I upvoted the Hubble because (as I previously posted) I think it's an awesome achievement of mankind
I think this should ideally be true of every Wonder since it's what makes them Wonders. That was the concept behind the original seven (with the exception, I suppose, of The Oracle). Of course it isn't the case with many Civ Wonders, which is why things like Cristo Redentor, Big Ben, Eiffel Tower, CN Tower etc. don't belong, but if you're voting for Wonders on that basis alone Hubble doesn't earn any points over, say, Petra, the Pyramids or Macchu Picchu.
and a beautiful piece of technology.
Which is why (the abstraction of Civ IV's "The Internet" aside) it's the best choice for a modern Wonder for the series. However, as above I wouldn't say either observation should give it priority over, say, Petra by itself.
I downvoted the Great Mosque because the AI always gets it first, so much so that I don't think I've ever gotten it.
It's still valuable if you capture it and convert the city to your religion.
GMoD is one I almost never build - I typically choose beliefs that allow construction (cathedrals, pagodas, etc) and typically play wide-ish. Getting faith to make missionaries is very low on my priorities.
I'm struck by how many people say this. It's of course perfectly valid, however is saying "this is a good Wonder that just doesn't suit my playstyle" really something that justifies downvoting it? If I only played OCC, for instance, I doubt I'd downvote Macchu Picchu just because I personally don't find it useful. Great Mosque's benefits really shine with Holy Orders whatever your Founder belief - I've found it most useful with Interfaith Dialogue, but that's largely because that tends to be the only time I spread religion to other civs' cities.
What the hell is that? Taj Mahal? How so much hate? I always build this wonder. Always! Golden ages rock.
Bear in mind that most of the generally bad Wonders have now gone. Decisions now have to be made on the basis of other considerations, such as efficiency. Golden Ages are undeniably valuable, but is one really worth Taj Mahal's construction cost in the mid-game? Longer-term investments like Notre Dame that give you natural golden ages more often will probably usually be better, or even science-rushing to artist specialist techs to maximise GA points?
Pyramids? Ok but if i can get 4 cities and 4 workers before turn 50 without it, how can this really help me? Not bad for cultural victories though. But still overpowered right now, especially compared to my lovely Taj
Pyramids is a Wonder very specifically designed for tall play - it duplicates (with an extra Worker) the effect of the Liberty 'free Worker' policy, which is the one Liberty policy a tall empire going for Tradition would otherwise miss.
On the other hand if you want four workers, and Pyramids costs the same as two, why not just build it instead of two Workers in your most productive city?
Getting the Hubble virtually guarantees that no one will keep up with you in the space race.
As long as you're already in the lead, usually.
Sydney Opera House is just icing on the cake when you get it; you should be closing in on a cultural victory by then.
I wonder if people are looking at this Wonder the wrong way. You don't just build the Oracle if you're going for a culture victory; why would you build Sydney for a culture victory when - as has been tirelessly pointed out - you don't need it for one? It's not a Wonder like Cristo Redentor or the CN Tower, which relies on you wanting fast policy progression for a culture victory. Surely instead it's a Wonder you build if you aren't concentrating on culture output, but will still benefit from a well-timed policy. It lets you finish a policy tree at the right moment without overinvesting in culture buildings etc. As has been mentioned, the Oracle saves you around 20 turns regardless of your victory condition; Sydney does much the same. It may or may not be worth the large production cost for a latter-day Oracle, but I don't think it's just another redundant culture Wonder.
