Do you HAVE to play the 1st game before you play the 2nd, 3rd etc..?

[MarioMark]

Are you one of those gamers that can't start playing a game from the 3rd game in the series for example because you never played the originals, so you don't bother at all?

I find myself looking at games from E3 and thinking yeah that looks decent but I didn't play the first one so I'll not bother because I don't have enough game time to go through the whole franchise just to catch up.

For example, Creed 4 looks good, but I couldn't get into it when I played the first one so I won't be buying the new one thus wondering if I'll miss out. The same with Infamous on PS4, that looks decent but I can't be arsed to go through my free games list on PS Plus and play 30 hours worth of the first 2 games just to catch up.

Or same again with Uncharted 3, the 3rd games is free on PS Plus but I don't want the 3rd one because I didn't really play the first 2 games.

I'm not saying it's a case with all games, just the story driven ones. I'm not gonna go back and play Fifa 97 and Fifa 07 because they're the only ones I never bought back then.

[rmoxon]

Uncharted 3 follows the first 2 games, one of the best things about it are the parts that focus on the back story of the character of Nathan Drake. As a game it's not as good as the first 2, but it works becuase the story uses the previous ones as a building block, basically it's important to play the first 2 to fully appreciate the third game.

However there are many other sequels that are more self contained. I would have no problem recommending Resident Evil 4 to someone who has never played the previous games for instance, as your enjoyment of the game doesn't depend on your experience with the previous ones in the series.

So basically it depends on the game.

[speedlolita]

Totally agree with the above.

[mekanor]

I'm the same, I generally either don't play a game or I go back to the start and catch up (which is much less common due to the time this takes). The former has meant that I never played the likes of Skyrim or Fallout 3 or something, even though I'm guessing they have little connection to the previous games in their series. Like I said, the latter doesn't happen much but I did it recently with Luigi's mansion, and I've been doing it gradually with the Metal Gear Solid series for ages. I first played MGS1 and the MSX game quite a few years ago, but only this year did I get around to playing MGS3 and 4. Hopefully by the time 5 comes out I will have caught up.

[sj33]

It does entirely depend on the game in question, though I think there are very few games that are really not worth playing unless you have played the prequels (the Mass Effect games being the only ones that come to mind, and Shenmue 2).

What we have to remember is that developers are always trying to grow their audience. They're not targeting sequels merely at the existing user base, but also hoping to improve upon the original experience in order to bring in new users. As a result, there are very few games that are inaccessible to new players. Even if the games are placed within a larger story arc, they are usually also quite-self-contained and easy for new users to catch up. The Resident Evil games being obvious examples.

In the case of the Elder Scrolls and Fallout games, the series' has been around for so long that the developers are presumably working on the assumption that players haven't played the previous games. Aside from being set in the same universe and sharing the same lore, they're as self-contained as they possibly can be. Playing Oblivion isn't going to significantly influence your enjoyment or understanding of Skyrim.

I definitely understand why people would want to play the previous games first, but I think what we're seeing is a lot of people missing out on excellent (and perfectly self-contained) games due to the fact that most people will never have the time to play the previous games. People would benefit from trying to overcome that feeling.

[J0e Musashi]

I'd just play UC3 anyway if it's free.

[Neon Ignition]

You should be fine with Infamous too, the new one looks like it has no real story connection to the previous two at all

[wakka]

Although I definitely agree there are tons of games where playing previous releases doesn't matter (Elder Scrolls, Final Fantasy apart from X-2, XIII-2, etc) I think Yakuza is a series where you need to play them in order. It's been holding me back because I never finished off the last quarter of 2. Gotta go get my PS2 from my parent's house, bring it down, finish it off, then I can FINALLY launch into 3 and 4 and legitimately moan about the lack of localisation for 5.

[Paddy]

Although I definitely agree there are tons of games where playing previous releases doesn't matter (Elder Scrolls, Final Fantasy apart from X-2, XIII-2, etc) I think Yakuza is a series where you need to play them in order. It's been holding me back because I never finished off the last quarter of 2. Gotta go get my PS2 from my parent's house, bring it down, finish it off, then I can FINALLY launch into 3 and 4 and legitimately moan about the lack of localisation for 5.

Dude, the last part of Yakuza 2 is perhaps the best part of it (without sharing any potential spoilers). Strong contender for the best in the series...

[bash]

Damn, always did regret not finishing Yakuza 1 on the PS2.

[wakka]

Dude, the last part of Yakuza 2 is perhaps the best part of it (without sharing any potential spoilers). Strong contender for the best in the series...

Wargh. Well I just bought a copy a new (to me) copy from the trading folder so I just need my PS2 and I'm set.

[kryss]

Obviously I know what I should be playing next.

I don't need to play in sequence, but I do prefer to play in order of release so I can see how things have changed with each iteration.

[Soundwave]

Damn, always did regret not finishing Yakuza 1 on the PS2.

Well if you fancy trying it again I have a copy here you can have

Neil

[bash]

Cheers Neil, any idea if it works on ps3? I need to get through TLOU before I start anything new.