sc94597 said:
bigtakilla said:
Well I disagree with you. Dialogue is also good in some areas and downright terrible in other detracting from the stories delivery.
|
I think people are misremembering most of the voices and dialogue in Xenoblade. With the exception of Melia and Shulk/Alvis/Zanza (except when screaming), most of the voice acting was also mixed. Especially when it came to enemies: particularly the faced Mechon.
But really what matters to me when it comes to the story are four things: depth, pacing, writing, and uniqueness. In terms of depth: Xenoblade 2 > Xenoblade, pacing: Xenoblade 2 = Xenoblade, writing: Xenoblade 2 = Xenoblade, and uniqueness: Xenoblade 2 = Xenoblade.
Xenoblade 2's story does the stuff Xenoblade did, but with much more detail. The enemies are fleshed out with back stories, and have motivations that are very human. The party-members also have backstories which are independent of the main character's. The lines between good and evil end blurry, rather than the total 180 from evil to good (or vice-versa) that one finds in some of Xenoblade's baddies and goodguys. So on and so forth.
That is okay, because Xenoblade was attempting to perfect the Gnostic allegory, whereas the Gnosticism takes a relative back-seat to other themes in Xenoblade 2, although as a Xeno-game it is very much present and prominent.
Xenosaga was a mess with its pacing, and suffered a lot from this.
Xenogears excelled in depth, writing, and uniqueness, but also had bad pacing.
Overall, out of all Xeno-games, I like the balance that exists in Xenoblade 2 between these four categories the most, even if I was more impressed by Xenogears' story when I first played it.
|
