Is There a point on playing inferior prequels?

[o.pwuaioc]

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.

What? Terminator 2 was a sequel to a niche low-budget film with a cult following, that was given like 20 times the budget of the original. I don't know how anybody could call Terminator 2 a "milked sequel." It's pretty much the best counter example one can give to the whole "sequels are always worse" argument.

You misunderstood what I was saying (and I lay the blame squarely on me for the confused wording). What I was saying is that some sequels aren't given proper funding, while others are. Terminator II is a movie that was given proper funding (and as you pointed out, even better funding), and is therefore awesome.

[Krejlooc]

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.

What? Terminator 2 was a sequel to a niche low-budget film with a cult following, that was given like 20 times the budget of the original. I don't know how anybody could call Terminator 2 a "milked sequel." It's pretty much the best counter example one can give to the whole "sequels are always worse" argument.

You misunderstood what I was saying (and I lay the blame squarely on me for the confused wording). What I was saying is that some sequels aren't given proper funding, while others are. Terminator II is a movie that was given proper funding (and as you pointed out, even better funding), and is therefore awesome.

Oh, sorry about the confusion, then.

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.

[graffix_13]

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!

[irixith]

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).

Oh dear -- playing Borderlands after playing Borderlands 2 is like having sex with a 10, and then having sex with a 4. Sure, it kinda feels the same, but the other one was just hotter.

I absolutely love Borderlands, but after 2, going backwards and playing 1 without any of the improvements they made just hurts.

[prfsnl_gmr]

Oh dear -- playing Borderlands after playing Borderlands 2 is like having sex with a 10, and then having sex with a 4. Sure, it kinda feels the same, but the other one was just hotter.

whew...

<takes deep breath>

<fans self>

[RCBH928]

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).

Oh dear -- playing Borderlands after playing Borderlands 2 is like having sex with a 10, and then having sex with a 4. Sure, it kinda feels the same, but the other one was just hotter.

I absolutely love Borderlands, but after 2, going backwards and playing 1 without any of the improvements they made just hurts.

don't know about the sex analogy , but this is what I meant sometimes the later version is an updated better , fully featured version of the game so is there a point going backwards?

I still dont know, but lately I have taking on the path of playing one game of every IP unless that IP is a lot different (Mario 64 - Mario galaxy , Call of Duty 2- COD Ghosts)

[jinx]

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.

[dsheinem]

why do people keep saying "prequel" in this thread?

[jinx]

why do people keep saying "prequel" in this thread?

I felt weird typing it, but that's what OP had referred to them as. I thought I had put in quotes, but I guess not...

[graffix_13]

Oh dear -- playing Borderlands after playing Borderlands 2 is like having sex with a 10, and then having sex with a 4. Sure, it kinda feels the same, but the other one was just hotter.

I absolutely love Borderlands, but after 2, going backwards and playing 1 without any of the improvements they made just hurts.

LOL! Good analogy. Although I'd put BL1 at a solid 5.

But yeah...after "meeting" Mordecai in BL2, I just had to play him in BL1. BL2 is superior in BL1 in all aspects, especially just running over health/ammo to auto-pick it up. Hitting square for each health and ammo drop was effing annoying!