I think you're missing out on part of the experience if you leap ahead in a game series. Sticking with a series as it evolves makes the steps backward much more frustrating, and the advancements quite a bit more satisfying.

Mass Effect 2 was a great game in it's own right, yet would the newcomer to the series really appreciate the amount of improvements Bioware implemented from Mass Effect 1 to 2? To give one example, for me personally, trudging through the Mako throughout several frustrating levels in Mass Effect 1 made me that much more appreciative that Bioware cut it for the sequel. So, in that one instance, I'd say I got slightly more out of Mass Effect 2 than someone who hadn't played the first game.

Funny same thing happened to me, but I haven't bought AC3 yet. It isn't a crime because all they are doing is ruining the first time experience. I like this approach because it prepares for future installments of the game series.

I stared the Mass Effect series only from Mass effect 2 . Though there were certain things I didnt understand my overall experience with the game was awesome, so I think a good game doesn't penalize you if you haven't played its predecessors. 

I played Mass Effect 2 first in the series. I really loved it. Even though I already was kinda spoiled I had to play the first one cause the second one was so damn good. I find it to be bitter sweet however. In the end, I don't think it really mattered that I started ahead  in the series

Honestly .... I played Assassins creed 3 for 30min. then I return the CD back..... I think its not my type of games .... Even the game is good or not i know there is a huge fan of this game but simply its not my type....

little off topic here.(ive played and completed 1,2 and 3)  don't even bother with playing them all in my opinion Assassins creed sucks, it lacks any re-playability or challenge its what I would define as a casual gamers game, I think the Assassins creed games have alot of potential, I just feel the developers are scared to experiment so they continue to release Assassins creed games which follow the same lacklustre formula, with only the small additions being made to games like "poison darts"  and other similar things all which are useful tools but its much easier to just counter each enemy and by repeatedly spamming one button you are victorious which in turn renders the aforementioned features useless/pointless, but like I said in the beginning this is my opinion.  

I did this for God of War in a different manner.

I beat CoO in 2009 and loved it. Played GoW1 in 2011 and didn't like but then I beat 3 and loved it.

Then I went back to 1 and loved it again, beat 2, and then beat GoS and stopped. I played it mostly in chronological order and didn't mind anything spoiled because the story all tied well together game-to-game, but I always wonder if I may have been disappointed with GoW3 coming from 2.

As of now I'm a nut on playing series in order.

My problem with the AC series is that some of the games can be too similar to their predecessors, which can make playing through them in a marathon capacity an outright bore.  So, because of that, I'd suggest just watching the cutscenes on youtube in order to get caught up.  For really popular games you can even find them in either episodic chunks or even in their entirety, all in hd.

Well you probly did the right thing for Assassin's creed, cause it pretty much killed it for me when I played the first. I've don this very thing with Resident Evil and I've just backplayed its what I always do

you know my solution, I just play the previous games ;)

Not sure on this....I don't think itsreally  worthwhile holding back with any game series (that is unless you picked the first in a series up 1) its still within 2yrs of its original release and 2) You haven't submitted to spoilers).

PS. I've been playing Midnight Resistance (Japanese MD) and R-Type (PCEngine) - no worries about spoilers and jumping on series there hey - lol. 

Game-On :D

Instead of buying the old games it would be a good idea to get informed on a wiki on the events of the previous games. Personally I really don't care much, if it wasn't for this blog I probably wouldn't have even realized that I started playing Max Payne from the 3rd chapter and Crysis, Halo and Battlefield Bad Company from the 2nd... and MGS from Peace Walker... and Zelda from Ocarina of time.... and super mario from sunshine.... and maybe others...

My first Call of Duty game was CoD 4 Modern Warfare. Pretty sure I didn't miss anything necessary by skipping to the 4th installment. Some sequels are designed to be standalone. However, in AC's case, the story is heavily intertwined between releases and integral to the experience, so playing in the correct order definitely adds to the experience. The feeling of wondering what's going to happen next keeps urging you to play further. That feeling is significantly lost if you're playing out of order and going through an older installment after already spoiling much of its plot from later iterations.

That all being said, Assassin's Creed is a bit of an odd case, because while I really liked the story of the first game and that experience greatly enhanced my playthrough of AC2, gameplay-wise AC1 was very tedious and lackluster. It was sort of a necessary prototype and stepping stone for the much more awesome and complete gameplay package to come, Assassin's Creed II. In fact, the gameplay is *so* tedious that I would actually recommend skipping the first game entirely and getting yourself caught up to speed by watching the "Story So Far" segments on GameSpot or equivalent cutscene summaries on YouTube instead. Then you can just jump right into Assassin's Creed II and enjoy both compelling gameplay and a good story.

and this is why you shouldn't skip installments in a series. Tsk tsk. I would consider it a crime for newcomers to leap ahead in any series with a chronological storyline meant to be experienced in order.

>solid gameplay

Hahaha....no.

It depends on the series of games. I own all the AC games, except Revelations and 3. I just started a play thru of all the games, so I'll have played them before I get the latest ones. AC is connected, and has a deep story, so it's worth it to play all the games. I also have an appreciation for the mechanics they added in later games, like AC1, you can't loot bodies, but you can in later games. So, it'll be cool to play the series from the beginning. However, not so with other games series, like, say the Elder Scrolls. I also own all the games in that series, and, after playing Skyrim, I could never go back to playing Morrowind, or even Oblivion, and definitely not Arena or Daggerfall. They added a lot to Skyrim that made the game a lot better then its predecessors, at least in my opinion, so I don't feel like it'd be worth it to go back and play the other games in the series.

I have done it with a few franchises and I think the only one where it really felt like there was a void in terms of not knowing what was going on with the story was playing MGS2 and 3 before 1. Any other franchises I did that with, for the most part the games were able to stand alone.

Assassin's Creed is probably an exception; I have played all except 3 and I'm still not entirely sure I know every little in and out of the story, so I can definitely see how you might feel lost starting at 3. The good thing is, Ezio himself has a story within the overall story, which I doubt 3 got into in big detail. Once I got to AC Revelations, I honestly stopped caring that much about Desmond's story and was more interested in Ezio.

I kind of feel like it might not be worth going back to play 1; it's not nearly as good of a game as the sequels and doesn't get as deep into Altair as a character. Altair comes back in Revelations, but I'm not sure if it's totally necessary to have played 1 first. But at the same time, I think it's pretty possible to fly through that game and skip a lot of the sandbox stuff. The AC2 trilogy though takes you through Ezio's life and you get to play through some great locations (Italy in particular), so there's more to be gained.

Ideally it would be best to start with the first but sometimes time and money can be a constraint. If it makes you feel any better I have only played ACI, ACII and ACB and I have no idea what is going on!

Assassins Creed 1, 2 and Brotherhood served great story with mystery, so kind of sad to dismiss em. Assassins Creed Revelations and Assassins Creed 3 have the absolutely worst main story progress - Revelations destroyed it and 3 basically had no progress at all. It's important to start the series at at least the 2nd i would say (best in series anyway)... I feel much the same with Gears of War. Uncharted is one of the series, where you can skip the first and or second if you like to just try to the 3rd (2nd is the best without a doubt though) - but a great thing about this series, is that all the games are stellar! So if you start with the second or third, you're bound to have an awesome experience with the others too! 

Starting AC with the 4th is like getting into Breaking Bad starting with the 4th season, you're screwing yourself out of 3 games/seasons of awesomeness, going back to the beginning afterwards won't be nearly as enjoyable, half the fun is in the journey without knowing where it all ends up.

Resident Evil 2 and Silent Hill 2 were my first "jump in the moving wagon" attempts of getting to know series. I still have the impression I didn't clarify all my doubts about SH in general.

I'd just like to say that "owning the entire series" is frivolous. What you own at the end of the day is the experience, once you've obtained that the disc is useless, sell it lol.

Starting at Revelations was a big mistake because that and Brotherhood is a continuation of Ezio's story, which is why they didn't earn themselves the title of a proper sequel, they are more like epilogues. I can imagine how confused you were. You are probably curious to know his back story so I would play Part 2 but skip Brotherhood and Part 1, which was one of the first games to come out on PS3, the outdated software would be off-putting after Part 3. Enjoy Assassin's Creed 3 but you will want to know the main character Desmond's origins so watch Gamespot's feature they had recently which showed all of the cutsecenes of previous games in the series and you will be up to date.

You don't need to watch every single one of James Bond movies prior to Skyfall to enjoy the latest one. Every game in the Assassin's Creed series, like Elder Scrolls or Deus Ex, shares the same universe, background, lore, etc. but also has their own plot, conflict, characters and so on. It's not illegal to skip the predecessors' goodies, but you are punching yourself in the guts if you do.

The only real crime was against yourself. I think it would also depend on the series as well, but with one such as Assassin's Creed, it's meant to be taken in as a whole. While Ubisoft has made newer entries very accessible to newcomers, they did it with such a care that it will probably make those newcomers to the series want to play the previous entries. The debate will always rage about which Creed game is the best, and that is always personal preference, but, as a complete story or set, I don't think anyone who has invested the time was disappointed. And a big part of the series that I enjoyed, is that at the end of each entry in the series, we as players were left with unanswered questions into the future of the characters and world we had invested our time in, and left craving what was to come, much like the next book in an engaging series, or next episode of our favorite show. You may have deprived yourself of that feeling, but don't deprive yourself of the full experience. My recommendation would be to go back, and re-live the adventure from start to finish. You won't be disappointed. And to answer your other question, I have done the same thing with the Hitman franchise, only jumping into it with the second installment, mainly because I was not a PC gamer at the time, and the first was pc only, but it did make me go back and play it, and I have been hooked on the series ever since.

Yep that was a very bad choice and a big mistake on your part

I wouldn't say it is "wrong" to leap ahead in game series. Most of the time the developers of these sequels and the publishers try to make every installment of a series accessible for newcomers to jump into the series at any point. In doing this they hope to hook you on a series and make you enjoy it enough to possibly go and buy earlier installments. Does it ruin the story? In my opinion it doesn't ruin it, you just experience it differently. Instead of getting those surprises when playing those earlier games, you instead get those "ah-ha!" moments as things click into place. It's like putting a puzzle together. It's not wrong, it's just a different way to enjoy a series. If, after playing one of the later installments of a series, you feel compelled to go back and look at earlier installments then the developers and publishers have done their job as they have made another fan of their IP. This isn't a bad way of enjoying your games and it is a way I've done plenty of times with series like Metal Gear, Elder Scrolls, and Infamous; to name a few. So I don't think it's wrong, it's just a matter of personal taste.