That's because Denuvo is the only DRM Steam list. Their own Steamworks & CEG, remnants of SecuROM & GFWL, Arxan, etc, are hidden. PCGW lists them very clearly though, which goes to show why "negative" reviews that comment on such "off-topic" things are often most honest & helpful than the game description itself.

I think people grasp the difference between a Total Conversion mod of an engine that reuses an engine for a different branding vs inappropriate branding. That's exactly why Heretic, Hexen, Hedon & Strife are not called "Doom 3-7" and why Doom 5 made as a platformer would be downvoted to oblivion by comparing it with other games.

Literally the entire definition of a sequel or franchise for entertainment media is "expectation of continuity of theme". People always have and always will judge new games on how they fit in with old ones precisely because that's the whole point of branding something "a series" and publishers themselves encourage this when they deliberately market the game with an older brand "Doom 2016! Everything you loved about Doom 1993 and more!". If you want to release a new game to an established series with totally different gameplay and avoid a backlash, then you simply release it as a "spinoff" or "sister series", eg, Contract Jack is not No One Lives Forever 3, Dusk '82 (demake) is not Dusk 2, etc. Icewind Dale & Neverwinter Nights are not Baldur's Gate 3-4. Plenty of games devs who understand this get it right. It's only the ones floundering under the modern trend of calling 100x different games the same name out of lack of creativity / marketing laziness that seem to have the "identity crisis in reviews" issues...

First of all "their precious" makes it sound more like you have an intrinsic bias against people who play older games. Secondly, a 30 year old game like Doom that's been patched has usually had basic stuff like widescreen support, mouselook or modern DirectX renderer added. Someone making a new FPS today without those things would still be downvoted for being more backward vs 30 year old games. So they aren't judged the same because they aren't starting from the same position.

Likewise, take games like the Divinity Original Sin's. They typically need a dozen patches then an Enhanced Edition then another few patches before the game is finished. It may be "unfair" for you to read a review written on release day to comment on a bug that later gets removed, but literally no reviewer on the planet is going to replay the game 18x times in 18x months then go back and rewrite their review 18x times based on 18x patch changelogs just to make you happy that reviews read 3 years later are 100.0000% accurate and not 99.9998% accurate.

So you ultimately seem to be arguing that no-one should leave any negative review for the first 18x months of a game's lifespan just in case a patch changes something (which affects positive reviews too, eg, a patch that introduces unwanted gameplay changes) if it even references an older game in the same series even once. And telling game reviewers "it's their fault" for not waiting until a game is fully patched before reviewing it whilst the publishers aggressively push pre-orders 2-3 years in advance of that moment is not a particularly honest stance when it comes to actually pinning the "buggy games get downvoted" blame where it lies - squarely on the developers / publishers who could have given the game extra time in development, but chose to rush it out the door and naively expect reviews to still be "a shower of roses"...