Does a sequel number put you off trying a game?

[WWmelb]

Basically, i keep hearing about games that are supposedly quite awesome, but they have a "2" or "3" in the title, which puts me off playing them as i haven't played the originals.

Such as, for instance, the Armored Core games.

I just can't bring myself to jump into a series of games if i haven't been with it from the start...

Is this an unusual thing for people? Or are many others of a similar mind?

 

[Dominic Crossman]

Depends if the plots good/important
From the beginning if it is.
Just jump in anywhere if it isn't.

 

[LaoJim]

No, although if I'm interested in a game series, I'll generally start with the earliest game in the series that's available on the current generation. Not so much for story purposes, but because there's a strange disconnect where it can be difficult to go back and play an earlier game after enjoying a later one since the controls and UI have often been polished, the graphics updated and new features added. Even though you can still enjoy the game you still find yourself constantly thinking "hey this is something they fixed in the sequel".

Examples of this including playing Dirt after Dirts 2 and 3 (worse graphics and handling, even if there is more rallying and longer stages) and Assassin's Creed after 2, Brotherhood and Revelations. One major exception to this was playing Dead Space 1 after Dead Space 2; nothing felt missing or slightly-off in that game and it benefited from not having over-the-top QTEs/cutscenes every few minutes.

 

[raeior]

Normally not, no. If the game has an ongoing story I might play the old titles first or just read it up on some wiki. Works just fine for most games nowadays. It can also happen that I first play the newer title and then go back to the old ones if I liked it.

 

[Whitbane]

I hate skipping games in a series as well. Feels like you're missing out on aspects of the game universe, and that is made worse if it's a direct sequel containing the same characters/story as the original. Jumping in mid-way just feels a bit off, especially if it pulls the Mass Effect garbage where you start on a fresh slate every game and choices in the earlier games make no difference at all.

Better to play a series in order, because it's much harder to go backwards if the newest games offer a ton of improvements over the first few.

 

[Evonisia]

Well I do get the feeling that I'm missing out on something important, but it doesn't stop me from playing the game. I went into Resident Evil 4 without knowing that it was a self contained story, and Halo 3 even if I acknowledged that it was the conclusion to a story. Immensely enjoyed both, and I even feel tempted to play RE5 and 6 (which I probably shouldn't).

Edit: Though if I can realistically get all the games in a short amount of time I'll play it from start to finish. Currently got Resistance 1 and 2 for a total of £4, and I'll get 3 soon enough.

 

[L. Declis]

If it is a story based game, like Mass Effect, then I'd have to play the originals (I'm playing Uncharted 1 at the moment).

If it's a shooty game or strategy game with no real story, then jump right the hell in.

 

[Fijiman]

Not really. It does usually make me want to play the games that came before it first, unless the most of the games that came before it are crap or only on systems that I don't have.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

It's what has been stopping me from playing Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines. I've tried VTM: Redemption twice and couldn't get past the caves (too boring and clunky), so I haven't felt like jumping into Bloodlines even though I know it's not a true sequel.

 

[Elfgore]

Depends on the title. I was put off from playing the Witcher 2, because I knew the game was story-based and continued after the first game. But for Fallout 3, I don't mind. Besides the premise, each Fallout game pretty much has their own story.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

It's what has been stopping me from playing Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines. I've tried VTM: Redemption twice and couldn't get past the caves (too boring and clunky), so I haven't felt like jumping into Bloodlines even though I know it's not a true sequel.

This really is a strange one. They aren't even the same type of game. Or by the same developer. Or even adapting the same aspects of the tabletop game. It's kinda like how Arkham Asylum has nothing to do with Batman on the NES.

I dunno if it helps at all, but it's not just "not a true sequel" it's literally completely unrelated besides being based on the same IP. Different canon, different mechanics, different lore, different tone, the works.

OT: Nah, not really. Sometimes it bothers me if the series is one continuous story like Digital Devil Saga but even then I don't too much of a problem just reading the original game's plot on TV Tropes or something if I'm not enjoying it.

For anything where the stories are standalone or where I don't give a shit about the story and just like the gameplay (which is rather common) I'll just jump in at whatever's considered the best game.

 

[Foolery]

Not really. I played Halo 2 before the original Halo. As a result, I can't stand Halo CE. It's my least favourite in the series.

 

[MysticSlayer]

It may delay me picking up the game, but I'm unlikely to never touch it. For instance, I put off playing Mass Effect 2 and later Mass Effect 3 because I hadn't played the original, but eventually I decided to go back and play the original so that I had the story for the two I was actually interested in. The same thing happened with The Witcher games.

Other times, though, I completely ignore the older ones. I went into Fallout 3, Far Cry 3, and Resident Evil 4 without any knowledge of past games in the series, but I also knew they were mostly separate stories, and, at least in Fallout 3's and RE4's cases, not even like the previous games. As a result, I didn't feel any obligation to the play the older games. Well, I did eventually go back and try to play the older Fallout and Resident Evil games, but I couldn't stand them.

Overall, I really don't try to let the existence of a sequel number turn me off from a game. If anything, I'll find a way to play the ones that came before it, and if I can't, then I'll just read a Wiki before jumping into it.

 

[kasperbbs]

If it has a connected storyline then i might want to play the previous games first, sadly i get put off from playing some of the more dated titles, but if the story is just a bunch of gibberish like resident evil 6 then i won't bother.

 

[teebeeohh]

i just bought dynasty warrior 8 on steam.
but if there is a good story connecting the games (which rarely is the case if we get to really high number) i sometimes will not touch a series because i want to start with the first game but there is some limitation(i don't have the hardware to run the game, it has some mechanic that i absolutely loathe) that makes me not want to try the series, even if what bothered me is not present past game 1

 

[Canadamus Prime]

That depends on the series. For example I would never recommend anyone jump into the Mass Effect series at number 2 (or 3), but you could start the Diablo series with 2 (or 3 if you really wanted) and not really miss much. Same with (and I'm dating myself here) Warcraft. I started the series with Warcraft II and most of the background info I needed to know was provided in game.

 

[Auberon]

If the previous entries are relevant. As in, if I wanted Lightning Returns for my hypothetical PS3 but I'd have to slog through XIII and XIII-2 for the story to make any sense at all.

 

[EyeReaper]

it's really sort of a case-by-case scenario for me. For example, I have never played Persona 3 or 2, with only the fondest inklings of playing Revelations: Persona when I picked up Persona 4, and I had never played any of the mainline SMT games outside of 4. Also games that have been released in America but their predecessors haven't. I'm looking at you Sakura Wars.

However, there's been two game series I've been wanting to jump into for a while, the Tales series and the Altelier series, but I have no idea where to start on those two. And I refuse to read/watch/play pretty much anything Type Moon related before I finally beat Fate/Stay Night.

Basically, It's like what other people said, you should only really worry about sequels if they continue an ongoing narrative, or if you can import a character, or if there's a really cool "Hey you played our last game so here's a reward" bonus. I mean, you really wouldn't beat yourself up if the only Mario games you've played were 3, World, Paper, and Galaxy, would you?