I don't care if the Civ 6 leaders are partially silent, at least they have about 5 recorded lines of dialogue (one in the Civilopedia). The background change isn't that big of a deal for it either, I miss the backgrounds for Civ5 leaders a tiny bit though....they have aged pretty well in the years since BNW's release,.
First of all, just a civ 5 thing (and mostly even post BNW there), not, as some people seem to believe, some key part of 4X.
Second I don't mind "bigger is better" design at all, in fact I prefer it. Within reason of course, civ 1 and 2's ICS wasn't very interesting either, though I'd still take that over the snoozefest that is 4 city Tradition. Struggle for land is far more interesting to me than a "who can build the most beautiful sandcastle" challenge like Civ 5 BNW.
Making tall on par with wide: I actually do care about this, just in opposition to it. If having less cities is as good as having more cities, then why would you put the effort into settling, maintaining, and defending more cities? Wide should absolutely be better.
1UPT: I have been playing Civ since Civ3 and I cannot say that I want stacks to return.
Civ6 Aesthetic: The art style is fine, but people seem to have an some irrational fear of anything that looks rich and vibrant. It's like the aesthetics of Wind Waker vs Twilight Princess - 12 years later and just about everyone agrees with Wind Waker looks/aged better. The governors are a bit too caricatured, though.
I also don't care about balanced AI. And I don't care about balanced overall. I want all the things and I want all the advantages. And all the mods! I want no war and no barbarians, all the goody huts and to win every time. I am not in it for the "challenge". Boring.
Glad it's an option for those who want it, but discovering an unknown land is a big part of the game for me.
It also give the geographically aware human player another advantage over the AI from the moment they realise where in the world/Europe/Asia/Africa etc they are.
Now, I don't like the AI to do things that are obviously stupid to the average player (not the average civ fanatic), and I wouldn't object to them continuing to spend resources on improving the current AI.
However, I'd rather have more civs, varied terrain graphics, additional gameplay systems, fleshed out tech and civics trees and lines of military units, maritime city states, and a Hall of Fame before a significant improvement in the AI.
AI using air units - game is already well over by then, I'd much rather have them be effective with normal units. Don't really care about a Hall of Fame either - I don't even understand the scoring system or pay much attention to it.
I don't care if the AI is dumb since I'm playing to relax instead of having to employ MLG-approved strats just to stay in the game. I play games for the immersion and simulation instead of the competition after all.