The fact that he didn't even mention the unlockables in his review, is part of what makes it a poor review imo.

The ammunition, and resources are solved heavily by upping the difficulty where it says in game "ammunition, health and resources are more scarce".

However, I think his opinion wouldn't change much. He just only played co-op (or at best didn't describe the difference between co-op and solo), and didn't tinker with difficulty or modes. Which imo makes it a poor incomplete review.  His score and analysis of what he played is fine and likely wouldn't change after he delved into the pluses and minuses of the other modes. But he should delved into those things as a "professional" review.

Yeah as with all dead space, you get casual, easy, hard, impossible, and can change them at any time. 

You don't get, Survival, Hardcore, Retro, or Classic modes. They have to be unlocked unfortunately.

I love how the mentality of the internet is "if it's a score I disagree with, DEATH TO INFIDELS!"

if I spent the entire review praising it, THEN gave it a 5, then I could see your complaints as being valid, but I spent almost 2000 words explaining in detail why I felt the game was terrible.

The story is ludicrous, the characters unlikeable and dumb.
The game couldn't decide what genre it was trying to be, so it was an action game with horror controls and limitations
It was glitchy as can be, freezing multiple times and giving me a tonne of issues.
The level and enemy design was terrible (something I didn't get into on the review). seriously, vents in a glacier?!

Graphics and audio were okay.
Co Op was okay but clearly shoehorned in

Good divergent paths later in the game.
Good crafting system.

So, 3 bad, 2 neutral, 2 good.

I fail to see how that's any more than a 5. If you liked the story, then fine, don't harass me for finding it poorly written nonsense. If you were okay with the sluggish controls, good on you for patience. I see no reason why a game with such a huge budget can get away with having shoddy controls that can't reasonably keep up with the action going on. If you were okay with the stupid, repetitive, boring, uninteresting puzzles, good on you. I thought they were pointless and served only to make the game seem deeper than it really was. If you liked the setting and the characters, well, it's people like you that make Transformers an uber blockbuster.

A Bad game or movie can be enjoyable to the right audience. I AM that audience, but I still felt it was a huge disappointment. IT was not a good game. even the two superfans I'd consulted during the writing of the review agreed. One liked it and still felt it didn't deserved more than a 6, the other hated it and felt I was generous giving it a 5.

Stop assuming that just because I gave a game a bad score that I have a vendetta or I'm digging for hits. Frankly, my unenjoyment of the game and the delay in shipping meant it was long past that sweet spot where I could expect to make a tonne of hits off it. That said, I am not the type to give a game a 7 or 8 just so people like you won't harass me over giving it the mediocre score it deserved. I played it, I was analyzing its every aspect as I played, I weighed those factors, and I came to a score. You don't need to agree, but getting aggressive because someone gave a game you bought and don't want to admit sucks a bad score makes you look and sound like a petulant child throwing a tantrum.

So, let's get this straight: every game needs to be reviewed by someone who will like it?

If that's what you're getting at, you're the reason game scores are inflated and game journalism is so hotly criticized. And for the record, learn to spell and use proper grammar before criticizing someone else's writing.

Sorry wasn't trying to make you mad.  Maybe it's just this site, I just see it all the time. I'm only giving my opinion. I could be completely wrong. 

Thank you. I think people forget he is suppost to be a professional. Not some random blogger. He is suppost to be a professional and rate on a guideline, not just slam through the game. Not tinker with anything and than complain about problems he created himself.

What I have always found interesting is that people like to bag on Resident evil for going away from it's roots but never give it credit for how long it maintained what is this now Dead Space 3 they didn't last very long before they ran off the rails.

Your a professional. The problems you had you created your self. Point being, you where not thorough with your review. You played Co-op on normal. When is any game played Co-op on normal hard? it's not. You didn't bring up the games strong points. You say the enemies where to fast, yet you got stasis that slows them down. To me it's like you didn't even play the game or you just barely played it and let your little brother fill you in.

If you gave it a 7 or so. I would have not disagreed but your reasons are that of a non-professional. You need some college classes on being thorough and not letting your biased point of view over take your responsibility to present your facts logically.

The whole point that you created your problems is horrible. You did it, not the game. So thats why it's a horrible review. If I was vgchartz I would never let you review again.  Seems you might of only played a hour of the game and than bashed it.

hmmm...looks like you have the most negative attitude in this thread.

He did admit to having taken advice on 2 people who were actually fans of the first 2 games and asked what they thought, 50% of them didn't like it, ergo 5/10

Also, this is why I think number ratings are more harm than good.