So what's the consensus on Civ 6?

Personally, I think Civ 6 made the mistake by giving you too many mechanics to play with and micromanage that (depending on the player) it effects the enjoyment of the game, especially with the additions that the Rise and Fall Expansion added. On paper I liked most of the features they implemeneted (additional civic tree alongside the tech tree to advance through by accumulating culture, Governers that provide specific bonuses in whichever cities they're placed in, the expanded espionage system, declaring specific types of war to lower the associated warmonger penalty), but in execution it was apparent once I played first played with the Rise and Fall expansion that dealing with all these features at once becomes more of a hassle and often I find that I would be better off without them.

The combination of housing/districts, era score, constantly switching policy cards, the loyalty system, emmergencies (such as having half the world declare war on you because you've declared a formal war on someone you made a Declaration of Friendship with in the early game despite having denounced that same civ for like 50 turns prior) and so on ultimately bloats the gameplay aspect to borderline overwhelming amounts. They tried to add a bunch of realism to the "build/manage your own civilization" narrative, but in doing so it left things feeling too restrictive.

The Gathering Storm expansion definitely improved the game (and despite my issues Civ 6 was always good even when it first came out), but I felt less interested in playing after several games and went back to Civ V.