Babylonia vs Camelot?

Babylonia > Camelot. Having fun with Nitocris + King Hassan on chapter 21-4. Instant Death everywhere.

The extra buffs were amazing :-)

Actually what I really liked about Babylonia was the extra artwork, especially for the climax. I don't remember nearly as much special background art in any other singularity.

Camelot was amazing but the end of Babylonia kicked it up a few notches. Reminded me a little of smt series, fighting a god in an apocalyptic scenario is always fun. And the support characters are all so well written it actually made me want to roll for Merlin (I'm a roll for what I like kind of guy).

Too bad I'm saving my quartz for when the bell tolls on new year.

***MAJOR SPOILERS FOR CAMELOT AND BABYLONIA AHEAD***
***YOU WERE WARNED***
.
.
.
.
.
I enjoyed Babylonia way more than Camelot.
Sure, storywise they are both well written and there were also moments in Camelot, when I got goosebumps. (Most of all the final battle when Ozymandias threw his pyramid at the castle)
But the fights in Camelot were too gimmicky for my rather weak team at that moment and the support Servants weren't all that helpful most of the time. I relied on the typical Support-Wavers and such.
That's why I couldn't fully get into the singularity.

Babylonia on the other hand was simply perfect from start to finish and I really love all the Servants there.
And I used the Story Supports every time, because contrary to Camelot all the supports were SR or SSR (except for Tiger). Which is why the final battles were all the better. First fighting with Merlin again, then the sudden appearance of KH and finally the revival of the one true King. Honestly, fighting with Gilgamesh never felt that good.

But besides the whole epicness, Babylonia probably had a few of the most heartbreaking moments of the game.
Ana's reappearance as Gorgon, when she is sending us harshly of.
The battle were we are forced to fight the transformed Siduri while all she does is surrender. (this was simply cruel)
I also almost shed a tear when Gilgamesh gave Ishtar the order to destroy Uruk and kill himself.

Man, I really, really, really love that Singularity and would really love to play it once again. It's really sad, that it's impossible.
Still, it was great.

P.S.: Now I'm really hyped for the Anime adaptations. Ozymandias, Nitocris, Sanzang, Serenity, Merlin, Quetzalcoatl, Ishtar and so on... Seeing them all animated is gonna be so great! :D

Well, in the gameplay department I feel like Camelot was definitely more of a challenge for sure, Babylonia had its moments (Quetz fight, Ereshkigal fight, and the Ushi fights and some Lahmu bits), but the final stretch with all the buffs and healing protecting you was extremely appropriate for the narrative and added to the atmosphere, but took away from the challenge a bit. I didn't really care honestly, as I was mostly invested in the story over gameplay at that point, but still, Camelot probably wins out in gameplay for having more unique challenges from beginning to end, though Babylonia did more with presentation, and the NPC appearances were amazing (the last few were truly epic, including Archer Gil who I still can't figure out, was it just his spirit in the underworld taking on his form at his peak, with Ea, or did the magnificent bastard summon himself as he died? Too damn epic).

As for story, I think I personally would still give it to Camelot narratively because it felt more tonally consistent and a little bit more mature, as Nasu put the plot and characterization at the forefront over the story and lore complexities, and Bedievere was such a well realized protagonist, fantastically written. Caster Gil does come close though as a protagonist, and Babylonia's presentation of the setting and lore is probably better than Camelot's, and the final act of Babylonia( the last third), once things really ramp up and there's a big tonal shift, leads to a better climax than anything that came before, even Camelot. Babylonia's cast is also great, perhaps better as a whole than Camelot's, but Bedivere's brilliantly written story being at the center of the latter and Mash also having more focus made me feel like Camelot won out on characterization.

I think Babylonia basically has a more epic finale and the emphasis of the best part of its story is on that incredible buildup and climax, a more simple yet effective and dramatically resonant way of storytelling than the slower, more subdued Camelot style. I don't think the conclusion alone puts the story above Camelot for me, but it's certainly the most epic one, though sometimes I think there was an overemphasis on lore to the detriment of the plot developments and characterization. Still, both singularities stand head and shoulders above what came before, you could tell Nasu wrote it because the writing was mostly far superior, both set up and executed such great stories. Camelot just pandered more to a darker, more tragic feel, while Babylonia was more about grandeur and heroism in the face of cataclysm, and had a great thematic conclusion with the transition from the Age of the Gods to the Age of Mankind. Hard to beat the final third of Babylonia, all in all, so Camelot is more consistent but Babylonia has a higher peak for me.

To conclude, I think they are nearly equal, and I only rate Camelot slightly higher because I like good plot and characterization a little bit more than the great presentation, lore and thematic flair which Babylonia had, but both had plenty of this anyway, so they are both the crown jewels of FGO's story so far.