Either you die the hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Yep.

Well, they are oldtime fans, which means:
- the game is an important part of their lives,
- they liked it back then,
- it has changed.

If a fan doesn't like the changes, they complain. It's not a fallacy or anything.

I didn't believe this was an actual thing until I looked it up.
But speaking of which:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumpkin_chucking

Not really, sequels tend to be at least a bit different, some people will like those differences, some won't. The people who don't are more likely to post about it because the rest are too busy playing the game.
Then again, if sequels aren't different enough, people complain, and if you changed it to please one kind of customers, others would bitch. It's just plain impossible to please everyone.

That being said, there are apparently quite a few people in the gaming community who like complaining about popular games and grandstanding about them being horrible compared to another (preferably a more obscure predecessor). Whether they're being trolls, hipsters, or actually honest, I don't know, but I wouldn't put too much weight on their opinion, especially if all they seem to do is complain and yet they keep playing the game...

Of course it's a real thing! :) The game Smashing Pumpkins Into Small Piles of Putrid Debris was both created out of DOOM sub-culture prior to the release of id Software's DOOM, and is the reason behind the DOOM GOD mode cheat code "IDSPISPOPD" although most people don't know that. :)


http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/SPISPOPD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXiPR3xqxwo

Actually, with games there is a surprisingly high number of them where I consider the second installment to be the best in the series. I've also developed a theory as to why this should be. Here's the scenario I envision:

Someone has an idea for a new original game. They have a clear vision of what they would like it to be, but in the world of AAA games development there are schedules, budgets and time constraints involved. Often they are forced to compromise on their vision in order to get the game done on time. However, if it is good enough and sells well enough, a sequel may well be greenlit from the higher-ups.

So they start working on a sequel, only this time they're not starting from scratch, but have the first game to build on. Hence, the second game becomes the game they actually wanted to make in the first place. It's like the first one, but with all the wrinkles ironed out, and with a few extra features that were a part of the original vision, but didn't make it into the first game. This sells even better, being simply a better game. So a third game is greenlit.

Now they have to make a third game, but they have now fulfilled their original vision of what the game should be. However, they can't just make a game that is the same as the second one, so they have to make up some new stuff to put in it. This sort of pointless innovation, change only for the sake of change, does not necessarily make for a better gaming experience, and the third game ends up being worse than the first and second games.

So the series starts going downhill from that point. Sometimes it may bounce back, if someone with a new vision takes over.

Yeah, story & atmosphere 2 is more a John Woo with a bit Tarantino and 3 is more a Rodriguez & Tarantino... while being stoned. Both great but very different. Personally I think the wackyness of 3 together with the far more sympathetic playerchar fits better. The no choice but being a petty & vengeful ass in 2 put a big damper on occasions. And regarding gameplay and options its the weird situation of 3 being the one with the better and more polished gameplay while 2 with all its options manages to be a better game.

... I better stop now; could probably go on for hours on what I love on 2 and what on 3 and where one would be better off with elements of the other.

Not a bad theory. Your statement about the series going downhill after the sequel is definetely true of the "Mad Max" movies. And I agree a series can bounce back under new management, but only if they respect the original products.

It is as usual a bit of taste, like with Vodka, some prefer Russian others prefer Polish ;)

It is still Voodkaaa (imagine the proper pronounciation ;) )

The graphics are getting better with each one of the series, the gameplay, number of quest, also. But if it is just not your taste, so be it ;)
There are subtle differences between the versions, mainly minor details...but if it is one of those which annoy you, it makes a huge difference, agreed ;)

Either the game dies while it has praise from everyone or lives long enough to become a villain to a small part of the fanbase.

It's the way of life.

The graphics get better, but that isn't all that important to me, and the art style actually got much further off from how I imagined the world from the books. That' really the heart of the matter - the first game just felt more like The Witcher to me than the second one. The mood, the story, the look and feel of the world was just much closer to the books. In the second game it all felt much more like just another "generic medieval fantasy world #261"

But I also liked the gamplay more. I'm no fan of console-action style combat in RPGs, leveling up was absolutely terrible in the second game, and alchemy became pretty much useless.

If you feel this way, than I think, TW3 would be a disappointment for you. It is definitely more action-style. Alchemy useless, wouldn't say so, but again not like in the first one.

BUT the third one, the way how it is being done, does absorb you into the story though.

I think I will give them again a try (all of them) and let you know. (might take a wee bit ;) )