The First Entry vs. The Best Entry

[T-Pac | 8,443]

As gamers and collectors, we often find significance in both the "first" release and the (subjective) "best" release in established game franchises or genres.

The "first" release is great for playing as a means to see the foundation for something bigger. Its also great for collecting as a historically relevant point-of-origin for a broader series. 

The "best" release is great for playing to experience the most refined and acclaimed title within a franchise. It's also great for collecting as a well-regarded staple and hallmark of good taste in games. 

So which to you tend to gravitate toward more?

[T-Pac]

[Reed Rothchild | 10,081]

Well, I try to play all of the games, so I'm not the best judge here...

 

But in general, relevance > being the original.

 

If someone wants to dive into Zelda or Metroid, I'd recommend one of the sequels.

Ditto for Star Fox, F-Zero, Final Fantasy, Smash Bros., Grand Theft Auto, Tony Hawk, Advance Wars, MegaTen, Fire Emblem, and on and on.

Most series built on rocky foundations.

[fcgamer | 5,136]

Pro tip: Always go for volume three. Volume two always goes sideways, three brings it back to its roots yet perfects it, aside from the Metroid series.  In that situation, go for the original, and part II if you need something fun on the go.

[DefaultGen | 5,967]

First is always gonna be the first and the best is going to change.

I always think it's interesting to judge where a series goes from the first game though. Pokemon hasn't fundamentally changed much since gen 1. Those games seem like they'll forever be the basic blueprint for Pokemon, compared to Final Fantasy 16 which is basically unrecognizable from Final Fantasy 1. Zelda went from directionless adventure to hand-holding text box tutorial game for babies with Skyward Sword back to directionless adventure with BOTW.

Collecting the first will always be the most interesting, especially for big series. I've been looking for years for all the versions of the original computer Bomberman, but I can just go on Ebay and get a dozen CIB copies of Bomberman 64, which @Jeevan will back me up is definitely the best Bomberman game, any day of the week.

[Jeevan | 9,352]

5 minutes ago, DefaultGen said:

First is always gonna be the first and the best is going to change.

I always think it's interesting to judge where a series goes from the first game though. Pokemon hasn't fundamentally changed much since gen 1. Those games seem like they'll forever be the basic blueprint for Pokemon, compared to Final Fantasy 16 which is basically unrecognizable from Final Fantasy 1. Zelda went from directionless adventure to hand-holding text box tutorial game for babies with Skyward Sword back to directionless adventure with BOTW.

Collecting the first will always be the most interesting, especially for big series. I've been looking for years for all the versions of the original computer Bomberman, but I can just go on Ebay and get a dozen CIB copies of Bomberman 64, which @Jeevan will back me up is definitely the best Bomberman game, any day of the week.

I have not played all of the bomberman games, but bomberman 64 is pretty damn good.  

[RH | 5,428]

Well, I'm simply a guy who can appreciate the historical context of just about anything, so I'm always going to want to at least give the first game in a series a passing try before I jump ahead to a current title or even the "best" in the series.

However, there are a couple of exceptions.  For some reason, some games had a modest starting title but it was game #2 that took a major shift and it the one that everyone remembers.  I can think of something like Metal Gear Solid (PS1) vs. Metal Gear for the NES or Sweet Home (Famicom) vs. Resident Evil 2.  Even with that later example, many people consider the definitive game in that series, at least from it's early days, to be RE2.  We now have the internet, ROMs, emulators and fan translation patches but 10 years ago, only the super nerds knew about Sweet Home and that it was a semi/spiritual successor to Resident Evil.

Anyway, it's tough to say but I do think I gravitate towards the beginning in general, when starting a new series but there can be exceptions.  I might try a Call of Duty game one day and even if I do go back and try the first game, I doubt it will be the first thing I play if I give COD a try.

[Gloves | 12,591]

1 hour ago, fcgamer said:

Pro tip: Always go for volume three. Volume two always goes sideways, three brings it back to its roots yet perfects it, aside from the Metroid series.  In that situation, go for the original, and part II if you need something fun on the go.

Don't bother playing half-life. Got it. 

[BlackVega | 583]

34 minutes ago, Gloves said:

Don't bother playing half-life. Got it. 

As well as Team Fortress, Left 4 Dead or any Valve series at this point

 

[DefaultGen | 5,967]

1 hour ago, Gloves said:

Don't bother playing half-life. Got it. 

Only play Half-Life Alyx. Then you can talk about it with the 0-1 people you know who have played Half-Life Alyx.

[Sumez | 3,218]

I just get anything that's fun and interesting 

I did get that first computer Bomberman that @DefaultGenclaims you can't find on ebay (I got it on ebay), but only because I have every other bomberman.

Except from the second bomberman game (Bomberman 3-D) - I found one listing of that and it's like $400

Yeah no thanks

 

 

 

 

Btw Bomberman 64 is really bad

[DefaultGen | 5,967]

7 minutes ago, Sumez said:

I just get anything that's fun and interesting 

I did get that first computer Bomberman that @DefaultGenclaims you can't find on ebay (I got it on ebay), but only because I have every other bomberman.

Except from the second bomberman game (Bomberman 3-D) - I found one listing of that and it's like $400

Yeah no thanks

 

 

 

 

Btw Bomberman 64 is really bad

The PC-88 version? I don't even check Ebay for PC-88 games because they're always ridiculously overpriced. When I find it, I'm gonna spend like 40 bucks though hopefully. I found a Toshiba Pasopia 7 version of Bomberman before I found a PC-88 version I've seen a couple Bomberman 3Ds cheaper but didn't buy that because I was greedy for the first, and now I regret not getting them when I saw 'em.

Bomberman 64 is the most interesting platforming BM game, and since platformers are the best genre that makes it by default the best. I find most single player BMs tedious besides the bosses. BM64 is the full package

[Hammerfestus | 4,210]

64?  Please

[Hammerfestus | 4,210]

The answer is you collect the first entry, the consensus best entry, and the personal favorites.

[Tanooki | 5,267]

Bomberman64 isn't good, aged worse, yet sadly with the price many won't touch Second Attack but it's dramatically better in every way.  And Super Bomberman 2?  Try Super Bomberman 5, multiple exits, branching paths, loop back to play older clusters of stages, an it saves as you go along, such a very very good game.

Usually first releases in respect to say Game Release day one, to then Game of the Year/Definitive Edition that comes later, the first one is good, clearly good enough to merit what got to the end point, but compared, usually they're trashy.  That refined version has the bugs and kinks worked out, maybe a few quality of life tweaks even, just more of a learning curve happened and was applied to make great greatness.

You even get cases of where the first game is just incomplete buggy broken shite like Castlevania 64, to then 10mo later get Legacy of Darkness where the press ripped them to pieces for shoving out beta-ware as a game.  Not just that, but it was a mid-point of the final game that had been intended that you needed to unlock, just to either end it there or unlock the rest of the game itself after that by doing another unlocking sequence.  That added few months debugged it, completed the missing sequences, and made the game a bit of a konami masterpiece on the system.

[GPX | 1,444]

As a gamer, I think generally I’ll want to play the best game in the franchise if I can make it happen. We game for the wholesome experience of the visuals, sounds and gameplay so it shouldn’t really matter if it’s number 1 or the 10th instalment of a series. 

As a collector, I think the mindset is generally different. We tend to focus in-depth on aspects of the series that has mostly nothing to do with the gameplay. For example, the historical significance, the rarity/scarcity, and how popular the game is within the series (which may not be due to it being the best game of the franchise). 

Case study for me with the scenario of Streets of Rage series:

SOR 1 - the first and the most impact I had as a gamer. 

SOR 2 - I regard this as the best of the bunch from the 90s. 

SOR 3 - while good, nothing much new compared with SOR 2. As a collector though, this game is much rarer to find and I would rather have this game as a collector compared with the first 2 SOR. 

Additional point, I would love to get my hands on SOR 4 as a gamer. One day it will surely happen. However, as a collector, I don’t really have any interest in owning SOR4 in the physical sense, other than to play it.

 

 

[BlackVega | 583]

Streets of Rape Rage 1 and 2 are very slow and boring af as a beat em up or any sort of fighting game. SOR3 is very dynamic and actually good and this is the only one I play and enjoy

[Sumez | 3,218]

12 hours ago, DefaultGen said:

The PC-88 version?

You got me there! I settled for the MSX version. Was it released on pc88 earlier? 

[Kguillemette | 1,681]

Not a whole lot of franchises where I can say the first is the best. Toe Jam and Earl maybe? 

[G-type | 2,941]

I tend to gravitate more towards the first entry. Usually because it makes an impression on me and unless they go in a whole another direction for the follow up, my loyalty is not so easily swayed by a few iterative changes.

[Andy_Bogomil | 898]

I would often collect a series to be complete even if I typically only played some of them. I'd usually start with games I like the most and then fill in the 'blanks' but it would depend on price and opportunity at that point as well. When I started collecting CIB, I definitely focused on my favourite games first, even if they weren't first in the series. 

I agree with several above that the first is rarely the best and sometime not even recognizable compared to later entries that helped launch the series w.r.t sales/popularity. 

[Tanooki | 5,267]

Wish this hadn't slipped my mind because the sequel is a broken painful dumpster fire, and the resurrection of it recently took a few too many liberties in places to make it a moderate downer too sadly (mostly around monster lairs.)

 

ActRaiser

1 = Perfect blend of quality basic SIM elements that are tied to influencing your capabilities, life, magic in the ACTION sequences.

2 = SIM gone, saving battery gone, tight control gone, challenge ratcheted from moderate to cruelty in part over control.

Reniassance = Handles fine, sim is still good with a few tweaks/added perks that mostly do fine, but the monster lairs are a progressive naggy headache that really break flow and fun in the SIM side, and the controls I guess don't feel as tight. A B effort on an A game basically I guess.

[koifish | 634]

I only collect games or hardware that are personally meaningful. Don't care about significance to others really. That'd be like showing someone your 87 CIB zelda and saying "here is the first zelda" but then your follow-up is "oh I don't ever play it or really even like it, I just know it's important to someone else." Same would be true for whatever else game in a series. I'm not gonna collect FF7-anything if I don't like the game.

[Link | 2,952]

On 7/7/2023 at 9:26 AM, T-Pac said:

As gamers and collectors, we often find significance in both the "first" release and the (subjective) "best" release in established game franchises or genres.

The "first" release is great for playing as a means to see the foundation for something bigger. Its also great for collecting as a historically relevant point-of-origin for a broader series. 

The "best" release is great for playing to experience the most refined and acclaimed title within a franchise. It's also great for collecting as a well-regarded staple and hallmark of good taste in games. 

So which to you tend to gravitate toward more?

[T-Pac]

I can't help but notice that this thread shows up around the same time as your blog post about trying to appreciate Legend of Zelda 1 without prior experience and in the current age. And that is the origin of my obviously extremely favorite series. I say theres nothing wrong with not ranking a game sequel in the top spot. I would actually reverse the question and ask where the sequel is not superior. Because the original LoZ is certainly a classic, but has zero claim to any top spot imo.

[T-Pac | 8,443]

10 hours ago, Link said:

I can't help but notice that this thread shows up around the same time as your blog post about trying to appreciate Legend of Zelda 1 without prior experience and in the current age. And that is the origin of my obviously extremely favorite series. I say theres nothing wrong with not ranking a game sequel in the top spot. I would actually reverse the question and ask where the sequel is not superior. Because the original LoZ is certainly a classic, but has zero claim to any top spot imo.

For sure - I've always been more interested in the origin of a highly-regarded franchise than its pinnacle. And I'm interested to hear whether others feel the same, or gravitate to the most acclaimed media instead (regardless of chronology).

[T-Pac]

[koifish | 634]

On 7/11/2023 at 6:45 AM, T-Pac said:

For sure - I've always been more interested in the origin of a highly-regarded franchise than its pinnacle. And I'm interested to hear whether others feel the same, or gravitate to the most acclaimed media instead (regardless of chronology).

[T-Pac]

Well in the case of playing the games, I usually advise people to at least try to start with the first game. If you hate it, if you think its boring, and if you just want to read a synopsis or watch a summary/skip through a longplay/see the final boss/etc., then sure, whatever. The most important part of games is having fun! If you don't think it's fun, then don't waste precious, precious free time playing it. Still, you should TRY the first one, and try to go in order, if only to appreciate why they were impactful or where the series came from. Plus, having tried the early ones, you can say "yeah I tried the first one/second one/etc. but X/Y/Z just didn't appeal to me, but then in the sequel/praised game, they did this and it really fixed it for me". Alternatively, you can just parrot what you hear online; Just be clear that you're sharing hearsay as opposed to what you yourself experienced (or if you felt the same, just say something like "they say this about game A, and frankly I agree, because B and C").

EDIT: Addendum, don't be afraid to try a game a few times. Come back to it over some period of time. It was 8 years between the first time that I played Zelda 2 and the first time that I understood and enjoyed it.

Edited July 12, 2023 by koifish