Is There a point on playing inferior prequels?

[RCBH928]

yes thats exactly what i mean Damm64

Plus there are so many games out there I am willing to play for example GTA4 and skip 3,vice city, and San Andreas. Even though they are different, they are basically the same kind of game in different place different time, but graphics and controls must be better.

[RyaNtheSlayA]

yes thats exactly what i mean Damm64

Plus there are so many games out there I am willing to play for example GTA4 and skip 3,vice city, and San Andreas. Even though they are different, they are basically the same kind of game in different place different time, but graphics and controls must be better.

I still hold the opinion that Vice City was the best GTA game ever created.

[casterofdreams]

If the first game is good, than I will play it first. The way I see it, playing a superior sequel before the last game ruins it. The gameplay improvements of the sequel make the first game feel incomplete to me.

That is how I felt with Mass Effect 1 and 2. I still play the former but it feels like a choir finishing everything like side quests than anything else just so I can move on to part 2.

But games like the main series Pokemon, the giant leap that was from 2nd Gen games to 3rd Gen games were astounding but I seem to be playing Gold and Silver more than Ruby and Sapphire.

Not sure if this is topic worthy but I think it fits.

[Luke]

Perhaps I misunderstood, but when I read prequel, I figured that meant a sequel would be involved.

If that's the case, I'm fine with playing SMB 3, or SMB 3 Advanced. The tweaks are nice, but to me not really necessary. I don't find SMB 3 to be inferior just because the graphics are 8-bit; they still look good to me.

[Damm64]

yes thats exactly what i mean Damm64

Plus there are so many games out there I am willing to play for example GTA4 and skip 3,vice city, and San Andreas. Even though they are different, they are basically the same kind of game in different place different time, but graphics and controls must be better.

I still hold the opinion that Vice City was the best GTA game ever created.

I can't choose Vice City and San Andreas are great games! But the III is boring to me.

If that's the case, I'm fine with playing SMB 3, or SMB 3 Advanced. The tweaks are nice, but to me not really necessary. I don't find SMB 3 to be inferior just because the graphics are 8-bit; they still look good to me.

I totally forgot about that.
In this case i choose SMB 3 on the NES ANY day over any other version , there is just something wonderful on the 8 bit version.

There is a lot of other games that are great in their older version but they received a uptaded version for a diferent platform, games like:

Castlevania Dracula X Rondo of blood on the PCE CD VS Castlevania Dracula X Chronicles on the psp

Magaman X on the SNES VS Megaman X Maveric Hunter on the psp

Ocarina of time on N64 VS Ocarina of time 3D on 3DS

Starfox 64 vs Starfox 64 3D

Super MArio 64 vs Super Mario 64 DS (hate that name)

[Luke]

I'm going to throw this question in this thread since it's a related subject: What sequels have not lived up to their first installment? All opinions count, but what I'd really like read are posts about a sequel you were looking forward to, but didn't deliver. I admit that when Castlevania II came out, I loved it (and still love the soundtrack).

But when Actraiser II came out, I felt robbed. It isn't a terrible game, but it felt nothing like "Actraiser".

[Pulsar_t]

Don't you find it funny that film sequels are often worse than the originals, but with games it's the exact opposite?

I think the most obvious example I can come up with is Deus Ex: IW. Thankfully DXHR rectified that blemish!

Also, I think once the 'magic' of the first Bioshock wore off I found the sequel to be a trite experience save for the pleasant visuals.

[o.pwuaioc]

Don't you find it funny that film sequels are often worse than the originals, but with games it's the exact opposite?

I think the most obvious example I can come up with is Deus Ex: IW. Thankfully DXHR rectified that blemish!

Also, I think once the 'magic' of the first Bioshock wore off I found the sequel to be a trite experience save for the pleasant visuals.

Often those sequels aren't given the proper funding. Game sequels are milked, though, as some movie sequels are (like Terminator II). You can usually tell though when a sequel isn't properly worked on and fails.

[Pingfa]

There's as much point to playing inferior titles as there is playing anything else. Play what you want.

Personally, I usually always play earlier titles first because otherwise I would think it a missed experience - if I play a superior sequel first and then consequently can't appreciate the predecessors, that's a missed experience.

[Xeogred]

I'm going to throw this question in this thread since it's a related subject: What sequels have not lived up to their first installment? All opinions count, but what I'd really like read are posts about a sequel you were looking forward to, but didn't deliver. I admit that when Castlevania II came out, I loved it (and still love the soundtrack).

But when Actraiser II came out, I felt robbed. It isn't a terrible game, but it felt nothing like "Actraiser".

Perfect Dark Zero. Nuff' said.

Red Faction II. I really enjoyed the first game, it basically felt like Total Recall The FPS... suddenly, Red Faction II throws you on Earth, and I remember 90% of the game was on rails, somehow the Geomod environment destruction thing got worse, and the whole game was just garbage to me.