Gorb has it right. "Good design" is highly subjective. That's why "too balanced" is a criticism which actually means "I know this makes sense but it's boring." It's also the reason why good game mechanics are based on wild, unbalanced ideas - such ideas form the springboard for interest. They're enjoyable because they're impressive and compelling. Balancing is done on the back end.
Olodune's comment was:
I find it strange for a Civ game to move in this direction - we should care about where cities are placed! (In a more nuanced way than just "next to titanium").
and I have to challenge all of you to think about that harder. Don't justify. Think from a basic nothing perspective. DOES a blank map-based game have to make the player care about placement aside from a specific resource? The obvious answer is no. That is not a required gameplay mechanic whatsoever.
You don't care that much in Starships - you just want as many planet as possible, period. You don't care in GalCiv. Same thing. Once you research or acquire terraforming tech, it's basically all the same thing.
It's not necessarily bad for a Civ game to move in this direction, especially in a game whose overarching theme is that you don't care about location, and which expresses this theme with multiple mechanics. Consider the removal of luxury resources - those made you care about expansion and placement in Civs starting from 3. This was intentional. Do we want that? Obviously, that's not what CivBE is going for at all - your ability to expand is functionally limitless and at your own pace. By design. Because that's what the game is supposed to convey.
Bad design is bad design, but theme and intention are not bad. They are what they are and you agree and enjoy it for what it is, or you disagree and you play something else.
I'll point out that absent unbalanced unit design (basis of power unit strategics - Battlesuit) and basic production, you ALSO didn't care much about Iron or Horse in any Civ. You were in it for the hammers and because you got what was essentially Battlesuits.
Yes, I'm still sore about the Battlesuits. And the Xenoswarms and CNDRs. These are supposed to be iconic units that broadly represent the affinities, effective in some measure across the entire game. Right now, they're basically useless. Design doesn't meet theme. That's bad design.
At the heart of Civ, the design has ALWAYS been bad for the VCs. This is not unique to CivBE. VCs across the entire Civ line has always been bad and tedious. We just forgave it because we like the simulationist aspects. CivBE's simulationist or scifi flavor isn't enough for some people.
So yes, it's because there aren't nice videos. That's not an accusation of shallowness. I don't particularly care for the videos. I'm happy with the written lore, but I also recognize that not everyone is and that means that there is a presentation issue with the theme and flavor. So yes, that's a game presentation (not design) flaw.
Which can make the game boring for some. There.
Why single BERT out in this instance for a flaw inherent in 4x games, or even strategy games in general when played against an AI opponent? Even EU4 fans will tell you that there's nothing left to do after the first 150 years of a SP game and that's not a 4x game. Strategy and 4x games' AI can't play a long game.
).
) that it took very little to figure it out. Comparing that to how much work it took to get equivalently breaking times in civ5 or even simply win deity (in G&K if you want a fair comparison) it's no wonder some players are getting bored and single out CivBE.
<Broken record [click] broken record [click] broken...>. At least I can point YOU to other 4x games and say, 'look, it's the pretty much the same'. The only difference is that people on those boards actually like the game and are willing to forgive it the flaws as we did with earlier Civs too. Civ BNW culture or Diplomatic victories for example... absolutely heart-pounding stuff indeed. 
