Every development team prioritises "cool, new things", though. It's hard to sell anything without a selling point. "polish" doesn't sell games. Not even modding tools sell games (they help retention, and I'm a modder, believe me, I'm not knocking it). The things that sell games are marketable features. Perhaps something as technical as a "brand-new game engine". But nothing deeper than that.The way I expressed myself may not have been the best, as I did mean my statement to be different from the way you read it and paraphrased it.
What I was trying to express was that the two items I listed (accurate UI information and highlighted features not working as advertised) are, to me, two things that should take priority in the development stage. If you know the UI isn't giving the player the right information or you know that a feature isn't working properly, then you make fixing them your priority, even if it means not proceeding on to some other features you hoped to include. And if the issues arise too late in the development to avoid shipping with these errors, then these are the types of errors I would address first, in the first patch.
I understand that many features are developed in parallel and it's not as simple as finish one and make it work before proceeding on to the next. But to me, if you want to leave your customer with the sense that "wow, this is a really polished and well made product", you worry first and foremost about what the user experience is going to be. To me, a key - and controllable - part of that is the player not getting inaccurate information and not having "hey, it doesn't do what it says on the tin" moments.This development team has different priorities. They prefer putting in cool, new things. From a business perspective, that might be the right approach. It wouldn't be my approach. That's all I was trying to say.
That's the market, for better or for worse. It pervades cultural expectations to the point where modding scenes are held to similar kinds of expectations (though this varies per genre and game).
I guess for me, I don't see the difference you're trying to point out with the Firaxis development team that worked on Civ 6, vs. the team that worked on other Civ. titles and indeed other teams that work on other games. I understand and respect your issues and concerns with the game - even in any situation where I could disagree, that's not the point. I get you. But that is not a unique nor even egregious flaw that sets this title apart, I feel. But we all have different priorities, and weight them differently too.
I didn't specify the UI. We were talking product lifecycles, comparisons of products on launch, and so on. You then went back on the whole thing to reiterate your belief of <a product> being a travesty on launch, undoing the posts to that point in terms of discussing the state of the respective releases and reasons for their being so.That doesn't make sense. The points I made are not contingent on the conclusion that UI on release is a travesty, so (not) refuting them because I said that is meaningless. Unless you agree with them, and just set your standards lower so as to conclude "not travesty"?
You can consider what you like meaningless, honestly, it's fine. But maybe consider that it isn't always other people "setting their standards lower", and respect their opinions when they wish to disengage!