Quote:
Originally Posted by Terramax
MartyMcFly explains everything perfectly. Playing the original BS gives you a greater understanding of the 3rd. Greater background information on the Templar's, Neo Templars (the main villain takes place as the leader if I'm correct), the situation between Nico and George, Bruno. There are some references like the clown nose in Nico's apartment, etc.
Of course, playing the original is not essential, but why not?
|
Yeh, thats exactally what i meant, thanks for clarifying. You certainly can play the games out of order, or exclude some...but i really don't see the point. Its like how i watched terminator 2 long before i saw the first one, but now i have seen the 1st, the 2nd holds more weight.
Certainly the second game is alittle removed from the overarching series narrative, however, being in that glorious 2d and largely sharing the same interface as the 1st game, i think it would be a shame to be forgotten. Certainly, whatever it lacks compared to the 3rd and fourth games (block puzzles perhaps? only kidding) it more than makes up for with simply being a good old fashioned adventure, that you just don't get many of anymore.
Thats probablly why im enjoying a vampyre story so much atm, as is my girlfriend. If that game was exactally the same story, puzzles, music, everything, but was in the 3d engine of lets say broken sword 3 or 4...i doubt i would as much. (which i know is kinda wrong).
Sadly, the only adventure game i loved in 3d was, surprise surprise, grim fandango. The land of the dead perhaps would have lost some of its scope in 2d. But hey i'm off on a tangent. Broken sword is a series i grew up with, and i would recommend each and every one of them. As i said before, at the price they are now (all of them combined for less than the price of a ps3 games), whats there to lose?
