can you say, told you so? hehehe check out this link peepz
http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3181540&p=1
That probably depends what you told us. Because the review is thoughtful, balanced and supports nothing in either your title or your post, while you rant about random unconnected things that aren't so much as mentioned in it, such as sales.
Including this civ 5, it was either dumbed down intentionally to increase the fan base
How do you possibly derive this from a review which lauds the more developed tactical combat system and the greater potential for diplomacy allowed by the city state mechanic? If anything the reviewer oversells the strategic and tactical decision-making required by this game in comparison to its predecessors. He even points specifically to aspects that are more realistic than in previous Civ games, which as any Civ V gamer can tell you, are few and far between.
Did you read the review or just notice that "fall of Civilization V" was in the title? He praises the game design very highly, he just feels the AI and opaque diplomacy let it down - exactly the feeling (minus the praise) of many here. And he doesn't like the fact that social policies are permanent - again, another common complaint, but not one fatal to the game (even in his opinion, where he describes the AI and diplomacy as the serious issues). I'm really not sure how "good game design that has serious flaws, including an AI that isn't up to the task of playing a game more complex than its predecessors" equates to describing the game as "intentionally dumbed down".