It's impossible to create a good article by cutting out chunks of quotes to answer specific points. But I think people will understand what's going on.
1. Regarding the Campaigns. It might seem strange, but there are many people for whom the fifth game is their first in the series, and considering that there are no similar games, it's very useful to explain the battles, hiring, and everything else. Also, I've played many Campaigns and always encountered a level cap for heroes in a single mission. So, simply skipping turns is nonsense.
2. Regarding the translations and the game's stability, I can only say one thing. Or rather, I want to advise the author NOT TO BUY CHEAP PIRATED COPIES FROM METRO. Throughout my entire playtime, I haven't experienced a single crash, all translations are normal, there are no memory leaks, saves load, and scripts work.
3. Most of the article can be discarded because the critic starts repeating themselves and endlessly rehashing the same drawbacks.
4. Regarding the judges' verdict.
First: I've already written "buy the licensed version of the game, and there will be no problems."
Second: A coherent Campaign has been missing from the game since the second part, but nevertheless, at the time of the third game's release, the Campaign was praised, although its quality is not much better, and in the fourth game, there was some rare nonsense happening (that's where you could complete missions with a single hero).
In general, after reading the article, it seems that both debaters were working for the same side, as some of the defense's arguments are not only meaningless but also harmful to the game.