I'd have to rate myself as a casual player now. I played it quite a bit after the release, but I think I've only played it a couple of times since the launch of the Nubia DLC. Still, I have won at Deity which I'm pretty chuffed about. Each game is a pretty big investment in time, more so when you consider the instant gratification world we seem to be stuck with today.
These kinds of stats don't really mean much, because a lot of Steam games have more people who own the game than who actually play them. With constant sales and stuff like Humble Bundles it's hard to tell how many people who PLAYED the game have also completed a single match.
For comparaison here are the stats for a few other games : Game___| First achievement | Game won
The Witcher.........| 65% | 25.9%
Stellaris...............| 26% | 3.2%
Endless Space 2 | 30% | 10% . . . . . First achievment is late in the game
Endless Legend_| 69% | 17% Civ games
CiV ....................| 76% | ~~30%
Civ Be................| 60% | >=15% . . . .No "win the game on any diff" achievement
CiVI ...................| 80% | 39%
As you can see, CiVI userbase is actually extremly engaged with the ame in comparaison to the average, specially other 4X games. This can be explaned by the fact that the game has yet to see a major Steam sale, and thus holds a higher value to its buyers.
I was surprised by these stats, playing 10 turns of Endless Legend (happens within the first hour) and playing until you see Yennefer in Witcher 3 (took me at least 2 hours? And certainly more complex than playing 10 turns) have a similar rate of achievement acquisition?
Anyways, I've previously argued that positive Steam reviews of this game are coming from people who don't even get the achievement for winning a Prince difficulty, and are unrepresentative of what most gamers think of this Civ6, because people who are being upvoted on the Most Helpful Reviews section are leaving a majority of negative reviews. Achievement statistics show us how many there are people who don't even explore 20% of this game and have an opinion on it.
I have not finished a lot of games when i reach the last 2 era’s. Most important reason is the long waiting time between two turns in late game. It is not fun to spend the last 50-60 turns of a game clicking the end turn knowing you have won.
Should the performance be improved by multiple seconds i would have finished like 20 more games. I’ve finished about 6-7 games so far. 600+ hours total playtime for civ 6
That's because many players of every game play it for a few hours, decide they don't like it and never play it again or are very casual in their play habits only playing occasionally. Playerunknown Battleground is a good example of this. 30 million or so copies sold and records set for concurrent players on Steam (over 3 million lats time I noticed) yet the vast majority have never won a game. Personally I find that latter part of Civ games boring and have to push myself to finish but I've won lots. Many players probably get to the same stage and just give up.
I begin to play a game . . . see something that bothers me . . . create or tinker with mod . . . start over to test changes . . . I begin to play again. It’s a vicious cycle. It never ends. Day in and day out. I think I need intervention.
I've played 232 hours, and I think I've only finished 3 games. And the first one was 8 months after I first played it. The late game is pretty boring to slog through, and while the numerous glitches mostly aren't serious or game-breaking, they are quite annoying after awhile.
I just started playing Stellaris and I noticed that it disables achievements unless you turn on Ironman mode... so I don't think those stats are relevant.
I was looking at the global achievement stats on Steam and it is interesting that less than 40% of players have won the game. I guess quite a lot of players gave up due to the early bugs or just got bored waiting to the end. The stats per difficulty level are as follows:
Settler or higher - 39.3%
Chieftain or higher - 34.3%
Warlord or higher - 31.7%
Prince or higher - 28.3%
King or higher - 13.6%
Emperor or higher - 8.0%
Immortal or higher - 5.4%
Deity - 4.5%
The biggest drop off seems to be from Prince to King. For victory type the stats are as follows:
Faith is the only one I haven't done yet myself. Not sure if it is harder or players just get bored. Looking at the % winning with each civ the stats are as follows:
Rome - 10.8%
Germany - 8.7%
America - 8.0%
China - 7.3%
Japan - 6.8%
Sumeria - 6.3%
Egypt - 6.3%
Russia - 6.3%
England - 5.8%
France - 5.7%
Scythia - 5.2%
Kongo - 5.0%
Gorgo - 4.7%
Aztec - 4.7%
Pericles - 4.4%
Arabia - 4.3%
Norway - 3.9%
Brazil - 3.7%
India - 3.5%
Spain - 3.2%
Interesting to see that Faith based civs tend to be down the bottom. Also perceived weaker civs like Norway. France and Egypt are two that are higher up the list than I would have thought.
The people love to play as (and against) real ancient Civilizations from the Mediterranean and Middle East. At this point we need more of these Civs and second leader for them.
Australia is only 2.8%.. I've won with them 4-5 times on domination. Highest diff I've won at is emperor tho. Which was with vikings. And hordes of berzerkers rampaging from sea tiles. Don't need archers, just berzerkers and rams.
Played through maybe 2 wins at science, never even tried religion, I use that only to increase money slightly or to buy some units late in game with faith. Usually 3 musketeers.. Only won once with culture. I think most games I can see victory x turns away and just stop the game, watch some telly, go bed, next time start a new game. Not really interested in the achievements.
The issue with the stats tho, is that in civ you can manually edit the game, ie mod it, you still get the achievements essentially by cheating.. it's kinda odd to mod the game to make it harder, but which then generates better units.. which makes it easier... I try to play as close to vanilla as possible as well. But since anyone can mod the game, the stats for winning don't really mean alot imo.
What I do see as interesting tho, is that the low end stat civs, are all dlc's. It must point to only a few % of players buying the dlc's. And therefore never playing those civs.
Australia is only 2.8%.. I've won with them 4-5 times on domination. Highest diff I've won at is emperor tho. Which was with vikings. And hordes of berzerkers rampaging from sea tiles. Don't need archers, just berzerkers and rams.
The issue with the stats tho, is that in civ you can manually edit the game, ie mod it, you still get the achievements essentially by cheating.. it's kinda odd to mod the game to make it harder, but which then generates better units.. which makes it easier... I try to play as close to vanilla as possible as well. But since anyone can mod the game, the stats for winning don't really mean alot imo.
What I do see as interesting tho, is that the low end stat civs, are all dlc's. It must point to only a few % of players buying the dlc's. And therefore never playing those civs.
I guess the usual player did not cheat or mod his game to manipulate the achievements. A Deity victory with Scythia on a duel map takes 10 minutes.
There is no need to cheat. That's also way too complicated.
The usual player tries something and if he likes the Civ in action and the game settings he plays to the end. The statistic says these games were mostly with Rome or Greece. Although they have not that big national player base like Canada, GB, USA...
I guess the usual player did not cheat or mod his game to manipulate the achievements. A Deity victory with Scythia on a duel map takes 10 minutes.
There is no need to cheat. That's also way too complicated.
Actually even easier to choose a good religious/early production civ at deity duel, get stonehenge, then just convert the 2-4 cities the other civ has...
I guess the usual player did not cheat or mod his game to manipulate the achievements. A Deity victory with Scythia on a duel map takes 10 minutes.
There is no need to cheat. That's also way too complicated.
The usual player tries something and if he likes the Civ in action and the game settings he plays to the end. The statistic says these games were mostly with Rome or Greece. Although they have not that big national player base like Canada, GB, USA...
Be that as it may, if you'd playing a 10min game on smallest map regardless of difficulty it doesn't really reflect playing an avg game on a huge map, with 12 civs, 12 cs and on same difficulty. They're two completely different games really. Being able to get an achievement for minimal work that can also be gained with some difficulty makes that achievement almost pointless.
10% of the games based as stats, isn't mostly, it's just a very slightly higher percentage. You could equally say 90% don't play.. or never finish the game.
To be honest, almost any game has a high % of people who never made it far into the game. It also let me wonders why they spend money on a game they never play, though i've some games in my library too and i didn't have the time to play them yet (though i recently bought some).
I won the game on Immortal difficulty, not on Deity yet. I won the game on any victory type, except faith. I've won the game with Frederick Barbarossa, Qin Shi Huang, Theodore Roosevelt, Trajan and Gitarja.
For comparaison here are the stats for a few other games : Game___| First achievement | Game won
The Witcher.........| 65% | 25.9%
Stellaris...............| 26% | 3.2%
Endless Space 2 | 30% | 10% . . . . . First achievment is late in the game
Endless Legend_| 69% | 17% Civ games
CiV ....................| 76% | ~~30%
Civ Be................| 60% | >=15% . . . .No "win the game on any diff" achievement
CiVI ...................| 80% | 39%
As you can see, CiVI userbase is actually extremly engaged with the ame in comparaison to the average, specially other 4X games. This can be explaned by the fact that the game has yet to see a major Steam sale, and thus holds a higher value to its buyers.
Stellaris has a relatively hard first achievement, and has few achievements, whereas Civ has achievements for having 6 improvements, settling a city on a different continent or declaring a war.
Actually even easier to choose a good religious/early production civ at deity duel, get stonehenge, then just convert the 2-4 cities the other civ has...
By only enabling Religious victory (while disabling all other victory conditions) and disabling all barbs, Deity becomes trivial, even for those who never played a strategy game before, with Kongo as the opponent.
Aye must admit I keep meeting people with 200+ games most of which the max played time is like 10 hours, I assume they must get bored quickly. I have 40 odd games over 7 years. I don't get bored as quick. Some people in this thread claim diety in Civ 5 is harder than in 6 and I'd totally accept that, I've beaten diety many times on multiplay games in 5, never on 6, my biggest issue with mp gaming in civ 6 is purely that the game crashes so often, that I don't want to put that onto the other players, continually having to reload games would be excessive.
Whilst I think the % stats are interesting, I personally feel that they don't reflect the truth of the game but a truth of the game as it has been over the time since the stats started, as we all know the game has been patched, fixed, broken etc over that time and the crashes are probably more of a reason to quit playing than any real issue with the gameplay.
If they fixed the random crashes and the exit to desktop crash that the majority seem to be experiencing, I think you'd probably see those stats level off better, also the entire idea of paid for dlc's clearly isn't a viable money making decision as the stats clearly show people are just not buying the dlc's after buying the game.
Will be interesting to see the comparison between people buying the main game then new Rise and Fall expansion and the dlcs. in the future stats.
Personally I like most of the Civs, both to play as or against. It seems to me that the Civs with the lowest stats are not only the least played/won with but also the ones I least like to play against.
Basically everything below 4.4% after aztecs on the list. Except Norway and Australia which I like alot. I have 1237 hrs of Civ 6 atm.
I'd argue its more because the game is way more enjoyable early on and gets a little more tedious as the ages go by. Around the Industrial Era I start to get bored (whether I'm doing well or poorly) and feel the urge to restart.
I'd argue its more because the game is way more enjoyable early on and gets a little more tedious as the ages go by. Around the Industrial Era I start to get bored (whether I'm doing well or poorly) and feel the urge to restart.
Or the more likely scenario:
-Human starts nuking ai's because he is bored
-A emergency is declared and only 1 or 2 civs of 5 decide to attack you.
-These civs proceed to let their outdated units dance around your lands accomplishing nothing
-Human player nukes them again for **** and giggles.
I would really prefer if they add actual late game elements instead of these gimmicks.
I still can't believe civ 4 is the only "modern" civ game with corporations and electricity.
How is that? Aside from the Religious Emergency, the Emergencies all revolve attacking an aggressor. But how often are you going to start a war if you're set up well to win a Science or Culture Victory? No, the person who would have an Emergency declared on them would be the civ trying to STOP the snowballing through war. It's baffling how backward that is.
There's a more detailed thread I made about this here:
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
