Gabriel is not Alucard father and Trevor did not become Alucard :FACT:

The way I see it, based on the original Castlevania series and after finishing Lords of Shadow...

...there's no denying that the original series was a Soap Oprah. The plot was essentially non-existent, and the only thing driving the series, aside from the awesome gameplay, was the character relations. As for Lords of Shadow, it's good, but so far, it really isn't Castlevania aside from a few character names. Thus, I prefer to think of it more as "Lords of Shadow," instead of "Castlevania: Lords of Shadow."

Now from what we've seen, Konami may very well continue the original series AND carry on the LoS series. Two different series of Castlevanias unrelated to each other running in parallel. We'll have to wait and see, but clearly, the 2D Metroidvania games are still popular among old fans, but people want to see more of LoS, so it's not too far-fetched to imagine Konami keeping the old timeline alive with 2D games, and to also carry on the new LoS timeline. I mean, they've done various non-canon Metal Gear games, and there's still newer Castlevania games that exist in the old canon. The LoS games will never be 2D, and it's been proven that the old 2D games just can't transition into 3D very well, hence the reboot. So I'd say just see what happens.

It's not without its faults. You can point out the negative aspects of a game and still like it, and I don't know why some people defend their games so furiously.

LoS, while great on it's own, lacked a little it of the Castlevania feel, and probably should have excluded the Castlevania title altogether. The music needed work - it was great, but too few tracks and most of it didn't fit with the areas it was used. Soft, orchestral music playing while you're traversing flaming wastelands full of goblins don't really go together.

The combat system could have been deeper, and the mechanics really needed to be refined. The fact that you get hit before certain enemies actually hit you is proof of that.

The controls were a little weird at times.

The rebooted story, obviously, will ruffle feathers. That's a legit issue for some people. I don't care myself, but I also understand why some fans would be upset.

I love the game, but it has faults. Pointing them out is the only way to get them addressed. Blind fanboyism is just as bad as blindly trolling and hating for no reason. Someone isn't a troll for simply disliking an aspect of a game, especially when it's legitimate.

*Sigh*

That's just my opinion, since there's very little in LoS that has anything to do with the Castlevania brand. Even the Vampire castle in the middle of the game, as I recall, wasn't named Castlevania. The game was Castlevania-void, at least until the very end, but even that isn't explained whatsoever. Yeah, there's that part in the DLC, but they never even intended to make that, and therefore never intended to explain it period until LoS 2. I'd like to see more, especially now that LoS has actually moved into the Castlevania territory, and I'm interested in seeing what they do with the plot NOW, but the entirety of the first Lords of Shadow, plot-wise, just seems like something that could have been a ten second text-scroll prologue for an actual Castlevania game. But again, that's not fact, just my opinion on the title.

As for this whole Alucard fiasco...

"Alucard" is a nick-name. It's "Dracula" backwards (duh, yes, I know), BUT, that's not the actual character's name. In the original canon, Alucard's real name was Adrian Tepes, the son of Vlad Tepes, otherwise known as Dracula. "Alucard" specifically is just the nick-name of Dracula's son, and therefore can be applied to anyone that is his son. Gabriel, obviously, is not Vlad the Impaler, but he is Dracula in the Lords of Shadow canon. Therefore, whoever his son is, they could be considered Alucard, regardless of what their actual given name is.

Also, fun fact: Alucard comes from an old horror movie "The Son of Dracula," I believe, from the '40s if I remember correctly. Lots of people think Konami made the name up, quite uninspired, themselves for SotN, but that's simply untrue.

Well, I actually really did enjoy that whole middle part of game. Especially climbing the gears in that tower - I said out loud :Now this is Castlevania!" And I really enjoyed the game overall, but the even the middle portion of the game, in the Castle, wasn't the main focus of the game. The beginning forests and ruins were nice, but they went on for so long, and once the castle area was over, more ruins and then everything got all hellish and felt like Dante's Inferno or something, and then Satan just pops up out of nowhere and proclaims, quite out of the blue, that "LOL I WAS BEHIND EVERYTHING!"

I know it sounds like I'm hating on the game, but again, I really liked it. It's just that if the title was just "Lords of Shadow" without the Castlevania title, it wouldn't have made a lick of difference.