This was hard to come up with a title for. For example, I've heard people say RE6 only got mediocre reviews because it wasn't survival horror, and people should rate it as a game first, not as part of a series. Same idea goes for Dead Space 3, Ninja Gaiden 3, Final Fantasy 13, etc. So should a game be rated on it's own, or as part of it's original genre/series?
I judge them on its own but I do consider the franchise overall just won't hold it against the game. --- Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and you weep alone. The armory of god is guarding me but all you can see is holographic artistry.
If you HAVE to rate the game as it's own game, and not as something of a franchise, you have a bad game already.
That said, the previous games only matter in terms of the legacy and mythos the games have established. --- Provoking other users to respond inappropriately = Troll Even the most positive remark can provoke inappropriate responses. Thus, we ALL troll.
Somewhat. I try to look at how the game stands on it's own, but if it's a sequel, I will definitely look at it's predecessors to see how well it is improved or refined. --- ba-weep-gra-na-weep-ninny-bong Hail to the king, baby
If its part of a series, you would expect each game to be of equal or better performance than the last. It creates a certain expectation of the game, and you would hope it meets that expectation.
Of course one bad game in the series won't make me think poorly of the series, but it would be more disappointing to see a game go bad of its part of a series.
If its a standalone title without any previous entries, its easier to let mistakes slip past because you can chalk it up to devs playing with things to see how they go, rather than refining a proven system.