mZuzek said:
That's true without being a conspiracy theory. It's not that reviewers rate games lower because they're not as popular, it's that they think of games lower because of it. It's not exactly down to popularity as much as it is about reputation, though - and new IPs don't have any reputation, hence why they usually never get a 90+. Take a look at Horizon: Zero Dawn for example, considered by many one of the games of the generation, but it has the same metascore as Fire Emblem: Three Houses. Nothing against Fire Emblem, that game looks pretty good, but I mean, yeah, you get what I'm saying. |
I would say it is more a matter of mathematics. Basically, a niche title is one that appeals to a more narrow demographic. As such, the likelihood of pulling a few reviewers who don't like it goes up significantly vs a game with a very broad appeal. This is why niche games have a higher probability of having what sound like borderline nonsensical reviews that seem to utterly miss every point.
As for Horizon Zero Dawn, I haven't seen a ton of "Game of the Generation" accolades thrown its way since the hype cycle surrounding its launch died down. I would say it decidedly doesn't fit anywhere near the definition of niche or whatever that , say, most of Platinum's games. It was a very mainstream game with a very mainstream aesthetic and very mainstream game design. I would say its score is pretty fair.
