Should I play the first game?

[Fab]

I'm intrigued by this game because I read good things about it. Can I start with this one? I don't know if I have the motivation to do both games, unless the first one is as good or better.

[scientist]

You don't need to have played the first game in order to enjoy this one.
However, I would absolutely recommend playing the first game. (I've completed both and I personally like the first one better. But the second does have really beautiful environments.)

[Liam Pope]

First one is a masterpiece, so if you have the time/patience play that first absolutely. Playing Talos 2 without having played the original would be rather like playing Portal 2 without having played the original - perfectly fine to do so, the missing backstory will be well enough summarised to you in the sequel, but still better overall experience if you played original first.

[Sokurah]

The story is based on the first game but i guess you can still enjoy this one without playing the first. But when you're not in a rush to play this one you might as well start with the first.

It has very good puzzles and atmosphere and its cheaper i guess. So a better entry to see if its a game for you.

EDIT: lol i just checked and they cost the same :D
But i guess if you wait for sale surely the frist will be cheaper.
Its not too expensive anyway tho.
I have 36 hours on record with the first, so it well worth the price.

[Wintermute]

The first one is fantastic. Highly recommend it together with DLC.

[barthess]

The first game is better. It has better puzzles and much better performance with good ENOUGH graphics. First game has no "open world" and social crap. It's concentrated on puzzles. And it has lots of ester eggs. I definitely recommend to play first game.

[👾]

The first game is better indeed, I would almost recommend to play them in reverse order because of that. Seeing as your account is 19 years old, you are not part of the wider (=younger) audience, and therefore I would think that you would like the first one better as well.

[joridiculous]

For the story and lore, yes.
For the puzzling, yes and no. You don't have to had played the first game+2 dlc's to enjoy thins one, but it will help you understand the mechanics in this one faster. (Even thought they both use different mechanics, the base is the same)

[goldcd]

To add a counter-point - I really never got on with the first game and gave up on it after a few hours.
My recollection was that it was just an endless succession of samey looking puzzles, with a bit of philosophy bolted on. I didn't enjoy a lot of the puzzles - I have a vague recollection of some frustrating timing based stuff.
I much prefer this sequel which feels like a more well-rounded game. I simply enjoy being in the game - the world, the music, the wandering aimlessly about just appreciating it - and then within this world there are the puzzles and the philosophy.
I prefer these puzzles. The challenge is when you don't understand what you should do, there's no way to achieve the goal with the tools provided - and then you notice a new interaction between elements or an odd curve of a level that feels deliberate - and you know what to do and can immediately do it. Nothing's frustrated me enough to google the answer yet - 2/3 of the way through I don't feel 'cheated' by any of the previous puzzles, so I know whatever I'm currently stuck on will have a fair solution - I'm just being temporarily stupid.
The solutions 'build nicely' - you're never given too many objects and feel the solution will be found simply by combining everything in ever permutation until something happens. You know what you need to do next, you think you're one thing short and your job is to find out how that assumption is incorrect.

I'm still not completely enamoured with the philosophy. It's genuinely interesting, but I don't feel as strongly as others do about it. To me it's like the background music - it helps to fill out the world, but the game is about the puzzles.

Somebody did mention performance. It might be a puzzle game, but it's running on Unreal 5. Looks stunning on my desktop at an ultrawide 1440. It 'just' runs OK on my Steamdeck - ~23-25 fps, 800p all settings on low.
i.e. Don't think "It's a puzzle game, it'll run fine on whatever I have"

[Wintermute]

Story in the first one was definitely slower. On the other hand, it had Milton, and he absolutely carried the whole thing. "By your logic, we could build a person out of tin cans".

[puddingtopf]

Play both.

[Sledge Hammer!]

Originally posted by Fab:

I'm intrigued by this game because I read good things about it. Can I start with this one? I don't know if I have the motivation to do both games, unless the first one is as good or better.

I don't think I would be enjoying this game as much if I hadn't become invested in the original game. The first game is very compelling, it lays the foundation for this game's whole civilization and philosophy. Believe me, I was so touched by the first game's story that I've been eagerly waiting 9 years for this sequel. I'm positive you won't have any trouble finding the motivation to play both.

[Tilen]

You should play through the first game, in my opinion. DLC too.

[Albie There]

You can get older games for real cheap like cents or a dollar or two, at sites like Eneba, they sell keys.

[string28]

Yes.

[Garamoth]

Yes+1

I'd start with the first game, IMO.