I'm not sure "better" is the right word here. I think it's more a question of what fits the game itself. Having fully-animated talking leaders fits with what Civ V is, but we don't know yet what style or tone Civ VI will take. It might turn out that more scaled-back leaderheads could be more appropriate for the look and feel of Civ VI.
Of course I understand that some people will insist that anything that's not explicitly bigger and flashier than what they've done before is going "backward", but I would say it depends. For one thing, the resources it takes to get a fully-animated leader speaking (ostensibly) their own language might be better spent elsewhere. Not every dead language has been sufficiently reconstructed to use, but some of the leaders speak entirely the wrong language even when there are other languages available that would have been more appropriate.
[. . .]
The animated leaderheads of Civ III looked better than the still portraits and jerky heralds of Civ II, but still removed the option of alternative leaders for each civ. The leaderheads of Civ IV moved more smoothly and looked much nicer than the Civ III bobble-heads, but sacrificed having era-specific appearances with different outfits and fresh backgrounds. Civ VI doesn't have to continue farther in the same direction that Civ V took. Losing the fully-animated talking leaders isn't necessarily a step down if whatever they look like instead fits the style and tone of the game itself.
[. . .]
Simpler leaderheads that take less time and effort to develop re-opens the possibility of having multiple leaders per civ, as Civ IV did. I would appreciate that kind of variety.
[. . .]
I know not everyone will agree. There are those who will say they have to be bigger and badder every time, and that Civ VI leaders have to speak all of their dialogue or be played by live action actors or something or it's a ripoff. But I'd prefer if the developers tried to capture the right tone, rather than just struggle to outdo themselves every time.
