/v/ - Video Games

>>14468094

Depends

/thread

If it's story based and you care about that, yes of course. What a stupid thread.

>>14468097

>/thread

>on your own post

Pretty much depends on whether the story carries on from one to the other or if the sequels just take place in the same universe or whatever.

I played

Max Payne 3 > 1 > 2

Metal Gear Solid 3 > 2 > Peace Walker > 1 > V > 4

I'd say no.

>>14468094

In the case of The Elder Scrolls, the setting really only started being built up in Daggerfall. Then that image is missing two very important games for the development of the setting, Battlespire and Redguard. Then Oblivion and Skyrim do nothing but retcon the setting to pieces, so if you're playing the series to experience the development of the setting (or for any other reason, really) you really should just leave those out entirely.

>>14468094

Playing in order? TES is a flexible series in this regard. Not only does it not have to be in order, it does not have to be played at all.

depends, but I usually try to play in order even if there isn't an over-arching storyline.

>>14468094

If you're talking about experiencing the setting (which is the only thing you can be talking about in this context), then not exactly, but kind of. You should play Daggerfall, Redguard, Morrowind and maybe Skyrim.

You're a dumb bitch if you don't play Yakuza starting with Yakuza 1 on PS2. Way too many 0 fags

No elder scrolls games are worth playing.

>>14468185

>I usually try to play in order even if there isn't an over-arching storyline.

Mostly this because that's how I've determined most of my purchases, but I also am not against playing the games in release order (However, this is more a new belief).

>>14468094

If you mean release order, then yes, no exceptions. Anyone suggesting otherwise is a nigger.

>playing in chronological order for muh story

Kill yourselves. Games are not a story telling medium. Even then, most long overarching series were seldom planned as such.

>>14468094

The story was written in release order. Follow that order. Prequels are not to be played/read/watched first, they're meant to enhance or deepen a story you're already familiar with.

You wouldn't jump to read chapter 5 of a book first just because it was a flashback, so why would you play the games out of order?

It's not like Deus Ex: Human Revolution was written before the original, so why would you play it first if you're playing "for the story"?

>>14468959

Morrowind was the one that was worth playing. Morrowind was the fluke, the accident, the total offchance anomaly where Bethesda actually manged to make something unique and interesting in a franchise that was and continues to be filled with the most generic western fantasy settings imaginable. Arena and Daggerfall were generic western fantasy RPGs, and so were Oblivion and Skyrim.

Morrowind was the one that actually broke out and did something different for once, and that's why people still play, mod, and love it today.

>>14468094

Usually release order is superior, the exception would be if there's been an obvious reboot or there's very little link between games.

>>14468097

>/threading your own post

>>14469179

>Playing games for the story

>Not reading a book instead

>>14469179

>You wouldn't jump to read chapter 5 of a book first just because it was a flashback, so why would you play the games out of order?

One problem with that that analogy is that a book/film/game containing a flashback do that for the purposes of the narrative it's creating within that one product.

>It's not like Deus Ex: Human Revolution was written before the original, so why would you play it first if you're playing "for the story"?

Because I expect the company developing the game to actually put some fucking effort into their work to create a cohesive world.

>>14469204

Half of what I did in Morrowind was autstically collect and read in-game books. That book rotate mod was always a must-have. Gotta organize those fuckers on my bookshelves properly.

Depends on the franchise but I would say it isn't necessary for most video games if you have more than two brain cells to rub together.

>>14469214

>Because I expect the company developing the game to actually put some fucking effort into their work to create a cohesive world.

Rookie mistake.

"soft" reboots or prequels always fuck shit up, especially in [CURRENT YEAR]+X

>>14469214

>I expect the company developing the game to actually put some fucking effort into their work to create a cohesive world.

>expecting the original developers at Ion Storm to know that Deus Ex would go into a hibernation for almost 10 years, have it get bought out by Square, then have some Quebecois at Eidos Montreal to do a soft reboot in the form of a "prequel"

Like I said, long overarching series are seldom planned as such.

>>14469214

The story of the world is constructed in the order of release, and the cohesion (however poor) relies on experiencing the story through that same order. Prequels that link into a greater story will typically contain information that barely makes sense without prior knowledge of the existing franchise.

Video game stories are rarely planned beyond one or two games, since planning out a whole decade or two of writing and gameplay without a guarantee of actually making it is a madman's task.

Additionally, the development of the game and the features of the actual game, the gameplay and all the important stuff, evolve or adapt throughout the franchise. Experiencing the gameplay evolution out of order is fucking heretical.

Release order is very clearly how the story is written, and the only thing gained from following it out of order is a weirder understanding of the story. There's sometimes chunks you can ignore in larger franchises, but that's not the same thing as weaving a basket out of the always unplanned "chronological" storyline.

You can't rely on the company to maintain anything since developers, directors, and even writers can and will be hired or fired between releases. Very rarely will most of a franchise be made by the same people each time.

>>14468097

you're so cool

>>14468135

I thought Morrowind was the one that started the retconning with Warp In The West?

>>14469279

That was less of a retcon and more of a "shit our last game had like 10 different endings how can we trip out on drugs and make all of them canon at the same time"?

>>14468613

>playing any game, ever, instead of just bitching about them online

what a fag

>>14469373

You play all the games when you're a kid but when you grow up you stop playing the games and bitch about how games were all better when you were younger instead. You can't escape the natural law. Just because you're bitching on 8ch instead of yelling at kids on the front lawn doesn't change anything.

get the fuck outta here Todd.

get out of your basement

Is open morrowind ready yet?

If it's a game that just gets new iterations similar to Musou games, getting the latest one is usually the best bet except for DW9 holy shit.

But generally, it's best to play the oldest games first, since they're more likely going to have more dated mechanics. Someone playing MGSV going back to play MGS for the first time would be jarring, even if they went for the TS version.

There's bound to be exceptions, but if you want to get into a series, it's best to always start at the beginning.

>>14471075

I'd almost disagree, but I think 2 works better when you experience Days beforehand. From a story perspective, I think CoM, Days, and 2 work as their own trilogy.

>>14471106

Days introduced the Xion sub plot that had no bearing on KHII. If anything Days functions as a pseudo prequel to II but only for Organization XIII members. It should still be played after.

Putting them into the trash in chronological order is a must.

I prefer games in order of release in most cases. Even if you don't care about the story, it's fun watching how the gameplay changes throughout the series.

>>14471075

No, it's because it's retarded.

>>14469279

Daggerfall's ending involved you activating a space-time-breaking giant mecha in order to rewrite reality for one of seven different purposes, and that was arguably the beginning of the metaphysical dickery that The Elder Scrolls has been known for ever since. What was done with Morrowind, then, putting forth that those different ways of rewriting reality all came together in one big clusterfuck of broken space-time, presumably wasn't what was had in mind for Daggerfall's ending, but it does logically follow from Daggerfall's ending.

>>14469703

Been ready for about a year or so. Weren't you around for the TES3MP threads last year?

I bet there is not a single person on 8chan who has played Heroes of Might and Magic or Final Fantasy games in chronological order.

>>14471901

>Final Fantasy games in chronological order.

The only ones that have any sense of order (Outside of one "follow-up" title) go as follows:

>X

>X-2

<Hundreds of years pass

>Crisis Core/Before Crisis

>VII Remake (Because the "expanded lore" apparently retcons the ending of the original VII for the PS1/PC)

>Dirge of Cerberus

And, this is official.

nothing in terms of playing and enjoying vidya is necessary (atleast on the part of the player).

also, do you mean release order, or in-game time period chronological? because i actually dont even know what order that would be in terms of the in-game time. if its the former, i would say you can skip arena, and also, dont worry about "beating" daggerfall. if its the latter, id say it honestly doesnt matter as they entirely stopped giving a fuck about the lore after morrowind.

for a game series that is more sequential, where one games characters and events clearly lead into another, playing chronologically is obviously the "correct" thing to do. but a series like TES? unless you are really worried about the lore (and again the newer games lore sucks) its totally pointless.

and hell, the first time i played the MGS series, i played it ALL fucked up in terms of the order, and it didnt hinder my enjoyment at all (well actually it made MGS4 suck as i played that one 2nd after 3 when it came out, but i digress).

>>14468094

you can play my dick in order and by that I mean play it like a flute in order of tone faggot

>>14471945

>And, this is official.

And it fucking sucks. I wish none of that eu shit ever happened.

>>14469193

That game sucked I don't know why /v/ loves it.

>>14472219

>EIGHTIES TUBULAR COWABUNGA DUDE

>VA is Michael Biehn

>OST by Power Glove

>>14468094

In 99% of cases, like your pic, no.

Unless the game is so bad everybody pretends it doesn't even exist, then yes you should play games in chronological order.

>>14468094

No, playing them in release order is. That way not only do you see the gameplay evolve, but you'll actually get to appreciate things like when prequels reference future stuff. Things like that are almost always made to be more impactful in one direction, and you're only killing it by playing it out of order. This goes with almost all movies, tv shows, and books as well.

If you try to play Zelda in chronological order, you're largely playing in reverse order, with the Wii game being first and the NES games being last. That's retarded. If you play Mario in chronological order, you end up playing a bunch of Yoshi games and RPGs before Donkey Kong.

>>14469184

Release order is still superior because otherwise you're going backwards in the development of the gameplay. So in the second game you play, it's similar to the first one you played, only there are less moves and a smaller, less detailed world.

Unless we're talking about post-2007 games, when everything's just been getting consistently worse.

Are there any games out there that give you the Dragon Ball experience, in that if you play the first game first everything after it shits all over everything you know and loved?

>>14478033

Even if "everybody" wants a game to disappear, you ought to play it in chronological order. There aint no reason to deprive yourself of a game just because people think its terrible. Even if you might end up hating it, it's better to play it then to ignore it. Besides, it matters in the grand scheme of a series. Gotta play it to know it.

>>14472219

its short and doesn't overstay its welcome also was originally posted as a trailer for april fools then got later released and blew minds

>>14468865

This is technically correct.

t. Started with four and didn’t even realize Kiryu was supposed to be the main character until I went back and played one, no I didn’t watch the recaps of 1-3, I didn’t want to spoil myself.

Release order.

Just like Star Wars. You start with the original trilogy and then the prequel trilogy. Or watch it in the "Machete Order".

Chronological order is awful. I tried watching SW in this way and it just doesn't feel right. You start with flashy modern CGI and end up with outdated 70s tech.

>>14501592

>Release order.

>Just like Star Wars. You start with the original trilogy and then the prequel trilogy. Or watch it in the "Machete Order".

Decided to look up what "Machete Order" is (It goes 4 -> 5 -> 2 -> 3 -> 6, and leaves Episode 1 as spin-off material like the games, books, and Clone Wars), and, after reading the reason why he came up with it, it does leave me feeling different in how to experience the story. Here's how I view it:

>View it in release order (And watch as it goes from humble beginnings to a grand song and dance)

Or…

>View it in the chronological order (Treating it like a "history book")