[Lucika]

Which is the best? FS1 retail, FS2 retail or... what if?

[Snail]

What's the point in this thread?

[Rodo]

let's see... I say better FS1.

the hole "new species" and "total evil" really punched me hard, but that's just me.

[azile0]

He's suggesting a FS3. Or that he's asking if you would prefer FS2 as "Another Great War".

[Rodo]

well... If I understand correctly he's just asking what version of FS universe you like the most.. just like asking if you like better transcend or sync... really basic question.

[Snail]

But why is What If - Another Great War, some random campaign by SF-Junky (a very buggy one I may add) the only campaign up there?

[Rodo]

but What if is a version of FS1 campaign, all other campaigns are completely non-cannon stuff, he's asking what version of FS you like the most.

[Snail]

Canon FS1.

[Grizzly]

Canon FS1 for me too, somehow because the bonus and secondary mission objectives were more neat .
(And the atmosphere was ... scarier).

[Charismatic]

they were both good, but i voted What if.

[General Battuta]

It's interesting.

It seems that most people who played FS1 first prefer FS1, and that most people who played FS2 first play FS2.

I always thought FS2 had a fascinating story and great atmosphere -- all about human hubris in the face of a vast and uncaring cosmos. FS1 seemed trite, shallow, and uninspired by comparison.

[Snail]

In FS1 things seemed a lot more fluid. In FS2 it was all over the place and it seemed a lot less refined.

For example, in FS1, you were fighting the same campaign all the time. There were different enemies, but there was a definite sense of momentum behind the missions. With FS2 on the other hand I never got that feeling since I was jumping from NTF to Shivans and back randomly. In FS1 all the ships seemed 'unified' in design, whereas in FS2 there was a serious rift.

[Mobius]

For example, in FS1, you were fighting the same campaign all the time. There were different enemies, but there was a definite sense of momentum behind the missions. With FS2 on the other hand I never got that feeling since I was jumping from NTF to Shivans and back randomly.

Why would this be a bad thing?

In FS1 all the ships seemed 'unified' in design, whereas in FS2 there was a serious rift.

Same as above.

[General Battuta]

In FS1 things seemed a lot more fluid. In FS2 it was all over the place and it seemed a lot less refined.

For example, in FS1, you were fighting the same campaign all the time. There were different enemies, but there was a definite sense of momentum behind the missions. With FS2 on the other hand I never got that feeling since I was jumping from NTF to Shivans and back randomly. In FS1 all the ships seemed 'unified' in design, whereas in FS2 there was a serious rift.

Hrm. I liked the war-on-two-fronts business, especially since the two storylines converged. FS1 felt simplistic by comparison.

But I really agree about the ship designs. FS1's were largely better.

[Macfie]

I liked FS-1 because there was more of a feeling of desperation.  It just seemed there was more at risk.  In FS-2 the Sathanus didn't seem as intimidating as the Lucifer and it wasn't invulnerable.

[Lucika]

For me, FS1 was was like: "Oh my god we are doomed what should we do?"
FS2: "Hey, there are Shivans. Okay. Kill'em. Oh, there are more of them than us? Retreat. No desperation."

[Roanoke]

Probably FS1 but I'd play FS2 far more often.

[General Battuta]

I had the opposite experience. FS1 wasn't desperate because we won: the Lucifer went down right in the nick of time, as usual.

In FS2 all our best efforts were useless and all we could do was hide.

[Lucika]

I had the opposite experience. FS1 wasn't desperate because we won: the Lucifer went down right in the nick of time, as usual.

In FS2 all our best efforts were useless and all we could do was hide.

Come on! Did you EVER feel desperateness and loneliness in FS2?

[Commander Zane]

When you purposely have every fighter / bomber in the field go home, yes.