Not really, but there are lot of references in s2 to s1. Also a lot of characters introduced in s1 come back in s2.
I would just buy s1 and come back for s2 when you have some money again. I would say that s2 is a bit cooler but it would be better to play them in order.
Not really, but there are lot of references in s2 to s1. Also a lot of characters introduced in s1 come back in s2.
I would just buy s1 and come back for s2 when you have some money again. I would say that s2 is a bit cooler but it would be better to play them in order.
Season 2 is the better game (and one of the best games of recent years, in my opinion), but there are some things that carry over from Season One. Namely something that carries over from Episode Four...
Season 2 has episodes that are more better in animation, dramatic-ness and humour than Season 1, and it has two great episodes, one ok episode and two bad episodes.
But Season 1 has more nostalgia, realism. The serial format is handled excellently here, as well as good plotting and an overarching sense of mystery to find out who the season one villan is. The season goes along nicely with rat-a-tat cases to be solved, that seem more clever and true to life here than in season 2 when
getting abducted by UFOs to be a "case to solve".
Season 1 also has more logical and clever puzzles than its predecessor; Season 2 tends to run out of good logical puzzles mid-way through the season sadly.
My recommendation is Season 1 for the puzzles, story and the sense that you're playing the game.
But if you like your games lively and humourous (because Season 1 can get really boring in places) with some intelligent puzzles, Season 2 would be a good recommendation instead.
Season Two is so much better that if you play it first, you'll be less impressed with Season One afterwards. And that would be a shame because Season One is really really good. I'd say try the Culture Shock demo and maybe parts of Abe Lincoln Must Die! (it's free). If you're hooked, get Season One. Otherwise, skip to Season Two.
I really think playing Season One is essential. It's like skipping to Season Three or Moral Orel without seeing the first two seasons...it just won't have anywhere near the same impact.
Sorry to bring up an old thread - hope you will reply.
But I want to see if there is anyone that considers season one to be the better season?
For me, Season 1 treats the clever dialogue well, by fitting the right type of dialogue at the right time
and keep the pacing of story progression in line with the dialogue, rather than having the dialogue trip
over the plot and become ineffective. This to me makes the episode well-made and respectable.
Whereas season 2 tends to do the exact opposite...Having a much larger and more epic story involving more characters
in season 2's episodes, for me fails to make the episode in question respectable and well-made. The episodes end
up spewing the dialogue out, as they tries to quickly make story progression - it's an awkward affair. Sure this
quick dialogue delivery creates much more laughs than season one, but the balance of dialogue and story is horrible
and frankly makes the episode seem clunky, badly made and even unlikeable at times
Of course, I love every episode, but I always remember the repulsion I faced, when season 2 brought out its first
"awkwardly balanced" episode, which would be Night of the Raving Dead. In fact I love NOTRD now after my repeated
plays and find it to have only a mild case of awkward balance. The main culprit is COTD, which struggles introducing
loads of new/changed characters and their situations, whilst trying to pour out loads of dialogue relating to puzzles
at the same time - if only they had made the season 2 episodes much longer, for the pacing to calm down - it might
for me resulted in a more respectable set of episodes.
Sorry if this sounds muddled I tried posting my original reply earlier, but the forums deleted my reply
Sorry to bring up an old thread - hope you will reply.
But I want to see if there is anyone that considers season one to be the better season?
For me, Season 1 treats the clever dialogue well, by fitting the right type of dialogue at the right time
and keep the pacing of story progression in line with the dialogue, rather than having the dialogue trip
over the plot and become ineffective. This to me makes the episode well-made and respectable.
Whereas season 2 tends to do the exact opposite...Having a much larger and more epic story involving more characters
in season 2's episodes, for me fails to make the episode in question respectable and well-made. The episodes end
up spewing the dialogue out, as they tries to quickly make story progression - it's an awkward affair. Sure this
quick dialogue delivery creates much more laughs than season one, but the balance of dialogue and story is horrible
and frankly makes the episode seem clunky, badly made and even unlikeable at times
Of course, I love every episode, but I always remember the repulsion I faced, when season 2 brought out its first
"awkwardly balanced" episode, which would be Night of the Raving Dead. In fact I love NOTRD now after my repeated
plays and find it to have only a mild case of awkward balance. The main culprit is COTD, which struggles introducing
loads of new/changed characters and their situations, whilst trying to pour out loads of dialogue relating to puzzles
at the same time - if only they had made the season 2 episodes much longer, for the pacing to calm down - it might
for me resulted in a more respectable set of episodes.
Sorry if this sounds muddled I tried posting my original reply earlier, but the forums deleted my reply
Anyway, thanks for listening!
You have some interesting critiques, so I'll reply.
You're right about the pacing and dialogue -- Season 1 chugs along at a more leisurely pace than 2 on both counts. I disagree on it being a detriment, though. Season 2 doesn't strike me as tripping over itself to do as much as it wants to do with the story/dialogue/characters/etc. in the five episodes allotted to it. It reminds me more of the comics than Season 1 precisely because of how much is going on, how it packs in a lot more jokes and sharp writing in a short amount of playing time ... which is only a good thing in my mind. And I never felt the balance of story and comedy suffered because of that shift.
On the other hand, there is one thing Season 1 absolutely, positively has over Season 2: a better villain. There's no question in my mind about that. But then that doesn't really address any of your points. Mea culpa.
Anyway ... disagreements aside, it always sucks when a post gets gobbled up and has to be rewritten from scratch. You have my sympathy. (Tip! - Always write a post or comment in your text editor of choice first [e.g. Notepad, TextEdit], Copy/Paste it to the reply box, then Ctrl+C your entire reply right before hitting "Submit" to prevent [almost] any future catastrophes. My OCD/paranoia of losing what I've written has left me with one good habit, at least. ^^; )
I liked Season 2 better, but only because Telltale has advanced a lot since Season 1. However, if I were to go back and choose which season to play first, I'd definitely play Season 1. There are just too many in-jokes in Season 2 that are not understandable unless you've played Season 1.
Plus, some of the story does carry over.
Playing Season Two before Season One would be a terrible idea, in my opinion. A lot of S2's jokes are references to S1, and you wouldn't get anywhere near the same amount of entertainment that you would have had you just played S1 first.
However, I like S2 better because it's so much wackier almost surreal. Situation Comedy didnt really sit well with me and coulture shock was just way too short. The best of S1 had to be Reality 2.0 because it had that surreal feeling to it like S2 had.
Playing Season Two before Season One would be a terrible idea, in my opinion. A lot of S2's jokes are references to S1, and you wouldn't get anywhere near the same amount of entertainment that you would have had you just played S1 first.
Also, S2 contains some pretty nasty S1 spoilers.
As a person who played it everything out of order, it's not that dramatic. But, if someone play it out of order, is good to play it in order when is possible (And play it 2 times even its play it in order). In that way, you will catch the references to future episodes in past episodes, like the Harry Moleman Poster in
episode 101.
But I want to see if there is anyone that considers season one to be the better season?
Actually, I do.
We all know the plot is less awkward and a bit more straightforward in Season 1, and that's why people had some more "Sam & Max" feel in the second season. But, now that I think about it, it wasn't all that strange in Hit the Road as well, yet it had the Sam & Max type of humor and wit. Sam and Max are not widely known for their stories, so having a weirder plot doesn't help Season 2 to be the better season, if you ask me.
There is a fact. In Season 1, the jokes and the running gags were great. New characters to the supporting cast AND one-shot characters (I'll talk about that later) were fresh, and their potential is used greatly. This is a problem of Season 2. Aside from the Stinkies, Flint Paper, Bosco's Mom and some baddies seen in some episodes, there is nothing new that characters can give us. Seeing Bosco and Sybil in Season 2 as well is not a surprise of course, but seeing designed-to-be-one-shot-characters like C.O.P.S, Lincoln, Philo Pennyworth again and again (although they were seen in S1E6 as well, yet it's admitted that they've done something like a gathering of irrelevant characters for, in fact, the lulz) AND making the bug another supporting character made the dialouges between us and them a little repetitive. I can see that they tried not to be repetitive, as they rid Bosco and Sybil of their running gags. I think they've done a good job with giving Bosco a little more complex role in the plot, I can't say the same thing for Sybil. I really didn't care her or Abe, their roles in the game were really insignificant. I never laughed at any of their sayings. It was like, there was a thing which involves
Santa, an erupting volcano, souls of the dead, vampires, UFO's and Devil himself
going on at the background, but I also have to care a play of tag between a weird couple.
Puzzles were less challenging in S1, but at the same time they were making more sense and finding them out was less frustating and more fun. It's not like S1 was easier. How I think is, in S1, to solve some puzzles, you don't have to try to use everything you can click on with everything in your inventory. You can make your own judgment about the items in your inventory about their usage. In S2, it's more like, items have other ways of usage, and they are more detailed.
I've spent some hours in the end of Night of the Raving Dead at the part where we give Soul Matcher to monster. I couldn't figure out how that can be useful, I forgot he had Jesse James' hand. Same thing can be said for the red mucus in Moai Better Blues.
I also think S1's villain was more interesting and well-designed. I think like, the plot is as strong as its villain and his/her plan (because, the point where everything happened till that time gains their importance and meaning, is when the main villain is revealed). In S2, at the end of episode where the chair at the background turns to us and reveals the main villain of the season, you can actually put anyone on this chair and say that that guy is the main villain,
not just Soda Poppers
. It was really random, and it was done for the sake of being random, so it kinda ruined the season for me when the villain is revealed.
I never get why some people say Mr. Featherly apparitions in Season 2 were random. I always believed he was the less random of the returning characters. (Harry Moleman for me were waaayyyy more random). His only "random" moment, for me, were Lincoln's Bachelor Party.
Looks like some people doesn't like Season 2 because it wasn't as new as Season 1. The 2nd Seasons ussually, far I read it, use the established settings of the 1st Seasons and play a lot more with them, because the fans of the previous season already knows them. People who were waiting for more of the Season 1 setting, which already are familiar of them, are going to be happy. But, the people who wants the feeling of play Season 1 again, are going to be decepcionated. Normaly, more people wants to know more about the content they already knows about.
Also, the 1st Seasons are always "slower" because they are getting to know the characters. The 2nd Seasons are faster because the writers feel the characters are already known, and they can play with them more than presenting them.
Sam & Max Season 2 gives more about the setting of Season 1: We get to know better Sybil and Bosco, and get to actually know "one-shot" characters, just like Lincoln and the C.O.P.s. And they also gives you some new stuff (And take their time in introducing it. At least for Stinky). And I think they do it well.
But I want to see if there is anyone that considers season one to be the better season?
That would be me :cool: To be honest, Season 2 always seemed a bit off to me... And now that I think about it, I think my problem was that it made me feel like they were trying a bit too hard to always do something more over the top than in the previous episode. I probably would've liked more character focus, like in the first season. Also, I suppose they needed to close Bosco's and Sybil's storylines so that they could do something new in Season 3, but I still didn't like how they were handled all that much...
I never get why some people say Mr. Featherly apparitions in Season 2 were random. I always believed he was the less random of the returning characters. (Harry Moleman for me were waaayyyy more random). His only "random" moment, for me, were Lincoln's Bachelor Party.
Looks like some people doesn't like Season 2 because it wasn't as new as Season 1. The 2nd Seasons ussually, far I read it, use the established settings of the 1st Seasons and play a lot more with them, because the fans of the previous season already knows them. People who were waiting for more of the Season 1 setting, which already are familiar of them, are going to be happy. But, the people who wants the feeling of play Season 1 again, are going to be decepcionated. Normaly, more people wants to know more about the content they already knows about.
Also, the 1st Seasons are always "slower" because they are getting to know the characters. The 2nd Seasons are faster because the writers feel the characters are already known, and they can play with them more than presenting them.
Sam & Max Season 2 gives more about the setting of Season 1: We get to know better Sybil and Bosco, and get to actually know "one-shot" characters, just like Lincoln and the C.O.P.s. And they also gives you some new stuff (And take their time in introducing it. At least for Stinky). And I think they do it well.
What could be done is simple; fresh characters, like how they did it in Season 1. Otherwise it's just overusing characters. Then it's just boring after a while. To me, at the very least.
Also, we knew about Sybil and Bosco already. It's more like, now they're in the ACTION part, rather than the introduction part. Bosco now has a more acting role in the plot, for example. I really liked it actually. But Sybil... Lost her charm after she stopped switching jobs.
For one-shots, they're meant to be one-shots. I wish they kept it that way.
That would be me :cool: To be honest, Season 2 always seemed a bit off to me... And now that I think about it, I think my problem was that it made me feel like they were trying a bit too hard to always do something more over the top than in the previous episode. I probably would've liked more character focus, like in the first season. Also, I suppose they needed to close Bosco's and Sybil's storylines so that they could do something new in Season 3, but I still didn't like how they were handled all that much...
/end rant. That being said, I loved Season 2 XD.
Exactly. I hope Season 3 will bring new things onto the table.
Season 2 was good, it wasn't as great as how I imagined...
Comments
I would just buy s1 and come back for s2 when you have some money again. I would say that s2 is a bit cooler but it would be better to play them in order.
Hey thanks
You sir, have a predicament.
But Season 1 has more nostalgia, realism. The serial format is handled excellently here, as well as good plotting and an overarching sense of mystery to find out who the season one villan is. The season goes along nicely with rat-a-tat cases to be solved, that seem more clever and true to life here than in season 2 when
Season 1 also has more logical and clever puzzles than its predecessor; Season 2 tends to run out of good logical puzzles mid-way through the season sadly.
My recommendation is Season 1 for the puzzles, story and the sense that you're playing the game.
But if you like your games lively and humourous (because Season 1 can get really boring in places) with some intelligent puzzles, Season 2 would be a good recommendation instead.
But I want to see if there is anyone that considers season one to be the better season?
For me, Season 1 treats the clever dialogue well, by fitting the right type of dialogue at the right time
and keep the pacing of story progression in line with the dialogue, rather than having the dialogue trip
over the plot and become ineffective. This to me makes the episode well-made and respectable.
Whereas season 2 tends to do the exact opposite...Having a much larger and more epic story involving more characters
in season 2's episodes, for me fails to make the episode in question respectable and well-made. The episodes end
up spewing the dialogue out, as they tries to quickly make story progression - it's an awkward affair. Sure this
quick dialogue delivery creates much more laughs than season one, but the balance of dialogue and story is horrible
and frankly makes the episode seem clunky, badly made and even unlikeable at times
Of course, I love every episode, but I always remember the repulsion I faced, when season 2 brought out its first
"awkwardly balanced" episode, which would be Night of the Raving Dead. In fact I love NOTRD now after my repeated
plays and find it to have only a mild case of awkward balance. The main culprit is COTD, which struggles introducing
loads of new/changed characters and their situations, whilst trying to pour out loads of dialogue relating to puzzles
at the same time - if only they had made the season 2 episodes much longer, for the pacing to calm down - it might
for me resulted in a more respectable set of episodes.
Sorry if this sounds muddled I tried posting my original reply earlier, but the forums deleted my reply
Anyway, thanks for listening!
You have some interesting critiques, so I'll reply.
You're right about the pacing and dialogue -- Season 1 chugs along at a more leisurely pace than 2 on both counts. I disagree on it being a detriment, though. Season 2 doesn't strike me as tripping over itself to do as much as it wants to do with the story/dialogue/characters/etc. in the five episodes allotted to it. It reminds me more of the comics than Season 1 precisely because of how much is going on, how it packs in a lot more jokes and sharp writing in a short amount of playing time ... which is only a good thing in my mind. And I never felt the balance of story and comedy suffered because of that shift.
On the other hand, there is one thing Season 1 absolutely, positively has over Season 2: a better villain. There's no question in my mind about that. But then that doesn't really address any of your points. Mea culpa.
Anyway ... disagreements aside, it always sucks when a post gets gobbled up and has to be rewritten from scratch. You have my sympathy.
Plus, some of the story does carry over.
Also, S2 contains some pretty nasty S1 spoilers.
However, I like S2 better because it's so much wackier almost surreal. Situation Comedy didnt really sit well with me and coulture shock was just way too short. The best of S1 had to be Reality 2.0 because it had that surreal feeling to it like S2 had.
As a person who played it everything out of order, it's not that dramatic. But, if someone play it out of order, is good to play it in order when is possible (And play it 2 times even its play it in order). In that way, you will catch the references to future episodes in past episodes, like the Harry Moleman Poster in
episode 101.
Actually, I do.
We all know the plot is less awkward and a bit more straightforward in Season 1, and that's why people had some more "Sam & Max" feel in the second season. But, now that I think about it, it wasn't all that strange in Hit the Road as well, yet it had the Sam & Max type of humor and wit. Sam and Max are not widely known for their stories, so having a weirder plot doesn't help Season 2 to be the better season, if you ask me.
There is a fact. In Season 1, the jokes and the running gags were great. New characters to the supporting cast AND one-shot characters (I'll talk about that later) were fresh, and their potential is used greatly. This is a problem of Season 2. Aside from the Stinkies, Flint Paper, Bosco's Mom and some baddies seen in some episodes, there is nothing new that characters can give us. Seeing Bosco and Sybil in Season 2 as well is not a surprise of course, but seeing designed-to-be-one-shot-characters like C.O.P.S, Lincoln, Philo Pennyworth again and again (although they were seen in S1E6 as well, yet it's admitted that they've done something like a gathering of irrelevant characters for, in fact, the lulz) AND making the bug another supporting character made the dialouges between us and them a little repetitive. I can see that they tried not to be repetitive, as they rid Bosco and Sybil of their running gags. I think they've done a good job with giving Bosco a little more complex role in the plot, I can't say the same thing for Sybil. I really didn't care her or Abe, their roles in the game were really insignificant. I never laughed at any of their sayings. It was like, there was a thing which involves
Puzzles were less challenging in S1, but at the same time they were making more sense and finding them out was less frustating and more fun. It's not like S1 was easier. How I think is, in S1, to solve some puzzles, you don't have to try to use everything you can click on with everything in your inventory. You can make your own judgment about the items in your inventory about their usage. In S2, it's more like, items have other ways of usage, and they are more detailed.
I also think S1's villain was more interesting and well-designed. I think like, the plot is as strong as its villain and his/her plan (because, the point where everything happened till that time gains their importance and meaning, is when the main villain is revealed). In S2, at the end of episode where the chair at the background turns to us and reveals the main villain of the season, you can actually put anyone on this chair and say that that guy is the main villain,
Looks like some people doesn't like Season 2 because it wasn't as new as Season 1. The 2nd Seasons ussually, far I read it, use the established settings of the 1st Seasons and play a lot more with them, because the fans of the previous season already knows them. People who were waiting for more of the Season 1 setting, which already are familiar of them, are going to be happy. But, the people who wants the feeling of play Season 1 again, are going to be decepcionated. Normaly, more people wants to know more about the content they already knows about.
Also, the 1st Seasons are always "slower" because they are getting to know the characters. The 2nd Seasons are faster because the writers feel the characters are already known, and they can play with them more than presenting them.
Sam & Max Season 2 gives more about the setting of Season 1: We get to know better Sybil and Bosco, and get to actually know "one-shot" characters, just like Lincoln and the C.O.P.s. And they also gives you some new stuff (And take their time in introducing it. At least for Stinky). And I think they do it well.
That would be me :cool: To be honest, Season 2 always seemed a bit off to me... And now that I think about it, I think my problem was that it made me feel like they were trying a bit too hard to always do something more over the top than in the previous episode. I probably would've liked more character focus, like in the first season. Also, I suppose they needed to close Bosco's and Sybil's storylines so that they could do something new in Season 3, but I still didn't like how they were handled all that much...
/end rant. That being said, I loved Season 2 XD.
What could be done is simple; fresh characters, like how they did it in Season 1. Otherwise it's just overusing characters. Then it's just boring after a while. To me, at the very least.
Also, we knew about Sybil and Bosco already. It's more like, now they're in the ACTION part, rather than the introduction part. Bosco now has a more acting role in the plot, for example. I really liked it actually. But Sybil... Lost her charm after she stopped switching jobs.
For one-shots, they're meant to be one-shots. I wish they kept it that way.
Exactly. I hope Season 3 will bring new things onto the table.
Season 2 was good, it wasn't as great as how I imagined...