So weird. Like, I'm not sure which is more broken, Civ 5 or the odd arguing tactics of its proponents.
For instance, you see Dexters here, who in almost every post uses terminology like "civ 4.5" or "civ 3.5". I mean, he calls civ 4, civ 3.5, and then alter on (many times) makes arguments that people who don't like civ 5 wanted a civ 4.5
Does.. that mean we wanted civ 3.75? But time has shown that a lot of civ 4 players (not me) didn't really like civ 3 as much.
He also seems to think that any argument of 'why is this worse than civ 4?' is just the arguer wanting a better version of civ 4 instead of a new game.
So, I hate to be the one to say it, but that's what sequels ARE. That's why it's a sequel. If this was a real time strategy game with rhythm based combat using mouse-bongo's I'm pretty sure that would also be right out.
Even then, that isn't the entirety of the argument against how silly this claim is. The problem is that what people liked about civ 4 was its many facets, whatever those are. They feel there are less facets in civ 5. It isn't that they have different facets, but that there are less of them. LESS. The only way to really express this in a discussion is to list them, or point out areas where improvements could be made, and the previous game in the line is a really good point to start with.
I'm not going to complain that civ 5 lacks complexity, and then talk about how it should be more like supreme commander where you have an avatar that slowly builds your cities with magic goo. I just talk about other games I know that worked kinda like it, and things they've done. For instance, civ 4.
So, that's dexters. Then we have charon2112. I feel dexters is mislead, but I honestly think charon2112 is being a jerk a lot of the time. He's made fun of Germans, he's been condescending about people not knowing how to play the game, and then used himself losing on prince as proof of its capabilities. This is surprisingly juvenile behavior for someone on what I rather think of as a respected web site.
My beefs:
1. Claiming that the poll in his favor has no bias that would sully it, but every counter example clearly does.
2. His argument that there are no bugs is only supported by his claim that he doesn't experience them.
3. His argument that the game is complex is only supported by his inability to win at certain times.
If he wasn't so vocal I think he'd end up simply being marginalized.
Moderator Action: Please refrain from assuming that other posters are jerks, thanks. 
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Actually I find the inability to claim land and the funny little empires on the minimap to be quite annoying - although that's minor.
