When you jump to a new franchise, do you generally get the first game in the franchise or the last? Or do you get the one entry that resounds with you the most?
Depends on the IP. If it's a story heavy IP I like to start at the beginning, but if it's a long running IP maybe not. (Although there's not a lot of those that I haven't tried.) But if it's an IP I had no interest in until a certain entry then I'll just play the one I'm interested in. (Bioshock Infinite for example.)
I did start Metal Gear Solid with 3 though, but that's mostly because I picked it up on a whim for cheap with no real intention to get into the series, until I ended up enjoying it.
i was relatively new to the Devil may cry series so i started from the beginning. Sure game play might be an issue but i had a better understanding of the story.
It depends on the series. If I hadn't played any of the Final Fantasy or Zelda games I wouldn't go back and play the early games in those series. Something more recent like The Witcher or Metro and I'd likely try to play the first games before the later ones.
Depends if there's any sort of meaningful story. Maybe a spin off or some sort of prequel. One that get you in a good spot to start anyway. Like Halo: Reach. It remains the only Halo game i bought and was as good a place as any to start without going all the way back to the first one. That was before Halo Anniversary.
I generally go for the first game in the series. The only ones that came to mind in which I didn't start by the first game were Silent Hill, Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest and Fallout.
It varies. I remember playing Broken Sword 2 before the first game for instance, and I don't think I lost anything in the Assassin's Creed series by essentially starting with the second game. The only Resident Evil game I've played to completion was Nemesis. I played Final Fantasy VII first, though I doubt I'd be the first to admit that. I played Street Fighter II yeeeeeeeeears before I played the original, and we're all better off for it really.
However, these days I'll often think that playing the first game in a series is important for its own sake, such as earlier this year when I played the first two FEAR games pretty much back to back. For some reason though, this has kind of happened as a result of having more disposable income and thinking that I can always play both if I want to. Back when I was a kid, it made more sense to buy the latest game in the series if you could afford it, as that was likely a better experience, and no one ever gave a shit about narrative back then. How far we've come, I guess.
I used to do always do the first game in a series, but lately I'm not as rigid about it. Lately I just play whichever one interests me. Often time it's still the first but not always.
If its a long running series or the different games are very different then ill start at the begining but if its something recent where the games are mostly the same ill take the latest one.
If it's a long runner? No. If I find myself interested in the current one, I might go back to the old ones, like I'm planning to play Megami Tensei at some point. But I'm not going to play every game in a series that has existed since the SNES just to catch up to the current one.
If it's a long runner? No. If I find myself interested in the current one, I might go back to the old ones, like I'm planning to play Megami Tensei at some point. But I'm not going to play every game in a series that has existed since the SNES just to catch up to the current one.
That would be crazy! To play all the Megami Tensei. You would lose literaly years of your life playing all the games.
I always, always begin with the first game and work my way through the franchise. I hate the idea of missing the events and action of the previous games, ESPECIALLY that I love comparing the gameplay of games and their sequels.
Sometimes the first game is too shit and after two hours I jump to the next one (Hitman), sometimes I end up loving the original more than the sequel I started the shindig for (STALKER), sometimes they're all amazing.
The only exception is when the original games are ancient and I expect dated gameplay. I started SC with Chaos Theory.
I started playing Fifa recently, had to go all the way back to Fifa International Soccer for the Genesis... totally worth it though, I'm at Fifa 98 now and the story is really gripping, I think Zola might be leaving chelsea! :O
I started playing Fifa recently, had to go all the way back to Fifa International Soccer for the Genesis... totally worth it though, I'm at Fifa 98 now and the story is really gripping, I think Zola might be leaving chelsea! :O
I used to jump in at the current title but I've learned to start at the beginning because I care about the overarching story, characters, etc. The last game series I jumped in at the most recent was MGS4 and while I loved the game, was lost with characters, events, plot points, etc. That was pretty much the turning point to start at the beginning if I can.
Depends on the series. For games with little to no narrative connection to the previous games, I would go with the newest one as in the case with Saints Row: The Third and Farcry 3.
I never played an Elder Scrolls game before starting Skyrim. I enjoyed Skyrim for about 60-70 hours before getting bored but enjoyed what i did play so much that I recently started playing Oblivion. Ten hours in and so far so good. I wont be playing any earlier entries, though.
It depends, if I'm getting into a series because a new entry is just coming out, then typically I'll just jump in with the new entry - sometimes I might go check out older entries in advance of a game's release, though. If story matters across games in the series then I'm more likely to start from the beginning. If I'm checking out a series due to interest other than a new entry being released then I'll probably start from the beginning.
So I don't really have any sort of hard and fast rule, I guess. I'll definitely be more likely to start from the beginning if the beginning is current gen, or perhaps the previous generation, if we're talking series spanning more than two generations, though I'm probably a lot less likely to bother going back before checking out newer entries.
Well recently, I got the Witcher 2 during that big XBL sale awhile back, it was like 10 bucks. I never played the first one, though i did look up a bunch of plot summaries and stuff to make me familiar with the plot of the first one.
Loved the Witcher 2, and i would go back if i saw a deal on Witcher 1
When I used to have all the time in the world, I'd start from the series beginning if they had any sort of story/thematic continuity between games. Nowadays, I'll only do that if it's a short series or if the time commitment isn't very long. I bought and slogged through the first Uncharted (on Hard, which I regretted almost immediately) earlier this year just so I could play Uncharted 2 & 3. Completed Drake's Deception just two days ago.
For a time sink like Persona, I really want to try out Persona 4 but getting into the series from the beginning would take too much time for me so I'm looking to start from Persona 3. This is also the reason why I haven't played Bioshock: Infinite (only got two hours into Bioshock) and Mass Effect 3 (my copies of Mass Effect 1 & 2 are sitting on my shelf, taunting me).
I do wish I could just jump into games without a care though. I'd have more free time in my life.
Depends on the series. For games with little to no narrative connection to the previous games, I would go with the newest one as in the case with Saints Row: The Third and Farcry 3.
If there is an overarching narrative I'll usually start at the beginning(or as close as I reasonably can). Otherwise I just start with whichever game I feel like and then jump around if I get into it.
Like many others here, I gotta say it's series dependant. Starting with the first Final Fantasy really doesn't enhance the experience for the other ones as, save for spinoffs like X-2 and XIII-2, they tend not to be related to one another. Games with more of a story to them, like Gears of War or Uncharted, it's usually a good idea to go back and see what you missed before.
Now, that said, as long as it's not spanning three or four system generations, getting an earlier entry can be a cheap way to introduce oneself, at least if the series is/was popular enough for shit-tons of copies to get out in the wild. Then of course there's re-releases that bundle a bunch of 'em together, like Devil May Cry HD Collection.
Basically, there's really no right answer to this.
Depends how story heavy it is. Like for Metal Gear I didn't have an MSX so I just read the plot for the first 2 games on wikipedia and then started with Solid.
Definitely depends on the series. With Devil May Cry, I jumped in with DMC 3 and continued on without even playing the first two. With games like Max Payne, I played the third first and then went back and played the original two.
If it is a story heavy game I always start from the beginning but if the gameplay is the large focus I will start at the last one but that can have problems like playing earlier titles that have weaker gameplay sometimes.
Log in to comment