Graeme Dice said:
If that's the case, then I can simply tell you that it's nothing more than your opinion that graphics eats away at gameplay like some sort of insidious cancer.
Where did I say this? How does the following lead to graphics being an insidious cancer?
"Some [companies] can devote enough [programming man-hours] to both parts, some (eg: most console developers) devote too much to graphics and not enough to gameplay, and some probably devote too much to gameplay and not enough to graphics."
I thought you were smart enough to not attempt to shut down arguments by simply claiming "That's just your opinion", whenever somebody presents arguments.
Actually, you are the one that was doing that (in a couple of posts on different arguments), and I was merely pointing out that it can go both ways. I don't necessarily disagree with you that the worker automation is a good feature to have (though I do think the worker AI tends to make some poor choices sometimes), but it is still opinion either way... The issue arises when one presents numerous opinions in his arguments, then decries the same exact method taken by others.
...reason why Civ 4 is the worst of the series, you have merely asserted that it is.
Maybe this is because I have said absolutely nothing of the sort? Where have I asserted such a claim? Why would I try to support a claim I do not believe to be true, and have never even hinted at?
Of course, even if you love all of the civ games, you would still technically have to consider one of them the worst of the series. Not worst because you think it is bad, but simply by virtue of not liking it quite as much as the others.
The problem with all those possibilities is that they make a game that's completely unplayable past about turn 40. It's ludicrous to expect people to spend multiple hours per turn on a game that's going to last for 200 more turns.
Really? Most of my turns around 40 are still in the 5-10 minute range. Even if I am at war, it rarely takes upwards of 20.