Honest question:  are we supposed to take you seriously? You've got a trollface for an avatar and you're spewing some of the poorest contrived criticism of a review I've ever seen.  I'm not even kidding when I say that your antics are a laugh-riot for sane people.  A forum freakshow.  

Are you really criticizing me becuase I didn't play the game on all difficulties?  Is this a thing now?  Many reviwers don't even finish games before forming an opinion on them and writing their reviews, a pitfal we don't succumb to because there's a very clear rule stating we have to beat it.  

Nowhere have I said I didn't play singleplayer.  I said I played co-op, not that I ONLY played Co Op.  A subtle but very important choice of words.  As someone who apparently thinks I'm a terrible writer, you have a rather poor grasp of the language. The singleplayer is virtually identical to co-op, sans the madness of Carver missions and some slight differences in puzzles. 

Overall you're making a lot of baseless accusations concerning my motive and mindset.  You really don't understand the concept of someone not sharing your opinion, do you?  Have we really created a world where ANY review that gets less than an 8 means I'm some talentless hack?  I gave this game a 5.0 (which on a REAL scale is simply mediocre), and people act like I've personally come to their house to piss on their cornflakes, or was singlehandedly responsible for getting their favorite game ever cancelled.  I gave Final Fantasy XIII-2 a 5.4 and I was crucified.  hell, I gave Duke Nukem forever a score near its metacritic rating and, despite it being universally loathed from every angle, I was still assaulted with hatred and claims of being a hack. 

You do all realize how absolutely pathetic that is, right?  you DO realize that this is WHY game journalism is considered terrible.  Your nonsensical, baseless rants and assaults are causing more and more reviewers to try avoid any score under an 8 for fear that you fools will try to make him look bad.  

Newsflash:  your game sucks.  So you bought it and you can handle how terrible it is, I will not, and I'll not pretend that it's okay just because some whiny brats on the internet might be bothered that I find a crappy game to be the pile of shit it is.  

If you actually READ the review, rather than just jumped to the conclusion and score, you'd see that I praised it for what features I felt it did well, and criticized it for being a shitty, glitch-filled game.  For the people who say they read he review and claimed it should have been a 7 or 8, I laugh so very hard at your absolute lack of reading comprehension.  Just wow.  

Votes are against you and is this your second account?

Well thanks for clearing that up for me.

I haven't been to the site in a while but I just couldn't understand the review. So I wanted to get some votes and stress my opinion and now I'm being attacked by the reviewer. Strange..........

How do you know????? ; P

Insulting my reading skills and people who oppose you won't get you anywhere in this business.

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.

Ummmm....you say a 5 is mediocre and then say the game sucks and is a shitty, glitch-filled game....you have a weird definition of mediocre. Needless to say, I don't think anyone reading that review feels you think the game is mediocre. If you feel its mediocre, you didn't communicate it very well.For instance, the conclusion.

"I'd love to pretend I'm just some nitpicking hack who doesn't like change in a series, but I'm the guy who felt Resident Evils 4 and 5 were better than 1-3, because at least they knew they were silly and functioned as good action games. There are some great ideas on show, such as item crafting, weapon creation, and the ethereal co-op story segments, but there are just too many false steps and wrong turns that make this by far the worst entry in the series. Its schizophrenic inability to choose which genre it really wants to be means it fails at both. I can't recommend Dead Space 3 to anyone, really; our medium deserves better than this."

As I said, if 5.0 is mediocre in your book, you need to use some better language to communicate that point.

I'm not insulting your reading skills, I'm criticizing your reading comprehension.  you have a nasty habit of making assumptions, accusations, and in some cases just making things up. 

I also want to know WHY you are so insistent on forcing me to play all difficulty modes.  My issue wasn't with the difficulty, my issue was with the games disconnect from its genre to its gameplay mechanics.  It doesn't matter what difficulty the game is on, those issues will still be there.  the weapon crafting is still easy as hell to abuse, the controls are, for an action game, still slow and sluggish, there's still so much in the way of ammo and health that you might as well have infinite both. It doesn't matter if you're on different modes or difficulties, those issues still persist.  Co Op, singleplayer, it doesn't matter.  it'll make the enemies harder or give you fewer crafting options or limit health and ammo drops, but you'll still be fighting against monsters that move too damn fast to properly eviscerate.  It's still a game where aiming in the general direction and hoping the enemy dies before you run out of ammo is about as deep as it gets.  

After having done this review, gotten a bunch of flack from people like you, and asking FANS of the game for clarification to ensure I didn't miss anything, I've only gotten stronger in my resolve that I'm not wrong.  My analysis of the game is that it messes up in key areas, excels in others, but is mostly mediocre.  therefore I give it a mediocre score.  I've said it before, I'll say it again:  you might be okay with shallow, porrly written games like this, but I am not.  I want depth.  I want originality.  I want fluidity.  I want a game with a well told story and deep characters. I want a game with tight controls.  I want a game that has enemies that are fun to kill.  I want a game where I feel awesome and badass and strong.  I want a game where above all else I'm having fun. 

When two thirds of my time in a game is dedicated to replaying some event becuase I got killed by something I didn't hear, or a hazard I didn't know was a hazard, or swearing at the game, or cursing at the bland, predictable plot twist, or getting frustrated at the enemies rather than the maddening glee that comes from sawing something in half in Gears of War, I'm not having a good time.  If I'm not having a good time, I can't in good conscience give it anything more than a 5.  When the only outstanding or otherwise good things about the game are a plot point thet can only be unlocked in a certain mode and a weapon crafting system that kinda destroys what made the original so good, I can't give it a good score. 

I did love the crafting system and Carver's madness, but I thought the graphics and art design were boring and uninspired. I felt the voice acting was okay, but nothing special.  the music and score were no better.  The controls were sluggish for an action game, the story was poorly told (though detailed if you watch the movies and read the books and take note of ALL the datalogs and audiologs in-game), and the disconnect between gameplay and story was way too wide to not facepalm every five minutes.  

Even my friend that played co op with me, who liked the game, cried foul just as often as I did.  My brother laughed, telling me it was hilarious to hear me yelling at the game for some stupid plot point or cheesy dialogue or cheap death.  

So tell me, based on that analysis, how is a 5 uncalled for?  Based on my experiences with the game, why in the world would I give this a 7 or an 8?  a 7 is a good game, an 8 is great.  This is not a great game.  It's a schizophrenic mess, as much as Carver's mind.  I can't claim it does very much well or even adequately.  it would be dishonest and terrible game review had I given it an 8.  

And no, my emotions are not what's driving me to give the game a 'harsh' score.  I enjoyed the first, but I'm not attached to it.  my criticisms come from a game design perspective as well as a writeer's perspective.