IMO
Oh, I think you misunderstood. I'm not saying LoS had bad graphics or technical art skill. The graphics/art skill were maybe LoS' biggest sale point, and really shined at points. I'm just saying two things. 1.) While pretty to look at, the gameplay, level design, and camera were too much "on-rails," and overly focused on divergent elements of combo-spamming and forced puzzle and platforming events, versus a more natural flow of 3D action-platforming. This spoiled a lot of what could have otherwise been cool stages. I haven't seen anything yet to prove that's been fixed, which is my greatest concern. 2.) While pretty to look at, LoS did not consistently capture the atmosphere of the Castlevania universe, and these new images, while capturing a certain segment of the universe, do not immediately convince me of the whole art direction. (As an aside, I think the gloss effect is overused a bit in the CG versus the concept art).
I had some amusement from the game, but I share the view of some other people here that it was more like
Castlevania: The Game of the Movie. I'm looking for some radical upgrades in LoS2, as I don't think LoS' template got it right. I still say the N64 entries were closer, particularly in terms of the "bare bones" of stage design.
I'm still concerned that Mercury Steam will misinterpret the complaints of the first game as meaning "a full game in the castle with a Castleroid map and more shout outs like Medusa heads" will solve all the shortcomings of LoS1. There was some fundamental stuff that needed to go back to the drawing board if it wants to rise high above the competition. Does anyone know if LoS made any bigger of a splash than, say, Dante's Inferno? To me, Castlevania has all the elements necessary to elevate itself above popular 3D titles like God of War. But it has to be presented confidently as "it's own franchise." If it insists on riding trends, even if the art direction gets better, it will always be considered a second-class franchise in the modern game scene.