Better Sequels, Worse Reviews. The Gaming Paradox.

[KennerBoy]

My friend Dan made a really good point to me about the way sequels are reviewed on major gaming websites i.e. Gamespot, IGN etc. They often will give a lower rating to a sequel of a game because it doesn't improve upon the formula enough to merit a higher rating. The thing is, the game is in many cases just as good or better than the original game. It seems unfair to give it a lower score, because you look at a review and see the lower score and think "Well I'll just stick with the original", when you actually should play it. I get tired of reading reviews that go something like this: "Well, the gameplay is awesome, the graphics are a little better, there is some new content, but at its core it really is just more of the same. Therefore it get's 7.9'd." It's ridiculous! The reason we liked the game so much is because of how it played. Why would we want a complete turn around flip flop of the game we already like? It's like picking up GTA IV and saying "Well I'm still just stealing cars, I was hoping I could hop on Yoshis back. And why can't I collect 50 stars to get to the next boss?" The formula works, and if a sequel is just the same as the original plus a little extra then why would it be getting a lower rating? It should be rated as an individual game separate from its predecessor. Here are some classic IGN examples:
Golden Sun: 9.7
Golden Sun The Lost Age: 9.0?
The Sims: 9.5
The Sims 3 (with a quote): 8.9 "This is simply a better playing Sims experience" -Why the worse score, IGN?
Unreal Tournament 2004: 9.4
Unreal Tournament 3 (with a quote): 9.0 "Deathmatch, however, still feels very similar, and is therefore less of a draw for me. If you've been playing the series all along, expect the same sort of thing only with a sparkling graphical luster." - How can you change Deathmatch? You can't. It's match to the death, period. And a "sparkling graphical luster" is what we want. We want the same awesome game with some improvements and better graphics. WTF.

There are dozens of other examples, but I think you get my point. A sequel that is just as good, or better than the original should receive a score just as good, or better! Granted, if it is seven years later and is due for a makeover then obviously there will be exceptions. If you read this, you are a champion and I award you over 9000 points. Voice in, n00bs.

[Erik_Twice]

I agree. If the game is as good or better and the overall level has not increased then it should get the same score or better.

For example, the overall level of RPGs didn't change at all between GS 1 and GS2 so they should have similar scores.

[JordanPlayer]

I agree with this for the most part. I don't understand how a game that does everything better can receive a lower score. Maybe if there was a factor for how "revolutionary" the game is... but that's not how it is scored. However, I played UT 2004 and UT 3 and can tell you that 2004 is the better game by far. UT 3 added graphics but stripped down a lot of the movement and was missing quite a few of the unique modes such as Assault that were in 2004.

[KennerBoy]

Well yeah, like I said, there are exceptions and no one is going to think the same about every game. It's just a trend that these online, and print too (Game Informer), gaming critics seem to follow. Also, this is basically a reiteration of what I've already said, but Golden Sun TLA didn't really "break any new ground" for the series so it received the lower score, right? But when compared to Golden Sun it definitely has more of all that we loved in the first game. It's even double the size in physical memory. Alright, I can't really say much more without sounding redundant. Thanks for the read, you two. You both receive over 9000 points.

[Dakinggamer87]

I've seen this happen many a lot with reviews of sequels with lower reviews/scores...

[Mozgus]

I cant tell you how many times I'm scouring a review just for the short, often completely missing sentence where it says "This game is better/worse than the earlier one." Thats all I want to know when approaching a new series. It's so fucking hard to get this information. Number scores are worthless for the reasons you mentioned.

[Dylan]

The problem with the gaming audience is that it refuses to be pleased, period. Take for example Mega man: the first couple were great, but as they stayed the same people started to criticize them for it, which is appropriate on that level. However, when Capcom decides to shake things up and release the great series that is Mega man Legends, Nobody buys it. So basically what the public is doing is telling game developers that if you make a game remotely similar, it'll get penalized irrelevant of how good it is, and if you try to do something different, well we'll just pass on that too.

On a side note, I think that Donkey Kong Country 3 got labeled with this rehash nonsense too. That game was incredible, just as the ones before it. If you liked it then, then why don't you like it just as much now?

[enderfall]

I think a lot goes into when each game is released. For instance, back in the late 90's when The Sims was first released, it was completely different from anything else out there, thus a higher score was awarded for breaking ground, if you will. Now, some 10+ years later, Sims 3 comes out, and it improves on the Sims formula, but doesn't break any new ground. I think the lower scores are there to say "Look, they didn't screw this game up, but at the same time, it's not something you haven't played before".

[Gamerforlife]

Here's the thing, there are TONS of games coming out these days. Developers are already copying eachother left and right, which already creates tons of copycat games. So imagine how even more annoying it is when sequels come out and it's just more of the same. In an industry that is already plagued by unoriginality, sequels just make things worse. I don't blame them, even if I don't always agree with them

[KennerBoy]

Now, some 10+ years later, Sims 3 comes out, and it improves on the Sims formula, but doesn't break any new ground. I think the lower scores are there to say "Look, they didn't screw this game up, but at the same time, it's not something you haven't played before".

Yeah, but if they didn't screw anything up, so it's the same game only better then why didn't it get the same score, or a better one? I understand that games need to evolve and change when it is a series, but when it is a direct sequel it shouldn't be ground breaking already. We loved the first one, and the sequel is here to give us more of it. When a game does just that, plus gives us a little bit more, it shouldn't be penalized. Yeah maybe Sims 3 wasn't ground breaking, but since when is a review about how innovative a game is? Aren't they there to tell us how much we are going to enjoy them? On these lines, yeah Sims 3 is the same game, but it has been brought to this generation/level of gaming. Very improved graphics, better AI, more expansive in general. Yeah, it is just the Sims. But it has been super powered for this day and age. On that note, I think it deserves a score on par with the first, if not better.