I'm not so sure that the CVG reviewer actually said that GC2 is a rip-off of Civ4, more that there were quite a few similarities, and that you could "draw a line" from the features of one to the other. He does say that both games draw from the same source material. I don't think anyone could argue with that. Taking this into consideration, it's not an easy argument to suggest that GC2 is terribly original. At the very least, it's a sequel to GC1.
The strength and the weakness of GC2 is in the level of refinement in the gameplay. The same goes for Civ4. The CVG reviewer was trying to say that, I think, but got too wrapped up in trying to sound clever (I found the "silky wormhole" bit disturbing and homophobic). The weakness is that this type of game more or less does the same basic thing over and over again: conquer or be killed. If this isn't appealing to a user, then the game isn't all that much fun. After a while, I know I get tired of making the same choices in these games, so then it's time to move on to Flight Simulator, or Out Of The Park Baseball, or The Sims, where the game mechanics are different. I'd say that's all part of human nature.
I am confident that Stardock is keen to analyze why users would not like their game, and would strive to make adjustments and improvements to please as many of us as possible. I think that some low marks are a healthy sign, but the trouble is, if the low marks come from a dubious source, then there isn't much value to the marks in the first place. The same would apply for rediculously high marks coming from someone who knwos nothing about gaming.. The data is not robust, as the statisticians would say.
Some how, I think Stardock will soldier on, as long as we keep sending money to them.
