This is also a problem I have with Civ 6 honestly. I don't think it's with bad intent or in any way insidious, but it is definitely very telling that, simply from my standpoint as a number cruncher, it is virtually always Classical Republic, then Merchant Republic, then Democracy which are the supreme choices for any economy, no matter whether you want a cultural, or a science, or a diplo win. You could argue that some of the other governments are useful for religious or domination victory, but the easiest way to win domination de facto is to have a strong economy and better science than all of your opponents.
The same goes for Colonialism and wars of aggression. In game one is virtually always rewarded for swallowing a weaker neighbor, or just waging war in general. The penalties are mostly laughable and diplomatic relations do not matter much in order for one to achieve their desires victory, unless it's specifically diplo.
Industrializing asap also has absolutely zero drawbacks. Most of my games end before global warming even enters the game. But even if a player drew out the game long enough, climate change can be fixed with little work (getting lots of science and building renewable improvements, basically). The subtext is essentially "science will fix climate change for us no probs". It's also funny that global warming was introduced as a way to tell the player that exploiting nature and producing insane amounts of CO2 is wrong and has consequences, but subtly the game is actually telling you that to be the first to blow through massive amounts of Coal/Oil is the most "optimal" thing in regards to winning the game. It's also unsatisfying that there are no renewable power options earlier, even though those totally existed, and that Coal is still "better" than the renewables, even though we today know that renewables can be as effective as fossil fuel power plants.
It is also very telling that the only way to win a culture victory is with blue jeans and rock bands, which is not only a fundamental misunderstanding of what culture actually is, but the more sinister explanation is of course that one culture will end up dominating the other, through tourism, capitalism and cultural imperialism, which is in itself pretty sad.
It is many things like these, and I don't even have a problem with them because they're bad political messages (they are), but because they make gameplay kinda boring. I can always be a maniacal world dictator that colonizes, raids and burns fossil fuels with impunity all while masking as a democracy and I get near zero in-game consequences for that. Sometimes I wish for Civ 5s ideology system, as bad as it was, back. That did have major consequences for your playstyle. Same for Civ 5 diplomacy honestly. I never, ever get declared on in Civ 6, even on Deity.
I suppose this all simply reflects the ideology of the people who worked on that game: They wanted to (consciously) make a game that shows diversity (and they succeeded at that imho) yet unconsciously they reproduce a lot of the status quo of our world., mainly that imperialism and colonialism does in fact have little to no consequences for the perpetrators, that most people think capitalism and liberal democracy are inherently the best systems, and that climate change will somehow fix itself with a little science and a few wind turbines.
