Evonisia said:
The question is in the thread title. I sometimes think I judge some games harshly because compared to the other games in the series they're a part of. I often complain that Saints Row: The Third is inconsistent in tone and compared to Saints Row 2 and Saints Row 1 it's a big step down. However, when I compare it to some games of the late 2011 season (Skyrim, MW3, BF3, Resistance 3, Gears 3), Saints Row: The Third was an absolute blast and a lot of fun.
Ditto Silent Hill Downpour which wasn't as good as Silent Hill 2 or 3, but compared to the other horror games of around its time like Resident Evil 6, F3AR and Slender it was pretty damn good. Or how Black Ops II looks great compared to the other Call of Dutys around it (Ghosts and MW3 especially) when the game itself is not something special.
Is it fair to crap on or praise a game because compared to the series around it, it is so much better or worse?
Yes it is fair. Games, like any form of media, do not exist in a vacuum. To disregard everything that came before is to wilfully stick one's head in the sand and ignore an entire industry and even the efforts of the same people in previous entries to a series.
If someone makes a good game or film or book or whatever, investors will see an opportunity to make more money by cashing in on the reputation of the good media product, whatever it may be. That's all well and good....they get more money, fans get more of the thing they enjoyed. However letting the fans down with an obvious, poorly made cash in is money grubbing at its worst...taking the money based on the first entry's reputation, but failing to deliver on quality for the subsequent one.
As a series progresses, one would expect to see the team behind it learning, improving, making it better. When an earlier entry is better than a latter one, it is a failure. If playing the first game again is a more enjoyable and satisfying experience than playing the sequel, what was the point of making the sequel in the first place (from a gamer's perspective, not that of the shareholders whose motivations are obvious)?
Consider also the amount of competition out there. We as humans only live for so long and one third of our lives is spent sleeping. If we allocate an approximate other third for work/study/responsibility, that leaves the remaining third for deriving enjoyment, living life and doing all the things we do in our downtime. We have so much choice from millions of books, games, films, bars, sports, hobbies, friends, holidays around the world, eating out, etc. When any game asks for £30-40 in exchange for some hours of entertainment, for us the customer there is an opportunity cost in all the other games, films and books we *aren't* enjoying while we are invested in this one.
That isn't to say that some games cannot be good on their own merits, despite not measuring up to standards previously set. I also exclude games where the "brand" is just an umbrella for otherwise disconnected games, such as Final Fantasy or films like Fast & Furious 3: Tokyo Drift or almost any sequel to a martial arts film for example. These may have some elements in common with their predecessors but are fundamentally different and otherwise unrelated. They may still be judged against other titles in the series/around it (particularly if it's the same people behind it), but a little leeway can be given here.
So yes, a sequel can be judged not only by its predecessors but also by other games around it. The fact is that if playing another game altogether is a better experience than playing the one in question then we should be playing that instead. If a developer wants to depart intentionally from the established norms or direction of the series to that point, give the game a new f*****g name. If it's good, you'll have a new franchise to milk. If it's not then the original series hasn't been tarnished by association and the dev wouldn't be seen to be milking a brand for all its worth.
Games do not exist in a vacuum and trying to judge them as such is folly. It is IMO not only reasonable, but expected to judge a game on what came before it. After all, if what came before is better then we can just save our money and replay the earlier title again.