How do you feel about jumping into a series on a Sequel?

So I just watched Greg and Collin debate about whether or not it makes sense to jump into a series mid-sequel.

Which has led me to consider various games where I have jumped in. I played Uncharted 2 first and that led me to finally pick up Uncharted 1. I started with Killzone 2 and have loved the Killzone games ever sinsce but have never gone back to play Killzone 1. I started with Resistance 3 (which I loved) then tried to get into Resistance 1 & 2 but couldn't get into them. I jumped into the Witcher series on the Wild Hunt and the Elder Scrolls with Skryim and Bioshock with Infinite. Those were all games I loved but I'm not sure I could go back and play earlier ones.

The problem with series is that the number is intimidating because I wondered if I'd need to play Witcher I / II before jumping into the Witcher III, I hesitated getting Metal Gear Solid V but ended up getting it due to the high reviews. I also tried playing Dragon Age II but couldn't get into it but finally picked up Dragon Age Inquisition because the price point looked good. Even though I've never played a Fallout game I plan on getting Fallout 4. Games aren't like books or movies but stories often still matter in a video game

Personally, I wish video game company's would make more stand-alone games...sequels rely on the momentum of popularity of the brand/series. People who never played an Assassins Creed game probably jumped into Blag Flag and plenty of Witcher virgins jumped in on the While Hunt and many people who got Skyrim even though they'd never touched a Elder Scrolls game before.

So what do you think? Have you ever jumped into a series part way? Do you have any regrets?

I always try to jump into a game series right from the beginning, so I can better understand everything that's happening. The only exceptions I've found were the Persona and Final Fantasy series, due to each game being a separate story/world with only common themes and visual design keeping them connected.

Well not really, most the games I start playing are sequels and have little reason to care if I'm late to the party. If I want to backtrack? I'll hunt for the older games if at all possible.

For me it depends on the amount of story. Fallout and elder scrolls require zero background knowledge of previous games, where on the other hand some series might make no sense when played out of order.

I think most of them are technologies series, not story series. So there is no must to do the first.

I don't think that it really bothers me too much although I guess that it would depend on the game in question. I've been an avid gamer for so long that there really haven't been many game series where I haven't started off with the first game anyway.

I have jumped into a series on a sequel before, and in some cases (if I liked it) went back and played the earlier ones. But this isn't very often... I tend to try to start from the beginning of a series.

Most of the time I always start a series from the beginning. The only exceptions I can think of are Fallout and The Elder Scrolls

It really depends on how interconnected the stories are. For instance I jumped into Assassin's Creed 2 without playing the original. I think it was fine because it was a totally different character. (ezio) The beginning was a bit confusing with all the Absergo stuff, but one wikipedia article later and I was fine. A game like Skyrim is even easier to get into.

Playing Halo 3 campaign without playing Halo 1 or 2 first is kind of bad though, imo lol. It is a direct continuation of what happened before and you will be lost if you don't go back and play the others. Unless you don't care and are just there for the action, which is fine too.

I feel fine. If I like the game then I go back and check out prequels. But I mostly try to start from beginning.

First Final Fantasy game i played was Final Fantasy 2 on snes. For the elder scrolls, i jumped into this series at Morrowind. I got Fallout 3 before the other fallouts. First saints row i played was Saints Row 3. I played Privateer before playing the other old Wing Commander games. The first Ultima game i ever played was Ultima 7. First Monkey Island i played was Monkey Island 2.

So i don't regret playing these after their original games. The storylines were independant and didn't require anything of the previous games to like them. Ultima 7, Morrowind and Monkey Island probably would have been a bit different if i had more knowledge of the older games before i played them, but in a way i'm glad i went in fresh.

Sometimes, sequels have big improvements that attract your attention when the original didn't. Uncharted 2, Portal 2, and Assassin's Creed 2 are games that improved over their prequels. Given the choice, playing the sequel would most likely provide more enjoyment over the original.

Also, some sequels change the game play. That gives people who didn't like the way the original played, a chance to try a franchise with a new perspective. Resident Evil 4 and Metal Gear V are good examples of this. If you didn't like the tank controls and pre-rendered backgrounds of the first 3 Resident Evil games, then 4 provided a new over-the-shoulder, fully 3D world, which essentially changed the entire look and feel of the series. Metal Gear V's open world design is a big change to how the series has played until now.

So these changes may be what makes someone interested in the game. Should they have to "suffer" the game play of the prequels? No, it's a game. Play it for fun. If you're interested in the game's lore, there are plenty of ways to get the story without forcing yourself to play a game you don't like.

Nothing wrong with jumping in the middle. I generally start with whichever game in the series people like best (Uncharted 2, Balder's Gate 2, Fallout 2), and then go back to the others if I want more.