Originally Posted by darklordjames
"Metacritic scores don't really matter to me as I remember Game Informer"
That's kind of the point of Metacritic. It makes it so a single stupid review doesn't destroy the general consensus.
Also, if your "co-op grrr!" theory held any water, then it would also hold true for Dead Space 2's throw-away competitive multiplayer. It didn't though. No, DS3 is simply a lower quality product than the previous two titles. If you like it? Hey, great! More power to you. The general feeling though is that it has skewed heavily away from it's horror roots and more toward the COD set pieces that we all became bored with two years ago. It's a game without direction, without soul, and infected with F2P mechanics. It's the Forza Horizon of third person shooters.
If you liked the prior games then I really think you'll get mileage from this one as well. I've read the reviews and based on what I've seen so far, the negative comments I've come across sound more like people looking for something to complain about than actual valid complaints. For example, the Kotaku review praises the first two games then complains that there are so many fetch quests and that Issac is constantly being told what to do and sent here and there; the problem with that is that the prior games (especially DS1) did exactly the same thing, sending Clarke on one errand after another to advance the story.
Despite what the reviews say, the classic DS elements are all there: creepy monsters, dark rooms to explore, dismemberments, kinesis and stasis, and so on. Also the story seems to logically flow from what we've already seen, with the Unitologists having become a even bigger threat.
As someone who has actually bought and played the game I'd urge you to form your own conclusions and not go by the musings of a few reviewers who (a) aren't as familiar with the series as they claim to be or (b) are just looking for something to complain about.