Board 8 > Best series to play in reverse release order?

(+) Yeah! (+)

AKA: Play the most recent release first, then the one before that, and so on.
---

honestly this is basically how people get into Fire Emblem so probably that
---

Super Mario has high-quality games from its inception to the present.
---

I was gonna say this sounds like a terrible idea in general, but if anything Fire Emblem is probably THE one. Just make sure to play 9 before 10 is probably the one hiccup.
---

Metal Gear Solid
---

Paper Mario?
---

Mega Man Classic could work for this.

Just have to get use to the idea of not having slide and charge shot as you reach the early games.
---

Paper Mario is a good one too as is Pikmin.
---

Final Fantasy!
---

Hitman is actually a really good choice for this.
---

Do people have any reasons for ones they're posting other than "start with the bad ones and work your way up to the better ones"? That seems to be the implication for most of these.
---

Certainly isn't the implication for Fire Emblem! Or Final Fantasy for that matter.

I think it's more "they're not story-connected, so start with the more polished ones and work your way to the ones which are clunkier but are easier to get into if you already understand some of the conventions which span the series".
---

Pokmon for sure...

Paper Mario definitely.

MGS wouod be great.

MegaMan X.

And fucking Sonic.

Pretty much a reverse roller coaster ride.

-hotdogturtle-- posted...

Do people have any reasons for ones they're posting other than "start with the bad ones and work your way up to the better ones"? That seems to be the implication for most of these.

Not at all my implication. I was suggesting series that were good from start to present and did not have modern design conveniences that made the earlier games a chore to get through.
---

Lufia?
---

For Hitman, I like the idea that they basically get more and more hardcore as the series goes on in reverse (with the exception of Hitman 2016 to Absolution).
---

adventure island?

the basic gameplay and physics don't change too much, and by playing them backwards you would be getting the easier/outlier games out of the way first until you get to the first game which is one of the hardest nes games and designed with the intention of killing you from some sort of brain shattering rage aneurysm.

though the second game seems a lot easier than the third.
---

Dragon Quest

IIRC the early games don't even tell you what the spells do, but the later ones do and it's basically the same
---

MZero11 posted...

Dragon Quest

IIRC the early games don't even tell you what the spells do, but the later ones do and it's basically the same

UMMM EXCUSE ME

don't they have fizz in some and sizz in others? TALK ABOUT ESOTERIC
---

Madden, obviously.
---

Metal Gear might actually work this way.

Half the series is prequels anyway, so the plot is already built around the "mess with the details behind events you already know" idea. Reversing the play order just switches which events we know about first, and which are additional background.

So instead of "Oh, this kid's a young Liquid", you get "Oh, this guy's a grown up Eli!"

It would fall apart a bit when you got back to the MSX though, because not only would you be very familiar with the first game's fairly simple plot and single twist, you'd also know that that twist wasn't exactly true.
---

Play in reverse..to what end?
Because I would prefer to kill myself than to play the first Hitman game
---

Snrkiko posted...

MZero11 posted...

Dragon Quest

IIRC the early games don't even tell you what the spells do, but the later ones do and it's basically the same

UMMM EXCUSE ME

don't they have fizz in some and sizz in others? TALK ABOUT ESOTERIC

actually I'm not sure because I played all of them except 8 in Japanese >_>
---

NeoElfboy posted...

Certainly isn't the implication for Fire Emblem! Or Final Fantasy for that matter.

I think it's more "they're not story-connected, so start with the more polished ones and work your way to the ones which are clunkier but are easier to get into if you already understand some of the conventions which span the series".

This is definitely the reasoning for Fire Emblem.

Except that 9 and 10 are story connected and should be played in proper order. 6 and 7 are also story connected but can be played in either order since 7 is actually a prequel to 6 anyway.
---

Snrkiko posted...

MZero11 posted...

Dragon Quest

IIRC the early games don't even tell you what the spells do, but the later ones do and it's basically the same

UMMM EXCUSE ME

don't they have fizz in some and sizz in others? TALK ABOUT ESOTERIC

Nah, Frizz is the single target type of spell and Sizz is the multi-target type

And in the first game the spell names tell you exactly what they do. Youre not gonna be confused about what HURT does compared to HURTMORE or STOPSPELL
---

Underleveled posted...

NeoElfboy posted...

Certainly isn't the implication for Fire Emblem! Or Final Fantasy for that matter.

I think it's more "they're not story-connected, so start with the more polished ones and work your way to the ones which are clunkier but are easier to get into if you already understand some of the conventions which span the series".

This is definitely the reasoning for Fire Emblem.

Except that 9 and 10 are story connected and should be played in proper order. 6 and 7 are also story connected but can be played in either order since 7 is actually a prequel to 6 anyway.

I rather suspect most English-speakers played 7 before 6 anyway!

You're right about 9 and 10 of course. New Mystery and Shadow Dragon as well I suppose, though as games with weaker narratives, less is lost. I do know some people who played 10 before 9 and they certainly still like the games, though I think Ike suffers a lot that way (mostly because RD Ike is IMO a bad character, so if he's the one you see first, it probably sours you on him in PoR as well).
---