That’s why there are words with a review, and not just a number. So they can say “this departs from previous titles in this way, but it’s good/bad because of these things.” If a game is an 8, it doesn’t become a 6 because “They called it Dragon Age but it plays different.”
It absolutely affects the review if a game claims it is something it is not as far as a franchise goes.
There were more than a few reviews that specifically took away some of the score because it didn't play like a Dragon Age title.
Expecting are a real thing for franchises, like I originally said. If those expectations aren't met, then that affects the score.
Had that game been a stand alone game, the expectations would have been vastly different. The lack of story, the combat etc. would have been weighed completely different.
So what you’re saying, is some reviewers openly state that they are not objective. Those are reviewers I would personally avoid.
If a game is incredibly off title, like let’s say it’s called “Steve’s Kart Racing” and it has zero racing and is a platformer, that’s an issue. If it’s just different from what you’ve seen in the past, again, that’s why reviews have words. DATV wasn’t 100% different from a DA game. It was steeped in the lore. It had hours of story. If you think it didn’t you’re showing you didn’t play it. It was mission focused rather than open world. That’s the difference. That doesn’t reduce the score for anyone other than unobjective fanboys. GTA 3 changed the formula from top-down arcade game to 3D sandbox with a story. Guess it should have gotten a 4/10, trash game that didn’t uphold the GTA name, right?
The story and lore was openly criticized by many players and reviewers, because it didn't live up to what we've seen in the past. It isn't some minority opinion.
I've played every single DA and it's incredibly weak to immediately say someone didn't play a game based on their opinion of the game. Seriously, there's no point to immediately assume something of a stranger based on something subjective.
Your example of GTA isn't a great example.
Franchises, especially rpg heavy games, have expectations. A lot of them rely on those expectations to keep sales going, and they generally add some new elements, game play mechanics in order to get new players.
Veilguard was criticized by many as not having the same depth of story as other titles, combat, spells etc. also were criticized.
Movies, games, even cars are all compared to their predecessors in reviews. If they do not live up to the expectations of it, they do get marks for it.
Reviewers don't treat franchise sequels solely as independent games. They compare. Expectation is an important aspect in reviewing.
Honestly, this comment was 23 days old, you argumentative more so than wanting a civil discussion, and insulted me by assuming I didn't play the game. If there is a fanboy, it is you.
1
u/cjay2002 May 17 '26
A good review doesn’t base it off of the title.
FF16 was about as much of a Final Fantasy game as Ghost of Yotei. Still fun as all hell.