The review is pretty long and has numerous complaints... pretty much none of which were seen as problems as the time. There are a lot of perspectives from whic

The review is pretty long and has numerous complaints... pretty much none of which were seen as problems as the time. There are a lot of perspectives from which to judge a work from the past, especially a video game, where so, so much has changed since then. But this review doesn't seem to have a coherent perspective, other than the reviewer just personally didn't like it. (That's fine, BTW, we all have our opinions, but that doesn't make a review.) Was too much money spent on the game? Or were the production values too low? The review paradoxically complains about both. There's a half-hearted attempt to resolve that by suggesting some kind of uncanny valley problem, but no one ever thought that at the time... it's the authors now personal valley, apparently. (Perhaps the author is mixing in some modern expectations about video game production values into this, which makes no sense, of course). Also, I wonder if the reviewer is really considering the medium as it was. This game was designed to be played on 14-15" lo-res CRTs and play video off low-speed CD-ROM drives. It's pure nonsense to compare this even to movies of the day. The set detail had to be simple, to register at all. Even if you were so up-to-date you had a DVD drive and could play the higher-quality version of the cuts scenes, does it really make sense to complain the sets designed for that medium looked "plastic"? They looked great back then. There are many complaints about the writing of the cutscenes. I won't defend it as great art, but... it's a sci-fi adventure. There are supposed to be campy, punchy lines. This isn't the place for the deep treatment of serious themes or subtle character development, or nuanced story-telling. It's just baffling to me to judge this game because of what it was never meant to be, could never have been, and definitely never should have been. (From my perspective, WC IV was somewhat worse than III... it was too expensive, too short, and really needed a more powerful PC than I had at the time, so it didn't play that great. I think I remember there was one mission that was way too hard too, though maybe I wasn't approaching it the right way.)