[TalC2]

So I've never played any of the previous games in the series. Would that detract from the experience of the third one, or is it unnecessary to have played the first two games in the series?

[zobraks]

Dracula 3 has nothing to do with Dracula Resurrection and Dracula 2: The Last Sanctuary so feel free to play D3 right now.

I recommend the other two games too (specially Resurrection).

[Annacat]

Originally Posted by TalC2

So I've never played any of the previous games in the series. Would that detract from the experience of the third one, or is it unnecessary to have played the first two games in the series?

Honestly? You'll understand Path of the Dragon better if you haven't played the other ones. It's not an actual sequel. It actually so directly contradicts the other two games that they can't possibly take place in the same chronology. The #3 in the title is purely marketing.

Mild spoiler for why I say this:

Spoiler:

The primary characters in #1 and #2 are established to not have existed in Path of the Dragon.

Attempting to work the three games into one coherent ongoing plotline will just result in confusion. The only way the plot of Path of the Dragon can actually work is if it's a standalone.

The other two games are worth playing just because they're fun, but they have nothing to do with Path of the Dragon so I wouldn't worry about trying to find the other two first.

[3rdFloor]

Annacat is right. That "3" in the title is a marketing scheme by Microïds, the same publisher that later green-lighted Return to Mysterious Island 2, Still Life 2, and that impossibly elusive Syberia 3.