Since this isn't Plato's Pub, I'll leave aside the question of fact and opinion. Besides, Fyron and I have probably already met our philosophical debate quota for this year.
But I did want to put in my opinion of MoO3 and ask a question about GalCiv.
I got MoO3 soon after it's release (as a gift), but because of the spectacularly negative reviews I didn't play it right away. Once I did open the box and began playing - with greatly diminished expectations - I found that I didn't hate it as much as I thought I would. There are some things I don't like: the interface (looks nice, but way too many clicks to access information), the ship design area (I like seeing the components, like in SE4), the ship sets (Atrocities, you are needed!), and the combat interface (again, a UI problem). I haven't played it long enough to really tell, but I've also heard the AI is very bad.
But I do like some things about it: the economic system, the idea of real-time combat (if not it's execution), the leaders (I like the role-playing aspect of them), the espionage system, the three dimensional star map (why not 3D tactical combat?), and the system maps. The economic system, in my opinion, is the best thing about the game. I know it's hard to say what's realistic about a science fiction game, but for me it has a very authentic feel. I like the complex interplay between resource production, industrial production, and the imperial budget. I hope some of these things find their way into SE5.
My question about GalCiv - Is the AI as good as the reviews say? I've been looking for a truly challenging single player game, without much luck (I know it's hard to write a decent AI for very complex games of strategy, but I keep hoping).