Should I play them in order?

[playoftheyear]

I went back a few pages and didn't see this topic. I just got the deluxe edition that comes with the Trilogy remastered. I want to start off good, no spoilers, so should I start with 1-3?
thanks

[Discalceate]

Sure. Unless you want to play IV this year.

[playoftheyear]

I looked up how long the Trilogy usually takes to complete it, and it is around only 25 hours and not much more to 100% it. I think I will try the trilogy first. thanks

[Chilkoot]

I would say definitely no - zero need to play earlier games as the relevant story parts from previous installments are presented in BTIV where needed. Don't forget, we're talking about a 30-year gap since the last release, so the dev's didn't expect anyone to remember let alone play the previous versions.

If you want a very old-school RPG experience, 1-3 are fun and interesting from an historical perspective, but gaming expectations have evolved over 30 years so don't expect anything compelling.

[playoftheyear]

yea yea, thanks. I like it so far, if things don't take too long I am going to continue with the trilogy.

[noblesse_oblige]

I would definitely recommend playing the remasters of the original trilogy. The Barrows Deep game is nothing like them and it essentially rewrites their history rather than borrows from them. Krome Studios did an excellent job with the remasters and this is reflected in the high ratings that the remasters have received.

[noblesse_oblige]

Also, the remasters don't crash on startup, last time I checked. ;)

[tlenz]

Twenty-five hours to beat the original trilogy? There's no way you could get close to finishing them that quickly on a proper first playthrough. IF you used the standard "accelerated XP" mode offered in the remasters, looked up the walkthroughs in order to get the maps down for some of the obnoxious spinner-laden dark antimagic nonsense, and so on, you...might?...get through all three in a few to several dozen hours.

The original trilogy comes from a different era in videogame design. The kind of grind on display in the original Bard's Tale games is huge.

[Bishop]

Originally posted by playoftheyear:

I looked up how long the Trilogy usually takes to complete it, and it is around only 25 hours and not much more to 100% it. I think I will try the trilogy first. thanks

That's a lie. You may finish the first one in 25 hours, but second and third are at least twice as long. I wouldn't expect less than 100 hours to finish all of them.
Though there's nothing wrong to play them actually, these are some great remasters.

[playoftheyear]

Good games

[ZiN]

Play the Original Trilogy, skip this one! ;)

[svdp]

You do not *have* to start with the trilogy, since BT4 stands on it's own and is situated much later as well.

On the pro's: it might shed some more light on the references and hints one can see in BT4, because many of the opponents and major weapons are (re)introduced in BT4. So you will get a sense of familiarity through it, that you otherwise wouldn't have. It's not a must, thus, but it makes some things more clear and gives an extra vibe to it that you otherwise won't have.

On the anti side: while a nice sequel, gameplay-wise it deviates quite a bit from the old series. Not only is there a 20y gap between the games, but the playstyle and way of handling things is quite different as well. I think the new approach has its merits, but some don't like it because of it. So if you play the trilogy, don't be hang up on it, and don't expect BT4 to be "the same but with better graphics", or something. BT4 is a modern take on an old-school RPG, not just a rehash of what came before. You need a bit of an open mind for it, thus, and not wallow in nostalgia (but I guess on that front you'll do fine, since you didn't play the old games 20 years ago).

[travleer33]

The first one in the series is boring. There is no story and it is just grindy. Just a bare bones dungeon crawler that was pretty good for its time in the 80s, but does not hold up.

I haven't tried 2 and 3 yet.

This game is quite good from a current perspective.

[playoftheyear]

true I began the first remaster and totally see it as "fun" during the adolescent years of PC gaming, arbitrarily its not archaic but rather has the ability to capture the imagination and is in some ways is a given such as an unknown is given in a mathematical equation. It is up to us the player to solve it and therein lies the freedom to role play as we see fit albeit among heavy RNG and meager reward system considerate to modern gaming.
Man, I really like part IV, I can't stop playing it and am happy that this series adjusted so well to the future.