Some games have decent recaps or disconnected stories which mean you can start from the latest release and still have the full experience.
In Fallout for example, with the 3D games, you can start wherever and because it’s a new protagonist and location every time you aren’t missing a ton. The disconnect is slightly more noticeable going from Fallout to Fallout 2 (the isometric titles) however because of how the games build on top of each other.
What I am wondering about are series where you really do need to start from the beginning (or some early point) to get the full experience.
Can you think of any examples that are truly difficult?
Maybe they started on DOS, MSX, or the NES and their latest releases are on the PS5 and Xbox Series X and on top of that the genre shifted.
This is obviously going to vary from person to person. Like with The Elder Scrolls series for example. People might argue for different starting points.
For context I am playing The Witcher 2 and I feel like I’m missing a notable part of the story. That might be because it’s a fantasy game though and it isn’t based in our world.
It made me think of Metal Gear and Final Fantasy. Two popular series where I don’t know how interconnected the games are.
Mass Effect. What you did in the first game affects the later two.
Yeah, this is also the only thing I could think of.
dragon age as well.
Even if the stories don’t connect, I always would recommend starting at the earliest point in a series and moving forward, since this allows for a better appreciation of the evolution of the game over several iterations rather than being disappointed by the regression you would see going backwards or jumping around.
I think maybe the only games that would need to be played in order to make sense, however, are games like the newest FF7 remake. If you didn’t play the first, you’d be jumping into the middle of an ongoing story (the rest of the series is not connected at all aside from 1 or 2 outliers like X2 being a direct sequel to X). They have recaps, but it’s not really information dense (since they’d rather you buy and play the other game). Not many games actually do this. Even ones with interconnected stories usually pace themselves in a way that you could jump in anywhere and still understand pretty much everything.
Metal Gear is pretty interconnected, but it’s also so convoluted and batshit crazy, it doesn’t matter if you play them in release order, chronological order of the timeline, or pick one at random: you will be equally confused no.matywr what lol
Never played them myself, but apparently the kingdom hearts series is one that you should play from the very first entry.
But the series is crazy extensive, it even got mobile games that aren’t available any more but do have important canon lore in it.
And before the PS4 HD-Remasters, you also needed a lot different consoles. I think you needed to have to play all of the games a PS2, PSP, GBA, Nintendo DS+3DS, a Smartphone and for the third part a PS4. In the remaster Edition some of the games were as a compilation of cut scenes and text
I kinda see DOOM (2016) as the tutorial for DOOM Eternal. The sequel isn’t really interested in elaborating or even giving you time to process Doomguys arsenal, it just wants to lob even more new stuff at you. When played directly after DOOM, it feels like you’ve had a warm-up and are prepared to master more advanced concepts like juggling your flamethrower + ice bomb to supply your hp. When played without any of the original, it feels pretty overwhelming.
Jumping into the Yakuza/Like A Dragon series from a random point would be incredibly confusing because of the storyline.
There are actually 3 good entry points (Yakuza 0, Yakuza 1/Kiwami, or Yakuza 7: Like A Dragon) but couldn’t recommend starting outside one of that set.
Yakuza is a wild as a series. Personally I’d recommend starting with the kiwami games THEN 0. Zero plays great and feels modern but the story feels out of place as a prequel. Playing it in a pseudo machete order gives it a better fit before jumping ship to the like a dragon timeline. Starting with zero leads to heartbreak. At some point it really does feel like the Vader twist in Star Wars, iykyk
I think The Witcher sequels always feel like you’ve missed a game somewhere even if you played all of them. They introduce Yennefer in W3, and I assumed she was in W2 since I never finished it, but apparently she wasn’t.
A lot of the backstory is in the books rather than the games.
Well shit, maybe I need to play the rest of Witcher 3… I stopped because it felt like I missed a whole lot from before (and also because it’s hard to devote time to gaming while raising a toddler and working)
It’s long but worth it.
I assume you’ve got the GOTY edition if you’re playing after all this time. I recommend doing the Blood and Wine DLC last. It feels right in that order. B&W got all the attention when it came out, because of just how much content there was in it, but it’s Hearts of Stone that I still think about years later.
This was a surprisingly difficult question and I had to dig into my library for inspiration but here are some games that I would recommend that (mostly) require starting from the beginning of the story:
- The Last Of Us
- Uncharted
- Dishonored
- God of War (2018 and Ragnarok definitely, original PS2+PSP games for extra depth and different game style)
- Hellblade (sequel doesn’t release until next month but I’m still pretty confident in this answer)
Loose Fits
- Portal
- Dead Space
- F.E.A.R.
- Resistance
Honorable Mentions as I can’t personally attest to having not beaten every game
- Shadow of Mordor
- Mass Effect (I know it’s been mentioned)
- Dragon Age (same as above)
- BioShock
Is Bioshock Infinite that connected to the first the two games? I can’t recall a lot of callbacks.
I feel like that’s one of those situations where you could use Infinite as a starting point then go back and play the originals.
deleted by creator
That’s probably the series I have the least experience with from my list so you may be correct.
The Witcher. You can even transfer your save game between 1 & 2 and 2 & 3.
After playing through The Witcher III a few times, I did a “lap of honour” run and played The Witcher I, II and III right after another with transferred save games. It is a nice feature sure but the impact on the playthrough of each single game is pretty negligible, since it does not change that much. Also, I liked the first part for being a solid crpg but I found that the second part often plays like a half baked prototype of the third part and playing through it felt more like a chore than a nice buildup to the great third part. If somebody wants to get into The Witcher, I would recommend skipping the first two parts and just simulate a save file if you want to influence certain prior decisions.
Doesn’t Witcher 2 just ignore your love interest from 1
The Metal Gear series is interconnected to a high degree. Sure the games are perfectly playable without playing the previous games, but you’d miss a lot of plot points. Like for example even the PSP games are pretty vital to the story. Because several characters of Peace Walker show up in MGS5 without much explanation of who they are.
Would you need to go all the way back and play the original Metal Gear or is Metal Gear Solid a decent starting point?
Solid is a decent starting point. I think the only notable recurring character is Grey Fox, which could get you confused, and that’s it.
I think anyone can benefit from playing fallout 1 and 2,since most people started on 3
I agree but I wouldn’t recommend it to a casual fan. I think most of them would view it as more of a novelty and only get so far in the game.
If someone was looking for more Fallout after playing 3, NV, and 4 I’d probably recommend a game outside of the franchise that has similar themes like Metro 2033 or STALKER Shadow of Chernobyl.
