Earlier quoted context omitted.
I played a lot of Civ I and III, but kind of stopped after that. Culture was present in III while being almost useless except as a way to prevent you from founding cities near other players. But I personally love the idea of cultural victory. Military victories are an easy way to win, but they feel unsatisfying to me because you never develop high technology. Advancing your civilization needs to have some payoff. A l…
That's akin to racing in time trials instead of a race with other cars beside you. It's more challenging when you engage with the enemy because then instead of just developing your own economy you have to second guess your opponents in the race for the nuke. I was so sad when they nerfed the nukes in 5. Try playing against humans and see how far culture&religion will get you.
That's a fact about the design of the game, not a fact about what would be fun.
> That's akin to racing in time trials instead of a race with other cars beside you.
I guess you changed this from "that's akin to playing on a deserted island" after realizing that plenty of games, and novels, are all about surviving and establishing yourself on a deserted island?
It's only akin to racing in time trials rather than against other cars if your model of "racing with other cars beside you" is Mario Kart. It's precisely analogous to racing against other cars on the fairly reasonable assumption that you're not supposed to run into the other cars in the race.
> instead of just developing your own economy you have to second guess your opponents in the race for the nuke
There's no "race for the nuke" in Civ. If you're going for military, you'll win or lose long before you develop nukes.