Source? Define unplayable. I think the UI is horrid and turn times suck, and I use CQUI but that gets my achievements. I am pretty sure nobody here would think I am playing a different game than the base one. If we're going by anecdote, I am well aware that people are really, really bad at games and are full of excuses. Even if they say they are not. My friends and I were never able to even play co-op vs AI in any version of Civ on Prince difficulty because they would flat our refuse to do things to win (most infamously, whip in Civ 4). Yes, there's always bad game design, but there's an overwhelming ton of user error too. Casual players don't care for figuring out obscure exploits to min-max things. And I'd like to argue that they probably won't get into mods too as that takes time to go get the mods. I never bothered much with mods in Civ 4 and 5 beyond UI ones. Of course, being bad at a game doesn't mean you can't enjoy it, nor does it define your value in a video game. It's usually not a competition. I Sometimes abandon the early game is simply more fun and you might as well just move on to the next game to more interesting things. I brought that up, but you seem to be suggesting something else. Many games these days have a casual difficulty where enemies do not really try to kill you so people can at least experience the game. Basically easier than easy. Gaming has adapted to its audience as it has change. We're discussing the AI and the depth of the base game, no? Why are we talking about mods? We're essentially talking about a different game then. I mean no offense when I say that most people haven't completed a game on chieftain. But it's evident a lot of people just don't care, either way. There might indeed be a bunch of deity level players that only play the game to a winning point and stop, and that's probably a bunch too. I just don't think that's the average player.