For example, I am really eager to play Might and Magic 2 but I feel I "have to" beat Might and Magic 1 first. I mean it's the logical direction, except I am trudging through 1, getting rather bored of it to be honest. I love the game, it's fun <3 but as I said, I am losing interest and want to jump to 2 immediately. So what's stopping me?

Same with Wizardry 6. I would love to just start the other two games from scratch instead of beating 6 and transferring my characters. But it's just, I can't.

Is this a normal ambition? I mean, well, yeah. "Must beat first game in series before starting others" I mean that's like starting the Quest for Glory franchise at 5, the entire canon would be lost on me. Heck, it's like starting Lord of the Rings at book 3.

But I feel really, Might and Magic and Wizardry aren't like that. Prove me wrong?

Edit: I think one reason why I'm starting to find Might and Magic 1 boring, is because I've been playing it so long, the entire game starts to feel like nothing but walls and only walls.

Really hope gog gets wizardry 1-5 sometime as I have the others.

Though thankfully, 6-8 seems to be it's own specific canon, separate from 1-5 (As I don't think 1-5 had Rawulfs or Felpurrs) or rather I mean, even if 6 takes place on the same planet (which it likely does) the point is, that it doesn't elaborate on past games canon, like 7 and 8 do for 6. The 6,7,8 Trilogy seem to stand separate from 1-5.

Yeah I'd like them mostly for the collection, and to replace the collection cd I had years ago.

I know what you mean as I am the same. In fact I'm thinking of going through my unplayed games in chronological order. I am prepared to abandon (or maybe cheat through) the ones that are too tedious. For instance the few minutes I have spent with Akalabeth World of Doom are quite enough.

Part of the reason I want to do something like that is to toughen myself up to the old ways, back it was wondrous to press a button and see something change on a screen even if it just the appearance of the letter we just pressed. We didn't mind writing down clues and drawing maps. I think it's harder to enjoy an old game after playing a modern one.

I think that's a bit of an odd situation, since you're waiting for a sequel to game you haven't played yet (at least, it seems that way from your post). How do you know you'll like the sequel of you haven't played the first?

If it's a situation where you've played the first and are just having trouble reconnecting to that 'first play' feel, then that's not odd at all. Shelf the playthrough of the original and wait for the sequel. You'll be happy you did, I'm betting.

I watched my older brother play M&M2 years and years ago. And it burned into my mind, as a treasured nostalgic memory, and keep in mind I have played 2, 3 and 4 in recent years but barely got anywhere until now, as I wanted to beat 1 first.

The exact same with Wizardry 7 and 8.

I do that, but it's because I like to understand games and their progression of ideas / implementations. But I admit that sometimes that forms a barrier where I don't end up playing the series at all.

That's how I feel with the Redwall fantasy novel series, there are 22 books in the series, which I've read them all,I want to read them in order, but it feels if not, the series will lock itself away from me , until I realize "I know the stories so why does it matter? I should just read the ones I want to read"

It's worth noting, regarding the early Wizardry games:

Wizardry 2 *requires* that you play Wizardry 1 first and build up a party. In particular, you won't get past the first floor without level 7 mage spells (which requires a level 13 mage to learn).

Wizardry 3 requires that you create your characters in Wizardry 1, but since they go back to level 1 anyway, they don't need to be experienced.

Wizardry 4 doesn't require characters from the earlier games, but I *highly* recommend playing at least Wizardry 1 first; further, I recommend making it to the bottom floor of 1 before you attempt 4. (There's a reason for that.) Note that Wizardry 4 is very different from the rest of the series.

Wizardry 5 is fine for new players; you can create your party right there, and imported characters would start at level 1 anyway.

One more thing: The Wizardry Archives versions of 1-3 are not recommended; your stats drop at level up way more frequently than they should. (I have read about young characters dying of old age.)

It depends on the game, and how connected they are with each other.

Anybody can jump right into Witcher 2 or 3 without playing the prior ones, and probably be pretty fine. Then you have games where it doesn't matter at all, like for instance, DOOM.

I've played Witcher 1 and still don't know what was going on in the second. >_<

Sometimes it's a good thing to do. I skipped BG1 because I read that BG2 was vastly superior.
I loved the sequel, but I still regret my silly decision -_-'

In the case of MM or homm and most games produced before 2000, I can understand it. Many sequels where more polished and better versions. But, I don't need to be spoon fed on how to play a game. Many linear games have become too restrictive and too "dumbed down" (well, many others too) and that's why I mostly play old games.

I think it's mainly an OCD thing - the relatively strong need to complete things in order or chronologically. For me a least, as it don't feel right to just jump to a sequel without having having played through the first one. But that's depending on the story or when it was published.

Example, in scfifi series I tend to view it as the story unfolds, no matter when it was released, while for games it's mostly for chronological and historical reasons.

My brother says that about Half-Life "Don't bother with Half-Life 1, it doesn't get good until 2" except... I want to know the freaking story >_<