Do You Like Golden Sun Better Than The Lost Age?
#1
Posted 02 April 2005 - 04:26 PM
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.
#2
Posted 02 April 2005 - 06:14 PM
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.
#3
Posted 06 April 2005 - 06:18 PM
#4
Posted 06 April 2005 - 09:16 PM
#5
Posted 08 April 2005 - 10:49 AM
#6
Posted 08 April 2005 - 11:05 AM
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.
#7
Posted 08 April 2005 - 12:53 PM
#8
Posted 09 April 2005 - 06:08 AM
Either way they are both great.
#9
Posted 09 April 2005 - 02:16 PM
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!
#10
Posted 10 April 2005 - 07:52 PM
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.
#11
Posted 13 April 2005 - 03:39 PM
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. :P
#12
Posted 13 April 2005 - 09:34 PM
GS was much deeper imo. I don't know, it was just much more fun.
#13
Posted 13 April 2005 - 09:41 PM
#14 Guest_Blayze_*
Posted 14 April 2005 - 05:24 AM
#15
Posted 14 April 2005 - 08:56 AM
#16
Posted 07 May 2005 - 05:33 AM
I prefered it.
#17
Posted 29 May 2005 - 04:31 PM
#18
Posted 01 June 2005 - 04:00 PM
#19
Posted 01 June 2005 - 04:04 PM
#20
Posted 03 June 2005 - 12:55 AM
#21
Posted 03 June 2005 - 03:26 AM
#22
Posted 03 June 2005 - 11:29 AM
#23
Posted 07 June 2005 - 10:24 PM
#24
Posted 08 June 2005 - 10:42 AM
#25
Posted 10 June 2005 - 09:14 AM
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 ;)
#26
Posted 28 June 2005 - 02:00 PM
I still hate myself for using GS:TLA walktrough.
#27
Posted 28 June 2005 - 02:04 PM
#28
Posted 28 June 2005 - 07:18 PM
#29
Posted 29 June 2005 - 01:17 PM
#30 Guest_Steven M3_*
Posted 02 July 2005 - 09:44 PM
#31
Posted 04 July 2005 - 01:44 PM
#32
Posted 04 July 2005 - 01:54 PM
#33
Posted 18 July 2006 - 03:34 PM
#34 Guest_crystal_adept_*
Posted 19 July 2006 - 09:27 AM
One thing I hate about both games is you never get to fight Alex who is by far the coolest. :P
#35 Guest_crystal_adept_*
Posted 19 July 2006 - 09:39 AM
Sea_of_Time, on Apr 14 2005, 10:56 AM, said:
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
#36
Posted 19 July 2006 - 09:43 AM
#37
Posted 31 August 2006 - 07:21 AM
#38
Posted 23 September 2006 - 05:38 AM
#39
Posted 28 October 2006 - 10:44 PM
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)
#40 Guest_Master Katarn_*
Posted 24 February 2007 - 10:41 PM
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/2121638/1/