Because it opens up the discussion to the idea that CiV without VP isn't a "real Civ-style game" either, which seemed to be the argument you were making. You were defining a thing as being a "real" Civilisation game vs. one being not, when I reckon it that for you it's VP that's making the difference there - not CiV itself.Why should I not compare Civ VI to Civ V with VP? I do compare it, because everyone have a choice to play with the mod for free that makes the game so much better, so why should I disregard the option? We are not limited to what original developers did (thanks god). And I've also compared it to Civ V without the VP, so it's on topic.
Am I wrong?