I agree that #2 is important.
Remember the point of a review, ultimately, is to help people decide if they should buy and play a game. Comparing to old games that I have already played is a great point of reference. You can explain really well why RE6 is a great game in isolation and run down the features, but unless I really know the reviewers likes and dislikes, it will not help a great deal.
...
On topic, I hate the direction they have taken this tomb raider game, however I still want it to be a really good game that I can enjoy.
Generally, it sounds like good practice to review games independently, based solely on their own merits. But games don't exist in a vacuum, and no one has time to play every game. The result is reviewers and gamers comparing any given title in front of them to what else is already out there.
MoH: Warfighter got savaged by reviewers. Not because it had some crippling flaws, but because CoD existed and did everything Warfighter attempted to do, but better. The common tagline was, "In a universe where CoD exists, why bother with Warfighter?".
Alternatively, think of the worst game you ever played. If it was the the only video game ever made, it would sell millions of copies and be universally hailed as an entertainment milestone. Reviews written from the perspective of someone who has never played a game before generally aren't that helpful to readers
I think the bulk of any review should be #1, and that's all that should govern the score as well.
There's nothing at all wrong with putting in a whole section on #2 for fans of the previous games though, and explaining how similar they are to past games and what kind of things they can expect.
That's just my opinion on it. Scores driven by #2, and reviews solely driven by #2 are a major bane on the industry.
Reviews are written for people considering buying the game. Most of the people who consider buying RE6 or FFXIII are fans of the franchise. And they want to know certain information about the new games. Specifically, they want to know how the new entries compare to the previous titles. What did they change, what are the new mechanics, are are they as fun of an experience as the previous titles, etc
On the other hand, gamers who have never played an entry in the franchise are mostly interested in knowing how the game compares to other entries in the same genre, and whether a similar but superior experience can be found elsewhere.
