The launch had issues, no doubt. Many of those issues have been fixed or improved with last night/this morning's patch. To me, with the new patches, it's going very good.
It does seem that there is a definite bias from the gaming "press." Case in point, Empire: Total War. It was a buggy mess; far worse than ANY buggy mess I've ever played. Six months after release, the game still wouldn't load at all. And from the forums, a lot of people had these problems. Where was PC Gamer's warning then? In fact, what gaming mag/site gave any poor reviews to Empire at all? In fact, PC Gamer UK gave it 94. 94!!!!! For a game that couldn't run, at all, on some PCs; even those who could run it still had a broken mess. Yet, http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/942966-empire-total-war/index.html
At the same exact time, Demigod came out - a game with far fewer bugs, from an indie developer. Many of the reviews I read cited how much fun it was, but attributed low scores due to release week issues. http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/944424-demigod/index.html
It simply seems the "press" holds indie companies to MUCH higher standards than mainstream companies.
Today's Day-0 patched release runs great (for me). It feels a lot like GalCiv. It's not perfect; it has bugs. But it's certainly not worthy of the aforementioned post.
And as for "Ben," well, the customer is not always right. Sometimes the customer is a douchebag, and sometimes it's Ok to let the customer know that the customer is a douchebag and that said douchebag should *bleep* off.
But to be fair, the PC Game "press" is a joke, and has been for years. Holding them up to ANY manner of professionalism is to hold them to a standard far beyond their capacity. It just boggles my mind that so many reviewers, who are supposedly looking out for game buyers, praised Empire:TW so highly.