't agree with IGN's assertion that it and everything has to be like "SotN."
Some people, myself included, do not judge a Castlevania game by SotN, and I think that has set the series back for years due to the closed mindset it created. (SotN was an aberration, like Simon's Quest. Strong and fun in its own right, no doubt, but not the definitive example of the meat and potatoes).
I see what MS was trying to do. Basically, they wanted something with a more Metroidvania feel in layout to ease fans and mesh with CV's recent portable history, but wanted to keep the core of LoS in the flashy combos, persistent arena battles, and separation of platforming and fighting. There's where that IGN quote comes in, because while it's an admirable idea to try to make something your own while also referencing the series' history, I think it sort of backfired from having a truly unstoppable stage presence, because those two styles don't mix well and have contradictory elements. (On the other hand, this idea they put forth that RoB was the perfect mixture of SotN and Classicvania was not entirely accurate, IMO. It's a start, but that game, too, suffered from contradictions, where, for instance, you could skip out of some levels very early, breaking the design of the action-platforming parts. I know RoB gets a lot of love, and I respect it in a lot of ways, but I don't hold it in the same regard as many fans seem to. I prefer the SNES Dracula X, where the path choices have more consequences because you can't turn back, and there's more hazards in the level designs. And if we're talking mixing Classicvania and Metroidvania, I felt CV64/LoD's hybrid of consequential action-platforming and atmospheric exploration may be the best example, and a base model for going forward in 3D).
That's all I can say right now about MoF, though. I wish the CV series the best. This has been an awkward time for the series. There's no doubt a lot of effort and talented artistic vision being brought to bear, but it's missing a lot intangibles and core gameplay concepts I expect to experience. The bread and butter being what OSM noted (plus death pits).
PS: I think that's the bottom line. "What do you want as a Castlevania fan?" Enjoying the LoS series requires you to take it almost 100% at face value, and leave all preconceptions at the door. (Not even SotN-style, with its heavy Metroid influences, made you forget so much about the series' technical, aural, and visual history). Anyway, I did that with LoS1, paying full price, and enjoyed it for what it was...but it didn't overall fulfill the need for a "Castlevania" game. I had better luck with the bare-bones The Adventure Rebirth. In that regard, I am conflicted about MoF. Because while I'm sure I can enjoy some of what it does artistically, it doesn't appear like I'll feel I've gotten my CV fix, which seems a bit counter-intuitive to the wallet and mind.
...But maybe I'm just being too hard on this while thing. I think the fact that I haven't really been satisfied with Castlevania's overall direction for a long time has something to do with this. I'll have a better grasp when I get to play it, but I don't think that'll be for a while.
What did I mishear it then?
It's going under, but will have one last sendoff review with MoF as I understand it.