V was easier, more immersive, and grander, with civs that were one-trick ponies, albeit some standouts (Venice, Shoshone, Hawaii, etc.), and more dynamic music. VI has more complex civ bonuses and fewer one trick-ponies (some exceptions like Macedon and Korea), but many civ bonuses are just minor production bonuses in niche situations, has a blue plastic UI and icon aesthetic, has a main menu that barely changed throughout expansions, has dark smudgy leader backgrounds, has poorly explained rules, way too many bonus bucket mechanics, and music that isn’t dynamic (you often just hear the Atomic theme of other civs in the modern age on repeat), but I do like Civ VI’s attempt to make natural disasters important, and their incorporation of diplomatic and religious victory types (even if both are flawed).
While I appreciate what VI was trying to do, I have over twice as many hours logged with V, and VI has had an overall longer span of play time for me given the recent New Frontier Pass. Something about the adjacency bonuses of districts just doesn’t click with me, and the poorly explained rules don’t help.
Also, Civ V leader screens were just infinitely better than VI’s, despite some great animation on VI leaders. It’s partly because VI leaders rely on cutscenes rather than real-time interaction, don’t have dynamic war and peace music, and have fewer (just 7) lines per leader. In future I think it would be nice if leaders had at least two versions of each line, for more realistic and less robotic conversation.
