It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
So I was reading some user review on metacritic, and I basically relearned why user reviews are generally completely unreliable. I know that GW2 has some flaws...but just look at some of these quotes from negative reviews:
"Unfortunately this is about the same as Guild Wars 1 so not exactly sequel-worthy." 2/10
"The overflow system is a disgrace. PvE is ripped from Warhammer," 2/10
"It's supposed to be the second coming of Jesus Christ in gaming history. Instead we are left with a game, that tries to do innovative stuff, but unfortunately fail miserably. Once you're past all that shine and glimmer, you'll see the game for what it is: A good RPG. Nothing more, nothing less." 3/10 (a good RPG gets 3/10...really?)
"Mediocer graphics, buggy gameplay, server congestion, how can you seriously give this piece of cr** a good grade?" 0/10
"10/10 ? no game is worth 10/10 unless you're a fanboi, specially one with so many basic problems.. It's tries so much, taking the best bits of other games and molding them together but only manages to totally drop the ball. Same old generic fantasy world thats been seen countless times, cutesy WoWlite graphic's that while not bad scream childish." 0/10
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?