This one is a more positive:

https://www.pcgamesn.com/galactic-civilizations-4/review 

Yeah, seems a bit harsh. I haven't played the early access a lot, but it doesn't seem that bad. 

Well, the author literally says on the third line "it is not a disaster". More importantly, where is the review wrong? I found myself nodding through the whole thing. Some of the UI issues go away with more play, that doesn't change the verdict:

After completing a few campaigns I’m left struggling to find reasons to come back to Galactic Civilizations IV. What few new ideas it brings to the space 4X genre prove to be poorly implemented and ultimately uninteresting, with promising features like Sectors and Galactic Challenges missing the mark and feeling unfinished. Every option and playstyle inevitably blurs together into a galaxy-spanning land grab, and without flavorful writing to back it up the tedious nature of that and its whack-a-mole warfare mean I’ll probably forget I played GalCiv IV by year’s end. Other 4X games have solved these problems more effectively, and with more flair and identity. This leaves Galactic Civilizations IV feeling barren, hollow, and in desperate need of a balance and polish pass – which, to be fair, Stardock has a respectable history of doing with its games after launch. In its current condition it’s not particularly good or bad; it’s just boring, soulless, and not up to par with other recent games in its style.

What does he get wrong? Be specific.

I think a 5 rating (just below Humankind's 6) is perfectly fair given the current state of the game.

I think there is fair criticism in this article, but I dislike how he tends to focus on the worse parts of Gal Civ 4.

My first issue is that he's comparing it to Stellaris which has had multiple years of development, expansions, and time to sort out the bugs.  Stellaris has had it's fair share of issues that have been reworked and polished.  GC4 is just entering the first phase of it's hopefully long life.

Any 4X game is going to feel similar to what he's describing.  Balancing tall and wide is not something that is easy to do.  At the end of the day, more resources in the form of land or planets will clearly give an edge unless you punish the player for owning too much.

Hundreds of icons are normal for 4X games 

He acts like Gal Civ hasn't brought anything new to the table, but they've made some major changes to the way the game works.

Sectors can be blockaded even though it is difficult and expensive.  While they need some more work in the form of more options, they are a big change from GC3.

Colonies was a great idea.  Managing every single planet in GC3 was tedious.  Also the way sieges work is so much better!  Legions were my most hated system in GC3.  I don't know why he's complaining about this.

The battle viewer is something we asked for and they put back in.  It needs some work, but overall I don't fault them for it considering it was a last minute addition.

The prestige meter again needs work, but it really is a great addition if you don't want to fight to the bitter end.  I play until I crush the last of of resistance and then I start a new game.  Just because I've never finished a game doesn't mean I didn't have a blast playing.

The only criticism I really share is the whack a mole part.  Single file ships are a pain to deal with.  If that gets reworked, then I would give the gameplay a 10/10 compared to GC3.

There are plenty of great things they could do to make it even better, but for now I think they've done plenty. 

Because of the Gal Civ ‘open space’ map it plays completely differently to the ‘join the dot’ star sector gameplay of ES2 and to a slightly lesser extent Stellaris - as a result it is almost unfair to put them up against each other. 

Personally I always enjoyed Gal Civ more open approach to space gameplay (space is quite open after all), whereas ES2 and Stellaris feel more restrictive in terms of movement than even a terrestrial 4x like Civ, which is quite ridiculous. 

The IGN author admits that Stellaris and ES2 are his recent gold standards, and he also admits to never been a big fan of any of the Gal Civ games, so for me personally his opinion of Gal Civ 4 is irrelevant. 

If you are an actual fan of any of the past Gal Civ games then you are much more likely to enjoy Gal Civ 4 than this guy ever was. 

Even if one agreed with what you wrote (which I don’t), it wouldn’t justify a 5 out of 10 in IGN.  We can quibble about whether the game should have more map configuration options or whether the combat should have some different mechanic, these are, speaking as someone who’s been doing this for 30 years, debates that argue between a 75 and 80.

That particular reviewer just doesn’t like GalCiv games. I only know that because he literally says so. He wanted a narrative, story rich game with strategic elements. If you watch the video review it’s pretty obvious.  

Even if we addressed every single thing you brought up, it wouldn’t have moved the needle in that review as the video review makes clear.  It’s not as if making custom factions fancier (which he didn’t even try) would have made him give it a 9.

The overwhelming consensus. Even in the IGN review, is that gc4 is better than gc3. And it is. But someone who didn’t even like GalCiv II is not going to like GC4. Which is fine. 

So far, the game has received mostly positive reviews with this one outlier.

I think the reviewer had many valid observations. There's a severe lack of events, The cultural traits really are something you just pick to get the best benefits, not something that really reflects your philosophy. The AI does seem to prioritize colonizing planets near you rather than in its own sector (which could arguably make sense, but it's annoying to play against). The races aren't balanced (though again, this might not be a bad thing)

However, despite the problems, it's a very fun game. Much more fun than 3

I think it needed another 3 months or so in the oven, but I guess there were reasons to ship it. By the time the inevitable Steam release rolls around, I'm sure its potential will be more fully realized.

You dont want this game on Steam homie.. believe me.  Cause it'd be getting trashed up and down right now. 

There is SOOOO Much that is just plain idiotic and wrong with this game that nobody in their right mind can tell me Im wrong unless they are some rabid fanboi.

Just a few examples....

Military Starbases are 100% worthless in every.  single.  Possible.  Way.  They server absolutely ZERO purpose.  none.  If you ACTUALLY waste resources on a Military Starbase.. you are clinically braindead.

Why is the tiny hull ship destroying and taking over my planets again?  Its got TWO people in it.. a whole PLANET surrenders?  Nope.

Why are enemy ships able to blow right by me without so much as slowing down?  Im sitting ON the exit for the stream..  what good is defense? 

3 weapon types?  Thats nice..  they're all the same.  Missles seem to have the advantage ONLY because they can bombard outside of combat....  there is no other difference between them.   None.  Defenses arent even relevant.. (as the reviewer points out... they have NO effect on the combat results.  None.)

UI is hands down one of the most ridiculously bad things I have ever encountered in a 4x game.  GalCiv2 had a better UI FFS.

The Yor are completely and utterly broken beyond belief.  I didnt believe the IGN guy when I read it.. i thought he was just a bad player... then I played them.. my GOD..

I have seen (many many MANY times) the AI ignore a level 22 planet 10 feet from their homeworld... so they can drive a colony ship ALLLLLLLLLLL the way to the opposite end of the sector next to me.. and colonize a level 2 planet.   The AI is dumber than doodoo. 

Twice now... to me.. By turn 50..  several of the factions will have MASSIVE amounts of money.  Its ludicrous.  I saw one faction in the trade window.. on turn 47.. had 63,000 credits.  TURN 47!!!!  His empire score was over 5,000..  it wasnt even turn 50!!!

....

Believe me.. like I said... there is SO SOooooo much wrong with this game.  They arent fixing this dumpster fire in a patch or 2.  These are game design decisions at the core level that were horribly HORRIBLY made and implemented. 

Be VERY grateful this game isnt on Steam.

Agree with those who think the game was released a little bit too early ... although I disagree with the 5/10 IGN rating .... 5/10 is completely unplayable ... Galciv4 is definitely not unplayable!

Galciv4 is fun and engaging ... there is plenty to explore and do ... and it has added some "intrigue and flavour" that Galciv3 lacked at times ... I feel as a starting point the game is actually a very good base platform to build upon for the future ... the ideas are interesting and the game is very playable.  7/10 or even 7.5/10 would be more realistic with the knowledge that Stardock will no doubt improve the game over time with feedback gathered.

Just a note from yet another disappointed fan (and one who was kicked off the Discord by the lead developer for having the audacity to express her concerns and not coddle his ego professing how amazing the game's state was)... 

On a scale of 1-10, 5.5 is the numerical median average. IGN rating the game 5/10 means they are stating that the game is average (not "unplayable" as someone here misunderstood). Average is not the same as bad. The game is definitely average. What disappoints most of us, myself included, is that it could've easily been above average, if the developers only bothered to interact meaningfully with their beta testers and make use of the reams of useful feedback the beta testers were providing to them.

Dismissing reviews like IGN's because "they reviewed GalCiv3 with a higher score and we believe GalCiv4 at launch is better than GalCiv3 was at launch" is meaningless because years have passed since GalCiv3 and the baseline expectation has shifted with the passage of time. Likewise, dismissing undesirable reviews because they mention competing IPs in the same overall game genre and making statements like "the reviewer just doesn't like this series" is also meaningless, because if the reviewer dislikes the series, that's actually really valuable information to have and should warrant the question of "why not, if they like these other IPs in the genre". 

The lesson to be learned here is that ignoring critique and shunning opinions that differ from "this is amazing" doesn't suddenly make the game amazing because the concerns are no longer being heard. It just makes those who could be capable of improving their product miss out on the opportunity, and makes them look foolish for having made that choice when they had an alternative.

This game could've launched so much better. It's really unfortunate.

I'm sure this post will get deleted just like I was deleted from their Discord. We'll see if they have the integrity to accept this criticism or not. I've screenshotted this post and if they decide to censor opinions that don't flatter them (as they did on Discord), I can always ensure that the evidence of the censorship circulates around the internet. Not a threat. Just a decision on their part to accept critique or look really badly to their customers for the sake of trying to hide it. 

I don't think it takes a forensic analysis to detect that the reviewer had some negative bias toward the game--it just seemed to me that this wasn't the kind of game he is interested in.

That said, sometimes the hard thing about being criticized is getting past being defensive and seeing whatever is true in the criticism. I assume that the dev team isn't fond of this review, and I would completely understand them being defensive about it. But I hope they can see the elements of truth throughout the review--biased though the delivery may be.

I mean, what I got out of the review does match what I find unpolished about the game.

Every game I play, Yor dominate.

Diplomacy has issues.

If all ideological choices were in one bucket, I'm not sure it would make a significant difference (i.e., choosing a particular path doesn't seem to have a big impact--and choosing from opposing paths doesn't seem to be an issue).

Citizens and Leaders are a great idea (one of my favorite parts of the game, in fact), but I think the game design needs to lean more into them and make them matter more. I spend time thinking about the Citizens I use and the Leaders I assign, but I'm not sure it matters much who I pick to do what.

The UI has some issues (most don't bother me much, but the offset planet icons covering stuff up does tend to annoy).

Tall options could be stronger (i.e., I'm not sure they really exist).

I hope Stardock proves the reviewer wrong when he says the flaws in the game "are so prevalent that balance seems more than a few simple patches away."

New accounts are initially limited in how many posts they can make to prevent spam abuse.  Typically this expires after a certain period of time.  I think this allows posts on the same thread as before (as you seem to be doing), but limits new threads initially.

This just helps control the spam on the forums as a new user cannot spam everywhere which used to be a problem.  Less spam = less cleanup = happier forum mods.