Except that Civ IV wasn't a "prisoner of the past," as the reviewer asserts. It added many things to the mix, whether you liked them, or not. I get no impression that the "reviewer" ever even played the earlier titles in the series. And stuffing as many vague, PR-based generalities into one sentence, such as this:
"...retain the most treasured core of the game..."
"...cut everything else out..."
"...and replace it with stuff that works faster and makes more sense."
Well, it doesn't give me a very good impression of the writer. Anybody can say "Hey, they kept all the best things, removed all that garbage I didn't like, but can't name, and filled it full of stuff that's fantastic, because I say so, and it runs better, too, whatever your system may think." With due respect to that reviewer, it takes someone who has time, patience, and logic at their disposal to state, "I didn't like A, B, and C in previous Civs, for the reasons of D, E, and F. Those are gone from Civ 5. Others may differ in their approach from me; and if you enjoyed those features, you may want to stick with Civ 4. Otherwise, let's discuss in detail not simply features, but also implementation, interface, AI (which is very buggy at the moment), advisors, combat, etc."
There's none of that is this so-called review. It makes plenty of sweeping assertions, and supplies no support. I'd honestly rather read a review by somebody who disagreed with me over a product but did so in a way that showed a keen critical mind, than somebody who agreed 100% with me and turned out a criticism like this.
