It seems that I will not be able to convince you that Civ V isn't as deep as IV, but I hope I can at least persuade you that there is not a single optimal strategy in IV. You seem to think that pursuing religion is always a good strategy, but that's not the case at all. In fact, especially at the higher difficulty levels, pursuing religion is generally suboptimal. Religion can be very important in some games, but inconsequential in others.

The most important decision you have to make is what type of economy you will have, and there are many types to choose from: cottage, specialist, super specialist, trade route, religious, war-driven, or most commonly, a hybrid of all of these. What type of economy is best is determined by the map, your leader, and your opponents, and since these variables are always different, there is no one best strategy. I encourage you to visit either the CivFanatics or Apolyton forums to learn about the large amount of strategies Civ IV offers, and the relatively few amount Civ V offers.

And I'll give you that Civ V has a better combat system, but the AI and multiplayer are broken right now, so that's a moot point until those components get fixed.

When you start creating labels like "real civ player" you insinuate anyone who disagrees with you is not being honest, is ignorant, or is simply not as good as you assume you are. That's when you need to realize you are taking this videogame stuff way too seriously.

SteveTabernacle

I think the reviewers that gave Civ V such a good score are ignorant about Civ, and I'm not saying that to insult them, I just think it's the truth. They probably just played a few casual games to write the review, but you really need to play several games to fully understand the mechanics. And I'm not trying to be elitist by calling myself and others "real Civ players," but people that play a game more than others are in a better position to comment on its mechanics, are they not? A grandmaster chess player knows more about chess than someone that just picked up the game, doesn't he?

You can use one winning strategy all the time in pretty much any game, to say that's not the case in Civ IV is simply not true. I've beaten Civ V on Deity by using a completely different strategy than what you posted so obviously there are multiple ways to do it just like in previous Civs. Depth doesn't change by playing the game on harder difficulty, only the difficulty does. And the only thing that does change on higher levels is the number of advantages the AI gets. Civ IV was HARDER, not deeper.

How are militaristic city states useless? They give you units which is great if you're focusing on culture or science or expansion or whatever.

Diplomacy is the only feature that is not fully developed, that is true.

UpInFlames

No, it's not true that there is one winning strategy that will always work in Civ IV. There are some gambits that will work much of the time, but every map requires a unique overall strategy. But even if you've successfully employed strategies other than the one I posted, it is the general consensus of the Civ community that that is the optimal strategy on all maps for every difficulty level. When there is one optimal strategy for every situation, a game has failed to be a strategy game, and that is why Civ IV is deeper.And Militaristic city states are useless because the units they give you are generally weak, and your better off spending your gold on the other two types of city states.

If you like Civ V, that's fine, and I'm happy that you weren't disappointed like I was, but it simply is not as deep as Civ IV.

I mean no offense, but you must not be a very high level player if you think that. There are dozens of possible strategies to choose from in Civ IV, and you have to carefully consider the map and your opponents when deciding which one to pursue. In Civ V the best strategy is always to befriend Maritime City States, build lots of cities, and conquer your opponents with horsemen. It takes a lot of time and dedication to beat the AI on Deity in Civ IV. It doesn't take much to do that in Civ V.

Also, not every feature is well-developed or matters. Militaristic City States are useless, and diplomacy is basically nonexistent.

I think in order to fully appreciate RDR's story, you have to read between the lines a bit. For example, you have to see how the setting parallels John Marston's character. The game takes place during the early 1900s while the West is undergoing a lot of changes. The frontier is disappearing, and horses are slowly being replaced with automobiles. John Marston is stubbornly resisting these changes, while he is ironically trying to make some dramatic changes in himself. He wants nothing more than to leave his old life of crime and just settle down with his family, but the government tells him that he can never change, although they embrace all the ongoing environmental and societal changes. I could go on about this, but I think you get the idea.

RDR's story should also be praised just because of Bonnie MacFarlane's character. To paraphrase a recent GameInformer article: Most female video game characters are either a damsel in distress, or a sexy badass chick that can kick everyone's ass without any effort, but Bonnie is neither of these. She's a realistic woman with both strengths and weaknesses.

And to everyone that didn't like John Marston...I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I don't see how you can't like the guy. He's genuinely funny, and I really sympathized with him throughout the game.

Civilization V. I know it's gotten rave reviews, but any real Civ player will tell you that it's a shallow, incomplete mess, and Civ IV was infinitely better.

I think a game like Phoenix Wright could benefit from this "fake" 3D. You could tilt the screen to look around and find clues.