There's a natural human thing where someone has an experience and assumes everyone else has that same experience. You have a problem, and you assume this is some global problem that is affecting everyone equally. Get used to the fact that for a lot of people here (a majority according to the various polls), and no doubt a lot of people who have never seen this site, are having no problems, or very minor ones, that do not impact their enjoyment of the game.
Just because you have a problem, and see a bunch of threads that probably amount to 0.00001% of the total customer base that support your view, that therefore that is necessarily significant or important for everyone else.
I've had issues with Civ 5. I also had issues with countless other games, products, operating systems, phones and everything else... and comparatively I've found Civ 5 to be pretty solid and reliable IN MY OWN ACTUAL EXPERIENCES.
Many others share my experiences.... who's to say you're the massive majority? What if (as I suspect is the case) there's 100x as many of us than there are of you?
I agree with this post. The fundamental problem here is about conceptual interpretation. Just because you interpret something as a value does not make that value reality. For example, a prominent thread is that it was a bug that a longbowman could defeat a rifleman, but that assertion proves my point that what is and what isn't a bug is subjective mostly. Historically, while guns typically overpowered the arrows, arrows were sometimes able to overpower the guns -- particularly if guerrilla tactics were used. Now, I'm surely not saying that arrows could defeat guns the majority of the times, because that statement would clearly be false, but I am saying that it is not far-fetched that arrows could defeat guns sometimes, and yet people actually think that longbowmen defeating riflemen is completely absurd and is a bug.
Some people also think that diplomatic allies turning on you with no prior warning, especially at the higher difficulties, is a bug, but it is just as valid to say that it is intended for the obvious reasons of spicing up the game and history, specifically now because the player can't see the factors that are influencing a rival's relations with you, as in Civilization IV. The point is that what most people call bugs are really just features that those criticizers don't like, and I'm fine with criticisms against those features, but what is not good is when people don't differentiate between something most probably intended and what isn't. Now, of course, there are indeed some parts of the game that most of us would agree are indeed bugs, but, in comparing those mistakes with 99% of the rest of the game that worked as intended, especially since, if we are all honest, those bugs are pretty unnoticeable unless you deliberately seek them out, (Except for multiplayer) I frankly don't believe that it is fair to judge the product in that manner.
Sure, if swordsmen could defeat helicopters like in Civilization IV, that would be and was a valid complaint against an actual bug, but I haven't seen something like that in Civilization V yet, and I probably won't.
