I am a Lords of Shadow 1 hater. It's a game, better than some, but damn is it tedious. On the other hand, 2 is actually somewhat fun to play. I don't hold any strong opinion on the actual story, but playing through the game is, to my greatest shock, actually fun. I don't think this game deserves any accolades, but it visibly shows how MercurySteam grew and continues to grow as a company, because they just made Lords of Shadow 2 an actual game.

Any sort of review I have about this game is kind of meta because I came in expecting a terrible mess of a game - the game did bomb critically and commercially, and a lot of the criticism was about the setting and the story but ultimately those are... fine? Yeah it's not exactly "Castlevania" but at least the game managed to retain my attention. Which is infinitely more than I can say about the first entry. In all honesty it drives me insane how much people glaze the first game, especially in story, because it's a NOTHING game. You get barely anything, you get a 25 minute cutscene before the final boss, and then credits roll.

Even one of the game's "worst" parts - stealth segments - aren't even that bad. They don't even last long enough to be called stealth in the first place, if you ask me!!!

I personally think the best part is the variety of panoramas the game offers this time around - Lords 1 is very, terribly, insanely bland. I could not remember segments of most levels. 2 however does vary it up, and despite people screaming about how it's not very "Castlevania", by the time this game released we did have entries with guns and hell even part of a modern village with cars. So like, I dunno, the ambiance more than makes up for any criticism I would personally have in terms of visual offerings for the levels. Same for the bosses - they were terribly dull in 1, a lot of them being non-interactive for large chunks of time. And even the worst offenders in this game are heads and shoulders above that game's mediocre offerings.

For actual criticism, even with a SSD, load times are kind of long (and are very present with decontamination chambers, elevators, etc), and the combat is still not exactly award-winning, but at least I found myself using more than just basic air and ground attacks. For character-focused action games, I don't think this should be your first go-to game ever but as a curiosity, sure why not give it a spin.

Overall this is like the most okay game you can possibly play. Definitely emblematic of the end of that generation of consoles and the beginning of the new one, but at least it's a video game that didn't make me angry at it out of sheer tediousness. I would rather replay this game 4 times than ever touch Lords of Shadow 1 ever again.

I am a Lords of Shadow 1 hater. It's a game, better than some, but damn is it tedious. On the other hand, 2 is actually somewhat fun to play. I don't hold any strong opinion on the actual story, but playing through the game is, to my greatest shock, actually fun. I don't think this game deserves any accolades, but it visibly shows how MercurySteam grew and continues to grow as a company, because they just made Lords of Shadow 2 an actual game. Any sort of review I have about this game is kind of meta because I came in expecting a terrible mess of a game - the game did bomb critically and commercially, and a lot of the criticism was about the setting and the story but ultimately those are... fine? Yeah it's not exactly "Castlevania" but at least the game managed to retain my attention. Which is infinitely more than I can say about the first entry. In all honesty it drives me insane how much people glaze the first game, especially in story, because it's a NOTHING game. You get barely anything, you get a 25 minute cutscene before the final boss, and then credits roll. Even one of the game's "worst" parts - stealth segments - aren't even that bad. They don't even last long enough to be called stealth in the first place, if you ask me!!! I personally think the best part is the variety of panoramas the game offers this time around - Lords 1 is very, terribly, insanely bland. I could not remember segments of most levels. 2 however does vary it up, and despite people screaming about how it's not very "Castlevania", by the time this game released we did have entries with guns and hell even part of a modern village with cars. So like, I dunno, the ambiance more than makes up for any criticism I would personally have in terms of visual offerings for the levels. Same for the bosses - they were terribly dull in 1, a lot of them being non-interactive for large chunks of time. And even the worst offenders in this game are heads and shoulders above that game's mediocre offerings. For actual criticism, even with a SSD, load times are kind of long (and are very present with decontamination chambers, elevators, etc), and the combat is still not exactly award-winning, but at least I found myself using more than just basic air and ground attacks. For character-focused action games, I don't think this should be your first go-to game ever but as a curiosity, sure why not give it a spin. Overall this is like the most okay game you can possibly play. Definitely emblematic of the end of that generation of consoles and the beginning of the new one, but at least it's a video game that didn't make me angry at it out of sheer tediousness. I would rather replay this game 4 times than ever touch Lords of Shadow 1 ever again.