I agree and disagree. The way I see it, Civ development could only go so far continual remaking the same game with different mechanics (which is essentially what they did, not to talk down the game series as they were all great). I think it was evident that they had to take it further and Alpha Centauri was probably the best option. By this I don't mean a different game with a different story line but rather a game with similar mechanics but instead of playing from the past to the present they are taking you into the future.
It's like a continuation of Civ 5 almost with a couple different tweaks. You leave off Civ 5 with your scientific victory and launching your colony ship off towards the star, and pick up in Civ BE upon your arrival. The old civilizations are still there just hidden beneath a corporate veil, and they behave similar to how you would expect their counterparts in Civ 5 to behave if it were more modern. (with the exception of india, because we all know Gandhi is a nuke happy bastard...)
An example would be Washington in Civ 5 usually is loyal and forgiving to allies but is known to build a large army, which is how most people depict Washington but for the army which is more representative of America's military today (depending on your point of view). Suzanne Fieldings in Civ BE is a ruthless corporate leader who heavily utilizes spies, and in fact the ARC receives an espionage bonus. This could be seen as representative of the way many people feel America is moving towards in the future (for better or for worse).
I always did wonder why you were capable of space travel but couldn't find oil from the start, but I guess sacrifices had to be made for the sake of balance.
So it's all there but hidden beneath different characters and difference mechanics.
20-Jan-2015 01:53:56