Buddy, you've never developed or designed anything if you think it's a wet dream for being praised for making something you think is crap. Neither have I on the scale of Civ, but I'm pretty sure I'd feel guilty as all hell.
My dear friend, unless you are sitting more often than me with the developers to have a glass of beer, all the two of us (as anybody else) can do is to take into consideration what we have been presented so far.
Let me just give a short update:
We have been presented with a combat AI which isn't worth the money (and I won't mention the diplomacy, the screwed-up UI, the hardware utilization for nothing, the almost completely dysfunctional MP [although providing only basic features AND using Steam], the so-called "Civilopedia" and other things).
It was said that the combat system of Panzer General was some kind of "inspiration" for Civ5's combat system. Well, anybody having played both games knows that except for hexes and (sometimes) only one unit per hex both have almost nothing in common. Where PG's combat system works, Civ5's combat system fails.
As I've said already, not only the combat AI does not work except for moving units around without a plan, but it hasn't improved much since release.
How awful must it have been back in February, with six months to go until release?
Anybody with a clear mind would have used the emergency brake then.
What did Mr. Shafer and his gang do? They happily advertised it as THE ONE big new feature.
Now, marketing and advertising is not exactly about telling the whole truth. But they plainly lied at each and every occasion. Look at "famous quotes from Firaxis" to have some examples. Look at the "civilopedia"-thread here on the first page.
They went much beyond advertising. They were lying. At each and every occasion they've lied. And they lied while knowing better.
Such characters I assume to have quite some fun now to see how people desperately try to find excuses for their incompetence.
They haven't delivered, they knew they wouldn't be able to deliver and still they charged for the full price. And they advertised as hard as they could to make people buy.
I don't care about some 2_K members popping up here and spreading their marketing talk. Anybody with a clear sense knows immediately that all they are doing is to try to convince people into purchasing.
But when the developers themselves are issuing wrong, false, untruthful statements in each and every interview, we are entering a different dimension.
Mr. Shafer even boldly announced he would give "some design-related" advises in his new job. He is just fine with what he has done.
Yes, for him and the rest of his gang (including quite some of the testers, if you're asking me) it is absolutely ok what has happened.
Secondly I don't think I'm defending Civ5 at all. I'm saying they were over-ambitious, and I mean that in a bad way. In fact, most of my posts are very critical of Civ5. It's become a total viper's pit on the forums lately, and I'm getting constantly called out for being both a whiner and a defender which makes no sense. What happened to middle ground?
Being over-ambitious is one thing. Realising that the ambitions cannot even approximately be realized and still advertising as if everything would be fine is a different thing.
They weren't only "just" over-ambitious.
They have adopted the company spirit: Tell them (the customers) some nice stories before release and don't care about it later on.
And once again: the evidence can be found here in the respective threads. The interviews are still to be found in the internet.
They didn't just not deliver. They knew, and they lied. And the head of this crew of incompetence now is running around indicating he might be the guy to give "design-advices".
I just can't eat as much as I would like to vomit when reading this.