Playing games chronologically

[ignition365]

When choosing to play a franchise chronologically, do you play games by the time line chronology or the release date chronology?

For instance, Fear Effect was released before Fear Effect 2, but Fear Effect 2 takes place before Fear Effect.  So in this situation, which game would you play first?

Another example, which always angers everyone, Star Wars, do you watch the original trilogy first or the prequel trilogy first?  Most of the responses I hear are "Don't watch the prequel trilogy at all".

[sodabread]

For the first time through the series, I enjoy playing it chronologically by release, because I find it tougher to go back and enjoy and playing earlier titles that aren't as polished gameplay-wise. After completing the series, if it was good enough, I'll go back and play it again in order of in-game timeline.

As for Star Wars, Episode 4 always comes first.

[aliensstudios]

It all depends. For something like Metal Gear Solid I'd like to play chronologically based on the events in the games not the release dates of the games. Something like Mother/EarthBound I started with EarthBound/Mother 2, then Mother 3 and then played Mother/EarthBound Beginnings last. A lot of other series like say Mega Man I simply play in chronological and release date order because they are the same. This is one of the more interesting topics posted recently,  I can't wait to see everyone's responses.

[ignition365]

For the first time through the series, I enjoy playing it chronologically by release, because I find it tougher to go back and enjoy and playing earlier titles that aren't as polished gameplay-wise.

This is a really good point.  I know a lot of people find it painful to play Assassin's Creed and Mass Effect because those games are painful compared to their sequels.

It all depends. For something like Metal Gear Solid I'd like to play chronologically based on the events in the games not the release dates of the games. Something like Mother/EarthBound I started with EarthBound/Mother 2, then Mother 3 and then played Mother/EarthBound Beginnings last. A lot of other series like say Mega Man I simply play in chronological and release date order because they are the same. This is one of the more interesting topics posted recently,  I can't wait to see everyone's responses.

Metal Gear for sure is one I'm looking forward to playing through chronologically according to the timeline as opposed to release order.

Games like Earthbound and Mega man, I don't really notice much of a "timeline" but I'll have to go look into that.

[entity]

I used to think about this myself for some time, but to me the following makes the most sense:

I choose to always play in the release date order, as sometimes there are references to older games (even tho they take place at a later time), graphics and/or gameplay mechanics might be improved, prequels are released for consoles of later generations (God of War: Ascension etc.) and so on.

Plus you never know if the developers decide to release a prequel at a later point of time, so you could never be sure about that.


Timeline God of War:
Ascension - Chains of Olympus - I - Ghost of Sparta - Betrayal - II - III

Releases:
I - II - Betrayal - Chains of Olympus - III - Ghost of Sparta - Ascension

[kashell]

I almost always play them in release order if there's some sort of story involved. For instance, Atelier Iris occurs after the events of Atelier Iris 2. However, playing Atelier Iris first makes the experience with the second game better.

The exception is with a series like Kirby or Castlevania or something where they're not part of a greater story. I played Kirby and the Amazing Mirror long after it was released and long after having finished other Kirby titles that came after it.

[abe]

In general, for the first time through I play them in order of release. The only time I don't is if the stories are unrelated, like with Xenoblade Chronicles X. I haven't played any of the other games in the Xeno franchise, but I've started the one on the WiiU.

[turf]

I like to play them as they came out.  That way the "prequel" aspect of it gives you that "Ahh.  That's why that happened." moment. 

I think they are released in the order that the story is supposed to be told.

[desocietas]

How do you all feel about remasters in this regard?

Scott keeps telling me to play Etrian Odyssey Untold 1 instead of the original first game in the series, but I refuse to do so because I know they've added and changed elements of the gameplay as the sequels came out. I can imagine that they only improved things, and I'd like to be able to play through all of them in order so as to see the improvements slowly. I don't want to play through Untold 1 and 2 and then jump back to the regular version of 3.  Plus, the Untold games supposedly have a story mode to play through in addition to the classic mode.

The Last of Us Remastered, however, seems to be good, though my bf and I are only a few hours in.

Also, I think I actually prefer Persona 3 and 4 on the original PS2 rather than the ports to portable systems. They streamlined stuff which is good and bad, in my opinion. I liked having to make decisions on whether to do homework, chores, or fold origami cranes for money 

[shfan]

I always go via series order, without exceptions. To me sequels and prequels build on the original rather than displace it within the chronology.

[ignition365]

How do you all feel about remasters in this regard?

Scott keeps telling me to play Etrian Odyssey Untold 1 instead of the original first game in the series, but I refuse to do so because I know they've added and changed elements of the gameplay as the sequels came out. I can imagine that they only improved things, and I'd like to be able to play through all of them in order so as to see the improvements slowly. I don't want to play through Untold 1 and 2 and then jump back to the regular version of 3.  Plus, the Untold games supposedly have a story mode to play through in addition to the classic mode.

The Last of Us Remastered, however, seems to be good, though my bf and I are only a few hours in.

Also, I think I actually prefer Persona 3 and 4 on the original PS2 rather than the ports to portable systems. They streamlined stuff which is good and bad, in my opinion. I liked having to make decisions on whether to do homework, chores, or fold origami cranes for money 

Remasters that don't actually change anything like TLOU, it's cool.

But games that remake the gameplay or alter the story, that's something different altogether.

Between playing MGS and Twin Snakes, I think I'd like to play Twin Snakes, but in all honesty, I'll probably play MGS before I even buy Twin Snakes.  To play the original and then really enjoy the remake.

So with Etrian, I'd play the original and then Untold, but if you don't have the attention span to basically play the same game twice, idk.

[juliaboon]

By release date because they don't expect you to know what has happened before. Then the prequel makes references to the first game and you have to understand the information.
I watched the Alfred Hitchcock version of Psycho first, than the following sequels and then the TV series Bates Motel (although I did skip the later sequels just because I can't find them, mainly because I'm not really looking). The 90's remake was just terrible, DON'T watch it; they made a sinister movie into a gross movie. And you thought Vince Vaughn was bad in romantic comedies...

[kamikazekeeg]

Release date usually.  I think it makes more sense to do.  With Metal Gear Solid 3 as the start of the timeline, you would be starting in a weird place I feel as it's supposed to be about how Big Boss's legend started, but you aren't going to get that same feel starting there compared to the games later on in the timeline, starting with Liquid and Solid in the first game.  You play that first and go on from there, learning more, getting this talk about how important Big Boss was and then you finally get to play him.

As for HD versions, I would usually chose the more modern release unless something about it is bad.  So I would pick Twin Snakes over the PS1 version.  Or Final Fantasy X HD over the PS2 version.  Some exceptions would be like Super Mario All-Stars remakes the old NES games in a visually better style, but I would want to play the original versions personally.  Sorta depends on the original nature of the game as some don't particularly age super well, such as the visuals on old PS1 games lol

Spinning off of that, I would say it's also because of controls.  Metal Gear Solid 1 plays way differently from Metal Gear Solid 4.  You get to see how the series progressed.  Don't get that as much starting in the timeline.

As someone brought up Star Wars movie wise, if I had to show it someone new, I would always start with the originals over the prequels.

[ignition365]

Release date usually.  I think it makes more sense to do.  With Metal Gear Solid 3 as the start of the timeline, you would be starting in a weird place I feel as it's supposed to be about how Big Boss's legend started, but you aren't going to get that same feel starting there compared to the games later on in the timeline, starting with Liquid and Solid in the first game.  You play that first and go on from there, learning more, getting this talk about how important Big Boss was and then you finally get to play him.

As for HD versions, I would usually chose the more modern release unless something about it is bad.  So I would pick Twin Snakes over the PS1 version.  Or Final Fantasy X HD over the PS2 version.  Some exceptions would be like Super Mario All-Stars remakes the old NES games in a visually better style, but I would want to play the original versions personally.  Sorta depends on the original nature of the game as some don't particularly age super well, such as the visuals on old PS1 games lol

Spinning off of that, I would say it's also because of controls.  Metal Gear Solid 1 plays way differently from Metal Gear Solid 4.  You get to see how the series progressed.  Don't get that as much starting in the timeline.

As someone brought up Star Wars movie wise, if I had to show it someone new, I would always start with the originals over the prequels.

That's my conflict with MGS.  I want to play chronologically by story because all of the games are in a jumbled order and it's really difficult to keep track of what happened when.  But on the other hand, jumping from phantom pain into mgs twin snakes might be a painful experience gameplay wise.  (It's an example, I don't know the order of events)

[fighterpilot562]

I normally try to, but sometimes you randomly pick up a game you never heard of and find out later, they have had other games before.

Example: Ace Combat 04, never heard of the franchise, randomly picked up AC04 and fell in love. Still need to go back and beat the first 3