This is a weird thought I was having while I was driving back home listening to James Blunt.

Allow me to explain. I was thinking about the Halo franchise. It is no secret that I didn't like Halo: Reach. While it isn't a bad game, for me, it is the lowest of the low when it comes to the Halo Franchise. Yet the game earned a lot of praise (Mind you, I'm talking purely about the singleplayer here, though the OC refers to everything), and I never kinda understood why. Gameplay is solid, but the plot is atrocious. (this is in my opinion, of course).

I was wondering, what if it wasn't called Halo? What if it was just "Reach"? Remove all the references to Halo, and swap them for another thing (Spartans for example are called something else, don't mention Master Chief or recognizable names, etc, etc...). Leave the core game intact, but remove all traces of Halo franchise and swap them for something else.

Would it then be praised as much as it was? Would it be "one of the most spectacularly euphoric hello and goodbye in gaming history." as it got called in one site review? I generally don't use it, but Halo: Reach has a 91 in Metacritic. The game I'm talking about, <Reach> would score as well?

Do you think this happen with other games? Do you think I'm just being paranoid?

I definitely think that a games name has an influence on what a reviewer does when giving a score. Games with annual releases get a different review process than one-off titles or new IP. I don't think it is a malicious thing though. I think there are specific expectations that exist with something established that gives the reviewer a head-start in what they are trying to do.

I agree with this. Video game journalism is shaky in today's era and I can't help but feel some games are indeed rated highly due to franchise name and brand recognition. I look to Final Fantasy or Mario games for these types of examples.

Professional game reviewers and the websites they work for have a reputation and a readership to live up to. If GameSpot were to give say; Halo Reach a 6/10 or 7/10 there would be a riot in their forums and likely cause outrage that the website either couldn't or couldn't be arsed to handle. Sadly there is pressure on review sites to give higher scores to high profile franchises both by their readership and the multi-million dollar corporations who release the games.

My fellow Sony fans will probably bash me for this, but Uncharted. Not only for being Uncharted, but also for being made by Naughty Dog.
Oh and also GTA.

Sonic Adventure 1+2. That's about all I can think of.

The original game has to be so awesome that it makes a lasting impact for future, potentially not as good games.

I see and agree with your point, but I think there's more to it. The environment always plays a huge role in the game even with identical mechanics. A game that plays exactly like Mario Kart but had generic-looking everything will get rated much lower, in part because of the lack of brand, but also the lack of charm or familiarity. Basically, gameplay isn't everything, even if we like to boast that it is.

I don't think so atleast. Example: Atelier Ayesha to Atelier Escha & Logy

edit: oh wait some franchises, well I'd say yes then

Would be fair, if uncharted 3 didnt get rated worse than uncharted 2. And lets face it, ND were not the same ND we know today before uncharted 2. So I think thats a franchise that doesnt apply here.

I think 2D mario games get down-rated because of their name.