Why do some people judge games based off the merits of the previous entries?

#1Lord_FroodPosted 11/12/2012 9:55:39 AM
I will ignore your post if you use any words such as "fanboy," "troll," "endgame," etc; or post that comparison picture. Let's use original thoughts here.

Take Sticker Star or RE5 for example.
I haven't played SS yet, but it seems like a lot of people are ragging on it for being different than previous entries. Why not just look at it as its own game, not the successor to three other entries, one of which was vastly different from the other three anyway. I didn't like RE5 at first because it just didn't feel like RE to me and that made me not enjoy it. The second I stopped judging it against RE4, I loved it as a totally different kind of entry (RE6, however, I don't like at all, for other reasons).

It's just silly how people can't enjoy something as its own standalone title and have to compare against something it's not.
---
You only need to know two things to understand KH: Everyone is Sora, Everything is Xehanort's fault.
http://backloggery.com/Lord_Frood
#2GenoPosted 11/12/2012 10:06:34 AM
The issue is that the previous entries set the standard. These previous entries raise the bar compared to entries BEFORE that. They're the best of the best. There's a reason why people tout TTYD to be the best Paper Mario, as per your example, because it's a lengthy, enjoyable and entertaining experience.. and there's a lot to do. Games that come afterward don't match up, and so people have the right to complain.

It's not silly. If developers don't want to dig themselves into a rut they either need to man up and make future entries as amazing (or better) than previous entries or their future entries will languish in complaint hell for not meeting the standards the developers themselves set.
---
3DS: 2363 - 5923 - 1853
#3SullyTheStrangePosted 11/12/2012 10:10:38 AM
It's a sequel. It has the benefit of having already made several attempts, figuring out what works and what doesn't, and improving the former and fixing the latter. Original games don't have that benefit, so sequels must be held to a higher standard.

Some aspects of PM:SS are simply inferior to the originals, for no good reason. Why is there nearly zero plot, for instance, in a series known for its charming stories? There's no excuse to be a lesser sequel that actually moved backwards over a decade after the original.
---
All's fair in love and war, kid.
#4halomonkey1_3_5Posted 11/12/2012 10:12:37 AM
Because generally, your enthusiasm for a sequel(or just another entry in a franchise) comes from liking either something the developer has done before or from playing a previous entry in that franchise.

It'd be like Nintendo turning Mario into a great rhythm game, even if its the best rhythm game of all time, a lot of people will be disappointed because its not platforming. That doesn't make it a bad game if you enjoy rhythm games, but if you dislike them and enjoy Mario's platforming, its not hard to understand why you would dislike the game.

Obviously that's taking it to the extreme, but you hopefully get my point. When you're pumped for a sequel, you want more of the same with some improvements( almost every Mario game in the last 10 years is a good example of this), you dont usually want a complete reworking of the game(see: RE3 to RE4), because even if it makes the game better overall, you're going to be disappointed if you just wanted more of the previous game.
---
Billy Mays: July 20, 1958 - June 28, 2009
The Greatest
#5pairenoidPosted 11/12/2012 10:20:54 AM
is this a joke topic
obviously if you enjoy a game enough and a sequel is announced, you expect it to be similar to pick up where it left off

unless its actually meant to be a stand alone game like final fantasy

why else would a company even create a sequel, think about it..
---
[i5 2500k][haf 912][asrock z68 ex3][powercooler 6870][8gb g.skill ripjaw series][OCZ ModXStream Pro 600W][hitachi 500gb]
#6Northern_RosePosted 11/12/2012 10:30:32 AM(edited)
Because when you make 3 or 4 very successful games and then announce you going to make a new game in the series and give it the same name as the last games. It tends to make people expect it to be like the past games.

If you want to make a new game then make a new game but dont use a name people trust to sell it. If you want it to stand on its own, then it has to stand on its own and not stand on the backs of other games.

But who would have bought a game called "Mario Sticker Star" makes it sound like some kiddy game, But....Call it Paper Mario and its sold, pre orders start pouring in before anyone even knows a thing about the game.

Lord_Frood posted...
It's just silly how people can't enjoy something as its own standalone title and have to compare against something it's not.


When you put the name of a known series on it, then people tend to expect it to be like the others. Stand alone games, stand alone.

PM:SS is not a stand alone game. The Devs made that choice when they called it Paper Mario.

People got a right to be upset when developers do crap like this. People bought a Paper Mario game, is that what they got? No, not really.

Its human nature, if you piss people off, they tend to get upset about it.
---
"I am bad and that's good. I will never be good and that's not bad. There is no one I would rather be, than me." ~ Bad-Anon
#7MarsfordPosted 11/12/2012 10:27:14 AM
Wow. I really didn`t expect so many rational, thought out answers on this board. I`m impressed. I have nothing to add.
---
Official Marsford of the NDF
People should really learn the difference between a troll and an idiot.
#8FAT____MANPosted 11/12/2012 10:28:10 AM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
#9Lord_Frood(Topic Creator)Posted 11/12/2012 10:44:24 AM
They never promised it to be just like the originals which is why I'm confused about it. People keep comparing it to something it's not, which isn't fair for a grading system. I just think that people are letting the name alone skew their opinion on the game.
---
You only need to know two things to understand KH: Everyone is Sora, Everything is Xehanort's fault.
http://backloggery.com/Lord_Frood
#10FAT____MANPosted 11/12/2012 10:50:01 AM
Lord_Frood posted...
They never promised it to be just like the originals which is why I'm confused about it. People keep comparing it to something it's not, which isn't fair for a grading system. I just think that people are letting the name alone skew their opinion on the game.


Then it shouldn't have Paper Mario in the title. The series is attributed with fine RPG battles, vast over worlds, and a fun whimsical narrative.
I don't buy Mario Bros. Expecting an amazing story and mind blowing new play styles. Hell no, i buy mario bros to go through various levels, try not to fall down pits and beat the hell out of Koopalings and then have an epic final battle with bowser, maybe try to 100% the game a bit later.

No. Paper Mario has been attributed with excellence, and not even trying to improve upon that basis sets it up to fail before it even started.