I wanted to pop back in to make a few responsive comments to the many astute observations, along with one general comment.
First, is anyone else excited for a new Civ? I AM. Okay, this is mostly because I found Civ6 to be ... not great (not judging those who love it, just my opinion) and I am hoping that it recaptures the magic.
Now, in no particular order-
A. Yes, I did create the rules knowing that it would exclude Alpha Centauri. I agree that AC is an amazing game, but I didn't want to get too sidetracked into a conversation about where it places, as it is both wonderful and flawed, and different. Whereas Civilization: Beyond Earth is a LOT easier to place, and has Civ in the name.
B. For those of you who have pointed out it is Civilization: Beyond Earth, and not AFTER EARTH, I say this- it's Will Smith's fault.
C. Finally, I wanted to say that the hardest choice for me is Civ4 and Civ5 at the top. I think that two things really tipped the scale for me- Civ4 is the greatest possible version of the "classic" Civ game (stacked units, square grids). It had production values for its time that really would blow you away (Nimoy, soundtrack). It pretty much laid down the gauntlet and said, "You can't make a classic Civ game better."
Civ5, on the other hand, was ... kinda dire when it was first released. However, it made the choice to unstack and go away from the square grid, which proved to be a game-changer. With the "official" expansions (and the various patches and bug fixes) it turned into an amazing game. In addition, it has a crazy active and wonderful mod community. But it doesn't get credit for the mod community, and while I am judging it on the complete game, I have to say ... I remember how bad it was on release.
I don't think either choice for first is necessarily wrong, but I give Civ4 the title of best Civ game ever because, IMO, it was the Paradise Lost of classic Civ games. Once it was out, you couldn't keep making that type of Civ game. It was so good, it forced them to go in a new (and awesome!) direction.
First, is anyone else excited for a new Civ? I AM. Okay, this is mostly because I found Civ6 to be ... not great (not judging those who love it, just my opinion) and I am hoping that it recaptures the magic.
Now, in no particular order-
A. Yes, I did create the rules knowing that it would exclude Alpha Centauri. I agree that AC is an amazing game, but I didn't want to get too sidetracked into a conversation about where it places, as it is both wonderful and flawed, and different. Whereas Civilization: Beyond Earth is a LOT easier to place, and has Civ in the name.
B. For those of you who have pointed out it is Civilization: Beyond Earth, and not AFTER EARTH, I say this- it's Will Smith's fault.
C. Finally, I wanted to say that the hardest choice for me is Civ4 and Civ5 at the top. I think that two things really tipped the scale for me- Civ4 is the greatest possible version of the "classic" Civ game (stacked units, square grids). It had production values for its time that really would blow you away (Nimoy, soundtrack). It pretty much laid down the gauntlet and said, "You can't make a classic Civ game better."
Civ5, on the other hand, was ... kinda dire when it was first released. However, it made the choice to unstack and go away from the square grid, which proved to be a game-changer. With the "official" expansions (and the various patches and bug fixes) it turned into an amazing game. In addition, it has a crazy active and wonderful mod community. But it doesn't get credit for the mod community, and while I am judging it on the complete game, I have to say ... I remember how bad it was on release.
I don't think either choice for first is necessarily wrong, but I give Civ4 the title of best Civ game ever because, IMO, it was the Paradise Lost of classic Civ games. Once it was out, you couldn't keep making that type of Civ game. It was so good, it forced them to go in a new (and awesome!) direction.