Games as a whole are critiqued differently over the years.
“X game that was bad years ago is actually an underrated classic!” or “Y game is waaaay worse than you thought it was!”
And then the entire community thinks this way. I guarantee for the same X or Y game, the opinion will change again in another decade.
As more games come out, our standards change, I understand that, but where are we to draw the line?
Why draw a line? Games are an art form, whether you like it or not, and should be treated as such.
Just like all art forms, standards and opinions change.
I will admit, not all games are trying to be some artistic media, and that’s fine, those should be judged accordingly.
However, in the end, all our critiques are all just opinion, technical problems with the media being an exception, of course.
We also must take into account the target audience and demographic before things are to be criticized, as well as the time period of release.
Of course Warcraft 1 and The Last of Us 2 aren’t on the same technical, graphic, or story level. They were created during different periods of gaming. It’s also obvious that their stories are not comparable, nor are their game mechanics. They are simply two different games.
Those things must also come into account when comparing two games. The simplest and most accurate comparisons to be made are sequels and their prequels and vice versa. For example, comparing Sonic Adventure to Sonic Adventure 2, or Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time to Prince of Persia: Warrior Within.
Overall, game critique, and art critique in general is very nuanced and changes with time. This is something we must accept, either reluctantly or with open arms; that is entirely on the individual.
Like I just said, this topic is nuanced, therefore, everything I mentioned here is only the tip of the iceberg.