That is definitely true, though as a rule it seems to generally be the case with any game that's made an impact. Unless, that is, its main impact was to be remembered as "the one that's wasn't as good as its predecessor because it was different", in which case almost anything will be seen as an improvement (Oblivion to Skyrim, for instance, and especially FO3 to NV).
But yeah, since my personal "gaming renaissance" 15 years ago I've seen Doom 3 compared unfavourably to Doom (I actually prefer D3), Half Life 2 the same compared to Half Life (never liked HL, even at the time, but HL2 was an instant hit with me), the interminable "Oblivion isn't as good as Morrowind!" wars which are still ongoing in some places and still with the same clichés and fallacies (I actually love both and am glad they're different; I do worry I did the same with Skyrim as I adored Oblivion and thought Skyrim was dull), Dragon Age 2 compared to Oranges (it had its faults, but it's actually a really good game that improves on the original in some respects) and more recently Fallout 4 compared to NV (again, I like both, but FO4 has the edge for me: I know some people consider it sacrilege to prefer Bethsoft over Obsidian just on moral grounds!)
And of course none of this is new either, though when I was younger it seems that most of the wars were over the platform of choice, which was a lot more competitive than the PC-vs-consoles thing we have these days. I had a Dragon 32, as I periodically mention, because 35 years later I still smart slightly at how rubbish its graphics and sound were!
Edit: wow, that's more brackets than a Wikipedia article.
Last edited by vometia; 15/01/18 01:19 AM.