In a lot of regards it is tricky to compare Civ VI and Civ V because, despite the many changes the game makes, they feel quite similar in practice. However, there are definitely changes in how the game handles things, and I think a lot of these changes are generally pretty good. For instance, workers being a limited use unit works for what this game is trying to accomplish. If you want to develop all of your tiles, it will take continual investment of some sort.
The civics tree is one of the game's biggest additions, and I do feel a bit mixed on it. I like the idea of having tech that develops from culture, but actually designing a government is tricky. There are just so many civic cards, and reading all of them in the middle of a game, and trying to micromanage which setup is best for your civ takes awhile. If an alternative system for civic development was created that set it apart from just feeling like science 2.0, that would be cool.
Its hard for me to fully speak to the changes to the victory conditions because I haven't seen a ton of late game Civ V. In particular, the diplomatic victory condition is hard for me to speak to, and I couldn't tell you how its removal hurt or helped Civ VI.
The district system is quite fun, and I like how it changes how you think of city planning. It gives a real incentive to make your cities as populous as possible, as that lets you have more districts in your city. Additionally, it makes cities in certain parts of the map better at specializing in certain things, depending on what bonuses a tile receives.
As for the art style change, I like it. Admittedly, I played Civ VI before Civ V so I wasn't particularly attached to the V art style, but the cartoony art here is fun. In particular I love the look of the cities later in the game. Instead of cities being giant masses of farms with one big city center, the cities feel more sprawling. You get to see all of your wonders physically on your city tiles, and in your districts they develop as the game progresses. Even if you aren't super fond of how the leaders look, the improvements to the city art go a long way to make this the best looking Civ ever made.
It should also be noted that Civ VI is much more stable for online play than V, and its actually possible to finish Civ VI games, which is a big point in this game's favor.
Overall, a lot of what I would praise Civ V for applies to its sequel. The specific changes made here that might not align with some people's taste, but overall the formula is pretty similar. For me, the changes refine an already good system into something a bit more interesting, but I could completely understand why someone wouldn't enjoy some of the changes this title makes. Its still a fun time with friends, even if it isn't the deepest strategy game around on a competitive level.
The civics tree is one of the game's biggest additions, and I do feel a bit mixed on it. I like the idea of having tech that develops from culture, but actually designing a government is tricky. There are just so many civic cards, and reading all of them in the middle of a game, and trying to micromanage which setup is best for your civ takes awhile. If an alternative system for civic development was created that set it apart from just feeling like science 2.0, that would be cool.
Its hard for me to fully speak to the changes to the victory conditions because I haven't seen a ton of late game Civ V. In particular, the diplomatic victory condition is hard for me to speak to, and I couldn't tell you how its removal hurt or helped Civ VI.
The district system is quite fun, and I like how it changes how you think of city planning. It gives a real incentive to make your cities as populous as possible, as that lets you have more districts in your city. Additionally, it makes cities in certain parts of the map better at specializing in certain things, depending on what bonuses a tile receives.
As for the art style change, I like it. Admittedly, I played Civ VI before Civ V so I wasn't particularly attached to the V art style, but the cartoony art here is fun. In particular I love the look of the cities later in the game. Instead of cities being giant masses of farms with one big city center, the cities feel more sprawling. You get to see all of your wonders physically on your city tiles, and in your districts they develop as the game progresses. Even if you aren't super fond of how the leaders look, the improvements to the city art go a long way to make this the best looking Civ ever made.
It should also be noted that Civ VI is much more stable for online play than V, and its actually possible to finish Civ VI games, which is a big point in this game's favor.
Overall, a lot of what I would praise Civ V for applies to its sequel. The specific changes made here that might not align with some people's taste, but overall the formula is pretty similar. For me, the changes refine an already good system into something a bit more interesting, but I could completely understand why someone wouldn't enjoy some of the changes this title makes. Its still a fun time with friends, even if it isn't the deepest strategy game around on a competitive level.