What civ 4 Difficulty did you play on, do you like civ 5 more?

[lschnarch]

That is at the heart of the whole streamlined argument. Civ 5 is more streamlined and easier to beat. Is the streamlining (i.e. don't have to work as hard) the issue, or is the easier to beat (insert AI here) the issue.

I think you have a point here.

When it is easier to win (and most times this comes down to being able to fight wars successfully) then you have to have something to do (here the 'streamlining' factor comes into the game).
In Civ5, from a builder's point of view, the game is meaningless. Go for libraries, go for colosseums. Which of the two to produce first may be a matter of circumstances, but for any new city it comes down to this.
Maintain you luxury resources first, then maintain ... ah, forget it. Wait for the city to be (distance from next city +1) in population and connect it via road. Voilà, happiness +1 and gold +x.

That's it for most of your cities. Not that much fun for the builder.

I mean, if the producer at Firaxis admits that Civ V wasnt made for Civ IV fans, but for people who likes Civ Rev, then I don't understand why they chose the title Civ V, as this clearly leads one to think there is talk about a sequel of Civ IV and not Civ Rev.

Ofcourse you can con some people of their money that way, but its like pissing in your pants on a cold day.

That is exactly the point.

The game was advertised to satisfy the "hardcore/old terms civ player" and delivered to enjoy the CivRev player.
This is false advertising per excellence.