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. |
Horizon was an awesome game, and I found the narrative in particular to stand out as being among the only games that I actually felt compelled to continue playing because I wanted to find out what happened next.
And a lot of what made Horizon amazing was how pretty the game looked, and how ambitious the project was. It certainly seemed like Sony was attempting to curb the Zelda fever that was going on at the time.
But... lol
Gameplay is the ultimate influencer of review scores, and no matter how pretty and big Horizon was, it's gameplay was not a perfect ten score (in my opinion). It's gameplay was great, absolutely, but if I reduce games down to how much fun I had when playing them, it's a lot easier to come to grips with it's score.
