Is There a point on playing inferior prequels?

[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.

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

Apparently one slipped past me. Cool, I need to pick up a copy.

[RCBH928]

I got another good example for this:

Red Dead Revolver and Red Dead Redemption

While the first is a ps2 game, the second is bigger and badder with HD graphics. It doesn't mean that Revolver is a bad game, but is there a reason to play the first when a "better" sequel exists? Unless you are a die hard fan of the series...

Also I was looking forward to play GTA4 in the future, my backlog is holding me, but now they announced GTA5 which I have no doubts will be a better game. So here is another example. What do you think?

I tend not like to play games that give you more of the same thing but games that give you a different experience. For example I am willing to play Zelda Wind Waker AND Twilight Princess since they are different, than Mario Galaxy 1 + 2 .

[RCBH928]

Another good example is Diablo 3. Diablo has legendary status in videogame history but befor I got to play 1 or 2 , 3 is out already. So is there a point of playing the originals?
hmmmmm

same can be applied to starcraft I and II

[o.pwuaioc]

Another good example is Diablo 3. Diablo has legendary status in videogame history but befor I got to play 1 or 2 , 3 is out already. So is there a point of playing the originals?

Yes, definitely. There's totally different games.

[Wolfman]

Another good example is Diablo 3. Diablo has legendary status in videogame history but befor I got to play 1 or 2 , 3 is out already. So is there a point of playing the originals?
hmmmmm

same can be applied to starcraft I and II

It is. Those games are all great, and even today it gives you a satisfying experience. I finished Diablo 2 last year again, and it still feels great. No need to play before the third one, but when you got the time and nothing else new, its worth playing it.

[RyaNtheSlayA]

Another good example is Diablo 3. Diablo has legendary status in videogame history but befor I got to play 1 or 2 , 3 is out already. So is there a point of playing the originals?
hmmmmm

same can be applied to starcraft I and II

Just because it's a sequel doesn't mean it's better! Starcraft I is very different from Starcraft 2 and Diablo 1 is different from 2 which is very different from 3.

The only time your argument makes sense is with HD remakes in my opinion. In which case, yeah, there's probably little point in playing the old version.

[RCBH928]

There are a lot of sequels tha are similar ti thenoriginal but with better graphics, fixed issues, better design, and more features.

Unless its the other way around, I will play the prequels.

Reason being I dont have time to play all IP games, I am trying o experience 1 of each that interests me

[Menegrothx]

Also I was looking forward to play GTA4 in the future, my backlog is holding me, but now they announced GTA5 which I have no doubts will be a better game. So here is another example. What do you think?

In GTA's case the older games are better 1/1969/2 cant be compared but Vice City is storywise better than 4 and San Andreas delivers more variety and sandbox fun than 4. 4 is better than 3 though, it's kinda like GTA III v 2.0 (although the third has a larger historical impact and was way more revolutionary for it's time)

[dunpeal2064]

The only time your argument makes sense is with HD remakes in my opinion. In which case, yeah, there's probably little point in playing the old version.

Eh, its a matter of opinion, and it depends on what you are working with.

Ikaruga HD on a LCD? Nice. Ikaruga on the DC going through a Tri-Sync monitor at 30khz... nicer (imo)

But, for the most part, I agree with you. Most folks will find the HD releases purely better.

[Forlorn Drifter]

I got another good example for this:

Red Dead Revolver and Red Dead Redemption

While the first is a ps2 game, the second is bigger and badder with HD graphics. It doesn't mean that Revolver is a bad game, but is there a reason to play the first when a "better" sequel exists? Unless you are a die hard fan of the series...

Also I was looking forward to play GTA4 in the future, my backlog is holding me, but now they announced GTA5 which I have no doubts will be a better game. So here is another example. What do you think?

I tend not like to play games that give you more of the same thing but games that give you a different experience. For example I am willing to play Zelda Wind Waker AND Twilight Princess since they are different, than Mario Galaxy 1 + 2 .

Its different from a sequel. Red Dead Redemption is a reimagining of Red Dead Revolver, in a more mature, and better polished light. The games are very different. Revolver is arcadey and somewhat goofy, while Redemption is a straight line 3rd person shooter with a serious tone, funny dialogue, and the occasional underlying joke that would fly over many peoples heads.

A case where both should be taken individually.