I think it could've done a better job of not giving the impression that it had a solid single player campaign.  Read the box...

"A God Has Fallen.  You Must Fight To Take His Place."

That does hint at a single player component.  If I read the box without any previous knowledge of the game I would assume there was some single player because of that.

I also think that a tutorial would've been beneficial, because the game has a lot of intricacies that take a bit to make themselves known to the player.  The manual doesn't do the best job of covering all of these matters either.

Given the incredibly cool rendered promotional video that was released before, you can probably excuse people for being a bit disapointed that there isn't any cutscenes of that calibur, even the promotional footage itself, in the actual game.

Lack of a solid single player campaign I can forgive, as its a multiplayer focused game.  A tutorial would have been handy though.  I don't need one, but I can see why people would like it.  Some people enjoy the trial and error method of getting into a game, but there's definately value to being told what the key game features are and how they work.  It wouldn't have to be much, just a skirmish against an easy AI with tooltips to direct the player to what they're supposed to be doing would be more than sufficient.  It would be easy for some key features to be missed if you weren't told about them or looking for them. Idols, artifacts, flag values, citadel upgrades, equipment, war rank, common hotkeys, etc are things that one could potentially overlook if they just jump right into the game without having any prior understanding.

What's wrong with creating an incredibly playable, fun game?

What makes a game nowadays?

Take Sins and Demigod as examples - a game created without all the gloss packaging and reviewer friendly 'items' that increase review points.

Would you prefer the core game, the bit you're going to be playing over and over and over is all there and completely enjoyable? Or would you prefer it was half as good because a smaller developer has instead allocated their time to creating cutscenes you'd watch once, a tutorial you may or may not even play, and a brief single player campaign you'd likely play - either completely or half of. When the multiplayer main side of the game you're clocking hours and hours in and keep going back to?

WHY do games HAVE to have all the one-off BS to make it a decent game? Why cant it just be the meat of the game without all the bells n whistles people feel compelled to need?

*edit - I do think a game of this nature DOES require a tutorial of some sort as it really is a step away from other titles and can be difficult to newcomers to pick up - but beyond that - reviewers should be focusing on the GAME part of the game, not the bs that they think is mandatory - ie cutscenes.