So I bought the Legacy of Kain collection from Steam for the coming weekend so that I could re-try a series I hadn't touched since childhood.
The only previous experience I have was with Soul Reaver 1, which I got to play a demo of when I was younger.
Despite that, I heard there are other games in this series beyond those offered by the Steam-pack. Will I not understand anything if I don't play them first?
What order should I play these four in?
>>318729707
The answer is always "in release order".
So BO1, SR1, SR2, BO2, Defiance.
>>318730240
I read somewhere that chronologically you'd want BO 1 -> BO 2 -> SR 1 -> SR 2 -> Defiance, because that's the order the story played out.
Is this incorrect?
>>318730240
This. While BO2 isn't quite as necessary to the overall plot, it's still worth a look.
>>318730358
It's so incorrect I think I felt a paradox in my ass.
While one COULD play them chronologically, it's not advisable. Unlike the MGS series where you can do so and just be at a loss for some throw-back references, LoK's chronology is basically that of its release order.
BO2 and Defiance only occur because of the events of SR2
>>318729707
Considering that the pack on Steam doesn't contain BO1, I'd advice:
>BO2
>SR1
>SR2
>Defiance
I also got the Steam bundle, do I need to play the original Legacy of Kain?
>>318730358
This is correct, but you can probably skip BO2. It's repetitive and hardly expands on the overall story.
Soul Reaver games are kind of bad mechanically, but the first one was passable as a product of its time. The rest of the games have become either tedious or clunky/awkward.
The stories are still amazing and the acting/writing is top notch, but don't expect the games to be super fun.
Especially Defiance. The game has some Castlevania64-tier platforming and camera angles.
>>318730507
>>318730365I always get a chuckle out of LoK-reactions.
>I bought the steam bundle
Idiots.
>>318730507
I read that in raziels voice
It was damn epic :D
>>318730596
They are a nice distraction from the occasional horseshit. Still have no idea what the fuck was going on last thread
>>318729707
>Raziel
The original edgelord.
Let's face it, this guy essentially INVENTED the edgelord-look.
>>318730638
Wh-what's wrong with it?
>>318730746
Maybe there's bugs with the PC ports?
Or maybe he's a piratefag suggesting you emulate them.
>you will never cast him in
>>318730358
>chronologically
>in LoK
>>318730571
>The stories are still amazing and the acting/writing is top notch, but don't expect the games to be super fun.
This. You know all those mordern indie shits that claim to be "all about the story"?
Well this series essentially IS all about the story. You are not here to have fun, you are not here to enjoy cool combat or clever puzzles.
You are here to move the story forward. The voice-acting, animation, atmosphere and overarching plot is your reward for bearing with the gameplay.
This is especially true for BO1. God that game was awful.
I advice keeping some other game, some game you consider fun, nearby, so that you can take breaks and enjoy the gameplay a little every now and then, because there won't be any of that from this.LoK could have been a nice walking simulator if done right.
>>318731216
An adventure game wouldn't be too bad, either. Just wonder around talking and solving puzzles.
>>318730638
Dude what's the source on that webm?
>>318731216
>>318731409
I guess, but it's really hard to say. Something justfelt so right about taking revenge for Janos near the end of part 2.
Don't know if you could accomplish that in another genre.
Hope you like clunky mechanics and no-fun-allowed combat.
Seriously >>318731216 and >>318731409 are spot on.
This is an action game because your actions advance the plot. Not because your actions are fun to perform.
>>318731835
They're not that bad. BO1 is just a dark Zelda clone with some clunky mechanics. While SR1-2 are like the 3D Zelda games, just without the 123-4567 dungeon formula, though the second really oversimplified the combat. BO2 had some improvements over BO1, but the linear progression made it hard to enjoy more than once. And everyone agrees that Defiance was just DMC-lite
>>318731216
>This is especially true for BO1. God that game was awful.
This anon has objectively shit taste.
I played BO1 just a few years ago and the gameplay held up well to this day.
BO1 was superior in gameplay to me than Soul Reaver. Blood Omen had decent combat.
Soul Reaver was a series of puzzles where the solution was either blindingly obvious or just needed to be worked out with repetition. It was boring as fuck to play at the time and the cinematics/music/story were the only good part.
>>318732465
>boring as fuck to play at the time
How to spot the underage. It was actually really good compared to a lot of other PSX action titles.
>>318732648
Dude, some people just didn't like the combat and puzzles. The combat wasn't anything that special, and most of the puzzles were literally just "move this block here, and that one there"
>>318732465
The first few hours Blood Omen are great, but then it starts to become this tedious act of spamming Repel while constantly going through the slow ass menus to switch out your equipment.
I think the reverse is true for Soul Reaver, however. All the tedious block puzzles are in the first half of the game before you start getting your powers and the whole thing starts to move a bit faster.
>>318732648
Nope, I played it and BO1 at time of release. Jumping Flash kept my attention longer than Soul Reaver, although I had high hopes at first.
You can't call Soul Reaver's gameplay good when you compare it to such games like MGS1, Symphony of the Night, Resident Evil 1/2/3, Tenchu....
The story and use of FMV was great though.
>>318732848
Fine, but saying it was "boring at the time" shows that you didn't play it at the time.
It was slightly-above-average at the time. By definition, that makes it better than its peers and subsequently not "boring."
Was it a watered-down OoT? Sure. But not everyone was an idort in 1998.
>>318733018
I bought it when it came out.
The puzzles and shitty combat bored the fuck out of me.
If you really don't want to believe that, I don't give that many fucks.
>>318732972
It's a different genre than every single game you listed. You can't call it bad compared to those games either.
The only one that's arguably close is MGS, and yeah. That game was better.
It also had a bigger budget, and has become a genre-defining classic. Not everything is "not good" just because something else vaguely similar existed around the same time.
Look: I'm not saying SR1 had good gameplay. I'm simply saying that it was slightly-above-average compared to 1997/1998 PSX third-person action games.
>>318733172
>actually trying to have a discussion with other bros about a series we all enjoy
>starts shitposting with "idgaf ur wrong im right stfu lololol"
You are the cancer.
>>318733379
Pal, you're the one starting shit with "if you say this, you clearly didn't play it" crap
>>318733583
Yes, and I immediately followed up with an argument that supported my point.
You literally followed up with "nope. ur wrong."
>>318732895
I don't remember going to repel spamming, I recall changing out weapons a lot and just enjoying the weird spells.
The thing that was amazing was the sheer amount of voice acting and descriptions they put into the game. Simon Templeton did an amazing job at bringing that character to life and the frequent dialogue kept me going through some of the more annoying parts with combat.
>>318732848
This is exactly how I feel about SR. I even tried some of the follow-up games and the 'move this block' or 'use this reaver to do something painfully obvious' killed it. Defiance had better combat but in the end I just waited some years and watched all the cutscenes on youtube.
>>318733379
Don't blame me, blame anon who is somehow hung up on proving facts about random internet strangers and their age.
>>318733650
No, I didn't. For one, I'm not that guy. And two, he didn't say anything of the sort either, he said it BORED HIM. That's literally the furthest thing from "nope, you're wrong"
>>318731770
Fantastic Four
>>318733958
Fuck, I was hoping it was a good movie. Thanks though!
>>318733253
Soul Reaver was '99. If you want to compare it to a 3rd person action game then, you'd go against Silent Hill, Shenmue and (I'd say) RE3.
Actually looking back, there were some damn good releases that year. I wouldn't consider SR to have above average gameplay comparatively but honestly it's a difference of opinion at this point and not likely to be something we agree on.
Anyone got the Raziel edit of this?
>>318730358
BO 2 isn't chronologically after BO1.
BO2 actually happens in a changed timeline after Defiance. But it's such a mess you can freely skip it.
>>318730813
The PC version of Soul Reaver is a port of the PS1 version and not the superior dreamcast version and it has audio issues. The others are janky as fuck with keyboard and mouse and don't have proper controller support.
Best to just emulate them.
>>318736603
It is, it just doesn't "happen" until SR2's event change history
>>318736897
Well, it's a changed timeline, so it doesn't make much sense if you play it before SR2.
Two LoK threads in one week back to back nights
Christmas came early
What happened to that canceled LoK game? Why'd they pull the plug? Did it look good?
>>318736981
Eh, last one had a rough patch with that one spazzoid accusing people about being shills, but it is nice to see some LoK threads from time to time nonetheless
>>318737067
Which one? There were like three canned games. Dark Prophecy, which was meant to follow up from Defiance and might have had Raziel as a weird familiar summon to aid in fights. And Dead Sun which was to be the DmC of the series.
I think there was also a third game, but I can't recall.
>>318737087
I wish I got screencaps of it because it was hilarious how much assmad there was and the whole thread just continued about LoK
>>318737238
Damn its almost like when only one person is shit posting it doesn't ruin a thread.
I remember trying these games and although everything seemed cool, I really could not get into the gameplay. Should I try to pick them up again?
>>318737238
Not really a good idea. Else it might incline the guy to come back and scream more about shills.
>>318737238
Are you talking about ALL CAPS SHILL THREAD guy? He was a faggot.
>>318737575
Yea, no shit. Honestly couldn't tell if he was trolling or that serious
>>318729707
Too bad we will never get another game in the series
>>318738921
Ehr, the series did alright. It's done, as far as I'm concerned.
