Vote for SC2!

[spychi]

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

[Louis]

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.

[Hawki]

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. 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 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.

[spychi]

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

[Louis]

lol missions

[spychi]

lol missions

by missions i mean design

[Louis]

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.

[Zeraszana]

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

[DemolitionSquid]

Never thought you for the Twilight gay type

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.

[Louis]

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.