I think the big thing about Act 4 was that it's sort of trying to revisit a big chunk of 'how things work' via a secondary set of characters, so not only is there a lot of 'haven't we seen this before?' but also a lot of exposition and guesswork and character interaction. I believe the writer actually mocks Act 4's reliance on exposition and reprise via self-insert later.<br/><br/>It is sort of an experimental digital text that he's writing, after all.<br/><br/>Act V, by contrast, felt like pure gold. Pure, nasty, bloody, intensely conflicted and ruthless gold laced with lots of 'oh shit' moments.