I didn't vote as I never played CivIII SG's. Being in several IV SG's however, and having read some of those from III, I think I that it's more "different" than "better."
In CivIII, there was generally a "best way" to do things. Thus, those who were more learned and experienced knew what these things were and how to accomplish them. A very good SG team would know how to precisely micromanage everything, cascade wonders properly, save elites for armies, etc. There was a very precise pattern as to what to research; when to start "X" wonder so that you could cascade to "Y" and then "Z." There was a good formula for worker improvements: mine "this," farm "that," and a good idea of the order to do these things. Military actions were similarly patternistic in that we need a pile of artillery and some of the dominant unit of the time and then steamroll everything.
CivIV has so many different possibilities available and various strategies available that getting everybody on the same page is not so easy, but at the same time provides a great deal of insight into reasonings for doing things differently and learning different strategies. Do you go with an early settler? Early worker? Grow first? Do you spread huge and wide or establish a small number of cities and roll with that? Mine or windmill? Farm or cottage? What kind of wonders or specialists do you go for? What do you do with Great People? Nearly all of these things can be answered in more than one way, and depending on the specific situation, there may really be no "best" way. It's all a matter of balance and compromise. One person may like to specialize cities into "production city," "money city," "science city," "GP city," etc., while another may prefer moderation and have all their cities doing a bit of everything.
It makes for some very interesting games so far.
