Why was this hated by critics?

[BigBossBalrog]

So i enjoyed this game enough to buy it on steam (had it on Xbox) and I absoutley adore it. When I looked at reviews, it's really polarsing. So I checked the user reviews on Steam, and metacrtic, and it's done far better in that regard. Why do non-critics love this game, while critics seem to hate it?

[Candy Witch]

The most divisive points are the stealth sections, the story and ending respectively, and the game direction taken by the Lords of Shadow series (starting with the first game).

Non-critics probably go in expecting a mediocre game and are positively surprised. As for the critics, all I can say is that it sometimes seems to me like a bunch of critics put down a game with overly harsh criticism on points that could be equally applied to other games that they praise a lot more. Honestly, though? Beats me as to why.

I think the combat in this game is stellar, it easily measures up to the great ones like God of War or Devil May Cry series. The puzzles (to which I count the stealth sections) are a nice diversion. The city and castle are brilliantly designed; there's quite a bit to explore. And out of the story I only found one thing objectionable (seriously, SPOILERS HERE, but the whole Victor Belmont side-story seemed completely out of place and his sacrifice ridiculous) while the rest of it all held up well to my expectations after the first game. I also liked the platforming, the difficulty, and how everything came together with the great soundtrack and visuals and overall atmosphere.

I'm also a fan of the old games in the series on the S/NES or Symphony of the Night on the PS1, and I think that the developers of the LoS series did it great justice in how they rebooted the whole experience.

Bottom line, I was surprised after beating it that this game wasn't rated more like an 8/10 on average, but I guess there's no accounting for taste.

[PsychoDino]

The stealth sections are hated for no reason. They are easy and frankly kind of cool. I laughed when a lot of reviewers complained about the maze section. They seem to have forgotten about a certain ability haha

Originally posted by Wratts:

The most divisive points are the stealth sections, the story and ending respectively, and the game direction taken by the Lords of Shadow series (starting with the first game).

Non-critics probably go in expecting a mediocre game and are positively surprised. As for the critics, all I can say is that it sometimes seems to me like a bunch of critics put down a game with overly harsh criticism on points that could be equally applied to other games that they praise a lot more. Honestly, though? Beats me as to why.

I think the combat in this game is stellar, it easily measures up to the great ones like God of War or Devil May Cry series. The puzzles (to which I count the stealth sections) are a nice diversion. The city and castle are brilliantly designed; there's quite a bit to explore. And out of the story I only found one thing objectionable (seriously, SPOILERS HERE, but the whole Victor Belmont side-story seemed completely out of place and his sacrifice ridiculous) while the rest of it all held up well to my expectations after the first game. I also liked the platforming, the difficulty, and how everything came together with the great soundtrack and visuals and overall atmosphere.

I'm also a fan of the old games in the series on the S/NES or Symphony of the Night on the PS1, and I think that the developers of the LoS series did it great justice in how they rebooted the whole experience.

Bottom line, I was surprised after beating it that this game wasn't rated more like an 8/10 on average, but I guess there's no accounting for taste.

[Chaos Mana]

Dracula should not be stealthing around it goes against 99% of what DRACULA is supposed to be, granted they choose Rats, which is what he originally was until someone thought a Bat would be better.

[BigBossBalrog]

LOL, Dracula spent half of Bram Stokers novel sneaking around.

[Shin Dan]

Originally posted by BigBossBalrog:

So i enjoyed this game enough to buy it on steam (had it on Xbox) and I absoutley adore it. When I looked at reviews, it's really polarsing. So I checked the user reviews on Steam, and metacrtic, and it's done far better in that regard. Why do non-critics love this game, while critics seem to hate it?

critics don't seem to know how to criticize video games.
No, like, literally, videogames have become so subjective in "what is good" and "what isn't" that the critics can't keep up with what design choices constitute as good anymore.
as such they stick to the initial definitions "are the graphics good" "is the game deep?" "is it fun?"
"is it a clone?" "is it the same as the predecessors?"
etc, etc.
the point is, a good videogame will be bashed if it doesn't fit these definitions, it's no fault of the critics, as you can't blame people who can't help but to do something.
I ask you this, if a game is deliberately trying to be garbage, complete and utter ♥♥♥♥, and it touts this as its theme, does that make it a bad game?
or is it a very good game?
this is a question most critics don't even know they're supposed to be asking themselves, hell even yahtzee and jim sterling, ahead of their time in terms of critics, miss this point.
so why are the critics bashing the game?
they don't actually know how to criticize a game.
it's harsh, but it's the truth, can't make it sound better or worse, it's just how it is.

[Deadman'shand]

The only critic you should listen to in regards to video games is yourself. YOU know what you like and what YOU don't like. You shouldn't need some jackhole on the internet to tell you why you should or should not like a game.

[TakingABreak]

I really liked the first one (all of it, except the ending) and this wasn't like the first one. They did polish up the combat but it felt like a sequel with all the heart ripped out of it.

It certainly wasn't epic and the graphics took a step backwards. Not that the graphics were bad, but the original looked like a painting in parts and seemed ahead of its time.

Also, the bosses were good, but too many of the regular enemies were damage sponges.

[Allard]

Originally posted by BigBossBalrog:

LOL, Dracula spent half of Bram Stokers novel sneaking around.

Yeah, but this Dracula got the awesome powers of the Lords of Shadow AND the demonic powers of the ruler of the Elemental Plane of Shadows in the first game. Satan himself doesn't even attempt to conquer Earth while Dracula is around because he's afraid of him. He's supposed to be a demigod by now.

[Zaxx]

Originally posted by RT:

Originally posted by BigBossBalrog:

LOL, Dracula spent half of Bram Stokers novel sneaking around.

Yeah, but this Dracula got the awesome powers of the Lords of Shadow AND the demonic powers of the ruler of the Elemental Plane of Shadows in the first game. Satan himself doesn't even attempt to conquer Earth while Dracula is around because he's afraid of him. He's supposed to be a demigod by now.

Well, sort of but the thing is Gabriel was able to defeat Satan as a human being too and the game is not telling you that he is able to do that simply because he's a badass ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ but because he is chosen for the task by God. God gives him that power and no one else has it but him, that's why he's special but the way I see it that only stands for Satan. Dracula is a powerful warrior in LoS 2, the only being on Earth who can defeat Satan but not because he is stronger than him, nope, he's just God's soldier in the same way how the Belmonts are the cure against him.

On the other hand Dracula is immortal, nobody can kill him, Satan included but that doesn't mean he is not a physical being: he gets his power from blood so he can be weakened by destroying his body for example. A Golgoth guard packs a rocket launcher which can rip him to shreds: that won't kill him but it's ensuring he could never fight Satan. I mean if you drop a ♥♥♥♥♥♥' nuke on him he won't die but it's damn sure you won't see the dude for a hundred years. :D

[Allard]

Originally posted by Zaxx:

Originally posted by RT:

Yeah, but this Dracula got the awesome powers of the Lords of Shadow AND the demonic powers of the ruler of the Elemental Plane of Shadows in the first game. Satan himself doesn't even attempt to conquer Earth while Dracula is around because he's afraid of him. He's supposed to be a demigod by now.

Well, sort of but the thing is Gabriel was able to defeat Satan as a human being too and the game is not telling you that he is able to do that simply because he's a badass ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ but because he is chosen for the task by God. God gives him that power and no one else has it but him, that's why he's special but the way I see it that only stands for Satan. Dracula is a powerful warrior in LoS 2, the only being on Earth who can defeat Satan but not because he is stronger than him, nope, he's just God's soldier in the same way how the Belmonts are the cure against him.

On the other hand Dracula is immortal, nobody can kill him, Satan included but that doesn't mean he is not a physical being: he gets his power from blood so he can be weakened by destroying his body for example. A Golgoth guard packs a rocket launcher which can rip him to shreds: that won't kill him but it's ensuring he could never fight Satan. I mean if you drop a ♥♥♥♥♥♥' nuke on him he won't die but it's damn sure you won't see the dude for a hundred years. :D

It was stated in his description in that game that Satan wasn't at his full power there as it was only his avatar, not the devil proper, that's why Gabriel was able to totally dominate him.
Then again, he kills Satan in the end of this game (not really a spoiler), so he definitely should be stronger than some mook in Warhammer armor by then. I can understand sneaking around when he's still weak - but once he's got the Void Sword or at the very least Chaos Claws, they should be fair game. Wouldn't it be great after those stealth sections to just tear those f**kers to pieces?

[Fridge Raider]

Stealth sections make up about 5% of the game, maybe even less. That's what it felt like. There was only one of those parts I found difficult - which I'm pretty sure everyone knows about at this point. I didn't think it was enough of a problem to rip the game apart, and I still don't. Just baffles me. I think one review was almost entirely about the stealth sections.

As for what else critics disliked, the story could be confusing (the mind castle got my brain in a twist) and the ending was a bit anti-climactic. The modern setting wasn't as interesting to some people as the medieval era. Apart from that, I can thinking of nothing else. It's like they glossed over all the good stuff and slapped a 6 at the end of their reviews...

[Grizzled Grizzly]

Originally posted by BigBossBalrog:

So i enjoyed this game enough to buy it on steam (had it on Xbox) and I absoutley adore it. When I looked at reviews, it's really polarsing. So I checked the user reviews on Steam, and metacrtic, and it's done far better in that regard. Why do non-critics love this game, while critics seem to hate it?

Because they probably refused to pay the critics for good reviews.

[Omega]

I'm doing a second playthough for this game within a year, and I never do that with any single player game. I'm also playing Rage which critics have torn to shreds, and it's awesome. I've been listening to critics less and less these day. Either they are out of touch, or I have weird tastes in games.

[RUGAL]

I agree, I delayed playing this game because of critics, and I regret having done that. This is oe of the best games I have ever played, far superior to the original. I recommend playing Mirror Of Fate first, because the story is really good. I am enjoying this game so much i even feel guilty. I am considering buying the DLC.

[Sundusk]

Originally posted by RUGAL:

I agree, I delayed playing this game because of critics, and I regret having done that. This is oe of the best games I have ever played, far superior to the original. I recommend playing Mirror Of Fate first, because the story is really good. I am enjoying this game so much i even feel guilty. I am considering buying the DLC.

i plyed the game and dlc on xbox 360 when they came out,first piece of advice i can give you if its not under 5$(dlc) dont take it not worth it,i love the game but dlc wise fellt very weak for me,the only thing i wanted from any dlc of this game was alucard vs dracula they show us in the trailers!