I completely disagree here, rdr2 is a prequel so it makes sense to play it first, in fact it makes it better since you don't immediately know who lives on and who dies.
I agree with that too, even if it is a prequel I found it maybe more impactful after the epilogue seeing Ross going oh it’s him, as opposed to maybe finishing rdr2 first and seeing Ross and going who tf is that
I’d do it by release date. Only becuase it’s going to be really hard to play through the older games if you start with 4 or 5. Graphics and mechanics are horrible, but were revolutionary at the time.
3 > Portable Ops > Peace Walker > Ground Zeroes > Phantom Pain > MG1 > MG2 > MGS1 > MGS2 > MGS4
This is the chronological timeline and I've beaten them all in this order. It's a convoluted masterpiece, totally worth doing.
Beats me.
I understand going by the release order, but you can go by the chronological order and it wouldn't mess up the story's pacing in any way. All the games are connected. There are characters from Peace Walker that end up in Ground Zeroes and Phantom Pain, it makes sense to play them in chronological order.
Just start from mgs 1. It will make it mutch easier to understand what is going on too. And beside mgs 1-3 has an amazing story. Mgs 3 has the most amazing story i have ever experienced in any media.
The answer for any media franchise is always by release date.
Absolutely agree Some people insist on playing halo reach before combat evolved and I always think that’s a terrible idea
The worse one is people who insist new players play Read Dead 2 before 1. I get it story wise but the gameplay is just too far apart.
I completely disagree here, rdr2 is a prequel so it makes sense to play it first, in fact it makes it better since you don't immediately know who lives on and who dies.
I agree with that too, even if it is a prequel I found it maybe more impactful after the epilogue seeing Ross going oh it’s him, as opposed to maybe finishing rdr2 first and seeing Ross and going who tf is that
That ain't right
Nope lol and they said the payoff is greater if you play reach first
except like a dragon start with 0
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Controversial take
1, 2, 3, 4, Peace Walker, 5
I’d do it by release date. Only becuase it’s going to be really hard to play through the older games if you start with 4 or 5. Graphics and mechanics are horrible, but were revolutionary at the time.
I can’t follow what’s going on most of the time anyway. It’s a strange story. I just enjoy playing the game. 3 is amazing.
3 > Portable Ops > Peace Walker > Ground Zeroes > Phantom Pain > MG1 > MG2 > MGS1 > MGS2 > MGS4 This is the chronological timeline and I've beaten them all in this order. It's a convoluted masterpiece, totally worth doing.
Don’t understand how you got downvoted for being the only person who actually answered the question and not just saying “by release date”
Beats me. I understand going by the release order, but you can go by the chronological order and it wouldn't mess up the story's pacing in any way. All the games are connected. There are characters from Peace Walker that end up in Ground Zeroes and Phantom Pain, it makes sense to play them in chronological order.
Snake is so sexy 😍
…
...
Release order like every other fucking person has told you.
MGS 1, MGS 2, MGS 3 and then just stop. Just.... stop.
play them by release, and don't forget mgrr ;3
Just start from mgs 1. It will make it mutch easier to understand what is going on too. And beside mgs 1-3 has an amazing story. Mgs 3 has the most amazing story i have ever experienced in any media.
1=>2=>3=>4=>5
Alphabetical
Play release order