This game caught a lot of flak when it came out; it's an early "soulslike"- an action that takes obvious, heavy influence from From's games- and it got a lot of hate for that. Since then, though, many other studios have put out soulslikes, and Lords of the Fallen has proven to be far from the worst of them, so its reputation has experienced kind of a mild renaissance. In truth, LotF was overhated at release, but it's also not the hidden gem it's sometimes presented as. It's an essentially competent but unexciting take on the soulslike formula. It's not as good as From's games. Its main failing is its lack of originality- the setting is generic "dark fantasy," the fragmentary backstory-oriented storytelling is heavily indebted to From's style, and where the mechanics differ from the basic soulslike formula, they're muddled and confusing rather than excitingly new. Fortunately, co-developer Deck 13 took what they learned on this game and went on to make the genuinely exceptional Surge games, which very much establish their own identity within the world of soulslikes. I wouldn't really recommend Lords of the Fallen to anyone but those who've played From's games and the Surge games first, and really seriously wants more. As I write this, a sequel/reboot is slated to come out in a few months. Almost a decade in development, and kicked between at least three different studios, time will tell if it manages to establish the series as a serious contender.
