Having read all your other posts on this subject, I'll save myself time and angst by leaving well enough alone. You appear eager to bend over backwards in defense of the new game's flaws, and don't seem willing to accept that some design elements are steps backwards from the old game. Yes, I can tell you like the new game (and from so few clues, too! ) but you really don't have to defend it to the death. Even if you admit the flaws, it will still be a good game. (Yes! I actually think it's not bad - just that it's not as good as the original, but that is a very high bar to cross.) On my part, I'm perfectly happy to admit that the original wasn't perfect, and I like to think that my views are pretty balanced.
Chris' thread on comparing the old and new is actually pretty good. I'd probably be a fraction more critical of some elements, but by and large he's identified the problems and where it doesn't improve on the original, while pointing out that it does have its strengths.