I play game series out of chronological release order

>I play game series out of chronological release order

How else would you play them then?

>dude just skip the first game, the second one is better
I saw someone say this about Thief 1 and 2 weeks ago and I'm still mad.

Give me one good reason you should play Civ I before any of the other games.

Dumb phone-poster.

>chronological release order
A redundant statement

It's not a series, just a repetition of the same formula with no plot.

Thief 1 is better than 2 anyways

I play them in order of the events that happen in-universe

>I play games in reverse chronological order

>chronological release order

>I travel into the future to play unreleased games without playing the prequels

>I post attention-whore images because it's the only way I can get replies since I'm sure not going to post anything actually meaningful

Got your stupid ass though, didn't they?

Here's your reply, since unfortunately nobody else cares enough to feed you the daily allotted amount of attention you crave.

>replies anyway
idiot

...

If you don't get too thrown off by any potentially changing mechanics, I don't see the issue with playing in chronological order.

Many games spoil the previous game even though they're prequels. They have revelations that aren't meant to be learned by the player until that point in the series.

sounds like poor writing

On the other side, they could also be neat little call forwards or references that just get revealed or expanded on in the next chronological game.
Depends on how the writing is done.

>I play game series in chronological release order