Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
Okay, first of all, I'm a big fan of much of the series, even though i'm absolutely terrible at the classic series. But, what i want to know everyone's honest opinion of the Lords of Shadow series, and in my honest opinion I liked it. I know that there are a lot of castlevania fans that didn't like the reboot for a number of reasons. They didn't like the God of War-esque combat system, the lack of Dracula in the first game, Dracula and Gabriel being the same, Alucard and Trevor being the same, etc.
Its combat is very reminisicent of God of War, but I think it shows more similarities with Lament of Innocence, which came before GoW. As well the inclusion of the Light/Void and Shadow/Chaos system helps seperate it from God of War, as it requires players to utilize it unlike GoW's varied weaponry which isn't necessarily required. I also think LoS' combat system can teach players to be better at other Hack and Slash because in order to use Light/Void or Shadow/Chaos one has to avoid all damage while attacking to keep their magic up.
As well both series allowed players to possess an array of weapons, though GoW had a larger arsenal.
Both series would let you upgrade your weapons to unlock new combos, however combos in Los1 & 2 were unlocked indivually while GoW weapons got sets of Combos every level up.
Magic is also present in both of the series, with a couple of differences between them. In LoS1 magic bound to your items and what magic is active, such as cyclone boots combined with Shadow Magic creates Flame Claws. In MoF magic is not used actively and instead used passively after first being activated with the exception of Spirit of Belandes and Mist Form. In LoS2 magic is bound to your items once again except this time your weapons and magic are one and the same, for example the Void Sword can only be equipped when Void Magic is active. As well, just like in LoS1, Magic is bound to your weapons as you cannot perform the Ice Storm without having the Void Sword equipped first. In GoW each magic is equipped seperately instead of acting like weapon technique, but there is an exception to its magic formula as GoW III had magic bound to your Weapons, such as Soul Summon can only be used when Claws of Hades is equipped.
The exploration of LOS1 and GoW series is terrible due to the fixed camera angle, which honestly confuses me as where i'm jumping to. But, the way exploration done in both series is different; Kratos uses his blades to scale walls while Gabriel uses Uncharted-esque exploration. Exploring in the games also gives players the chance to see the enviorment, which in the first LoS were absolutely gorgeous. However, LoS2's enviroments seemed to be dreary and boring. God of War's enviroments are also neat, which became better looking as technology got better. I remember each enviroment in LoS1 having beautiful music, but I don't how God of War's soundtrack went. In both series exploring the enviroments lets players find chests/fountains that would restore their health or their mage. While in God of War players could find find red orbs in chests, in LoS1 experience points (LoS' red orb equivalent) were only taken from enemies. Both series had upgrades, which would extend your health or magic, that needed to found, and both require a set number of them to be found before the upgrade activated. however, in LoS, the magic upgrades are split between light/void and shadow/void, and GoW has additional upgrade for their item meter. Both series also require the players to upgrade their jumping ability to reach higher places, however, LoS lets players replay its levels while GoW does not. But, in both of their cases it wouldn't make sense for players to go back to previous levels due to both of their linear story-driven design.