Playing games in order

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.

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).

If you mean release order, then yes, no exceptions. Anyone suggesting otherwise is a nigger.
Kill yourselves. Games are not a story telling medium. Even then, most long overarching series were seldom planned as such.

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"?

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.

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

No

Attached: mcd0b723699d91103a55d6eb63d3d50153d8f5e95a10d2861c024ac5t.jpg (1920x1080, 155.61K)

...

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

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.

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

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

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.

you're so cool

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

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"?

what a fag

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.

I don't think playing them in order is 100% necessary, as long as you purchase them all and pick up all the DLC. You don't even have to play the games, just make sure to purchase them.

Attached: Me.png (732x960, 742.62K)

Release order, always. Only reason anyone bitches about pic related's "complex plot" is because they try to approach it chronologically.

Attached: KH autism.jpg (1280x751, 1020.08K)

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.

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.

No, it's because it's retarded.

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.

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 Holla Forums who has played Heroes of Might and Magic or 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
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).

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

If I know for sure I'm going to like a series then I'll start at the beginning like I did with Etrian Odyssey and Armored Core. Some series I'll skip around though like Final Fantasy or Wizardry due to the spin offs and self-contained settings for most part.

Attached: 401990-wizardry8_008.jpg (1280x720 73.88 KB, 329.68K)

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

That game sucked I don't know why Holla Forums loves it.

...

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.

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.

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?

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.

Attached: 60473_front.jpg (596x852, 178.62K)

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

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.

Arena can be pretty much skipped entirely, as it was a completely generic in comparison to the rest.
Chronological isnt necessary, but it definitely adds to the experience through each game. For instance, if you played the REmake first rather than resident evil 1, you wouldn't pick up on all the subtle references and expectations they played off of from the first game. But really, if a game is copetent at storytelling, you should be able to pick up on it whenever.

Attached: 3d025893a56f3a1a349670c6041fb25fc06175cb57f391f0a3c0f9de2749681e.png (800x600, 62.09K)

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.

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:
Or…