The journalist who gave The Order a 1/5 even admitted this earlier in this very thread. That he has greater expectations/standards for new IP than he does established franchises or sequels, and as such doesn't expect as much innovation from them. Kind of an unfair way of treating new IP's if you ask me, and probably one more reason we're likely to get less of them, and instead more churned out sequels. Certain journalists are essentially indirectly saying, nope this genre and type of game has already been done and now belongs to x, y or z franchise and therefore if you do a similar thing you're going to get shat on for it, unless you really stand out and do something different. This explains the mass hypocrisy and inconsistency of the rating and review scale system, and why games like Call of Duty or Fifa can get away with the same sort of shit over and over, whilst games like The Order 1886 are torn apart for being 'derivative' or 'unambitious'.
My words are being twisted a little bit here. That's not your fault, nib; it's just that this is a tough thing to put into words, and I don't think I explained myself well enough originally.
Speaking personally (I can only speak to my own process), I don't treat new IP any differently than I do an established franchise. Every review I walk into, I've got the same basic expectation: I'd like to have a pleasing experience. The thing is -- and this is what often creates problems in review debates, I think -- everyone has different inclinations pulling at them. The things that I love about games aren't necessarily the things that someone else loves. This is exactly the reason why so many working critics have a hard time getting into conversations about bias and "objectivity." There's often a basic misunderstanding of what those two terms mean and how they relate to criticism.
But I digress. The point I'm circling around is there's no universal truth for game reviews (or any work of criticism). Every experience is unique. Personally, I do appreciate seeing new ideas seep into games. That's not a new IP vs. established franchise issue; it's just the inclination of a single person who has played multiple thousands of games over the course of his life. I play a lot of stuff, and original approaches push some -- not all, mind you -- of my buttons. It doesn't mean that every game with a fresh angle is going to "score higher" and every derivative experience, "lower."
Here's a TL;DR example: Saints Row: The Third is, by most accounts, a rehash of SR and SR2. There's a definite stylistic evolution from game to game in that series, but SR3 is ultimately very similar to pick up and play as its predecessors. And yet it was my favorite game of 2011. That experience just gelled so perfectly for me, between the gameplay, the story execution, and overall sense of style (and oh god the use of music). There were plenty of other, more "original" games that year, but SR3 got my personal GotY nod because of how it left me feeling.
There is literally no science to this. Reviews are an expression of feelings about a particular subject, framed by just one perspective. There's not a mathematical equation on this planet that quantifies a person's feelings. Every critic that works with scored reviews has a process of working out their score, but it ultimately boils down to going with their gut, choosing what feels right.
So in the case of The Order (just to keep this whole thing on-topic!), it was an unpleasant experience for me. The fact that it's new IP is simply context that I used to anchor my critique. Palette swap the entire thing for Cogs and Locust, and put aside the weirdness of a steampunk Marcus Fenix (someone meme that please), and I'd still dislike it. I'd have written a different review, anchored by different context, but the core experience -- and thus, the core impressions -- would be the same.
TL;DR-- I don't know how to write short, sorry. But this is a complicated issue that I love to nerd out on, so if you're going to respond I hope you'll read the whole thing.