You guys say reviewers are just trying to stick it to the game, but it really isn't doing that much worse than the first game when things are all averaged out. 69 meta for the first, 66 for the second. Viper has mentioned that his site will probably score it lower because of different reviewers between the two games (something I'm sure happens in a lot of sites) and Flagstaad mentioned that even though he finds the game better in almost every way he could still see giving it a lower score. So it sounds like both of your opinions of the game fit perfectly within the difference in the meta score.
I agree that going from a 7-8 for the first game and down to a 4-5 for the second is silly, but I haven't seen any instance of that. Some sites are going markedly lower but that's probably differences in the review writer again and the new writer feels the first game was overrated by his/her site.
I'm just really not seeing the horrible injustice being brought on this game as far as reviewers go, a mediocre game is being ratted mediocre. Fans will bitch and moan because they think it should get a much higher score but they always do.
...
