Why is it high standards to expect consistent quality from the franchise? Do you think fans should settle for a game that is substantially worse than expected because it’s not terrible?
So, for example, Pokemon games are comparable to Kirby games in that they generally score around the same as Kirby games. Do you think fans have standards too high of the first outing of a mainline Pokemon game on Switch is merely a 73%?
I mean high standards in the sense that a general score of 73 is considered 'bombing' for a game. in the 70-80 range, a game would still be considered 'good'. Even games in the 60 range can still be enjoyable. It's not a matter of settling for something that is 'lesser' than previous games, but enjoying, or not enjoying said game, and look forward to the next game.
I have already explained exactly what is wrong with the reasoning in your argument multiple times, including with the post you are responding to. You are trying to assess "this is what a good game is" completely out of context of quality expectation of the game in question.
Let me try to put it to you another way: for book reviews, books in the 65% to 75% range are generally considered good.
Fans of Song of Ice and Fire have waited 6 years for the next book in the series. The books generally score about 85%-88% by reviewers and are expected to offer a certain amount of length. If GRR Martin, in all that time, and with the television show present, only released a book of perhaps 480 pages and had a 73% rating with reviewers; should readers be happy and satisfied that they got a good book? Of course not, this is the first book in the Song of Ice and Fire series in 6 years, the expectation is for something more substantial and of higher quality.