Book or game first?

[bianji]

I just ordered the trilogy off amazon and im not sure if i should read the book first or play the game.

[Sovereign]

I personally played the games first but it doesn't really matter which one you do first. Though if I had to choose I'd actually recommend the books first.

[zombie-flesheater]

Start off with 2033 (game) in any case. Then either read 2033 (it's basically the same story, but it expands on a couple of things) or play Last Light afterwards and then read 2033.

2034 and 2035 come after Last Light.

Playing 2033 before reading the book helps to get a better look and feel on the locations, characters etc. and will make it a lot easier to follow Artyom's path in the book (which you might have a hard time doing without looking at a map of the metro all the time).

2034 and 2035 will spoil and reference the endings and fates of certain characters in the game, so you should stay away from them until you finished Last Light.

[Sovereign]

Originally posted by zombie-flesheater:

Start off with 2033 (game) in any case. Then either read 2033 (it's basically the same story, but it expands on a couple of things) or play Last Light afterwards and then read 2033.

2034 and 2035 come after Last Light.

Playing 2033 before reading the book helps to get a better look and feel on the locations, characters etc. and will make it a lot easier to follow Artyom's path in the book (which you might have a hard time doing without looking at a map of the metro all the time).

2034 and 2035 will spoil and reference the endings and fates of certain characters in the game, so you should stay away from them until you finished Last Light.

You do know the books and games are separate timelines, right? There's no need to go back and forth between them, just do one then the other.

[zombie-flesheater]

Originally posted by Sovereign:

Originally posted by zombie-flesheater:

Start off with 2033 (game) in any case. Then either read 2033 (it's basically the same story, but it expands on a couple of things) or play Last Light afterwards and then read 2033.

2034 and 2035 come after Last Light.

Playing 2033 before reading the book helps to get a better look and feel on the locations, characters etc. and will make it a lot easier to follow Artyom's path in the book (which you might have a hard time doing without looking at a map of the metro all the time).

2034 and 2035 will spoil and reference the endings and fates of certain characters in the game, so you should stay away from them until you finished Last Light.

You do know the books and games are separate timelines, right? There's no need to go back and forth between them, just do one then the other.

I've read that "different timelines" thing plenty of times already, but honestly the only different timeline is between 2033 book / game.

Like already stated, 2034 and 2035 reference A LOT of things that happened in Last Light.
I'm well aware that 2034 was released before Last Light, but honestly 2034 makes a lot more sense when you've played LL beforehand and in return 2034 would spoil the ending of Last Light.

I actually don't see any reason to see a perfectly working story with references throughout as two different timelines.

Last Light doesn't have anything that would contradict the events of 2034 and 2035 and vice-versa and honestly the whole storyline in 2034/2035 of D6 / The Bunker and Miller would just be confusing and less rewarding without having played Last Light.
Also Leonid appears in Last Light but dies in 2034 which - at least for me - makes it mandatory to have played the games BEFORE reading 2034 and 2035 and not the other way around.

Like I said, why would you bother diverting the books and games in two seperate timelines when they work so well together and even compliment each other?

[Sovereign]

Originally posted by zombie-flesheater:

Originally posted by Sovereign:

You do know the books and games are separate timelines, right? There's no need to go back and forth between them, just do one then the other.

I've read that "different timelines" thing plenty of times already, but honestly the only different timeline is between 2033 book / game.

Like already stated, 2034 and 2035 reference A LOT of things that happened in Last Light.
I'm well aware that 2034 was released before Last Light, but honestly 2034 makes a lot more sense when you've played LL beforehand and in return 2034 would spoil the ending of Last Light.

I actually don't see any reason to see a perfectly working story with references throughout as two different timelines.

Last Light doesn't have anything that would contradict the events of 2034 and 2035 and vice-versa and honestly the whole storyline in 2034/2035 of D6 / The Bunker and Miller would just be confusing and less rewarding without having played Last Light.
Also Leonid appears in Last Light but dies in 2034 which - at least for me - makes it mandatory to have played the games BEFORE reading 2034 and 2035 and not the other way around.

Like I said, why would you bother diverting the books and games in two seperate timelines when they work so well together and even compliment each other?

The simple fact that the 2033 book and game are so radically different prevents them from being the same timeline. They would have be the exact same in every way (events, characters, dialogue etc), otherwise continuty is broken.

I can understand wanting them to be a single timeline, and I do recommend everyone experince both but they just don't work as the same continuty.

[hatemehatemehateme]

nice

[zombie-flesheater]

Originally posted by Sovereign:

Originally posted by zombie-flesheater:

I've read that "different timelines" thing plenty of times already, but honestly the only different timeline is between 2033 book / game.

Like already stated, 2034 and 2035 reference A LOT of things that happened in Last Light.
I'm well aware that 2034 was released before Last Light, but honestly 2034 makes a lot more sense when you've played LL beforehand and in return 2034 would spoil the ending of Last Light.

I actually don't see any reason to see a perfectly working story with references throughout as two different timelines.

Last Light doesn't have anything that would contradict the events of 2034 and 2035 and vice-versa and honestly the whole storyline in 2034/2035 of D6 / The Bunker and Miller would just be confusing and less rewarding without having played Last Light.
Also Leonid appears in Last Light but dies in 2034 which - at least for me - makes it mandatory to have played the games BEFORE reading 2034 and 2035 and not the other way around.

Like I said, why would you bother diverting the books and games in two seperate timelines when they work so well together and even compliment each other?

The simple fact that the 2033 book and game are so radically different prevents them from being the same timeline. They would have be the exact same in every way (events, characters, dialogue etc), otherwise continuty is broken.

I can understand wanting them to be a single timeline, and I do recommend everyone experince both but they just don't work as the same continuty.

I agree with 2033 being somewhat different (because of being a different media) - but regardless if you start with reading 2033 or playing 2033 - Last Light, 2034 and 2035 comes afterwards in exactly that order.

I see the book more like an extended story with a couple of more characters and locations than in the game, but the beginning and end as well as the major events and characters - which are referenced later on - are still the same regardless.
The book doesn't contradict anything from the game but rather expands on it.
Apart from some irrelevant minor changes like Hunter having hair in the game and being bald in the book, and the way how Bourbon dies there's no reason to ignore one for the following works.

But due to the book's bad (English) translation and rather lackluster description of certain elements like locations and creatures, I'd suggest playing the game BEFORE reading the book, so the look and general chain of events is easier to understand.
There are a few minor events and characters described in 2035 which refer to 2033 but aren't in the game, so the most correct timeline would be 2033 (book) -> Last Light -> 2034 -> 2035, BUT like already stated, the book might be a bit confusing without having played the game beforehand AND 2033 is just such a great game anyways, so it would be a shame to skip it alltogether.

That said, playing the game and reading the book won't be confusing, as the fate of all the major characters will be the same by the end of each one. There's nobody alive or dead in one but not the other etc. So reading the book after having played the game only expands upon it, but doesn't contradict anything.

However, reading all three books first before playing both games (like you suggested) will only lead to a lot of confusion and spoiling major plot points of Last Light. Maybe I'm missing something important here, but really, why would you ever want to do that and play / read them in that order instead of acknowledging the actual continuity?

2033 game (bad ending) and / or 2033 book
Last Light (good ending) (clearly set after 2033)
2034 (clearly set after Last Light)
2035 (clearly set after 2034, referring to events from 2033 book)

The only real issue here is where to put 2033 (book) - either after the first game, or after Last Light (for the sake of being able and finish two games back to back), but that really doesn't matter.

[Sovereign]

Originally posted by zombie-flesheater:

Originally posted by Sovereign:

The simple fact that the 2033 book and game are so radically different prevents them from being the same timeline. They would have be the exact same in every way (events, characters, dialogue etc), otherwise continuty is broken.

I can understand wanting them to be a single timeline, and I do recommend everyone experince both but they just don't work as the same continuty.

I agree with 2033 being somewhat different (because of being a different media) - but regardless if you start with reading 2033 or playing 2033 - Last Light, 2034 and 2035 comes afterwards in exactly that order.

I see the book more like an extended story with a couple of more characters and locations than in the game, but the beginning and end as well as the major events and characters - which are referenced later on - are still the same regardless.
The book doesn't contradict anything from the game but rather expands on it.
Apart from some irrelevant minor changes like Hunter having hair in the game and being bald in the book, and the way how Bourbon dies there's no reason to ignore one for the following works.

But due to the book's bad (English) translation and rather lackluster description of certain elements like locations and creatures, I'd suggest playing the game BEFORE reading the book, so the look and general chain of events is easier to understand.
There are a few minor events and characters described in 2035 which refer to 2033 but aren't in the game, so the most correct timeline would be 2033 (book) -> Last Light -> 2034 -> 2035, BUT like already stated, the book might be a bit confusing without having played the game beforehand AND 2033 is just such a great game anyways, so it would be a shame to skip it alltogether.

That said, playing the game and reading the book won't be confusing, as the fate of all the major characters will be the same by the end of each one. There's nobody alive or dead in one but not the other etc. So reading the book after having played the game only expands upon it, but doesn't contradict anything.

However, reading all three books first before playing both games (like you suggested) will only lead to a lot of confusion and spoiling major plot points of Last Light. Maybe I'm missing something important here, but really, why would you ever want to do that and play / read them in that order instead of acknowledging the actual continuity?

2033 game (bad ending) and / or 2033 book
Last Light (good ending) (clearly set after 2033)
2034 (clearly set after Last Light)
2035 (clearly set after 2034, referring to events from 2033 book)

The only real issue here is where to put 2033 (book) - either after the first game, or after Last Light (for the sake of being able and finish two games back to back), but that really doesn't matter.

You clearly don't know how a continuity works. But whatever, if that's your prefered personal headcanon then I won't judge.

[zombie-flesheater]

Originally posted by Sovereign:

Originally posted by zombie-flesheater:

I agree with 2033 being somewhat different (because of being a different media) - but regardless if you start with reading 2033 or playing 2033 - Last Light, 2034 and 2035 comes afterwards in exactly that order.

I see the book more like an extended story with a couple of more characters and locations than in the game, but the beginning and end as well as the major events and characters - which are referenced later on - are still the same regardless.
The book doesn't contradict anything from the game but rather expands on it.
Apart from some irrelevant minor changes like Hunter having hair in the game and being bald in the book, and the way how Bourbon dies there's no reason to ignore one for the following works.

But due to the book's bad (English) translation and rather lackluster description of certain elements like locations and creatures, I'd suggest playing the game BEFORE reading the book, so the look and general chain of events is easier to understand.
There are a few minor events and characters described in 2035 which refer to 2033 but aren't in the game, so the most correct timeline would be 2033 (book) -> Last Light -> 2034 -> 2035, BUT like already stated, the book might be a bit confusing without having played the game beforehand AND 2033 is just such a great game anyways, so it would be a shame to skip it alltogether.

That said, playing the game and reading the book won't be confusing, as the fate of all the major characters will be the same by the end of each one. There's nobody alive or dead in one but not the other etc. So reading the book after having played the game only expands upon it, but doesn't contradict anything.

However, reading all three books first before playing both games (like you suggested) will only lead to a lot of confusion and spoiling major plot points of Last Light. Maybe I'm missing something important here, but really, why would you ever want to do that and play / read them in that order instead of acknowledging the actual continuity?

2033 game (bad ending) and / or 2033 book
Last Light (good ending) (clearly set after 2033)
2034 (clearly set after Last Light)
2035 (clearly set after 2034, referring to events from 2033 book)

The only real issue here is where to put 2033 (book) - either after the first game, or after Last Light (for the sake of being able and finish two games back to back), but that really doesn't matter.

You clearly don't know how a continuity works. But whatever, if that's your prefered personal headcanon then I won't judge.

Enlighten me then. Why would one read the books before playing the games when 2034 and 2035 clearly refer to characters and events from Last Light?

2033 obviously is the odd one here and there are different and valid reasons for which one of both media to play or read first, but from there on, the continuity / timeline is clearly defined by the chain of events taking place one after another.

[Jig McGalliger]

The books are too different from the game to say you need one first. I'd just advise going through both.

[Sovereign]

Originally posted by Jig McGalliger:

The books are too different from the game to say you need one first. I'd just advise going through both.

^Yeah, what he said.