OP - I'd like to offer a rebuttal to some of these comments, which I don't feel eattempt to present a balanced view point of the game. The originator of these comments appears to have an personal agenda to bash the game at every opportunity, based on the frequency with which he/she posts similar drivel to hijack other threads.
It is fun to those who like to play a sub-par wargame with an uncapable AI. Most probably they like it just because the AI doesn't constitute any competition. Other posts on this message board clearly indicate that some folks enjoy the increased emphasis on combat mechanics. Your assumption that those who like it do so because of substandard AI isn't backed up by any hard evidence.
For anybody being interested in a good builder's game, Civ5 is clearly the wrong game. I ALWAYS play as a builder, and enjoy the development of cities and my empire as much, if not more, than Civ IV, and definitely more than the previous games in the series. I appreciate the changes made to the interface, the reduction in per-city micromanagement, and abstraction of certain game concepts. I fully recognize that others wish the game would have maintained or increased this type of complexity over Civ IV, and accept that is a completely valid preference. IMO, the game is simplified and streamlined, but I don't automatically attribute negative qualities to those characteristics.
It is general consensus that the AI is stupid in terms of managing war, insane in terms of conducting diplomacy and playing by different rules in terms of city placement. I agree that the military AI is not as robust as it should be. This is perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the game IMO. Civ 5's diplomacy model is quite different than Civ 4's. It seems the design was to create less predictable opponents who were driven to find ways to "win the game" rather than base their relations with the player primarily around how the player employs certain game concepts (i.e., religion, civics). Some posters on this board have dug into the XML files to help shed some light on some of the background mechanics that drive diplomacy, which I found helpful. To me, Civ 5 diplomacy has some strengths and weaknesses, and any comparison against Civ 4 comes down to personal preference.
Not to mention that the bugs forum is full of confirmed bug reports, of which quite some were introduced by "patches". With the nature of some of the glitches, it does feel like the game was rushed to release. However, my experience has been that the game is actually less buggy and crash-prone than Civ 4 upon its release in 2005.
Not to mention that many players report problems in late game, especially on larger maps. Again, I recall have the same, if not worse issue, with long turn times with Civ 4 upon its initial release. This issue appears to be a hallmark of all new Civ games dating back to at least Civ 3 - the complexity of the code algoriths/graphics appears to outstrip most folks' computing power at the time of release. You can certainly make an argument that this is a sign of poor coding or design, but it must be said that it isn't unique to Civ 5's release.
Not to mention that the game lacks in terms of design in almost each and every aspect. I can't really respond to this statement, considering how vague and non-objective it is. However, I will say that I appreciate many of the design decisions implemented in Civ 5 (new interface, city management changes, 1UPT, limited strategic resources, embarkation), and are less impressed with others (removal of espionage, I prefer the civic model over social policies.
Not to mention that 90% of all advertising before release now has been found to have been untrue. Seems to me that many fault the game because it doesn't directly build on the features and general design of Civ 4. I can't really recall any of the pre-release advertising, so I don't have much to say on this point. Clearly, many (but perhaps not most, or a majority, or even a large majority of all Civ players) passionate Civ players are disappointed with the direction of Civ 5 and the current state of the game. It's easy to understand their viewpoints, even if you don't personally agree.
Not to mention that the game in total sucks up quite some computing power for almost nothing in return. I agree that the game can feel like it sucks up more computing and graphics power than it should. But like I said before, I felt the same way with Civ 4 upon its release. That said, I still enjoy playing the game on the largest maps with the graphics settings maxed out. I have a medium-end computer from mid-2008.
This game is NOT good on its own terms, and fun it is only to a very special minority of players. I'd challenge the poster to objectively prove these statements, as it's clear he/she would like the OP to accept these conclusions as gospel.
