Originally posted by Jake101
Something tells me that I perhaps shouldn't have deleted my old campaign I was working on, which was going to be for both FS2 and FS1. FS1 does have a better atmosphere. The animation and cutscenes is also smoother. I hope that future campaigns will capture the essence of FS1, which was a lot more vast, terrifying, and dazzling.
I'd have to respectfully disagree with you there. I just finished replaying the main FS2 campaign; I then went back and replayed the FS1 Port. After looking at both of them, I can honestly say that I believe FS2 has a much more realistic, dire mood to it. As good as FS1 is, it has a few too many "whatever" missions that don't tie into the overall storyline; I'm talking about your average "destroy cargo depot/escort ships" missions. While FS2 did have a few of these missions, overall, most of the missions you flew directly tied into what was going on in the storyline, giving it a greater sense of realism. I'd also have to say that, as intimidating as the Lucifer was, I think the Sathanas has it beat by a hair; it's just something about seeing those four...massive...beams. The addition of the SOC missions in FS2 was another great example of the addition of more depth. What really convinced me, though, was the voiceacting in FS2, particularly Robert Loggia as Petrarch; his command briefings were hands-down the best out of either game and really made you feel like you were that one small soldier, fighting an insurmountable enemy. The voiceactor for Snipes also did a superb job; the missions with him had the most natural chatter of any mission in either game. There were some other instances, too, such as Alpha 2 getting royally pissed at Command in the third mission or so.
I've heard a lot of people say that FS1 has the better atmosphere, but after this latest replay, I'm convinced that FS2 has that extra something that puts it on top.