Irrespective of the point you're trying to make, the conclusion you're drawing here is not likely to be accurate.
For example, it doesn't take into account:
-People who quit a game that is clearly already won but too tedious to finish (I'd count those as wins).
-People playing in offline mode.
-People playing an unaltered-gameplay mod. e.g. one that adds the clock to the interface.
-Possibly others... but as a quick example, I've only been able to play the demo so far (so no achievements) and have already found myself in a dominant position before turn 100 on Immortal. According to solver the AI gets stronger in later eras so it's still possible that Immortal will provide more than a significant challenge as the game goes on.
For the record, I haven't voted - I usually don't vote in polls like this.
I don't think I finished more than 2 or 3 games of Civ4... and anyone talking about "beating" the game really misses the point.
This isn't Super Mario, when you rescue the princess then put the game on the shelf.
The Civilization series was always more about the
journey than "winning" - I've already "beaten" the game twice (once in Warlord, once in Prince)... but who cares?
Big, red warning lights are flashing all around me because despite having the game for less than a week, I've already finished two games... playing on "marathon", mind you.
That just feels wrong.
Look - I understand "long term planning". I understand 'centralizing' everything to the empire level.
But I agree - the way they've been implemented is such that they HAVE led to over-simplification.
The locked in notion of Social Policies over government makes what should be a variable over the entire course of a game locked in far too early.
The boiling up of "everything" -- except sliders -- to national level has turned cities, which have ALWAYS been king in Civilization -- little more than resource depots. They have no personality. They have no specialization. They don't feel special, in any way, shape or form. The removal of so many concepts -- religion and espionage -- adds to this. Thebes? London? Chicago? Who cares... this is "Gem Depot 1", this is "Cotton Depot 2", this "Wine Depot 3", etc. There's no concern about individual city happiness or health, and no real specialization to them.
The Civilization series -- going back to I -- was always about a hundred tiny decisions in each turn adding up.... Now - it's about single big decisions dispersing to replace those tiny decisions.
THAT'S oversimplification - it's not harder or smarter or more fun (to this Civ veteran, at least) - my giant chessboard of Civilization has been replaced with a Tic-Tac-Toe grid at a macro level.
Gameplay has now become rigid - if you're going liberty, then you better expand and expand quickly. If you're going militaristic, then go to war and go to war often. Sure - players tailored gameplay in IV to often mimic those styles, but you didn't HAVE TO. If you wanted a 'wandering' game, where you could play different styles in different epochs, you could. Civ I through IV
WASN'T rigid. It was jagged - as it should be. Sometimes circumstances and history demand that you colonize and expand. Sometimes circumstances demand war. Sometimes tending to the homefront. Gameplay in Civ5 is linear.
Maybe if they get the AI fixed and truly take advantage of hex/1UpT - at least the military aspect can be salvaged... but absent truly herculean efforts by the modders, I'm just not seeing where city management, tile management, government management, and diplomacy can be rescued from their addled state.