There is a lot of "sequelphobia" among them, as well. ... Because, not being the original, the experience is no longer fresh. Truthfully that is a very selective criticism, since there's no guarantee that every gamer has played every previous entry and shares the reviewer's tolerances for recurring trends, so no it's not a practice I agree with. At the same time, if a franchise is clearly milked, it is worth mentioning, right? Drawing that line is pretty tough.
I agree with this, and I find reviewers tend to be very hypocritical. They condemn one game of being more of the same, yet praise another although it's more of the same as well. I just leave it as people don't know what they want, which is an everlasting truth I notice on a regular basis.
Metroid Prime 3 for example, scored lower than the first *ONLY* because it was not the first. That's it.
This, however, I
don't agree with. The game certainly felt more flawed than the original to me, and I'm not saying this purely out of nostalgia. There were definitely some design decisions I take issue with in that game.
Then again, this is coming from someone who finds OoT to be more flawed than almost anyone else would readily admit. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose.