@colonelkilgore@Yagami I’m a little late, but its been an interesting discussion about playing prequels and the question of “What order to play a series which has prequels and shifting timelines?” is oft debated and I can see the virtue in both approaches — that is, playing a game in chronological order of the base narrative vs playing in order of release. In general, I think the colonel has a point that playing a prequel first runs the risk of missing key components and threads that were established in the games (or movies) released earlier. I like the way you explained it, colonel — although this topic comes up regularly, I hadn’t heard the argument for consuming a series in release order quite as effectively stated before.
Nevertheless, I do think there are some key factors when deciding the order to play (watch or read) a series:
Was the narrative preconceived by its authors to include the prequel material?
If the prequel material was preconceived, then there’s a higher chance you can play or watch in the timeline of the story, because the author wrote it that way from the start. However, so often I watch or play a series and the prequels feel like they were written after the original story and so have shoehorned in the winks, nods, and callbacks to original story. So if you don’t know the earlier release, then you miss something. In other words, it’s more like a sequel if the material didn’t exist already in the creator’s brain.
Star Wars is an example where it’s clear Lucas wrote (or at least conceived in his head) the entire storyline, including what’s in the prequel, from the start and chose for one reason or another to begin the journey in the middle of the story, episode IV. As opposed to, say, Fantastic Beasts which I feel confident was written by Rowling long after the Harry Potter storyline was completed and is really a ‘sequel’ in concept, despite it’s events preceding Harry Potter.
Good authors will map out plot and use foreshadowing and payoff to build and satisfy drama. Incidentally, Rowling’s original HP books from The Philosopher’s Stone to Deathly Hallows is a masterclass in this idea that the whole storyline was preconceived from the get go and she placed clues in the early books that weren’t fully realized until the late books which were released years later. Fantastic Beasts however seemed completely reactionary in concept.
What’s the potential player’s (or watcher or reader’s) commitment to completing the series?
If there’s a high commitment to see the whole series through to the end, then consuming the series in order of release makes a lot more sense because it will avoid large spoilers and follows a more cohesive structure of plot reveals, like the colonel mentioned. However, if the player is on the fence about playing all the games in the series, then starting with a modern prequel can make some sense, particularly if it’s of a higher quality or more updated development than the games that follow it narratively. Starting with a dated entry of lower quality runs the risk that the player just loses interest and never becomes invested in the long haul.
This is where an argument can be made for Yakuza 0 to be played first, I think, for those unsure about the series. That was my approach. I figured if I was going to fall in love with the series I should start with something of the highest quality right out of the gate and then see how I respond, especially since it happens to be the earliest in the timeline. For the colonel, you have a much higher level of gaming discipline, and are much more productive as a gamer, so you’re less likely to get pulled away and miss out on the series highlights.
I have a friend who has the philosophy to always eat the best and most anticipated part of his meal first, when his appetite is the highest. By his logic, we should enjoy the food that we really want before our stomach starts to get full and the enjoyment of everything tanks toward the end of the meal. So he’ll even eat dessert first sometimes, and the broccoli is saved for the end when he is basically full already and just going through the motions. Starting with the higher quality games is a similar concept.
How long has transpired between installments? And as a corollary, if the earlier releases have been out a while, are there major spoilers which need to be accounted for?
The longer it’s been between the original release and the prequel, the less important it is to play the older games (or watch the older movie) first.
Most writers will take into account the fact that they have a new audience to get up to speed if it’s been many years or decades between. And secondly, the dated visuals and older technology can definitely diminish enjoyment of playing (or watching) a really old game (or movie) and many people simply won’t enjoy the older stuff because of it. They would be better served to play the modern prequel first and then maybe go ahead with the old games if interest and investment is piqued afterward.
So here’s where I vary with a lot of fans regarding advice for people who’ve never watched Star Wars. There’s an increasing number of people who’ve never seen any of the mainline movies and my advice has been to start with Rogue One. It sounds unintuitive, but hear me out — it was released 40 years after A New Hope and has updated special effects and is more likely to pull someone into the series than starting with a really dated movie that may not appeal to a young audience. Rogue One is universally considered of high quality (unlike some of the other prequel entries) and is a good funneling in point toward the really good stuff, which is Episode 4-6. The argument could be made that doing it that way robs the viewer of the many easter eggs and the “Aha!” moment during the last 10 minutes of Rogue One since there’s no familiarity with Episode IV yet, but I think it’s worth it for a person who would obviously not have any prior investment or interest into the series.
For games and movie prequels that come out very shortly (just a few years) after the first entry, it’s would be high risk to watch the prequel first because of the spoiler issue. However, after many years, things like the “I am your father” reveal won’t hold the same impact though, if done out of order.
And lastly, as I’ve alluded to, what’s the quality differential between the prequel and the original?
In some instances, a prequel or a sequel might make narrative sense to experience first, but the game (or movie) just is not very good. There’s lots of examples of this - one that comes to mind is The Hobbit movies, which just aren’t nearly as good as the LotR movies. Although imho experiencing Bilbo’s proceeding adventures is paramount to feeling the full impact of Frodo’s journey (as well as those of Gollum, Galdalf, etc) the movies don’t really convey it that well and probably aren’t worth the time investment to get the added context prior to seeing LotR, except for only the most committed fans. The books are so much better in this regard, since The Hobbit is an excellent book in its own right, but also is quite a quick read. So it’s essential reading material before reading The Fellowship of the Ring and subsequent books. The movies… not so much. It’s just probably not worth watching 8 hours of the Hobbit Trilogy to get to the LotR movies. And Jackson does a good job in LotR with flashbacks to fill in the gaps for people who don’t have the context of The Hobbit.
———
So with all that in mind — In addition to Yakuza, I’ve thought of a few other gaming series where the “Colonelkilgore Policy VIII, Order of Play in a Series, Section IX: Concerning Prequels” could be considered and the aforementioned principles can be applied —
Metal Gear Solid, and Tomb Raider.
First with Tomb Raider, the issue of length between releases is the biggest factor, along with the accompanying technological limits of playing the originals first. I would suggest the modern gamer could start with the “Young Lara” origin story and be fine, rather than going back to PS1 games where Lara is already in full raider-mode, even though the OG series is quite good and has remasters now. I just don’t think it would appeal to the majority of gamers, and so I’d recommend people can start with the reboots.
For MGS, it’s a much more difficult analysis. Konami obviously felt the need to do a narrative chronological retelling for the modern audience by starting the remakes with MGS3, the first in the timeline. Honestly, as much as I love Kojima, I can’t argue with this approach. The narrative sequence is quite complex and the inclusion of the timeline calendar in MGS4 is a clear testament to the fact that a lot of players were having trouble wrapping their brains around it. Of course there is the fact that I think it does feel like Kojima was making the story up as he went along, and so MGSV hits harder after knowing about MGS1. Nevertheless, it’s an instance where the length of time and the quality differential from MG1 & 2 and MGS1 to modern day means that I think it’s less essential to experience it in the order of release. But that’s a tough one.
TL;DR version — it depends. 😂
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
@Th3solution that is some post mate fair play 😅… and a great read fair play. I totally understand your deviations from my method… but your mate eating dessert first is a frikkin’ abomination! As you may have guessed I save the best for last… for me the chase is always better than the catch as they say.
Also, I actually like the idea of new Star Wars fans starting with Rogue One. First and foremost, it’s a brilliant movie and second … I almost always forget about it for some reason. It just sets up Episode IV do well, so I’d be down with that for sure.
@Th3solution it’s a great question… and one I feel a bit hypocritical about answering if I’m honest. I myself played V first… and it was only as a result of my experience with that, that I played the whole series within the following 12 months. When advising someone other than myself… and without my trophy obsession 😅, I’d go release order. The reason that I didn’t personally was… I was a different gamer back then. I was just starting to dip my toe out of my comfort zone and simply chose V as it was open world and modern.
I feel like my approach to gaming has drastically changed since then and now treat it with the respect I think it deserves (as the ultimate progression of art-form/entertainment-type to this point in human culture… big statement but I stand by it). And as a result, in much the same scenario as Vader and Luke, the journey into the heart of darkness for Big Boss is richer if you’ve seen him through Solid Snake’s eyes first. Just my opinion but… I’d go MGS & MGS2 first but I’m about as far from gen-pop as it gets… for better or worse.
Remasters were fine in the PS3 - PS4 transition due to the hardware incompatibility but some titles are STILL stuck on the PS3.
Motorstorm (original, Pacific Rift, Apocalypse), Little Big Planet 1 & 2, ModNation Racers to name a few.
Obviously LBP and ModNation really require online servers to be of any creative use and Sony are too tight to even maintain the PS4 LBP3 server so these have no chance.
Motorstorm was at least split screen local multi-player but with Evolution gone and now part of CodeMasters/EA, there's little chance of anything new coming in that franchise.
I am very thankful that I still own a fully working PS3 Slim with 3 original DS3 controllers.
@Th3solution@colonelkilgore I seem to remember an interview with Kojima talking about technological limitations and that he had ideas for the story but the technology wasn’t there yet. I even think MGS3 was envisioned as a PS3 title but Sony didn’t deliver in time, he just ended up working with what he had. Narratively I would still suggest starting with MGS due to some of the exposition and also seeing how the series grows from a technological perspective to service the story, MGSV being peak game design (well, before Death Stranding arrived)
@Bob_Salat Thanks, bud.
I really would have liked a remake MGS1 first, not only for the reasons you and Colonol mentioned, and specifically for the callbacks to it in MGS4 and MGS5, but also because it’s the most dated and least accessible at this point. But Konami is going to do what Konami does, ie screw up a good thing. 😅 (Although, I know they are turning things back around)
I remember MGS3 playing pretty well and modern, by comparison. And perhaps that’s one of the reasons it’s getting a remake treatment first. There’s inherently less to overhaul in the gameplay and visuals department, compared to 1 & 2. But still, 3 generations of consoles later, it will be a tall order to remake.
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
@Th3solution I’ve replayed almost every entry on a fairly annual basis for the last 25 years and the first solid is probably the least accessible in terms visual fidelity and controls and the like. Whereas 2, 3 and 4 still, though not without issues, stand on their own and are very playable. Having said that I shouldn’t be trusted to be objective about any of this as I’m a total obsessive 😂
Looking forward to trying them out anyway mate.
We’re playing The Plucky Squire this month, join us!
@PorkChopExpress Vagrant Story would be good. I remember playing that, was it on PS1? I never did finish as i most likely did not fully understand the game, as it was rare for me to play that type of game back then.
Life is more fun when you help people succeed, instead of wishing them to fail.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.
Forums
Topic: Talking of remakes...
Posts 41 to 50 of 50
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic