I'm sitting here with Condemned 2 on my desk with a shiny new TV to go with my PS3. However I'm conflicted because like a certain Italian stallion I feel compelled to play the first game if I want to play its sequel. However as a launch game for this current generation Condemned seems not as necessary given what the sequel improves in terms of gameplay etc. Is the story or experience necessary or worthwhile that I need to play the first game? I'm very ready to accept that I should but I'm curious to know what other people think now that we are so far past the first game's release.

I'm planning to play both myself sometime soon and do an LP. I'd definatly say it would be a good idea to play the first one first (I believe they are very different in story anyways).

Anyone else have something to say? I'm trying to get as many opinions as possible here because I'm stumped.

Don't be a Vinny.  All you need to know is killing hobos is fun.

I jumped in without reading the first's plot or even looking up what it was. Just jumped right in and understood everything! In the first 20 mins it sums up what it is your a not cop that likes getting drunk and slam hobo's heads in with a rusty lead pipe! Have fun!

I'll play it some about 15 hours from now, then I'll let you know if time has been kind to it. There are some character from it that you should know going into the sequel. The story, mainly from the unlockable files and endgame, is a bit odd but the sequel makes it even stranger so you should at least read up on it if you don't play it yourself.

Do not play the second game. Do not play it. The first game is one of the few legitimately scary games I've ever played while the second does everything it can to dismantle what made the original so solid.

@HandsomeDead said:

Do not play the second game. Do not play it. The first game is one of the few legitimately scary games I've ever played while the second does everything it can to dismantle what made the original so solid.

Yeah I wont' play the game I know I'll enjoy that I already bought. Thanks for that.

@HandsomeDead said:

Do not play the second game. Do not play it. The first game is one of the few legitimately scary games I've ever played while the second does everything it can to dismantle what made the original so solid.

Yeah I wont' play the game I know I'll enjoy that I already bought. Thanks for that.

@Origina1Penguin said:

I'll play it some about 15 hours from now, then I'll let you know if time has been kind to it. There are some character from it that you should know going into the sequel. The story, mainly from the unlockable files and endgame, is a bit odd but the sequel makes it even stranger so you should at least read up on it if you don't play it yourself.

I'd be real interested to know, do what you can to catch up because that'd be real appreciated.

Condemned 2 is great. I played it two years ago without knowing anything about the first game. There were a couple of things that passed by me. You should read the plot of the first game on wikipedia before jumping into the game.

On a side note, there is a scary-ass level in Condemned 2 in the second half of the game. Holy shit dude; you are in for a hell of a ride.

@Tuffgong: I went back and played through the first chapter again. If you don't mind the hideous character models, then the game still holds up from a technical point of view. Keep in mind that you'll be spending a lot of time in the dark. Don't cheapen the experience by keeping your video options too bright. I set it to maximum darkness. It's a fairly short game but you probably won't finish it in one sitting. It is indeed a scarier and more unnerving game than the sequel. If you have Vinny Syndrome as bad as I do, then you'll definitely want to play the first game before the sequel. You'll probably also be compelled to get all of the collectibles so you unlock all of the back story files, but if not, the information in them is rehashed in the sequel.

@HandsomeDead said:

Do not play the second game. Do not play it. The first game is one of the few legitimately scary games I've ever played while the second does everything it can to dismantle what made the original so solid.

Yeah I wont' play the game I know I'll enjoy that I already bought. Thanks for that.

@Bombs_Away said:

@Tuffgong said:

@HandsomeDead said:

Do not play the second game. Do not play it. The first game is one of the few legitimately scary games I've ever played while the second does everything it can to dismantle what made the original so solid.

Yeah I wont' play the game I know I'll enjoy that I already bought. Thanks for that.

Don't be a dickhead, he was giving you good advice. The first one is head and shoulders above the second one.

I already bought the Condemned 2 intending to play it. I don't know about you but reading his responses about just trashing the second game with no justification that I probably won't agree with anyway isn't helpful. And I'm referring to his posts about Condemned in the past as well as know. Besides I felt his rebuttal was reasonable enough, he didn't push the issue. Feedback to not play the game I already bought versus the one I didn't is ridiculous.

@Origina1Penguin said:

@Tuffgong: I went back and played through the first chapter again. If you don't mind the hideous character models, then the game still holds up from a technical point of view. Keep in mind that you'll be spending a lot of time in the dark. Don't cheapen the experience by keeping your video options too bright. I set it to maximum darkness. It's a fairly short game but you probably won't finish it in one sitting. It is indeed a scarier and more unnerving game than the sequel. If you have Vinny Syndrome as bad as I do, then you'll definitely want to play the first game before the sequel. You'll probably also be compelled to get all of the collectibles so you unlock all of the back story files, but if not, the information in them is rehashed in the sequel.

I've already decided to just play the second game. I read the plot multiple times on various sites and I don't have 7 hours to play something that I just came to the sequel to enjoy anyway. Ideally I'd have the time but I've got too many other games I've already had on my list to play that to add Condemned given it's faults just doesn't make sense at this point. Thanks for letting me know though, I appreciate it.

Note, I've already made my decision so thanks everyone for the input! I'm going to probably start up Condemned 2 this weekend.

@Tuffgong: No dude I didn't play the first one an I still loved that game.

I would play the first game honestly. The story is really cool, and it'll make wayyy more sense if you do play the 1st game.

I would definitely play the first one before starting. Mainly because it's just the better of the two (not to say the second one isn't good). Plus the story for the second one would be more enjoyable having played the first game as well. Either way your going to have fun.

@Tuffgong: 

Condemned 2 was a poor sequel. I played through the first game and loved every second of it, and despite all the new features and "improved" combat mechanics, the entire experience just dragged you along, for what seemed like a never ending labyrinth of failed jump scare attempts wrapped in a broken storyline.  I'd suggest you play the first game, even though it is effectively a simplified bare bones version of the sequel, the story and gameplay are still far more compelling. It will also help you to get a bit of context, so you can understand how the so called improvements ironically took away from the experience. You can pick up Condemned: Criminal Origins for pennies nowadays anyway.

One thing that I will admit, is that the grizzly bear sequence was really intense, though 15-20 minutes of good content in an entire game doesn't warrant a recommendation.