Civ VI reviews on Steam

[God of Kings]

This is what Civ really needs: more direct competition!

Sega's Endless Legend is the closest competing modern game with major funding to Civ. Note that I did not include the various Paradox games as Crusader Kings or Europa Universalis, as they are not true 4X games. I also did not include Age of Empires, as that's a different subgenre.

With direct competition, Firaxis would be forced to improve Civ (or end up like SimCity or RollerCoaster Tycoon, both of which being venerable franchises, were beaten by newcomers such as Cities: Skylines and Planet Coaster, respectively).

Even Firaxis's other game has plenty of direct competition from major developers (such as Fire Emblem (Nintendo), Final Fantasy Tactics (Square Enix), and the closest one: Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle (Ubisoft with Nintendo), along with a few others).

 

[comatosedragon]

Steam is now (soon) changing the way User Reviews work --
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/...view-histograms-to-combat-review-bombing.aspx

 

[God of Kings]

Steam is now (soon) changing the way User Reviews work --
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/...view-histograms-to-combat-review-bombing.aspx

Good, because review summaries end up looking like sign of the horns hand gesture or the American Sign Language "Y" or the Shaka sign when it comes to video games with contentious fanbases, which is most.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Hmm, so why are Steam Reviews Thumbs up or down? I find it rather hard to judge a game on this kind of binary.

 

[God of Kings]

Hmm, so why are Steam Reviews Thumbs up or down? I find it rather hard to judge a game on this kind of binary.

Highly contentious games (which is most games with over 100,000 downloads in the first month of release) generally lack neutral reviews and often end up being in one of two extremes anyways, hence the thumbs up or down to keep things simple. It's either love it or loathe it.

There's a good reason why I find Steam reviews extremely flawed at best.

 

[Zuizgond]

Did you really believe you will get 'a finished product'?

Yes.

But I know this forum is filled with developers who think it's ok to release unfinished version and patch it afterwards, because this is what they do in their job. Not going to start this discussion again.

 

[c4c6]

Not going to start this discussion again.

Acknowledged! I'll refuse long ago to discuss whether it's ok to release unfinished versions ... (it is not)

Just the point what could have been foreseen ... what to look at, be aware of just to prevent that I get into a situation, in which civ6 doesn't behave (as good) as I have thought, wished, hoped, was made belief, was promised, was lured in, whatever ... and a corresponding bad mood. Just self-defence.

Noticing now infinite tiredness. Well, to make it short: obviously it was pure random luck, that I decided to wait and not buy a 'finished product'. Nobody could have foreseen THAT.

 

[genyl]

The reviews in steam are quite accurate imho.

I am still holding my negative review and the rating of mixed is correct

The main reason is the price. Being a massive civ player fan since Civ1 I preorder the deluxe game for 60£. I got an unfinished unbalanced game.

I played four games from emperor to deity, beat them all and shelve it.

I got back into the game after a year and I can see issues adressed but I would have hoped for more in a year time

The game has problems. I find the UI horrible and the AI sucks. But it is fun and good even now. The problem is the pricing. Even if you buy it at a discount you will have to pay massive money for future DLCs

My advice: wait a year or two until the game is finished and then definitely got the ehole package for a reasonable price.

This is what I am doing for total war warhammer , very similar case

 

[comatosedragon]

The main reason is the price.

(This post is not meant to single out genyl. Just my thoughts on the matter)

I automatically disregard any review about anything that includes "price" or "cost" as a reason for the reviewers score. I think (software, in this case) should be solely based on its inherent merits and flaws, not some abstract sense of "value". There are many many (legal) ways to obtain the game at many, many price points. How much you are willing to pay for a particular good or service in no way changes said good or service. If a particular good or service is outside what you feel 'comfortable' paying, simply don't buy/use it. But telling others that somehow the product is inferior because of an abstract number attached to it is, in my opinion; very juvenile and detrimental to the entire 'review process'. Movie critics, Book critics and most professional game reviewers don't quote prices or factor them into their 'score' when they review entertainment media for these very reasons.

And in case you are wondering, no am I not wealthy. I am 40 and I make < $10,000 a year. Far, Far, Far less than many of you, I am sure.

 

[Larsenex]

This is an excellent game. It is clearly in my opinion far better then Civ V vanilla (since we cannot compare Civ V+expacs to Civ VI) and FAR FAR better then Civ IV. Get it, enjoy the hundreds of hours you are about to lose!

 

[God of Kings]

It is very unfair to compare the current state of Civ VI with Civ V + G&K + BNW. It's like comparing a plain apple with an apple dipped in chocolate and caramel.

 

[Xur]

It is very unfair to compare the current state of Civ VI with Civ V + G&K + BNW. It's like comparing a plain apple with an apple dipped in chocolate and caramel.

When the seller is saying that it IS an apple dipped in chocolate and caramel, then I expect just that. Ed Beach directly said that they wanted to deliver a full product unlike civ4 and 5 at launch. Either I accept that Ed Beach lies or I trust him. Is it unfair that I trusted his statement and expected a game on par (or better) than civ5 + expansions? I don't think so.

I'd be more forgiving if Firaxis were a bit more honest about their product and its current state. There's ZERO community work done - there's only marketing.

 

[Uberfrog]

That's absurd. Everything in life is compared to the cost that's asked of it. A car might be deemed excellent when it's priced at £5000, but the same care at £60 000 would be called garbage. Same thing for services that are not material goods (a film, restaurant, escape room, etc...).

There is no objective, or even subjective, of measure of whether something is 'good' outside of a wider context. The Christmas dinner my sister cooks? It's lovely, but if I had it at a 3* Michelin restaurant is be thoroughly disappointed.


The thought process that goes into something isn't "is it good?" Followed by "Can I afford it?" That's an abysmal way to run personal finance. The far more meaningful question is "is it worth it to me?" It's perfectly acceptable for steam reviews to address that question, it's even desirable.

Quite so. In a world where £60-70 game+season pass launch packages are becoming standard, value for money remains an important proposition. That's not to say user reviews don't sometimes go too far the other end - miserable reviews on the iOS App Store for games that dared to cost £5 seemed to accompany the "free-to-play" race to the bottom within large sectors of the mobile gaming market.

Yes user reviews have always invited trolls and protest-voters. This shouldn't be a surprise: is an Amazon review giving a product 1 star because it got lost in the post fair to the manufacturers of the product? No.

Always read what reviewers are actually saying instead of just looking at the score. Even more so when looking at an aggregate/averaged score, be it on Steam or MetaCritic.

 

[Acken]

I wouldn't mind paying for quality.
Like an expansion being focused on polishing the game in AI and balance. Add in a few civs and I dont mind the lack of new mechanics. Civ6 already has a ton of mechanics... they just need to be better implemented.

 

[RohirrimElf]

This is an excellent game. It is clearly in my opinion far better then Civ V vanilla (since we cannot compare Civ V+expacs to Civ VI) and FAR FAR better then Civ IV. Get it, enjoy the hundreds of hours you are about to lose!

No game in history is better then Civ 4 + mods. Certainly not civ 6 today. 4000+ hours gameplay for civ 4 myself. 400 in civ 6 so i`ve got enough experience with both games to tell.

 

[Victoria]

No game in history is better then Civ 4

I burnt the civ. IV disks a few month after purchase. I knew they would not remove integral parts of the game like doomstacks and sliders. All a matter of choice and what you mean by better these far outweigh no of hours IMO.

I really do not care what people put on steam, I just care about what I like. Reading reviews is just pointless to me.

 

[God of Kings]

I would prefer an enhanced remake of Civ IV + Warlords + BtS (complete with a hex grid) than the current state of Civ VI.

 

[Tech Osen]

It is very unfair to compare the current state of Civ VI with Civ V + G&K + BNW. It's like comparing a plain apple with an apple dipped in chocolate and caramel.

More like comparing an apple that is not ripe yet and was picked too early, to an actual tasty apple.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Comparing anything to Civ V Vanilla is setting the bar really low though.

I don't like it anyways. By doing this, you're telling people to basically not play the game until it's "fully" released. But if people don't play the game, it can't grow and develop without feedback.

 

[Spectrum]

Comparing anything to Civ V Vanilla is setting the bar really low though.

I don't like it anyways. By doing this, you're telling people to basically not play the game until it's "fully" released. But if people don't play the game, it can't grow and develop without feedback.

What feedback? Firaxis is ignoring us!!!!