Vote for SC2!

Quote:

---

So you're saying that if Valve had actually released some half-assed form of multiplayer to go along with Portal completely separate from its single player, the game would deserve a LOWER score? Sounds pretty fishy to me. If a game deserves a 10/10 and then adds something mediocre, mediocre or not that feature is still a bonus ON TOP OF the 10/10.

Just because SC2 has a single player and a multiplayer doesn't mean both are just as important in determining the game's intrinsic value, or its worth to gaming, and should be weighed equally. I can't begin to imagine what the appropriate split ought to be (50/50, 80/20, 100/0), but the very fact that that this is up for debate puts your grade school math logic to rest.

---

I completely agree with this. First of all, Starcraft 2's SP isn't even half-assed, it's just mediocre compared to its multiplayer. However, if the game's multiplayer is groundbreaking and phenomenal then its SP shouldn't be weighed equally.

If all aspects should be weighed equally, then Red Dead Redemption deserves a much lower score as its multiplayer is clearly a just-for-fun addition to a game that was primarily meant to be single player. If both were rated equally as many of you are suggesting, then Red Read Redemption's overall rating should plummet cuz its multiplayer is incomparable to Reach, SC2, Black Ops, etc...

That's ridiculous as single player or multiplayer can be simple additions to the primary intentions of a particular game. IMO, Starcraft is primarily a multiplayer game, and therefore it should be judged more so based on that aspect than single player, as should Reach, Black Ops, etc...

And games like Red Dead Redemption should be judged primarily on single player as that is clearly the main portion of the game.

If either the mutiplayer or single player portions of a game are going to be half-asses, mediocre, or a just-for-fun feature, than shouldn't that part of the game be scrapped and the effort and resources spent on it better suited to further improving the better part of the game? Single player and multiplayer behave like completely different games and could easily be sold separately as such. If you're going to box them as one then both should be evaluated together as a package.

if the game is designed for the multiplayer, than it should have mp only and rated for it
if the game is designed for both mp and sp it should be rated for both no matter what people say, if you rate the sp only or seperatly, note it in your review
thats a fact, people who think otherwise are biased and they didn't write a damn review in their life

How old are you spychi?

22 years old why do you ask?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norfindel

It's a subjective evaluation, not just a mathematical sum of all the aspects that a game could have.

---

I'm surprised that you can agree with DS after claiming that it's a 'subjective evaluation.' His point is that there's nothing subjective about it. If the game has features X and features Y you're supposed to put the two together and average it out, regardless of the fact that feature X may have been added with a specific goal in mind that ALLOWS it to be half-assed, ie, catering to a minority that would be upset if this feature didn't exist, when the majority doesn't care about it.

Quote:

---

If either the mutiplayer or single player portions of a game are going to be half-asses, mediocre, or a just-for-fun feature, than shouldn't that part of the game be scrapped and the effort and resources spent on it better suited to further improving the better part of the game? Single player and multiplayer behave like completely different games and could easily be sold separately as such. If you're going to box them as one then both should be evaluated together as a package.

---

So Red Dead Redemption is a shitty game because its multiplayer sucks?
So Half-Life 2 was a shitty game because its multiplayer sucked?
So Left 4 Dead was a shitty game because its single player sucked?
So GTA3: SA was a shitty game because its multiplayer sucked?
So Bioshock 2 is a shitty game because its multiplayer sucks?
So all of the Civilization games suck because their multiplayer is an afterthought? How about the Age of Empires series, where some factions made others absolutely unplayable? How about Quake 3 with its mindless duel single player?

And these are just the extreme examples, where one half is at least pretty good, if not friggin' awesome, and the other just straight-up blows. What about all the games where the bad half isn't bad, it's just not as good as some expected -- a la SC2?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pure.Wasted

So Red Dead Redemption is a shitty game because its multiplayer sucks?
So Half-Life 2 was a shitty game because its multiplayer sucked?
So Left 4 Dead was a shitty game because its single player sucked?
So GTA3: SA was a shitty game because its multiplayer sucked?
So Bioshock 2 is a shitty game because its multiplayer sucks?
So all of the Civilization games suck because their multiplayer is an afterthought? How about the Age of Empires series, where some factions made others absolutely unplayable? How about Quake 3 with its mindless duel single player?

And these are just the extreme examples, where one half is at least pretty good, if not friggin' awesome, and the other just straight-up blows. What about all the games where the bad half isn't bad, it's just not as good as some expected -- a la SC2?

---

As a whole, they are lesser games than they could be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

As a whole, they are lesser games than they could be.

---

BioShock is also a lesser game than it could be if the devs had simply taken two years to make up a really friggin' awesome multiplayer mode for it.

That potential is always there. So what now? BioShock doesn't get GOTY because it doesn't have a multiplayer, when a multiplayer for BioShock could have been the greatest thing in the world?

Can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

As a whole, they are lesser games than they could be.

---

No not at all. Take custom maps in SC2 for example. Many of those are silly games made just for fun. It doesn't take anything away from the time Blizz put into making multiplayer the best e-sport in the world. So should crappy custom maps also lower a rating of SC2? I mean it's a company offering more and more features for the same price of a game that refuses to add these things. Why should they be pentalized for that?

I read rumors that if SC2 wins the whole thing it would get its own show on g4. Would be nice having SC2 on tv. So i hope it wins.

DSquid is the same person who admitted that StarCraft was a 7/10 because it was lower than his expectations while Mass Effect was a 9 because he had no previous expectations.
You cannot rationalize with DSquid or Spychi (aka Ferrous Cranous)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pure.Wasted

I'm surprised that you can agree with DS after claiming that it's a 'subjective evaluation.' His point is that there's nothing subjective about it. If the game has features X and features Y you're supposed to put the two together and average it out, regardless of the fact that feature X may have been added with a specific goal in mind that ALLOWS it to be half-assed, ie, catering to a minority that would be upset if this feature didn't exist, when the majority doesn't care about it.

---

When he says:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

Portal didn't have a multiplayer component to separate the scores. It was evaluated as a single player whole, as it should be. SC2 is both a single player and multiplayer game and both can be evaluated to determine the worth of the game as a whole.

---

i take that as "Portal has no multiplayer. Wasn't intended to have one, so it was evaluated as a single player game". To me that's part of a subjective interpretation of the game. It isn't the same to have a game like Portal without multiplayer than an RTS without multiplayer. It's understandable why Portal didn't have it, but nowadays who's going to buy an RTS without MP? With a mathematical approach, Portal had no MP, so even if it's SP is 10, as MP is 0, that would average to 5.

Of course, i may have misinterpreted him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norfindel

Of course, i may have misinterpreted him.

---

You did not.

Norfindel gives you too much credit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norfindel

When he says:


i take that as "Portal has no multiplayer. Wasn't intended to have one, so it was evaluated as a single player game". To me that's part of a subjective interpretation of the game. It isn't the same to have a game like Portal without multiplayer than an RTS without multiplayer. It's understandable why Portal didn't have it, but nowadays who's going to buy an RTS without MP? With a mathematical approach, Portal had no MP, so even if it's SP is 10, as MP is 0, that would average to 5.

Of course, i may have misinterpreted him.

---

Care to comment on the list of games I drew up a few posts back?

I guess Red Dead Redemption deserves a 3/10.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TychusFindlay

You cannot rationalize with DSquid or Spychi (aka Ferrous Cranous)

---

you disagree with everything I have to say or DS without having a valid reason or point, it looks like you are the Ferrous Cranous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pure.Wasted

Care to comment on the list of games I drew up a few posts back?

I guess Red Dead Redemption deserves a 3/10.

---

I only played the SP of Half-life 2, so cannot comment on the MP.
Civilization, i seen my brother play it, and almost fall asleep.
Never liked the "Age of" series. After playing SC they're boring.
Quake 3 losses some points for really not having a SP, it's just a predefined MP against the CPU that loads a map after another, while all it's predecessors had SP. It's very dynamic for MP, however. I prefer the DooM series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spychi

I am right, the game should be rated as a whole, never otherwise, you need rate every aspect of the game and than pull an average of all scores

---

To a certain extent, yes, if other games in the genre have set the standard that it should have an MP of a certain quality than it could lose a few points for not having it. However, if a game decides to perfect the SP (10/10) but leaves out the MP (0/10) then it is illogical to expect the game to deserve a 5/10.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

Could someone please tell Tychus not to respond to my posts, because I have him blocked and thus don't read anything that seeps out of his facehole.

---

Unfortunately that's how life is DemoSquid. While you may ignore him, you have no control over his actions no matter how informed he may be. If you are truly ignoring him you wouldn't care if he responded or not. It's your choice that matters, not your impression of his choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

I'm surprised you haven't learned by now that my opinion is indeed fact.

Just like Blizzard's opinion that the Mothership should be useless is fact.

---

Unfortunately this is flawed in my eyes. Your opinion that your opinion is a fact... is merely your opinion

Just like Blizzard's opinion that the Mothership doesn't need more use... it is a fact that it is their opinion.

In this case their opinion is more respected and holds more value that others. They can also bring forth information to help support their opinion, but don't disillusion people with the way you interchange the words to reduce the value of opinions against you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spychi

you disagree with everything I have to say or DS without having a valid reason or point, it looks like you are the Ferrous Cranous

---

I would like to say that in my cause I don't disagree or agree blindly with you two as I've agreed and disagreed based on the point.

In this case I find me on the terms of both sides. I will agree that you two have full reason to state your opinion. I also disagree with your opinion. (Likewise, I disagree with people who are trying to prove your opinion false, it's a double-edged sword afterall)

I will be the first to say that the single-player itself I would give an 8. I found it enjoyable enough as a singular product. I will not go forward and say "This is a single part of a three part story" because I'm not judging the trilogy, I'm judging this portion of a trilogy. People don't go out and say "Oh, Lord of the Rings was an "ok" epic, but it'll make more sense and feel better as we get the other two novels." and that's the approach I'll move with.

I will say that by the same nature, I made sure not to compare this story with the first one in my impression. In comparison I would rate it a 6, MAYBE a 5. But by removing this comparison and enjoying the singleplayer for all it's worth, I found it better than DoW: Dark Crusade, which had a similar interface and gameplay model. The storyline in SC2 was far better though, especially with it's production value and involvement of character development.

In terms of the multiplayer I would personally rate it 9 between it's accessability, good focus on balance, excellent patch support, interface improvements (such as icon updates), custom map gameplay, overall good connectivity and other reasons I need not speak on. The only reason it lacks the final point in my eyes is improvements that could happen to the B.net interface and it's features that it may lack. Some of which is coming, such as chat, clans and community improvement. While other features seem to be on the wayside, such as the ability to join games as an observer while it's in progress, multiplayer replay support, delayed observer for coordinated commentary, joining disconnected games among other options.

Personally I feel that overall the product is a great product and if you want to judge it as an individual item. If you take these together it would be an 8.5. There ya go, 100% my thoughts and why I'm voting for it in this competition.

I've ALSO heard the rumor that a new show regarding gaming is coming out with the results of this contest will contribute to their consumer data research. That possibility alone will make me vote for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TychusFindlay

To a certain extent, yes, if other games in the genre have set the standard that it should have an MP of a certain quality than it could lose a few points for not having it. However, if a game decides to perfect the SP (10/10) but leaves out the MP (0/10) then it is illogical to expect the game to deserve a 5/10.

---

Tychus, I'm not stating that you're incorrect or correct, or rather any point of this silly situation in this thread is one way or another. It's just that the basis of the argument is not fully explained.

Generally for critics they approach games with specific review types. Some people do single-player reviews, others do multi-player reviews. Some do entire package reviews, even if the packages may be perceived as "incomplete". Of these reviews, they are mostly taken in a more grey spectrum where the weight of the review is exposed on how the features are perceived.

In this case, Demo/Spychi are placing 50% weight on each singleplayer and Multiplayer, which is against the industry norm. [EDIT: They are most likely using this moreso as an example of a review and potentially not even are sharing their own personal review scores. This could be their way of trying to enlighten people to another view other than the ones they hold... in terms of the benefit of the doubt] This is probably why the majority of people are "disagreeing with them". Because they are approaching it in a manner that is appealing to the way they view it, but is significantly against industry normality in terms of critiquing a product. (As a side note, some reviews will show they put weight of a product as a part of a whole series while others put zero weight on this, enabling them to review the product as an individual item.) This is why some critics say "No multiplayer is included in this singleplayer adventure, no points lost" while another reviewer may say that the lack of multiplayer would be justified in removing 2 points. A third may say that the lack of multiplayer would normally warrant no point lost, but they will give it a point lost as it's a feature that was removed from a prior game. There are so many ways to place weights to a review, which is why it's better to take an opinionated review, call it an opinion and move on...

SIDE NOTE: Want a great example? Read some of these reviews for The Last Airbender.. despite the fact that the entire community for it is literally split down the center as "best movie they've ever seen" to "They completely bastardized the series!". This is far different than the perception of the critics which almost universally dislike the series. This doesn't mean the 6% who said it was a great movie are wrong, it means that the value/weight of their opinions are different than the majority, and I'm sure they still hold it firmly. When you compare the critic score of 6% to the community, it will never match as there are FAR MORE than 6% of the population who watched it which enjoyed it. (Truth be told, I'm not part of it, but I digress)

The weights that should be placed in features of a product is something people will always disagree on and rightly so cause it's completely opinionated and will never be agreed upon in terms of discussions like this. When you realize this, I advise the best angle of approach is to merely accept that even if you feel an opposing weight scale of critique is far different than the way you see it, use it to understand them and not try to force yours to their knowledge. The biggest folly would be to try to share your self-perceived valid opinion upon a person who could also be self-percieved as ignorant. [EDIT: I'm not calling anyone on anyside as ignorant or valid, merely stating that it could be fully the way a person perceives the matter]

That's my direct advice to you and anyone else. I happily encourage people to quote this post the moment they feel that people are going too far to disrespect each other in this thread, because while what I'm saying about people needing to calm down their own sides is my opinion, the information regarding industry critic weights is rather factual and informative. I believe the discussion so far lacking that information is what's causing this "back and forth war" to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spychi

you disagree with everything I have to say or DS without having a valid reason or point, it looks like you are the Ferrous Cranous

---

That's because both of you come up with some of the worst ideas imaginable. You and Squid are terrible, terrible Ferrous Craneuses. That's why Squid often times has some of the most imbalanced "balance" ideas that, if implemented, would destroy the game. He refuses to listen to reason or to accept criticism. Every idea he has is a fact and correct regardless of its contents. Your ideas, however, are far worse as, if they were to come true, would destroy the free world and all of the progress that mankind has achieved. Anarchy? Let every man do as he wants? Give me a break.

And, I ALWAYS back up my point. The fact that you think otherwise proves your generally acceptable title of Ferrous Craneus. Despite me giving you numerous walls of text countering your "opinion", all you read was "I have an agenda against you" and completely ignore the content of the post. That's why I don't bother with either of you anymore and why you have been labeled the way you have. There's a reason half of the forum immediately labeled you as the Ferrous Craneus in that topic. Unfortunately, you wouldn't be deserving of your title if you didn't ignore it simply because it offends you.

"If one person calls you a horse— laugh at him. If a second person calls you a horse— think about it. If a third person calls you a horse— buy a saddle."

Neither of you will ever be successful if you cannot learn to analyze yourself and to accept criticism. Critics are your friends in that they make you better if their points are valid. Clearly seen by rational minds, ours are valid as we give evidence and sociological/political/scientific proofs to back it up. Yours, however, are based on wild emotion and fantasy.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TychusFindlay

"If one person calls you a horse— laugh at him. If a second person calls you a horse— think about it. If a third person calls you a horse— buy a saddle."

---

or maybe everone else think not rationally but me and DS?
take such POV because I see in my posts valid points put from every perspective I can imagine, I don't side with people I like if they have invalid points, I have my own POV and I usually support them with facts
how people want to write reviews is not my problem, the problem is when people give too much credit because they are fans of the series, just like most people here give too much credit for SC2 which isn't rational thinking
the way I see reviews is to be completly neutral with the series, see all the cons and pros you can see (and even those you don't want to see), give the score for both mp and sp (if available) and pull an average from it
then you have a rate that is objective enough to be belivable
if you want to rate both parts of the game separately, sure go ahead but note this in your review

Did Tychus really just call me a horse? Has he been looking though my underwear?

Well, obviously we have a peeping tom on SC:L. He’s climbin’ in your windows, he’s snatchin’ your people up, tryin’ to peep at ‘em. So y’all need to hide your kids, hide your wife, and hide your husband cause they’re peepin at’ everybody out here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spychi

or maybe everone else think not rationally but me and DS?
take such POV because I see in my posts valid points put from every perspective I can imagine, I don't side with people I like if they have invalid points, I have my own POV and I usually support them with facts
how people want to write reviews is not my problem, the problem is when people give too much credit because they are fans of the series, just like most people here give too much credit for SC2 which isn't rational thinking
the way I see reviews is to be completly neutral with the series, see all the cons and pros you can see (and even those you don't want to see), give the score for both mp and sp (if available) and pull an average from it
then you have a rate that is objective enough to be belivable
if you want to rate both parts of the game separately, sure go ahead but note this in your review

---

@Spychi:
Since a lot of your comments regard reviews, I suspect you read my wall of text. Let me know if you didn't.

I hope you don't count me as one of the people who basically skewed his opinion due to being a "fanboi". I honestly feel the game, on it's own, stands well. Obviously if I was being more of a fanboi I honestly would have ranked it at minimum a 9... most likely more.

@Tychus
I advise you to take a step back and consider why you're continuing this conversation. I'm not suggesting you should stop it, but I think it will help you explore better discussion in this thread. If your intent is to share your side, consider if you've done that or how to do it better. If your intent is to belittle another's opinion because you believe differently, do you think it will bring progress in this instance? Remember, the definition of insanity is trying to do the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

Did Tychus really just call me a horse? Has he been looking though my underwear?

Well, obviously we have a peeping tom on SC:L. He’s climbin’ in your windows, he’s snatchin’ your people up, tryin’ to peep at ‘em. So y’all need to hide your kids, hide your wife, and hide your husband cause they’re peepin at’ everybody out here.

---

@Demo:
Man... I really don't want to egg you on. I mean, I truly don't want to....

But this line wins. Great reference.

Hidden Content:

WARNING: This shit will get stuck in your head as much as "Banelings"... DO NOT SAY I DIDN'T WARN YOU!

Ok, it's official. StarCraft 2 reached the finals. And honestly, I can't agree more that if it's gonna be a popularity contest, it's gonna be as badass as this one...

StarCraft 2 vs Mass Effect 2

[In before Spychi rant]

Hope SC2 takes the final. ME2 was a huge disappointment , and doesn't even deserve to be in the finals at all. Its one of the rare games i played this year and didn't even bother to finish it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perfecttear

Hope SC2 takes the final. ME2 was a huge disappointment , and doesn't even deserve to be in the finals at all. Its one of the rare games i played this year and didn't even bother to finish it.

---

Everytime you don't kill the human-reaper larva, a puppy dies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perfecttear

Hope SC2 takes the final. ME2 was a huge disappointment , and doesn't even deserve to be in the finals at all. Its one of the rare games i played this year and didn't even bother to finish it.

---

MASS EFFECT 2 pwns STARCRAFT 2!!

Best game of the year!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broodmywarcraft

MASS EFFECT 2 pwns STARCRAFT 2!!

Best game of the year!!

---

QFT, SC 2 should not even be mentioned

Haha , i had a hunch this would hapen :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spychi

QFT, SC 2 should not even be mentioned

---

It's funny because ME2 is guilty of a lot of the same flaws as SCII. Except ME2 has no terrific MP to compensate for the very problematic campaign. This 6 part youtube video explains the problems

How you guys can have totally different opinions of games that have so many flaws in common is a mystery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis

It's funny because ME2 is guilty of a lot of the same flaws as SCII. Except ME2 has no terrific MP to make up for the shitty main plot and nonsensical structure and execution.

---

thats your opinion lol
if ME2 would have the same flaws as SC2 I wouldn't have a +150hour (or even more) experience
the game is awesome, has epic voice acting, excellent writing, it's more of a shooter than ME1, but there is more action than in ME1, yet both games are superbly done, there are small flaws in both ME1 and ME2, but the plot fixes everything

The plot was collecting a kick ass team of ass kickers who have a tacked on loyalty game mechanic which is weirdly implemented. And between all of this, you go fetch quests for some shady guy with robot eyes who Shepard, ah fuck it, just watch the youtube video. Short version is that the ME2 plot is of a low standard and hardly anything meaningful happened all the while.

Looking at g4, I'm pleasently surprised that neither side has resorted to trolling...or at least to the extent of earlier voting rounds. Hopefully this site will remain the same. And on the subject as to whether SC2 or ME2 is better...well, I'm in the mood for analysis. Exams are over and all that, so I have the time, and I would personally call it a difficult choice. Apologies in advance if this counts as hijacking a thread.

Note that I haven't played the entirety of ME2, as per my stuffed 360. However, I've familiarized myself with the storyline, thanks to the Internet. However, it's indeed a point to criticize my opinions if you so desire.

Section 1: Storyline

Part 1: General

General, in this case, refers to story as a whole. Which was better told, which was better written, which was better overall? The general consensus is that ME2 is superior. I can understand that view, but I think that it isn't as clear cut as what some people think. To start with, let's look at what I felt was ME2's shortcomings.

ME2, for starters, had a better storyline than ME2, in what can be chalked up to sequel syndrome. ME1 had to tell a story and set up a wider one, and does both well. I think this is mainly due to the three act format. Act 1 is the initial issue-Saren, the geth, hunting them down. Act 2 is the expansion of that issue, with the Reapers. Act 3 is the endgame, learning the final truths about the Reapers, Citadel and protheans, and drawing the story to a close. Each act complements each other. We get a sense of the galaxy, we get a good story and get resolution to each act. This, I think was well structured storytelling.

ME2, I felt, wasn't so clear cut, in that it was hard to tell when one act began and when one act ended. For the first, the initial goal was to stop Saren and we had a clear idea as to how to do that. For ME2, the goal was to stop the Collecters...but we went about it in a far more haphazard way. More open, if that's to your preference, but guidelines I think would have helped. There's also the fact that in ME1, the Reapers being drawn in was something that couldn't be predicted. For ME2, I guessed that the Collectors were protheans quite early. And there was the ending-the first, there was the Conduit, a change in the status quo. For ME2, there was...a human Reaper. Um, yay?

So yes. Good, but not as good. Which may be expected. Few sequels I find top the original, and that's because they have to strike a balance between old and new. So how does the first installment of a trilogy (SC2) stack up to the second (ME2)?

SC2, I think, comes somewhere in-between in format. It essentially has three acts-the first is Mar Sara, the third is everything from meeting Valerian and the second is everything in-between. The problem however, is that what's in-between doesn't connect that well to parts 1 and 3. Rather, the middle is the realm of side-stories. There's a logical progression in them, and going by dvd order, revealing Mengsk as the scumbag he is ties in well with meeting Valerian. In an instant, the Raiders have gone from success to dealing with the devil.

To be fair, I think the side missions were well thought out-each had their own progression, each told their own story, each had a conclusion. There's also the fact that for once, sidequests actually mean something. But think about what it would be like if this were a film or novel. How good is it for the writing to veer off into unknown, then return? To be fair, ME2 had something similar with the loyalty missions. They're their own stories, but don't really impact the main one. Still, those loyalty missions could come and go whenever they wanted. For SC2, those missions filled up something on their own. I think it would have worked better if somehow, they were all tied to the bigger picture, if only in mention. Remind people that there's a war going on, even if you are breaking open New Folsom.

In the end, it may come down to quality vs. quantity. ME2 is still good, but not as good as its predecessor. SC2 told its side-stories well, but left the middle a bit hazy. There's also another interesting contrast-for ME1, the stage was set, and ME2 had to follow that up. For SC2, the stage was only hinted at, and is set to expand. The trilogies effectively started off in completely different ways.

So which is the better story? Well, in all honesty, and this may come as a surprise, but I think SC2 may actually have it.:eek: Its sidestories are solid, if divergent, and it has distinct segments. ME2, while more cohesive, just felt like a typical sequal. It stumbles in the area that sequals usually stumble in. By the end of SC2, something's changed. By the end of ME2, we're effectively back at the same status quo, bar the Reapers saying "screw it, let's invade conventionally." SC2 tells a story in itself (Second Great War) and sets the stage for things to come. ME2 feels like a vague transition between ME1 and ME3.

Point 1 to SC2

Part 2: The Lead

In both SC2 and ME2, we're effectively playing as someone-Jim Raynor and Shepard respectively. So, which character is better to play as? Well, this is very much down to opinion and what kind of character you graviate to.

Shepard is, let's face it, a blank slate. However, the difference between characters such as Link (who's a good blank slate) and Mario (ugh...) is that he (I'll use he for ease of writing here) is a slate that's your slate. Shepard isn't Shepard. Shepard is you. You say what you want, do what you want and anyone who gets in your way should hope that you choose to be a paragon. Shepard is one of only a few player characters that I've ever felt connected to...and, you know, speaks. If Link is an example of how to do a silent protagonist, then Shepard is an example of how to do a vocal protagonist.

Raynor couldn't be more different. Raynor is a character in himself. He's got a long history fleshed out throughout the years, he has his own struggles, his own demons, his own pros and cons. In effect, he's more of a normal guy. Shepard can be an angel or demon, while Raynor is an effective mix of both. The question is, which helps the story better? Someone who you can control, or someone who's you, but not fully?

Well, in regards to actual character, I'd say Raynor is superior. He's got a longer history, he's less of a clear cut individual and...well, you connect with him more. In terms of driving forward the story however, Shepard may be superior. Raynor, in a sense, is following a story being written. Shepard is essentially writing it. While I feel that SC2 actually has a better story in general, Shepard's manner of telling it is more interesting. Raynor gives good speaches at various points, but Shepard, as per game mechanics, can give them in accordance with the player's wishes. It's an interesting, unique mechanic and it works well.

For this round, I'd say it's a tie. Raynor is the better character, but Shepard does a better job of driving the story.

Part 3: The Supporting Cast

ME2. I could leave it at that. But I won't. I'll explain a bit.

First, lets look at SC2's characters. I did feel connected to them, but there were a few issues. For the Hyperion, Horner, Findlay and even Lockwell are very good characters. They have backstories via other media, they're there for Raynor when he needs them (or in Lockwell's case, delivers some of the most humorous pro-Raiders tabloids I've seen) and one gets to understand them. The others...well, yeah, Tosh, Hanson and Swann we get to know, but not as well I think. Take Tosh for example. He hates the Dominion, but we don't really get that much of an indication as to why. We know his backstory, and I'm guessing his reasons will be fleshed out in Spectres, but that hasn't come out yet. It's not a case of lore ignorance, we have no way of knowing (e.g. I can't say "read the book!") His motives are mysterious, but we simply don't get them. Maybe we don't need them-he hates Mengsk, that's it. In light of the aftermath of liberating New Folsom, it's perhaps the entire theme that motives and goals are irrelevant. Still, Tosh, I think, should have been on par with Findlay and Matt. But outside his missions, he wasn't.

Valerian is another matter. Unlike Tosh, nothing is missing in Valerian's biography. There's no gaps in his life that hasn't been previously covered. He's an interesting person...that we don't get to see much. He's introduced, but almost fades to the background. I feel he should have had a lot more screentime.

SC2 characters, I think, are more interesting than most give them credit for. ME2 however, fleshes each character out. Some have appeared before, in games, novels, comics, etc., but they still feel fresh. It's arguably a case of squad dynamics as well. Point goes to ME2.

Part 4: The Villains

This is difficult...sort of. I feel that it's a case where SC2 comes on top, but actually requires explanation.

For ME2, it falters where ME1 succeeded. ME1 had Saren and Soveriegn. Saren is compelling, Soveriegn is intimidating. We feel their presence, we understand them, we get satisfaction from seeing them go down. ME2 has...a Collecter leader we don't know anything about, Harbinger (who we know little more about) and the Illusive Man. Who's cool. We understand him from previous media, we understand him more here and whether we agree with Cerberus or not, he's a very interesting character. But that's one strong character to two weak ones compared to two previous strong characters.

And there's side-quest villains. Who I can't comment on because then I'd be here till Christmas.

For SC2, it's a bit different. We essentially have three villains-Kerrigan, Mengsk and the Dark Voice. What's different from the ME2 villains is that they're less in your face. As an RTS, this is understandable. But I honestly think they're still the better batch. The Dark Voice, we know little about. But that makes him compelling. He's been hinted at, theorized at, but now we actually start to get insight. Harbinger, his equivalent, is really indicative of the Reapers as a whole. A flagship. Soveriegn was a representative, but heck, he was a compelling one. Harbinger, we see much less of. Less than the Dark Voice. But unlike Harbinger, the Dark Voice had a basis going back to Brood War.

Mengsk and Kerrigan are other success stories. People have complained how they're not like their BW counterparts. Well, guess what? They shouldn't be. Mengsk, as I, M aptly shows, has made a lifelong transition. The tyrant who can do whatever he wants fits him. it fits the entire theme of the trilogy (I'd say it's "all things must end," but then people might be reminded of Tiberian Twilight...). He's reached the end. He's compelling because he's truely become a dictator. Not evil, just a despot. As the Dark Knight says, "you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become a villain"). Mengsk is definately a villain. He's reached the end of his journey. I've enjoyed it, which is why I'll also enjoy seeing his downfall.

Kerrigan is similar. She's gone from manipulative bitch to magnificant bitch. Why? Because instead of fighting for control of the Swarm, she now has control of the Swarm. It's within her right to lead from the sidelines. And when the point comes where she does appear on the battlefield...eep:eek: In essence, Kerrigan is to SC2 what the Overmind was to SC1. A threat always present, but only seen at the very end. And the wait is worth it.

So yeah. While ME2 has the Illusive Man, SC2 gets the point here.

Part 5: Setting and Scope

By definition, this pertains to lore, music, cinamatography, stuff like that. And once again, the approaches to the games are different. ME2 has more stuff (planets, star systems) than SC2, but SC2 has that pleasent mix of old and new and each planet is relevant in its own right (missions, but that's better reserved for a gameplay analysis). Well, in all honesty, I think ME2 gets the point. As an RTS, SC2 had very limited means in competing with this, how we're stuck on a spaceship or seeing worlds from a birds-eye view. In ME2, we have boots on the ground.

Lore is another issue. ME2 had far much more raw data, but in fairness, SC2 didn't need it. The universe has been around longer, it's been fleshed out through different means. But there's the sense of effort in ME2 (e.g. the Codex) whilst in SC2...well, it didn't need the effort. But it still has an absence of such data. And for cinamatography...yeah, once again, game mechanics. It's almost unfair to compare this, but as stated, ME2 gets the point.

Part 6: Conclusions

If there's a gameplay section, it'll come later, if at all. This took far longer than I thought and I feel like an arrogant arse at worst or a wanabee reviewer at worst. In By way of points, it's effectively equal. I might personally gravitate towards SC2 because I simply prefer Raynor to Shepard. Still, reviewing objectively, I thought it best to tie them. I guess it's all down to preference. I honestly don't mind who wins. They're both worthy contenders, they both have decent stories and I enjoy both universes. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll prepare for the flames.;)

The way I see it

Voice acting - ME2 vs SC2 - ME2 wins
missions - draw
writing - ME 2 wins
replayable campaign - ME2 wins
storyline - ME 2 wins without a freaking doubt
characters - ME 2 wins because SC2 characters were killed by both voice acting and writing, in ME 2 we have ....Jacob lol

lol missions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis

lol missions

---

by missions i mean design

I know. To be fair, Biowares design quality was actually interesting and fun iwith some of the DLC. I'd have liked it if the rest of the design was the same quality, but they've gotten better with each DLC so I'm kind of looking forward to seeing the improved ME/Bioware.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spychi

characters - ME 2 wins because SC2 characters were killed by both voice acting and writing, in ME 2 we have ....Jacob lol

---

Never thought you for the Twilight gay type :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeraszana

Never thought you for the Twilight gay type :D

---

He means Jacob was the worst written and acted character in ME2, compared to all the badly written and acted characters in SC2.

Even the actors who were in both games, Tricia Helfer and Micheal Dorn for example, both did better in ME2 and were given better scripts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

He mans Jacob was the worst written and acted character in ME2, compared to all the badly written and acted characters in SC2.

Even the actors who were in both games, Tricia Helfer and Micheal Dorn for example, both did better in ME2 and were given better scripts.

---

I'm eating a tasty bowl of vanilla/chocolate icecream with almonds and it is defiinitely the best way of eating icecream possible. delicious. Oh sorry, I thought we were all here to pass arbitrary subjective remarks on random stuff.

Seriously though, you're going to have to go into detail with these statements. I am having difficulty thinking on your level.