graffix_13 wrote:TheSonicRetard wrote:As to the original question: Is there any reason to try inferior prequels? Sure there is - because the game is fun and you want more. Example - I played Crash Bandicoot 1 after I played Crash Bandicoot 2, because I really liked Crash 2 and wanted more levels. Even though Crash 1 was rougher around the edges, it was still fun and I treated it more like an expansion pack.
I've done this before with other games. Sometimes it's as simple as wanting more of the same.
This is EXACTLY what I did with Borderlands. I never did play the first one, but LOVED the second one, so I went back and played the first one after I was done with Borderlands 2. Did I enjoy it? Sure, but the second one is far superior (IMO).
Which is kind of strange for me, because usually I find sequels to be inferior to the first game of the series. Then again, maybe it's the order in which I play them (as in the case of Borderlands).
p.s. sorry for the thread necro!
I'd have to agree. There are a lot of games that I played like this, and I usually don't regret it. I'll also admit that sometimes they don't feel as good and there might be things that they improved in later versions. However, if I enjoyed the later game, I think I should at least give the earlier ones a shot.
Sometimes you're missing out if you don't play the "prequels". Some examples:
Mario Party 2 is far better than any other Mario Party, despite that it's technically "inferior".
I played Champions of Norrath, after I played Return to arms. However, I would have been really missing out if I hadn't played the earlier game. (which I almost skipped!)
Morrowind > Oblivion (IMO of course. This is another one I went back to play)
I think it's ALWAYS worth going back and at least trying the older game. Even if it gets terrible reviews, or if people praise how much "better" the newer game is.