Civ VI reviews on Steam

You don't get achievements if you play in offline mode. I guess some people do that. And others don't finish any games despite playing a lot. I'm not sure how it is with mods. In civ V, mods disabled achievements. In civ VI this seems to be different. I don't know if any mods disable achievements - at least those that change the ruleset.

 

Not necessarily it is a little more nuanced than that. What you are talking about is the response bias, and it is not simply a bad thing or just because the potential exists does not mean the data is of poor quality, in fact most studies are designed around eliciting some response bias, that is how you target a subsample. As for other potential bias, without anyway of testing the data for potential bias then it is pure speculation about what may or may not bias the results and arguments can be easily made for both sides of your point. Although I have never seen anything that would suggest that Steam Reviews offer any systematic bias which would unfairly bias results. That being said the usefulness of a review is pretty debatable.

 

I* Didn't get into the details as this is not a stats forum, and your answer* is more precise. I was pointing out that the graph Victoria used was inaccurate because it relies on voluntary response which should be avoided as a general rule.

EDIT: changed pronouns to make comment clearer

 

?
I use Steam reviews to discern whether or not the game is worth buying or not given its price tag. How is it completely different topic?
Price is where Civ6 loses to Civ5 (as a buy, not as a game) so I think that's pretty important right there

Yes, Offline mode and mods cost me so many of my achievements in Civ5.
However, 29.6% is pretty low. I expect the achievement rate to be much higher than that even if offline mode is more common than expected. My explanation is that most buyers are people who have no idea how Civ works and trying out one minor stuff after another without ever finishing the game until they put it down at 20 hours of gameplay. They're "Casuals", as opposed to Civ "Fanatics". I'm very much guilty of this with so many other games that weren't my cup of tea.

Of course, there are forumers here who say they play a lot but they rarely finish games. The awesome thing about the Civilization franchise is that so many playstyles are possible and not finishing games is perfectly valid. Just don't forget that the majority of gamers are always casuals, who don't learn the entire game and put it down or "write a review" where they really say don't much and that's where the positive reviews are coming from.

 

Whenever you have a voluntary system, all your doing is sampling people who volunteer for things. The reviews may or may not reflect the general population of the game, but they sure do reflect the population of people who leave reviews.

 

That's where our opinion differs fundamentally. I might be in the minority, but I think it is a different thing if a product is good or if it is worth it to me. I guess almost everybody agrees that judging the content of a game is subjective to a large degree (except for extremely bad ones probably) - but I'd like reviews to be about the game and not it's price nonetheless. Whether something is of value to me seems even more subjective and - to me - a different topic. It's okay if someone writes a good-written review and then tells you that he think it's a bargain or overpriced. But too many reviews are about not much more than 'not worth the money' or like your 'price is where Civ 6 loses to Civ 5'. I prefer Civ 6 to Civ 5 - I could have continued playing civ 5 for free since I already owned it, but I decided to buy Civ 6 because of the content (about which I knew a lot before I did so and also knew most weaknesses). It was worth paying much more than I actually did to me personally, but the price was no reason to buy or not to buy (which is quite normal and not overly expensive for a game). And every DLC is worth it's money imho. But I wouldn't write this in a review. Nor would I concern reviews that complain about the price as a negative thing, since it isn't higher priced than other AAA games. It's just a different discussion that does have some correlation with the content, but no that much to take over the discussion. Quality should always come first - do I want to have/use this? Then I can go on thinking about what I'd like to pay for it and if other requirements are fulfilled.
Maybe it's a cultural thing: if you are used to go shopping for the best price all the time and the cheaper the better for everything... Or the contrary: high price = good quality, that's equally silly. But that's just another different discussion.

 

Well...

Bought Civ V for $15 = 46 hours
Bought Civ VI for $27 = 195 hours

You probably could say I enjoyed VI more as I ended up sticking with it. The wrong conclusion to draw is that I liked it 2 times more than V. (Especially since VI goes slower which is a huge minus). As shallow as it sounds, 6's soundtrack is the real reason why I open it more.

 

Meanwhile, I see I can now get Civ 6 for 50% off!

 

Well I bought both titles at their full price. Civ5, with 2 expansions (over the span of 6 years), got about 460 hours of play-time. Meanwhile, after only 1 year, I've already racked up 240 hours on Civilization VI......& that's without using a single Community Created Mod.

 

I expected VI to run slower on my four year old computer than V (as with previous editions of Civ); but was pleasantly surprised to find that it ran faster right out of the gate; and has continually improved it's speed with every patch.

 

I meant more that it takes longer per game due to the large amount of busy work especially near the end of the game, though 5 was pretty guilty of this, the notification system works better even considering the new patch. It takes nearly twice as for me to finish a game of VI than it does of IV, and V is in between.

Though recent patches have made it smoother.

It should also be noted I also have 44 hours of Civ IV during this time period despite having played that game out for the longest time, and I only got the Steam version along with the rest this year, so anything else I played before that isn't reflected.

 

What do you mean by "busy work"? Just so we're on the same page...

 

Reassigning counterspies and trade routes constantly, being asked to build stuff in assorted cities due to no queue, having the leader spit out the same agenda for the 40th time, autoexplore not working because they run into a barb scout, etc. When it takes about 10 clicks on the turn I am going to win, that is annoying.

 

Other than the build queue (which I still maintain isn't as needed in VI as it was in previous editions...) none of that stuff bothers me. Then I guess I'm playing as much for the experience as to win.

 

It's needed for those weak cities that you may have placed to get resources or place resorts. In these cases they're not really meant to produce anything; picking what to build just doesn't impact things either from a gameplay or immersion perspective. (Unless your thing is bureaucracy, but that is not something many rulers would do.) Even if 4 and 5 didn't have queues, you could just build wealth or something. This already exists in the form of projects here.

Personally, I would even like a production automaton that Civ 4 had, although I am sure that would just end up costing me maintenance.

 

Oh I'd certainly still like to see a build queue added; but in previous versions of the game I would have been going nuts without it! In VI things change quick enough that I often am glad to not have a build queue set in place.