Is There a point on playing inferior prequels?

[o.pwuaioc]

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.

I wouldn't say it was garbage, but then again I finished the campaign only to play multiplayer. I do think RFI multiplayer was 10x better, though. Shooting the bridge out in that cavern level was the coolest thing ever.

[RCBH928]

so is it worth it playing a game like day of reckoning on gamecube then playing the second version, or jumping to the superior version is the way to go and save time?

[Korpi]

I go on case by case basis. Often times it's the story that suffers when the series continue. Gameplay may be polished and revised a bit, sometime in good or bad away. Usually there's more depth to the game in one way or another, in some games that isn't necessarily welcome, especially if it means clutter of half-arsed features. Also very often the development studio or lead director changes, or there's major change of target audience.

So you can't trust the number much, I feel. Some genres and development studios are more consistent.

[Pulsar_t]

Another example I can think of is Syberia. Having played the sequel I find no reason to play the first game, because the conclusion felt satisfactory despite a few loose ends. The ending was a bit of a tear-jerker.

[Luke]

All Blaster Master sequels haven't achieved the fun factor that the original has. Journey to Silius was great, but I've heard everything from it was supposed to be a Blaster Master sequel to a game based on the Terminator series (which makes more sense). The PS games was alright, and the revamped Wii version felt like a downgrade.

[AppleQueso]

The only reason anybody ever plays Street Fighter 1 is out of curiosity.

[insanecow0]

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.

I agree, it enchances the experience knowing what the improvements were and how it builds, and one gets a greater appreciation of the story as well.

[Yancakes]

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.

I wouldn't say it was garbage, but then again I finished the campaign only to play multiplayer. I do think RFI multiplayer was 10x better, though. Shooting the bridge out in that cavern level was the coolest thing ever.

I know this is off topic, but RF1's multiplayer was one of the best online gaming experiences I ever had. Does anyone play this anymore? WILL anyone play this anymore? I would buy it on steam if I had a single other person to play with, honestly, but Red Faction's short lived online PC gaming community was seriously so much better than Half-Life's offering for me. Granted, I eventually switched because RF's community died and The Specialists, Action Half-Life, Pirates VS Knights and etc really made themselves accessible.

[o.pwuaioc]

I'd be willing to play. I didn't even know it was on steam, I only had it on PS2.

[noiseredux]

All Blaster Master sequels haven't achieved the fun factor that the original has. Journey to Silius was great, but I've heard everything from it was supposed to be a Blaster Master sequel to a game based on the Terminator series (which makes more sense). The PS games was alright, and the revamped Wii version felt like a downgrade.

but you have to admit the GBC game comes damn close!