It's weird that so many of the people that don't like Civ 5 find it so hard to believe that many others do in fact like it.
I don't find it hard to believe that others like it. There are parts of it that are decent, even approaching "pretty good."
What I have a hard time believing is the objectivity of an award from a portal with
direct ties to the publisher, and that it genuinely thinks it's better than any other PC game out there from 2010. There is a big difference between "I like this game" and "This is the best thing that came out for PC all year!"
I think it's pretty clear that the "award" was given to be a face saving "buffer" (something they can point to later as 'proof' that it wasn't THAT bad an idea) for what I'm guessing is disappointing numbers. Of course I can't prove it, but given the facts it certainly seems possible.