If someone said to you "Civilization VI basically plays like a digital board game" would you view this as a positive or a negative? I first heard this as a criticism from a friend in regards to V but didn't get why that is necessarily a bad thing. My first game in the series was IV and I thought it was purposely presented as a board game (floating in space, that is until you zoomed out) so when V was released and seemed to establish a trajectory of the series to be more like a board game I considered it an interesting development. It seemed to fit with what I had identified in the series, and there's nothing really inherent to Civilization games that would suggest it would even be a successful 'accurate simulation'. Of course it still is a simulation to some degree, but each game could exist as defined by its own rules on how it operates, rather than a collection of failed translations of the historical real world. You play the game instead of trying to make the game play something else. VI seems to be going down this path further still -- especially with the use of 'cards' -- and to me this points more to a perfection of its form rather than a dangerous liaison with simplification, but still I see (or misinterpret) posts calling it a board game in a derogative sense or expressing some sort of anxiety over the future of the franchise. I'm not sure this makes sense (or any point) or resonates with any of you. I'm not really trying to set out an argument that progresses logically through supporting evidence towards a persuasive conclusion, but instead offering some sort of prompt to hopefully make you think critically -- if it is relevant -- 'why would I not like CVI to be a board game?' since 'board game' seems to occupy by default the inferior end of a simulation spectrum. Is that really the reason? Realism for the sake of realism? What I mean is let's talk about a specific video game in a holistic sense rather than our wish lists. Surely many of us have an 'idea' of the series... is it a contradictory one?