[Kemal]

Well, I'm definitely in the other camp than some of you as far as the level of intriguement the game offers is concerned, to me the game is far more exciting that the ever-repeating standard games that civ3 had to offer in SP. I also do not agree there are more bonuses for the AI (and yes, plenty of bonuses are present for it in civ4 I know), especially compared to sid level of civ3, and I most certainly do not agree that playing large immortal, (let alone deity!) maps is easier to win than any challenge civ3 had to offer (especially considering we're dealing with civ4 vanilla here).

But most of all, I think that continuing to compare everything the game has to offer with what civ3 used to do (thus staying inside the safe boundary of entertainment that people were used to see in a game of civ) is already starting off with a mindset of not being willing to appreciate what civ4 might have to offer. Nothing wrong with that as civ3 was truly a great game, however civ4 is much more complex, and I think the way the AI is able to handle these added complexities (and I do recognize there are lots of flaws to be found in the AI as well) deserves a big hats-off to those responsible.

Some people might always like civ3 better, after all still people are playing and declaring civ2 as the best game too... but whether it is easier to win or that civ3's AI was at the same level as civ4's AI is, in my opinion, greatly unjustified.