I don't normally jump on the bandwagon to bash a review, but you didn't even mention ranged artillery units. That is a HUGE change from previous civ games.

I've been playing this series since CivII and I think this is a really great game. There are enough changes that civ vets will have to relearn the fine points of the game in order to win, but not so different that I couldn't just jump in an start playing.

I picked this up for $2.99 on Opening Day from Gamestop.com. For that much, it's totally been worth it. I don't know if I would spend $29.99, but it's a pretty fun game. I played one game just to learn how to play, skipped the franchise mode and jumped right into My Player. After reading some reviews I heard that position players were pretty boring, so I went with a pitcher and I haven't been disappointed. It's a tad easy on Pro (the default setting), so I would suggest ramping up the difficulty once you learn the pitches. My one knock is that the game refuses to recognize the motion for a splitter, so I'm stuck with a wasted pitch that I can't throw for crap.

Agreed. By the author's admission this sequel is the same game with lizards and dresses, and they can't recommend that anyone buy the game since it is so similar to the original. Even if it is an awesome game, as a sequel this should get a 7, maybe an 8, just for being too similar to the first game.

Oh come on Zombie, stop exaggerating. He wrote 4 sentences. Are we correlating the length of the review to the length of the game now?

Not to beat a dead horse, but I would like to point out that Metacritic shows no other review so far (16 others) got below an 80 (http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/dawnofdiscovery). I'm pleased to see that the comments for this same review posted on computerandvideogames.com are equally scathing.

Almost every other industry in the world has some form of Quality Control or Quality Assurance. GamesRadar, I realize you just post whatever PC Gamer UK sends your way, but maybe you need to start reading some of the shit they are submitting in order to keep this trash off your website.

In response to zayleffein:

Not sure who's at fault, but Gamesradar is having some serious issues with timely reviews. I read a review the other day for a game that had been released almost a year earlier...

Worst. Review. Ever. Seriously Chris Buxton, quit your job. I really hope that you're a pre-frosh intern or something, because if PC Gamer UK is actually PAYING you to write this trash they are getting ripped off. If I performed work at my job at this quality I would never have lasted a week.

I haven't played this game, but I played 1602 AD (Anno 1602 in Europe) extensively, and I learned all of the things you were complaining about in the TUTORIAL (check it out, sometimes they help!). Seriously, that was the first game in this series, and you're missing fundamental gameplay points in the FOURTH. Now I know full well that you shouldn't need to have played an earlier version of a game in order to know how the play the sequals, but seriously you treat this as if it's some trash title by a crap Eastern European developer. In reality it's a highly popular series with a huge following around the world. Do your god damn homework and learn how to write a game review. To put it in terms that any gamer can understand, this review makes you look like a total NOOB.

Way to review a game a full year after it was released. This game isn't bad, not mind blowing either. I got it on Steam in a bundle with 4 other games for $10 total, so don't waste your money paying full price.