I love that Paradox pay attention to their users. I’ve even played MP games with a Paradox Dev, though he works on CK2 and we play EU IV. But he also plays in the EU IV Dev Clashes, and often does well, so his input is definitely heeded.
A couple years ago, there was a user who posted regular YouTube videos of him taking on difficult challenges in the game (a world conquest as Ryukyu is probably his most famous). He’s now the Game Director for EU IV.
I’ve noticed the same issues as well. I kept at it though, past when I could have got a refund.
Something else that irks me is the game feels like it’s one long tutorial. Civ 5 started this with the city states existing only to tell you what the devs think you should be doing. It wasn’t too bad though because they voice it as you trying to out compete other civs for their favor.
In 6 though it’s dialed up to 11 with both the civs and the city states telling you what you should be doing rather that giving the impression they are independent entities that either work for or against you.
France denounces me because I haven’t built spies yet. Haven’t got the tech. Greece denounces me for not going to war and Indonesia praises me for not creating cities on land masses that are too small to contain many districts.
Another Civ complains I’m not building districts while others say I should be building more wonders.
I feel like I’m being constantly nagged by the game. 
City states don’t tell you anything though, except for providing you quests… but those quests give you rewards in terms of delegates, and whoever has the most delegates with a city state gets rewards.
As for the other Civs, that’s just part of the diplomacy system. Each one has different things they like and dislike, which either helps or hurts your standing with them. The main problem is in the execution - a lot of them will dislike things you’ll naturally want to do (such as Brazil disliking anyone who gets Great People) so oftentimes it turns into them hating you for playing the game well. And even the Civs who have no reason to dislike you normally when end up turning on you once you pull ahead.
Actually city states do. A good prrcents get of the time their quest I’d to do something like earn a go or build a unit you just got access to.
I’m not saying this is necessarily a bad thing. Just seems overly gamey. The devs are subtly telling you how to play. I realise not all city state or civ reactions are like this. Many are though. And as you say the rest are often complaining about you playing the game.
No.
In the bad old days of Civ and Civ II, there was basically one, and only one good way to play the game. It’s called a 4X game for a REASON. And if you have any doubt as to how to play them, take a note at which choices of the polar personality opposites were given the value of “1” (as opposed to “0”) in the definition files. 
Civ VI has, thankfully, matured to the point that it’s quite possible to play the game any number of different ways. You can play it tall, or you can play it wide. You can play it passively, or aggressively. You can legitimately win using any of the win conditions (for a very good set of exercises on how to do this, go to the Civ Fanatics site and play their Game of the Month offerings, which limit the way you can win (religious, culture, domination, etc.), as well as varying the starting civ and the difficulty level of the game (often one of the harder ones).
So when you are getting a request from a city-state to do something, in return for an emissary point, it represents a choice to you as to how you wish to play the game. Since different city-states offer different requests, you can pick and choose which ones to fulfill, depending upon what play style you want to adopt, as well as how useful getting that city-state to like you will be. For example, you might get a request from Amsterdam to set up a trade route to them. Generally, of course, trade routes are good things. BUT, it might not be as advantageous to you to send one to Amsterdam; you might be better off sending that merchant to Jerusalem, because doing so will get you even better trade routes in the future.
No. I didn’t mean that. I mean they are explaining the mechanics. In some cases anyway.
Big announcement today of the first upcoming expansion, Rise and Fall, due February 8.
Summary:
I’m excited for that. I haven’t touched CiVI in over a year because I found it so insanely boring. Hopefully the expansions really flesh out the game, which has been required for all other iterations.
No- I play it all the time. Civ VI just didn’t grab me so I am still with Civ V.
In the new year I’ll give it another shot.
I have to admit Civ VI is disappointingly slow and dull. I like the mechanics individually. I like the graphics. It just moves so goddamned slowly - I don’t mean the game is functioning slowly, my computer runs it fine, I mean it’s just slow. I want to like this game but it really doesn’t provide a lot of feedback. Multiplayer is agonizing; it takes my best friend and I days and days to play a full game and not a lot happens for hours on end.
I’ve been a Civfanatic since the beginning, but something about this game… I’m not sure what exactly makes it like this. Maybe there’s too much?
A bit like Beyond Earth.
This is a super vague and also 100% accurate description of the game. I’ve found myself going back to it again and again and always just kind of feeling… blah about it. It doesn’t have the same “one more turn!” impulse that other versions of Civ have had. I really can’t put my finger on it either.
Exactly. In fact, if I recall correctly, the “One more turn” thing was either born of the original Civilization or certainly popularized by it. I myself was a victim of many a One More Turn game where I blinked and ommygod, it’s 3 AM. Hell, the very first time I had the game my Dad and I played until six in the morning before finally going to bed, and at 8 I was awoken by the sound of him playing again.
Now I feel like when I play it I’m doing so because, well, it’s Civ, but I usually give up early on. To be honest I only play with my buddy because I know it makes him happy.
I am now kind of curious as to why that is.
I refuse to purchase any more Civ products until they fix the fact there is no Hall of Fame. I’d also love them to go back to sortable lists in the information tabs you can click on (“Reports” in the Civ VI game). It just doesn’t feel like Civ without those aspects.
I started playing Civ IV this morning. Had a hard job stopping. Better graphics isn’t worth worse gameplay is what that tells me.
Same. I play V all the time, and don’t feel the need to move on.
Given all the news in the game world in recent months, I worry that any new Civ purchase is going to somehow shoehorn micro-transactions into the game.
Civilization VI with two DLC packs are $12 as the headliner for the new Humble Monthly. In a month, you’ll also get another five games (currently secret) but Civ VI is worth the $12 even without the mystery box games next month. You’ll get the Civ VI game key immediately.
Don’t forget to cancel your subscription if you don’t want to be buying stuff every month.
The Rise and Fall expansion is out:
I bought the base game with the Humble Bundle, and it hasn’t grabbed me at all. I’m not sure if I am just not up to the learning curve, but I have barely played it. Civ games typically are a lot better after an expansion so I might pick it up.