ew no way, first one has inferior cliche story and characters by comparison. sequel has better music, longer and more interesting and original story. way better battles and boss characters throughout, continual surprises. the first game is great too but the second upped the ante and made an even better game. the highest spells take defeating stronger enemies in the last leg. the problem with centering the screen is an emulation bug. the sega genesis cartridge or sega genesis collection on ps3/4 have no issues.
There's barely any writing in 1, the game overall felt bleak and generic, I don't even remember what is it about. 2 has a cool intro that I still remember to this day.
the first game is a dark vs light basic star wars ripoff. the second is much more its own tale with unpredictable turns.
I prefer 1 for its art, music, towns, and pacing, but I'm happy you like 2 anon
every king in the first game you encounter in a town is identical. the second game has unique art for every character and more intricate town designs. music quality is excellent for both games
>the second game has unique art for every character and more intricate town designs
Not for battle sprites though, SF1 had far, far better sprites in battle.
The first king you meet in SF1 is different, so your statement is not entirely true. I prefer the unique town variety and Yoshitaka Tamaki's excellent character design in 1 by a large margin. Not that 2 is bad at all, I just don't prefer it.
I prefer the first one as well. SF2 is great too but I like the setting and characters more in SF1, as well as SF CD.
Though I will say, SF2 has less tedious battles. Some of the terrain in both SF1 and SF CD is a literal slog. Luckily it never bothered me too much because the music is very enjoyable to listen to.
It's also the only good Shining Force game. 1's a bit charming and 3 had a few good maps (across three fricking campaigns), but 2's the only one I'd ever consider replaying.
Yeah, but that's not saying much.
No, PERFECTION is Golden Sun and The Lost Age, as they're historically accurate to our own past.
Which begs the question: Camelot was absolutely awesome at SRPGs and JRPGs. Why were they wasted so much on Nintendo sports games?
They could have given Square and Atlus a run for their money.
>Camelot was absolutely awesome at SRPGs and JRPGs.
Not really. Shining in the Darkness was okay, but that was Climax. SF1 is cute and has good ideas, but it's a shit SRPG. CD and Final Conflict are dogshit. 3 is a sprawling mess of a game. Holy Ark is a lesser SitD. Golden Sun 1 and DD are pretty terrible unless you're deeply nostalgic for them.
Their sports RPGs were their best games by far. SF2 &GSTLA are pretty good but over hyped.
“Strategy” game where the only necessary strategy is to take baby steps so that enemies approach your entire army one by one so you can kill them easily. Never played the first one, but I’m assuming it has the same problem. I like being able to explore the world like in a normal RPG though.
weird thing is i never played 2
i really really really loved 1 though and everyone tells me 2 is better
i keep meaning to do it
shill me on it? need to move it up my backlog
No, PERFECTION is Golden Sun and The Lost Age, as they're historically accurate to our own past.
Which begs the question: Camelot was absolutely awesome at SRPGs and JRPGs. Why were they wasted so much on Nintendo sports games?
They could have given Square and Atlus a run for their money.
>wasted so much on nintendo sports games
Those were actually pretty good though, and I normally don't like tennis/golf games at all.
Now if only they made a Hockey game in that style. Or maybe they did, I dunno, my main focus was always on PC gaming for a very long time.
I feel sorry for the people who were filtered by Golden sun, such an amazing game. Had it been released for the N64 people would talk gold about it now.
>Had it been released for the N64 people would talk gold about it now.
That's true, but it doesn't make the game any good. It just means that n64 fanboys are annoying.
You can't learn the high levels spells without grinding like a madman, also the screen doesn't center while exploring.
The first one was better.
ew no way, first one has inferior cliche story and characters by comparison. sequel has better music, longer and more interesting and original story. way better battles and boss characters throughout, continual surprises. the first game is great too but the second upped the ante and made an even better game. the highest spells take defeating stronger enemies in the last leg. the problem with centering the screen is an emulation bug. the sega genesis cartridge or sega genesis collection on ps3/4 have no issues.
>You can't learn the high levels spells without grinding like a madman
Good, that's the way magic should be.
>also the screen doesn't center while exploring
Seems like a you problem.
>Good, that's the way magic should be.
Videogames should be fun, not a job.
Sounds like a you problem. I'm having fun.
> I'm having fun.
Because you're an autist, that's why. Normal people do not like grind.
>The first one was better.
I wonder why people here keep parroting this moronic opinion for no reason. 2 has improved in literally every aspect.
The writing and unit variety are worse. Fewer interesting gimmicks, too.
There's barely any writing in 1, the game overall felt bleak and generic, I don't even remember what is it about. 2 has a cool intro that I still remember to this day.
>2 has a cool intro
And that's all it has.
I like the Japanese version of one with an emulator's fast forward button more.
I prefer Langrisser.
They play completely different, Langrisser has no world to explore the game in, just battle after battle.
There is nothing to explore in SF anyway, waste of time.
true. you only do it to unlock more useless characters or more useful items.
the plot is also more generic than Langrissers.
The first has better tone and story
the first game is a dark vs light basic star wars ripoff. the second is much more its own tale with unpredictable turns.
every king in the first game you encounter in a town is identical. the second game has unique art for every character and more intricate town designs. music quality is excellent for both games
>the second game has unique art for every character and more intricate town designs
Not for battle sprites though, SF1 had far, far better sprites in battle.
not really, they are almost identical. here’s 2
here’s 1.
lol screwed that up, pic related is 2. the first pic is shining force cd. they all look almost identical
it's more of a "doom / doom 2" sort of situation
The first king you meet in SF1 is different, so your statement is not entirely true. I prefer the unique town variety and Yoshitaka Tamaki's excellent character design in 1 by a large margin. Not that 2 is bad at all, I just don't prefer it.
I prefer the first one as well. SF2 is great too but I like the setting and characters more in SF1, as well as SF CD.
Though I will say, SF2 has less tedious battles. Some of the terrain in both SF1 and SF CD is a literal slog. Luckily it never bothered me too much because the music is very enjoyable to listen to.
It's also the only good Shining Force game. 1's a bit charming and 3 had a few good maps (across three fricking campaigns), but 2's the only one I'd ever consider replaying.
Yeah, but that's not saying much.
>Camelot was absolutely awesome at SRPGs and JRPGs.
Not really. Shining in the Darkness was okay, but that was Climax. SF1 is cute and has good ideas, but it's a shit SRPG. CD and Final Conflict are dogshit. 3 is a sprawling mess of a game. Holy Ark is a lesser SitD. Golden Sun 1 and DD are pretty terrible unless you're deeply nostalgic for them.
Their sports RPGs were their best games by far. SF2 &GSTLA are pretty good but over hyped.
I prefer 1 for its art, music, towns, and pacing, but I'm happy you like 2 anon
“Strategy” game where the only necessary strategy is to take baby steps so that enemies approach your entire army one by one so you can kill them easily. Never played the first one, but I’m assuming it has the same problem. I like being able to explore the world like in a normal RPG though.
Sega won in the JRPG arena.
weird thing is i never played 2
i really really really loved 1 though and everyone tells me 2 is better
i keep meaning to do it
shill me on it? need to move it up my backlog
it's just fun. breezy, brisk plot that doesn't take itself too seriously. amazing soundtrack. maps are more focused than sf1. fun characters.
>this slow old JRPG is the greatest vidya ever made
No, PERFECTION is Golden Sun and The Lost Age, as they're historically accurate to our own past.
Which begs the question: Camelot was absolutely awesome at SRPGs and JRPGs. Why were they wasted so much on Nintendo sports games?
They could have given Square and Atlus a run for their money.
>Golden Sun
>Perfection
fricking lol, delusional.
>wasted so much on nintendo sports games
Those were actually pretty good though, and I normally don't like tennis/golf games at all.
Now if only they made a Hockey game in that style. Or maybe they did, I dunno, my main focus was always on PC gaming for a very long time.
Langrisser 2 with englandish patch.
I feel sorry for the people who were filtered by Golden sun, such an amazing game. Had it been released for the N64 people would talk gold about it now.
>Criticism = Filtered
Definitely not cope.
“It hurts my tummy” is not criticism.
>Nonsensical metaphor instead of actually addressing criticism.
DEFINITELY not cope.
>Had it been released for the N64 people would talk gold about it now.
That's true, but it doesn't make the game any good. It just means that n64 fanboys are annoying.
i used to think the cutscenes were cool but now i just want them to stop
I agree, honestly. I played a Fire Emblem once and its absolutely sucks compared to this.
Yeah, Shining Force is much easier.