[Fyron]

Raynor:

This is an opinion. The term 'quite feasable' is arbitrary and subject to opinion. Someone else might say that the multiplayer was not quite feasable.

Someone might say that the earth is not round. Does that make saying the earth is round an opinion? No, it does not. While this particular case could be considered a matter of opinion, my point here will apply to pretty much everything else you said.

This also is an opinion. A fact would be something on the order of: If you click button 'X', then window 'Y' shows up. But just because you don't "like" something doesn't make it a fact. It makes it an opinion. A fact is something that is incontrovertible. If the word "like" or "dislike" enters in, then it is an opinion and not a fact.

No, it is a fact because there are a huge number of unnecessary clicks that you have to make to get anything done, but those things most often get overridden by the AI anyways. A non-clumsy interface would not have so many windows to go through to make minor changes. The degree of clumsiness and whether or not it is a game-breaking issue is a matter of opinion, but the fat that it is clumsy is not.

MOO3 does not in any way accurately simulate a space empire. It is not meant as a simulator, but as a game. So saying it is a good simulator IS NOT saying that it is a good game; it is saying the contrary.

This also is an opinion.

Actually, it isn't an opinion. It is a fact about computing. It is impossible for a computer program designed to run on PCs to accurately simulate something as complex as an entire empire of people, or even one city. Even a super-computer would not be able to accurately simulate billions and billions of people over a few centuries of time (or however long MOO3 Lasts).

This also is an opinion. What are you going to use to determine what is a valid source? Without hard proof regarding the validity of a number of sources, it is clearly your opinion regarding what is or is not a valid source.

The general consensus from the gaming community and also my own observations constitute valid sources. I have seen the AIs override my orders in MOO3, so that is a fact, and is supported by nearly every gamer that comments on a game. What a game company says about their game is almost never a valid source because they want to sell you their game, so they are not about to point out its downfalls. They will only portray the things it does well, and often embellish the truth so that you get a flawed picture of the game.

Oleg:
I am quite sane, and so I take offense at your comments. Of course, I assume it is a joke, so I will let it slide.

Chronon:

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).

GalCiv is not as complex as other 4X games (in part due to the simplified combat model and also the lack of moddability), and so has better AIs for it. They do not have to be as adaptive, and so can be written into rigid patterns more easily. This is what allows good AI, after all.