Is it worth playing earlier iteration of a game that has sequels?

StaminaRose

StaminaRose

CAGiversary!
Feedback
7 (100%)
For example, Motorstorm, Fight Night, Army of Two, Tom Clancy franchises, Uncharted, GearsoW, GodoW, Halo, etc.

Games that aren't your run-of-the-mill yearly sports titles. I have a pretty big backlog of older games in this generation and I was wondering if I should even bother with anything but the latest in a line of sequels (or 'spiritiual successors', as in Dark Souls)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
366xjy.jpg


 
What? Of course! Some games are worthwhile if they have a rather expansive story (Mass Effect), and some games are worth it because the gameplay actually might be preferred over their sequels (I'd argue Fight Night on this one). It doesn't mean you HAVE to play the older games: I started God of War with the third entry and was more than content with catching-up on the story via the "5 minute recaps" on the previous games... it'll always be a case-by-case basis.

 
I think so.  The first Uncharted isn't so great, but Uncharted 2 was probably the best in the series.  This happens all the time as gameplay and design gets tweaked and sometimes ruined by the time the 3rd and 4th sequels roll around.  God of War 3 is WAY better than Ascension imo. 

As for Fight Night I just got the latest one but haven't played it yet.  I have a hard time playing older titles too, I can't bring myself to play Demon's Souls after trying Dark Souls...and I have never played Fallout Vegas because I always tell myself I should just put in Skyrim instead.  I'm weird like that too.

 
Just depends.

If it's story driven and the games tie together (like Mass Effect), then I'd argue it's important to start at the beginning as the story is a huge part of those types of games.

For other games that aren't a continuous story, it basically comes down to the above post and looking up what the best regarded games in a series are. If one of the eariler ones is regarded as the best in the series, then it would be kind of silly to just play the latest.  If the latest is considered the best, then no reason to not just play it and maybe go back to earlier ones if you really loved it and want more of the same.

 
dmaul1114 said:
Just depends.
If it's story driven and the games tie together (like Mass Effect), then I'd argue it's important to start at the beginning as the story is a huge part of those types of games.

For other games that aren't a continuous story, it basically comes down to the above post and looking up what the best regarded games in a series are. If one of the eariler ones is regarded as the best in the series, then it would be kind of silly to just play the latest. If the latest is considered the best, then no reason to not just play it and maybe go back to earlier ones if you really loved it and want more of the same.
Click to expand...
Exactly how I feel. When it comes to story driven series (usually, anything other than racing, puzzle and sports games), I always play them in order. There are some game series, like FF and GTA, where the individual games are story driven but there's no overall story arc for the series... for those types of games, it doesn't really matter.
 
This is something I wish game reviews would address.  Often I see a sequel gets a lower score than the original because the reviewer complains about lack of innovation, but neglects the small improvements that actually make the sequel better.

 
bkjohns1 said:
This is something I wish game reviews would address. Often I see a sequel gets a lower score than the original because the reviewer complains about lack of innovation, but neglects the small improvements that actually make the sequel better.
Click to expand...
I don't know, I see it going either way. A perfect example would be last year's military shooter face-off: everything I read seemed to give Black OPs II high praise for the "tried-and-true" gameplay, whereas Medal of Honor got blasted for being another hackneyed military shooter. IGN gave it like a 4/10, even though they remarked that the shooting mechanics were solid.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
i rarely go back playing, or play any games that has sequels. i usually just play the sequel, or the newest/ most recent release one. If i wanted to know the background story, i just watch youtube gameplay walkthrough videos.

 
iamsmart said:
I don't know, I see it going either way. A perfect example would be last year's military shooter face-off: everything I read seemed to give Black OPs II high praise for the "tried-and-true" gameplay, whereas Medal of Honor got blasted for being another hackneyed military shooter. IGN gave it like a 4/10, even though they remarked that the shooting mechanics were solid.
Click to expand...
yeah, i agree. they are obviously being paid off. if you notice, every newly release call of duty games get good reviews from most of the gaming review sites. it may not be a 10/10 score.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it really depends on the series. I never was a Tomb Raider fan until the latest game and i tried to go back... that was a mistake lol. Games like GoW are worth going back and playing from the beginning.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top