Starting a new series/franchise...

[JadedDragos]

If it's an ongoing series or story related I tend to go with the first one, but in the case of Assassin's Creed I did something different. In AC I had played a little of the first one, but I got into it when Black Flag came out. I have finished both, but I plan to continue the series correctly now.

[Satoshi Ookami]

Both. I have some series I started with the random first game (Persona, Neptunia) but there are some other I started with the first game (Atelier, Zero Escape)

[Zenpai]

See here's the thing. I've not played an AC game I plan to play the whole series. But keep getting told to skip the first game. I usually play all the series if I can. Hell before I started WoW I bought WC 2 and 3 and their expacs and played them before I started WoW. Never could find the original warcraft. Oh well.

 

Do I skip AC 1 or not? 

 

Don't. AC 1 may be simpler (not that that's a bad thing) and more repetitive than the others, but it's still well worth a play. All the characters in the real world and all major plot points of the series are introduced in the game, you'd feel really lost skipping it. Altaïr may be a one-game assassin, but he appears a lot in Revelations and all other games reference him, some of them extremely heavily.

 

Actually, 1 is still my favorite in the entire franchise. It may be repetitive, but I loved the middle-eastern environment and the whole "conspiracy" feel to the game.

 

And just in general, don't listen to people that tell you to skip a game in a series. Unless all the entries are unconnected (like Final Fantasy and Persona), you're always gonna miss something. People in general just say that because they've not enjoyed the game as much and undermine its relevance to the series. But in the case of Assassin's Creed, I assure you it's very much an enjoyable game.

[Ruliya]

AC 1 is good for introducing you to the story. Altair, the assassin you play as, kinda fades away after this game. 

If you aren't interested in the story of the present day story then skip it. The game itself is really boring compared to all the others.

 

Don't. AC 1 may be simpler (not that that's a bad thing) and more repetitive than the others, but it's still well worth a play. All the characters in the real world and all major plot points of the series are introduced in the game, you'd feel really lost skipping it. Altaïr may be a one-game assassin, but he appears a lot in Revelations and all other games reference him, some of them extremely heavily.

 

Actually, 1 is still my favorite in the entire franchise. It may be repetitive, but I loved the middle-eastern environment and the whole "conspiracy" feel to the game.

 

And just in general, don't listen to people that tell you to skip a game in a series. Unless all the entries are unconnected (like Final Fantasy and Persona), you're always gonna miss something. People in general just say that because they've not enjoyed the game as much and undermine its relevance to the series. But in the case of Assassin's Creed, I assure you it's very much an enjoyable game.

 

The thing is, I'm told that most of the stuff is referenced enough in 2 or others that any useful info I'd get in AC1 would be gathered from the other games anyway. Still for the complete series playthrough I'll probably play 1. I'm interested in the time period it's set in too, so there's that. Thanks for the replies guys ^^

[Avatar_Of_Battle]

The thing is, I'm told that most of the stuff is referenced enough in 2 or others that any useful info I'd get in AC1 would be gathered from the other games anyway. Still for the complete series playthrough I'll probably play 1. I'm interested in the time period it's set in too, so there's that. Thanks for the replies guys ^^

 

To add on...referencing isn't nearly as fulfilling as experiencing.

Most people would rather see their favorite band in concert than watch a DVD type of documentary on the concert. (maybe that wasn't such a good example since I'd rather watch the movie lmfao...)

[Ruliya]

To add on...referencing isn't nearly as fulfilling as experiencing.

Most people would rather see their favorite band in concert than watch a DVD type of documentary on the concert. (maybe that wasn't such a good example since I'd rather watch the movie lmfao...)

No, I get what you mean. Most people telling me to skip it, are saying so because #1 is slow, relatively boring and very repetitive. Also, no trophies is a little bit of a factor ;P

[Matto_lsi]

No, I get what you mean. Most people telling me to skip it, are saying so because #1 is slow, relatively boring and very repetitive. Also, no trophies is a little bit of a factor ;P

 

It depends on how you play and absorb this type of content.  As far as story goes, even if you play all other AC games twice, if you skip 1, you will miss tons of story.  There's a lot of big and small moments in 1, as well as important storyline info mentioned only in 1 (never saw it mentioned directly again, only referenced in a 'you outta know this' sort of way in later installments).  While 2 was my favorite, 1 is probably the most true to the 'Assassin' title.  Unlike future installments, you don't go running around like a madman murdering people in the street in plain sight in the first game.  Most people who found the game boring are probably used to doing that in FPS and action games and didn't appreciate the feel of a true assassin game.  I heard the same criticism of Hitman from similar people when they were forced to set-up hits instead of just running around shooting everyone.  The first Assassin's Creed can be played in a variety of ways, but the game does expect you to take your time and execute the most professional assassinations.  Also, the present day stuff is extremely relevant to the remainder of the 'trilogy' (all games through AC3, so more like 5 of them, lol).  The question is, do you care to know the full story and play as a true assassin or do you prefer running around murdering everyone in the street?  The only real criticism I'll give to the first game is after the first 3 assassinations, the rest are repetitions of these 3.  This doesn't detract from the over-arching story, but maybe cheapens the experience as a whole.  Personally, I really enjoyed the first game.  It inspired me to buy the second, which as I said, was my favorite.  While I agree it should have trophies, if you really feel you need additional motivation to play it, just do what I did and play on 360 and get the achievements instead.  Long story short, the first game is definitely worth playing if you really care about the overall story.  If you prefer just killing people in some interesting and wild ways, then it doesn't really matter which one you play, as they all include this offering.  But only you can make that determination for yourself.

[Ruliya]

Hmmm, I could always read wiki's for info missed in 1 ;P But for the fill experience I'll play #1. It can't be that bad. 

[Avatar_Of_Battle]

Hmmm, I could always read wiki's for info missed in 1 ;P But for the fill experience I'll play #1. It can't be that bad. 

 

I'd say Assassin's Creed's biggest pro is also its biggest con.

No trophies.

 

Gameplay is fine. Story is fine. Graphics are fine if you remember the year it came out. (don't expect ps4 quality like some people seem to do)

The only part that was rather bad was mentioned already. Same 3 freakin scenarios to play throughout the whole game.

 

However, with no trophies you can breeze by the game. You don't have to collect every single thing which would make this game a serious pain in the ass.

 

EDIT:

To stay a bit on topic.

I wonder how people decide what game is best if they've never played. Personally of the AC games I find Black Flag to be the best. Terrible place to start though. In Uncharted I like the first game best. 

Edited August 1, 2015 by Avatar_Of_Battle

[Purple Heart]

Usually i'll start with the first one

[Feral]

EDIT:To stay a bit on topic.

I wonder how people decide what game is best if they've never played. Personally of the AC games I find Black Flag to be the best. Terrible place to start though. In Uncharted I like the first game best.

Sites like this and people telling them I suppose.

[HcG Clawz]

I usually start at the beginning of a series

[Avatar_Of_Battle]

Sites like this and people telling them I suppose.

Maybe...

Generally I'll inquire about the gameplay and smoothness of the games instead of "which is best". I remember being told about the Mass Effect games. 1 was stupidly clunky or something but the other 2 are great.

Same would go for the Dragon Age games. 1 was a mess with battling in my opinion. 2 was far superior in gameplay but was inferior in story.

[ExHaseo]

You mostly had me, but you included Saints Row with Final Fantasy.  I'll assume you never did play the Saints Row series, since from 1 onwards it definitely follows a story, and while it might not be very good, or to everyone's interest, it is there.  I agree about Final Fantasy, while a great series, each game is a separate entity and stories outside of the "insert roman numeral dash 2" are completely unrelated.  But Saints Row follows you as a single character through all 4 games, and you are always the same character, and there's tons and tons of callbacks throughout each game to prior games (especially 4, I mean shit, that game is basically just an homage to the first 3).  Again, the story might not be particularly good, but as someone who's played them all, I can assure you it is there.  Also, Saints Row 2 is the best in the series, so I would definitely recommend playing that if you haven't.

 

In regards to my preferences, I prefer to play from the beginning, but with some series, like Yakuza, I won't be going back so I watched both of the hour long videos for the first 2 games (on 3s disc) to get the backstory, so 3 made more sense, and I'm excited to start 4 someday.  Series like Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed*, and others were all played from the beginning, in proper order.  I played Gran Turismo from the beginning too (will be continuing that legacy with 6 in the near future) and that's spanned 3 consoles.  I got the Sly HD collection and re-played each of those games before I started Thieves in Time.  But even games where the story doesn't carry over I still try to play from the beginning, if possible.  Hell, I even played GTA from the beginning (starting with 2 and playing every game since, but with reading up on the first game to see what it was about once I played and liked the 2nd game).

 

*Side note: I'll use this opportunity to again voice my discontent regarding Ubisoft's decision NOT to add trophies to the first AC game.

 

You apparently didn't look at my profile, I've platted the entire SR series. The first two are just GTA clones, and there's no real reason to play them, as they aren't that great. Especially for someone interested in the series for the crazy stuff like dildo bats and super powers.

[Xillia]

I play them in order of release, not the timeline. If I were to play the newest game and then go back to an older one, I couldn't appreciate the older one as much because the graphics and gameplay would be considerably worse.

 

I'd only start as far back as the consoles I own go though. So if I were to play Tales of, I'd start with the PS3 games and not all the way back to NES or something.

[Matto_lsi]

You apparently didn't look at my profile, I've platted the entire SR series. The first two are just GTA clones, and there's no real reason to play them, as they aren't that great. Especially for someone interested in the series for the crazy stuff like dildo bats and super powers.

 

You can't plat the whole series as 1 wasn't released on Playstation and 2 had no trophies.  If you've played them, then you can confirm what I said, that you play the same character and that there is an over-arching storyline between them, unlike each FF game.  Now I understand if you don't personally like them, but you stated they were separate, and they are not.  Again, if you don't like them, that's fine, that's your opinion, but in the off chance someone reading that wanted to start with the first game, your comment would have lead them to believe there was no connection between the earlier games and the newer games.  While the most recent games have definitely broken free of the GTA-clone stereotype, there are still numerous characters who have been around since the first and second game, as well as a lot of callbacks to previous plot points.  This is very different from FF and even GTA (for the most part), where the characters change every game and have no relevance to past games.

 

Personally I enjoyed 2 the most out of the series.  Seeing characters like Gat, Shaundi and Pearce appear in more recent installments is cool, but they were best in 2.  Just my opinion.  If all you want to do in SR is hit people with dildo bats, then have at it.  But I definitely think 1 and 2 were worth playing.  The gameplay and story were pretty good.  I even spent countless hours online and even got all achievements on both SR1, which was a nightmare I'd never repeat, and SR2.  The single player though, for both games, was really fun.  I also played SR2 completely co-op with a buddy, and had a blast.  So if you only want craziness, sure, play one of the later installments, but if the series as a whole interests you, I wouldn't skip the previous ones as that's where much, if not all, of the back story is set-up.

Edited August 2, 2015 by Matto_lsi

[Shug244]

I try to play games in the right order,unless it can't be helped.For example i got assassin creed brotherhood from a friend before i got assassin creed and assassin creed 2,and i got jak and daxter 3 on ps3 from anoutger friend before i went back and bought the collection ( i enjoyed the nak and daxter games on ps2 but had it not been for my friend givong me jak 3 on ps3 i would never had bought the collection on ps3 to get the outher 2 plats since i beat them already on the older consoles) i also plan on buying the jak and daxter collection on ps vita.

[ExHaseo]

You can't plat the whole series as 1 wasn't released on Playstation and 2 had no trophies.  If you've played them, then you can confirm what I said, that you play the same character and that there is an over-arching storyline between them, unlike each FF game.  Now I understand if you don't personally like them, but you stated they were separate, and they are not.  Again, if you don't like them, that's fine, that's your opinion, but in the off chance someone reading that wanted to start with the first game, your comment would have lead them to believe there was no connection between the earlier games and the newer games.  While the most recent games have definitely broken free of the GTA-clone stereotype, there are still numerous characters who have been around since the first and second game, as well as a lot of callbacks to previous plot points.  This is very different from FF and even GTA (for the most part), where the characters change every game and have no relevance to past games.

 

Personally I enjoyed 2 the most out of the series.  Seeing characters like Gat, Shaundi and Pearce appear in more recent installments is cool, but they were best in 2.  Just my opinion.  If all you want to do in SR is hit people with dildo bats, then have at it.  But I definitely think 1 and 2 were worth playing.  The gameplay and story were pretty good.  I even spent countless hours online and even got all achievements on both SR1, which was a nightmare I'd never repeat, and SR2.  The single player though, for both games, was really fun.  I also played SR2 completely co-op with a buddy, and had a blast.  So if you only want craziness, sure, play one of the later installments, but if the series as a whole interests you, I wouldn't skip the previous ones as that's where much, if not all, of the back story is set-up.

 

I played 3 and 4 before I played 1 and 2, and had zero problem following the story. I don't think the first two games were fun, and I followed the story just fine without playing them before, so there's no reason I would want other people to trudge through bad games just to get to the good ones. Crazy thing about opinions is that they're different for everyone. And basically all you're arguing is that my opinion is wrong, and yours is right.

[Novemberian]

I start with the first game most of the time unless there's some reason I can't play it, for example, the first game being an exclusive for a console I don't own.

[Thoazol]

Option C, the one that is the most convenient to get. I still favour playing games in order, but based on the times when I have played a series out of order (Ratchet: Gladiator before R&C: 3 or M&L Bowser's Inside Story before Partners in Time), it's not a dealbreaker if I can't.

[Matto_lsi]

I played 3 and 4 before I played 1 and 2, and had zero problem following the story. I don't think the first two games were fun, and I followed the story just fine without playing them before, so there's no reason I would want other people to trudge through bad games just to get to the good ones. Crazy thing about opinions is that they're different for everyone. And basically all you're arguing is that my opinion is wrong, and yours is right.

 

Not saying your opinion about the games is wrong.  You didn't like them, I did, no argument there.  I'm saying that to claim there isn't an over-arching story is wrong.  If you're trying to argue that, then I don't know what else to tell you.  That's all I've been saying since my first post.