I think that's because majority of the games are being made by the west. And they are not only more into but better at making FPS games. Its one area of the industry that its core mechanics are easy to implement and easy to iterate on. Doesn't help that majority of the reviewers are wetseners too.

Personally, I'm dead tired of FPS games. I now pace myself. I haven't touched an FPS since KZ shadowfall. (not even destiny). And the most recent one ii have touched was fallout. And the next I will be touching is Duex Ex. Maybe I will get back into them with VR. Though no mans sky and the park ranger game thing (forget its name) and the witness (forget its name too) are all on my radar.

The Bioshock games, The Darkness 1 + 2 and many Star Wars games? Even if it's not a typical magical scenario, you still have magic abilities... called "The Force" or "Creeping Darkness" or "Plasmids".

In the '90s there were some good ones with magical scenario: Heretic 1 + 2, Hexen 1 + 2 and Wheel of Time. Now there are some mediocre like Ziggurat and Lichdom: Battlemage.

I liked FPS in late 90s when they were adventure games (Shadow Warrior, Blood, Unreal, Half-Life, Thief). Online is bleh, I don't get any enjoyment.

The fps genre is saturated now and among the games mentioned in the op, none of them did anything new or innovative.

All good games, but will soon be forgotten. I can understand Why reviewers are so skeptical.

>standards through the roof
>all of the listed games scored 80+ (except for KZ and BF)

I must be missing something.

KZ was a rushed launch title and Battlefront dropped the SP campaign mode, making the 70+ score understandable when compared to the other games, which isn't a bad score to begin with.

The latest Thief is a disgrace, I have no idea how it scored that high, you should take it out of the list because it doesn't help the argument you are making at all. 

Actually, I don't really see that the standards are through the roof. You gotta be really amazing to score over 90 in meta, and while some of the games you've mention are terrific and enjoyable, they don't need (or rather, don't deserve) over a 9 in regards to some of their flaws or lack of ambition. However, 8 is an awesome score to obtain, and thus I don't understand why anything lower than 9 is having a "through the roof" standard. If anything, applying cynical criticism is great.

We live in a different era, where games are judged with different mentalities or expectations than before. Just look at Halo:CE. Its Anniversary counterpart received an 82, despite the original being a 97.

We need more original ideas for First Person games, like a game where you kill stuff by giving them the middle finger or something:

Some sanity..

This trend isn't exclusive to FPS reviewers overall are much harsher this gen than before, and I think it was about time really.

The whole review scene right now sucks. FPS only is where you see it best.
We've had almost a decade with often ridiculously high scores even if games where not much better than genre standards and actually did nothing new. Reviewers even often celebrated cinematic experiences they often criticize now.
Within the last two years it went to usually scoring 5-10%/points lower. With FPS on the frontline while other genres are not hit that hard yet.
Sandbox might be next, some games are already underperforming ratingwise.
Exceptions often are extremely anticipated games that sometimes often aren't criticized enough. Especially if the dev is a holy cow like Kojima. Then it's best you don't say a single bad word.