I myself was disappointed with Golden Sun: The Lost Age, compared to the original, Golden Sun.

The reason for this is mostly in part to the perspective change from Isaac to Felix. Felix already had dialouge and a roll in the original Golden Sun and the Lost Age pitted you to be a character that you already had mixed emotions about. Unlike playing Isaac, whom was really just an empty shell for the player to become and paint his own values for, Felix already had too much of a story for the player to really have a say in his character.

Throughout Lost Age, I couldn't answer the yes and no questions the way I would like because I had mixed feelings as to how the character would really answer the question himself.

They were also plenty of plot holes and uninteresting dialouge that had bombarded the Golden Sun sequel. The game was a massive disappointment to me and unfortunately, it was too much for me to really admire the game's solid gameplay which was also too similar to the original (as expected).

I understand that many say that the two games are suppose to be as one, but the perspective change made the two games way too bizzare to really get immersed into. Maybe my thoughts would've change if Isaac was still the mute main character of the game.

I'd have to disagree with you. I was never very fond of the mute and blank main character you find in many video games. Although Isaac wasn't completely blank (he did react and show emotions, even if only slightly in the first game, and a personality was attached to him if you read all those profiles of him from offical webpages), his general lack of dialogue never really made me attach to him, the exact opposite of how you are. I didn't really like him until the end of TLA, when he began to speak for himself, and we really found out what he was like.

For Felix, on the other hand, because he had some personality development already, I, the player, was able to latch on to him. Instead of putting traits and values of my own on him, it was a matter of finding out what he would do if something happened, something I found much more enjoyable than just picking randomly or how I would react. The only thing TLA did was let him further grow, and he became my favorite character in both games. Also, it was different to play the opposing view for a change, and that's what Felix was.

I can understand why TLA was a major dissapointmet for you, but what you find wrong, I find right, and there's nothing really bad about either game.

I also like the idea of knowing what a character may be like before hand. I don't like either one better, though.. Golden Sun.. Well, the first one, brought forth a fresh, and very good experience. The Lost Age offers many new aspects, a larger, more intricate story, and better developed characters. For me, it's both.. I am not an authority on games, though

I disagree with you, SI, but I have never thought of it that way. TLA is larger, has more stuff (like the blacksmith for example), and is just....better. But it is alot easier to miss side-quests on TLA; I rushed through it and beat it in four days. I had about 45/72 djinni and my strongest summons were Eclipse and Haures.

I agree with Spirit Icana. Golden Sun was just a little bit better. When I saw TLA in the store, I bought it immediately, went home and played for a few hours. After that, I began to get mixed feelings either..... Playing with Felix is so different... not that it's not cool or something, but I prefer playing with Isaac. And you're also right about these yes/no questions. You don't even now Felix's precise charcter becuase you almost never see him in Golden Sun, only at lighthouses.

I think im on the side of SI with this. TLA really lost something in how you molded yourself into the character. As has been stated, too much was known of Felix to be able to fit yourself around him.

I play games for escapism, and my way of doing that personally is to take myself, values and all, into the game world. Not move a character around and act as "he" would.

I guess that's why I always preferred Isaac out of the two lead roles, after the first one he was just "my character" and being forced to play as Felix in the second one spoiled it a little. I always enjoyed hearing Isaacs name throughout the second one as it would be reference to things i had accomplished and such. Whilst playing as Felix im always just waiting to reach the bit where you get Isaacs party so i can fnish the game as much from his perspective as possible.

Thats just me though - i wouldnt say TLA was a huge disappointment, but i preferred the first.

I prefared the second game because it explained the story better than the first but you do have to fight against you do have to fight against Isaac and the others which was a bit annoying

I prefer the first one but only because you were on land and knew that you would have to go to the next town. In the lost age however you were in the ocean a lot of the time and it was harder to know where to go.
Either way they are both great.

Thanks guys! I enjoyed reading each and every one of your opinions. I did like Golden Sun: The Lost Age, but not at the same level as the original. The game was a disappointment for me, but it was by no means a bad game. I still clocked over a hundred hours with the game because it was still fun and enjoyable.

The original Golden Sun captured me in it's grasp in a way that very few games ever do, and that's why I had to stress my pains for seeing Lost Age crumble to a mere side quest for me. I admit that my expectations were very high before playing Lost Age and I still think that the perspective change was really what killed the experience for me.

Anyway, it really is opinion based and I'm glad to hear the thoughts of others on the matter. Thank you!

I liked TLA, but only for the huge world and lots of weapons. However, like a few of the above people, I did not like how Felix became teh mute hero. Isaac talks to much.

Isaac had the innocent way about him in GS1. You basically made him whatever you wanted to make him. Then in TLA you suddenly switch sides, have to change your objectives all the way around, and suddenly you're your own enemy.

Also, there should have been more of an argument between Isaac and Felix at Jupiter Lighthouse because they were enemies. Instead they say like 5 lines then you have your old party. I saw that and went .

Still, TLA has lots of different items to get, and I like not being landbound the whole time. Both games are pretty good.

I think the first one would be better. The second one, although a great game as well, was just not as well plotted.

1. Finding the pieces to the Trident: I don't believe this was mentioned in the game. ( I may be wrong)

2. The ending makes you want more, and more, and MORE!

3. Lemuria just wasn't quite as was expected, it kind of ruined the illusion for me.

Those are the only points I can think of now, but I think that #1 was better.

I don't think TLA's biggest flaw is the characters. Well, I prefered the characters of GS tp TLA's (i liked Felix though), but the biggest problem was that it had little plot to carry you along. After you got your ship, you just sailed around and did all the towers and rocks :\. The only real purpose of the game was "sail around and get more psynergy! you'l need it in order to get the next ability!".

GS was much deeper imo. I don't know, it was just much more fun.

I somewhat agree with what Neon says. You can tell they rushed TLA. GS is more fun if you consider a varies of different things for gameplay. It'll get boring rather quickly doing almost the same thing over and over again, like the ship in TLA.

IMO, Golden Sun is better than Golden Sun: The Lost Age for a number of reasons. The first is that Golden Sun had more of a plot and wasn't jumbled up like Golden Sun: The Lost Age. The second is that, in the second. The characters weren't really that much different than the characters from the first, and this destroyed the plot. I think they could of done a lot better than they did with The Lost Age.

I have to say, as far as gameplay value takes you, this was a much better game than the original. On the subject of the storyline, however, I agree with Raven because you already knew too much about Felix as a character. Wouldn't it have been cool if you could play as Piers in the main character seat or Sheba. Change it up from the Venus adepts playing the major role.

TLA was bigger, longer, more story development and characters etc.
I prefered it.

GS by far. I played a little bit of GS:TLA and the story was just not as good. it took alot out of the first one, making the story in the first one have little effect. You had little to build on.

I played GS: TLA first, so I got used to Felix not talking and Isaac being motormouth. I like the original a bit better because I like Isaac's team. I like Garet's inputs and not having Kraden doing most of the talking. I also like Colosso better than Trial Road. I like the storyline a bit better as well. On GS: TLA I like the boating around and I always look forward to Jupiter Lighthouse so I can get my transferred Isaac team . I still am very attached to both and a play either one or the other everyday.

Thats a hard question to me. I like the final boss for Golden Sun, but I did like the two party fusion in Golden Sun 2. I guess I like Golden Sun 2 more though

I just don't see how people can argue against the bigger is better statement. More hours of enjoyment, more to do, more secrets, this is what made TLA a better game in my opinion.

I think tla is the better. it's bigger and i love the new summons.

I really can't decide. I thought GS:TLA had more to do, and the world was bigger. But there was something about GS that made it so much more fun. I also always thought Saturos and Menardi were better villains then Agatio and Karst, Agatio and Karst seem to make the game boring to me. And I hated the ending to TLA, no one was dead, everyone was happy in the end, I didn't like that to much. I guess GS was better.

Isaac talks in the second one? Ha, and Felix did the talking in the other. That's funny. Well, That's also a bit of a big change...

I can't say ether of these games are bad mostly because its the same thing and evryone loved Golden Sun.Golden sun the lost age wasn't a big screw up for the 1st GS. Golden Sun lost age followed the story line about the light houses and such. Well if you LIKE the first golden sun and you say that the GS:TLA sucked then guess what Its the same thing!

definetly GS1, for several resons.
I loved those characters, not the ones in GSTLA, and I also had to see the GS1 char. as enemies, no way!
I also got lost very much in GSTLA, after I got the boat, didn't know what to do, I kept on fighting posseidon without the Trident, stupid huh...
the only thing better in GSTLA are the dungeons, they're way tougher!!!
I also enjoyed the battle against duhulla, way to tough

I liked Gs 1 More, Because i didn't use the Walktrough...

I still hate myself for using GS:TLA walktrough.

I dont know which one I like better..But I think Golden Sun was more fun XD.

Loved them both, but I can see your view on this Spirit. With GS:TLA I found myself completely shell shocked by the new ideas of combined summons, better psyenergy and more characters. I myself am an Isaac fan and a Felix hater, I percieved Felix (In GS) as a childish cry baby. But, In the TLA you develop him into an adult that goes through life changing decisions and inevitably fighting beside your dear friends instead of against them. Isaac is my favorite character for he was molded by me and due to my complete selfishness had all the apples in the game (My Isaac is level 90, no cheating whatso ever and has an attack power of I believe dont quote me on this 700 with his djin) I feel they tied the two games together greatly before GS even took off , for example The Mars star's golden power merged with Isaac and revealing this to Alex at the end of TLA. GS was an adventure, as you watched your characters grow and develop, unlike in GS:TLA where it was more of you were accomplishing your meaning of life and destiny. GS:TLA was truely an amazing game where the perspective switch was done as well as possible. In GS Felix never expressed much feeling other than his desire to light the beacon, his love for Sheba, and his unclear intention of lighting them to begin with. With Isaac talking I did find that odd, but none the less he HAD to say something or else so much would be lost in the story.

liked Golden Sun better..... was more fun.... TLA was just more of the same, GS 1 is the one that got me addicted

I don't understand whats the difference, instead of the story line.You still battled the same way in the Golden Sun games.Anyways, I like GS better than the lost age version because you played as my favorite chracter at the start...Issac.

eventhough felix is my favorite character, I like #1 better because#2 was so hard (thouhg you can't blame them, I mean my friend beat #1 in like a week playing around 2-3 hours a day!) I'd rathre playn a game too easy than too hard (though the kraken is amazingly stupid, he beat me this afternoon without me even destroying 1/3 of his health)

I didn't think that 2 was hard or anything the puzzles were easier (or did I just get smarter? nah...) and the bosses were easier even on hard mode I'm defeating Dullahun easily. So still liking 1 more

golden sun the lost age had too much dialogue at too many points during the game and I kind of admire the enemies usually as they are so much cooler than the main character at first, IE Saturos and Menardi.

It bugged me a little, but the main thing that hit me hard in TLA was the act almost every town is samey... theyre all kinda "tropical." GS1 had lots of different places from snowy imil to the forestly kolima to the prestigious kalay to the burning Sulhalla. I loved it. But im not saying i hated TLA... i absolutley loved it.

One thing I hate about both games is you never get to fight Alex who is by far the coolest.

Um, well I don't think Piers would have been a good choice. I noticed about Isaac was that he wasd sort of ... effeminate. Someone both genders could relate to. Piers is kinda more manly... If you could choose to play Piers or Sheba that would be neato. But in all they shoulda just continued it as Isaac, maybe given him cool new clothes or something like KH1 --> KH2 Soras outfit. Something dark blue. And darker hair.... im gonna go draw now, ciao

I posted that a long time ago, but I still stand by that. If you were to play as an unknown character that met Felix and his party later in the game, it would have been so awesome. I would've loved to see Piers as the main character.

I actually enjoyed the Lost Age a lot more than the original, because I could never figure out how to get past Bilibin Barricade (call me stupid, I don't care ) and I got a lot farther in TLA before having to resort to a walkthrough. That said, they're both killer games and I hope Camelot is making another sequel (or a Golden Sun golf game, that'd be pretty cool )

I sorta like both really. The bosses in GS where more difficult than the ones in TLA (except for 2 i can name). TLA the bosses where better detailed and there where a lot more.

I like both games alot. I need to replay The Lost Age before I make a final decision, but here's a few things that stuck out to me: (Nobody take this the wrong way, as it is just my opinion.)

The new party: Actually, switching to Felix didn't bug me very much, I assumed there would be a new character (Though I hoped you would get to choose your party leader once Isaac joined) I was actually more bothered by the two girls. Sheba is an Ivan wannabe. Her Psynergy is practically the same and she's also got a similar personality. She also uses Maces instead of Light blades like Ivan, and good maces are rather uncommon. Jenna I didn't mind as much. In the first game, she played a Damsel in Distress role, so it was odd to see her come out and fight (By the end of TLA, I'm pretty sure she could take Menardi.) Piers didn't bother me, though. When I first met him, I was worried he'd be an Alex duplicate. I was actually suprised at his Garet/Mia combination. Combined with the Golden Boots, he was quite easily the best character I had, until Isaac's party joined.

Agatio and Karst: Ugh... These guys are Saturos and Menardi wannabes. More or less, Karst is Menardi with a slightly more attractive face and a revenge motive. She is cruel, ruthless, and she's not afraid to "cheat" in order to get what she wants (Trapping Garet and Mia when she fights Isaac) Menardi is the exact same. (Ex. She kidnaps Jenna because of the slight possiblity Isaac and Garet will survive). Agatio is a bit less of a Saturos ripoff, but he is still unoriginal. As I recall, they gave him a brute sort of personality. Saturos was sinister and manipulative. Agatio is simply a space filler, due to the fact that Karst wouldn't be much of a threat by herself. Camelot needed to put more work into these characters. TLA could have been done just as easily without them, and would have turned out just fine.

The game's flow: There were several points in the game in which Camelot gave little to no instruction as to where to go next. The stories themselves were also lame. In the original game, the mini stories were neat, though sometimes tedious, they made Weyard seem more real. In TLA, the stories got old quickly. Like Agatio, many of them felt like space fillers.

Anyway, as stated above, I need to replay TLA before I say which is better. I know I only dissed TLA in this post, but there were several things in which Camelot improved (Boss battles, for instance)

I'd have to say I like #1 better mainly cause I just like Isaac's side of the story to Felix's. And the novel my friend wrote based on 1 just made me like 1 more. And in there Isaac's not a mute and the dilouge my friend gave him it seems natural. Some of you will be fimilar with my friends work.

http://www.fanfiction.net/s/2121638/1/