gaming series - skip the earlier versions and get the latest, or play in sequence?

[lord of the mark]

After years of not being able to play any game from after 2000 or so, I have a late 2006 budget machine, that will play most games up to 2005 or so (but apparently wont do well with Civ4 or SC4)

So, given that Im not going to upgrade the graphics card anytime in the next few months, it would seem to make sense to avoid those series where the latest sequel is the best, and instead to either get games that have no new sequels that I cant run yet (Gal Civ2, I think?) or ones where the latest is NOT the greatest (the classic example being the MOO series, but Ive long since played MOO2 of course) Bear in mind I have limited playing time, and while my greatest interest is in the strategy genre, I have some interest in other genres.

From what I can gather its worth skipping Civ3 and waiting till I have the hardware for Civ4. What of other series? (It might be best to exclude The Sims, to keep things kinda focused)

[DrSpike]

Excluding the Sims forever would be a good choice, correct.

[Jon Miller]

Depends on the game, in RPGs it is often useful to play them in order (depending on the series). For others, earlier ones are better (MOO2>>MOO3). In general, latest is best.

Jon Miller

[Jamski]

GalCiv2 will keep you off the streets for a bit - no need to play GalCiv1 at all. Europa Universalis 3 is better than 1 and 2 also - again, skip straight to the newest.

[Tuberski]

I'm having a lot of fun with Space Rangers 2.

ACK!

[Kloreep]

It really does depend on the series. RPGs, go in sequence, as they're generally all worth it. Strategy games, not so much - skip Civ3 and GalCiv and go for Civ4 and GalCiv2.

[Dis]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Excluding the Sims forever would be a good choice, correct.

hey, it was fun for a few days.

Would be better if you had angry white postal worker dad's who pulled out AK-47's when they get fired from their job. But you can't have everything.

[Dis]

just post a thread for each example. For RPG's, I already know you played some of BG1, but it seems you are more into Bg2. Though in that case I do recommend 1 over 2. Other games such as Neverwinter Nights I recommend 1, since it seems to be better than 2.

For Knights of the Old Republic, I recommend playing 1 first. The sequal in this one isn't as good, but still worth playing imho.

[DrSpike]

Some sensible suggestions here. But maybe LotM you should keep this thread going and when you want to play a specific new game ask if it should be the latest or an earlier game.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jamski
GalCiv2 will keep you off the streets for a bit - no need to play GalCiv1 at all. Europa Universalis 3 is better than 1 and 2 also - again, skip straight to the newest.

too late on the latter - Ive already played EU2 through several times. If i want to go back to it, I might play AGC-EEP, which AFAIK is not yet available for EU3 - and maybe never will be, as its fundamentally different in spirit, apparently.

Thanks for the Galciv advice - that will save me a purchase.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dis
just post a thread for each example. For RPG's, I already know you played some of BG1, but it seems you are more into Bg2. Though in that case I do recommend 1 over 2. Other games such as Neverwinter Nights I recommend 1, since it seems to be better than 2.

For Knights of the Old Republic, I recommend playing 1 first. The sequal in this one isn't as good, but still worth playing imho.

I finished BG1 some time ago.

while we're on RPG's what do y'all think the right approach would be to the Elder Scrolls series. Oblivion is apparently the greatest thing since sliced bread, but not only would i have to make a considerable upgrade investment to play it, but its the fourth in a series. I heard good things about number 3, Morrowind, but never hear about the first two. Start with 3, or go all the way back to 1?

[DrSpike]

Don't play any. The early games are great but just too old now. Morrowind is so bad it makes me cry just thinking about it, and whilst Oblivion has some fans it also has a lot of detractors (full disclosure I haven't actually played it, though I have seen it played). Either way the mainstream reviews (IGN, Gamespot etc) certainly overegged it.

[Jon Miller]

While the graphics hurt my eyes 3+ years ago, Planescape Torment and Fallout are both good RPGs...

I just wish they had some sort of graphics/gameplay update.

Jon Miller

[snoopy369]

lol @ Spike...

Morrowind is worth playing, particularly with some mods (some of the players here play it with 20-30 mods from what I recall). Oblivion is generally considered not as good as Morrowind, so I'd play that first (Morrowind). If not going back to Arena and Daggerfall (the first 2 in the series).

[Nostromo]

I bought Fallout 2 recently and wouldn't recommend it. That game is way too old. The graphics didn't age very well. But I would tolerate the lousy graphics if the game wasn't such a pain to play.

Now that I think about it, I don't understand people who still play CIV 2. I wouldn't mind the lousy graphics if it wasn't for the UI. That game is a pain to play because of the lousy UI. SMAC, OTOH, I would still recommend.