Metacritic and Points for Originality?

[Doctor Teo]

I'm going to put the TL;DR at the start here: Why are games rated down for being 'unoriginal', even if they are better than their predecessors?

The reason I ask is because it feels like good games are rated down on the basis that they are not different enough from other games, which includes any game's prequel. A rating is meant to demonstrate the quality of a game, yet it isn't uncommon for a game of similar or better quality to be rated down because it is too similar to another version of the game that already exists.

I noticed this when I was thinking of relapsing into Pokemon; the highest rated Pokemon games in recent times were X/Y and Black/White, whereas the newer Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire dragged about 5 points behind. However, the main complaints I saw for OR/AS was "great game, but did not introduce as much as predecessors."

Now I haven't played a Pokemon game since I touched yellow over a decade ago. From my point of view, OR/AS isn't less original than its predecessors X/Y and Black/White because I never played those. So I have to ask myself: is OR/AS actually worse than its older counterparts, in the same vein AC: Unity is worse than AC: Black Flag? Or is the modern version better than the others and simply penalized for not introducing anything new, in the same vein that Tomb Raider for PS3 scores higher than the remastered version for PS4?

Is it fair to penalize a game for "not introducing anything new," even if it is the same or superior to its predecessors?

Disclaimer: Whether a game is better or worse is subjective and ratings aren't everything; but this topic is not about which game is better, just about why sequels are penalized for being too similar to the previous (or to games like them).

[Τhe Rolling Cheese Wheel]

Publicado originalmente por Insignia (Teo):

From my point of view, OR/AS isn't less original than its predecessors X/Y and Black/White because I never played those. So I have to ask myself: is OR/AS actually worse than its older counterparts, in the same vein AC: Unity is worse than AC: Black Flag? Or is the modern version better than the others and simply penalized for not introducing anything new, in the same vein that Tomb Raider for PS3 scores higher than the remastered version for PS4?

Not really a fair comparison, because AC Unity is definitely worst than Black Flag. It got slammed for being a terribly buggy mess and probably one of the most un-optimized game to date.

Tomb Raider "Remastered" barely even cut it as a remaster to begin with. It's literally the same game with small touch ups, of course it's going to get slammed. Also people really hated how Lara's face looked in the "remaster." A real remaster would be the Resident Evil game released this week, which was rated very highly just like it's predecessor from the 90s.

[Gus the Crocodile]

I think your "disclaimer" went a long way toward answering your central question. What's better or worse is up to each individual to decide, and "originality" happens to be something X amount of people value. No great mystery.

(The acknowledgement of subjectivity also outright negates some of your individual questions like " is OR/AS actually worse than its older counterparts...?", because there is no "actually better", there's just what people each think)

As I see it, games are all about learning, and you aren't learning if you're doing the exact same thing last year's game did. This often manifests as "having less fun". Which causes people to rate the game lower.