Do you always play a series in order, starting with the first game? Do you only play the newest game first, and then go back toward the original?
I'm all over the map with this one...
Series from oldest to newest:
Super Mario Bros. (except Luigi's Mansion, New 2, New 3, Galaxy 2 and Maker)
Super Mario Kart
Half-Life
Portal (not Postal)
Doom (except 64)
Age of Empires (except Online)
Carmageddon (except 64)
SimCity (except 2013)
Starcraft
Diablo
Series starting with the sequel first:
Sonic the Hedgehog 2
Command & Conquer: Red Alert
The Settlers II
Civilization II
Caesar II
Warcraft II
Original and skip a few:
GTA (original, then III)
Legend of Zelda (original, then Twilight Princess)
A truly prophetic sig...
At 9/13/16 04:54 PM, TheQuietGamer wrote: Depends on the series.
If it's a long running one where things like story and innovation aren't huge focuses (think multiplayer focused games like COD and Battlefield) then I'll jump around and just pick up what's available to me at any given time.
Nothing wrong with that. Especially, if every game is pretty much the same in a series.
However in games where story is important in that the events in the different games are directly tied to one another, then I'll try to play them in order. Especially if the entries are spread across different console generations or significant amounts of time. A new feature in a sequel is less likely to be appreciated unless you experienced what the game was like the first time without that feature.
I agree that games like that are best to play in order. You can experience the series getting better graphics, and follow the story as it progresses.
There are also those series that have gone on for so long that it's difficult to do anything other than pick a decent starting point regardless of the order. For me those series are Legend of Zelda and Final Fantasy. A blow that is lessened by the fact that I've been told that most of the game's in both of those series don't have anything to do with one another story wise.
Being flexible between the two ways to play games, seems to work very well for you.
At 9/13/16 11:12 AM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Do you always play a series in order, starting with the first game? Do you only play the newest game first, and then go back toward the original?
I play it in the order of release.
The only exception being remasters, where I'll substitute the older version with the newer version.
∀x (∃e (e ∈ x ∧ ∀x ¬(x ∈ e)) ∨ ∃y ¬∃e (e ∈ x ∧ ¬∃z (z ∈ y ∧ z ∈ e ∧ ∀x ¬((x ∈ y ∧ x ∈ e) ∧ ¬(x = z)))))
Depends on how important the story is to the games. If the story becomes a lot easier to understand by playing the first games then it obviously is good to play them in order. If not then I might start with one of the later games.
I tend to play series completely and unintentionally backwards. MGS for example...I played 3 then 2 and then 1. Same thing with Zelda...I played Ocarina then Link to the Past, etc.
At 12/13/16 04:15 PM, death2zane wrote: I tend to play series completely and unintentionally backwards. MGS for example...I played 3 then 2 and then 1. Same thing with Zelda...I played Ocarina then Link to the Past, etc.
Really? Doesn't it ruin the plot if you already know what will happen?
Feels like I rarely get into a franchise with the first game, but it happens. I've played a lot of FPS series in order, like Doom, Quake, Marathon, Duke Nukem. I got started with GTA with the first game, too, so apart from spin-off's it's the same there - though I replay certain segments at random once I'm finished with all those games. Usually the games I try are at random, though. If it's not a series I know I'll like, I won't usually start with the first one right away, but jump in with whatever game is new at the time, and then go back for more later on.
At 12/16/16 12:33 AM, DoctorStrongbad wrote:At 12/13/16 04:15 PM, death2zane wrote: I tend to play series completely and unintentionally backwards. MGS for example...I played 3 then 2 and then 1. Same thing with Zelda...I played Ocarina then Link to the Past, etc.Really? Doesn't it ruin the plot if you already know what will happen?
Usually yes but in this situation Ocarina of Time isn't canon to any of the Zelda titles prior to it. Also, at the time, MGS3 was the earliest in the MGS timeline so I wasn't really spoiling anything for myself.
At 12/16/16 08:41 PM, death2zane wrote:At 12/16/16 12:33 AM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Really? Doesn't it ruin the plot if you already know what will happen?Usually yes but in this situation Ocarina of Time isn't canon to any of the Zelda titles prior to it. Also, at the time, MGS3 was the earliest in the MGS timeline so I wasn't really spoiling anything for myself.
That makes sense in those situations. What about going backwards graphics wise? Has that ever bothered you?
At 12/18/16 07:07 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote:At 12/16/16 08:41 PM, death2zane wrote:That makes sense in those situations. What about going backwards graphics wise? Has that ever bothered you?At 12/16/16 12:33 AM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Really? Doesn't it ruin the plot if you already know what will happen?Usually yes but in this situation Ocarina of Time isn't canon to any of the Zelda titles prior to it. Also, at the time, MGS3 was the earliest in the MGS timeline so I wasn't really spoiling anything for myself.
A little bit but not as much as the controls. MGS1 wasn't hard to look at but I was so used to the fluid controls of MGS2 and 3 that I had a hard time adjusting.
At 12/18/16 11:10 PM, death2zane wrote:At 12/18/16 07:07 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: That makes sense in those situations. What about going backwards graphics wise? Has that ever bothered you?A little bit but not as much as the controls. MGS1 wasn't hard to look at but I was so used to the fluid controls of MGS2 and 3 that I had a hard time adjusting.
Those games have about the same graphics. Going from them to the 8 bit Metal Gears would be a large step backwards.
I guess it depends. Usually I try to. I guess its moderately important to me. When Uncharted 2 came out I went back and played the first before the second.
