Which is better? I or II?

[Steely]

This is just a place to post your opinions about which of the two games is better. I prefer the first one due to a better story and I like the combat a little bit better.

(I also have the graphics card to run the game, so put all of the port bugs and stuff aside if you have them)

[Chainsmoking_Stan]

1 has bette missions and charecters but villians and soldiers are better in 2

[Wilfer88]

The first game had a longer story, with a better twist. It was short, but not as short as the second game.

[DrummererX]

I've played through both of them at least twice (on 360 though), and I think the first one is easily the better game overall. Better, longer story, more varied environments and enemies. That said, the second one has more polished gameplay and the Endor DLC (frying ewoks FTW!)

[Razz Darkstar]

2 and 1 are even, minus the infurating star destroyer scene

[Philly Wonken]

Neither, they're bot humongous piles of ♥♥♥♥.

[MercReign]

2 Was too short, I beat it in around 2 and a half hours or 3. The first one was longer but the problem I had with that game was revisiting planets I had already been to prior. That was annoying. 2 had me revisit Kamino only but the loop back to it was horrendous. Escape Kamino, go to Cato Neimodia, rebel ship, back to Kamino.

[誰がｗｏｍｂａｔ]

Neither. They both have terrible storylines that contradict nearly EVERYTHING that has been established between Episode III and IV by the comics, books, etc.

I say ♥♥♥♥ IT.

THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE BATTLEFRONT 3!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bullitt_boy]

The first one is fine. I enjoyed it. I heard 2 was cancelled during production and it definitely shows because it's way too short with only 3 or 4 locations. It looks like they just shipped what they had done so far and cobbled a story around it so they could ship it. I've played DLC that lasted longer. The graphics on the second one are a big improvement over the first one. It's too bad Star Wars games have have been so mishandled over the past several years because it's a potential gold mine. Unfortunately they just never got the support they needed from the higher ups. Lucasarts never seemed like a priority to Lucas, which is sad, because at one point they made cutting edge games.

[jerry247]

Originally posted by TheFlyingWombat:

Neither. They both have terrible storylines that contradict nearly EVERYTHING that has been established between Episode III and IV by the comics, books, etc.

the comics/books are not cannon. luke turns bad at the end of jedi in the comics. as far as lucas was concerned (now disney) only lucas arts creations are cannon.

[ein]

Originally posted by jerry247:

Originally posted by TheFlyingWombat:

Neither. They both have terrible storylines that contradict nearly EVERYTHING that has been established between Episode III and IV by the comics, books, etc.

the comics/books are not cannon. luke turns bad at the end of jedi in the comics. as far as lucas was concerned (now disney) only lucas arts creations are cannon.

It's a lot more complicated than that.[en.wikipedia.org]

[α PIRATEorNINJA Ω]

i like part 1 much better, it was better story and everything all around. the second game felt like it was thrown together. it looks cool but is short and bug filled. the first one was good length very cool story i thought and just altogether fun.

[Steely]

Force Unleashed (I & II) are story driven, single player games. Any suggestion of multiplayer would be forced. Not all games are meant to have multiplayer or even co-op.

[α PIRATEorNINJA Ω]

Originally posted by Vrenusdeathstar45:

but there is a HUGE problem with both of the games. There is no Multiplayer or Co-op. Seriously, they better make the 3rd game have multiplayer/coop!

you got to be joking, these game do not need either

[Bad JuJu]

1 was much better, you got A KICK ASS SKIN if you complete the hidden ending, jedi camios and was a lot longer and had more content in general (that double light saber doe). and btw anyone who says their a bad game is a hater

[Asturok]

I