• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Chronological order versus release order: Which do you prefer to follow?

Kadin

Kadin

Member
Are there any game series that come to mind where it's advantageous to play them chronologically as opposed to the order they were released? I've always approached a game series by the dates they were released as I assume future games were designed with this in mind.

I'm looking at the Professor Layton series and thinking, based on what I've read, that it's better to actually play them in chronological order compared to release. Anyone care to weigh in on this specific example and any others?
 
Always release order. Unless a remake comes out that you can slot in to replace the original (in the case where the original doesn't hold up well compared with the remake).

I usually want to see the mechanics and game bits evolve, not some story that was retconned to fit in with something made 20 years ago.
 
due to the evolution of mechanics and refinement of ideas, I've always felt release order's the best way to do it. Sometimes it's hard to go back.
 
Usually, for me, it doesn't matter. In cases like (classic) Castlevania, there are a myriad of games that were released up and down the series' timeline. Unless you really care, you can just play the games in whatever way you wish.

But in the case of series like Devil May Cry? It really pays to play that one first (in order to see how the stylish action genre got its start), then move on to 3 and 4, which expanded on the combat system and took it to new heights.
 
I don't care what Kojima says: playing Metal Gear in chronological order is really stupid. Even just separating the fact that each game advances the gameplay, the story just works better. At least as far as I'm concerned.
 
Starting GTA with London 1961 is sure to make the series interesting. What would it be, London 1961, London 1969, Vice City, San Andreas, GTA, GTA 2 (maybe), GTA 3, GTA IV, GTA 2 (maybe), and then GTA V?
 
Well, sometimes it's out of my control, for example Metal Gear Solid. I played MGS back in 1998, and each subsequent release at their release.

I don't have a problem if a series mechanics are rougher way back when, I always do replays in chronological order though. Story order is the most important part for me in a story heavy series. Makes the most sense.
 
Okay, well at least my opinion appears to be the same with everyone else it seems. But as I mentioned in the OP, I'm approaching the Layton series and I've read other people suggesting to start this chronologically as opposed to by release. Is this just a unique series or would you guys still suggest playing those in order as well, by release?
 
Release order. Usually better mechanics later on and it doesn't typically spoil big story events that might get some setup in prequels.
 
I play them whenever I feel an interest in any one of the games.

MGS4 was the first Metal Gear I played, simply cos my family owned it and I thought 'why not?'.

Then I tried MGS2 out of curiosity, but didn't like it.

And then Konami announced MGS3 for 3DS, so I bought that cos it looked really cool, and I thought it was great.

I can never be bothered keeping up with convoluted storylines or whatever. If the gameplay's interesting enough, I'll play it.
 
Never chronological order unless you've played/seen the media before. There will always be call-backs and references that you don't get (or worse spoil) in the newer stuff. ALWAYS.
 
you play the release order because that's how the story is meant to be told in most cases. the writers usually give you incentive to play an older storyline adding a layer of satisfaction you can only appreciate after you have knowledge of the later games.
 
Release order. Whether it's the intended story order or just seeing how the gameplay grows it just works out better more often than not that way. The only exceptions are possibly remakes, and even then they have to be more like Atelier Rorona versus Metroid Zero Mission; updated to be in line with the immediate succeeding games rather than massively vaulting over them.

Well, that example might be a bit faulty since Super Metroid is generally considered the best even relative to that, but it still feels like Zero Mission is better appreciated post-Super, not pre-Super.
 
Does this thread apply to any other games besides MGS? I can't think of any games for which the release order is different from chronological order of plot.
 
Ape said:
you play the release order because that's how the story is meant to be told in most cases. the writers usually give you incentive to play an older storyline adding a layer of satisfaction you can only appreciate after you have knowledge of the later games.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. Had a friend who always made it a point to want to play things in chronological order, then would complain when the older games weren't as good and that he played it chronologically, because that's how story works (which is wrong).
 
release order seems like the best way for the first playthrough since you're not going to get every bit of story piece on your first trip anyway.

on replays, you can adjust to older mechanics easier since you already know the game and that makes chronological order easier.

i want to do a chronological replay of the Zelda series and starting with SS only works if you've played the games already.

Eusis said:
Release order. Whether it's the intended story order or just seeing how the gameplay grows it just works out better more often than not that way. The only exceptions are possibly remakes, and even then they have to be more like Atelier Rorona versus Metroid Zero Mission; updated to be in line with the immediate succeeding games rather than massively vaulting over them.

Well, that example might be a bit faulty since Super Metroid is generally considered the best even relative to that, but it still feels like Zero Mission is better appreciated post-Super, not pre-Super.
Click to expand...

well, ZM before Super might make you like ZM more than Super overall.

remakes might actually screw up the games that come after the game they remade if those games' gameplay is still behind what is in the remake.
 
Madao said:
well, ZM before Super might make you like ZM more than Super overall.

remakes might actually screw up the games that come after the game they remade if those games' gameplay is still behind what is in the remake.
Click to expand...
Yeah, though it probably says something about Super's design that people may still prefer it even with ZM's control refinements. It does feel smoother to play even if Super's style came off as deliberate, and the way super missles are handled is a lot better than Super Metroid's Select cycling.

But yes, Super/Zero is a case of where I think it's far better to play Super first THEN Zero, despite Zero coming earlier. It's also likely a case where you don't really want to play in full release order because Metroid 1 and 2 are kind of a pain to get into now while Super Metroid aged supremely well.
 
Mario World came out before Mario 3. At least in the UK anyway. I think.

Edit: wrong. Must have been thihk ing of people importing the Japanese version
 
Release order is the way to go, of course. I don't begrudge anyone from playing games chronologically, but I don't think it makes the experience any better.
 
Cube said:
Release order first, and then Chronological second.

You see the designer's vision first that way.
Click to expand...

dr-mccoy-and-captain-kirk-approve.gif
 
Kadin said:
Okay, well at least my opinion appears to be the same with everyone else it seems. But as I mentioned in the OP, I'm approaching the Layton series and I've read other people suggesting to start this chronologically as opposed to by release. Is this just a unique series or would you guys still suggest playing those in order as well, by release?
Click to expand...

Play the Layton games in the order they were released. I can't think of a single reason to not play those games in release order.
 
Release Order. Cronological for additional playthoughs.
Playing cronological order first is a surefire way to ruin plot twists. And importance of certain characters/events will be completely lost on you.


Apoleptica said:
Does this thread apply to any other games besides MGS? I can't think of any games for which the release order is different from chronological order of plot.
Click to expand...

Have you never played any game with a prequel?
 
release order

would you watch star wars from 1 to 6 ?? no.. you watch it from original trilogy then the prequels..

watching it from 1 to 6 is like eating a steak welldone...
 
Most of the time release order is the best way because you see the evolution of the game mechanics and you can appreciate improvements made rather than going from something like DMC3:SE to DMC1 and feeling that things have gotten clunkier.

It's nice to see something in chronological order but really only after going through in release order because it could end up spoiling things that are meant to be big twists.
 
Release order. Because the developer will have the previous game plot in mind, whether it being a sequel or a prequel.
 
Release order always, especially when a game series started in an earlier gen.
 
Always in release order the first time you experience a game series. As mentioned, sometimes the story is told in a particular way that would make the games more enjoyable that way, and you can see how the gameplay evolved over time.

If I've already played the games sometimes I'll go back and play them in chronological order though.
 
Kadin said:
I'm looking at the Professor Layton series and thinking, based on what I've read, that it's better to actually play them in chronological order compared to release. Anyone care to weigh in on this specific example and any others?
Click to expand...

I'd recommend playing the Layton series in release order. I can't imagine why anyone would think chronological is better, actually.

Story-wise, the original trilogy are like standalone adventures, while the prequel trilogy has overarching plot threads that build up to a grand finale at the end of episode III. With chronological order, I think it would be weird to go through the series finale and then have these extra adventures afterward.

Character-wise, the original trilogy introduces you to Luke, Layton, and others, while the prequel trilogy fills in their backstory, how they met, and everything fans were curious about. Their characterization makes sense in release order.

Gameplay-wise, there are UI improvements and convenient little features added in each successive entry, which can make it hard to go back to the earlier games.
 
It depends on how Story-heavy it is. If it is story-heavy, you should always go release order. If not, it doesn't matter one way or the other.
 
Halo is one of the few franchises i would say is very playable in chronological order. I'm sure many would disagree but that's how i'd have someone start the series.

Halo Reach --> Halo: CE --> Halo 2 --> Halo 3 --> Halo 4

I'd say leave out Halo Wars since it's not the same genre of game, and the mobile games are just there for later in case you decide you want to play them. ODST could totally fit in chronologically the only problem is it technically takes place in somewhere around the middle of Halo 2, and i wouldn't recommend switching the game out half way.

In most cases though, it's better to play in release order. One good example is the Arkham series.

Playing Origins first would not only make Asylum feel limited with it's lack of a proper city and gliding among many other things. It also doesn't help that it looks like Batman has aged by 25 years going from Origins to Asylum.
 
Solidsoul said:
Halo is one of the few franchises i would say is very playable in chronological order. I'm sure many would disagree but that's how i'd have someone start the series.

Halo Reach --> Halo: CE --> Halo 2 --> Halo 3 --> Halo 4

I'd say leave out Halo Wars since it's not the same genre of game, and the mobile games are just there for later in case you decide you want to play them. ODST could totally fit in chronologically the only problem is it technically takes place in somewhere around the middle of Halo 2, and i wouldn't recommend switching the game out half way.

In most cases though, it's better to play in release order. One good example is the Arkham series.

Playing Origins first would not only make Asylum feel limited with it's lack of a proper city and gliding among many other things. It also doesn't help that it looks like Batman has aged by 25 years going from Origins to Asylum.
Click to expand...

I would disagree, but thats only because I REALLY dislike Reach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Fragmentary Order — Official Announcement Trailer
Trailer 
4
265
StueyDuck replied
Order of Wallachia - Official Gameplay Trailer
Trailer Indie 
7
114
Pejo replied
Indiana Jones: TGC - The Order Of The Giants -DLC (LTTP)
29
461
Bartski replied
Next generation, gaming moves to the handheld front. Which handheld do you think will do best?
2 3
109
1K
LakeOf9 replied
Neo Geo AES+ pre order sales have shattered all expectations
2 3 4 5
225
2K
nush replied
Top Bottom