Does a sequel number put you off trying a game?

[Johnny Novgorod]

Ordinarily, yes. Unless the games don't have a narrative continuity between them. And by that I mean a tight narrative continuity, not the kind of Saturday morning cartoon continuity where we tune in to see Chris Redfield's newest adventure. I suppose this would boil down to games that focus on a particular character whose actions can be traced back to earlier games which build up on top of each other. Like the God of War games (like the story or not, each game follows each other very tightly) or the Assassin's Creed games (though I cheated here since I didn't play ACIII).

 

[duwenbasden]

Nope. If the game requires you to play the last game because of lore, etc, then I am not going to bother. Every game must stand up on its own, and having too much story means my input is tangentially related to the story at best, which I absolutely loathe.

 

[Drops a Sweet Katana]

Depends. If the game has a story that can progress in a logical way, then I'm game for a sequel. Same if there isn't really a story to continue. But if a sequel would detract from the story of the previous entries, then I tend to be a little less forgiving. Dark Souls 2 and Halo 4 come to mind.

 

[thejackyl]

Depends if it's a direct, or indirect sequel.

Silent Hill for example: To enjoy Silent Hill 2 or 3, you don't need to play 1 or even really know about them. It helps in 3's case since Harry from 1 is in it, but his involvement is more or less explained.

Also, the Resident Evil series: All of the PS1/2 era games were both sequels/prequels AND self contained. Mainly because the intros all explain what you need to know to enjoy them.

Even the Final Fantasy series (with exception to X,X-2 and XIII and it's sequels) are self contained stories.


Actually, I can't really think of many games that missing an entry is a big deal, apart from Mass Effect and that's only because things change based on your decisions throughout the series.

 

[DoPo]

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.

Well, the lore is the same. Or mostly the same, there are some changes in the tabletop between the time Redemption came out and Masquerade did although neither is really giant or even relevant between the two. Or mentioned, as far as I recall. I guess except the Gangrel having an agreement with the Lupines but the connection between the two of them has mostly been hinted at before Revised edition (and afterwards it was denied), with the outright pact they have being solely a Redemption thing. Also, it's something that was way, way back in the day in Redemption.

But yeah, two different games with nothing really connecting them other than a subtitle and the background setting. Medal of Honor: Allied Assault and Medal of Honor: Warfighter share a comparable amount of connection, I guess - they both have, like, guns and war in them but you don't need to play one to play the other at all.

 

[-Dragmire-]

Well, I'm replaying Disgaea now before starting Disgaea D2, so yeah. It also bugged me when I found out Project X Zone was a sequel but I couldn't get the original PS2 game.

 

[Mr C]

Though exceptions to the rule exist, i.e. FarCry2, I have the same issue as the OP. I'm dying to play Black Flag, but still haven't done Revelations or AC3 or the noes!!!

 

[Rebel_Raven]

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?

The first armored core came out on PSX in 1997-ish. That's a long way to go back, though they were simpler times with no tuning, no dropping weapons, no weapon damage, etc. I'd just five, or V: Verdict day a try. Or find a remotely modern one that lacks a number in the title like For Answer.

V is kinda in the middle depending if you see it as a roman numeral. I'm not sure why they call it the 5th game since there's been so many spin offs putting it nowhere near the 5th game.
Verdict day is a sequel to 5, keeping the V. game sequel numberings can be weird.

OT:
Not really. Saints row 2 is where I started, and it's where I'm happy, with my "Boss" being a woman.

Rune Factory 4 is fine with me. Hadn't played any others but Tides of Destiny, and that.

I didn't play Dynasty warriors until 3, and barely missed an installment since.

Unless the game's got some ongoing plot, I'm down for it whenever I can jump in. If I jump in late, I can try and find the older games, or at least wiki the earlier bits.

 

[jelock]

No, unless I really know Im missing out important stuff from earlier games. Even then I will probably still play and then go back to the earlier games.

Currently I have Dead Space 2, Ninja Gaiden 2, Sniper Elite 3, Killzone 2, waiting even though I havent played earlier games.

Plus ruling out games on this means you can miss out. For example I didnt have a PS2 but jumped into the Yakuza series at 3 and they are great fun.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Some games have improved with their numbered sequels (Star Wars: Battlefront 2 was so much better than the first IMO). So no, numbers don't matter in the title. Every game deserves to be judged on its own merits and not the number attached to the title.

 

[Chaos Isaac]

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.

Spoilers: It makes no sense at all anyways.

But like most others are saying, it really depends on the series. If you hand me Final Fantasy 23, Persona 7 or Call of Duty 1,495 I can just put those in and play with no forethought because they're pretty much their own thing.

However if you handed me Dragon Age Inquisition, or .Hack//G.U. Volume 2, I'd have to play Volume 1 before hand, just so I now what's up. Then Volume 3, because the order of things is of utmost important-eh.

 

[Keystone]

For me, the mere presence of a sequel number doesn't really impact my decision. In some ways having a sequel is a mark of quality, since it shows that the game series is well-liked enough to deserve a sequel. I also think that sequels often have a larger budget, since the earlier game(s) showed that the formula could work; while a bigger budget doesn't always lead to a better game, it often does. While there definitely is the possibility of a series going downhill, I tend judge that on more of a case-by-case basis.

However, I am wary of film sequels. I think these have a stronger tendency to be formulaic rehashes of the original.

 

[Something Amyss]

Depends on if it's the kind of game I can just jump into. I'm told the Armored Core series is like that, but if I'm going to need more backstory than can be summarised in a paragraph, I'm probably going to be put off.

But not as a whole, no.

 

[Shayman]

I usually go back and play previous iterations before jumping into a series, which explains my massive pile of shame. I feel like I won't be able to appreciate the game if I jump right into the middle. There are a few exceptions, I just started playing Assassin's Creed 4 without playing the others... I heard that it was a great pirate game ;p

 

[Aesir23]

Whether it's a sequel or not matters very little to me when buying a game. Heck, sometimes buying the sequel and liking it will get me to go and buy prior games in that series. My first experience playing the Saints Row series was with Saints Row the Third. A week later I went out and bought Saints Row IV and the first two games. Although, I do wish I'd passed on the first Saints Row.

I will admit as well that I'm more likely to buy a sequel of a series I like as opposed to taking a chance with a new IP unless that new IP really catches my interest. This is primarily stemming from the fact that rental stores have seemingly gone extinct in my city and I currently can't afford an online rental service.

Thankfully, Let's Plays really come in handy in this area and allowed me to avoid buying The Amazing Spider-Man 2 even though I loved the first The Amazing Spider-Man game. The sequel does not look to be worth the current price.

 

[PhiMed]

YES! I specifically HATE sequels. I have never bought a sequel, unless there was a drastic change from the previous one. I.e morrowind-oblivion-skyrim.

It is my opijion that sequels promote market stagnation and lack ideas, so I do my part as a consumer to not buy them.

It is also my opinion that sewuels cheapen the previous installment by having less of an impact a standalone would.

-snip-

Resident Evil 4

Grand Theft Auto 3 (ignoring, of course, the slew of minor improvements which followed it)

All the Super Mario Bros. titles prior to Sunshine

Dead Rising 2

Half Life 2

Assassin's Creed 2 (with the same caveat as for GTA)

Silent Hill F-ING 2

...I respectfully disagree, sir.

 

[FPLOON]

Nope... and I remember jumping into Jak 2, GTA 3, and Rayman 3[footnote]A bit of a "cheat" since I've played Rayman Advance beforehand...[/footnote] without even thinking about the games that came before them... I still believe the first 2 I listed still work well story-wise that you don't really have to play the previous games, anyway...

With that said, that's just another reason why certain games get "re-released" so that people who are trying to get into that particular series can finally be caught up with everyone else, in relation to playing them in "the right [numerical] order"... (Well, that and so that the series can still make more money... But, whatever... MORE [POTENTIAL] FANS OF [X] SERIES and all that jazz...)