(ouch, ton of new posts while I was typing this.)
Can't call that a review really, considering the lack of time spent on playing the game. It's simply a person saying they didn't fancy spending time on looking deeper into it. But that in itself is a statement, and a statistic, and it's always worth something in the long run.
That's actually what could've happened to me too. It took me near 10 hours before I felt I actually liked playing the game. Until then it was a battle between "This might not be worth investing more time into" and "it may be fun if I give it some more time". I'm glad I picked the latter approach, but it could've really gone either way depending on what kind of day I was having, how much time I had to spend on the very first session(s), etc. Plus I'm sure I wouldn't have found it nearly as tempting to learn the game without having read some of Chris's articles on the AI, and some reviews and statements. Some people don't have the time or attention span to read that much though. Those people want to discover those things by actually playing the game. And if they don't know the game could be much more awesome if played longer, then the complexity may prevent them from reaching that point. These are not 'lost causes', they're just people that need a little more help to get past the first steps, after which they could be just as enthusiastic fans as anyone here.
So I think the person has a point about the accessibility. It does not break the game for those who can find the time and interest to explore deeper, but it just may prevent some potential fans actually finding a way into the game, because of its initial complexity. Yes, there are options to play an easier or more limited game, but that's the first step of confusing players about how they should play the game. It can be a blessing to some, but many will find that just too overwhelming to even try properly.
I'm not sure if much can be done with these things though, but they're valid concerns, I think. If they can be addressed without affecting the gameplay significantly for those who like the game as it is... then those changes may very well be worth pursuing at some point.
In regards to the 'review', it seems like the 'reviewer' was playing with too easy AI's, and based their feelings on that. The first game I played was difficult enough that my concern wasn't that the game could be boring (only repetitive at most). It was that it could be too hard, right from the start of the game. I had my hands full with keeping just basic waves under control. 'Hard game' is a better first impression than 'Boring game', I think, because then the player knows they can drop the difficulty and retry. If they started out with a boring game, they might not even bother trying a higher difficulty, because they already 'succeeded' in a campaign, which turned out a 'boring' experience. So, what I guess I'm trying to say is, it may be better to encourage new players to try harder AI's initially, to prevent them from playing a 'boring' game as their first game. Just make them get their butts kicked and tell them to try an easier AI after that. It's more motivational than outright implying they should try difficulty 1 or 2 in their first game if they're inexperienced or somesuch, I think. Besides, higher difficulties are where the AI shines, and that's what AI War is often marketed with. Let the player REALLY experience it and be challenged by it.
Then again, getting your ass kicked may be an overwhelming experience, so it kinda contradicts with the need to make things more accessible. Problematic.
Anyways, these are not concerns for me. I'm happy with what I have.
