The game is not horrible, and it's not as bad as people and some reviewers (because others graded it with 6+, an "average" game) make it seem.
Good matchmaking, good gunplay, good characters, lots of zombies and action, good multiplayer modes, overall a good game. I was forced to restart due to AI being stuck once, in about 3 hours of gameplay. I never had any problems with it that far. Multiplayer is great and feels balanced, but that's not to say it's completely fine; I want a solution to the melee-lock, and I'll enjoy it a whole lot more. Patch the game soon, and fans' word of mouth will make potential customers forget about those horrible, unprofessional reviews (looking at IGN; they copy-pasted a preview to make up half of the review, and the reviewer doesn't even explain anything). She said that the "Hunters just stood in front of her like braindead" in short; I'd love to play her game, because in my game, the Hunters always chase me, knock me down and are generally trouble.
This far, I'm very satisfied with my purchase, and I'm having a lot of fun with the game. No reviewer will ruin how much fun I have with the game, and it ****es me off when they treat games like crap and drop all kinds of comparison just to make it look like ****. It got almost the same score as Duke Nukem Forever, which was cited as: a last-gen looking title, a buggy, unplayable mess, no improvements, boring and unrewarding MP, and a lot of other negative stuff. They want to tell me that it's on the same level as RE:ORC? And I don't fall for the "different reviewer" excuse; either make reviewer-exclusive scales, or drop them altogether. I refuse to think DNF is on the same level as RE:ORC, simply because it's a lie. Maybe made up to attract page hits through controversy? Sure, that's plausible. But subjectively speaking, they're not even remotely close.