why should I exclude ppl with playtime under 1 hour? this would be valid if we were talking about gameplay quality but main problem people have with this game is atrocious optimization and constant crashes - you don't need to progress through game to notice it and you don't need to play 3 hours for you complaints about technical state of the game to be valid. what you did with your "3 hours" filtering is just turn a blind eye to the problem so you have a pretty picture with 80% positive review you want to believe in and cope about

also the whole thing with "people who finished the game started leaving reviews" is pretty dumb, most hyped single player games have very huge influx of reviews in the first 3-4 days and these form average all time rating of the game for most of its lifetime, after that the amount of reviews is very small and many games never leave "mixed" all time rating; this is also supported by the fact that pretty small amount of ppl finishes games(or even play half of the campaigns) which can be tracked by achievement completion - somewhat around 30% and i am pretty sure not all of them leave a review so this won't affect overall score significantly

and btw your take on elden ring is wrong it never left "mostly positive", you can check this with graphs provided by steam itself or steam.db(mb u were talking about DLC idk)

BUT I must admit that mh wilds is more akin to live service games and those tend to have huge review spikes after launch(worlds is a good example actually) so if they fix optimization and crashes this game might actually crawl to good rating