Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: [DW]-Hunter on August 15, 2008, 11:52:28 pm
-
Descent: FreeSpace FTW!!!
-
FS1 > FS2
-
Yeh, I'd say FS1. FS2 is good, but... you know. And I sometimes get the urge to play Silent Threat but during the second missions, if not earlier, I remember why the damn thing is so annoying.
-
First three Silent Threat missions are good, and it gets progressively worse from there.
"Tell me why I'm scanning all these Chronos freighters again?"
-
Descent FreeSpace was the best campaign ever. Though the first Act was the best. You notice, after First Strike there is a lot less dialog and the missions are less action-packed. But there are a few good missions in the other 2 Acts. Like Exodus (FS1).
ST was ok if you ask me. It was at least as good as the user-made campaigns being released around that time (like Road to Victory, DW, Nubian Conflict, etc.). But I agree, it was pretty incoherent. There were a few nice missions in there though.
Templar I've never played.
FS2 was good, but not as atmospheric as FS1. I wrote a long thread about that about a year ago which I got flamed for.
-
I played only FSPort, not the original FS1, so can't really say much. But if FSPort qualifies, I enjoyed FS2 more.
-
FSPort does not qualify. FSPort is not FS1.
-
Freespace 1 had a great storyline and was really an 'experience' at the time because no other game came close to it, people need to bear that in mind when comparing the two, by the time Freespace 2 came out, it wasn't such a graphical and gameplay revelation as the original.
That said, I thoroughly enjoyed FS1 for those very reasons, the graphics, at the time, were utterly mind-blowing, and the storyline was incredibly dark, and whilst not exactly as original as some people think, it was executed brilliantly, and was a breath of fresh air in the video game market.
-
Oddly, I thought Freespace 1 was really dry and lacked most of FS2's atmosphere...no movement between squadrons, terse and uninteresting plot events, no beams or flak to make capital ships impressive. Most importantly, no Bosch or Petrarch, the two poles of the FS2 narrative and acting cabal.
-
Compared to FS1, FS2 seemed tacky.
-
The one where you learned to spell?
-
Oddly, I thought Freespace 1 was really dry and lacked most of FS2's atmosphere...no movement between squadrons, terse and uninteresting plot events, no beams or flak to make capital ships impressive. Most importantly, no Bosch or Petrarch, the two poles of the FS2 narrative and acting cabal.
Exactly. Unlike FS2, Freespace TGW actually had real feeliing to the story even if it had rubbish graphics and no beams.
FS2 is just like a set of three missions: assault, SOC, and convoy defending with a range of reasons. Very boring at times.
-
This is Captain Becket *sigh*
Freespace 2 had a more developed story, overall, you're right.
The feeling of the story, however, comes out much more clearly is FS1. And the story in FS1, is, of course "OMFG we're doomed"
-
The Lucifer killing the Galatea with you just helplessly watching . . .
-
/me votes and sees a spelling error.
[jackassmode]CANNON! WHEE![/jackassmode]
The only thing I didn't like about FS2 is that there are a few inconsistencies and that, like the Galatea, you can't save the Colossus, only that the Colossus had its engines killed by time constraints, while that of the Galatea is pure canon.
-
FS1 had a much better atmosphere
I find it hard to believe that there are people here who have never played FS1
-
In FS1 it was:
It's the Tarais! OMG!
In FS2 it was:
Oh, look, another Cain cruiser. Blow it up, will ya?
-
FS1 had a much better atmosphere
I find it hard to believe that there are people here who have never played FS1
Well, try taking it from my point of view. I played FS2 before FS1, so when I finally got to play FSPort, the only thing that impressed me was Playing Judas and the GTF Apollo.
However, I do note that FS1 feels a lot longer than FS2. For some reason, I always find that the FS2 campaign is too short. After three missions, you go into Squadron A, then after another three missions, you go to Squadron B. It's too truncated, in my opinion.
-
FSPort does not qualify. FSPort is not FS1.
Not even if we're talking about campaigns, not games?
-
Not even if we're talking about campaigns, not games?
Well the Port didn't do as well to capture the atmosphere of FS1, which is what I assume we're talking about. If we're just talking about in terms of mission design, then yeah the Port counts. IMO, of course.
-
I think the reason FS1 had a better atmosphere was because it was the first time the Shivans were encountered.
Its like, "Okay, I'm fighting these aliens punks. Hey, my lasers do good against them. "
Then the Shivans appear. "Hey new aliens... ****, I can't target them. Okay, maybe I can ... Oh ****, they killed my escort already?!?!? I gotta take them down. Oh ****! My weapons don't work against them, they got funky energy shields!" Then of course there's the attack on Tanis Station. They're pretty much unstoppable, you don't know why they're here, and you're basically pirating their tech to survive.
That probably made FS1's atmosphere a lot more better than FS2, where the Shivans weren't as scary anymore, because even your most basic weapon could tear them apart, and the capital ships were actually useful in helping stave off the Shivan fighters.
-
The differing graphics could also have had something to do with it. It's much like Halo -- even though Halo 1 has far inferior graphics to Halo 3, the atmosphere they produce is more powerful.
-
What are the main differences between FSPort and FS1? Only played FSPort, thought it was exactly like FS1, except explosions and engine wash.
-
What are the main differences between FSPort and FS1? Only played FSPort, thought it was exactly like FS1, except explosions and engine wash.
Interface, resolution, nebulas, HUD layout, general graphics features. If you played with retail FS2, that is. Playing with FS2_Open makes it possible to use upgraded graphics (models and effects), which of course changes a lot as well. Not to mention all the additional SCP-added features.
-
Then of course there's the attack on Tanis Station.
It was Tombaugh Station and the incident was related to the Shivan cruiser Taranis.
-
Well the Port didn't do as well to capture the atmosphere of FS1, which is what I assume we're talking about. If we're just talking about in terms of mission design, then yeah the Port counts. IMO, of course.
Out of curiousity, how is this possible when for all intents and purposes the FSPort is functionally identical?
In fact having recently installed my FS1 disks again I literally cannot tell the difference between most missions with MediaVPs off. Off hand, the only major remaining difference between the port and the original is the behavior of the FighterKiller missile, or rather your ship's behavior when hit with one.
-
Descent: FreeSpace FTW!!!
Endorsed Vasudan slaughter for at least three missions :D
-
Not even if we're talking about campaigns, not games?
Well the Port didn't do as well to capture the atmosphere of FS1, which is what I assume we're talking about. If we're just talking about in terms of mission design, then yeah the Port counts. IMO, of course.
I know exactly what you mean. I still own my copy of retail Conflict FreeSpace: The Great War and Silent Threat. Only the slight issue of them being incompatible with my system means I have to use the FSPort to relive the days when I was 14 and getting hopelessly stuck on Tenderizer everytime. I suppose in a very small minor way, the use of the FS2 engine ruins the game for me, but the use of mediaVPS overpowers it.
-
FS2 is just like a set of three missions: assault, SOC, and convoy defending with a range of reasons.
Name 3 FS1 missions that can't be classified in that manner.
-
FS2. I think it had a better story. And the beam weapons made capital ships matter, which added a lot to the game.
Although, I do like missions near the end of FS1 more than FS2, but, as a whole, I enjoyed the FS2 campaign more.
-
FS2.
Reason: "Me liek pretty beemz."
-
FS2.
The capships are actually usefull.
-
FS1, the story was better, the atmosphere darker, and the characters better. I actually felt sad at the loss of the Galatea, that was an amazingly well-made moment.
In FS1 it was:
It's the Tarais! OMG!
In FS2 it was:
Oh, look, another Cain cruiser. Blow it up, will ya?
That should go something like this:
In FS1 it was:
It's the Tarais! OMG!
In FS2 it was:
Oh, look, another Cain cruiser. Blow it up, will ya?
-
*snip*
Damnit. Too much HW2.
-
*snip*
Damnit. Too much HW2.
The Vaygr Shivans are coming through the jump gate(s)!
-
FS1 had a much better atmosphere
I find it hard to believe that there are people here who have never played FS1
Well, try taking it from my point of view. I played FS2 before FS1, so when I finally got to play FSPort, the only thing that impressed me was Playing Judas and the GTF Apollo.
However, I do note that FS1 feels a lot longer than FS2. For some reason, I always find that the FS2 campaign is too short. After three missions, you go into Squadron A, then after another three missions, you go to Squadron B. It's too truncated, in my opinion.
Yes, but it's safe to assume not all the sorties for each squadron were present in the campaign, such as routine patrols with no enemy contact and the like. (Srsly, who flies THREE missions and is then transferred!) AND- WHO GETS TRANSFERRED THAT MUCH! Most pilots get transferred FIVE TIMES MAX in there ENTIRE CAREERS in the air force, let alone the space of rougly 6 months- 1 year
-
Yes, but it's safe to assume not all the sorties for each squadron were present in the campaign, such as routine patrols with no enemy contact and the like. (Srsly, who flies THREE missions and is then transferred!) AND- WHO GETS TRANSFERRED THAT MUCH! Most pilots get transferred FIVE TIMES MAX in there ENTIRE CAREERS in the air force, let alone the space of rougly 6 months- 1 year
Well its obviously just a gimmick to give storyline reasons for you being in completely different fighters.
Some of the comments in this thread about "in FS2, capital ships actually mattered" are kind of funny considering that capital ships die sooooo easy in FS2 to fighters. Like Fenris? How long does it take to kill one of those? (when you're not in a crap Perseus)
-
Freespace 1.
-
Yes, but it's safe to assume not all the sorties for each squadron were present in the campaign, such as routine patrols with no enemy contact and the like. (Srsly, who flies THREE missions and is then transferred!) AND- WHO GETS TRANSFERRED THAT MUCH! Most pilots get transferred FIVE TIMES MAX in there ENTIRE CAREERS in the air force, let alone the space of rougly 6 months- 1 year
In case you haven't noticed, the FS2 campaign is your entire career (assuming you don't escape Capella), and all of the transfers have you on the same ship anyway. (with the exception of the officer exchange program)
-
Some of the comments in this thread about "in FS2, capital ships actually mattered" are kind of funny considering that capital ships die sooooo easy in FS2 to fighters. Like Fenris? How long does it take to kill one of those? (when you're not in a crap Perseus)
I've always found that even a Fenris dies hard on Hard or Insane. Blob turrets are a serious threat if you're not careful.
-
The Fenris/Leviathan series has and always will be a nemisis to fighters.
-
The Fenris/Leviathan series has and always will be a nemisis to fighters.
What, you mean like a tank is to infantry? Well, I think the infantry has outclassed the tank by FS2 already.
-
The Fenris/Leviathan series has and always will be a nemisis to fighters.
Well, thanks to Volition the beams are turned off half the time. Yay!
(like the one where you jump in and a Leviathan is attacking a station. The rear four turrets don't fire. Or else you and your buddies would all be swiss cheese!)
-
The Fenris/Leviathan series has and always will be a nemisis to fighters.
Well, thanks to Volition the beams are turned off half the time. Yay!
(like the one where you jump in and a Leviathan is attacking a station. The rear four turrets don't fire. Or else you and your buddies would all be swiss cheese!)
Good thing that 90% of the time, Leviathans and Fenrises are on your side! ;)
-
Well by the end of FS2 we have Trebuchets and Maxims to deal with cruisers.
-
Yep. Ares and Serapis fighters will find Fenris a piece of cake, but in a battle, you can't sit around shooting at a cruiser beaming at you (for a Leviathan) and anyway I should say that Fenris and Leviathans are a threat to Alpha 1 in the beginning of FS2
-
Heck, a wing of Taurets armed with Hornets can take down a Fenris no problem. In fact, in a mission I made they destroyed FOUR Fenrises no problem.
-
I reckon most of the newer guys are gonna go for FS2, the old hands "might just" stick with FS1, if they're true Terran patriots at least... :nervous: :mad2:
-
I reckon most of the newer guys are gonna go for FS2, the old hands "might just" stick with FS1, if they're true Terran patriots at least... :nervous: :mad2:
I guess I count as a newer guy. But I enjoyed FS1 a lot more for FS2. But not for blowing up Vasudans. I wuv our fish wuvving friends.
-
What are the main differences between FSPort and FS1? Only played FSPort, thought it was exactly like FS1, except explosions and engine wash.
The AI behave differently, The missiles are much more effective in FSPort, and FSPort is easier because of this. FreeSpace actually required more skill then FS2 because you found yourself never using missiles on fighters, because they never hit them. In FSPort, any noob can beat it because it doesn't take any skill to shoot a dragon out of the sky with a couple missiles on the FS2 engine. Insane on FS truely was, insane, nearly imposible. On FS2, Insane is all I play.
IMO, FSPort should be made to play more like the original, instead of playing like a ported campaign. Perhaps adding an "Enable Features for FSPort" in the launcher to make it behave like the original FS campaign should...
-
I think you hit the nail on the head. In the BETAC Comms Station mission, Deva was almost impossible to hit with Phoenix Vs.
-
I think a few additions AI_Profiles.tbl would be better than a flag.
-
Heck, a wing of Taurets armed with Hornets can take down a Fenris no problem. In fact, in a mission I made they destroyed FOUR Fenrises no problem.
But, like anti-armor infantry squads, that's what they're designed for. Heavy assault fighters are ideal for the destruction of cruisers.
-
Freespace 2 by a mile, for me. I actually found the first game's story to be pretty unremarkable, and probably wouldn't be here if I hadn't bought the sequel on a whim. My chief complaint is its lack of human warmth - where FS2 had Bosch, one of my favourite characters in a science fiction game to date, FS1 had exposition from the Ancients. It was a faceless narrative and I found it unmoving.
It certainly doesn't help that, aside from the ying-yang nature of the Shivans, the story is as generic as they come. Well told, but still.
-
Yes. Freespace 1 was really dry.
-
From the Intro, through to the fall of Vasuda prime (said with a grin). The destruction of the Galatae (said with a sad face) the desperate break for Aincent tech only to have the Lucy Jump in what (first playthrough) i thouight was the last mission if all went to plan,. To the memorable end-speech. FS1 beat FS2 in my opinion. Freespace 2 is good. But it's still just a sequel :yes2: :P :yes:
-
I think you hit the nail on the head. In the BETAC Comms Station mission, Deva was almost impossible to hit with Phoenix Vs.
My god, I hated that mission so much. I would always get tied up trying to get Deva and then Krishna(?) would warp in and destroy most of the escape pods. And if I let Deva go, they got the escape pods.
At least defending the Beta Aquilae Comm Station was pretty easy, though.
-
As long as you hit one of the dragons with those Phoenix missiles, the AI can deal with the other one.
Honestly though, I always cheated by not destroying one of the Basilisks, and keeping it occupied until the escape pods had made it.
-
I don't seem to find any use for the Phoenix. :nervous:
-
FS2 by a mile.
FS1 is a great game I agree but the fact is that it's a plot we've seen many, many times before. Admittedly FS1 did it very well but it's still not anything new. The Shivans are just xenophobic aliens for you to kill.
Now in FS2 things change. You have the political intrigue surrounding Bosch and Etak. You have signs that the Shivans don't just want to wipe out everything they see and most mysteriously of all you have Bosch stating that for some reason humanity only has a future if it allies with the Shivans. That made me a lot more interested in the storyline than FS1's plot.
-
FS2 by a mile.
FS1 is a great game I agree but the fact is that it's a plot we've seen many, many times before. Admittedly FS1 did it very well but it's still not anything new. The Shivans are just xenophobic aliens for you to kill.
Now in FS2 things change. You have the political intrigue surrounding Bosch and Etak. You have signs that the Shivans don't just want to wipe out everything they see and most mysteriously of all you have Bosch stating that for some reason humanity only has a future if it allies with the Shivans. That made me a lot more interested in the storyline than FS1's plot.
True, true...but at thirty missions, it seems a bit short. :blah:
-
True, true...but at thirty missions, it seems a bit short. :blah:
"Bit Short"? That sounds perfect to me.
Long enough to satisfy, but short enough to leave you wanting more. And more imporantly, not so long as to you have the player quit before they've finished the darn thing.
-
The Shivans are just xenophobic aliens for you to kill.
While I mostly agree with you, I don't see this the same way.
I think the point of FS1, and pretty much the only thing that sets it apart from any other stock space opera story, was that the Shivans were more than just a random force of destruction. How that, through their own design or not, without their existence humanity and Vasudans wouldn't have come into their power, and that their introduction brought an end to a fourteen-year war. They're a force of balance, hence the name Shiva. Destroyers and preservers. I think the monologues make it clear that this was the intended message of the writers.
I wouldn't say it exonerates the rest of the story, and I do think they're more interesting in the sequel, but all the same I think it's doing the FS1 Shivans a disservice to say they're just a one-dimensional villain.
-
Another thing I liked about the Shivans was that they set up cargo depots and made strategic choices, unlike most other alien menaces which just go around ****ing people up like animals.
-
FS1 is a great game I agree but the fact is that it's a plot we've seen many, many times before. Admittedly FS1 did it very well but it's still not anything new. The Shivans are just xenophobic aliens for you to kill.
Now in FS2 things change. You have the political intrigue surrounding Bosch and Etak. You have signs that the Shivans don't just want to wipe out everything they see and most mysteriously of all you have Bosch stating that for some reason humanity only has a future if it allies with the Shivans. That made me a lot more interested in the storyline than FS1's plot.
Perversely, tack on Silent Threat to FS1 and you have most of the things you wanted from FS2.
-
Except for fun. :p
-
FS1 is a great game I agree but the fact is that it's a plot we've seen many, many times before. Admittedly FS1 did it very well but it's still not anything new. The Shivans are just xenophobic aliens for you to kill.
Now in FS2 things change. You have the political intrigue surrounding Bosch and Etak. You have signs that the Shivans don't just want to wipe out everything they see and most mysteriously of all you have Bosch stating that for some reason humanity only has a future if it allies with the Shivans. That made me a lot more interested in the storyline than FS1's plot.
Perversely, tack on Silent Threat to FS1 and you have most of the things you wanted from FS2.
or a satisfying end mission
the old hide in the trench and hold down control
-
Paperclips work as well.
-
I'm with karajorma. Even putting the thematic elements of the storylines aside, it always felt to me like the actual tasks you performed in-mission tied in far more with driving the story forward in FS2 than in FS1. The original had a few too many of those "destroy a cargo depot/take out a few enemy ships for no discernible purpose" sorts of missions, particularly in the periods before Playing Judas and Reaching the Zenith. When you couple the SOC loops with arcs like the first nebular campaign or chipping away at the NTF's remains, you just feel like you're doing more throughout the whole of FS2. Granted, FS1's situation probably better replicates the mix you'd see in any sort of realistic military setting, but I'll always take unrealistically being at the center of the action over that. Besides that, I thought the squadron changes were a far more superior way of introducing new technology to the player than the "oh, we're suddenly pumping out all these new ship classes when we only had Apollos before" FS1 method.
Plus, when you think in terms of actual combat, FS2 just blows FS1 out of the water. I'm sure we all remember how hard we fangasmed the first time we saw a beam cannon fire. And le gasp, homing missiles actually...homed!
(And in terms of "oldbie vs. newbie," I played and replayed FS1 for years before finally getting my mitts on FS2, so there goes that theory. :p)
-
Either Inferno or Derelict.
-
Either Inferno or Derelict.
"canon" campaign
-
Derelict is my favorite cannon campaign. Gorgon cannon ftw.
-
I like the Punisher Cannon.
-
Derelict is my favorite cannon campaign. Gorgon cannon ftw.
Gorgon beam just riiips through the Ravana's hull. Shivans screaming in fear. The dark Shivan captain standing by the bridge gazing at the stars that he shall soon be joining . . .
-
Can I bail out with "Apples and oranges"? No? :p Oh well, then...
I'm gonna go with Freespace 1, then. I'm not sure why - I think in part, it's that it doesn't have a lot of the political intrigue et al that's in Freespace 2. It adds to the story there, but in Freespace 1 the military feel is strong enough that it has its own distinctiveness to it. Freespace 1's title of "The Great War" really does work for me, because it's almost as if it's recalling a time when the bad guys and the good guys pretty much just engaged in battle with each other (ala WW1/WW2). Whereas in Freespace 2, you all of a sudden have all sorts of conspiracy theories, special ops, and technological gimmicks to help you along, similar to any kind of modern war.
But in some ways the atmosphere of Freespace 1 is a breath of fresh air, because the missions don't have to push the plot along. It proceeds at a different pace than FS1, and it can also be a plot twist in its own right, since you don't have to actually be the center of attention.
If Freespace 1 were a black-and-white classic film, Freespace 2 would be the modern Hollywood remake. :p
-
Despite my preference of FreeSpace 2 to Descent: FreeSpace, I like playing the Descent: FreeSpace missions on FSPort.
My favourite FS1 mission is Pandora's Box. :D
-
I liked FS1. FSPort would be decent if they hadn't got rid of the red on the scorpion and put beams on the Lucifer.
FS2 I had more fun with, but only because I never bothered learning how to do anything other than FRED the original.
-
Descent Freespace The Great War was much better IMO. There are many reason but one of the main is that in FS1 you really didn't know how it was going to turn out. It always felt like no matter what you did there was no way to stop the shivans. In FS2 there was never a doubt in my mind of how things were going to turn out except capella. The whole thing was enemies, ok lets kill them. they killed some of ours guys, thats ok we'll kill them, they are no threat. a Sathanas thats ok we'll just send in the colossus. there was never any real sense of worrying or terror. in fs1 i was afraid we were going to lose, plus beams aren't that great... capital ship battles are over before they start. That is all.
edit: also I only played the FS2 main campaign once, and i'll probably never play it again. but i've played the FS1 campaign several times and I will play it again, not on the port, but on FS1
-
Not to mention that you really can't enjoy the fighting of a massive cap-to-cap ship battle especially with the Shivans as your enemy. All your directives are "Destroy the forward beam cannons!!". If you do destroy them in time . . . well most of the enemy fighters are dead and can't get the feeling of a real battle, and if you don't your cap-ship gets blown up. :sigh:
In FS1, capital ship battles were worth fighting in. You protected your bombers. You sat outside the fighterbay waiting for a killing spree. Although beams are great, beams ruin cap ship fights.
-
In FS2 there was never a doubt in my mind of how things were going to turn out except capella. The whole thing was enemies, ok lets kill them. they killed some of ours guys, thats ok we'll kill them, they are no threat. a Sathanas thats ok we'll just send in the colossus. there was never any real sense of worrying or terror. in fs1 i was afraid we were going to lose, plus beams aren't that great... capital ship battles are over before they start. That is all.
I dunno about you but in FS2 I was worried. I was worried about why Command decided it was a good idea to head back into the nebula after the first Sathanas. That whole game was "Command, what are you doing? This is a BAD PLAN." Of course you didn't know that it was, but you sensed it. And Into the Lions Den (the last SOC mission into shivan territory) is by far one of the most atmospheric missions I've ever played in all of Freespace. I mean, the mission objectives themselves, are pretty rudimentary. But unlike snipes, I was ****ting my pants the whole 15 minutes not just during the first 5 seconds. I can't remember if the similar FS1 mission had the same effect on me or not.
edit: also I only played the FS2 main campaign once, and i'll probably never play it again. but i've played the FS1 campaign several times and I will play it again, not on the port, but on FS1
Port's for people who don't have FS1 I'd venture. Or for those who long for better graphics. Personally if I play through FS1 campaign I'll do it on FS1 too rather than the port. Though of course any non-main campaign/ST campaigns have to be played on the port anyway, so the work put into it still gets appreciated.
Not to mention that you really can't enjoy the fighting of a massive cap-to-cap ship battle especially with the Shivans as your enemy. All your directives are "Destroy the forward beam cannons!!". If you do destroy them in time . . . well most of the enemy fighters are dead and can't get the feeling of a real battle, and if you don't your cap-ship gets blown up. :sigh:
In FS1, capital ship battles were worth fighting in. You protected your bombers. You sat outside the fighterbay waiting for a killing spree. Although beams are great, beams ruin cap ship fights.
Okay, so . .. . rather than contributing to the fight and protecting your capital ships you'd rather sit outside a fighter bay and pick off fighters as they launch? Personally I've got no problem with capital fights in either game, they have their different flavours, and they're both worth fighting in, if the mission is FREDder well anyway. But that's usually the problem. Though I do admit that taking out the Ravan's beams in every other campaign gets a little old perhaps.
-
I always felt that capital fights in FS1 were boring as hell, mainly because capital ship weapons were woefully inadequate to do much beyond taking out sentry guns. The blob turrets had abysmal range and did jack-all damage-wise. When I'm looking at a 2-kilometer-long destroyer, I want it to be able to actually destroy something, not just eat bombs for breakfast. The fact that the Lucifer was the only destroyer capable of doing something competently certainly helped enhance the sense of fear the player was supposed to feel at encountering it, but it did so at the expense of every other capital ship in the game.
I liked FS1. FSPort would be decent if they hadn't got rid of the red on the scorpion and put beams on the Lucifer.
Um...the Scorpion should look just the same as it always does, at least in the most recent version of the Port. Make sure you have glowmaps enabled. And the Lucifer's beams in the Port are identical damage-wise to the Shivan Super Laser weapon; they're essentially what the Lucifer would have done had :v: developed beams before FS1 was released, rather than after.
-
But I liked the suspense as the SSL's traveled through space and hit the Galatea.
-
I liked the SSLBeam. It looks better than any other beam I've seen so far, even the BFRed.
-
Even the Adv. Effects BFRed?
-
FS2 by far.....
"This is our Alamo pilot, we hold them here.... or die trying."
-
Oh come on.
FS2's atmosphere was like a turkey shoot or a mock battle compared to FS1's. In FS2 I always felt the situation was under control, and the Shivans never even broke through to Epsilon Pegasi or Vega. In fact they were less of a challenge to defeat than the NTF, their fighters were piss weak and they didn't seem anywhere near as cool as the FS1 Shivans. The tacky nebula and weird color changing effects of the Subach HL-7 gave a really weird "This is just a game" feel.
-
Oh come on.
FS2's atmosphere was like a turkey shoot or a mock battle compared to FS1's. In FS2 I always felt the situation was under control, and the Shivans never even broke through to Epsilon Pegasi or Vega. In fact they were less of a challenge to defeat than the NTF, their fighters were piss weak and they didn't seem anywhere near as cool as the FS1 Shivans. The tacky nebula and weird color changing effects of the Subach HL-7 gave a really weird "This is just a game" feel.
That's to do with the gameplay than the storyline though. Fighters in FS2 die in droves.
-
Oh come on.
FS2's atmosphere was like a turkey shoot or a mock battle compared to FS1's. In FS2 I always felt the situation was under control, and the Shivans never even broke through to Epsilon Pegasi or Vega. In fact they were less of a challenge to defeat than the NTF, their fighters were piss weak and they didn't seem anywhere near as cool as the FS1 Shivans.
The Shivans didn't break through to Epsilon Pegasi or Vega because they didn't really try. We all saw the juggernauts - they could have exterminated us if they'd wanted to. FS2's Shivans were, to me, actually far more interesting than FS1's because I got the distinct impression that we weren't their main concern. They had bigger things to deal with and we were just a thorn in their side. That feeling of smallness, of being almost irrelevant, was far more meaningful to me than anything FS1 evoked.
-
Oh come on.
FS2's atmosphere was like a turkey shoot or a mock battle compared to FS1's. In FS2 I always felt the situation was under control, and the Shivans never even broke through to Epsilon Pegasi or Vega. In fact they were less of a challenge to defeat than the NTF, their fighters were piss weak and they didn't seem anywhere near as cool as the FS1 Shivans. The tacky nebula and weird color changing effects of the Subach HL-7 gave a really weird "This is just a game" feel.
And I found the nebula to be an utterly creepy and atmospheric playing field, particularly in missions like As Lightning Fall. It was pretty evident that the situation wasn't "under control" when the GTVA had to haul out their biggest gun in a last-ditch attempt to destroy a superweapon...only to find out that they were facing such a threat multiplied by 80 soon afterwards. It's true that FS1 did pull off the "humanity is being overrun" plotline very well, but there was never any doubt as to what the Shivans were trying to accomplish. The very fact that FS2's Shivans were enigmatic throughout the entire campaign gave it that much more sense of uncertainty; you never really knew what was going to happen next.
(Also, the Subach looks awesome.)
-
That's to do with the gameplay than the storyline though. Fighters in FS2 die in droves.
That's it. I think that's why Freespace 1 felt so different than Freespace 2.
In Freespace 1, even two fighters are a force to be reckoned with. A cruiser is a big deal. A destroyer is a HUGE threat, no matter what side it's on.
Now in Freespace 2, everything explodes if you so much as sneeze on it with a bomb or beam cannon. Flak provides a new recourse for massacring enemy fighters in droves. Every victory should be a pyrrhic victory, as over half of an entire destroyer's complement of fighters is usually destroyed by the time the mission is complete. By necessity, capital ships and fighter wings are rotated in and out every 3-4 missions because they die so often.
In a way, it's like by Freespace 2, you're so desensitized by death and destruction that you fail to even realize or care that a large city's worth of people died in that last blockade mission. Nothing really has an identity anymore, not even the destroyers, save for perhaps the Bastion, Aquitaine, and Psamtik. Compare that to Freespace 1, where you basically heard about the Galatea, Bastion, Eva, and Lucifer throughout the entire main campaign.
In Freespace 1 it felt like a game of chess, with a finite amount of resources, and even the loss of pawns was felt. In Freespace 2, strategy was mostly "We're going to throw a fleet at it and hope it goes away."
That being said, it's still strangely satisfying watching Shivans get massacred by massed Aeolus fire.
-
Sure, capital ships in FS1 were a big deal...until you get shields. The moment you do, cruisers are worthless. They couldn't hurt you if they tried, except if you're getting hit in a HTL Herc with a faulty shield mesh...
A destroyer is equally pathetic. I mean, I killed the 'fearsome' SD Eva by shutting off my engines, holding down my fire button, and turning on 64x time compression until it died. I would hardly call that a "threat". :doubt:
At least capital ships can hurt your in FS2 with the beams and flak. Noone's going to sit still and pound an Aeolus until it dies with primaries on time compression (barring disarming it with trebs, which I really don't like doing)
However, that comparison was from FSport, and I'm not sure if the original game is any better, as I haven't ever played it. (frankly, I found the FS1 missions in FSPort rather boring...there weren't even pretty lightshows to look at. :nervous:)
-
In a way, it's like by Freespace 2, you're so desensitized by death and destruction that you fail to even realize or care that a large city's worth of people died in that last blockade mission. Nothing really has an identity anymore, not even the destroyers, save for perhaps the Bastion, Aquitaine, and Psamtik. Compare that to Freespace 1, where you basically heard about the Galatea, Bastion, Eva, and Lucifer throughout the entire main campaign.
In Freespace 1 it felt like a game of chess, with a finite amount of resources, and even the loss of pawns was felt. In Freespace 2, strategy was mostly "We're going to throw a fleet at it and hope it goes away."
That being said, it's still strangely satisfying watching Shivans get massacred by massed Aeolus fire.
That brings to mind one of the problems with most user-made campaigns. A lot of people want to give ships more character, but in order to have the ship involved regularly they have to throw realism out the window and either have ships repaired very quickly (ie Rogue Intentions I), or simply regenerating on a mission by mission basis (ie Homesick). Though to be fair RI does a fairly good job of making things close to believable.
And you say that in FS2, not many ships have identity. But the simple fact is you rarely see the same ship twice. So its hard to feel anything for them. Over the course of the campaign for example, there must be what, 7 different Sobeks at least? But I can't remember any of them. The FREDder literally has to invoke emotion or sympathy in the player with only 1 or 2 lines of dialogue and it rarely works. Though for me, there's one notable exception. The what is it. . . 4th to last mission, where Alpha 1 gets his final promotion, the opening scene of a crippled Sobek and a Moloch flailing at eachother in their final death throes is one of my favourite moments in FS2. Though the mission itself, turns out to be not all that memorable.
Meanwhile other campaigns (my own included) fill missions with minutes of dialogue in order to try and create some story and character for different vessels. But this isn't necessarily interesting either. Creating story and character for vessels and making it believable yet not boring is one of the larger challenges in FS2 campaigns I think.
Sure, capital ships in FS1 were a big deal...until you get shields. The moment you do, cruisers are worthless. They couldn't hurt you if they tried, except if you're getting hit in a HTL Herc with a faulty shield mesh...
A destroyer is equally pathetic. I mean, I killed the 'fearsome' SD Eva by shutting off my engines, holding down my fire button, and turning on 64x time compression until it died. I would hardly call that a "threat". :doubt:
I wonder if the shields in FS1 were more leaky than others. Because when a fighter got hit by a blob it usually hurt. There's no 64x time compression either. Though in both games, it's really the fighters that are the threat not the ships. With the possible exception of the Aeolus.
-
Even the Adv. Effects BFRed?
It looks the same as the standard BFRed. EIther that or my adveffects.vp is smoking a different kind of crack. :p
-
Even the Adv. Effects BFRed?
It looks the same as the standard BFRed. EIther that or my adveffects.vp is smoking a different kind of crack. :p
Should look something like this:
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,25406.msg1134535.html#msg1134535
(though that's not a particularly good shot of the rippling energy stuff...
-
Oh come on.
FS2's atmosphere was like a turkey shoot or a mock battle compared to FS1's. In FS2 I always felt the situation was under control, and the Shivans never even broke through to Epsilon Pegasi or Vega. In fact they were less of a challenge to defeat than the NTF, their fighters were piss weak and they didn't seem anywhere near as cool as the FS1 Shivans. The tacky nebula and weird color changing effects of the Subach HL-7 gave a really weird "This is just a game" feel.
I disagree entirely, but I don't think it's because you're stupid or anything. I felt that FS1 felt like the turkey shoot or mock battle and FS2 seemed much more urgent. The diversity of perception!
Perhaps because I played FS2 first?
[ause they didn't really try. We all saw the juggernauts - they could have exterminated us if they'd wanted to. FS2's Shivans were, to me, actually far more interesting than FS1's because I got the distinct impression that we weren't their main concern. They had bigger things to deal with and we were just a thorn in their side. That feeling of smallness, of being almost irrelevant, was far more meaningful to me than anything FS1 evoked.
Yes, yes! I agree. Also, the general 'moral' of the FS2 story is about the dangers of hubris. That's why the GTVA had to succeed for a while, from a narrative perspective.
Plus, it's clever, because I think many fans probably expected a bravura counterstrike against the Shivans after FS1, and for a while FS2 seemed set to deliver on that. And then it shoved the cosmic nothingness of mankind right into the player's face.
-
It also didn't fall into the "The enemy are back, with a bigger weapon. But you'll figure out how to beat that one too by the end" trap that so many sequels fall into. That's something fairly new in comparison with FS1's plotline.
-
In Freespace 1 it felt like a game of chess, with a finite amount of resources, and even the loss of pawns was felt. In Freespace 2, strategy was mostly "We're going to throw a fleet at it and hope it goes away."
But that's not a gameplay issue. It's a storytelling one.
As long as we're waxing long on atmospherics, to be blunt I've seen scenario packs for Harpoon Classic that tear either FS to shreds on this. One I recall in particular was basically the chronicle of the Royal Norwegian Navy during a general war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Even with Harpoon's very serious storytelling limitations (basically, all you got was the scenario-select screen briefing texts) and being unable to really track the status of ships from scenario to scenario, it conveyed the feeling of being overwhelmed that FS1 was reaching for (and admittedly, achieved) far, far better. Some of the official expansions were single set campaigns as well, and they were good; good enough I remember them more clearly than any of the missions for either FreeSpace. (I can probably name more Harpoon Classic scenarios then I can FS missions...and it's no accident a number of my own borrow their names; FS1 and FS2 often took a turn for the too obscure.)
Now, this isn't totally tangential. It brings me to the real problem with FreeSpace in this sense: scale.
FreeSpace, both of them, is trying to tell a story from a viewpoint where you can't see its shape. The view from your cockpit is a tiny one, encompassing very little space or time. This is partly, or perhaps entirely, its own fault, because FS has the tools to widen the viewpoint. Harpoon Classic does it with nothing more than its own equivalent of command briefings. (And that's all it has!) FreeSpace 1 came closer to the Harpoon model with its CBs the FS2 did, because it kept you more informed on the goings-on outside your tiny viewpoint, and consequently, it better conveyed its choice of atmospherics and scale. FS2 is replete with ships you never see again, cruisers and even destroyers going up in flames, and so on because the designers veered in a different direction in trying to convey the sense of scale and atmosphere. Instead of trying to create the illusion of a war off the screen, they tried to compact the war entirely onto the screen. This was seriously detrimental, as doing so gave the player ridiculous power since they're always present and usually involved and lead to the jadedness WMC aludes to. But there is worse.
Alpha 1's experience was supposed to be, well, everything. But they couldn't make it that way because of the scale of the view from your cockpit; that Alpha 1 missed absolutely nothing in a campaign as large and as long as FS2 portrays is impossible. They tried to make some concessions to this early in FS2, and there was an occasional spasm of it later on (the command brief detailing the NTF's suicide run to Gamma Drac comes to mind), but in the end they simply couldn't accomplish what they set out to accomplish storywise and cram everything into the view from a fightercraft cockpit. Even making the effort seriously damaged conveying the story to the player.
...And I think I've broken some sort of cosmic writer's law by finding a situation where you should have told rather than shown.
-
So is FS1 the introduction of a new race that could destroy the GTA/PVN in a blink with the Lucifer with the objective of "SAVE YOUR RACE, OR YOU'LL END UP LIKE THE ANCIENTS", superior forces etc, but FS2 is more of a information campaign, with missions implying Shivans have a bigger enemy, or they have some hidden objective hidden up their sleeve.
-
In Freespace 1 it felt like a game of chess, with a finite amount of resources, and even the loss of pawns was felt. In Freespace 2, strategy was mostly "We're going to throw a fleet at it and hope it goes away."
But that's not a gameplay issue. It's a storytelling one.
As long as we're waxing long on atmospherics, to be blunt I've seen scenario packs for Harpoon Classic that tear either FS to shreds on this. One I recall in particular was basically the chronicle of the Royal Norwegian Navy during a general war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Even with Harpoon's very serious storytelling limitations (basically, all you got was the scenario-select screen briefing texts) and being unable to really track the status of ships from scenario to scenario, it conveyed the feeling of being overwhelmed that FS1 was reaching for (and admittedly, achieved) far, far better. Some of the official expansions were single set campaigns as well, and they were good; good enough I remember them more clearly than any of the missions for either FreeSpace. (I can probably name more Harpoon Classic scenarios then I can FS missions...and it's no accident a number of my own borrow their names; FS1 and FS2 often took a turn for the too obscure.)
Now, this isn't totally tangential. It brings me to the real problem with FreeSpace in this sense: scale.
FreeSpace, both of them, is trying to tell a story from a viewpoint where you can't see its shape. The view from your cockpit is a tiny one, encompassing very little space or time. This is partly, or perhaps entirely, its own fault, because FS has the tools to widen the viewpoint. Harpoon Classic does it with nothing more than its own equivalent of command briefings. (And that's all it has!) FreeSpace 1 came closer to the Harpoon model with its CBs the FS2 did, because it kept you more informed on the goings-on outside your tiny viewpoint, and consequently, it better conveyed its choice of atmospherics and scale. FS2 is replete with ships you never see again, cruisers and even destroyers going up in flames, and so on because the designers veered in a different direction in trying to convey the sense of scale and atmosphere. Instead of trying to create the illusion of a war off the screen, they tried to compact the war entirely onto the screen. This was seriously detrimental, as doing so gave the player ridiculous power since they're always present and usually involved and lead to the jadedness WMC aludes to. But there is worse.
Alpha 1's experience was supposed to be, well, everything. But they couldn't make it that way because of the scale of the view from your cockpit; that Alpha 1 missed absolutely nothing in a campaign as large and as long as FS2 portrays is impossible. They tried to make some concessions to this early in FS2, and there was an occasional spasm of it later on (the command brief detailing the NTF's suicide run to Gamma Drac comes to mind), but in the end they simply couldn't accomplish what they set out to accomplish storywise and cram everything into the view from a fightercraft cockpit. Even making the effort seriously damaged conveying the story to the player.
...And I think I've broken some sort of cosmic writer's law by finding a situation where you should have told rather than shown.
I loved Harpoon.
Again, though, I have to say that I thought FS2 succeeded perfectly in storytelling. The fact that the cockpit presents only a tiny slice of the war was perfect in making the player feel small, almost insignificant. And I thought the chaos -- 'cruisers and destroyers going up in flames' -- just implied that the war at large was furious. I also thought the command briefings were much better than FS2.
It's easy to become jaded and believe that the player has too much power in FS2 -- but when playing on Hard or Insane it's simply not true. Even a Fenris is dangerous.
So, yes, I just want to say that a lot of this analysis is obviously a matter of opinion.
-
I remember getting both games when they first came out. I was a fanboy of FS1 for the longest time but FS2 pretty much conquered in superiority. Graphics, beams, squads, bigger ships, and the music - all had me sold on FS2 being overall the greater one.
Aside from the Lucifer, anything bigger than a bomber was pretty much rendered useless in FS1 (other than playing a role story-wise). FS1 secondaries were crap. I probably wasted 80% of my secondary firepower on fighters and bombers because of the lack of maneuverability of each missile. I was really glad Volition improved this in FS2.
Also, I'm really glad FS2 actually had humanistic characters as an element of the story: names that were referenced throughout the campaign and playing a major role. (Petrarch, Bosch, Snipes, and Khafre - to an extent)
In FS1 it's like "I'm so and so... here's what you're doing in this mission. And you'll never hear mention of my name again." In FS2 it's like "I'm so and so and you know who is up to no good. Or they might be in trouble." etc.
Might I add, the Ancients' cutscenes initially did not make sense to me until the campaign actually made reference of "an extinct race known as the 'Ancients'". So then I found myself replaying those cutscenes, trying to figure out what part of the story I have been missing because I didn't understand who the Ancients were.
-
I have to say the Ancient cutscenes were pretty unimpressive compared to the Bosch monologues. I think they must have had a different writer, because man that Ancient monologue was clunky.
-
I have to say the Ancient cutscenes were pretty unimpressive compared to the Bosch monologues. I think they must have had a different writer, because man that Ancient monologue was clunky.
I was just confused by them the first time I played the game. It was not at all clear what events they were referring to or whose point of view they were representing, since the Ancients are introduced fairly late in the game.
-
I loved Harpoon.
Again, though, I have to say that I thought FS2 succeeded perfectly in storytelling. The fact that the cockpit presents only a tiny slice of the war was perfect in making the player feel small, almost insignificant. And I thought the chaos -- 'cruisers and destroyers going up in flames' -- just implied that the war at large was furious. I also thought the command briefings were much better than FS2.
It's easy to become jaded and believe that the player has too much power in FS2 -- but when playing on Hard or Insane it's simply not true. Even a Fenris is dangerous.
So, yes, I just want to say that a lot of this analysis is obviously a matter of opinion.
Perhaps, but you were present at literally every major event in FS2. (This has a side-effect of making some missions, like Dunkerque or Into the Maelstrom, feel ever so slightly filler-like compared to the momentous events of The Sixth Wonder or High Noon.) One of the defining moments of FS1, the Siege of Vasuda Prime, was something that you didn't see at all.
Personally, I am of the opinion that FS2 had a vastly superior story going for it, but the way the story was told was considerably less well-handled than in FS1, with the end result that the two come out close to equal; maybe a slight edge to FS2 if I'm feeling charitable. Of course it's quite arguable that story and storytelling are inseperable characteristics, facets of the same whole. This is so far the only case I've seen where the execution and the ideas appear to be so disconnected.