Playing the first game in a series necessary?

Vinny often says he wants to play the first game in a series with a new sequel, but for how many series is that necessary? I can only think of mass effect.

It's not always necessary, but sometimes it's interesting to see where a series has been and gone. I've been wanting to pick up the Ratchet and Clank Collection for just this reason.

I feel like there are some cases where it's not necessary for story reasons and the later games are better, but the earlier games are still worth playing. But because the later games are better, having added in convenient new features or streamlining the overall experience, you have to either play the earlier games first or not at all (because it becomes very hard to go back).

The crew mentioned on one of the Bombcasts a while back that Pushmo and Crashmo had this issue, I'd imagine that some of the Assassin's Creed games suffer from this, and in my opinion this definitely happens with Hitman 1 and 2 after having played Blood Money.

Edit: Looking back, I realize that I basically just repeated what @lydian_sel said.

@lydian_sel: The first Assassin's Creed is a great example of this.

It probably comes down to how much story continuity is important to you. I'd say that The Witcher is required playing before moving onto The Witcher 2, but I'm sure a lot of people would disagree since the story in the first game has very little baring on the events in the 2nd.

I really only go back and play a previous entry of a game when the story is too much of an important factor for me to let go. Then you have games where it's not mandatory to go back and play the first entry, but it enhances the experience and adds context for things you'd otherwise not know of. A few examples of this are Bioshock Infinite, Uncharted 2 and 3, Borderlands 2, Metro Last light and Saints Row 4. I really take these things on a case by case basis. Something I really want to play, but have little to no intentions of playing the previous entries in is Dragon Age 3.

As far as your question goes, I really don't know how many there are. The only ones that directly come to mind are probably Mass Effect(As you pointed out), the aforementioned Dragon Age, (I haven't played it yet, but maybe) The Witcher, and most of the Assassins Creeds.

I try to play the first game in a series whenever I can, if I'm into the series I want to try absorb as much of the story/lore as possible.

And I'm one of those people. You in no way have to play the first game in order to play the second, or even to understand the story. Like you said, almost NOTHING you do in the first game has any effect on the second game, and the introduction to the second game does a wonderful job of filling you in on what's going on and who's who.

@random45 said:

Yep yep yep! It all comes down to how much you want to immerse yourself in any world, and for me, I want to immerse myself fully. I guess that makes me a Vinny, and I'm alright with that.

Depends on the series. I wouldn't play Uncharted 2 without first playing the original, but I felt fine skipping Oblivion and jumping straight into Skyrim.

I guess it kind of depends on the series and person. If you don't care about story or characters as much as some people, than feel free to skip to the sequels, unless it's a game like Mass Effect, The Witcher, etc.

I say the Witcher by the way, because playing 2 before 1 just sounds kinda like a lame way to play that game to me. I cared about the characters much more than I would have if I hadn't played 1, and I appreciated all the little references and cameos from 1. But yeah, I guess the story itself doesn't have a whole lot to do with 1's.

I think it really depends on the game. I wanted to get into the Phantasy Star series and decided to play the first game (Phantasy Star 1987). It didnt go well but did enjoy the later games.

I usually feel compelled to do this, even though it might not make sense >_>

I always at least give the first game a shot before I play later entries, since usually there are mechanical improvement over time that just make early games way too difficult to go back to.

@beachthunder: Yeah I'm compelled as well, but even then going through the first Assassins Creed feels like such a chore...

I dunno - would you look at a painting prequel before looking at the new painting?

Think about it.

If I feel like I absolutely have to be filled in, I'll just watch a Let's Play of the previous game(s), or just wiki the important stuff. I fully enjoyed Assassin's Creed II without ever touching the first game.

There are franchises where I feel kind of stuck though. I've been wanting to go through the Shadow Hearts series for a long time. I hunted down each game new and started with the first one, but it's so archaic in design that I just couldn't get through it, and there're no good LPs for it either. In those cases, I just have to skip on and hope for the best.

It's rarely the case that a game puts out a sequel that requires the first in the series, but it's often the case that they put out a third game that requires the second. I assume it's because new IPs never sell as well as established ones.

The game who comes first to mind for me is Digital devil saga. I think you'd be pretty damn lost if you didn't play the first one. Probably some other games that this applies to.

Depends on the series. Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Can't really make a blanket statement. I am like vinny though and I need to start from the first or I can't get into it. I hate when things get referenced and I have no idea what it is. It always takes me right out of the game and makes it impossible for me to enjoy.

What? The first FEAR is undeniably the best in the franchise and still a very good shooter.

If it's all on the same system, or at least a way to play it on the same system, I'll go back.

I won't go through the trouble if I have to dig out old consoles, especially if the sequel skipped a generation.

If both you and the series give a shit about a continuing game-to-game narrative then yeah you should probably catch up. There are lots of series that don't tie a plot between instalments, even some that are narratively focused games like Final Fantasy or maybe Dragon Age. Usually you can be sure they've given up on a larger plot when they stop numbering sequels, though there are lots of exceptions that go both ways (Assassin's Creed/Final Fantasy as extreme opposite examples).

You played a PC focused shooter on a console (FEAR) and then played a console focused shooter on a console (FEAR 2). So yeah...