Playing the entire series

[Rydia]

Just take the scenario for what it is.

So you want to get into a new video game series. Thing is, the current gen game console starts with part 4 and the only way to play parts 1-3 is to use an older console. Do you feel that you have to play the begining of the series?

If the series is relatively new, then I feel the need to play the first part. For example, I couldn't play Halo 3 until I played the first two parts because I felt like I was missing something. It didn't matter if it was a conintuation of the last game or a completely independent story, I had to play 1 and 2 first.

However, for older series that date as far back as the NES, I don't feel the need to play every game until the current one released. I pretty much figure that if part 1 was on the NES, then I probably won't finish it anyway. And I just don't have the desire to play all the games.

 

[King Sean]

I don't to be honest. I haven't played any of the Zelda games before Ocarina Of Time and I don't feel any way about it. If you don't feel like playing the previous games, you don't have to. You could just research the information on the previous games to keep up with the continuity, but otherwise, I don't believe you have to.

It comes down to gamer preference, actually.

 

[Kei]

It's the same for me.

If the series is fairly new, I'd most likely play all the parts. Although, the difference in gameplay might stop me from playing the older parts. For example, Prince of Persia The Sands of Time trilogy, I never was able to complete Sands of Time since I hated the battle style to no end, so I just read a summary of the events.

But yea, if the series has parts on Old consoles then I don't feel the need to play the older parts, and just stick with the new parts.

 

[coffeecup]

Well it really depends on the game. For example, MGS4 got me to download MGS1 from the PS store which is of two console generations ago. I was just going to read what happened on wiki or something, but the flashback made me want to buy it (damn you Konami). I could also understand with Halo and other games with a continuing storyline. Crossing over console generations isn't that big of a problem with me since I never really started with the best (too poor to afford so I was always 1 gen behind....got the Nintendo when SNES was big, etc...) so the graphics problem isn't that bad for me.

But I see no reason why you need to play Megaman 1,2,3,4,....to play Megaman X or something of a similar sort. That's just the franchise milking the name as much as it can without even trying to build some kind of continuing storyline.

 

[l•lMISTl•l]

For me it doesn't mater how old the game is if there are other parts even if there on different consoles I have to find a way to play em. For example I got a PSP and I discovered the Kingdom heart series so when I found out that there were other games made before the one on PSP I had to go and whip out the good old PS2 and play KH I and KHII

 

[FreyaTheWanderer]

Generally it depends for me. Generally if there's a series I want to get into, I'll check to see if it has a continuity - if it does, I'll play the games in order, if it doesn't, I'll just go with whatever I can get my hands on the easiest. I generally don't have any problem playing prequels however, unless it's a series such as Kingdom Hearts.

 

[Exoskeleton]

In a situation like that I usually don't want to play the series unless I know about it or can play the first part. I'll only play a series like that if I buy a spinoff that has nothing to do with the main story so much. I did this with Valkyrie Profile. I bought covenant of the plume and really think it's a great game. I looked up the rest of the events of that game. I also did this with kingdom hearts, only having played Chain of Memories for the gba and 358 days. They don't relate directly to the story all too much (Although after I bought CoM all these spinoffs and storybranches kept coming out ewhich made the events that happened in that game more important) and they are generallly fun games.

 

[Demon]

I'd rather play the latest in the series first and see if I can get what I can from it. Then if I really liked the game, I'll brush up by playing the previous games.

If you want to play the latest game, you shouldn't have to stop yourself (in my opinion). Depends on the game series though.

 

[Espurr]

It depends on the game and how much I care about the plot. Usually with FPS I don't care too much about plot so I may just buy the latest game. But if it is anything else I would prefer to start from the very beginning that way not only will the gameplay just be a constant upgrade for me instead of being a downgrade and being harder to get into, but I can follow the plot from the beginning too. Although I would prefer to start from the beginning of a series, if a game is a non-related sequel I may play it from the latest game, although I would prefer not to.

 

[Martel]

It depends with me, as well. If the games don't follow each other chronologically, I don't really care whether I've played the older ones or not - for example, whilst the Zelda games have a timeline, you're not going to miss out on anything if you play Twilight Princess with playing Ocarina of Time, because they're self-contained adventures - but if they do, and there are references to previous games - such as Halo, God of War, etc - then I have to play the older games first. I hate having an incomplete picture of things, and it feels like I'm starting from the middle. Even reading up on what has happened prior to the game doesn't really help.

 

[Dishy]

Sometimes I find it helps to START with the older games in the series.
That way, each game is an upgraded experience.
Otherwise sometimes playing a prequel with not-as-good gameplay or graphics can put people off.

 

[Ayen]

Not unless it's one of those games where you have to play the previous one to fully understand (Like Metal Gear Solid for example). Otherwise I'll go with the most recent one. I mean I played Mass Effect 2 before playing 1 and I didn't really have to play 1 to understand 2 so there was no harm in it. The same goes for Fallout 3.

 

[bearsfwd]

For me, it depends upon the series. Some series, I don't bother with. But others, I have to go back (even if it doesn't matter).

Final Fantasy, for example. You don't have to play any of the previous games because they don't tie into one another. But I still felt the need to go back and experience the ones I missed. Luckily, I didn't miss many. Having started with IV, I had only missed one game (here in the US, so technically 3), then I missed VI (and V, but we didn't get that until GBA). But now, I've played them all. I haven't touched Crystal Chronicles yet though, as I have no real interest in that section of FF.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any games that I have no interest in going back to play that I had missed.

But I see no reason why you need to play Megaman 1,2,3,4,....to play Megaman X or something of a similar sort. That's just the franchise milking the name as much as it can without even trying to build some kind of continuing storyline.

You don't need to play any of the classic series to play any of the X series. However, if I remember correctly, each installment is a VERY loose continuation of the previous...in the same series. Of course, you aren't required to play 1 before 2 or X before X2, though.

Although, if they ever finally connect the classic series to the X series...things could change.