Why are there so many people who don't play from the first parts?

Well, you googled what kind of game this is - wasteland. the first part - and you will immediately understand why people immediately break into some kind of fallout 4 thread (well, it seems like the franchise has grown from that game) or wasteland 3 to play.

Sweety_Mustard, Yes, there may be such moments that the game is outdated, and something may not like it, graphics, or not run on modern computers. But I was not talking about too outdated games. You can just try to see what the first part is, if you don't like it, you can always delete it. At least you will not miss anything interesting that was in the previous parts.

you tell it to the developers, they release 1.2 parts on the console and 3 on the PC, for example, you need to have all consoles

The two most popular reasons were named, I can remember one more. For example, when the rights are transferred to another company or publisher, and the series changes dramatically. To see what was possible before for general development, but fans of what is now unlikely to appreciate what it was before the restart of the franchise.

It sucks that the developers are doing this, the first parts are released on consoles, and for example the fifth part is on PS. Well, and to whom did she rest against the fifth part without the first, especially if the plot is connected. Isn't it better to release all the parts on the PC at once than to scatter them piece by piece? And everyone will be happy!

Because the main attitude in the education of young people is "new = good." A market economy, production should not stop, reduce costs at any cost, grow a consumer who will not choose, push his tastes through his environment and other tricks from the capitalist's arsenal work flawlessly, up to a certain point. This is strong later, throwing a lot of money down the drain for the sake of a one-time defective shit, the consumer begins to suspect something.
If the gamer is not completely degenerate and still develops, he will sooner or later notice that the plots are somehow stupid, and it’s boring to play, and the enemies are cretins, and the amount of donation extorted by the developers clearly exceeds all possible norms of morality and concepts of simple human decency . Then he can always turn to the origins of series and genres, finding with surprise that, along with wild ancestors, he is met with much better products, in terms of mechanics and plot at least. And the graphics are not so important, for example, I noticed that games that do not contain all these newfangled graphic effects are much more convenient for long gaming sessions, they do not overload the vision with a meaningless mess of shadows, soap, "plastic" lighting and things like that. We have been rubbed for years about realism, but computer graphics are infinitely far from realism, at least put 10 4090Ti. There are no such moving shadows in the real world that overload perception, there are no ideal leaves without a single speck of dust, there is no dull shine from everything in the frame, most surfaces are matte ... and there are no vile articulated trees of the third witcher either! Then why are they putting all this into games? And so that I was tired, zadolbalsya and did not notice the obvious problems of the project. A blurry look does not see a bot shooting from its back, a blurry brain does not see a button accordion plot and is loyal to ten plot clips for 100 hours of grinding. Fuck the player, just be careful, and he won’t notice your handshake, and he will miss the time to return the funds - a win-win strategy. there are no perfect leaves without a single speck of dust, no dull shine from everything in the frame, most surfaces are matte ... and there are no vile articulated trees of the third witcher either! Then why are they putting all this into games? And so that I was tired, zadolbalsya and did not notice the obvious problems of the project. A blurry look does not see a bot shooting from its back, a blurry brain does not see a button accordion plot and is loyal to ten plot clips for 100 hours of grinding. Fuck the player, just be careful, and he won’t notice your handshake, and he will miss the time to return the funds - a win-win strategy. there are no perfect leaves without a single speck of dust, no dull shine from everything in the frame, most surfaces are matte ... and there are no vile articulated trees of the third witcher either! Then why are they putting all this into games? And so that I was tired, zadolbalsya and did not notice the obvious problems of the project. A blurry look does not see a bot shooting from its back, a blurry brain does not see a button accordion plot and is loyal to ten plot clips for 100 hours of grinding. Fuck the player, just be careful, and he won’t notice your handshake, and he will miss the time to return the funds - a win-win strategy. A blurry look does not see a bot shooting from its back, a blurry brain does not see a button accordion plot and is loyal to ten plot clips for 100 hours of grinding. Fuck the player, just be careful, and he won’t notice your handshake, and he will miss the time to return the funds - a win-win strategy. A blurry look does not see a bot shooting from its back, a blurry brain does not see a button accordion plot and is loyal to ten plot clips for 100 hours of grinding. Fuck the player, just be careful, and he won’t notice your handshake, and he will miss the time to return the funds - a win-win strategy.

Katanar
Everything depends on the game itself. For example, in the TES series, the Arena was played with pleasure, and even the buggy Baggerfall, and Morra, Obla and Sky were played in the same breath. They were plus or minus the same. The same goes for Far Cry. The plot, gameplay, game mechanics - everything is more or less similar. But Fallout 1 and 2 are too different from 3 and 4. Those who like action / RPG in cool graphics are unlikely to play isometric primitivism.
Another thing is the Witcher. In the first witcher, the combat is too specific. It is because of her that many people play the second and third parts, bypassing the first, or passing on YouTube. A great storyline, interesting quests and a compelling atmosphere are not enough. The same is true for Gothic. In the first part, many have not been able to start playing for 20 years! But when the craftsmen finished the missed quests, opened and finalized the locations that were unfinished and closed in the original, and also pulled the game on DX 11, they finished the alternative combat as in the second part - relatively simple. And a lot of people went through it.
Or take a more modern Eleks. Among my friends and acquaintances, many played the second part, but never touched the first one, since there is no Russian voice acting there.
Well, PC. Fortunately, in Russia, the PC is the most popular gaming platform. Not everyone has a console. And if the game was released on the console, and then from some part it began to go to the PC, then the probability of passing the first parts tends to zero. After all, it is extremely rare for anyone to make a solid emulator on a PC, and even direct control.

Minted Coin To skip
the first Elex and start from the second one is generally stupid, then it’s not at all clear where it came from and where it went, and the mechanics changed, etc.

Some pipelines have been so long that the current generation and the next will definitely not touch their origins.

X_ray_83
X_ray_83 wrote:
Skipping the first Elex and starting from the second is generally stupid, then it's not at all clear where it came from and where it went, and the mechanics changed, etc.
From this point of view, you are right. But a player who does not play games without voice acting in his native language will not go through the previous part of the game just for the sake of it. Most likely, where he does not understand, he will look at the walkthrough on YouTube. Fortunately, in our time, you can find a dozen such videos, if not more.

This happens because of very outdated graphics and players are waiting for the release of remakes. Indeed, the difference is simply enormous!
Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

_

Katanar

I don't understand anything else, does it matter who plays and how?

Katanar wrote:
I don't understand why start with the next parts, ignoring the first parts?
It depends on a number of factors, speaking in general, but speaking in general in this case is only possible in view of the general question =]
It is better to understand with examples. Let's take the old game of the nineties "Heroes of Might and Magic", the first part. If we were looking for games at the time when this first part just came out, we could have found exactly it and started mastering this wonderful game series "Heroes" from the first part. So, if we found a series of "Heroes" for ourselves, when the third part was already released, the best of all according to many, your question would be appropriate: why does it make no sense to play the first, try the second, but is it better to stop at the third? Answer: because the third is absolutely superior in all game aspects to the previous parts. The only reason, therefore, to play the first two parts is to learn the plot, to play the storyline through and through. The reason is purely individual.

Often the reason for skipping the previous parts is a banal reluctance to play outdated graphics)) Well, what is Fallout 3 against the background of the fourth part? Or GTA 3 against the backdrop of the fifth part? And so on the list. subjective reasons.

Chekannaya Coin wrote:
Fortunately, in Russia, the PC is the most popular gaming platform. Not everyone has a console.
The nineties were completely different in the post-union space 8) Few people had Peck, but Dendy was almost everywhere, and "1000 in 1" games were also sold like pies. It was then that the computer became available to everyone ...

A.Soldier of Light wrote:
Or GTA 3 in the background of the fifth part?
How is GTA 3 fundamentally different from GTA 5? For me, they are on the same level, except that the fifth part requires a more powerful video camera.

Because from childhood, a paradigm is laid in the mind that the new is better than the old and that everything progresses and develops. Here we must understand that although there is a development of technology, but the person himself falls away from ideals and spiritual degradation occurs. That is, in fact, there is no progress, the world is gradually rolling into the abyss. The lack of progress can be clearly seen in the example of art. After all, one cannot argue that Malevich's black square is more progressive than Da Vinci's Last Supper. Or that the ancient Greeks were stupid and backward, and modern people are more highly developed and have better human qualities, because they have a PC, social networks and gadgets.

Protocol10

I affirm that Malevich's Black Square is more progressive than Da Vinci's Last Supper.

I personally have 2 opinions on this. The first is that the sequels come out with a big time difference and there is no way to play in the form of an outdated platform on which the first part was released. Well, the second is when the sequel ceased to be exclusive, unlike the first part. It is logical that not everyone has the opportunity to play the first part, which was released strictly on consoles, and the gamer is the owner of a PC. A prime example is Battlefield. Bad Company,

So either the games are visually and morally obsolete. Or if they are almost the same, then people do not want to play the same game 2-3 times in a row.